[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 120 (Sunday, August 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that on 
rollcall vote 414, I was unavoidably delayed. Otherwise, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on adoption of the rule to provide for consideration of 
the conference report accompanying H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime and 
Control Act.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I call up the further conference report on 
the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police presence, to 
expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies 
and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems, 
and otherwise to enhance public safety.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). Pursuant to the rule, the 
further conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of this data.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] will recognized for 40 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the scourge of violent and drug-related crime is running 
rampant in America, and Congress--for the first time in 50 years--has 
the opportunity to pass an historic measure.
  We stand at a crucial juncture of history where we can opt for the 
failed formula of the past--do absolutely nothing, or opt for striking 
a balance between hardnosed punishment and forward-looking prevention.
  Unfortunately, the forces of gridlock and negativity appear to have 
reemerged precisely at a time when the American people are desperate 
about crime as never before. For months now, I and others have fought 
hard against these forces of delay, posturing, and flamboyant rhetoric 
in trying to pass a comprehensive bill.
  This Chamber has a chance today to finally fight crime with action, 
not slogans. The purists must step aside; the obstructionists must get 
out of the way so that we can get results and get them now.
  Each Member of this Chamber has his or her ideal of the perfect crime 
bill. But the American public has not asked for the perfect crime 
bill--they are way ahead of us in the realism category. No, what they 
want is a broad-gauged attack on crime now--in the workplace, at home, 
and in their neighborhoods. And they have it-in the conference report.
  But it is only fair to make clear in this debate that as good as this 
bill is, it cannot be promoted as the sole solution to the problem of 
crime. Federal crime prosecuted at the Federal level constitutes only 4 
percent of all criminal activity in the United States. The remaining 96 
percent of criminal activity is remedied at the State and local level. 
For that reason, the conference committee has wisely not sought to 
federalize every crime under the Sun and displace States and localities 
from their primary role under our Constitution in fighting crime.
  During this Congress, I introduced two pieces of omnibus crime 
legislation--first, in October 1993 and then in March 1994. On both 
occasions, the goal I stressed was balance--both in punishment and 
prevention. I think the new conference report--which largely keeps 
intact the original conference product--does strike the right mix in 
those areas. But I must be candid: The crime legislation I introduced 
did not contain an assault gun ban, did not contain provisions that 
gave the ATF unfettered discretion to ban almost any shotgun or pistol 
with no recourse by the law-abiding citizen--or even congressional 
review.
  These provisions have no place in a major piece of crime legislation; 
and for this reason, the House considered it separately so that it 
would not divide the body and divert attention to the truly innovative 
and tough features of the legislation.
  I am sorely disappointed that some thought it wise or an opportune 
moment to load it aboard the crime bill--for that decision has only 
contributed to the delay, drift, and discord we have faced in doing a 
relatively straightforward thing: fighting crime in our streets, in our 
neighborhoods, and in the workplace.
  It speaks volumes about the arrogance that permeates those who cling 
to the flawed notion that somehow it is the gun--and not the person 
holding it--that is to blame. No, crime is about accountability and 
personal values; and the rest of the bill reflects that orientation 
even if the assault weapon provision does not.
  Nonetheless, as the author of the original legislation and the 
chairman of the Crime Conference, I think it is important that we move 
forward today with the legislation and no longer defer our compact with 
the people to ensure their safety and productivity everyday.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber come from different 
backgrounds. We are elected as Republicans and Democrats, but some of 
us come from more rural areas, some from more urban areas. Some places 
have more crime, some have less crime, and we have come to different 
conclusions on this bill, and it has divided us as political parties. 
But the bottom line is we should have one goal here today, and that is 
to make sure we make the right decision for the people of the United 
States of America and nothing else, and thank God we have been able to 
take the time in the last week to work together in a bipartisan way to 
take a crime bill, which a lot of frankly questioned, and to make the 
changes necessary and, inherent to that, to make it a crime bill which 
is in the best interests of the people of the United States of America. 
This is a series of changes in which police protection has gone up, the 
real money going into prisons has gone up, and some of the social 
programs have gone down in terms of the costs but are still good and 
effective. Violence against women and other things that protect against 
violence against women are other things that we need to do. Yes, there 
is an assault weapons ban in this bill. Yes, there are those who 
support that. We believe very strongly that we do not need assault 
weapons in America. There is a Youth Handgun Safety Act. There are many 
good things. We are going to hear from many good people who are going 
to speak on behalf of this bill. I hope we can listen to them 
carefully.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question. We all want a good crime bill. 
That is not an issue here today. There is no question that the most 
important thing that needs to be done at the Federal level is to help 
the States where most of these violent crimes are committed.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize the most important thing we can 
do here today is to have a bill that helps the States to put swiftness 
and certainty of punishment back into the criminal justice system and 
across this country to begin to send a deterrent message again to those 
who would commit those heinous, violent crimes.
  Many times I have been on the floor in the last 2 years to talk about 
the percentage, 6 percent of those who commit crimes out there are 
committing 70 percent of the violent crimes and only serving about a 
third, or so, of their sentence. It is this revolving door that is the 
single most important thing for the American public to have stopped. If 
we can take those who are committing these violence crimes and getting 
back out on the streets again, and lock them up, and throw away the 
keys, make them serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, basically 
abolish parole, as we do for all crimes at the Federal level, if we can 
get the States the resources, and the tools, and the equipment to do 
that, if we can send a message through ending the endless appeals of 
death row inmates, which we have not done and is not in this bill to 
do, and do a number of things of this nature, we could send a message 
that would indeed have an impact, and that is true crime prevention.
  Many good people have worked on this bill in the past few weeks 
trying to, quote, improve a very bad bill. They have improved the bill, 
but it is still a bad bill, I think a very bad bill, because it does 
not fundamentally provide the kind of tools and resources necessary to 
put the deterrent message back out there and to give our law 
enforcement officials and State officials what it takes to stop this 
violent crime epidemic.
  Let me quickly run through three or four things. First of all, in the 
area of the police that we are talking about in this bill, cops on the 
streets was a bad provision in the original conference report. It is a 
bad provision in this particular report. Not one thing has been changed 
about it. The funding level is the same, and everything else. Allegedly 
there is supposed to be 100,000 more cops on the street by this. 
Professor DiLurio of Princeton has written extensively about this. We 
have all read it. There have been other studies that show we are not 
funding 100,000 cops. We are maybe funding as much as 20,000, and that 
is stretching it.

