[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.
____________________