[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE AMENDMENTS 
    TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW 
                        ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 517 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 517

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to 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. All points of order against the conference 
     report and against its consideration are waived. The 
     conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 517 waives all points of 
order against the conference report on H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime 
Control Act and against its consideration. The rule further provides 
that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider the 
conference report for H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime Control Act. Earlier 
this year the President urged Congress to set aside partisan 
differences and to pass a strong, smart, and tough crime bill. In 
response to this call, the House has before it today far-reaching 
legislation that does exactly that. The conference report establishes a 
Violent Crime Reduction trust fund to assure that $30.2 billion be 
available over the next 6 years for anticrime initiatives. Funding for 
the trust fund will be made available through the elimination of 
250,000 Federal Government jobs.
  This conference report will help our Nation to move toward a future 
free from crime and violence through a commitment of resources 
unprecedented in the history of our Nation. The legislation authorizes 
$8.85 billion in grants to State and local governments to place 100,000 
new cops on the beat. What this represents is a 20-percent increase in 
the number of police officers nationwide. For South Carolina alone this 
could mean 1,600 additional police officers on the street. Make no 
mistake, the legislation before us today is tough legislation aimed at 
taking back our streets from the criminals.
  The conference report provides $6.5 billion in grants to help States 
build new prisons for the incarceration of violent repeat offenders. 
The legislation establishes the death penalty for over 60 Federal 
crimes, including the murder of Federal law enforcement officers, 
kidnapping, terrorism, drive-by shootings, and carjackings resulting in 
death.
  The conference report contains three-strikes-and-you're-out 
legislation which mandates life imprisonment for anyone convicted of a 
third violent felony. It also provides that juveniles 13 years or older 
could be tried as adults in Federal Court for crimes such as murder, 
assault, robbery, and rape and includes the use of bootcamps for 
youthful first-time offenders. Such bootcamps can provide the 
discipline and training necessary to deter young people from embarking 
on a life of crime.
  The conference report makes sure that police are not outgunned by 
criminals and bans military assault weapons. Every year the problem of 
gun violence only gets worse as more assault weapons find their way 
into the hands of criminals. These weapons are 18 times more likely 
than other guns to be cop killers and 16 times more likely to be traced 
to crime than other firearms. The conference report contains provisions 
to ban 19 listed weapons, copycats, and other clearly defined 
semiautomatic guns.
  The conference report also addresses the causes of crime. Focusing 
only on the symptoms of crime will never reverse the problem. The 
underlying causes of crime have to be addressed as well. The conference 
report provides funding for community programs intended to prevent 
crime such as summer school programs and after school programs. The 
legislation authorizes $125 million for programs to give young people 
positive alternatives to gangs and provides $300 million to stimulate 
business and employment opportunities for low-income, unemployed, and 
underemployed individuals.
  The conference report also creates programs to reduce violence 
against women. The legislation increases Federal resources available to 
combat sexual and domestic violence, through education programs, law 
enforcement training, and a national domestic violence hotline. The 
legislation also provides $4.5 million in grants for shelters for 
battered women and their children.
  Mr. Speaker, every major law enforcement organization in the country 
supports passage of this conference report. Organizations such as: The 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the Fraternal Order of 
Police; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National 
Sheriffs' Association; the International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers; the International Union of Police Associations; the National 
Association of Police Organizations; the National Organization of Black 
Law Enforcement Executives; Police Executive Research Forum; the 
National Trooper's Coalition; and the Police Foundation.
  In addition the two largest prosecutors associations as well as 
groups representing cities, towns, and counties are urging the Congress 
to approve this legislation. These groups include: the National 
District Attorneys Association; the National Association of Attorneys 
General; the United States Conference of Mayors; the National League of 
Cities; the National Conference of Republican Mayors and Municipal 
Elected Officials; the National Conference of Domestic Mayors; and the 
National Association of Counties.
  Mr. Speaker, far too many of us no longer feel safe in our own 
neighborhoods. Violent crime is on the rise across our Nation and the 
time has come to ensure all Americans the freedom to live and work in 
safety. The conference report before us today is not a panacea, but it 
is an important step in turning around this country's crime problem.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 517 is a fair rule that will allow this 
House to consider this wide-reaching conference report. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
minority whip, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  (Mr. GINGRICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, you know, the country should ask itself 
why has a vote on the rule become such a close vote? Why have the 
President, the Cabinet, virtually everybody available they can to find 
one more vote on the rule?
  But I think what people need to undestand is that a vote on the rule 
is a vote on a procedure. And this has been, for this bill, a terrible 
procedure.
  Let me make it very clear: For Members of the Congress on the 
Republican side, this bill became available at 7 last night. Now, the 
conference ended on July 28, and on July 29 Lamar University issued a 
press release thanking Chairman Brooks for $10 million.
  So in the first 12 hours after the conference ended, a conference in 
which no Republican was involved, no Republican had access, no 
Republican was informed, within 12 hours the staff found the first 
piece of pork, made sure their district issued a press release.
  But still nothing happened, and they did not have the votes. Why? 
Because this is not just about one item, this is a bill that has $33 
billion in spending, it has 20 new social programs. This is a bill 
which cuts the FBI, it cuts the Drug Enforcement Administration.
  I suggest every Member read the Buffalo newspapers where the FBI 
director is quoted inappropriately, being honest, inappropriately 
saying the truth, which is that his agency, the FBI, gets cut, the DEA 
gets cut, that mayors and police chiefs are worried.
  Now, later in the day the administration got him to send a letter up 
because otherwise he would have had to resign. But in the newspaper he 
told the truth. In the so-called crime bill, we are cutting the FBI. 
And yet at the time he said it, no Republican Member had seen the bill. 
It had not been available.
  Now, why was it not available? This is what Chairman Brooks said, and 
every Member ought to listen to this and you ought to ask yourself how 
you are going to go home with any sense of self-respect and vote 
``yes'' on a rule for a conference report you have not looked at.
  This is what he said in the Rules Committee. He was asked what are 
you asking us to waive? When you vote for this rule, you are voting to 
waive points of order. He was asked what are you asking us to waive? 
And this is what he said: ``If I had a list written, I wouldn't give it 
to anybody because they would use it against me. Go to the floor, say, 
`Here are the items that are on the scope,' no, I do not do that.''

  So the chairman of the committee, on behalf of the conference report, 
which had never been filed, refused to tell the Rules Committee what 
they are going to vote ``yes'' on.
  So if you vote ``yes'' and the next week the news media finds the 
pork, they find how bills have been weakened, and you listen to 
Congressman Zimmer later and Congresswoman Dunn tell you how this bill 
in its current form weakens the part on sexual predators, weakens it, 
does not strengthen it, takes care of the ACLU. And protects sexual 
predators instead of protecting communities.
  Finally, at some point Mr. Fazio, in the world of fantasies he has 
been in, having been alarmed about the Christian Right, will warn you 
about the Republican National Committee and say, ``We are applying 
pressure.''
  I am entering into the Record a letter from Chairman Haley Barbour. 
Republicans who want to can vote their conscience, and that is all I am 
asking them to do. Finally, you have not been consulted, you have not 
been informed, you have not seen the documents; it is weaker on crime, 
it is weaker on sexual predators, it cuts the FBI, it cuts the Drug 
enforcement Administration.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule, send it back to conference and insist they 
write an honest bill out in the open where everybody can see it.
  The letter referred to follows:

                                Republican National Committee,

                                                  August 11, 1994.
     Re July resolution.

     Memorandum for Republican Members of Congress.
     From: Haley Barbour.