                              {time}  1720

  This bill would provide the Federal Government pay for only one-fifth 
of the money that is going to be required for that number of cops to go 
on the streets. Four-fifths of this is an unfunded mandate to the local 
governments, and in addition there are a lot of other onerous 
provisions, including some that most of us would call quotas involved 
in the process of the police selection.
  Under prisons, the prison money in the original bill that came out of 
conference a few days ago was actually greater than the money for 
prison construction in this conference report out here today. It was 
$8.5 billion. This has $7.9 billion in it. It is less money. You can 
argue about what little kitty it came out of, but it is less money.
  If you remember, the bill that came from the House for prison 
construction to the States was $13 billion, actually $13.5. We have 
gone from that figure down to $7.9 in this bill. There is, of course, 
an additional $1.8 billion for criminal alien incarceration 
reimbursement to the States. That is not a figure for prison 
construction. If you remember also, the Bureau of Prisons at the 
Federal level has said that in order for us to provide enough money to 
the States so they can build the prison beds necessary to take the 
violent repeat offenders off the streets and lock them up for 85 
percent of their sentences, is going to require at least $10.5 to $12 
billion. We are far shy of that in this bill. It does not do that.
  In addition to that, under prisons we have some pretty bad language 
in the truth in sentencing provisions in here. We did not get it out, 
and there are a lot of other problems in it.
  Moving on very quickly to the so-called prevention area, many of us 
have talked for weeks about the new Great Society social welfare 
spending programs in the original conference report. They are still 
largely in this conference report. That is not say to say my colleagues 
did not work to improve it to some extent. There was roughly $9 billion 
in so-called prevention programs in the original bill. There is roughly 
$7 billion in this bill.
  But of that $7 billion, a high percentage of it is still in the form 
of those kinds of things which I do not think most of the Members want 
to see or would approve of. Only $377 million of this went into a new 
block grant program. You still have the model intensive grant program 
at $625.5 million. This is the one which was open-ended in which there 
was simply 15 grants, which will still be there for the Attorney 
General to send where she wants to send to ``provide meaningful and 
lasting alternatives to crime,'' whatever that is.
  There is still the program on the so-called community schools that 
involves the grants to community-based organizations to carry out 
activities including arts and crafts lessons, dance programs, et 
cetera. This has $567 million for that. And the list goes on that did 
not change. This bill is still loaded with what we call the Great 
Society social welfare programs and an expansion of it at the greatest 
level in years in this bill. It has no business here. This is not crime 
prevention in the sense it should be.
  Last but not least, what is not in this bill at all, what is not in 
this bill at all, of course, at the very beginning, we have nothing in 
here to end the endless appeals of death row inmates, which was never 
in discussion at this time, and it certainly should be. It is the No. 1 
issue with local law enforcement around the country.
  No. 2, what is not in the bill and was never allowed out here on the 
floor is the provision under the rules of evidence on search and 
seizure to let more evidence in under the good faith exception that has 
also been wanted.
  Beyond that, what we have really debated that is not in here, and I 
have no idea why it is not in here, is the provision that Senator 
Simpson had in the Senate bill that would allow for expedited 
deportation of criminal aliens. Above all else, I do not understand why 
that is not in here. In addition to that, what we passed by a motion to 
instruct here by an overwhelming margin is not in, and that is to 
create a new Federal crime with minimum mandatory 10 year sentences for 
those people who commit an underlying State crime with a gun, just for 
the simple fact they committed a crime with the gun. That is the kind 
of deterrent message we should be putting into Federal law but we are 
not in this bill.
  Last but not least on that list, the Gekas death penalty provisions, 
the type of reforms that will say if you have the aggravating factors 
outweighing the mitigating factors, you give the death penalty, is not 
in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, today we write one of the sadder chapters of 
the House of Representatives history. It is with sincere sadness that I 
rise to oppose this crime bill. No one has worked more diligently on 
legislation to preserve the security that Americans deserve, the 
security from fear. But good intentions and hard work, as I have 
learned, do not always mean success.
  We as Representatives have a special responsibility, a bond, with 
people, to listen, to make wise decisions based upon the facts, and to 
separate the emotional-political whims from reasoned judgment. Today we 
miserably, and I regret, cowardly failed that responsibility.
  We have let our panic of political reelection drive us recklessly off 
course from sound solutions. We have let our political expediency cloud 
our reasoned judgment, and we have let our ambition to do any deal 
destroy the best opportunity we had for the security for millions.
  You know, our communities were counting on us to build a partnership, 
to fight and prevent crime. We could have done so much more.
  Most importantly, our fellow citizens, millions of them who we will 
never meet, were expecting us not to run over their fundamental rights 
in order for us to satisfy our political lust to prove our toughness.
  I respectfully submit to be willing to win at any price means that we 
lose the value of victory. Our Nation, our people, deserve a whole lot 
better.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Chair would remind guests in 
the gallery that demonstrations of support or opposition to that which 
is said on the floor is against the rules, and we would appreciate 
their observing those rules.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, a little over a week ago a bill came to the House of 
Representatives under a rule, and the bill was only given to the 
minority side only hours before it was to be considered. And we are 
talking about a bill of almost one thousand pages.
  Noticeably upset, the Republicans voted this bill down. Only 11 voted 
for this rule, and we were joined by a substantial number of Democrats.
  We learned a lesson that night. Criminal law is not a partisan issue 
and should not be made a partisan issue. Shortly after that defeat of 
the bill, the President took to the airways and gave one of the most 
scathing speeches that I have ever heard, condemning the Congress, 
condemning the Republicans, and saying we won a vote by some 
parliamentary trick.
  Well, the House knew better, even though the President by that 
statement almost forever sealed that particular bill in defeat.
  We came back, we reached out to the Democrats, they reached back, and 
we did come together. It is a flawed bill, but it is a bill that I will 
vote for. I agree with most of the comments made by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum]. It stopped way short. We need to go further. 
But I think we did move this process forward, we did show that we could 
come together, we could iron out some differences, and I intend to 
support the bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to our so-called tough crime 
bill. Once again Congress is going to pull out the old USA Visa Gold 
and go on a major pork purchasing spree.
  The price tag on this lard-laden legislation is greater than what was 
proposed by the other body in its bill and greater than that which 
passed this House in April. The bottom line on this bill is too high 
and when all is said and done the cost will simply be added onto the 
deficit.
  I am well aware of the funding scheme that says that we will use the 
savings from the elimination of the 252,000 Federal employees to set up 
a crime-fighting trust fund. What a joke.
  We have proposed to use the savings from the work force reduction to 
fund every other program known to man and now we are using it for this 
bill too. One need not be an accountant to realize that the funding 
scheme is a scam.