       As usual Vic Fazio and the Democrat Congressional Campaign 
     Committee are trying to misconstrue by 180 degrees the 
     Republican National Committee's notice to our Members of 
     Congress that we had caused a resolution at our July meeting, 
     criticizing some of our Congressmen, to be withdrawn. Fazio's 
     attempt to say this is a threat to withhold support for them 
     is a blatant falsehood and is the exact opposite of the 
     result of our action. We had the resolution withdrawn until 
     January so none of our Members of Congress would have to 
     worry about any threat of withholding support from them.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard more truly inaccurate words 
in the last 4 minutes than we have heard in a long time on this floor.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken 
down.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, may I amend that to say ``factually 
inaccurate''?
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman's words will be 
replaced with the words ``truly inaccurate.''
  Mr. SCHUMER. Truly inaccurate.
  The SPEAKER. Is that the gentleman's request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is my request.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard more factually inaccurate 
words in the last 4 minutes than we have heard in a long time. I submit 
for the Record a statement from the FBI Director supporting the bill, 
put out on August 10.
  I say to my colleagues, you may laugh, but you know why you're 
laughing, and that is because every time, every time this bill is 
improved, you find a new objection.
  Remember the Racial Justice Act? We heard from the other side they 
want the bill except for the Racial Justice Act. The Racial Justice Act 
in my opinion regrettably is not in the bill. They are still not for 
it.
  Then we heard from the other side they wanted $8 billion in funding 
for prisons. There is now $8.4 billion for funding in prisons. They are 
still not for it.
  They wanted truth in sentencing. They got truth in sentencing, and 
yet they still oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, they still come up with one excuse after another to give 
the America people an up or down vote on the crime bill.
  So the time has come, my colleagues, for truth in voting. I say, if 
you want to do what our constituents are pleading with us to do, which 
is make the streets safe, tough laws on punishment, smart laws on 
prevention, you will vote for this rule because we cannot hide behind 
any procedural smoke screen. If you vote down this rule, there will be 
no crime bill, and the American people will suffer.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, when this conference report was filed on 
this floor last night at 7 o'clock, I was assured that plenty of copies 
would be available to the Committee on Rules in 2 or 3 minutes. In 
fact, only one copy of this 972-page crime bill, the conference report, 
was delivered to the Committee on Rules, and Republicans first got a 
copy of it only 23 minutes before the scheduled start of the Committee 
on Rules debate.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules then proceeded to report a rule 
waiving all points of order on this monstrosity. One of the rules 
waived was a requirement that Members of this House have 3 days in 
which to learn about the conference report and what is in it. There is 
not a Member in this House who has any idea what is in there.
  Mr. Speaker, there clearly are a great many standing rules of the 
House that are being violated in this rule. But when we asked the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for a list, we were told 
that even if he had such a list, he would not give it to us because it 
might be used against him. Mr. Speaker, that is not right, and my 
colleagues all know it.
  With regard to the conference report itself, there are a few good 
provisions in it. But those good provisions have been so overloaded 
with social program giveaways and soft-on-crime provisions that the bad 
news in this package far outweighs the good, and my colleagues know 
that if they take out the politics.
  The conference report eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for 
certain drug traffickers. This provision is retroactive and would 
result in 10,000 criminals being put back on the street--10,000.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to judge a piece of legislation is 
to see who supports it and who is opposed to it. In this case why are 
the liberals, who are always opposed to tough penalties for criminals 
like the death penalty, why are they for this? And why are 
conservatives like me who always vote to crack down on criminals, why 
am I opposed to it? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is obvious.
  This is not a crime bill, as much as the liberals would want us to 
think this is a welfare bill with a few good things put in there to 
provide political cover. For example, this bill creates a thousand new 
social worker positions to run all the dance lesson programs, all the 
arts and crafts lessons, all the midnight basketball programs. Those 
are all failed CETA programs from 10 years ago. There is funding in 
this bill sufficient to hire two new social workers for every new cop 
on the beat.
  That is what this conference report is all about. This legislation 
throws a huge amount of money around in a way that is not likely to 
have much effect on crime, but the effect on the taxpayers may be very, 
very huge. The sum of $30 billion of the $33 billion in this package 
comes from the violent crime resolution trust fund, which is supposed 
to come from savings achieved by laying off 252,000 Federal employees. 
How many times are we going to use that money? This is the fifth time.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report lets criminals out of jail who 
have committed crimes with guns and takes the guns away from law-
abiding citizens. That is wrong.
  This is terrible legislation. We can defeat this rule, and we can 
come back here with a real tough crime bill that we could all support, 
and we would be doing what is right for the American people.
  Please vote against the rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is the vote of the year, all 
rhetoric aside. We either break gridlock, or we cave in once again to 
special interests and partisanship. Health care, Haiti, the economy; 
this is the vote of the year.
  And what is the alternative? If this rule goes down, how many of my 
colleagues here actually think that we can come up with another crime 
bill?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I do.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. We have no way of ensuring that the good prevention 
measures that are here, that the good punishment measures that are 
here, and the hundred thousand cops on the street will survive once 
again. The NRA and every group that did not get what they wanted in 
this bill will be back.
  If this rule goes down, there will be no crime bill, and I can assure 
my colleagues that, if we go home, and look our constituents in the eye 
at town hall meetings, and one on one, and polls, and the message being 
to do something about crime, and we do not, I think we are going to 
pay.
  And do not call some of these programs social welfare programs. These 
are programs aimed at the young men and women of our inner cities, men 
and woman that have lost hope. These are prevention programs designed 
to help these young people cope with the future. Do not call them 
social programs. These are investments in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, if we vote to kill this rule, there will be no crime 
bill, or, if there is, it will be a lot worse than what we have here. 
Vote for the rule.
  We are minutes away from breaking gridlock, putting partisan politics 
aside, and showing special interest groups that they do not control 
Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are now ready to pass a crime bill that the 
American people in every district and in every State have been asking 
for.
  No Member of Congress can justify voting against this crime bill. If 
a Member thinks the bill is not tough enough, I say what about the 
three-strikes-you're-out provision that will send criminals with three 
serious offenses to prison for life without parole; what about the 
death penalty which will be added to more than 60 crimes; what about 
funding for more prisons which will mandate that criminals serve at 
least 85 percent of their sentence. Mr. Speaker, this bill is tough, 
and only the criminals should hope for its failure.
  I also ask which Member of Congress will be the first to tell parents 
in their districts that Congress has chosen to do nothing to help keep 
their children off the streets. This crime bill provides young people 
with job training and opportunities so they can learn teamwork and 
responsibility and say no to crime.
  And finally, who will want to go back to their districts to tell 
their local chief of police and mayor that the crime bill did not pass. 
Members should know that with 100,000 new cops on the beat, criminals 
will want to think twice before committing a crime. Our constituents 
will be able to work with the police to keep every neighborhood safer.
  Mr. Speaker, all members should be able to go back home to tell 
parents, teenagers, police, and every citizen in their district that 
Congress has listened and has passed a crime bill. This bill fights 
crime and gives control of our neighborhoods back to honest citizens 
and keeps the criminals in jail.
  Mr. Speaker, let's show America that we will no longer tolerate 
crime. This crime bill is our chance to give Americans what they have 
been asking for. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people 
and to vote yes for the rule.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who has spoken so well on so many 
of these relevant subjects dealing with this bill.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I still 
support the legislation concerning the assault weapons, forbidding the 
future manufacture for 10 years and the future importation of assault 
weapons. I still believe in that and I still support it, but I cannot 
vote for this bill.
  This is an awful way to legislate. There are 154 jobs programs now on 
the books costing $25 billion a year. Al Gore and his Commission to 
Reinvent Government talked about consolidating these overlapping, 
duplicative, redundant programs. Instead of consolidating, we are 
proliferating. We are throwing in 30 new social programs at a cost of 
$8 billion.
  I did a little research, and I looked up the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Shades of Lyndon Johnson. You ought to 
read it. It is an identical bill with what we are doing here. Has there 
been an improvement in street crime, in drugs, in drive-by shootings?
  We spend millions for the same old thing, and our answer to the 
festering crime problem is more of the same. There were no hearings. We 
did not look at these programs and see which of them are triple funded. 
Social workers will be competing with each other in a tug of war to get 
clients to attend their self-esteem, their craft, or their dancing 
classes. Meanwhile, the people are ducking from stray bullets.
  This is not a decent, responsible way to legislate. And then the coup 
de grace, $10 million for this university in Beaumont, TX. God love the 
chairman, I wish I had half his skill in getting things for places in 
my district. And this was done not in the dead of night, probably about 
4 in the afternoon, after the conference was through, after the books 
were closed, handshakes all around, press interviews, and then, $10 
million for some place in Beaumont.
  That is what characterizes this whole legislation. It is a disgrace. 
So let us go back to the drawing boards. I do not mind social workers. 
I think they are great. They are underpaid. But let us look at programs 
that can work, that can accomplish something. Let us not just shovel 
with a trowel hard-earned tax dollars onto untested and unproven 
programs. We are not legislating responsibly.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule to the conference 
report on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. I laud 
Chairman Brooks, Chairman Schumer, and the conferees for their hard 
work and dedication in crafting a comprehensive and balanced crime 
package.
  In 1991, I stood where the Speaker stands now. It was early in the 
morning, as you recall, and we passed a crime bill. It was a tough 
crime bill. It had many of the provisions that are in this bill, and it 
went to the Senate. It had none of the social spending that you now 
talk about that so concerns you. But the point of fact is, the 
Republicans in the U.S. Senate filibustered the crime bill, and it did 
not pass. They did not send it to the then Republican President of the 
United States.
  The fact of the matter is, in my district and in yours, there are 
children being killed on the streets of America. People are concerned. 
They want us to act. They want us to act now, not later, not tomorrow, 
not after a filibuster, not after another election, not after Bill 
Crystal tells you, hey, it is all right, it is all right to vote for 
something now.
  Yes, the Democrats may claim credit. Yes, it may be good for America, 
but no, do not take Bill Crystal's advice, send them home empty-handed, 
which is what Bill Crystal is telling all of you to do. Because if you 
do, those parents on the streets of America, in the schools of America, 
in the communities of America, will pay the price, not those of us who 
sit in this Chamber.
  Over the past year, I have met with mothers and fathers, law 
enforcement officials and ministers, community leaders and young 
adults. Overwhelmingly, the No. 1 concern on their minds is what does 
this country need to do to stop the ever growing crime epidemic? My 
constituents as well as yours are demanding we take action. Passage of 
this bill sends them a clear message that the people they elected are 
listening and care about their concerns.
  We all recognize that this bill is not the absolute solution to the 
crime problem but it is an important link in the crime prevention 
chain. This bill is a prescription which appropriately packages 
prevention and punishment. It encompasses critical crime prevention 
measures which attack the root causes of crime allowing our State and 
local governments, who fight on the front lines, to have resources 
available to make our streets and neighborhoods safe.
  It also contains vital punitive measures aimed at removing the 
perpetrators of violent crime from our civilized and ordered society. I 
am particularly pleased that the ``three-time loser'' provision I 
proposed last year is included in this bill. That provision will insure 
that those who continue to threaten our people and our communities will 
be put in jail and stay there permanently.
  The time for action is now. We must not fail those who sent us here, 
some of whom are afraid to leave their homes at night and who are 
seeing the moral fibers of our society being eaten away. Enough is 
enough. This body must release the chains which hold the crime bill 
hostage.
  This is a tough crime bill. Its time is now. Let us vote for this 
rule. Democrats, let us come together. America sent us here to act. Let 
us act today.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The big 
print giveth, the small print taketh away.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am opposed to H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime 
Control Act Conference Report, I would like to express my strong 
support for the Canady-Geren amendment clarifying the Federal courts' 
role in selecting remedies for prison overcrowding. The provision was 
included in both the House and Senate crime bills.
  The Canady-Geren amendment requires the Federal courts to evaluate 
cruel and unusual punishment claims based on how prison conditions 
affect the individual inmate who brings the lawsuit. In addition, it 
would prohibit prison population caps and limit equitable relief to the 
least intrusive means necessary to remedy the violation. The Canady-
Geren amendment would also give State and local governments greater 
flexibility in seeking modifications of previous court decrees.
  Like many other States, Texas' prison population is controlled by a 
Federal consent decree, prompting the early release of prisoners back 
to the streets of our communities. The consent decree in Texas provided 
that the Texas Department of Corrections [TDC] would limit the 
statewide prison population to 95 percent of TDC's maximum capacity. 
Among other things, the decree also forced the TDC to only use certain 
facilities in calculating the maximum capacity of its existing system, 
and only then-existing facilities which met certain standards could be 
counted in figuring TDC's capacity.
  In September 1986, TDC petitioned the Federal district court for a 
modification of the consent decree to permit TDC to increase the prison 
system's capacity by counting certain temporary beds available in other 
facilities toward TDC's capacity. TDC argued that an extraordinary and 
unforeseen increase in inmate admissions to the prison system justified 
such a modification. After a hearing, the district court denied TDC's 
motion, on the basis that the facilities TDC wanted to count were 
substandard or not authorized under the consent decree. TDC appealed 
the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it upheld the 
district court's decision. As a result of the denial of the motion, the 
administration of the TDC was essentially performed by a single Federal 
judge and the State was forced to adopt the early release program in 
order to meet the 95 percent cap on Texas' prison population.
  The States need the Canady-Geren amendment to regain control over 
prison policy. What the States do not need, however, is unfunded 
mandates and reckless social spending under the guise of crime control.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue of Republicans 
and Democrats. More accurately, it is not an issue of liberals versus 
conservatives. The issue on this rule is whether we will legislate 
responsibly, both procedurally and in substance.
  There is a group in town that is circulating petitions to all Members 
of this body pledging that they will not vote for any health care 
proposal that they have not read, and that is a legitimate request when 
we are dealing with one-seventh of the economy and something that 
affects all of us. But does not the same apply to this bill, which has 
$33 billion in spending, changes criminal procedures, and which its 
sponsors claim will make the streets safer and lock criminals in jail?
  Should not the membership of this House have an opportunity to read 
this bill? Should not the media and the American public be able to 
analyze the provisions of this bill?
  Those who vote in favor of this rule will say very clearly, no, 
because this rule waives points of order. There is no point of order 
that will lie on the fact that if this bill is brought up, the 3-day 
layover rule will be waived.
  The conference finished its work on July 28, and it was not until 7 
o'clock last night that the conference report was filed, and the 
printed version of the report was not available until 10 this morning, 
less than 6 hours ago, when the Congressional Records were distributed.
  There will also be no point of order on the conference exceeding its 
scope. We know that a point of order would lie if it were not for 
waiving the points of order on the $10 million for Lamar University.
  Last night we took a great step forward in restoring the public 
confidence in how this House does business in passing the Congressional 
Accountability Act. Let us not wreck that good record. Let us not wreck 
that goodwill by approving this rule that does not allow Members to 
read the bill and waives the scope of the conference so that pure, 
unadulterated pork will sneak through simply because nobody has had the 
time to expose it to the light of day.
  Please vote no.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Valentine].
  (Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the conference 
report on the crime bill.
  It is clear that most Americans want the Congress. and Government at 
every level, to make fighting crime our number one public priority. 
Once again, however, a debate on crime has been overshadowed by a 
sideshow produced and directed by the National Rifle Association.
  It is time that House members recognize that the NRA leadership has 
no interest in combating crime. Instead, it is preoccupied with 
collecting dues and contributions. Any scare tactic is acceptable as 
long as it fills NRA coffers.
  To listen to the NRA's shopworn arguments, twisted constitutional 
interpretations, and bullying threats, one would never know that this 
bill contains only a modest provision to ban a few weapons that have 
virtually no sporting purposes and that few law-abiding citizens own.
  No one's constitutional rights are threatened by this bill. But the 
NRA must raise that specter in order to rouse its current members to 
send more cash and induce new members to join.
  Make no mistake about my motives. I have been a hunter. I collect 
guns. I keep a loaded gun in my home for protection. I am a gun man.
  But I do not need an assault rifle--and I do not believe that passage 
of this bill will lead to the long arm of the Federal Government 
confiscating all guns.
  This is a reasonably good bill, and it deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I have found that the NRA members in the district I 
represent are way ahead of the NRA leadership in Washington. Rank-and-
file NRA members tell me that they will fight hard to protect their 
right to own and use firearms for legitimate purposes but that they 
have no objection to reasonable efforts to keep weapons from those who 
would misuse them.
  Contrary to NRA propaganda, this is not a gun control bill. It is an 
anticrime bill that includes the assault weapon ban as one part--one 
relatively small part--of an overall strategy.
  This bill provides tougher sentences, more law enforcement, more 
prison cells, and more crime prevention. That is what the American 
people want.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to pick apart this or any legislation. I 
would have written it differently. We all would have written it 
differently. But this bill is a step in the right direction.
  This bill will not eliminate crime. It cannot. But it will prevent 
crimes that now occur. It will take more criminals off the street for a 
longer time. And most important, it will save American lives.
  Let us not be diverted by a special interest group with its own 
narrow agenda. I urge my colleagues to reject the ravings of the 
radical fringe and pass this rule and this conference report.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are going to vote on the Clinton stimulus 
package. But this time we are calling it a crime bill.
  The number one concern of the American people is crime. So rather 
than putting together a bill that cracks down on crime and puts 
criminals behind bars, Congress, in its wisdom, pours more money into 
social welfare programs.
  Let us look at some of the crime programs included in this bill: $40 
million to let frustrated athletes play basketball. But only frustrated 
athletes that are HIV-positives. $900 million for the YES Jobs Program. 
This is in addition to the $6.5 billion we already spend on other job 
training programs. $5 million to teach life skills, whatever that is. 
$40 million to increase the self-esteem of school dropouts. $10 million 
for public housing. Apparently the $309 billion we already spend is 
insufficient. and $630 million for things like teaching kids how to 
dance and make pottery.
  My friends across the aisle are just sure that by throwing around a 
few more welfare dollars we'll be able to solve society's crime 
problems.
  But look at the figures. We have spent $5 trillion on welfare since 
Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Yet the national rate of crime 
is at the highest level its ever been.
  Let us vote this bill down and put together a bill that really 
addresses our crime problems.
  Mr. Speaker, a week ago I spoke on the House floor about the false 
promise included in the crime bill to put 100,000 new cops on the 
street. At most, this bill will fund only about 20,000 new cops. And 
that's only for the next few years unless local cities can come up with 
the $33 billion they'll need to pick up the tab when Federal dollars 
are gone.
  Even more, these cops are going to be funded by cutting other 
critical law enforcement. We're taking FBI and DEA agents off the 
street to fund, at best, 20,000 new cops that will not even be around 
in a few years. By the time local law enforcement are able to recruit 
and train their new cops, Federal funding will dry up and those new 
cops will be gone. In the end, not only will we have failed to put more 
local cops on the street, we've lost critical Federal law enforcement.
  What is worse is that this bill puts more money into welfare and 
social programs than it puts in cops. This bill will put two new social 
workers on the street for every cop it funds. This is hardly fighting 
crime. When I call 911, I don't want to talk to a social worker, I want 
to talk to a cop.
  This is a terrible bill and I urge my colleagues to vote it down.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Fish] the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This 
conference report contains provisions which I oppose and, in addition, 
the conference committee deleted provisions which I supported. However, 
my opposition to this rule is based as much on procedural objections as 
it is on substantive policy.
  As we all know, violent crime is a devastating national problem. 
Violent crime has increased in this country over 23 percent since 1988. 
A violent crime is committed once every 22 seconds and a murder is 
committed once every 22 minutes. A rape occurs every 5 minutes and a 
robbery every 47 seconds. Over 70 percent of the violent crimes 
committed in our country are committed by repeat offenders.
  These are not just statistics. The victims of these crimes are real 
people--they are our constituents--and the ultimate victim is society. 
The crime epidemic has brought with it the pestilence of fear and 
Congress should address this complex problem in a comprehensive, 
realistic and bipartisan way. Whether we are Republicans or Democrats 
this is a national crisis that we share and partisan politics should 
not interfere with the best solutions.
  Back in March, following action in the House Judiciary Committee on 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, I went 
before the Rules Committee urging that certain key amendments be made 
in order. Those were amendments put forward by the Republican members 
of our Committee and reflected a number of very valid and valuable 
approaches to the serious problem of crime we have in this country.
  Unfortunately, when this legislation was brought to the floor in 
April, several of my Republican colleagues were prevented from offering 
amendments under a highly restrictive rule. Still other Republican 
amendments were allowed but they were subjected to a king-of-the-hill 
procedure that prevented any real genuine opportunity for success.
  Subsequently, after the legislation was passed by the House of 
Representatives, I appointed the four most senior Republican members of 
the House Judiciary Committee to serve on the conference committee on 
the Crime bill. For many weeks and months, the conference committee did 
not meet. Republican members were routinely excluded from closed door 
meetings during this time period. Then, finally, when the conference 
committee briefly convened, Republican Members were routinely refused 
key documents and several significant Republican amendments were 
dropped or weakened. Numerous Republican proposals were defeated in 
conference through the utilization of the proxy vote mechanism. 
Ultimately, none of the Judiciary Republican conferees signed the 
conference report. How could they approve a document which they had no 
part in formulating?
  Furthermore, the conference report itself is a document that has been 
conspicuous by its absence. As of yesterday evening, the Members of 
this House did not have a complete, final copy of the conference 
report. The conference version, as I understand it, is almost four 
inches thick, it is over 1,000 pages long. How do we evaluate a major 
piece of legislation that no one has been permitted to read?
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here as the Ranking Republican on the House 
Judiciary Committee. The upcoming vote on the rule is a procedural vote 
that must be evaluated in the light of these events. The rules process 
goes to the very heart of our role as legislators and our rights as 
Members of this House. I am angered and dismayed about the manner in 
which Republican Members have been denied their rightful role on this 
very important public policy question.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this rule because of the tactics 
used by the Majority party--tactics which insult the Republican Members 
of this House and the American citizens we were elected to represent.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the 
gentleman for this opportunity to address the issue that many see as 
the number one problem facing our Nation: violent street crime. The 
philosopher Rousseau described nature as a state of blissful anarchy. 
Well, today on the streets of our cities we have a state of unhappy 
chaos. Street crime is the reason people flee the city. If we reduce 
street crime, we greatly improve the outlook for our cities.
  This crime bill is a solid mix of prevention and enforcement. Law 
enforcement officials will get a much-needed boost out of this bill. 
Additionally, this bill contains $7\1/2\ billion for community crime 
prevention programs. Yes, we must build bigger jails and insure that 
convicted criminals serve their full sentences, but we must also take 
steps to stop criminals before they get started. These prevention 
programs will do that.
  Let us cut down on the violence. Let us cut street crime. Let us cut 
gang activity. Let us end the chaos. Let us protect the public, as we 
are required to do--let us pass this rule and this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Levy].
  (Mr. LEVY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago, when the crime bill originally came 
before this body, I reluctantly voted in favor of the bill.
  It was my feeling at the time that, although there was much in the 
bill that I did not favor, the good in the bill outweighed the bad. I 
voted ``aye'' because I wanted the crime bill to advance to a 
conference committee and in the hope that the conference would strike 
those provisions which I opposed.
  The conference committee did that in one instance, when it struck the 
so-called Racial Justice Act. But then it stopped.
  It included in the bill a provision to retroactively eliminate 
mandatory minimum sentences for some drug offenders. More than 10,000 
convicts in prison are hoping we pass this bill so they can apply for 
early release.
  The conference eliminated Senate provisions which would have 
penalized, for the first time, those who actually use firearms 
illegally when those firearms have been transported across State lines.
  Conferees cut, by 50 percent, the amount of money which the bill was 
to have spent on prison construction.
  And, they left in the bill billions of dollars for programs that 
duplicate existing efforts and which have no proven impact on crime. 
You know the ones I am talking about. My constituents know the ones I 
am talking about and they do not want to pay the tab.
  In fact, spending in the crime bill as it currently stands is 50 
percent higher than that contemplated in the original Senate crime bill 
and $6 billion more than approved on this floor. And why?
  Because conferees insist on spending public money on midnight sports 
leagues, arts and crafts, dance instruction and the like. The list is 
too long to go through here but it totals $9 billion. That is $9,000 
million.
  The crime bill, as currently proposed to come before us, is opposed 
by the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste and the National 
Taxpayers Union, both of which describe the crime bill as a pork-barrel 
waste.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is the only way we 
can get the bill back to the conference committee so it can be cleaned 
up and the wasteful spending removed.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, and for the record: Many of my colleagues are 
attempting to portray the vote on this rule as a vote on gun control. 
For some members, it may be that. It is not for me. And I object 
strenuously to those who suggest that those of us who will vote ``no'' 
on the rule will do so because of pressure which has been brought to 
bear by the pro-gun lobby.
  The fact of the matter is that my office has not even been contacted 
by the pro-gun people. There has been no pressure.
  I am voting ``no'' for one reason and one reason only: I want to vote 
for a crime bill but I can not vote for this one. It spends too much. 
It lets convicts go free. It does not punish those who use firearms 
illegally and it fails to live up to its billing with respect to prison 
construction.
  Let us send the bill back to the conference so we can produce a piece 
of legislation we can be proud of--one that carries a smaller price tag 
and which is a crime bill because it fights crime and not because it, 
itself, is a fraud on the taxpayers.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and with a 
deep sense of outrage.
  This crime bill is not well reasoned. By now, all Members know of the 
ill-considered provisions that could never stand alone on this floor 
were they to be subjected to a vote.
  My outrage, however, is reserved for another issue: What do we do 
when sexual predators are released back into our neighborhoods?
  Let me recount the history. The Senate adopted a provision 
encouraging community notification when sexual predators are released 
from prison. The House, despite the objections of the Committee on 
Rules, finally made its will known when this body voted 407 to 13 to 
instruct House conferees to accept that Senate language.
  Then what happened?
  A handful of conferees snubbed their noses at the will of the U.S. 
Congress--both the House and Senate--and weakened the Senate language 
on sexual predators beyond recognition. They stacked the deck against 
community notification, they diminished the length of time that 
predators are tracked, and they did this in the face of yet another 
bloody tragedy.
  Seven-year-old Megan Kanka of New Jersey is dead, Mr. Speaker. Sexual 
predators were released into her community and they lured that precious 
little girl to a grisly death.
  Conferees who worked to protect the rights of sexual predators should 
understand this: The next little girl killed by a released predator 
will haunt them.
  Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that a few conferees have supplanted 
their will for the will of the House. It is outrageous that this bill 
effectively denies notification to the next Megan Kanka or the next 
Polly Klaas, or to your mother or sister or daughter. And it is 
outrageous that we would place the rights of criminals over the rights 
of victims.
  I will not be a party to it. I will vote to reject this rule. I will 
vote to tell the conferees to reflect the will of the House and the 
Senate.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I speak with a little bit of credibility on, 
I think, this bill. I am one of those rare individuals that voted for 
the racial justice provision, and I also voted against the assault 
weapons ban. And I also supported the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Washington.
  This is not a perfect bill. If we wait for a perfect bill, it will 
never come before this House.
  I would like to speak to some of those folks that say, I just cannot 
vote for the rule but I will vote for the bill. That does not make a 
lot of sense. If we cannot get a rule passed, we cannot vote for the 
bill.
  Let me say to Members though, those folks that they say they do not 
understand this bill. It strikes me as a little bit odd, because every 
talk show host and all the pundits have been talking about the 
basketball and everything for two weeks on this bill. Members would 
think that the only thing in this bill is night basketball.
  Let me say to my colleagues on night basketball, every small 
community in my district, when I go visit with city officials, they 
talk about the need to try to find something for the young people to 
do. Does it not make more sense to have a night league of basketball 
that is supervised than to have gangs on the street corners that are 
mugging people?
  This is not a perfect bill, but this is a good bill. If it is so bad, 
if this bill is so bad, let us pass this rule and vote the bill down.
  The Republicans do not want a vote on this bill. They want to kill 
this rule, and it is not about money. It is not about social programs. 
It is about the two issues that are predominant in this bill that have 
the objections: racial justice on the one hand and guns on the other. 
It is just as simple as that. I voted for both of them.
  But give us a vote. Members that are hesitating to vote for this 
rule, give us a chance to vote on the bill. And then when we bring the 
bill up, if they do not like the bill, vote against the bill. If it is 
so bad, but give us an opportunity to exercise our democratic right in 
this body to vote for this bill and to vote for this conference.
  I would hope that we would not be intimidated by the scare tactics, 
and I have been threatened all day that I will not be back here if I 
vote for this rule. I may not be back, but I can get up in the morning 
and look myself in the mirror and say, I gave the people an opportunity 
to vote for a conference report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I rise against the crime against the 
American people with this rule and the crime bill which I strongly 
oppose.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, when the death penalty provisions in this 
bill reached this House, they were constitutionally flawed, purposely 
so, in my judgment, because those words, those provisions of the death 
penalty, were crafted by the long-time opponents of the death penalty. 
Why? So they could put together a bill that says ``We are tough on 
crime by instituting the death penalty,'' but leaving it so flawed that 
it would not be constitutionally sound.
  Mr. Speaker, the House then voted on the Gekas amendment, rejected 
the flawed language, reinstituted proper, constitutionally sound 
instructions by the court in those procedures, and lo and behold, we 
had a bill the death penalty portions of which we could support.
  Then what happened, Mr. Speaker, was that the conferees, contrary to 
the will of the House, and contrary to the will of a second vote by the 
House on instructing these conferees, blatantly again went back to the 
original flawed death penalty language, and here we are today, with a 
death penalty bill that has no teeth in it in this particular version.
  We need to go back to the conference and reconstruct a death penalty 
bill that will meet the constitutional muster, and which the people in 
our country who want to be tough, not falsely tough, who want to be 
strong, not apparently strong, on appearances only, but fair and tough, 
and to do the ultimate will of the American people, to institute a 
death penalty that will act as a deterrent to violent crime, and will 
end the endless death row appeals that make us sick and tired of the 
criminal justice system that now does not allow the death penalty to be 
applied in its proper way.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, after much soul-searching, I rise to say 
that I intend to vote for the rule which will allow us to consider this 
crime bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing a bill to deal 
with a problem that our constituents say is most on their mind, the 
problem of crime.
  A racial justice provision did not survive the conference committee. 
This is wrong. There is racism in the imposition of the death penalty 
in this country. We should be voting for a bill that uses basic 
American principles of justice if we are to send human beings to the 
electric chair.
  But for this one provision that is not in the bill, there is much 
good in the bill. It is important to remind my colleagues where I come 
from. I founded and chaired the Congressional Urban caucus, and I 
represent one of the most troubled urban districts in America. It is a 
poor district. It is struggling, and it is at war with crime.
   Mr. Speaker, in our country we are supposed to live free, but crime 
has robbed the people of my district from the very freedom to walk the 
streets outside their homes. They are now forced to keep their children 
prisoners in their homes. They cannot go out because other kids are 
playing with assault weapons.
  A young girl in my district, little Michelle Cutner, was on the last 
day of school walking back home from school with her mother. She 
stopped at the corner store to by a bag of potato chips. As she ate 
that bag of potato chips, a 15-year-old boy, Jerome Walker, wanted a 
lift from his friend who would not give it to him. Jerome took out a 
TEC-9, started shooting. Michelle was killed.
  Part of the special interest campaign to block this crime bill has 
been to criticize prevention programs as pork. They belittle an 
innovative midnight basketball program, but they ignore the facts.
  Experience all around this country shows us that a little spending on 
recreational crime prevention stops a lot of crime. They spent 60 cents 
per child in Phoenix to keep basketball courts open until 2 a.m. last 
summer, and juvenile crime dropped by 55 percent.
  What is going on here? We have to disarm the National Rifle 
Association in this town. They do not tell us what to do. Our 
constituents tell us what to do. They are telling us to pass this bill. 
Let us do it for them. Let us do it for little Michelle Cutner.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and to the conference 
report as well.
  It includes too much spending for so-called prevention programs, and 
it offers too little toward keeping criminals off our streets.
  And I rise in opposition, because we are again being asked to vote on 
comprehensive and costly legislation that we have not had time to 
study. The conference report was not printed in detail until yesterday, 
and those Congressional Records didn't arrive in our offices until this 
morning.
  My constituents understand when I say this is ``No way to run a 
railroad, unless, of course, you're running it off a cliff.''
  And this conference report is a train wreck. It is more of an attack 
on our pocketbooks and constitutional rights than on the problems of 
crime. All that is good in the bill is cancelled out by social spending 
boondoggles.
  Can we really consider arts, crafts, dance programs, and midnight 
basketball leagues crime prevention?
  And what happened to ``three strikes and you're out?'' Now in this 
bill, the third strike must be a Federal crime, which constitute only 5 
percent of all crimes committed. It appears criminals will get a number 
of foul tips before going to jail.
  I also said the bill is too little. I wish we had before us needed 
habeas corpus reform and reforms in the exclusionary rule. We should 
defeat this bill and bring back legislation that we can truly call an 
anticrime bill.
  America needs to get tough on crime. Unfortunately, this conference 
report, with a $33 billion price tag, is tougher on the taxpayers than 
it is on the criminals. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a clearly unfair rule, though tragically not 
unprecedented. The call for blanket waivers basically means that there 
are many items in that thick package sitting next to Mr. Solomon over 
there which many have not been able to read.
  Clearly, however, there are some appealing aspects of the crime bill. 
One of the most appealing is the idea of 100,000 new police officers on 
the street. We have all heard that figure from the President, from 
Members of both houses of Congress. This has been touted all across the 
country.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the funding 
that is ostensibly supposed to be provided by this, we would be lucky 
to get to one-fourth that number. Why? Because in a nationwide survey 
that was conducted by the Committee on the Judiciary and some other 
operations, they found that the average cost per officer for equipment, 
salary, overtime, is $65,000 per year, yet this bill only provides 
$14,700 per officer. So we would be lucky to get 25,000, and yet we 
continue to hear this 100,000 figure.
  The waivers that have been granted in this thing make it a clearly 
unfair rule. We should reject this, bring about a rule and a crime 
package which can in fact deal with what the American people want us to 
address.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the 
conference report to the crime bill 1994.
  The crime package that will soon come before us represents the 
largest commitment of Federal dollars, over $30 billion, to combat 
crime. The crime bill includes a broad range of measures to help put 
more police on the street, more criminals behind bars, and to help keep 
our children off the path to crime.
  I am especially pleased that the crime bill includes a provision that 
I authored to combat violent criminal street gangs. The Criminal Street 
Gang Prevention Act sends a strong message to hardened gang members 
that the violence they perpetuate will not be tolerated. As violent 
offenders, gang members will serve their sentences consecutively to any 
other sentence imposed for the crimes they commit. Punishment will be 
enforced.
  Yet passage of this crime bill will also help steer young people away 
from crime and drugs. The crime bill directs over $7 billion toward 
community crime prevention programs. These programs represent Congress' 
determination to help our constituents combat the social conditions 
that contribute to crime: delinquency rates, gang involvement, 
substance abuse, unemployment, teen pregnancy, school dropouts, and 
other factors that can lead our children toward crime.
  These programs are exactly what people in the communities that I 
represent in Los Angeles County and people across the Nation are 
clamoring for--Congress must address the very real crisis of violent 
crime in our communities. Passage of this crime bill embodies our 
commitment to take back our neighborhoods, give our children a future, 
and provide all of us an opportunity to join together in the fight 
against crime. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule to 
accompany H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime Control Act Conference Report. 
This bill is over 900 pages of social programs masquerading as a 
serious attempt to control our Nation's crime--a resting place for 
billions of dollars for pet pork projects. A bill that even the FBI 
Director says will not help fight crime but, in fact, will hurt his 
agency.
  Apparently, in a $33 billion crime bill money just could not be found 
for some basic law enforcement--that is incredible. However, there is 
plenty of money for midnight sports leagues, arts, crafts, and dance 
programs.
  Consider for a moment a provision labeled the Local Partnership Act, 
a program directed toward education and abuse treatment. Sounds good? 
Well, there is no enforceable provision that says the funds for this 
provision be used to directly fight crime. In fact, the distribution of 
funds for this act will be based on a communities' local tax burden--
this economic formula rewards high-taxing, big-spending cities and 
States regardless of whether these funds are being spent on crime 
control. If LPA was truly targeted for States and cities that are doing 
their best to fight crime, the funds should have been tied to the 
percentage of revenues used for law enforcement instead of overall tax 
rates.
  And consider the midnight basketball programs contained in this bill. 
Now, it occurs to me that the Federal Government should not be 
encouraging children to be away from home after midnight; however, in 
typical Federal micro-management style the conditions for playing some 
ball in one of these Government leagues are: one half of the players 
have to live in public housing and you have to have more than 80 
players to qualify and the games have to be played in communities which 
have high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
  The bill's supporters maintain that this bill will hire 100,000 new 
police officers. Anyone making that kind of statement has not read the 
conference report. Many of the new officers will be replacements for 
those retiring or leaving the force--a net gain of zero. Supposedly, 
Congress was going to pay for these new cops but there is only enough 
money for twenty thousand fully funded positions in H.R. 3355. Pity the 
financially strained city that will not be able to come up with the 
money to buy these mythical police persons. Another unfunded mandate 
for our cities from the Federal Government.
  The administration's touts the bill's ``three strikes and you are 
out'' Federal sentencing provisions. Sounds great. But they do not tell 
you that the provision covers only 1 percent of all the crimes. And 
probably what is the most cynical of all the provisions contained in 
this conference report is that this legislation will retroactively end 
mandatory minimum sentences for up to 10,000 drug offenders. In fact, 
many individuals will be released early under the bill's guidelines.
  Let us not fail to mention the much debated assault weapons ban. 
Again, remembering the administration's promise that the bill will only 
cover 19 weapons, honest law abiding citizens now find that their 
government overnight has made them criminals if they purchase not those 
original 19 weapons but an additional 180 firearms.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and let us get to work on a bill everyone can 
be proud of.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be an anticrime bill, but the 
Congress is being blackmailed into supporting it. What do I mean? There 
are numerous provisions in the bill that I believe are positive 
accomplishments for law enforcement, but in order to get to them, we 
have to vote for a conference report that also contains provisions 
which I believe would never pass the Congress if they stood there by 
themselves.
  Two examples: first, an elimination from mandatory minimum 
sentencing, totally, for certain drug traffickers. Although that 
provision is in the bill, the President and the Attorney General have 
never boasted about that provision when they go around the country and 
say why we need this bill. Why are they not proud enough of it to talk 
about it?
  Second, outrageous spending that has nothing to do with law 
enforcement. I am not getting involved in the crime prevention versus 
law enforcement debate. There are spending programs in this bill which 
never were even intended for crime prevention by their authors. They 
became crime prevention programs only to get them in this bill, to have 
spending programs that would not pass any other way.
  Mr. Speaker, we can solve this problem. We can vote against the rule. 
We can send this bill back to the joint committee for more revision. 
That is what I urge my colleagues to do.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield one 
minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the racial justice provision. The 
Senate took it out of this bill, but I am supporting this rule because 
I come from one of the cities where guns are easier to get than jobs, 
where gun licenses are more available and easier to obtain than drivers 
licenses, where we have a situation that has got to be changed by this 
House.
  For 3 years we have tried to get a crime bill, and we have now got a 
smart crime bill. I do not apologize to anyone in this Nation for 
bringing a crime prevention package to the crime bill. We need this.
  The other part of it is that the National Rifle Association is not 
going to get the last laugh on us. We know they are trying to get to 
assault weapons. That cannot come out of this bill. It will never come 
up in another bill.
  In the name of all of those mayors and sheriffs and police chiefs and 
community organizations that have talked to me and begged me ``Let us 
have a tough, sensible, smart crime bill,'' the time is now. Vote for 
the rule and support this bill.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unwavering opposition to the 
crime bill, or should I say social welfare package.
  Supporters of this bill seem to believe that our crime problems can 
be solved by increased social spending, leniency, and disarming law 
abiding citizens. I disagree. Whatever happened to deterrence? Whatever 
happened to actually carrying out severe penalties for those who commit 
heinous crimes? None of these elements can be found in the bill we are 
considering today.
  Instead, we are handing the American people a plan that will do 
nothing but waste their hard-earned tax dollars on programs that not 
only fail to deter crime, but actually encourage youths to stay on the 
streets when they should be in their homes. Of course, I am referring 
to the ever-popular $40 million midnight basketball program. Although 
that particular provision has peaked the public's interest, it is 
certainly not the most egregious provision in the bill. For instance, 
some lawmakers feel that the answer to crime is more social workers. My 
guess is that most Americans will not feel safer knowing that for every 
police officer this bill funds, two social workers will be placed on 
the streets. I am confident that they will not feel safer knowing that 
this bill will most likely result in the release of thousands of 
convicts.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic. What Americans want is a 
commonsense approach to crime prevention. We cannot hand them a $30 
billion election-year gimmick. They are smarter than that and deserve 
better. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, when the President talks about fighting 
crime, he sounds like Dirty Harry, but his crime bill looks like Barney 
Fife.
  Overall this crime bill includes almost $1.5 billion for cultural 
health classes, dance programs, cultural sensitivity instruction, 
counseling services, self-esteem training, and midnight basketball. 
With the pork-barrel spending included in this bill we could put 
360,000 more criminals behind bars. How can we support this bill when 
the Nation's top law enforcement official, President Clinton's hand-
picked crime-fighter, FBI Director Louis Freeh, in a moment of candor 
when he was outside the Beltway told how this bill will cause drastic 
reductions in the number of FBI agents.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, send it back 
to conference, and let us come back with a bill that truly does fight 
crime.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unswerving support of the rule and 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House, we know the cost of crime in 
our districts. We see the cost in broken homes, broken bodies, the 
emotional and physical trauma of our citizens.
  We were sent here to pass laws that will fight crime effectively. 
This bill has more police, more prisons, more prevention, and tougher 
penalties.
  Do not let politics, partisanship, or political action money dictate 
your decision on this.
  Our constituents need our help. Look into your hearts. Look into the 
eyes of your constituents on this issue. This bill is right. It is 
overdue. It is necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to place the public welfare above politics and 
pass this rule that will allow final passage of the crime bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Speaker, last week, a young man was shot and killed 
in Salt Lake County while standing in the parking lot of an apartment 
complex--another victim of a drive-by shooting. The perpetrator was a 
16-year-old with 88 previous violations.
  We need to put monsters like this away permanently and we have to 
stop making monsters. This crime bill does both. It is both tough and 
smart.
  A vote against this rule is a vote against the people of Salt Lake 
who are waiting for us to act. I urge the House to pass the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the family of the man shot down in Salt Lake County last 
week is counting on us. Let us adopt the rule, pass the crime bill, and 
finally stem the rising tide of violence in America.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from the Ocean State, Rhode Island 
[Mr. Machtley].
  (Mr. MACHTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
conference report on the crime bill. This bill is more expensive and 
weaker than the House-passed bill that I voted for in April. Most 
Americans will agree that we need a good Crime Bill, not just any crime 
bill. Today, we're voting on a cop-out bill which no longer reflects 
many of the key crime-fighting aims of either the House or Senate-
passed bills.
  Mr. Speaker, after the House passed its version of the crime bill 
this past spring, I had hoped that the House-Senate conferees would 
pare down a number of noncrime social spending programs. Instead, the 
conferees provided more than $9 billion for social spending programs, 
while increasing the overall price tag of the bill from $28 billion to 
$33 billion. We, as a Congress, must not only make sure our law 
enforcement personnel have adequate resources, but we must also prevent 
taxpayers' dollars from being wasted. The increase of $5 billion in the 
conference report is a lot of money. We need more crime prevention 
programs, but not at the expense of putting more police on the street.
  Included in this bill's social spending package are $40 million for 
midnight sports, $895 million for model intensive grants, and $100 
million for ``Ounce of Prevention.'' Also added was a $630 million 
program not included in the House bill called ``child-centered 
activities'' which funds things such as arts and crafts, dance 
programs, and recreational provisions and supplies. While many of these 
programs may have merit, the purpose of this bill is supposed to be to 
fight crime. We owe it to the American people to be honest about what 
exactly is in this bill, not to load it up with additional spending 
cloaked misleadingly as crime-fighting measures.
  Importantly, this crime bill also significantly watered down the 
strong, bipartisan truth-in-sentencing provisions of the House-passed 
bill that were agreed to on the House floor. These provisions would 
have conditioned Federal prison funding to States and localities on 
criminals serving at least 85 percent of their sentences. The 
conference agreement contains a loophole in which States can avoid this 
incentive. We can all agree that early release of prisoners is one of 
the most pressing law enforcement problems that demands serious reform. 
I commend to all of my colleagues a recent speech by Princeton 
University Prof. John DiIulio, in which he clearly outlines the 
magnitude of this problem.
  I am also troubled that this bill has reduced total prison funding 
from $14.1 billion in the House-passed bill down to $8.3 billion. At a 
time when violent prisoners in America serve an average of 37 percent 
of their sentences--often due to overcrowded prisons--we simply must 
find more space to incarcerate these criminals.
  There are many other problems with the crime bill that we can and 
should fix before passing this measure into law. For example, the 
conferees rejected the House-passed so-called Gekas provisions which 
strengthened death penalty judicial procedures. And while they also 
agreed to a provision to allow prosecution of juveniles 13 and older as 
adults, the bill makes this provision voluntary, rather than the 
stronger mandatory provision of the Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a recent Wall 
Street Journal essay as well as a copy of Professor DiIulio's speech 
which present arguments in support of a no vote on this rule and 
conference report. The failure of this bill to effectively address the 
problem of violent crime has called into question whether we will be 
able to pass this crime bill at all. I don't see why we don't go back 
to the table, clean this bill up, and bring back something we can all 
be proud to vote for.

Princeton University and the Brookings Institution at a Forum--Why the 
    GOP Is Right To Oppose the Crime Bill and Where To Go From Here

       Mr. Diiulio. Thank you, Bill. I'm glad to be here, not only 
     as a card-carrying Democrat but also as someone who has 
     somewhat reluctantly and begrudgingly come to the conclusion 
     that this crime bill ought to be scrapped.
       Let me begin by saying I think there are some very good 
     things in this crime bill, just as there were many good 
     things in each of the major pieces of federal anti-crime 
     legislation that were passed over the last 10 years. I'm 
     talking here about the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of '84 
     which established the sentencing guidelines, the antidrug 
     abuse acts of '86 and '88, the Crime Control Act of 1990 and 
     the Brady bill of 1993. And as I mentioned, the Brady bill 
     may indicate, not among those who would oppose this crime 
     bill because it fosters further federal restrictions on guns, 
     in particular on certain types of assault weapons, I think 
     that its provisions are wise.
       By the same token, I wouldn't number myself among those who 
     oppose this bill because it contains billions and billions of 
     dollars for social programs. There is a fair amount of silly 
     business in this bill on that side. Midnight basketball may 
     be silly business. But prison-based drug treatment is not. 
     And so there's a mixed bag there.
       Finally, I wouldn't count myself among those who oppose the 
     bill because of the flaws, the limitations in its more 
     sensible or well-intentioned provisions. It's easy to 
     deconstruct, if you will, the community policing provisions 
     of this bill. The bill calls for 100,000 new cops. But when 
     you read the relevant titles of the bill, what you will 
     discover is that that really means about 20,000 fully funded 
     positions.
       And when you further look at how this bill is to be 
     administered, you come to recognize that it's to be 
     administered by the Office of Justice Programs, which is the 
     alphabet soup of agencies left over from the days of the old 
     Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which is 
     to figure out some way of divvying up this money between 85 
     percent for more manpower, 15 percent for everything else 
     having to do with policing, so much to jurisdictions under 
     150,000, so much to jurisdictions over 150,000, and so on.
       And if you're stouthearted enough to look at this bill in 
     light of the relevant academic literature, you know that it 
     takes about 10 police officers to put the equivalent of one 
     police officer on the streets around the clock. This is 
     factoring in everything from sick leave and disabilities to 
     vacations and three shifts a day and desk work and so on. So 
     that 20,000 funded positions becomes 2,000 around-the-clock 
     cops. And 2,000 around-the-clock cops gets distributed over 
     at least 200 jurisdictions for an average actual street 
     enforcement strength increase of about 10 cops per city.
       Moreover, you learn, when you look at the relevant titles, 
     that these positions are not really even fully funded. The 
     money is really seed money that will run out rather quickly. 
     And I suppose that those big-city mayors, Democrat and 
     Republican, who are supporting the bill simply believe that 
     in the out years the federal government will belly up to this 
     bar again and put up more funds.
       Nevertheless, I think the community policing provisions of 
     the bill, represent tiny, perhaps faltering but tiny steps in 
     the right direction. Why, then, should the GOP or responsible 
     legislators of both parties or concerned citizens generally 
     oppose this bill? My answer is that, in the analysis, this 
     bill, warts, beauty marks and all, simply costs far too much, 
     is much too complicated, contains way too many untested and 
     unwise provisions. It will do nothing, in my view, to reduce 
     the country's crime problem. In fact, as I'll suggest in a 
     moment, it may actually add to it. The bill is not, as the 
     President, I think, likes to say with sincerity, smart and 
     tough. I think rather it is, taken all in all, rather dim-
     witted and weak.
       There are at least four specific realities about crime in 
     this country that this bill does little or nothing to 
     address, or addresses perversely: Revolving-door justice, the 
     youth crime bomb, the black crime gap, and the real root 
     causes of crime. Now, I am going to try to do the 
     impossible--my Princeton students would not believe it--and 
     stay within my 15 minutes. So I will say as much as I can on 
     each of these scores before turning it over to my colleagues 
     on the panel.
       First, let me talk about revolving-door justice. Every 
     major public opinion survey shows that the public has lost 
     confidence in the ability of the justice system to arrest and 
     detain and convict and punish violent and repeat criminals. 
     From a number of recent studies published by Brookings and 
     other institutions, it's clear that the facts and figures 
     support the public's frustrations and fears on crime.
       Let me offer just a little bit of the evidence, and I 
     stress a little bit of the evidence, on revolving-door 
     justice. Sixty-five percent of felony defendants are released 
     prior to trial. That includes 63 percent of all violent 
     felony defendants. Now, what happens to them when they're out 
     on the streets? Well, nearly a quarter of them simply never 
     show up in court, for starters. All 11 percent of murder 
     arrestees and about 12 percent of all violent crime arrestees 
     are on pretrial release for an earlier case at the time of 
     the offense. Over 20 percent have 10 or more prior arrests. 
     Over 35 percent have one or more prior convictions.
       Case management, which is a bureaucratic euphemism for plea 
     bargaining, means that over 90 percent of all criminal cases 
     today do not go to court because the offender pleads guilty 
     to a lesser charge. That's true as well for violent offenses. 
     Only 44 percent of murder cases go to trial, 23 percent of 
     rape cases, 15 percent of aggravated assault cases.
       Now, we hear a lot about the explosion in the prison 
     population, and it's true that the nation's prison 
     population, federal and state, has increased dramatically 
     over the last 15 years. But it's also true that the probation 
     and parole population has increased even faster. Today you 
     have about four and a half million persons under correctional 
     supervision in this country--four and a half million. Three 
     and a half million of them, roughly, are not incarcerated. 
     Rather, they're under the supervision of probation and parole 
     officers who are handling hundreds of cases and really can't 
     provide effective supervision.
       What happens in these cases? Well, a disproportionate 
     number of the three and a half million in probationers and 
     parolees out there circulate in and out of poor minority 
     urban neighborhoods, repeatedly victimizing their truly 
     disadvantaged neighbors. We have data on recidivism that 
     could--probably books and volumes that could fill this room. 
     But just to cite a few of the statistics, within three years 
     of sentencing we know that nearly half of all probationers 
     are placed behind bars for a new crime or abscond.
       We know that for parole, the tale is very much the same. If 
     you look on a state-by-state basis, you find, for example, 
     that in Florida between 1987 and 1991 you had over 100,000 
     prisoners released only. At points in time when they would 
     have been incarcerated were they not released early, these 
     offenders committed over 26,000 new crimes, including some 
     nearly 5,000 new crimes of violence, including 346 murders.
       Now, what else do we know about probationers and parolees? 
     Well, we know that with respect to violent crimes, violent 
     crime arrests, 16 percent of violent crime arrestees are on 
     probation and 7 percent are on parole. Now, if you take those 
     two numbers and you add it to a number I gave earlier--that 
     is, 12 percent of violent crime arrestees on pretrial 
     release--you're left with a rather amazing number, that 35 
     percent of all violent crime arrestees have some criminal 
     justice status at the time of the offense; that is, over a 
     third of all violent crime arrestees are ostensibly in 
     criminal custody at the time of the offense. Now, if that is 
     not revolving-door justice, I don't know what is.
       The Senate version of the crime bill that was drafted and 
     put out back in November--November 19th, 1993, to be exact, 
     by a vote of 95 to 4--would, I think, have done something, 
     though I'm not sure exactly how much, to stop revolving-door 
     justice. But now, almost nine months later, we have before us 
     a crime bill that would actually, in my view, grease the 
     revolving door, at the federal level, at least, via such 
     provisions as the so-called safety valve provision, which is 
     essentially a provision that would permit certain categories 
     of convicted drug defendants to be invited back to court, to 
     be given a virtual retrial under a retroactive law.
       About 5,000 prisoners would be immediately eligible for 
     this provision and they could get sentence reductions of as 
     much as half or more in some cases of their sentences. Also, 
     the language of the safety valve is quite elastic. I would 
     not be surprised, if this bill passes with this provision, to 
     see the safety valve provision applied to all of the 16,000 
     or so so-called low-level drug offenders in the federal 
     prison system.
       Now, interestingly, the safety valve idea has been 
     supported by a number of Republicans as well as Democrats, 
     including a number of conservative Republicans. And I think I 
     know where they're coming from. I don't think anyone would 
     believe that the federal sentencing structure is perfect. 
     There are lots of sentences, especially, I would say, for 
     drug offenders that are overly harsh. And I myself have taken 
     an interest in some such cases, up to and including joining 
     the clemency petition of one federal inmate who's serving 
     time for a nonviolent first-time drug offense.
       But what I would like to point out is that the utterly 
     false argument behind the safety valve provision, and other 
     provisions in this bill like it, is that many, if not most, 
     prisoners are petty first-time offenders with few previous 
     arrests, no previous convictions and no history of violence. 
     The facts, which have been painstakingly put together by the 
     U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and by other research 
     organizations and widely published, speak in exactly the 
     opposite voice.
       Let me just give you a few of the facts. In 1991, fully 94 
     percent of state prison inmates had been convicted of a 
     violent crime or had a previous sentence to probation or 
     incarceration. In other words, only 6 percent of state 
     prisoners were nonviolent offenders with no prior sentence to 
     probation or incarceration. Nearly half were serving time for 
     a violent crime and a third had been convicted in the past of 
     one or more violent crimes.
       If you look at the state data, you get the same picture. In 
     New Jersey, where I spend a lot of my time, you had in 1992 a 
     prison population in which about half of all prisoners were 
     serving time for a violent crime. Eighty percent had criminal 
     histories involving violence. The average prisoner had nine 
     prior arrests, six prior convictions and so on.
       Now, it is true that the federal prison system, compared to 
     the state systems, of most state systems, has relatively 
     fewer violent criminals and more property and drug offenders. 
     But of the 35,000 persons newly admitted to federal prison in 
     1991, only 2 percent, or about 700, were convicted of mere 
     drug possession. And even in the federal prison system, about 
     half of all prisoners had two or more prior felony 
     convictions and over half of all prisoners in federal 
     penitentiaries had a history of violence.
       So one has to understand as well that even these numbers, 
     as depressing as they are, understate the actual amount and 
     severity of crime committed by prisoners when free. For one 
     thing, they don't take into account the effects of plea 
     bargaining. People who may present themselves as first-time 
     nonviolent drug offenders may, in fact, be plea-bargained or 
     violent and repeat offenders.
       Second, these numbers don't account for the wholly 
     undetected, unpunished, unprosecuted crimes committed by 
     prisoners when free. There have been a number of large 
     scientific studies, prisoner self-report studies, that have 
     tried to get a handle on this question. And the two most 
     recent such studies indicate that in the year prior to 
     incarceration, the typical prisoner commits a dozen serious 
     crimes a year, violent and property crimes, excluding all 
     drug crimes.
       And finally, which brings me quickly, I hope, to my next 
     point, these numbers do not reflect the number of crimes 
     committed by prisoners when they were juveniles. We know that 
     nationally juveniles account for about one-fifth of all 
     weapons offenses. They've committed record numbers of murders 
     in the last several years, several thousand murders a year. 
     Today's high-rate juvenile offenders are tomorrow's adult 
     prisoners, but today's adult criminal records don't 
     comprehend yesteryear's slew of juvenile crimes.
       America is facing a ticking youth crime bomb. We have 
     burgeoning numbers of young people who, from all the 
     statistical profiles, are at risk of becoming violent and 
     repeat criminals. The rate of growth in serious youth crime 
     among white teenagers now exceeds the rate of growth in 
     serious youth crimes among black and Hispanic teenagers. Now, 
     given this reality, you might think that this bill would 
     address the problem of juvenile crime in a serious way. But I 
     would submit to you that it does not, not even symbolically.
       Let me just quickly mention the third overarching reality 
     which I think this bill ignores, and that is what I would 
     call the black crime gap. Most Americans, most people in this 
     room, are safer today than they were three or four years ago. 
     Crime rates nationally in most categories of crime have 
     dipped down, but not so for black, Hispanic, poor minority 
     inner-city Americans.
       In 1992, which is the last year for which we have complete 
     data, the violent crime victimization rate for blacks was the 
     highest ever recorded. You have lots of opinion surveys and 
     polls which show that black Americans find crime as truly the 
     number one issue in their neighborhoods, a majority of black 
     school children afraid to go to and from school, a majority 
     of black school children afraid, believe that they will be 
     shot at some point in their lives.
       Now, given this reality, you might think there'd be 
     something in this massive crime bill that would address this 
     problem. Instead, Congress spent a lot of time debating, 
     wasting time with the so-called Racial Justice Act. And 
     without getting into that, at least not getting into it now, 
     we just need to remember that the vast majority of crimes in 
     this country are intraracial. Over 80 percent of all violent 
     crime is intraracial. And we have a series of studies that, 
     at a minimum, throw into serious doubt the issue of whether, 
     in fact, there are racial disparities in sentencing even in 
     capital cases.
       Well, this bill, of course contains no racial justice 
     provision. But the logic of that provision, I think, informs 
     other provisions of the bill. It informs, I think, a 
     diagnosis in the bill of the root causes of crime, which talk 
     about things like unemployment and so on. Never mind that we 
     now have studies which suggest that that factor is not 
     important. Never mind the basic fact that most prisoners in 
     the year or two prior to incarceration held a job that paid 
     minimum wage or better. This is the diagnosis of root causes 
     in this bill.
       Well, where to go from here? To be brief, in closing, I 
     would say that--I would hope that this bill would be 
     scrapped, that Congress would come back in a new legislative 
     season and take another crack at it; in other words, go back 
     to the drawing board, but I would hope not one great big 
     drawing board with $30 plus billion worth of talk, but rather 
     a series of little drawing boards--a prison bill, a cops' 
     bill, if you must, a midnight basketball bill, a prison drug 
     treatment bill. And let's debate the merits and let's have 
     our legislators debate the merits and vote on the merits of 
     each provision separately.
       My fonder hope, one that only an academic could bear to 
     speak in a forum such as this, is that Congress would declare 
     a moratorium on federal crime legislation. There is a 
     provision in this bill for a crime commission, a bipartisan 
     commission to study crime. I think it would be much better to 
     have a bipartisan commission that would look at the evolution 
     of the federal government's role in crime control, 
     particularly since 1968, and ask the tough questions of what, 
     in fact, has been wrought by the federal government's 
     involvement in making, administering and funding foreign 
     policy, and ask the tough question whether this bill or any 
     conceivable federal crime bill could actually do much to 
     protect the public and its purse better than they're 
     protected by existing policies.
       I'll stop there, Bill. [Applause.]
                                  ____