  Actually, Mr. Speaker, I would consider the price of this bill a good 
investment if it really went to fighting crime. Unfortunately, the bill 
has been presented as the toughest thing since Elliott Ness when it is 
more like the Keystone Cops.
  I think that we should have included a line item for porkaholics 
anonymous so that Members of Congress could seek treatment. Surely it 
would be cheaper for the taxpayers to fund that than this blue ribbon 
winning sow of a bill.
  I did not think that it was possible but the bill is even worse now 
than when it first passed the House. Although it was stripped of the 
so-called racial justice provision, which would have established skin 
color as a criterion in handing down the death sentences, it still does 
not go after criminals.
  Apparently it is more important for the Congress to pass anything 
that is called a crime bill rather than something that is really tough 
on criminals. We on the Republican side of the aisle have not even had 
the opportunity to read the conference report. We have not even been 
provided with a copy of this 7-inch-thick monstrosity.
  The President likes to brag and thump his chest about his crime bill, 
but Mr. Clinton never sent us anything. Now he claims that this is the 
toughest crime bill ever produced by Congress.
  That isn't really saying much. The American people are not fooled by 
this posturing; they know that 90 percent of all crime fighting is done 
at the State and local level. They also know that this bill is not 
about crime fighting it is about pork projects that could not pass 
unless they were called crime control measures.
  Perhaps the worst thing about this bill isn't even the monumental 
cost for the dubious social programs. The worst aspect of this bill is 
the blatant assault on the constitutional rights of law-abiding 
citizens. I am, of course, referring to the gun control provisions in 
the bill.
  Under the guise of fighting crime Congress is busy undermining the 
Constitution that all of us have sworn to uphold. The second amendment 
explicitly and unequivocally affirms the right of American's to keep 
and bear firearms.
  The Constitution does not say that we can ban some guns but not 
others. It does not say that only pretty guns or antique collectible 
guns may be kept by citizens. The amendment quite simply says that the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  It seems that there are those who would have those words mean 
nothing. To them I would say, those words do have clear meaning and our 
forbearers died to give them meaning.
  If Members of Congress and the President do not want the people of 
this country to have guns to protect themselves, their families and 
their homes something is terribly wrong.
  If those who support the abolition of firearms for private citizens 
believe that they are correct, then let them put their theory to the 
test. There is a clear procedure for amending the Constitution; use it. 
But, do not pretend to uphold the document while you corrupt it and 
erode the rights of those that you are supposed to represent.
  I urge the defeat of this flawed and phony crime bill. Let us start 
anew and give the American people real protection, not this pork wagon.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the ranking member on the Committee on 
the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, much has been said in the debate on 
this bill about the 100,000 cops on the beat that this bill is supposed 
to pay for. I am here to say that it is not so, because once again the 
money has not matched up with the rhetoric--$8.8 billion is 
appropriated for community policing in this legislation.
  Assuming that all of the money is used to pay for police and none is 
used for other authorized purposes such as training and equipment 
purchases, the maximum amount of Federal assistance is $14,700 per 
officer. It takes an average of $62,000 a year to pay, give fringe 
benefits to, equip, and train a police officer and have that police 
officer be out on the beat. So there is not a connection between the 
money that is in this bill and the rhetoric of 100,000 cops on the 
beat.

                              {time}  1730

  If the Federal Government fully funded the cops on the beat, we would 
be down to somewhere between 20,000 and 22,000. There is a cap of 75 
percent Federal funding so that probably would increase it to about 
27,500, again, assuming that all of the money is used to pay for police 
and none of the money is used for anything else. Because it takes an 
average of 10 police officers being trained and sworn in for each 
policeman that is actually on the streets, because of various shifts, 
vacation time, administrative work and sick leave and the like, we are 
talking about less than 3,000 new police officers on the street in any 
one given time.
  With there being 20,000 police departments around the country, that 
it less than one officer per police department. Please do not fall for 
the rhetoric that this is going to put 100,000 cops on the beat. The 
money is not there, and this bill should be defeated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Chair advises Members 
controlling time that the Chair is going to follow a different process 
than has been followed.
  So the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] knows, I will recognize 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. Then I will recognize the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I will then recognize the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and then go back to the gentleman 
from Florida, because he has twice as much time. And if we do not, if 
we continue to recognize both, they will utilize all their time, and 
the gentleman will have half his time remaining. The Chair thinks this 
is a better way to apportion the time.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I consumed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 13 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] has 18 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I would think then that we might want to go 
back to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], who has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I will support the 
conference position today in spite of the President. I say I will 
support it in spite of the President, because I was never so 
embarrassed as a Member of this body than I was last weekend when the 
President threw a temper tantrum, when he went around the country 
railing about the principles of Members of this body on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, that was outrageous. He claimed that he lost the vote on 
the rule because of the NRA. Yet many of us wrote to him that same day 
and said we were willing to sit down, and we did not even mention the 
assault weapons ban.
  In fact, during the negotiations, Mr. Speaker, it was not the 
Republican side who raised the issue at all. In fact, it was the 
President's party who wanted to change regarding the definition of the 
10 bullet clip.
  Mr. Speaker, this President has got to understand one very important 
thing: There are Members on both sides of the aisle who have 
principles. Maybe that is not the case down at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, but it is the case here. In fact, in my opinion, 
Mr. Speaker, both bills that are going to be offered today are better 
than the one that he gave us.
  I applaud by colleagues for their efforts.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am adamantly opposed to the bill. I urge 
every Member to vote to recommit it.
  Mr. Speaker, well, here we are again, about to consider a so-called 
crime bill that has a few good provisions but is still loaded with 
close to $7 billion in pork, all to be financed from supposed savings 
from firing 250,000 Federal workers which we all know will never 
happen.
  Mr. Speaker, hopefully these rules will allow one of us to offer a 
substitute (in the form of a motion to recommit) that will:
  First. Knock out all of the pork, and include only money for prisons, 
policemen and Boarder Patrol Guards;
  Second. Remove the gun ban, and replace it with additional penalties 
for criminals who commit crimes with guns;
  Third. Toughen truth in sentencing language;
  Fourth. Punishment for sexual offenders who prey on our women and 
children;
  Fifth. Reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers; 
and
  Sixth. Remove funding for federally funded luxuries in correctional 
facilities like body building equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Brewster/Hunter bipartisan substitute that we hope 
to offer does not contain a single feel-good, high-cost social program.
  They are all removed bringing the cost of the bill down from $33 
billion to $26 billion.