              [From the Wall St. Journal, August 10, 1994]

                Review and Outlook--Clinton Republicans

       President Clinton and his Democrats are down in the polls, 
     but that doesn't mean Americans are clamoring to elect 
     Republicans. Maybe that's becasue they dislike the kind of 
     political backflip that House Republicans are about to do to 
     save what is being advertised as a ``crime'' bill.
       This $33 billion monstrosity has been bogged down in the 
     House by rank-in-file Members of both parties who object to 
     one or another provision. Republicans claim to oppose 
     needless spending and phony anticrime measures, both of which 
     have come to dominate this bill. But instead of uniting to 
     let the bill die of its own absurd weight, as many as 10 or 
     20 Republicans are rushing to give Speaker Foley and the 
     Democratic leadership a political victory. Does anyone still 
     wonder why House Republicans haven't won a majority since 
     Stalin ruled the Soviet Union?
       ``How can you vote this down?'' asks New Jersey's Marge 
     Roukema, thus demonstrating the solid principles behind her 
     bailout. New Yorker Sherwood Boehlert admits he wants to 
     throw some money around to the cities. And Connecticut's 
     Christopher Shays, who calls himself a Congressional 
     reformer, somehow doesn't object to one of the biggest 
     federal spending boondoggles in 20 years.
       These and other me-too Republicans are falling for the line 
     that because Americans are concerned about crime they'll 
     swallow any bill with that label. Democratic leaders believe 
     this, which is why they've changed what started as a crime 
     bill into what now looks more like last year's failed fiscal 
     ``stimulus'' proposal.
       There's $1.8 billion for something called the Local 
     Partnership Act, which was originally sponsored by Detroit 
     Democrat John Conyers. Congress merely asserts that this big-
     city payoff for education, ``jobs'' and just about anything 
     else will somehow also fight crime. There's $40 million for 
     ``midnight sports,'' an idea that makes some sense when it 
     springs naturally from volunteers in a community. But this 
     federal giveaway will now politicize each sports league--for 
     example, by requiring that a community that wants funds for 
     such sports have a high incidence of HIV infection. We could 
     go on and on--to the tune of some $10 billion.
       Yet even Ohio Republican John Kasich, ostensible scourge of 
     pork, says he'll vote for this mess on the House floor. ``We 
     need to spend money in urban areas. There is some money in 
     the bill I don't like,'' Mr. Kasich told us. ``But people 
     want something done'' about crime.
       Indeed they do, which is why John DiIulio and a growing 
     number of principled Members of both parties now oppose this 
     bill. Readers of this page know Mr. DiIulio, of Princeton 
     University and the Brookings Institution, as one of the 
     country's more hard-headed students of crime. He's also a 
     Democrat who supported the crime bill as it emerged from the 
     Senate last year but now says it ``ought to be scrapped.'' 
     The bill ``will do nothing to reduce the country's crime 
     problem,'' he told the Project for the Republican Future this 
     week. ``It may actually add to it.''
       While Mr. Clinton claims the bill would put 100,000 more 
     cops on the street, Mr. DiIulio says, it actually pays for 
     only 20,000. Figure in the requisite pork-barrel distribution 
     to hundreds of cities, and each city will get about ten more 
     cops. So much for saturation policing for high-crime areas.
       The bill weakens the ``three strikes and you're out'' 
     provision so that it will cover only some 300 to 400 (out of 
     thousands of) violent federal criminals a year. It also 
     includes a loophole that guts its juvenile justice 
     provisions, ``at a time when we have a youth crime problem 
     that is off the charts,'' Mr. DiIulio says. And, maybe worst 
     of all, the bill adds to the problem of ``revolving door 
     justice'' that the public so dislikes. It does this by 
     allowing certain drug defendants to go back to court for a 
     virtual retrial that would let them evade mandatory 
     sentences.
       Americans are cynical about politics because they think 
     politicians tell them one thing and do another. This crime 
     bill will only increase that cynicism once voters understand 
     that it has more to do with reelecting incumbents than it 
     does with crime. As the party in power, Democrats who want 
     something to run on in November are eager to pass it. Mr. 
     Clinton, desperate for any ``success,'' has climbed on for 
     the ride.
       But we can't begin to understand why Republicans would want 
     to make this a bipartisan boondoggle. ``It's clearly not a 
     perfect bill,'' admits Mr. Kasich, who vows to fix it in 
     future years when there are more Republicans in the House. 
     But why should voters elect more Republicans if they're not 
     willing to resist a bad bill in the first place?

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the rule.
  The Clinton crime bill should not be enacted in its current form. 
Instead, it should be incarcerated for mugging the American taxpayer 
and for murdering the truth so many times that it qualifies as a serial 
killer.
  This legislation is larded and laced with billions of dollars in 
misplaced social spending. In fact, there is more money for social 
programs than for prison construction.
  Over $9 billion is included for vague social spending to finance such 
stringent anticrime measures as arts and crafts, self-esteem 
enhancement, dance, and midnight basketball. All this on the theory 
that the person who stole your car, robbed your house, and assaulted 
your family was no more than a disgruntled artist or would-be NBA star.
  Even worse than the money this bill throws away, is the opportunity 
it discards to do something serious about crime.
  Crime is America's primary concern. This bill makes clear it is not 
the administration's. I urge a defeat of the rule so we can send this 
bill back to conference with the message America is sending: Be tougher 
on criminals than they are on us.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, last year all six women who were murdered 
in the State of Vermont were killed by their spouses and partners and 
hundreds more were battered. Domestic violence exists in epidemic 
proportions throughout this country. This legislation provides $8 
million for my small State of Vermont to combat violence against women 
and $1.8 billion nationally. This is money that is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, let us stand up for battered women, stand up for social 
justice, and while this is a far from perfect bill, it is a major step 
forward. Let us support the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was give permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and point 
out that the top law enforcement officer in this country, the Director 
of the FBI, has serious concerns about this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of reasons to oppose the conference 
report on the so-called Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, but allow me 
to enumerate just a few of the most important ones:
  (1) In terms of the dollars we can realistically expect to be 
appropriated, there is more social spending than law enforcement 
spending in the bill--over $9 billion worth;
  (2) The dollars that will be spent under the bill will go 
disproportionately to the handful of big-city mayors, at the expense of 
rural districts such as mine;
  (3) The bill lacks exclusionary rule reform;
  (4) The bill lacks mandatory victims restitution;
  (5) The bill lacks real habeas corpus reform;
  (6) The dollars authorized for prison construction are not fully 
funded;
  (7) The bill's provision for training new F.B.I. and D.E.A. agents 
are utterly inadequate; and
  (8) The bill's provisions on ``three strikes and you're out'' and 
truth-in-sentencing were weakened in conference to the point of 
meaninglessness.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't tough on criminals. It is only tough on 
taxpayers.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, 6-year-old Amanda Wengert of 
Manalapan Township, NJ, was kidnapped from her home and brutally killed 
by her next door neighbor who no one in the neighborhood knew had twice 
been convicted of sexually assaulting children in the past.
  Just 2 weeks ago, 7-year-old Megan Kanka of Hamilton Square, NJ, was 
invited to visit her neighbors--who lived right across the street from 
her. One of them had a new puppy he wanted to show her, he said.
  She was raped and brutally murdered. Her parents didn't know that 
this man had twice been convicted of similar crimes or that he was 
living with two other men who were also convicted sex offenders.
  I believe that Amanda and Megan would be alive today if their parents 
knew that predators lived in their neighborhood.
  We in this House and the Members of the Senate have voted 
overwhelmingly in favor of effective community notification legislation 
that would have accomplished this very simple objective. But, when the 
legislation came to the conference committee, a small number of 
conferees arrogated to themselves the right to water down and strip 
this legislation of its original content. Now the section that was 
originally captioned ``Community Notification'' is captioned instead 
``Privacy of Data.''
  That means that the rights of predators are being put above the 
rights of their potential victims. Vote to kill this rule and let's 
open up this legislation so we can protect young lives in the future.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Members who represent suburban districts have 
greater reason than ever to vote for this rule. Suburban communities 
like mine work together through regional task forces to target crimes 
that often cross municipal lines. The crime bill now contains language 
that I proposed so that the cops-on-the-beat provision can be used to 
support regional task forces in the fight against drugs, auto theft, 
violent criminals, and youthful offenders.
  Support our suburban police in their fight against crime. Vote for 
the rule and the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER asked and was give permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this rule allowing consideration of 
the crime bill because the billions of dollars of new, unjustified, and 
unfunded social spending in this bill outweighs its benefits.
  The proposed trust fund would effectively divert funds intended for 
deficit reduction toward new spending and would prevent increased 
support for existing and underfunded worthy programs such as Head 
Start, biomedical research, impact aid, and special education.
  In order to meet the bills' goal of hiring 100,000 new police 
officers, State and local governments would be expected to spend as 
much as $33 billion in matching funds, which is, in effect, yet another 
unfunded mandate.
  This decision is a difficult one for me because the legislation 
contains many provisions I favor including the ban on assault weapons 
which I voted for and watched for earlier this year. I have strongly 
supported reasonable gun control measures, but if the price of enacting 
this is to support a vast expansion of costly and unnecessary 
Government programs, then my vote must be no.
  If this bill is sent back to conference, I will vigorously oppose 
efforts to remove the assault weapons ban. The majority party conferees 
will then have to decide which is more important to them--an assault 
weapons ban or billions for new social programs.
  My first and highest priority has always been to restrain Government 
spending and growth and get deficits under control. It is unfortunate 
that this bill goes in the exact opposite direction. I am opposed to 
taking all the savings that were to be derived from downsizing the 
Government and plowing them right back into 30 new social programs, 
most of which have never been debated in Congress and all of which 
duplicate existing efforts.
  The Senate's original $5.9 billion bill has snowballed into a $33.3 
billion bill that is attempted to be justified by the creation of a so-
called crime trust fund funded by planned reductions in the Federal 
work force.
  But savings from Federal work force reductions will not be sufficient 
to fund this trust. Any savings from downsizing have already been 
spent, in effect, to reduce spending to accommodate the freeze Congress 
imposed on the appropriations this year.
  This trust fund for crime programs will, however, reduce the caps on 
all other discretionary spending. Every category of Federal spending 
will have to decrease to allow for the trust fund. This means an added 
strain on already underfunded existing, worthy programs such as Head 
Start, impact aid, special education, and biomedical research.

  And yet, the trust fund will not do what it claims to do--to ensure 
that the crime programs will be funded. Appropriators will still have 
to approve spending through the annual appropriations bills. The trust 
fund is simply an accounting device that maintains that if 
appropriators do not fully fund the programs authorized in this bill, 
they may not use the funding to supplement other priorities.
  In addition, the trust fund claims to pay only for $30.2 billion of 
the crime bill. But the bill also authorizes about $3 billion in 
spending, most of which would be used for prison construction grants, 
that does not fall under the trust fund. There is not even an attempt 
to account for this $3 billion of additional Federal spending.
  The bill also authorizes at least $8.7 billion in new social 
spending, while, according to the Government Accounting Office, there 
are already seven Federal departments sponsoring 266 prevention 
programs to serve delinquent or at-risk youth. The GAO found a 
``massive Federal effort on behalf of troubled youth'' which already 
costs over $3 billion a year. The crime bill creates 30 new social 
programs which will duplicate at least 50 existing federally funded 
programs. We simply cannot tolerate nor afford this kind of 
irresponsible spending.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill is a disgrace to this 
Nation, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
and the bill.
  From the information I have been able to gather, I believe there are 
some serious flaws in this bill. First and foremost, we simply cannot 
afford this bill. With our budget deficit at $220 billion and national 
debt at $4.6 trillion we cannot afford a $33.2 billion bill which 
includes over $8 billion of spending on social welfare programs such as 
midnight basketball and afterschool arts and crafts. I am aware of a 
few questionable projects and would be willing to bet there are a few 
more tucked into this 1,000 page bill. Unfortunately, I cannot identify 
these for you specifically because as of this morning, I could not 
obtain a copy of the conference report.
  This bill is to be funded through the violent crime reduction trust 
fund. While this might sound good, this trust fund is based on 
anticipated savings. We are anticipating that the Federal Government 
will save $30.2 billion from the Federal Workforce Reduction Act. This 
savings estimate is questionable given the fact that we have begun to 
exempt Government agencies from the Federal Workforce Reduction Act. 
This bill has a $33.2 billion price tag. We are going on the assumption 
that the trust fund will provide $30.2 billion. According to my math, 
at a minimum that still leaves $3 billion we need to come up with. 
Beyond that, however, what happens if these anticipated savings are not 
realized? Where will the money come from?
  We need to remember that 96 percent of crimes are State offenses, 
only 4 percent are Federal. What I have been hearing from the law 
enforcement folks back in the 17th District is that they appreciate us 
addressing the issue of crime, but that the package before us today 
does not include the right mix of crime prevention programs they need 
at the State and local level.
  Furthermore, the programs funded in the crime bill, including the 
100,000 additional police officers, will only be funded for six years. 
After that, the financial burden will be on State and local officials. 
If we pass this bill, we will be creating more unfunded programs that 
our State and local folks don't want.
  Today, there are about 4.5 million persons under correctional 
supervision in this county. Roughly 3.5 million of them are not 
incarcerated. They are under the supervision of probation and parole 
officers who are handling hundreds of cases and really can't provide 
effective supervision. Over one-third of all violent crime arrestees 
are ostensibly in criminal custody at the time of the offense. If that 
is not revolving-door justice, I don't know what is. It is no wonder 
that many Americans have lost confidence in the ability of the justice 
system to arrest and punish violent and repeat criminals.
  What is truly amazing is that not only does the crime bill we are 
considering today not address revolving-door justice, it actually 
greases the revolving door.
  For example, the safety valve provision would give Federal judges the 
discretion to waive mandatory minimum penalties for first-time 
nonviolent drug offenders. This provision allows a judge to apply these 
provisions retroactively. Essentially, this means certain categories of 
convicted drug defendants would be invited back to court and given a 
retrial under retroactive law. About 5,000 prisoners would be eligible 
immediately to get sentence reductions of as much as half of their 
sentences. In addition, the language of this provision is quite elastic 
and it could end up applying to all of the 16,000 so-called low-level 
drug offenders in the Federal prison system. This is a perfect example 
of how this crime bill does not address crime from the right direction.
  Finally, I cannot support the assault weapon ban. There are 19 
specific weapons identified in the ban, but the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms has already identified over 150 weapons they will 
add to the list of prohibited guns if the ban is passed. Opening the 
door further to this sort of government by unelected bureaucrat 
shatters my confidence that the second constitutional amendment 
actually will be protected in the future.
  This bill spends too much money and proposes to fund too many 
questionable programs. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the rule 
and H.R. 3355.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
consideration of the crime bill conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to a provision of 
the crime bill conference report. In an attempt to insure that violent 
offenders serve longer terms, the bill allows nonviolent drug offenders 
to be released early so that other prisoners can be jailed.
  I agree that violent offenders should be put in jail. But I also 
believe that drug offenders should be put in jail. By letting drug 
offenders go, we are sending two bad messages to the American public, 
and to our young people in particular.
  First, by giving drug offenders special treatment we are saying that 
drug offenses are not as harmful to society as white collar crimes. And 
I ask you, who is worse, the white collar criminal or the guy who sells 
drugs to our schoolchildren? We must not cater to drug offenders. If we 
are to have early releases, what about elderly, nonviolent, non-drug-
related prisoners who have served a good portion of their sentences and 
are not likely to be repeaters?
  Second, we are saying that doing drugs in general is bad--until we 
need more prison space, and then it is not so bad. But it is wrong to 
do drugs. Drugs are harmful. Drugs are dangerous. Drugs destroy the 
minds of our young people. No matter how crowded our prisons are, drugs 
are wrong.
  We need to prevent people from doing drugs. And if we can't, we need 
to punish drug offenders. We do not need to release drug offenders, and 
we do not need to give them preferential treatment. By reducing 
mandatory minimum penalties for non-violent drug offenders we are not 
only sending criminals back onto the streets, we are sending the wrong 
message about drug usage and the severity of it.
  I know that Mr. Brooks and the other members of the conference 
committee have worked long and hard to craft a good bill. But this 
provision, among others, needs to be deleted or refined so that we can 
vote on a bill that really gets tough on crime--all types of crime, 
illegal drug usage included.
  With this in mind, I rise to oppose the rule allowing consideration 
of the crime bill conference report. I urge a vote against the rule so 
that we can send the bill back to conference.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say I commend the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for the work that he has done on this crime 
legislation. But I feel that I have to vote against the rule, and if 
the rule passes I am going to have to vote against the bill for various 
reasons.
  I want to make it clear in here, in listening to both sides, it 
appears that maybe somebody on this side is not for fighting crime and 
some people on that side are really not for fighting crime. I do not 
know anyone in this House that is not for fighting crime. We have a 
disagreement as to how we should fight that crime.
  I think it misleads the Members of the house also to say if this rule 
goes down they will never see a crime bill. Wait a minute, folks. We 
are going to be here to the middle of October or later. We have plenty 
of time to work up a crime bill that all of us could support. All of us 
want to support a crime bill. There is not any Member here that does 
not want to support a crime bill.
  For that reason, I am going to vote against the rule, and hopefully, 
with my friend from Texas and others, we can have a crime bill that we 
can all support.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague who just spoke before me. 
There are Members in this House who do not want the President to have a 
crime bill, and I have never seen such arm twisting on that side of the 
aisle to deny him that agenda. That is what it is all about, folks.
  I have listened to the description about the sexual predators. Let me 
say, my friends, read it, read it. It is broader than when it left the 
House, and it is smarter than when it left the House. The Senate 
version which some brag on was a very narrow definition of a sexual 
predator dealing with those with mental abnormalities, and it required 
a court adjudication. In this time bill we have registry for sexual 
offenders against children, and in addition to that notification by the 
chief law enforcement officer, and Members should read that. It is just 
nonsense.
  What this is all about is not about a procedural vote. A vote against 
the rule is a vote against the crime bill. We are not going to fool the 
American public. It is a vote against the crime bill. They are trying 
to kill the crime bill.
  It is about guns among colleagues on this side and that side, and an 
agenda on this side that does not include a crime bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to unmask an injustice that is about to be thrust 
upon the American people. The so-called crime bill we are debating 
today picks the pockets of taxpayers, while befriending criminals who 
should be locked up behind bars. I truly want an anti-crime 
initiative--we need one desperately--but this is not the right way to 
go about it because many of these provisions just don't make sense.
  The onerous gun ban is a perfect example. We all should know by now 
that guns don't kill people--people kill people. If you truly want to 
get at those who use guns to commit crimes--which I think we all want 
to do--then we should impose stiff penalties on gun-related crimes. But 
no, the liberals who crafted this weak legislation want to go about it 
in a cosmetic way by including a gun ban that disarms law-abiding 
citizens.
  Let me make myself clear, a criminal intent on committing a crime 
doesn't care if Washington says you can't buy a particular type of 
weapon or you'll have to wait 5 days to do so. He or she will utilize 
their underworld sources to get their hands on those weapons, go out 
and commit a crime. Stiffer penalties, at least, will take these hoods 
and thugs off the streets and put them behind bars so they can't do it 
again.
  I also want to register my opposition to the very questionable social 
spending contained in this measure. As we have already heard here 
today, $9 billion of the $33 billion package is earmarked for new 
social programs, such as community arts and crafts, midnight basketball 
leagues, job training, and addiction rehabilitation. These ideas in 
social experimentation are not without merit in theory; the question 
is, however, how much can the taxpayer afford to fund?
  Further, these programs have little or nothing to do with fighting 
crime and a lot more to do with the President winning favor with big 
city mayors and the liberals in this Congress. Speaking for my 
constituents in southern Missouri, little of this money, if any, is 
headed for the streets of Caruthersville, Sikeston, West Plains, Rolla, 
Cape Girardeau, Park Hills, Poplar Bluff, or any other small, rural 
community--it is wired for Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.
  Finally, I'm concerned about the $8.8 billion being spent over the 
next 6 years to supposedly add 100,000 cops on the beat. I would 
support this if it were true, but even this is short of its goal. In 
reality, this money will only equal a little more than 20,000 new 
officers--one-fifth of what the President and liberals have claimed. 
Imagine that, another broken promise. Further disconcerting, when this 
funding runs out, States and local communities will be strapped with 
paying the salaries and pensions of these new crime fighters that the 
feds have given them.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of wastefully spending the taxpayers hard-earned 
dollars, let's take off the masks and see this so-called crime bill for 
what it really is--a Christmas tree full of social spending ornaments 
and short-sighted promises. The American people deserve legislation 
that's tough on crime, rather than a political payoff that's friendly 
to felons. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule; send it 
back to the conference committee; and, take another shot at achieving a 
true anti-crime initiative.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to give Members an idea of how bad this 
bill is. My office received a call from a social worker in my district 
whose programs stand to gain financially from the vast spending in this 
bill. That person called to complain about the $33 billion price tag, 
the lack of enforcement provisions, and the perverse priorities and 
incentives in this bill.
  This is the true voice of the people. This bill barely mentions 
victims, but it lavishes billions on criminals.
  Let me explain. For 30 years in this country we have been funding 
social programs aimed at criminal problems. We have spent $5 trillion 
in 30 years doing that, and the crime rate has gone up 500 percent. It 
does not work that way, and the American people want us to get tough. 
They want tough penalties, they want prisons, and they want good 
enforcement out there.
  There is another problem with this bill. No Member has talked about 
the cost. It is a $25 billion budget buster. We have $22 billion in 
here, and that does not get us to what we are going to spend on this 
thing including the out-years, and I have added in $13 billion in there 
for the out-years so we do not create any myths.
  If there is one question the American people should ask their 
representatives about this bill it is going to be: Have you read it? 
Have you read this bill? Have you read every word of it? Have you read 
the conference report?
  I daresay there are very few Members here who could answer any of 
those questions in the affirmative.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Klein].
  (Mr. KLEIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule on 
the conference report on H.R. 3355 and on the bill.
  Violent crime is the scourge of this Nation. More than anything else, 
Americans want us to take decisive action to fight crime. We must stop 
looking at criminals as victims and recognize that we, the law-abiding 
citizens, are the victims. Today we stand on the threshold of passing 
the strongest, toughest crime bill in our history.
  But special interests would hold this crime bill hostage in a 
desperate attempt to kill a ban on military-style assault weapons that 
are the weapons of choice of drug dealers and criminals. We must not 
bow to special interests. We cannot let children die on the streets to 
appease the NRA.
  We have an opportunity to put 100,000 more cops on the streets, to 
build more prisons for dangerous criminals to curb the flow of drugs 
into the country and, yes, to ban these assault weapons. Let us stop 
the rhetoric on crime. Let us do something about it.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only in support of this 
rule, but in support of taking a stand. After months of consideration 
and countless hours of debate, we have arrived at the precipice. We can 
take the easy way out, defeat the rule and back away from our 
responsibility. Or we can show some courage. Exhibit some leadership. 
Pass the rule and bring this crime bill to a vote.
  Consider those who live in fear, and whose lives this crime bill will 
greatly improve. Think of this when you vote on this rule, and consider 
the words of Andrew Jackson: ``One man or woman with courage makes a 
majority.''
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] our conference chairman.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Richardson] characterized this as the vote of the year. It may or 
may not be that, but it is a serious moment. This is a serious 
business.
  I do not have to recite the crime statistics. I do not have to tell 
personal antidotes about youngsters harmed, maimed and killed. We know 
we have a crisis in America, and we know that America expects us to 
act.
  We know that we are late in getting a crime bill to this floor, and 
we know that the reason we are late in doing so is that you wrote a 
crime bill that you cannot sell to your Members. We know that, and I am 
sorry for that. We should have acted before now.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] says if we do not do 
it today it will not get done. Can it be on one hand the most important 
thing we have to do, and then on the other hand something we will not 
have time to do if we cannot do it your way?
  I am told now that we Republicans are going to cast our most 
important vote of the year to deny the President a victory? Let me say, 
my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle, the President's political 
fortunes are just not that important to us. We will cast our vote here 
as a matter of conscience. We are not going to cast our vote here out 
of fear, and we will not be railroaded by buzzword blackmail into 
voting for a bill that spends $33 billion of the taxpayers' money doing 
too much of the wrong things and too little of the right things 
necessary to make our children safe in our own neighborhoods.
  It is not a matter of our concern about your political future or that 
of the President. It is not a matter of our concern about our political 
future. It is a matter of our concern about whether or not we keep the 
trust and the faith and the commitment that the American people have 
given us to come to this floor, timely, which you failed to do, with 
good legislation, which you failed to create, in order to keep our 
children safe. Our children do not need midnight basketball, our 
children do not need more arts and crafts, our children do not need 
more sensitivity training. Our children need law enforcement, good 
jurisdiction, imprisonment for criminals and safety on their streets.
  I say vote no on this and bring back a decent bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, a vote against this 
rule is a vote against the crime bill.
  My wife, Beth, and I share the fears of parents everywhere in this 
country raising our three kids in an increasingly violent world. We 
used to assume a loud bang on the street was a car backfire. Now we 
wonder if it was a gunshot. We read about school kids with guns instead 
of books in their backpacks.
  This bill is not perfect, but if we wait for perfection we will lose 
our battle against crime, a fight too important to lose to partisan 
politics or pride of authorship or fear of the gun lobby.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Wheat].
  (Mr. WHEAT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
strongest anticrime legislation in our Nation's history.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last year I have traveled to Missouri 
communities, large and small, listening to police, prosecutors, and 
countless ordinary citizens who live with fear of crime every day. They 
all give me the same message: ``Help us win the war against crime.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, if this rule loses, there will be no 
winners. If this rule loses, 100,000 cops will be lost. Crime 
prevention funds will be lost. Thousands of prison cells are lost. 
Tougher sentencing provisions are lost. The hopes of millions living in 
fear of crime every day are lost.
  Let us pass this conference report. It is not a small step. It is a 
giant leap in the fight against crime and drugs. If you want to be 
tough on crime, prove it today. Support this rule. Support this 
legislation.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Be honest, my colleagues. Should any Member of Congress 
or his family be victimized by crime, he would call the police, not a 
lobbyist from the National Rifle Association.
  Shame on those Members of Congress who would ask our police to risk 
their lives to protect us and then turn their backs on these same 
police who beg us to pass this crime bill.
  Most of my Republican colleagues are determined to gridlock Congress 
on this crime bill. They believe killing this bill or any crime bill 
will elect more Republicans. I think the American voters can see 
through this political charade.
  The people I represent are more interested in a victory over violent 
crime than any political victory.
  Listen to our police. Listen to America. Vote yes on the rule and on 
the crime bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on May 5 in an extraordinary effective 
bipartisan show of support for the banning of assault weapons, this 
House by a small margin did something that nobody believed we could do. 
We all understand, everyone in this Chamber knows, we are revoting that 
vote today.
  There were 38 Republicans who stood courageously against the Gun 
Owners of America, stood up against the opposition of the NRA and told 
their constituents they were with them on this overwhelmingly popular 
position, the banning of assault weapons. But today something is 
different. Apparently all of those courageous Members have changed 
their votes.
  There is intimidation, yes, pressure, yes. Where is it coming from? I 
can tell you that the National Committee of the Republican Party has 
before it a resolution which takes those 38 people to task, says they 
should be deprived of their funding for reelection, says they should 
have ``real Republicans'' standing up to defeat them when they go for 
reelection.
  This is part and parcel of why this vote today is in doubt. We are 
not here debating the question of assault weapons honestly. What we are 
facing up to is intimidation and pressure from the political 
leadership.
  I am asking those 38 Republicans who have the courage to stand up and 
say they are for the police in their communities and for the people who 
believe we should have an assault ban to stand up to the RNC, to stand 
up to their leadership, and ratify their real beliefs.
  I am submitting the RNC resolution for the record so that the entire 
House will understand the kind of intimidation and strong-armed tactics 
the Republican leadership is employing:

                Republican National Committee Resolution


                       resolution of condemnation

       Whereas, The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the 
     United States Constitution supports the right of the 
     individual American citizen to keep and bear arms; and
       Whereas, Our forefathers, having just completed a war with 
     a despotic government, provide in the U.S. Constitution for 
     the right of individual American citizens to keep and bear 
     arms to ensure that dictatorial governments would nevermore 
     tyrannize American citizens, by guaranteeing such citizens 
     the means, arms, to overthrow such a government, if 
     necessary; and
       Whereas, The Constitutions of the vast majority of the 
     individual States also support the right of the individual 
     American citizen to keep and bear arms; and
       Whereas, The Platform of the Republican Party supports the 
     right of the individual American citizen to keep and bear 
     arms; and
       Whereas, The Republican Party has its foundation and roots 
     in the individual, in the rights of the individual, and in 
     the belief that individual rights take precedence over, 
     above, and ahead of Government; and
       Whereas, A betrayal of the most basic foundation, roots, 
     and primacy of the philosophy of the Republican Party is a 
     negation and denial of all Republican philosophy, and 
     therefore a denial and rejection of one's own Republicanism; 
     and
       Whereas, That basic foundation was put to a test on May 5, 
     1994, when the U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 
     4296, a bill banning certain described and vaguely defined 
     types of firearms, and that bill passed by a vote of 216 to 
     214, with 38 Republicans voting for that bill; and
       Whereas, The Republican Party is a ``big tent'' that 
     encompasses all races, ages, handicaps, and differing 
     perspectives on many issues, but not on the fundamental issue 
     of the rights of the individual; Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the Republican National Committee condemns 
     those 38 Congressmen for voting in derogation of the 
     individual American citizen's right to keep and bear arms; 
     and be it further
       Resolved, That the Republican National Committee shall, 
     hereafter, deny all Republican Party funding to any and all 
     of those 38 Congressmen should they seek reelection; and be 
     it further
       Resolved, That the Republican National Committee shall seek 
     alternative, real Republican candidates for the seats of 
     those Congressmen.
       The 38 Congressmen are: Bateman, VA; Bereuter, NE; Blute, 
     MA; Boehlert, NY; Castle, DE; Fawell, IL; Franks NJ; 
     Gilchrist, MD; Greenwood, PA; Horn, CA; Houghton, NY; 
     Huffington, CA; Hyde, IL; Johnson, CT; Kasich, OH, King, NY; 
     Klug, WI, Lazio, NY; Leach, IA; Levy, NY; Machtley, RI; 
     McDade, PA; Meyers, KS; Michel, IL; Miller, FL; Molinari, NY; 
     Morella, MD; Porter, IL; Pryce, OH; Quinn, NY; Ridge, PA; 
     Ros-Lehtinen, FL; Roukema, NJ; Saxton, NJ; Shaw, FL; Shays, 
     CT; Smith, NJ; and Young, FL.
     Lane Rees,
                              Chairman Republican Party of Alaska.
     Wayne Anthony Ross,
                         Republican National Committeeman, Alaska.
     Edna Devries,
                       Republican National Committeewoman, Alaska.

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I say that it is very difficult for me to 
believe that for the past 10 days the question that has held up the 
crime bill is not whether you are for or against the crime bill but 
whether you want the House to vote on it. Well, if your dream is 
becoming part of a filibuster one day, run for the Senate, but do not 
delude yourself into thinking that the American public is in any way 
impressed. No procedural vote is not about whether to gut this 2 years 
of work on some procedural ploy. It is about throwing away almost 4 
years of work, as the American people continue to live in constant fear 
in their workplace, and in their neighborhoods, in their homes.
  Now, I will tell you that in the last Congress there were great 
expectations about passing a crime bill. The House did not succumb to 
partisanship. We passed a crime bill October 22, 1991. The Senate did 
likewise a month later, on November 24, 1991.
  The conference met, returned, the House approved the conference 
report on November 27, 1991, 4 days later. When that conference went to 
the Senate, a group of obstructionist Republicans, I will tell you that 
is right, distraught that Democrats could actually write a tough, good 
crime bill, they bottled the bill up for 11 months. Congress wagged its 
tail and adjourned.
  Now the Republicans, our friends, are working day and night all in 
the service of a campaign to not have a crime bill for the fourth year.
  We are not perfect people. I am not. I do not think you all are. And 
I do not think the bill is, and not many of them are. Most of you are 
keenly aware of my profound disappointment at inclusion of the ill-
conceived ban on assault weapons so broadly cast as to insult the 
dignity and good name of legitimate and good, law-abiding gun owners 
across the Nation. I was outvoted by the House and Senate conferees in 
attempting to strip this punitive vendetta.
  But to this day, I say plainly that the assault-ban provision should 
never have been included, and I will be back sooner than some think to 
right than wrong.
  What I want to say now is I think every Member of this Congress 
should vote for the rule and let the Members of Congress decide whether 
or not to have a crime bill, whether we want to help the people in this 
country.
  In every congressional district the No. 1 issue is, What are you 
going to do, if anything, about crime?
  I ask you to vote for the rule and for the conference report and urge 
all of my colleagues to support them both.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett].
  (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the crime bill that came back from conference reminds me 
of the old movie ``The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.'' There is no 
question there are some good things in this bill. But for the most 
part--it's bad and it's ugly.
  Forty million dollars for midnight basketball. There are those in 
this Congress who actually want to spend $40 million to keep teenagers 
out after midnight to play basketball. That's not going to halt crime--
that's going to increase crime. What kind of logic keeps teenagers on 
the streets until well after midnight? Midnight basketball is bad and 
it's ugly, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill gets worse. Rather than criminals receiving tougher 
punishment, this crime bill wants to teach them to dance. My 
constituents are tired of this kind of waltzing with criminals. They 
are tired of their hard-earned tax dollars supporting criminals in jail 
lifting weights and watching color television. Put criminals to work, 
Congress. That's what your constituents want--punishment not pampering.
  I will repeat again--there is some good in this bill, but most of it 
is bad and it is ugly.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule.
  Megan Kanka, the 7-year-old who was brutally killed by a sexual 
predator, Mr. Speaker, lived in my district, and the language for the 
community right to know in this bill is very, very weak, and I would 
hope that we will go back to conference and parallel what my good 
friend from Washington tried to get passed. This is very weak language.
  I rise against the rule because I believe this legislation needs to 
be sent back to a conference committee for significant overhaul. While 
this bill includes many valuable provisions for new police and prison 
space, it has been significantly watered-down by the House-Senate 
conferees in a display of arrogance toward their colleagues in both 
Houses of Congress.
  The deleterious results of the backroom wheeling and dealing of the 
crime bill conferees are plainly evident. There are several examples of 
the conferees ignoring or defying specific instructions from the House 
of Representatives.
  For example, on July 13, the House voted to instruct conferees to 
include a community notification provision, which would require local 
police departments to be informed about the presence of sex offenders 
in the community, and encourage law enforcement to disclose this 
information to the public. This language was watered down significantly 
in the conference committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old in my district was viciously 
abused and killed by a sexual predator who had been convicted twice for 
preying on young children.
  No one in the community knew the killer's sordid past, Mr. Speaker. 
Had Megan's grieving parents known that their neighbor was a dangerous 
person, they would have taken steps to protect their precious child. 
Megan's parents had a right to know that information.
  I'm disappointed to say that the language in the crime bill is weak--
far less than the proposal offered by Senator Gordon and Congresswoman 
Dunn.
  Mr. Speaker, the conferees also ignored the fact that on June 22, the 
house voted overwhelmingly to instruct conferees not to accept any 
agreement that reduced funding for new prisons below the House-approved 
level of $13.5 billion. Instead, we have a final bill that includes 
only $8.3 billion for prison construction.
  On June 29, the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to instruct 
conferees to not accept any agreement that disallows evidence of 
similar crimes to be presented in court when hearing sex offense cases.
  On July 20, the house approved a measure to instruct conferees to not 
accept any agreement that fails to include a Senate-approved measure 
that provides for mandatory prison terms for the use, possession, or 
carrying of a firearm during a State crime of violence.
  These are but a few examples of the arrogance demonstrated by the 
conferees in crafting a bill that flatly contradicts the will of the 
House and the Senate in many important areas. There are obviously 
elements in this legislation that are worthwhile, but we do not have to 
settle for half a loaf. We do not have to deliver a less-than-adequate 
bill to the American public.
  A vote against the rule is a vote to send this legislation back to 
conference where it can be fixed. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who is a 
member on the committee.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  I think it is outrageous that some have suggested on that side of the 
aisle we Republicans over here are somehow trying to defeat this bill. 
We are not. And in fact, they have got 79 more members on that side of 
the aisle than we have over there. There is no way we can beat this 
rule or the bill, either one, without a lot of Democrats to vote to do 
so as well.
  What we are concerned about is not playing politics like the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] wanted to do here. He knows good 
and well that Haley Barbour, our National Republican Committee 
chairman, had withdrawn that resolution that might have criticized our 
Members for whatever they might have voted on a gun proposal.
  He should know, as I do, the Republicans over here on our side of the 
aisle are not sending this bill back to the committee, do not want to 
send it over to the conference committee to get it worked on some more 
because of the gun issue. We want to send it back over there to be 
worked on, not to kill it, but to be worked on and brought back out 
here because we understand this is an imbalanced and imperfect bill 
that is not going to do the job. The fact of the matter is there are $8 
to $9 billion in this $30 billion-plus bill, $8 to $9 billion in new 
Great Society social welfare spending, the most in 20 years, and it is 
imbalanced because if we look at what we have got in this bill for 
prisons, which is the main thing we can do to help the States solve the 
crime problem, we can only have $6.5 billion, not the 8 whatever that 
has been put out here, half the amount passed by this House of $13 
billion, and not nearly enough to do the job we heard from the Bureau 
of Prisons is required.
  They said they need at least $10.5 billion to $12 billion in grant 
money to the States to build new prisons if we are going to give them 
enough to take off the streets the 6 percent of those criminals who are 
committing 70 percent of the violent crimes of this country and only 
serving about a third of their sentences, and make them serve 85 
percent of their sentences if they are repeat violent offenders.

                              {time}  1640

  That is, put truth-in-sentencing into the law. It is going to take 
that kind of money.
  We should not be spending social welfare money out here like this. We 
should not be increasing programs for the midnight basketball, teaching 
of dance lessons and the artistic classes and all of that kind of 
nonsense, to get at root causes of crime.
  We should be putting the money where it needs to be put, where the 
bureau of prisons and others have said it is required if we are going 
to actually solve the problems that the American public wants. We need 
to put certainty and swiftness and punishment back into the system 
again. We need to have deterrence of criminal laws in this country, 
deterrence of crime, which is the true prevention.
  Then, if we want to get to the root causes, we need to bring out a 
welfare reform bill to change the rules of the game out here so that we 
can put incentives back in the law for families to stay together again 
instead of having the way it is now, and get moral values taught again.
  That is the real root cause of the problem. But in the meantime let 
us save the patient who has been run over by the truck and has all 
these internal injuries, who is bleeding to death over here because his 
arm has been cut off. Let us at least apply the tourniquet and stop the 
violent crime program here that is going on in our country, by getting 
the resources that are necessary to the prisons.
  All we have to do to do that is take away some of this nonsense, this 
$8 or $9 billion of this Great Society spending, take a few billion 
dollars of that in the conference committee when we send this bill back 
today, if we defeat this rule, and put it where it ought to be, on 
prisons, and put the right amount of money there and send a good tough, 
hard crime bill back here for us to vote on.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished majority 
leader [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the decision that we 
make today is between one on procedure and one about people.
  I know the heartfelt disagreement on so many points in this bill, on 
both sides of aisle. And I know those disagreements are heartfelt. But 
the question we have to ask is will we remain frozen in disagreement, 
or will we be able to act?
  A lot of people say go back to conference and we will do this, we 
will do that and we will do the other thing. Well, it has taken us a 
year and a half to get to this day.
  In 1991 it took over a year to get to a filibuster that stopped any 
crime bill from going forward.
  It is overly optimistic to think that it is easy to take out the part 
that I do not like or the part you do not like or revise this or that 
to get back to something that we like.
  Just for a moment before you cast this vote, take out of your mind 
the things in the bill that you do not like and keep in mind the four 
children in my town of St. Louis whose mother was shot and killed on 
her own porch last week in a senseless, meaningless killing. Think 
about the two teenagers in San Marino, CA, gunned down by gang members 
in a high school. Think about the young woman here in Washington who 
was slain in a drug-related shooting, when she was 7 months pregnant 
with her own child. Think of the third-grader in Chicago who was asked 
by her teacher to share her feelings about violence, and shared the 
story of her young cousin shot in the head by another boy playing with 
a gun. Think of the two elderly women in St. Louis, 87 and 76, who were 
raped at gunpoint.
  That is what this bill is about. Do not think about each little 
provision that you may not like, think about the people who count on us 
today to come to their aid with something, not to be frozen out in our 
disagreement but to find an agreement.
  And, finally, think about the young girl written about here in the 
Washington Post, who thinks not about her cares and concerns but 
because she has lived with so much death, so much pain, so much 
tragedy, that she dreams not of her prom dress but of her funeral 
dress.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, are we going to respond to her? Or 
are we going to act?
  Think about her, vote for this rule. Let us make this country safe 
again.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield the 
balance of our time, 4 minutes, to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to 
the rule and compliment the distinguished majority leader for the plea 
he has made on the other side of this issue.
  Let me also take the opportunity to applaud those of you on both 
sides of the aisle who have so eloquently and forcefully pointed out 
the deficiencies in the conference report that this rule makes in 
order. Somewhere buried deep within the layers upon layers of big 
dollar items in this crime bill is a workable, useful policy of 
prevention, education, and punishment. But the rule does not allow us 
to strip away the many expensive and unnecessary parts that now deform 
the bill.
  What we have instead is the unholy political trinity of pork, 
posturing, and partisanship.
  At one point we did have a tough crime bill, one that focused on 
taking repeat offenders off the street, one that built more prisons, 
one that imposed tough sentences. That tough bill is not the one before 
us tonight.
  I have put out an all-points bulletin, but I am afraid it has met its 
demise.
  Our constituents have pleaded with us to alleviate their fear, make 
their schools and streets safe again. After anteing up better than $30 
billion in this bill, much of it unfunded, we are not going to be 
answering their plea.
  This bill could have been, it should have been a lean, mean, crime-
fighting machine. But there are too many election year goodies, 
trinkets, and gift-wrapped spending programs piled on it. And now it 
looks like Santa Claus wearing a sheriff's badge.
  This is not a battle between detention and prevention. We need both.
  The question before us is one of high public policy: What kind of 
Federal legislation best helps our society uphold the rule of law? This 
is a time of rising crime rates and rising public demands for action, 
but it is also a time of budget deficits, a time when every tax dollar 
must be spent wisely. That is why we ought to defeat this rule.
  The rule does not allow us to say what is best and get rid of what is 
worst in the bill as it now stands. My colleagues, I believe we can 
craft a sensible bill that combines all the elements of detention and 
prevention. But if the rule passes, we will be asked to vote on a bill 
that would direct too many tax dollars into areas that may be 
politically useful for some of our Members but have little to do with 
fighting crime. In my opinion, we cannot afford such waste. Our 
constituents, who want safe streets and safe schools, cannot afford it.
  Maybe one final word, particularly on my side of the aisle: This is a 
procedural vote.