  To summarize our substitute, it will cost the taxpayers less and the 
criminals more.
  Vote ``yes'' to recommit the bill so that we can strip out all of the 
fat and come back with a real anticrime bill that is tough on the 
criminal element of our society.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the ranking member on the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues, what do 
they know about the Community Schools Program? What do they know about 
the Juvenile Justice Act? What do they know about runaway homeless 
youth? What do they know about the National Youth School Sports 
Program? What do they know about the Family Violence Grants Act? What 
do they know about the Community Block Service, Grant, as it relates to 
children at risk? What do they know about the Job Corps? What do they 
know about YTPA, Summer Youth? What do they know about the 21st Century 
Community Schools program? What do they know about family violence 
programs, grants that are presently here?
  I ask my colleagues that because we have to stop this business of 
making ourselves feel good and go home and say, oh, we put more 
categorical programs out there. We have 266 at the present time. Are 
they effective? Of course not. They are not effective because they are 
run out of every different department downtown. They are not 
coordinated in any way, shape or form. We are getting no bang for our 
buck whatsoever.
  Every bill, every new program that was put into the bill that we 
debated last week is already enacted in law. It is in law. Most of them 
are appropriated.
  So all we do is say, oh, yes, we are interested in doing something 
about preventing crime. We pass another categorical program. We have 
accomplished nothing, folks, and we will not until we put them all 
under one roof. And we will not until those who apply for them can 
apply and not feel threatened that somehow or other if they are 
creative, they will get an auditor there who will put them behind bars.
  They have to have a book, a book something like this, 300-some pages. 
Then that mayor or that county commissioner or whomever it is, it could 
be the director of Crispus Attueks. It could be the director of the 
YMCA or the YWCA. They have to sit down and figure out, who do I apply 
to; how do I fill out these grants. Will I get a few bucks and if I get 
a few bucks and I realize I got a few from program and a few from this 
program and I try to put them together so that they will be meaningful, 
so they will be worthwhile, so they will do something about prevention, 
no, the auditor will not allow that. We do not allow that. Our 
categorical program does not allow that.
  So please, do not go home and say, boy, do I feel good. We really did 
something about preventing crime. We are really working to help youth 
at risk. We are not. It is just plain and simple. We are not. We are 
wasting taxpayers' money, because we refuse to coordinate the programs. 
And we only add these programs so we can put out a press release and so 
we can tell somebody, my name is on it.
  Folks, we are not helping those young people. I have worked with them 
for a long, long time. We are hurting them. We positively have to 
coordinate our activities and make our bucks count.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the revised bipartisan 
crime bill. In the past 72 hours, many of my colleagues have been 
working closely in a truly bipartisan manner to bring the crime bill 
conference to the floor today.
  Compliments to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], who has 
worked incredibly hard, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Molinari], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] from our side and 
to the majority leader and the Speaker on the other side of the aisle.
  But I must tell Members that the original crime bill was highly 
unsatisfactory and has changed in one very important way. The question 
that I had to pose to myself was, do we care more about convicted drug 
dealers or the health and well-being of our children in our 
neighborhoods. The question was for those of us who demanded drug 
dealers serve their full sentences. This revised bill strips the 
language that could have allowed the release of as many as 16,000 
convicted crack dealers and drug offenders who would have been released 
into our communities under the original bill.
  The result of this negotiation is pro-community, pro-law enforcement, 
and pro-American.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we must put the rights of our communities 
before those of the criminal. I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support this revised crime bill and to move forward.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  (Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill 
and in support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report on H.R. 3355.
  Mr. Speaker, ``What we have here is a failure to communicate.'' This 
quote comes from a 1970's prison movie in which a prison warden thought 
the prisoners were missing the point of their incarceration. Mr. 
Speaker, the criminals that control our streets today have similarly 
missed the point of our crime control efforts. It is high time we pass 
a crime bill that sends the message to the criminals of this country: 
If you do the crime, you will serve the time.
  The crime control debate has come full circle. With the bipartisan 
alternative, we are once again focusing on the two most important 
elements of effective control of criminals: Putting an end to the 
turnstile justice system through free and full funding of State prisons 
and habeas corpus reform.
  Wesley Smith accurately identified the problem in a recent article 
appearing in the National Journal: Nobody knows better than the 
criminals that they can litigate the system to death and avoid the 
death sentence for up to 20 years.
  Prison funding.--The people in the Third District have been calling 
for real crime control, and that means building more prisons to take 
the criminals off the streets.
  Our judicial system has put the rights of the criminal in front of 
the rights of the victim. Judges concerned about prison overcrowding 
has led to the release of criminals before they have served even half 
their sentence.
  We must fully fund the efforts of the States to build and maintain an 
adequate prison system that refuses to release a violent offender 
before his time is served.
  Habeas corpus reform.--Wesley Smith makes the point in his article 
that in 1966 prisoners filed 218 suits in Federal court claiming 
inhumane treatment and overcrowded prisons. This threw open the 
turnstile justice system that is responsible for the skyrocketing 
repeated violent crimes. By 1993, prisoner suits had increased 
twentyfold. The litigation explosion has cost the States hundreds of 
millions of dollars in legal fees, money that should be spent on 
incarceration.
  The bipartisan alternative makes the changes necessary to stop the 
endless appeals process for death row inmates and convicted felons that 
bog down courts and delay executions.
  I have attended two executions in my home State of Georgia, and it 
took 15 years to bring these two coldblooded murderers to justice. 
These delays and appeals send the wrong message to criminals. They must 
be made to understand that once they are sentenced, the punishment will 
be carried out swiftly and efficiently.
  The bipartisan alternative targets the crime control efforts that are 
effective and agreed to by a vast majority of the Members and the 
people. Let us pass what we agree on and talk later about what we 
cannot agree upon. The victims deserve this much.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report and urge strong support for the motion to recommit.
  Today, we again vote on the omnibus crime bill. This is the same old, 
fatally flawed piece of social welfare legislation that the Democratic 
leadership and President Clinton felt the American people deserved 10 
days ago. They believe that a $30.2 billion package is more palatable 
to taxpayers than a $33 billion version.
  Rather than objectively seeking to improve the nuts and bolts of our 
criminal justice system, the bill before us today is still only an 
unfocused mish-mash of trickle-down Government programs. It offers no 
evidence that its provisions will be effective in fighting crime. It 
suggests no overall strategy, and it sets no priorities.
  Indeed, this crime bill is a flawed product of a flawed process. The 
President and its House authors used the bill as a goody basket to 
dispense favors to key Members and special interest groups--rather than 
judging its components strictly on their ability to deter crime.