                              {time}  1650

  It is a rule. How many times have we been had on our side of the 
aisle by the rules of this House?
  This is a procedural vote, and it means whether or not we can make an 
impact and a difference on cleaning up a bad bill.
  That is what it is all about, and my colleagues ought to take 
advantage of that opportunity. Do not let it slip through our fingers 
when it is right at hand.
  Mr. Speaker, that is my message to my colleagues tonight.
  With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico, who 
said vote down the rule and the bill is killed. I will take a different 
view with respect to our President because our President made a strong, 
impassioned appeal for a strong crime bill, and I respect that.
  We want to do the same. We have our differences of opinion on both 
sides of the aisle and within our parties on how best to do it; that is 
what it is all about, and it is on the margin of whether or not we are 
going to get one more opportunity to clean it up the way it ought to be 
cleaned up or let it go by as it is.
  I would plead with Members. Vote down this rule. Get us that one 
other opportunity.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
rule on the crime bill conference report, H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act.
  For me, today's vote on the rule is not a statement in favor or in 
opposition to the crime bill conference report. Rather, it is about 
whether it is fair for the majority to apply a restrictive and 
repressive procedure that purposefully obviates the voice of a 
majority. In this case, the staff and a few members got together behind 
closed doors and added provisions to the bill that neither the House 
nor the Senate agreed to. That is how a bill passed by the Senate at 
$22 billion and the House at $28 billion became a $33 billion 
conference report. The minority was only give a few hours to review a 
972-page bill, although the conference was reported almost 2 weeks ago. 
This type of procedure undermines the democratic process.
  While I will not vote for the rule, I strongly believe this Congress 
must pass a crime bill that is truly effective against crime and is 
paid for in its entirety. This conference report had at least $3 
billion in programs that were not paid for. Long Islanders sent me to 
Congress to fight this kind of irresponsible deficit spending, not to 
be a party to it.
  Hoping that it could be improved in conference, I supported H.R. 3355 
when it passed the House in April because it contained features similar 
to the alternative Republican crime bill, H.R. 2872, the Crime Control 
Act of 1993, of which I am an original cosponsor. H.R. 2872 calls for 
strong measures to combat the crime rate in our country, including 
additional funding for prisons and additional get-tough measures 
against criminals.
  Instead, we got a bill that increases the deficit, lacks meaningful 
truth-in-sentencing provisions and does not allow for the tracking and 
registration of violent sex-offenders. Congress can do better. 
Defeating the rule and sending the bill back to conference will give us 
a chance to correct it.
  This conference report leaves a lot to be desired, and Republican 
attempts to offer constructive amendments were rebuffed, severely 
weakened, or stripped entirely from the bill. However, I do support 
many of the important provisions within H.R. 3355.
  For example, I strongly support the provisions to hire 100,000 
additional police, increase prison funding, ban assault-weapons, and 
expand federal death penalty provisions.
  As many as 40 members of the other party have expressed opposition to 
the assault-weapons ban in this bill. That is not the case with me. I 
voted for the assault weapons ban when it passed the House, I support 
the ban now, and I will support it when Congress finally passes a crime 
bill.
  Therefore, my vote against the rule today will not be vote against a 
crime bill. Rather, it is a rejection of the highly partisan and 
undemocratic method that was used in pushing this bill through the 
conference process and to the floor.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994. My decision has been an extremely 
difficult since, like many Americans, I believe that we must take 
action to prevent and rid our Nation's cities and towns of the violent 
crime that has become all too familiar. However, despite my real 
concerns, I am convinced that this weakened compromise will do little 
to accomplish this important, and much needed goal.
  In order to effectively fight crime, I believe that we must get 
tough, and severely punish those who break the law. However, many of 
the provisions that are included in this omnibus legislation, will do 
nothing to combat the violent crime that plagues our communities. In 
fact, much of the funding that is included in the conference report is 
not even directly related to crime control. While these programs may 
have a positive impact on some of our communities, social spending 
should not be disguised as crime control. The American people deserve 
better than this. The $8 billion cost of these newly created programs 
are exorbitant, and have not even been proven to affect crime rates. 
For example, midnight sports will cost the American people $40 million, 
child safety grants will cost the American people $430 million, and the 
national community economic partnership will cost an estimated $300 
million. Supporters claim that through community development, social 
services, job training, and recreational activities, potential 
criminals will be steered from a life of crime. However, further 
analysis demonstrates this is not a proven assumption. Since 1965, our 
Nation has spent over $5 trillion on welfare spending. Yet with crime 
rates at an all time high we know from experience that welfare spending 
has had no significant impact on crime.
  Another source of concern, is that this massive $33 billion crime 
bill places a huge unfunded mandate on State and local governments. 
Supporters claim that $8.8 billion of funds will be available over the 
next 6 years for State and local governments to hire an additional 
100,000 police officers. However, when we look closer, the figures do 
not add up. On closer inspection it is evident that the funding will 
guarantee the hiring of only 20,00 police officers, a 3 percent 
increase in our Nation's police force. In order to permanently place 
the additional police officers, State and local governments will be 
required to pick up the remainder of the tab since the funding for the 
police will be gradually phased out over the 5-year funding period. 
Having to pay additional salaries and pensions, combined with a 
substantial loss of funding will, no doubt, burden local governments. 
Unfortunately, this loss will be realized by raising taxes or cutting 
back on valuable services.
  Furthermore, I remain concerned that this legislation retroactively 
drops mandatory minimum penalties for individuals who sell, possess, or 
import drugs. This sends a disturbing message to our Nation's youth by 
condoning the use and abuse of illegal narcotics. This will also tie up 
Federal prosecutors in reviewing these cases. At a time when drug abuse 
is on the rise, this is not the kind of message we need to be sending. 
Instead, we must remain steadfast in our determination to eliminate the 
drug abuse that in many instances, breeds violent crime. It is ironic 
that while the administration says it wants to fight crime, it has 
abandoned the war on drugs. With drugs contributing to one-third of the 
violent crimes committed in our Nation, and to one-half of the murders, 
we must not retreat from the battlefield.

  As an author of one of the amendments that is included in this 
massive legislation, my decision to oppose the rule, and this 
legislation, has been even more difficult. Unfortunately, I believe 
that the many so called ``crime control'' provisions will do little to 
curb crime. My strong desire to protect and serve the citizens of our 
Nation outweighs my support for legislation that I authored, and which 
is included in this omnibus legislation. My legislation increases the 
criminal penalties for visa and passport offenses.
  With this in mind, I extend my sincere appreciation to the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], for 
his unyielding commitment to the American people. I also thank the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on International Law, 
Immigration and Refugees, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], 
the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitutional Rights, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], as well 
as all the House conferees who held firm for the inclusion of my 
amendment.
  The need for these tough new increased criminal penalties is long 
overdue. In fact, these penalties have not been raised in more than 45 
years. With the many instances of massive visa and passport fraud and 
abuse, our system needs to be reformed. By toughening these criminal 
penalties, we will be assisting our Nation's law enforcement officials, 
especially our hard working diplomatic security and Immigration and 
Naturalization Service agents.
  The New York Trade Center bombing, and other terrorist plots 
uncovered in New York City last year, set off an alarm bell. Out of the 
35 original indictable counts, nine were for visa or passport related 
Federal offenses. Thus, demonstrating our Nation's vulnerability and 
exposing the clear link between visa and passport offenses and 
international terrorism. I am pleased that my amendment can aid our 
Nation's internal security and our citizen's safety and freedom.
  With the defeat of this procedural rule, I am hopeful that the 
conferees, Democrats and Republicans, will now return to the conference 
committee, with one goal in mind--the development of strong ``anti-
crime'' legislation that will enforce stiffer criminal penalties, will 
institute longer prison sentences for convicted felons, and will 
increase support for our Nation's law enforcement officers.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 as reported to 
the House.
  The trust fund concept in this measure is an important new idea. The 
Federal Government is committed over the next 5 years to reduce Federal 
employees by more than 270,000 slots, with the savings dedicated to 
this crime reform measure which proposes to expend $33 billion over the 
next 6 years. In fact, the first appropriations are already in the 
House and Senate measures being considered and will be enacted for 
fiscal year 1995. I think this is important to point out to those of my 
colleagues who stand up here today calling this measure a budget 
buster. This argument looks more like a heat shield created to deflect 
criticism from the real agenda of these people which is to allow 
assault weapons to continue to spill out on America's streets, or to 
kill the prevention initiatives in this bill that will give our Nation 
positive alternatives to crime. The fact of the matter is this measure 
need not represent new expenditures--to date the money is in the 
budget.
  This package will mean real assistance to State and Federal law 
enforcement efforts. Over the duration of this measure, $10.7 billion 
will be provided for prisons and $10.6 billion for State and local law 
enforcement--including a nearly 20 percent increase to the Nation's 
police force. Sorely needed prevention programs will receive $7 billion 
over the next 6 years to help change the direction of the culture of 
crime overshadowing America.
  This measure contains provision like the three strikes and you're out 
for repeat violent offenders, the safety valve feature to give judges 
more discretion in sentencing first-time, nonviolent offenders, and the 
Violence Against Women Act. All of these provisions will be 
instrumental in reforming our criminal system to help better serve the 
law abiding citizens of this Nation.
  Earlier this Congress, Natural Resources Committee Chairman George 
Miller and I introduced a bill to expand park and recreation 
opportunities for at-risk youth in high crime urban areas. The bill 
recognizes the important role that urban recreation programs play in 
developing positive values in our young people and keeping them away 
from crime.
  This particular crime prevention measure, and others like it, are 
included in this conference report--and with good reason. According to 
the Department of Justice, violent crimes committed by young people are 
growing at the fastest rate in this country. It is obvious to me if we 
are truly going to address our country's crime problem we must focus on 
prevention; we must give our young people hope and opportunity; we must 
give them a haven from the streets where they can develop values such 
as responsibility, teamwork, leadership, and self-esteem.
  There are a number of programs included in this conference report 
that will work to achieve these goals: The Community Schools 
Initiative, Youth Employment Skills [Y.E.S.] Program, midnight sports 
programs, and my and Chairman Miller's at-risk youth recreation grant, 
to name a few. I am pleased to see these initiatives included in this 
crime reform bill. I am not, however, satisfied with their low funding 
levels. However, because these measures are in the package we can in 
the future reallocate the trust funds from one program to another. 
Without such a feature, the programs provided would not have been 
easily funded. Because of the policy put in place by this feature, I am 
confident that the merit of these measures will command a portion of 
the trust fund and or appropriations.

  The average cost of incarcerating each juvenile offender per year is 
$29,000. Today some will rise in the House and refer to these programs 
as government waste or pork. I suggest you sit down with a calculator 
and figure out just how many future offenders we will need to keep out 
of jail to actually save money by implementing these programs. Then 
maybe some questioning this policy would finally begin to realize that 
it is prevention not punishment this country needs for a safer society, 
and that is what should be emphasized by this Congress in 1994. 
Ironically, at the same time these critics will suggest that the $10.7 
billion for prisons in this measure is too little; that we need more 
and that the mandatory minimum sentence reform is flawed. Such 
opponents want more prisons, longer sentence provisions and yet less 
money spent. This is the same reactive mode and failed policy path that 
was tried during the 1980's. Today, nearly one million people are in 
prison. Mindless incarceration and mandatory minimum sentences don't do 
the job. No one wants violent persons on the street, but we must act 
proactively to deal with the input side of the crime equation, not just 
react to the crime--both aspects are elements of a sound policy for our 
Nation.
  Sadly some aspects of this bill are flawed such as the increase from 
2 to 60 Federal crimes punishable by death. The cost of this policy 
alone, not to mention the demonstrated discrimination inherent in 
capital punishment today, can not be justified considering its dubious 
value as a crime deterrent in our society. Even though capital 
punishment has been statistically and historically biased against 
minorities, regrettably this measure remains absent a remedy to address 
this critical issue of racial bias. While a House passed provision 
could not be reconciled in the House-Senate conference, I am hopeful 
that President Clinton's executive order will meet this short fall.
  After careful consideration of this measure, I find the positive far 
outweighs the negative in this conference committee report. The 
prevention programs are an important first step in providing men, 
women, and children in need an alternative to violence, gangs, and to 
crime. The assault weapon ban in this bill will take some of the most 
dangerous and unnecessary guns, virtually para-military weapons, off 
the streets of America and stop the carnage--saving lives without 
limits on legitimate sports and firearms collections. The long overdue 
Violence Against Women Act is a tremendous stride toward ending 
domestic violence and ensuring the safety of women in our society.
  I rise in support of this conference report and urge my colleagues to 
do the same and support the rule which provides for its consideration.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the crime 
bill and the accompanying rule that come before the House today. The 
debate surrounding this legislation and the entire crime issue reflects 
what Thomas Sowell called a conflict of visions.


                 social spending is not crime fighting

  There are some, including the current administration, who think 
violent crime can be eliminated from our society with a little 
rehabilitation, a little understanding, and lots of money--$32 billion 
in this legislation alone.
  But if social welfare spending reduced crime, Mr. Speaker, America 
would have the safest city streets in the world. Since the war on 
poverty was launched in 1965, the Government has spent $5 trillion on 
new social programs, including community development aid, social 
services, job training, and recreational activities.
  What effect has this massive social spending had on crime? Since 
1960, the rate of violent crime has increased more than 500 percent and 
total crimes have increased over 300 percent. And while population has 
increased only 41 percent over this period, social welfare spending is 
up 800 percent. As the Heritage Foundation has noted:

       The evidence suggests that welfare spending, by promoting 
     family breakup, has played a large role in increasing, rather 
     than decreasing crime.


                   clinton bill repeats past mistakes

  Despite this horrible track record, Mr. Speaker, we are urged by the 
Clinton administration to support a $32 billion crime bill, which 
includes over $9 billion in new social spending programs. Among the new 
Federal programs are a midnight basketball league--with Federal rules 
detailing the composition of neighborhood teams--self-esteem classes, 
arts and crafts, dance classes, and physical training programs, and 
conflict resolution training.
  Mr. Speaker, if the rate of crime continues at its current pace, 8 
out of 10 Americans can expect to be the victim of a violent crime at 
least once in their lives. This result is intolerable.
  Those who preach rehabilitation and criminal rights, and who see job 
training and social spending as solutions to our crime epidemic, have 
been at the helm of our country's social policy for too long. Every 
crime statistic available confirms their failure.
  It is time for those with a different vision of criminal justice to 
have a turn. The people in my district, for example, have zero 
tolerance for crime. They are not concerned abut protecting criminals' 
rights; they are concerned about protecting victims' rights. They don't 
want more social workers; they want jails. They don't want to ban guns; 
they want to incarcerate criminals. And instead of parole and 
alternative sentencing, the people in my district want truth-in-
sentencing.


                     worst provisions in a bad bill

                         a. hollow police force

  This bill fails on all counts. It authorizes $8.8 billion over 6 
years to hire 100,000 new police in community policing programs, but 
passes the cost of maintaining this force onto localities. Thus, once 
Federal funding runs out, localities will either have to lay off a 
portion of the force or lobby Congress for more Federal money. Funding 
for only 20,000 positions, not the 100,000 promised, will be provided. 
Princeton University professor John DiIulio calculated that once these 
additional police officers are distributed over at least 200 
jurisdictions, the actual street enforcement strength will be increased 
by just 10 cops per city.
  Even President Clinton's hand-picked FBI Director, Louis Freeh, has 
criticized the officer funding provisions in the administration's bill. 
Mr. Freeh noted that the funding for these additional officers is going 
to require cuts at the FBI and DNA. Mr. Freeh said the cuts are ``not 
consistent with * * * [the FBI's] expanding mission'' and might cause 
the Bureau to ``suffer law enforcement objectives''--The Buffalo News, 
Aug. 10, 1994.


                      B. Police Department Quotas

  Worse than the officer funding provisions are the hiring 
requirements. The bill calls for State and local authorities to adopt 
racial, ethnic, and gender guidelines in police hiring. A guideline, 
like a goal, is merely a more politically palatable term for a quota--
something the people of my district abhor.


                           C. Missing Prisons

  As for building much-needed prisons, the final report earmarks $7.6 
billion less than the original House bill. In a $32 billion crime 
package, it is an outrage that more money is being spent on new social 
programs than one building and maintaining prisons. In addition, the 
final bill weakens the popular requirement that Federal prison funds be 
tied to strict state truth-in-sentencing laws.


                          D. Useless 3 Strikes

  The bill includes a three strikes and you're out proposal, a concept 
that I support, which allows a violent criminal three separate episodes 
in which to wreak havoc. Nevertheless, in any form, this provision is 
of limited value because State courts handle over 98 percent of all 
violent crime convictions.


           E. More Capital Offenses, Less Capital Punishment

  Although the bill authorizes the Federal death penalty for over 60 
new offenses, the enforcement procedures have been made criminal-
friendly. In addition, no habeas corpus revision--the most desparately 
needed aspect of Federal crime reform--is included in the bill to limit 
convicted felons from tying up the court systems with endless appeals, 
so as to avoid having the death penalty carried out.


                     F. Assault on the Constitution

  Also, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the right to bear arms, protected 
by the U.S. Constitution, carries the same constitutional authority as 
any of the individual liberties found in the Constitution. Just as the 
first amendment doesn't preclude speech the Founding Founders might 
have deemed objectionable, the second amendment is not limited to 
firearms Washington deems appropriate. The burden is on the government, 
not law-abiding citizens, to justify abrogation of the individual 
liberties protected by the second amendment. In my mind, the ban on 
assault-style, semiautomatic weapons is a clear violation of the 
Constitution.
  It is very telling that many of the same people who support the ban 
on semiautomatic weapons left out of the conference bill a provision 
that would establish mandatory minimum sentences for thugs who use guns 
when committing crimes. Thus, this bill punishes law-abiding citizens 
by taking their guns away and gives gun-toting criminals a break by not 
imposing a mandatory prison sentence for using a gun in the commission 
of a crime.


                   G. Revolving Door for Drug Dealers

  Mr. Speaker, the conference report includes a so-called safety valve 
provision, which will effectively permit certain categories of 
convicted drug defendants to be invited back to court, to be given a 
retrial under retroactive law. This result will occur, Mr. Speaker, 
because the crime bill reduces minimum sentencing for drug criminals. 
No serious anticrime bill would put convicted drug kingpins back on the 
street.


                      a better way to fight crime

  Mr. Speaker, the champions of compromise in this body often remind us 
that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yet, this criticism misses 
the mark--I am not holding out for a perfect bill, but this one does 
not qualify as even good. There is a better way. There are better 
alternatives.
  The best ideas I've heard on crime, Mr. Speaker, have come from my 
constituents. Earlier this year, I held a series of town hall meetings 
on crime. Hundreds of people came out to share their suggestions on how 
to end our Nation's crime epidemic.
  I incorporated my constituents' best ideas into a 269 page 
comprehensive anticrime package entitled the Citizens Crime Prevention 
and Punishment Act of 1994. Introduced before the House in April, my 
legislation reflects a get tough approach toward criminals and 
emphasizes the right of innocent victims.


                       respecting states' rights

  More important than any one provision, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that 
my bill does not increase the power and reach of the Federal 
Government. My bill toughens penalties for existing Federal crimes. It 
increases funding for regional prisons. But it does not extend Federal 
jurisdiction into areas that have been under local control. I think the 
position taken by the National Conference of State Legislature is 
significant. A spokesman for the group said, ``We oppose the bill 
because it federalizes state crimes and is an unwarranted intrusion on 
state and local matters.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is also opposed by 
the American Federation of Police, the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police.


                               conclusion

  Congress has a role to play in the war on crime, but it should not 
seek to micromanage. Instead, Congress should limit its role to 
supplying the States with resources they need to keep our neighborhoods 
safe.
  Columnist George Will wrote recently in the Washington Post:

       This crime bill is a bipartisan boondoggle because of the 
     cachet that currently accrues to any legislation with an 
     ``anti-crime'' label. But the bill sprays money most 
     promiscuously at Democratic constituencies, the so-called (by 
     themselves) ``caring professions''--social workers, 
     psychologists, and others who do the work of therapeutic 
     government.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill and the rule should be defeated. To pretend 
that this bill will reduce crime will only make voters more cynical 
about Congress. They want and deserve a real crime bill. This bill 
isn't it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the crime bill 
conference report and on the accompanying rule.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule on 
the conference report on H.R. 3355, the The Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Let me state from the beginning that I 
recognize the challenge we face in curbing crime in our Nation. In fact 
I have been a longstanding advocate for strong congressional action to 
reduce and prevent violence and crime. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I 
cannot support this measure before us today because the very belief 
upon which our judicial system was created--protection of individuals 
constitutional rights balanced with societies right to be free from 
harm--has yet to be achieved for many Americans.
  The fact that the conference report does not include the Racial 
Justice Act is enough in terms of my conscience to vote against the 
rule. This critical provision passed the House, and now for reasons of 
racism, has been eliminated from the bill. This abolishes my general 
principle of voting in favor of a rule and letting a bill come to the 
floor to be voted on for its merits. Even though funding for prevention 
is included, this does not diminish the need for the Racial Justice 
Act.
  Over the years, I have been a strong supporter of crime control 
measures. I have patrolled our streets as part of neighborhood watch 
efforts. I have seen first hand the effects that drugs and violence 
have had on our neighborhoods. Despite these experiences, however, I 
feel that I cannot support the unbalanced approach that H.R. 3355 
represents.
  The crime bill of 1994, among other things, would greatly expand the 
reach of the Federal death penalty, and fails to include any provisions 
of the Racial Justice Act. In fact, the bill makes more than 60 
additional crimes subject to the death penalty. While I agree that 
strong measures must be taken to curb the crime epidemic, I do not 
believe that this should be done to the detriment of an individual's 
basic rights and constitutional liberties. Furthermore, many of the 
provisions in the bill will actually do very little to reduce crime.
  I strongly supported inclusion of the Racial Justice Act in the crime 
bill. The provisions of the Racial Justice Act are consistent with the 
principles of fairness and equality that are fundamental to the 
administration of justice in America. The Racial Justice Act would have 
prohibited the imposition of the death penalty where statistically 
significant proof exists that the defendant's and/or the victim's race 
determined whether the death penalty would be imposed.
  When closely examined, the sentencing history of the death penalty 
has generally been arbitrary, inconsistent and racially biased. It is 
my belief that the Federal death penalty is overly harsh, particularly 
because it fails to address the economic and social bias of crime in 
our most troubled communities. The fact is there has always been a 
racial double-standard in the imposition of capital punishment in the 
United States. Even after the black codes of the 1860's were abolished, 
blacks were more severely punished than whites for the same offenses in 
our penal system. By the time the United States Supreme Court deemed 
the existing process for imposing the ultimate penalty unconstitutional 
in 1972, more than half of the persons condemned or executed were 
African- American--even though they were never more than 15 percent of 
the population. The advances in statistical analysis of the last 20 
years have allowed numerous experts to test the raw data with 
disturbingly consistent results.