  We need to do something about punishing violent criminals in our 
community. We need more money for police officers and prisons. This is 
why I strongly support the bipartisan motion to recommit which will be 
introduced by Congressmen Brewster and Hunter. It is a fat-free, crime-
control measure that does not increase social spending, impose unfunded 
mandates or increase Federal control over local matters.
  I will vote against the present crime control conference report, just 
as I voted against the crime bill rule 10 days ago and the original 
House crime bill 4 months ago. It is my greatest hope that once we deal 
with this piece of legislation that we can move forward and tackle this 
issue in a much more reasonable, responsible, and bipartisan manner.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members who supported the 
previous bill have taken the floor today to say that today's conference 
report, today's bill, is a better bill. That then raises the question, 
why did they support the last bill? I think the answer to that is, they 
did not believe that the last bill could be improved, that the effort 
would be made to do so.
  However, we demonstrated in the House of Representatives a week ago 
that it could be improved. By the vote that we took to send the bill 
back to conference, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a better bill today 
than we had a week ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely congratulate both the Republicans 
and the Democrats who worked on the bill. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, if 
we can improve it after two all-night sessions, I believe it can still 
be improved more if we take some more time.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the conference report that is 
on the floor today. That does not mean I oppose a crime bill, of 
course, but I believe that we have demonstrated, those of us who voted 
to send the bill back to the committee, that it can be improved, that 
it was improved, and I believe it will be still further improved if we 
work on it further.
  However, the question arises, what about the need to fight crime 
right now? I believe that that need is met by supporting what will be 
introduced by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] as a motion to 
recommit the bipartisan Hunter-Brewster bill. This will provide funding 
to police and to prisons and to the Border Patrol immediately, and 
those are the areas that time after time after time are so often 
publicly mentioned as in need of that kind of support.
  Mr. Speaker, the criticism of that alternative is, it does not 
include everything. There are many Members who want to see much more 
enacted to assist law enforcement, and I agree with that. As a former 
career prosecutor, I believe efforts against career criminals are an 
extremely important tool for law enforcement. I support the strongest 
three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision we can write, and in some 
violent crime cases, two strikes.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that alternative will get the 
most funding going where it is needed immediately, while we work on the 
rest of the bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], a distinguished member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the chairman of the 
committee, and I thank him for the strong leadership these last few 
long days, and all the people who worked very hard to make this an 
American crime bill. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, because 
we know if we do not work to prevent crime, we are really working to 
encourage it.
  For people who say these prevention programs have not been tried and 
true, they have not listened to their local people, the local mayors, 
the local DA's, the local sheriffs, the local prosecutors who are 
saying ``We need more prevention, not less.''
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about balancing whether we are going to try 
and build the next generation or whether we are just going to keep 
building more and more jails for them. It is a balance between the two. 
It is giving these kids a hand up if they will reach out and take it, 
and if they will not, the jails will be there for them. We are really 
putting it on the line for the first time in 14 years.
  It is also very historic in that for the first time we are putting 
resources in the resources-starved area of domestic terrorism that is 
so rampant in this country. We know there is just a real dearth of any 
kind of information about that, and the policing of that has been very, 
very poor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is also a handout to communities to try and help 
train police, to help with more shelters, to get more 1-800 numbers, 
and to stop violence when it starts in the home and only tends to make 
more young criminals in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is as balanced a bill as we will probably 
get. I liked the other bill better, to be perfectly honest. We are 
never going to get anything that is perfect here, but this is something 
that both sides of the aisle have worked on, and that the people who 
are in the field, not Charlton Heston, but the people in the field, 
have told us we need. We really ought to listen to them, because they 
are on the front line and they are the ones that are having to take the 
hits.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we have a resounding victory for this, and I 
think America will be very happy we finally listened.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my sponsorship of three-
strikes-and-you-are-out, I oppose the conference report, and I urge an 
aye vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. 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. Mr. Speaker, because I am strongly 
supportive of a good crime bill, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report and in support of motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield one and a half minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sarpalius].
  Mr. SARPALIUS. Mr. Speaker, first it was the Brady bill. I remember 
standing here behind this podium and making the statement that if we 
pass that bill, it would be the beginning of a series of gun control 
bills. Now it is assault rifles. They said it was only 19, but the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has said it is 180; that it 
would affect 50 percent of the gun owners in this country. What will be 
next?
  Mr. Speaker, there are those in this Chamber who wish that nobody 
would own guns in this country except the drug dealers and the 
criminals, or we would have a gun law just like what we have here in 
D.C., where it is a felony to own a gun. It is against the law. Guess 
what city ranks No. 1 in homicides and murders? It is this city.
  Mr. Speaker, we will not stop people from killing people by thinking 
that we can outlaw guns. I am offended by some of the Members in this 
room who have accused me and some of my colleagues, that the reason we 
are voting against this bill is because of the gun lobby.
  Let me say, it is not easy being a Democrat voting against my 
President and voting against my party. However, just within the last 
hour in my office, my phone calls from my district are running 16 to 1 
against it. I am voting against this bill, and I am voting for the 
motion to recommit, because that is what my constituents think is in 
the best interest.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, along with the sheriffs and police chiefs of 
my district, I rise in strong support of the crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to voice my support for 
the crime bill. It is a bill which is both tough and smart. It combines 
strong prevention initiatives, such as funding for antigang programs, 
and protection against domestic violence, as well as tough on crime 
measures like ``three strikes and you're out'' and truth in sentencing.
  I have been continually meeting with people and working on 
legislation regarding crime. Earlier this year I sent a survey on crime 
to the residents of my district and the message from Oregon was clear: 
People are worried about crime, and want action.
  It would be wrong to pass crime legislation without first consulting 
with those people who are on the front lines everyday. To help advise 
me on these issues, I have developed strong ties with the law 
enforcement community in my district. I meet regularly with two law 
enforcement task force groups. The experts in this field want more 
prevention, more money for prisons and they are tired of being 
outgunned.
  I am a member of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus here in 
Washington, DC. This bipartisan caucus serves as a sounding board for 
the law enforcement community to present ideas to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and as a source of information concerning policy and 
grants for the law enforcement community.
  While this crime bill is not perfect, I feel that it's a balance 
between working to stop crime before it occurs, and severely punishing 
those who have broken the law. I believe that only with a combination 
of prevention and punishment can we make our streets and homes safe and 
secure.
  The provision in the crime bill which I most oppose is the one which 
expands the death penalty to over 60 more offenses. One reason I am 
against this provision is because I am concerned that the death penalty 
is not always applied in a racially fair manner. I voted in favor of 
Representative Kopetski's amendment to strike the death penalty from 
the crime bill and replace it with life imprisonment. Unfortunately, 
this proposal did not pass. I am also concerned with other provisions 
affecting the rights of due process guaranteed under the fifth 
amendment. Despite my concerns, I am putting aside my personal views 
and voting for the crime bill because it will help to reduce crime in 
my district and my constituents have clearly indicated that they 
support this legislation as a whole.
  I am especially pleased that my Domestic Violence Community 
Initiatives Act was included in this bill. This act will help to break 
the tragic, and often deadly cycle of abuse. It is vital we make the 
place that should be the safest--one's own home--safe again. My 
domestic violence community initiative provides grants to local groups 
working together to prevent and stop domestic violence. It requires 
police, victims' advocates, medical and other community organizations 
to develop a strategy to begin to solve this problem.
  There are two other elements in the crime bill that I worked 
particularly hard to pass: truth in sentencing and the assault weapon 
ban.
  The State of Oregon already has truth in sentencing and it works. The 
truth in sentencing amendment helps keep violent offenders off the 
streets longer. I worked with the author of this amendment, 
Representative Chapman of Texas, to bring this important issue to the 
House floor and am pleased that it was included in the final version. 
It also includes important funding for the building and expansion of 
prisons so violent offenders are not back on the streets simply because 
prisons run out of room for them.
  Lastly, I actively participated in passing the assault weapon ban. I 
met with many of my colleagues, spoke out for this ban on the House 
floor and in news conferences to make sure the House did not bow to 
special interests. The American people overwhelmingly support this 
legislation and it is in their interest that I support this ban.
  I commend the conferees for putting together a conference report that 
addresses all sides of the crime issue, and I look forward to President 
Clinton signing this much needed legislation into law.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], someone who has been so 
helpful in this area.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago I stood with the majority of 
House Members to oppose a rule on the conference report. I did so out 
of concern with the process. This body had little or no opportunity to 
examine that measure, and the few details that were known were not 
reasons to support rushing the bill to the floor.
  However, Mr. Speaker, today we have a conference report that, thanks 
to the work of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], and others contains 
significant improvements over what was proposed last week. Social 
spending has been cut by $3.2 billion, while retaining the same amount 
of funding for hiring police officers and increasing funds for new 
prison construction.
  Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this new bill is much tougher on criminals. 
By tracking sexual predators and prohibiting the early release of drug 
dealers, this measure will do more to help battle serious crime. Mr. 
Speaker, this new bill also contains block grants so local communities 
will have a say in crime prevention programs.
  This conference report is not perfect, Mr. Speaker. It does not solve 
every problem in our criminal justice system, but it is a major step in 
the right direction. I urge all my colleagues to support passage of 
this significant legislation.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 and a half minutes to the 
gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
report. I also rise to say that I have been surprised and offended by 
some of the comments that have been made on the floor today, comments 
that infer that anyone who opposes this bill is automatically a captive 
of special interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill because I believe it is a bad 
bill, and because I believe that most of the people whom I represent 
are opposed to the bill, as well. There are a number of reasons, I 
think legitimate ones, to be opposed to this bill, and they have 
nothing to do with special interests: federalization of crime and crime 
control.
  Mr. Speaker, crime control is going to happen in the local area. This 
bill adds to the amount of regulation that the Feds will have over 
local folks. Only 5 percent of the crime is in the Federal area. We are 
not going to change that.
  Spending, we do not have $30 billion to spend. It is supposed to be 
taken from reductions in the number of Federal employees. Let us see 
how much of that happens, and how many claims there are already to 
those savings. I think a number of them.
  Certainly the idea of social programs is still there. I wonder why we 
should take the model that has been used so successfully in New York 
and Washington, DC and apply it to the rest of the country.
  I am a little offended by the idea that anyone who opposes this bill 
is suddenly designated as being driven by special interests. I oppose 
it. I plan to vote for the motion to recommit, because I think it is 
best for the people of Wyoming. I think it is best for this country.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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 in strong support of the conference 
report and in strong opposition to the motion to recommit and the 
cynical politics it represents.
  Mr. Speaker, the crime bill we are about to vote on is the work of 6 
years--a careful compromise designed to attack crime in a balanced and 
comprehensive fashion.
  The bill before us will provide $30 billion to fight crime, with more 
than 75 percent of that total going to State and local law enforcement. 
It bans assault weapons--weapons that have given criminals greater 
firepower than cops. And it provides $6.9 billion to attack the root 
causes of crime and prevent it before it happens.
  The motion to recommit guts this approach. It strips out the assault 
weapons ban. It cuts $1\1/2\ billion from the funds for State and local 
law enforcement. It carries no death penalty provisions. It lacks the 
balance, the vision, the comprehensive approach of the bill we have 
been working on for the past 6 years.
  Vote down the Brewster-Hunter's last-minute, piecemeal approach. 
Defeat the cynical politics it represents. And pass the real crime 
bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk].
  (Ms. SCHENK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report and in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report will put more police on our 
streets. I will do so because it bans 19 specified types of 
semiautomatic assault weapons. I will do so because it will help combat 
violence against women.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I will also support the conference report because 
it still contains provisions for some significant crime prevention 
measures such as the Local Partnership Act, which are important to 
cities like San Diego. I want to quote a portion of a letter I received 
from Susan Golding, the Republican mayor of San Diego. She wrote in a 
letter to me after this bill passed the House that ``San Diego is 
actively developing and implementing measures to combat crime in our 
streets and schools; the substantial financial assistance provided by 
this legislation will be critical to our ability to continue this 
effort for our citizens.''
  Mayor Golding and San Diego's chief of police Jerry Sanders have 
asked that I do everything I can to assure that the Local Partnership 
Act remain in the conference report, and I will do that today by 
opposing the Hunter motion to recommit this bill and strike this an 
other crime prevention programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit 
and support the conference report on H.R. 3355.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a letter in support of the Local Partnership 
Act and the letters from Mayor Golding and Chief Sanders for the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  San Diego County


                                         Board of Supervisors,

                                                    July 12, 1994.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Biden: As a member of the conference committee 
     reconciling differences between the House and Senate versions 
     of the omnibus anti-crime bill, you have the opportunity to 
     enact legislation which would significantly assist state and 
     local governments in their efforts to combat crime. Two 
     issues addressed by the bill are particularly important to 
     the County of San Diego: (1) the proposed ``Local Partnership 
     Act,'' and (2) a proposal to manage the incarceration of 
     illegal aliens convicted of violating state laws. The County 
     supports the House position on these issues in the final 
     conference agreement on the crime bill.