  In 1990, after 29 studies from various jurisdictions were reviewed, 
the General Accounting Office confirmed that there is a consistent 
pattern of disparity in the imposition of the death penalty in the 
United States and that race is often a crucial factor that determines 
the outcome. Since the resumption of executions in 1977, of the 236 
persons who have been executed, 200 persons, or an alarming 85 percent, 
were executed for the murder of white victims. In fact, statistics show 
that blacks convicted of killing whites are 63 times more likely to be 
executed than whites who kill blacks.
  In 1991, the United States Justice Department's Bureau of Justice 
Statistics reported that African-Americans accounted for 40 percent of 
prisoners serving death penalty sentences. In my home State of Ohio, of 
the 127 people on death row, 62--nearly fifty percent--are African-
Americans. These statistics reflect how the African American community 
is disproportionately affected by the death penalty. Furthermore, in a 
Nation where the number one leading cause of death for young African-
American males is homicide, further disproportional application of the 
death penalty will not resolve the epidemic of violence in our Nation.
  Regardless of whether this double-standard is intentional or not, the 
result clearly establishes that there continues to be an impermissible 
use of race as a key factor in determining imposition of the death 
penalty. Because of the disproportionate number of minorities serving 
death sentences, it is of great concern to me that without the 
protective provisions of the Racial Justice Act the death penalty will 
continue to be applied in a discriminatory and disproportionate 
fashion.
  It also alarms me that there is an important element that these 
statistics do not reflect. That element is the economic conditions 
which have crippled our Nation. Unemployment, poverty and homelessness 
can be directly linked to crime. In fact, the dismal economic 
conditions facing our country have driven many of our citizens to a 
life of crime as a last resort measure of survival.
  In fact, it is the African-American community which has borne the 
burden of this crime epidemic. I am particularly distressed by the fact 
that homicide has become the number one killer of African-American 
males. Many of our young African-American males are being killed in our 
inner cities for drugs and in many cases, for no apparent reason at 
all. I believe that to win our war on crime, we must first deal with 
the underlying rage that fuels the violence plaguing our Nation. Then 
and only then can we effectively address the crime epidemic.
  It is my belief that our judicial system's major focus should be to 
protect its citizens from crime and violence. However, as a Nation, we 
cannot afford to increase penalties while continuing to ignore the 
important underlying elements which often precipitate criminal behavior 
and the fundamental injustice of the disproportionate application of 
the death penalty that will surely occur as a result of this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I am 
opposed to the bill. There are many worthy features in this piece of 
legislation and some of my colleagues have articulated them in the 
finest manner possible. But Mr. Speaker there are some provisions in 
this bill that are so immoral and so unjust and so inhumane that all 
the good and virtuous gestures enunciated become null and void. One of 
those Mr. Speaker is the authorizing of the death penalty for 50 or 60 
criminal acts.
  The imposition of capital punishment is a savage act only engaged in 
by those who live in cultures with savage-like mentalities. Capital 
punishment is murder sanctioned by the State which functions in the 
name of its citizens. Historically, race and poverty have been the 
dominant factors in determining who will or will not be executed. The 
ranks of the condemned are heavily populated by poor whites, poor 
blacks and poor Hispanics.
  The race of the victim is equally important in dispensing the death 
sentence. A white criminal who kills a black victim or a black criminal 
who kills a black victim, invariably receive a lessor sentence. Capital 
punishments is exclusively reserved for white criminals and black 
criminals who kill white persons.

  In 1994, we are on the verge of enacting legislation which continues 
the injustice of killing based on race and economics and then to add 
insult to injury this bill vastly expands the scope of the death 
penalty without including a provision which ensures its even-handed 
imposition. This is unfair, unjust, and deplorably un-American. I will 
not support any measure which imposes such an inequity on the American 
people. I will vote against the rule and the conference report and urge 
all reasonable and fair-minded Representatives to do so. To allow this 
bill to pass is to place this body's stamp of approval on a disgraceful 
and blatant act of discrimination. To embrace such a policy, in my 
judgement, is one step removed from endorsing lynch mobs. This I refuse 
to do.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, as a co-author of the assault weapon 
language in the crime bill, I rise in strong support of the Rule for 
consideration of the Crime Bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  The vote today is not simply a procedural motion on the ground rules 
for consideration of the Crime Bill. Those who seek to kill the whole 
Crime Bill will argue that they were not opposed to the Bill per se, 
but were opposed to the Rule.
  How convenient, and how disingenuous.
  This vote is most certainly about crime--and more in particular, 
about guns.
  Make no mistakes about it, Mr. Speaker, the forces of the National 
Rifle Association are hard at work to defeat the toughest crime bill 
this Congress has ever passed. The N.R.A. has once again shown its true 
colors in this debate. Don't be fooled, my colleagues. The N.R.A. is a 
wolf in sheep's clothing.
  They obviously are not for tough crime measures, because this bill 
has them.
  They wanted more police on the street, and this bill adds 100,000 of 
them.
  They wanted a tough three strikes and you're out law, and this bill 
has one.
  They advocated spending $8 billion for more prisons. This bill would 
spend $8.5 billion.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the N.R.A. is only interested in the proliferation 
of assault weapons. That must be true because the Congress delivered on 
the other tough crime measures they supported, and yet the N.R.A. is 
dead set against this bill.
  While I will support the Rule and the Crime Bill, I must acknowledge 
my deep disappointment that the Racial Justice Act is not included in 
the conference report.
  I support the death penalty, as long as it is fairly imposed. The 
Racial Justice Act would have helped to ensure that the death penalty 
is imposed in a race-neutral manner. It is a sensible provision that 
nonetheless is not included in the Conference Report. The work to enact 
a racial justice act should, and will continue, and I will continue to 
support its enactment.
  However, one's decision on a piece of legislation must be made with 
regard to the whole bill. As an author of the assault weapon provision, 
I am pleased that the conferees voted to retain the ban on 19 types of 
assault weapons.
  I also strongly support the billions of dollars in prevention funds 
for our cities, and for programs to help our children stay away from a 
life of crime. It is money well spent.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, the crime bill is not perfect. All of us would 
add or subtract something in order to tailor it to our liking. But we 
must face up to our responsibilities and make the tough decisions. The 
people of this Nation look to us for that leadership.
  If we are to lead, we must vote for the rule and for the bill.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the Crime Bill we have before us today will 
squander billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The Conference 
Committee returned to the House and Senate an unwieldy 6 year, $33 
billion bill which is light on crime control spending and heavily laden 
with social projects. In many cases, these social programs will 
duplicate existing programs and fail to provide any mechanism to 
guarantee results.
  Mr. Speaker, just yesterday President Clinton's own FBI Director 
criticized this Crime Bill because it will seriously cut the resources 
of the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency at a time when we are 
actually increasing the crime fighting expectations of those two 
agencies.
  In its current form, the Crime Bill does little to fulfill our goals 
of fighting crime and making our streets safe again. I voted for this 
Crime Bill when it first came to this House. I liked the fact that we 
were going to encourage States to create ``Truth-In-Sentencing.'' 
That's a fancy way of saying if you're sentenced to 20 years you'll 
serve 20 years--or at least most of it--and not be routinely out in 
five! We tried to give priority to building jail cells so we could back 
up our pledge to ``three strikes and you're out''--out of circulation, 
off the street, not in a position to harm again--in jail. Although the 
House bill was weighed down with a number of weak provisions, I hoped 
through the Senate and Conference Committee we could improve the bill. 
But sadly the bill has come back to us today with its most glaring 
problems still unresolved and, even worse, its positive aspects reduced 
to little more than a skeleton.
  Mr. Speaker, we can and should send this bill back to the Conference 
Committee and fix it. That process doesn't have to take months or even 
weeks, it could be done before we recess next week. The way we do that 
is to vote no on this rule and that's what I intend to do.
  Some say we should support this bill because of the good things that 
are in it, like money for more prisons and police. But even those 
provisions are more talk than action. True, the bill provides more 
money, but it does so in an irresponsible manner.
  To begin, the bill's proponents claim that it will put 100,000 new 
police officers on the street by spending $9 billion over the next six 
years. But in fact, $9 billion will only provide 20,000 police. The 
estimated cost of putting a new police officer on the beat is about 
$70,000. Therefore, the cost of putting 100,000 new officers on the 
street is at least $7 billion per year, or, $42 billion over the 6 
years of the bill. Thus, to put 100,000 new police on the street will 
require local communities and States to come up with another $33 
billion of their own funds, in essence doubling the cost to taxpayers 
of this crime legislation. Assuming that the local communities can find 
$33 billion, they then must follow new, bureaucratic quotas in the 
actual hiring process.