       Local Partnership Act.--The Local Partnership Act would 
     authorize the formula distribution of $2 billion to local 
     governments for the next two Federal fiscal years. If 
     Congress were to appropriate the full $2 billion, the San 
     Diego region would receive over $18 million, and the County 
     of San Diego would receive $6 million of that amount. A local 
     match would not be required, and local government would have 
     broad discretion in tailoring programs to local needs and 
     priorities.
       The Local Partnership Act recognizes both the fragile 
     financial condition of many local governments and the key 
     role that local governments play in apprehending, detaining, 
     adjudicating, and supervising persons who violate the law. 
     The Act would allow the County and the region's cities to 
     bring added resources to bear on a major problem in this 
     area. An ongoing project to test new arrestees shows that 
     over 80% of those persons had detectable amounts of illegal 
     drugs or alcohol in their bodies at the time of booking. 
     Increased education and treatment could reduce the incidence 
     of substance abuse and abuse-related crime.
       Detention of Illegal Aliens Convicted of State Crimes.--The 
     House version of the anti-crime bill would compel the 
     Attorney General to either compensate states and local 
     governments for the costs of incarcerating sentenced illegal 
     aliens, or to take custody of those persons so they can serve 
     their sentences in federal prisons.
       At any given time, the County has at least 600 prisoners 
     under INS hold. The cost of housing these prisoners is 
     several million dollars a year. In addition, these prisoners 
     exacerbate the overcrowding problem in our jails. The County 
     is under court order to keep its jail population below a 
     specified number. Additionally, the Federal government has 
     not provided funds to pay for the costs of criminal illegal 
     aliens incarcerated in California prisons. It is estimated 
     that the costs of maintaining more than 17,000 criminal alien 
     prisoners is over $300 million per year. These are funds that 
     could have gone to county governments to address a wide range 
     of local needs, including overcrowded jails.
       Conclusion.--The Local Partnership Act, and the federal 
     government's fulfillment of its responsibility for 
     incarceration costs caused by illegal immigration, would 
     greatly benefit the residents of San Diego County. Please 
     include these provisions in the final version of the omnibus 
     anti-crime bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Pam Slater,
                                                       Chairwoman.
                                  ____

                                                City of San Diego,


                                            Police Department,

                                      San Diego, CA, June 9, 1994.
     Hon. Lynn Schenk,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmember Schenk: As you are aware, a House-
     Senate Conference Committee is currently meeting on the Crime 
     Bill.
       The Crime Bill passed by the House includes authorization 
     for a Local Partnership Act. This provision would allocate $2 
     billion directly to local governments: San Diego's allocation 
     would be $5,230,840. These funds are extremely important to 
     the City of San Diego, and can be used for a variety of 
     programs such as education, substance abuse treatment, jobs 
     programs to prevent crime, and coordination of other crime 
     prevention programs.
       I am writing this letter to request that you contact the 
     conferees to make sure that this provision is included in the 
     conference agreement on the Crime Bill.
       Thank you for your assistance and support.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jerry Sanders,
                                                  Chief of Police.
                                  ____



                                            City of San Diego,

                                      San Diego, CA, June 7, 1994.
     Hon. Lynn Schenk,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmember Schenk: The Crime Bill recently passed 
     the House includes an authorization for the Local Partnership 
     Act. Through this provision, it is contemplated that the City 
     of San Diego would receive $5,230,840, which could be used 
     for a wide variety of crime prevention efforts, including 
     education, substance abuse treatment and job training 
     programs. As you know, the City of San Diego is actively 
     developing and implementing measures to combat crime in our 
     streets and schools; the substantial financial assistance 
     provided by this legislation will be critical to our ability 
     to continue this effort for our citizens.
       I write, therefore, to urge you to contact the conferees in 
     the House and Senate who will be reviewing this legislation, 
     and make sure that the Local Partnership Act--with the above 
     allocation for San Diego--is included in the conference 
     agreement on the Crime Bill. Your efforts in this regard will 
     help us provide a safer community for all San Diegans.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Golding,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report and in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  We gather here today on the Sabbath to pass a crime bill. Since the 
time of Cain and Abel mankind has had a need for laws that fairly 
govern society. We come here today to pass a crime bill that contains 
numerous new death penalties. There is tremendous irony in passing the 
new death penalties on the Lord's day.
  However, I am willing to vote for the new death penalties and the 
other tough measure contained within this bill because that is what the 
majority of my constituents want. But, they also realize that crime 
cannot be attacked only after the fact.
  There are those who believe that a crime has to be committed and that 
person be caught before society can do anything. Children should not be 
afraid to go to school or to the street corner. We need to take the 
guns and knives out of the idle hands of America's youth and replace 
them with books and work, and yes, even basketballs.
  The prevention money in this bill has been cut by $2.1 billion. That 
wasn't enough for some who claimed to have negotiated in good faith. I 
am proud of the leadership of this House for negotiating in good faith 
with the Members from the other side. It is hard to bargain with those 
who smell a political victory. Let us cut the politics and pass the 
crime bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to put on the Record my statement in 
support of the conference report, the tough and realistic conference 
report, and in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that this bill is not the perfect bill. This 
bill has provisions which trouble me and trouble my friends in the 
Congressional Black Caucus, especially the unprecedented expansion of 
the death penalty. I urge the administration to follow through on its 
promise to ensure that there is racial justice in our judicial system. 
I urge the administration to ensure that the three-strikes provisions 
are applied fairly and equitably. And, finally, I urge the 
administration to prioritize funding for the prevention portions of the 
legislation over funding for prisons in the appropriations process.
  The reason I am voting for this bill, despite my reservations about 
the death penalty and three-strikes is that, for once, we have a crime 
bill that is balanced. We have a crime bill that would both increase 
the security of our citizens and break the cycle of violence that is 
plaguing our Nation's cities. With 100,000 more cops on the beat, we 
are taking back our communities from gangs and drug dealers. With the 
assault weapons ban, we will make sure these policemen are not 
outgunned while performing their duties, and ensuring that in our 
offices and on our streets, we are removing weapons whose sole purpose 
is indiscriminate mass killing.
  But more than just stopping criminals and taking away their weapons, 
this legislation honestly addresses the need for crime prevention by 
targeting more than $7 billion for community programs intended to 
prevent crime.