  Mr. Speaker, this crime bill will also install a revolving door on 
our prisons. Every major public opinion survey shows that the public 
has lost confidence in our ability to arrest, detain and convict, and 
punish violent and repeat criminals. Republicans offered scores of 
tough amendments to strengthen this bill such as a ``Three-Strikes-and-
You're-Out'' provision that would not require the felony convictions to 
come from separate episodes and even a ``Two-Strikes-and-Your're-Out'' 
provision that would have mandated life imprisonment for those 
convicted of two violent felonies.
  While President Clinton calls this the toughest crime bill ever, it 
actually weakens some current laws. Unbelievably, to anyone who has 
studied this bill, important provisions to protect our families from 
sexual predators are actually weakened by this bill. This bill also 
provides a ``safety valve'' provision which would allow at least 5,000 
convicted drug felons to immediately be eligible for a retrial, which 
could result in the reduction of their prison sentences by as much as a 
half or more. In fact, if this bill passes, this safety valve provision 
could apply to all of the roughly 15,000 so-called low level drug 
offenders in the Federal prison system.
  This ``Crime Bill'' is also plagued by almost $9 billion in 
extravagant social spending including classes in dance, arts and crafts 
and self-esteem classes. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a crime 
bill!
  Interestingly, the money provided for these social programs will be 
considered mandatory spending and will go on indefinitely, while the 
money for the police is considered discretionary and will end in 6 
years. The bill could, essentially, create two new social worker 
positions for every new individual police officer.
  The General Accounting Office [GAO] recently reported that there 
already exists ``a massive Federal effort on behalf of troubled youth'' 
which spends over $3 billion a year. They go on to say that there are 
already seven Federal Departments sponsoring 266 prevention programs 
which currently serve delinquent and at-risk youth. GAO also reports 
that ``it is apparent from the Federal activities and response that the 
needs of delinquent youth are being taken quite seriously.'' In this 
situation, additional spending without adequate safeguards and 
reporting requirements is not fiscally sound.
  Mr. Speaker, in these days of continuing deficits and limited 
options, let's put our hard-earned taxpayer dollars where they belong 
and can do the most good: into prison construction, funding for new 
police and putting criminals where they belong, behind bars.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the provisions of the 
crime bill dealing with midnight sports leagues. In my district of San 
Francisco, there are two thriving programs that are working to keep 
young men and women off the streets and into the classroom by using the 
power of sport. For a relatively small investment, these programs are 
making a large difference in the lives of San Francisco's young people.
  In the Western Addition, a predominantly African-American community, 
the Ella Hill Hutch Community Center has a midnight basketball program 
that is taking nearly 100 young men----disadvantaged, unemployed, and 
at risk--and giving them a second chance at education and employment. 
Recently, at a nationwide conference on midnight sports, the Ella Hill 
Hutch basketball program was heralded as a model for the Nation.
  In the Mission District, the heart of San Francisco's Latino 
community, the Columbia Park Boys Club and the YWCA are sponsoring 
``Midnight Soccer'' for young men and women, and working actively to 
break the rising cycle of gang violence that is threatening the lives 
of so many young people.
  By combining education, job training, peer counseling, and the 
discipline and enjoyment of sport, these two programs--midnight 
basketball and midnight soccer--are already making a valuable 
contribution to crime prevention and, more important, helping young 
people lead productive lives. The money earmarked in the crime bill for 
midnight sports is an investment that is more than justified by the 
results. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the midnight sports 
provisions of the crime bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as a mother and a grandmother, 
as well as a resident of a large metropolitan area, I am as worried 
about and frightened by random and violent crime as are many Americans 
today. I share the concerns expressed by residents of my district for 
the safety of their children and the well-being of their families. I 
also understand the important role that this body must play in helping 
to reduce the incidence of crime nationwide.
  However, let me say here and now that I am morally against the death 
penalty; I am against the very idea of treating 13-year-olds as adults 
even though they commit adult-like crimes because they are still 
children; and I am bitterly disappointed that the racial justice 
provisions of the House bill have been stricken from the Conference 
Report.
  To repeat, I have serious concerns about this bill that invests more 
of our scarce Federal dollars to build and fill prisons rather than to 
effectively address the problems that necessitate their construction, 
this bill that creates more ways to punish rather than to provide, this 
bill that exponentially expands the death penalty without guaranteeing 
its fair application, this bill that condones warehousing some juvenile 
offenders as young as 13 years old and throwing away the key instead of 
unlocking the doors of opportunity for our most neglected and 
underserved youth.
  However, there are a number of very beneficial provisions included in 
this conference report that I strongly support and that can help my 
constituents. The addition of 100,000 officers to walk the streets of 
our cities and towns, interacting on a daily basis with our citizens, 
can serve to strengthen the ties between law enforcement and local 
communities, thus creating a safer environment in which our children 
can grow. Residents of several neighborhoods in my district in Chicago, 
such as North Lawndale and Austin, have already been successful in 
organizing citizen partnerships with local authorities to tackle 
problems as they arise and ensure the continued vitality of the areas 
in which they live and work.
  I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the conferees agreed to include 
$1.8 billion of long-overdue funds for the Local Partnership Act to 
grant cities the resources necessary to implement proven, cost-
effective, and much-needed health and educational crime prevention 
programs. I was successful in amending this Act to further assist in 
revitalizing distressed communities by setting aside 10 percent of the 
Federal payments awarded under the Act in each locality across the 
Nation for contracts and subcontracts with small minority or women-
owned businesses as well as historically black colleges and 
universities. This provision will provide relief and the hope of a 
successful future to hundreds of small, disadvantaged enterprises and 
the neighborhoods in which they are located.
  It is high time we recognize that giving individuals and families a 
greater stake in their communities through such initiatives is the best 
way to attack and deter lawlessness. We need to provide hope where 
there is little or none. The threat of punishment and retribution 
neither prevents nor stops crime from occurring. Only real opportunity 
does. In this regard, I am satisfied that the conferees accepted other 
preventive language of the House that encourages rehabilitation, 
education, and training of some nonviolent, first-time offenders as 
well as comprehensive drug treatment to move individuals down the path 
of recovery and toward self-sufficiency.
  This conference report does contain a ban on 19 types of assault 
weapons as well as provisions making it illegal to sell a handgun to 
persons under 18 years of age. These common-sense measures should have 
been on the books years ago and their inclusion serves the ``Not Really 
Attuned'' NRA with a loud wake-up call that the American people are 
turned off by their attempts to block any and all rational gun control 
legislation.
  Our children are at risk and we must begin to bring some sanity to 
our gun regulatory framework. In 1992 alone, in my city of Chicago, 741 
youths 19 years of age and under were victims of gun injuries and early 
reports for 1993 and 1994 indicate rising numbers. At Children's 
Memorial Medical Center in Chicago, the number of children 16 and under 
treated for gunshot wounds skyrocketed 250 percent from 1988 to 1993. 
This is a disgraceful tragedy Mr. Chairman.
  Additionally of importance, this conference report signals to women 
of our country that we do care about their right to be safe, especially 
in their own homes. All too often in America today, women who are 
victims of violent assault, rape, or murder are victims at the hands of 
their husbands, boyfriends, or other acquaintances. Unfortunately, many 
times they become victims again when they seek assistance from law 
enforcement or the judicial system because these entities are 
insufficiently equipped to deal with gender-based crimes. With the 
inclusion of the Violence Against Women Act in this conference report, 
which will combat sexual and domestic violence with proper educational 
programs and police training as well as mandating higher penalties for 
gender-motivated crimes, we can rectify these inherent injustices that 
now exist.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, despite these beneficial provisions, a 
portion of this bill is devoted to short-sighted, politically 
misguided, and, frankly, quite disturbing attempts to limit individual 
liberties and establish and establish an eye-for-an-eye justice system 
in the United States. Such irrational cries for vengeance as a form of 
crime control do nothing but blind society to the real solutions to the 
problems with which we are confronted and inevitably heighten 
divisiveness among varying races and socioeconomic classes across our 
Nation.
  The thirty-fold expansion of Federal death penalty crimes in this 
bill is indicative of this irrationality. No study that I am aware of 
has ever proven the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and simply 
increasing the number of crimes subject to government-sanctioned 
execution will accomplish nothing, except increase the chances that 
African-Americans and other minorities will continue to be 
disproportionately among those sentenced to death.
  While there is overwhelming evidence of the discriminatory nature of 
death penalty sentencing, it seems that some of my colleagues in both 
chambers do not seem to care. While they call for truth in sentencing, 
they certainly are not calling for true fairness in sentencing, given 
the absence of any form of racial justice language in this bill.
  Under the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act signed into law by President 
Reagan, the death penalty was allowed for individuals involved in 
certain illegal drug activities. Since this law took effect, 75 percent 
of those convicted of participating in a drug enterprise under this 
statute have been white and only about 24 percent of the defendants 
have been African-American. However, of those chosen for death penalty 
prosecutions, 78 percent of the defendants have been African-American 
and only 11 percent have been white. Furthermore, the General 
Accounting Office, Congress' own investigating arm, concluded in a 1990 
report that racism definitely affects the use of the death penalty in 
the United States.
  Even Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun stated earlier this year 
that ``the death penalty experiment has failed * * * it remains fraught 
with arbitrariness, discrimination, and caprice, and mistake.''
  Mr. Speaker, in the language of the High Court, I concur.
  I cannot express more adamantly my grave concerns about the way 
African-Americans in general are treated by our criminal justice 
system. In those cases where the death penalty is not imposed, African 
Americans are more likely to receive harsher punishments for the same 
crimes committed by others. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that 
African-Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory 
sentences than are whites. Given the fact that the conference report 
before us mandates stiffer penalties for a greater number of crimes, 
especially the three-strikes provision, it is incumbent upon us as 
policymakers to ensure that penalties are meted out fairly. Again, 
unfortunately, some of my colleagues see no need for this.
  I have always believed that those who commit crimes of any kind 
should be punished appropriately. However, I am greatly distressed that 
when it comes to some of our most troubled youth, the conferees have 
admitted defeat by keeping provisions in this conference report that 
will allow 13-year-old children to be tried as adults in the Federal 
system. Once again, some adult men and women in Congress would rather 
take the politically expedient easy road of writing off these kids as 
lifetime felons rather than addressing the reasons why these kids have 
gone astray.
  This is an absolutely unconscionable way to deal with kids that 
society has neglected, refused to educate properly, refused to provide 
economic opportunities for, and simply refused to take the time to 
understand.
  Mr. Speaker, we must launch an attack on crime in America. But we 
must not let our zeal to attack this problem overshadow the fundamental 
civil liberties upon which we have relied for over two centuries. 
Disturbingly, parts of this bill, as I have stated, tend to do just 
that.
  Nevertheless, my constituents are demanding action and I cannot deny 
them their right to representation in the U.S. Congress. We are all 
affected by the crime rate. Many among us are disproportionately 
affected. According to many studies, those areas composed of 
individuals and families of modest to lower economic means, areas that 
make up portions of my district, are the areas most likely to be 
victimized by crime. My constituents are concerned about making the 
streets safe and have elected me to be the voice of their concerns. 
They believe that, despite its shortcomings, this bill contains too 
much that is beneficial to them, good for Chicago, and good for the 
Nation, to contribute to its possible defeat by a vote in opposition. 
Therefore, even though it is extraordinarily difficult on my personal 
moral grounds to vote for the death penalty--and this will be the first 
and only time in my life that I have done so--I will cast their vote in 
favor of this rule and for the conference report on H.R. 3355, the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
  But I firmly believe we must revisit many of the issues I have 
touched upon. I am pleased that the President intends to commission a 
study of racial disparities in death sentencing. We must also, however, 
continue to work tirelessly to provide greater resources for building 
up our schools and neighborhoods, continue to offer greater avenues of 
opportunity down which our neglected and underserved youth can safely 
travel, so that instead of talking about ``3 strikes and you're out'' 
in the future, we will be talking about the home runs hit in the game 
of life by more of these youngsters.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the 
rule and crime bill conference report. We, in Congress, have a great 
opportunity to vote for an anti-crime strategy that strikes a much-
needed balance between more law enforcement, swift and certain 
punishment, and innovative prevention programs.
  Crime is one of the most pressing issues facing the American people. 
While new or increased federal penalties have been enacted into law, 
crime continues to plague our communities. The people of my District in 
Dayton, OH, and across the country, are tired and scared of hearing 
about crime and the underlying problems associated with it. Even though 
communities across the country fight crime effectively on the local 
level, Congress also can contribute by ensuring that sufficient funds 
are available. These resources will provide communities flexibility to 
target funds toward those areas most in need. The crime bill reflects 
the important partnership between local, State, and Federal 
governments. Many provisions in this legislation are devoted to this 
cooperation and coordination between local communities and the Federal 
government to meet the anti-crime challenge.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously this bill contains some language that not all 
of us are in total agreement on. But, it does include so many 
worthwhile initiatives which will help communities fight crime in their 
areas. It would be foolish of us to let this opportunity slip through 
our fingers.
  Putting more police officers on our streets is one of the most 
important provisions in the crime bill. These additional officers would 
increase police presence and provide local law enforcement officials 
with the assistance they need to fight crime.
  Programs that help battered women and other crime victims cope with 
legal, physical, and mental trauma must be a top priority. The House 
passed an amendment I offered which extends funding to programs that 
assist victims of crime, language included in the conference report. 
This provision removes the 4-year limit on victims' assistance funding 
under the Byrne Memorial Fund. Providing this exemption will help 
worthwhile groups nationwide to continue dealing effectively with the 
target problems associated with domestic violence.
  Our country needs this crime bill. It is time for us to put our 
partisan bickering aside and vote for a balanced and reasonable 
approach to the increasing violence in this country. This is the least 
that our young people deserve, who too are often neglected and witness 
the horror of violence at an early age.
  I urge my Colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the rule, and vote ``yes'' 
for the crime conference report.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time to inject myself 
into the crime bill rule debate. Much, maybe too much, has already been 
said, and I must say I have seldom seen such emotion--much of it 
partisan emotion--on the part of grown people. It makes one wonder 
about the objectivity.
  In any event, I support the rule of the crime bill--not because I 
think it favors Republicans. It does not. I support it because in this 
particular case the rule is the bill. This is not so in many cases, but 
it is here.
  The bill also is not perfect. I give it a C+ rating, but it is an 
issue whose time has come. It is a first step, an important one, a 
timely one. If you don't take the first step, how do you get to the 
second or the third or the fourth. And there are many additional steps 
needed to battle crime.
  I just think that we should not delay. It's always easy to say hold 
on; don't act. I do this myself. Sometimes I guess I'm right--sometimes 
not. But here the debate has gone on for years. We know the issues. 
We've decided on the major points. Let's get at it and move, move. If 
we're wrong we can change, but let's not be paralyzed and do nothing.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on 
this ``touchy-feely'' conference report on the crime bill. As we all 
know, the conference report was not submitted until 7:30 last night and 
is 900 pages long. Mr. Speaker, this does not give Members an 
opportunity to review the legislation.
  Nevertheless, what we do know of the crime bill should seal its fate 
on the floor today. This bill is not really about crime and it is 
certainly not what the American people have asked for.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people would not approve of this crime 
bill. A new study by the Luntz Research Company reports that when 
people were asked how federal tax dollars are spent on various crime 
measures, 69 percent supported more cops and 44 percent supported new 
prisons, while 48 percent opposed midnight basket-ball and new social 
workers as a poor use or complete waste of federal tax dollars.
  With $32 billion in spending and 30 new social programs paid into a 
welfare system which has already cost taxpayers over $5 trillion since 
1965, we should learn the lesson that throwing money at problems for 
social programs doesn't reduce crime.
  We know that the best way to prevent crime is take the 7 percent of 
criminals who commit over two-thirds of all violent crime and take them 
off the streets. And we can do this by building new prisons, 
implementing truth in sentencing, putting more cops on the streets, 
stopping to endless habeas corpus appeals and implementing a real ``3 
strikes and you're out'' provision, measures which were all included in 
the House Republican crime bill.
  Instead, we have a bill that spends, spends, spends: $1.8 billion for 
education, job training and self-esteem programs, $100 million for 
anything tangentially related to crime, $630 million for children's 
arts and crafts, dance and other recreation, $10 million for public 
housing to supplement the $30 billion that HUD is already spending, 
$200 million for assorted inner-city youth activities, $6 million for 
urban parks and recreation, $270 million for schools to coordinate 
social workers and teachers, $50 million for youth development, $3 
million to search for missing alzheimer's patients, and of course, $40 
million for midnight basketball.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised the President didn't include his Health 
Care Plan in the Crime Bill.
  Moreover, the gun ban in this bill covers more than 180 firearms, 
affecting 50 percent of the gun owners in this country. Gun bans are 
fundamentally flawed because they affect the guns and not the 
criminals. I've never known a law that restricts law-abiding citizens 
decrease violent crime. We need to spend taxpayer resources keeping 
violent criminals off the streets, not levying more laws on law-abiding 
citizens. Let's crack down on the people who unlawfully pull the 
triggers.
  Mr. Speaker, even the FBI director, Louis Freeh has criticized this 
bill for downsizing two of the great crime-fighting organizations in 
our country: the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI.
  I urge Members to defeat the rule on this bill. America doesn't need 
emptier pockets in the name of prevention. Let's take this bill back 
and give the American people a real crime bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this Rule and the Conference Report. In April, the House approved this 
measure as a modest effort to stem the rising tide of crime. 
Unfortunately, the bill has since returned from a House-Senate 
conference committee as a liberal's grab bag of social spending 
goodies, been given the name ``crime bill'' by the President and the 
House democratic leadership, and brought before us here today. Not 
since the 1960's and President Johnson's Great Society has the Congress 
of the United States considered such a broad social spending bill. In 
fact, not since Orson Wells broadcast of ``War of the Worlds'' has such 
a charade been perpetrated on the American people. It has been my 
frustrating experience that every attempt to enact strong anti-crime 
legislation is blocked by the liberals of this House at every 
opportunity. It is clear that this is true again today.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, when the House began this effort earlier this 
year, the intentions of my colleagues and I who support strong criminal 
reform legislation was to pass a bill that would protect our people and 
our police by helping prosecutors and judges put away--and keep away--
America's most violent offenders. We sought to put more police in our 
communities, strengthen the death penalty and limit the endless appeals 
process, provide life sentences for third-time violent offenders, enact 
truth in sentencing provisions that would ensure criminals serve out 
their prison terms, and provide funding to build prisons for their 
punishment.
  During consideration of this legislation in April, we were successful 
in our efforts on several of these fronts. The House bill authorized 
funding for 100,000 officers on the streets, and provided grants to 
build and expand space in correctional facilities in order to implement 
specified truth-in-sentencing requirements. The bill imposed life 
imprisonment on persons who committed a third violent felony under 
Federal law and included language to end the seemingly pleasant 
treatment of prisoners. The bill prohibited the awarding of Pell higher 
education grants to inmates and strength training on weight equipment 
in Federal facilities. In addition, more than $14 billion was 
authorized for new prison construction. And in an attempt to address 
the growing problem of illegal aliens in our jails, the bill increased 
border patrols and included new deportation procedures to speed 
deportation of aliens convicted of crimes.
  Unfortunately, the moment this legislation left the House, the usual 
efforts began to water down the progress made in these areas, and beef 
up the bills prevention programs. The result of those efforts is the 
legislation before us today. Rather than putting cops on the beat this 
bill puts strings on the purse by requiring hiring quotas and other 
bureaucratic conditions for receiving grants to hire police. The 
funding mechanism for these grants, proposed cuts in the budgets of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency, have 
led our Nation's chief law enforcement officer, FBI Director Louis 
Freeh, to criticize this legislation.
  For states that don't want to comply with the truth-in-sentencing 
guidelines, there are loopholes which allow them to get prison funds 
anyway. In addition, funding for prison construction was nearly cut in 
half. Even more ironic is the way in which this legislation seeks to 
combat crime by retroactively ending mandatory minimum sentencing 
requirements. An act which could lead to the release of 10,000 
convicted drug offenders.
  But the big news of course is ``Stimulus II'', the $9 billion in 
social spending which is essentially a reincarnation of President 
Clinton's 1993 pork-barrel stimulus bill which funds lots of ``feel-
good'' programs that have no connection to crime. Lyndon Johnson called 
these programs the solution to ending poverty, today we're being told 
they will end crime. Even more outrageous is that all this money would 
go where the President or cabinet secretaries choose.
  Here are some of the brilliant solutions to our Nation's crime 
problem contained in this bill. No doubt the mere mention of these 
programs will strike fear in the heart of the most violent criminal.
  Youth Employment and Skills Crime Prevention (YES): A $900 million 
program intended to test the proposition that crime can be reduced 
through a saturation of jobs. Saturation indeed, when you consider this 
is in addition to the current $25 billion that the Government 
Accounting Office reports the Federal Government already spends on 154 
job training programs.
  The Local Partnership Act: $1.8 billion to local governments in areas 
with high taxes, high unemployment and high crime. The Act provides 
grants for education, substance abuse treatment and job programs. 
Unfortunately, there is no enforceable condition that the funds be used 
to fight crime. To say that these programs are going to be funded for 
the purpose of preventing crime does not change the basic idea that the 
whole purpose of this provision is another opportunity to spend money 
as fast as possible.
  Drug Courts: $1.3 billion to governments, courts and private entities 
chosen by the Attorney General to provide benefits to criminals who are 
drug addicts. The benefits include child care, housing placement, job 
placement, vocational training and health care. Who says crime doesn't 
pay? I am sure that many of my constituents could use help in paying 
for child care or finding a house or a job, let alone health care. It 
is unfortunate that we would encourage them to become convicted drug 
addicts so they might receive such benefits.
  Midnight Sports: $40 million to entities chosen by the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development to fund midnight sports leagues in high 
crime and drug use areas for youths that can not sleep. I would suggest 
that we encourage our young to stay home, do their homework and get a 
good night's sleep before school the next day, not stay up until after 
midnight playing sports. There is plenty of time for organized sports 
after school.
  Ounce of Prevention: An interagency council made up of cabinet 
secretaries that will provide $100 million for programs that promote 
arts, crafts, dance programs, and ``life skills training.'' These may 
be worthwhile programs, but let's consider them on their merits. Not 
cloaked in a bill that is supposed to fight crime.
  Mr. Speaker, crime is a serious problem in this country. The American 
people demand a serious response by the Congress and are insulted by 
the masquerade underway here. They want a tough anti-crime bill, not a 
return to the social welfare spending of the 60's and 70's. If these 
programs were the answer to crime, the street corners of our Nation 
would be far and away the safest in the world. We have already spent $5 
trillion on social welfare programs in 30 years. If the President wants 
these social programs he can request them in his budget and the House 
can vote up or down on their approval.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this conference report and send it 
back to conference with the same message the American people are 
sending us--strip the social spending and focus on the good proposals 
we have already approved and which have a successful record in fighting 
crime. We did not come this far to pass an expensive economic stimulus 
package with an anti-crime label. Our constituents deserve better.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule on the omnibus 
crime bill. It is imperative that the conference committee renegotiate 
this bill to remove the expensive social programs and improve upon the 
law enforcement provisions. The conference committee's report has more 
to do with social welfare programs than it does with fighting crime.
  I agree with FBI Director Louis Freeh's recent criticism of the crime 
bill because it redirects funds from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency to ineffective social 
programs. This Congress needs to get serious about fighting crime and 
pass a bill that assists law enforcement officials and keeps criminals 
behind bars.
  The crime bill includes $9.1 billion for prevention programs such as 
self-esteem classes, midnight basketball, and arts and crafts training. 
Many of these prevention initiatives are duplicative of programs 
already on the books which have had little or no effect in reducing 
crime.
  The conference committee removed tough crime fighting provisions from 
the bill. Most surprising is the fact that the conference committee 
removed a provision which would make it a Federal crime to carry or use 
a gun during a violent crime. This provision would have targeted the 
most violent criminals in the United States.
  Congress needs to pass a bill with certain penalties for those 
convicted of committing violent crimes. Let's send this bill back to 
conference and demand a tough crime bill.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule to H.R. 3355, 
the crime conference report. I support many of the provisions of H.R. 
3355, but the process by which this crime bill has been developed was 
marked every step of the way with partisan roadblocks.
  Attempts to improve this bill have been rejected by the Democrat-
controlled Rules Committee, from consideration on the House floor and 
in conference. These roadblocks have obstructed efforts to produce many 
tough, meaningful reforms to our criminal justice system. The bill was 
filed at 7 p.m. last night, which means the Rules Committee had 1 hour 
to review the document before voting on its rule. For Republicans, 
there has not been a complete conference document to refer to in order 
to know about specific provisions.
  The responsible vote is to oppose the rule and send the measure back 
so improvements can be made. Improvements which will correct some of 
the missed opportunities and respond to the needs of law-abiding 
citizens, police forces, prosecutors, courts and prison systems around 
my home State and the rest of the Nation.
  The legislation I have supported throughout this process, H.R. 2872, 
includes measures, among other things, to set mandatory minimum prison 
terms for violent crimes; provide funding for additional police 
officers; limit probation and parole; limit death row appeals and 
expand the death penalty; provide funding to fight illegal immigration 
and strengthen criminal alien deportation laws; increase penalties for 
crimes committed with guns; provide funding for prison space to 
incarcerate violent offenders; and, provide a good faith exception to 
the exclusionary rule.
  Some of the provisions of our bill were included in the conference 
report, but other important provisions designed to fight violent crime, 
including a measure to allow evidence of prior sex crimes of the 
accused to be admitted in sex/child molestation cases, were not 
included despite instructions to House to do so. I will continue to 
fight for their passage.
  According to the Uniform Crime Report, the violent crime rate in 
Arizona increased 129 percent between the years of 1975 and 1993. To 
make the changes necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens, this 
crime bill should be improved. Defeating the rule will allow for that.
  If we know that we could reduce the problem of violent crime by 70 
percent with just a few actions, would we do it? According to 
researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, approximately 7 percent 
of criminals commit over 70 percent of violent crime. If we facilitate 
putting and keeping these criminals in prison, we eliminate the chance 
of being victimized by their actions.
  The conference report, therefore, should be changed to more 
adequately provide prison construction funding for the States. The 
conference report includes only $6.5 billion in state funding for 
prisons. Of that amount, up to approximately $4 billion can be used by 
States for non-prison construction activities. The House is already on 
record instructing conferees to include $13.5 billion in prison 
construction. And, according to government data supplied by Michael 
Block of the University of Arizona, between 1980 and 1990, and 10 
States with the highest increase in their prison populations, relative 
to total FBI crime indexes, experienced, on average, a decline in their 
crime rates of more than 20 percent, while the states with the smallest 
increases in incarceration rates averaged almost a 9 percent increase 
in crime rates. Clearly, we can take a big step to better help States 
keep violent criminals off our Nation's streets and in jail by 
providing more prison funding.
  The crime bill should also be changed to encourage states to ensure 
that violent, repeat offenders are locked up under ``three-strikes-
you're-out'' and ``truth-in-sentencing'' laws. The conference report 
requires that under its ``three-strikes-you're-out provision the third 
strike be a Federal violent offense, which will result in only about 
300 to 400 violent, repeat offenders being taken off our Nation's 
streets for good. According to Mr. Block, every day this year, 14 
people will be murdered, 48 women raped, and 568 people robbed by 
criminals who have already been caught, convicted and then returned to 
the streets on probation or early release. The crime bill should be 
changed to increase the number of repeat offenders who will be put 
behind bars for good.
  Another area in need of complete re-direction in the crime bill is 
the $9 billion allocated for social programs. Given that, among other 
things, the crime bill, (a) only allocates a part of what is needed for 
prisons, (b) will only fund about a fifth of the 100,000 local police 
officers promised, and (c) has been criticized by the director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation for taking needed agent resources from 
the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration, the responsible action to 
take is to send the crime bill back to conference to prioritize the 
spending in this bill.
  For example, the Youth Employment and Skills Crime Prevention program 
in the bill includes over $900 million for a jobs program for youth. 
The problem is that, according to the General Accounting Office, the 
Federal Government already spends $25 billion on 154 Federal job 
training programs, many of them specifically designed for disadvantaged 
youth. Many believe this is illustrative of duplicative, wasteful 
programs which are funded in this crime bill and should be eliminated.
  Another provision of the bill which should be sent back to conference 
is the semiautomatic weapons ban, which passed the House by a vote of 
216 to 214 earlier in the year, and which I voted against. The biggest 
difference we can make to reduce crimes committed with guns is not to 
infringe on law-abiding people's rights, but to significantly increase 
penalties for illegal use of guns. Several attempts were made to 
increase penalties in this bill for crimes committed with guns, and, 
even though the House has voted to instruct conferees to increase these 
penalties, ultimately they were rejected by the Democrat-controlled 
conference committee. That should be corrected.
  There are other important issues, such as the ``good faith'' 
exception to the exclusionary rule, which allows evidence obtained by 
police in good faith to be admissible in court even if its seizure was 
beyond the technical scope of the Fourth Amendment. Several attempts 
were made to include this measure in the bill but, again, the Democrat-
controlled House rejected those attempts.
  The direction on this bill should be clear. The Congress should take 
this opportunity to be responsible, vote down the rule and send this 
bill back to the drawing board where the questionable provisions can be 
takenout, strengthening amendments can be added and the rights and 
safety of law-abiding citizens can be protected.
  We have the opportunity. Do the right thing. Vote against the rule on 
this bill.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this 
conference report and would urge my Republican colleagues to do the 
same.
  I know that many of my colleagues have discovered various reasons to 
oppose this legislation and there are portions of this bill that I do 
not support. But on balance, with our country facing an epidemic of 
violent crime, this legislation represents progress.
  If we fail to act now, We will have to answer to the countless 
victims of a failed criminal justice system.
  The American people know it. We must control crime and close the 
revolving door of the criminal justice system. Our laws must punish the 
criminal and safeguard law-abiding citizens. We must take back our 
streets.
  This bill is not perfect.
  Let me repeat: This bill is not perfect.
  Do I support midnight basketball? No.
  Do I think we should be handing $1.8 billion for the Local 
Partnership Act to the Clinton administration and big-city mayors. 
Absolutely not.
  Yes, we need habeus corpus reforms. We need tougher truth-in-
sentencing. Police should have a good faith exemption to the 
exclusionary rule. The provisions on sexual predators are not strong 
enough.
  So why am I voting for this rule and this bill?
  Because my constituents are being forced to look over their shoulder 
as they walk the dog in their own neighborhood, to worry about the 
security of their children's playground, and to huddle in their homes 
for fear of going to the nearby shopping center.
  Because Jack and Arlene Locicero and sister Cary of Hawthorne, NJ are 
living today with the loss of a precious daughter killed at random by a 
madman on a commuter train last December and I promised the Lociceros 
that I would not let Amy be just another statistic, some good must come 
of their tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lociceros and the American people are counting on us 
to take back our streets!
  This bill puts 100,000 new cops on the streets many of them in 
community policing programs.
  This bill hires close to 100,000 new border patrol agents to battle 
the rising floodtide of illegal immigration.
  This bill contains the ``three strikes you're out'' provision to lock 
up repeat violent offenders.
  This bill contains an expanded Federal death penalty.
  This bill will build new prison space in every state in the Union.
  That's precisely why it is supported by a range of law enforcement 
organizations: The National Association of Police Organizations, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriff's Association, the National 
District Attorneys Association, the National Association of attorneys 
General, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Police 
Foundation, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, to name 
just a few.
  The American people want us to act and act now. They can't wait. They 
should not have to. Pass the rule. Pass the crime bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I think everyone knows that it 
is relatively rare for the Speaker to leave the chair and to speak in 
the well in debate on an issue. it is also very rare for him to vote. 
That is the tradition of the House. Like everyone else, I have the 
right to vote, and I will exercise it in voting for this rule and in 
voting for this bill.
  I do so because frankly I think it is a key vote, not for the 
President, and I was glad to hear our distinguished Republican leader 
talk about our President as ``our'' President. I have served here for 
30 years. Richard Nixon was my President, our President, Ronald Reagan 
was our President, George Bush was our President, and Bill Clinton is 
our President.
  But it is not about the President. It is about our responsibility as 
Members of the Congress to our constituents, the people in all the 435 
districts and the 5 territories that are represented here in this 
Chamber. This is the great collection, the Congress of the American 
people.
  And what are the American people telling us? They are telling us that 
after we have spent trillions of dollars rightfully, and I voted for 
those trillions of dollars to defend our country against foreign 
threat, their most deep concern is for their security and the security 
of their families on the streets of our own cities and not on the 
beaches or air space of other countries, or some foreign threat. We 
have conquered every reasonable threat that could be placed against our 
people from outside the country, but inside the country elderly people, 
and children, and families are afraid to go on the streets at night in 
their own communities. They have asked us to respond to that fear.
  It always seems that we get to that point and something intervenes. 
We passed the bill in the last Congress. It was filibustered in the 
Senate. And now procedural objections suggest we should not even vote 
on this bill, we should not even respond ``yes'' or ``no.''
  I have a respect for anyone on either side of this aisle who says 
that he things or she thinks this bill should be voted down, but I say, 
``Let the American people know your reasons, and let them know your 
vote. To govern is to choose on the issue that the American people 
believe is the most central to their immediate concerns, their most 
deeply felt concerns about security in the future.''

  This is a vote we cannot avoid and should not avoid. We should stand 
up, and cast our votes, and explain to our constituents the reasons for 
our actions. That is the very minimum of what our constituents expect 
us to do.
  In all the years that I have been in Congress, and I have been here 
30 years, I have seen times in my experience when I thought votes were, 
perhaps, even more crucial than the vote that we are casting today; not 
many, but some. But this is a truly crucial and seminal vote, and it 
will determine, I think, not only the confidence in the country in our 
ability as an institution to respond to their concerns and needs, but 
it will make a very real and tangible difference in the lives of my 
constituents in eastern Washington, in the towns and cities of this 
largely rural part of our country.
  I used to be a deputy prosecutor. The days of my experience in law 
enforcement have been exceeded many, many times by the threats that 
exist in my communities as well as those of my colleagues. Let us not 
be a helpless giant in response to the demands and concerns of our 
people. Let us respond to their most deeply felt needs and concerns. 
The society that cannot protect the physical security of their citizens 
is a pretty useless society whatever else it can accomplish.
  My colleagues, let us vote for this rule. Let us vote for this bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rush). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 225, not voting 0, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 394]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--225

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1714

  Mr. HAYES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________