  These programs will address serious societal needs. There is $1.8 
billion to stop violence against women, including establishing the 
domestic violence hotline and expanding civil rights and privacy 
protections for women victims of violence.This bill would target our 
at-risk youth populations, by authorizing funds to enhance innovative 
State and local partnerships and model crime prevention programs, 
targeting for education, economic development, and anti-gang programs, 
and for midnight sports leagues which give hope and alternatives to our 
youth. By educating our youth and giving them an opportunity to grow up 
safe, secure, and in a supportive environment, we are taking bold steps 
to remedy the decades of neglect of our youth that previous 
administrations saw as affirmative policy.
  Mr. Speaker, we finally have a crime bill which honestly attempts to 
address the root causes of crime. I commend the conferees for crafting 
this balanced legislation, and with the reservations I expressed 
earlier, I urge passage of H.R. 3355.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the former Speaker of the 
Maryland legislature.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report and against the motion to recommit.
  The conference report before us today takes an important three-
pronged approach to fighting crime. It funds police, establishes tough 
enforcement measures to deal with criminals and sets up new prevention 
programs which will help keep young people from turning to a life of 
crime in the first place. By attacking crime from every angle, we can 
help ensure the safety of our neighborhoods.
  A key initiative in this conference report is the ``cops on the 
beat'' provision which provides $8.8 billion in grants to help States 
and local governments hire 100,000 new police officers. This bill also 
provides almost $10 billion to help build new prisons, expand existing 
ones, and to establish boot camps for nonviolent first-time young 
offenders.
  This crime package also includes strong law enforcement. It addresses 
the escalating problem of repeat offenders with its three-strikes-
you're-out provision. In response to the calls of police departments 
and law enforcement officials from around the country, the bill bans 19 
assault weapons and limits gun clips to 10 rounds. Furthermore, the 
bill will provide tuition assistance to individuals in exchange for 
their commitment to join police departments upon graduation.
  The serious problem of domestic violence is also addressed in this 
crime package. The crime bill creates programs which work to reduce the 
incidents of domestic violence and establishes new Federal crimes with 
stronger penalties for those who commit these offenses. In addition, a 
new civil rights violation is created which will allow a victim of 
domestic abuse to sue the abuser. Furthermore, provisions in this crime 
bill expand rape shield laws and require registration and tracking of 
sexually violent offenders released from prison.
  Prevention measures are also critical to fight crime. This crime bill 
increases funding for recreation and antigang programs, employment 
opportunities, and other projects which present youngsters with 
alternatives to criminal activity. These programs will reach elementary 
and secondary school children before they become involved in crime.
  Last spring I held townhall meetings throughout my district on 
anticrime initiatives. Many of the suggestions brought forward by my 
constituents for Federal action to fight crime are included in this 
legislation.
  No one bill can stop a societal problem that has so many roots. But 
this crime bill takes a tough, comprehensive approach to crime. With 
more cops of the beat, three-strikes-and-you're-out, more prisons, 
tough sentencing, restrictions on assault weapons and a strong 
prevention program, this bill contains more anticrime measures than any 
Federal legislation ever passed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report on H.R. 3355. 
Let us address the American people's No. 1 concern.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report and in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly opposed to the proposed elimination of 
the Violence Against Women Act.
  Clearly, the Violence Against Women Act is an essential first-step to 
ending the devastating physical and emotional damage caused by domestic 
violence. To those who argue that the initiative is unnecessary, I 
point out that the majority of funding designated for these purposes 
will assist police and prosecutors at the state and local levels. This 
will allow law enforcement authorities to more effectively prosecute 
these crimes, which are now the number one cause of injury to women 
between the ages of 15 to 45.
  The Violence Against Women Act also earmarks a significant amount of 
funds to build new battered women's shelters and to expand the capacity 
of existing shelters. Anyone familiar with this issue knows that 
millions of women and their children remain in life-threatening 
situations because they lack access to protective shelter facilities.
  The Act also establishes a nation-wide domestic violence hotline to 
link victims throughout America with their nearest source of help, as 
well as a FBI database of sexual predators and stalkers to more 
effectively prevent and prosecute interstate domestic violence.
  The proposed elimination of these provisions is morally unjustifiable 
and indefensible public policy. The women and children of America are 
crying out for help. We cannot allow their cries to go unanswered. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Violence Against Women Act by voting 
to defeat the motion to recommit and voting for final passage of the 
crime bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  (Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
I also strongly oppose the motion to recommit.
  Yesterday saw two bipartisan efforts unfold to address the crime 
bill.
  One effort--led by my colleague from Delaware, Mike Castle--was a 
sincere honest effort to improve the Crime Bill, cut back its expense, 
and tailor its resources to the areas where the investment of the 
taxpayers we represent will be most effective.
  Those involved in this effort, I particularly cite the Republicans 
who were operating not for partisan gamesmanship but to make a 
constructive contribution on an issue so important to this county. The 
work of this House would be improved substantially if we had more of 
this bipartisanship as we address the issues that face us.
  In sharp contrast, a second bipartisan effort known as the Brewster-
Hunter motion to recommit unleashed a desperate late bid to kill the 
Crime Bill because of the manufacturing ban on assault weapons it 
contains. It makes only the thinnest pretense at seriously addressing 
the Crime Bill. The motion to recommit is designed to kill the bill as 
even a quick look at its provisions make clear.
  First it eliminated two provisions which each enjoy broad public 
support.
  The death penalty, and the manufacturing ban on assault weapons are 
supported by overwhelming numbers on popular polls.
  Why in the world would someone want to take out these provisions? 
While there are a few who oppose both sections, most in favor of 
Brewster-Hunter will come down in favor of the death penalty but 
against the manufacturing ban on guns. At this desperate last hour they 
will sacrifice the death penalty because preserving the unrestricted 
manufacturing of assault weapons has become all important--all 
consuming.
  A final provision in the Brewster-Hunter motion reveals its true 
character as it strips out funds required to make a tough national 
response on crime possible.
  The motion to recommit strips from the bill all additional funding 
for prosecutors. In the months leading up to this vote, I spent a lot 
of time listening to law enforcement officials in North Dakota. They 
told me that getting tough on crime required a system-wide approach. We 
need more police on the street. We need more prison capacity for the 
additional criminals we'll be locking up, and for goodness sake we will 
also need more prosecutors to convict the thugs these new cops bring in 
under arrest if we are ever going to get them behind bars for the long 
terms they so richly deserve.
  Shortchange the prosecutors and you will increase plea bargaining. 
Shortchange the prosecutors and you will be getting soft on crime 
because criminals will be set free for want of our ability to convict 
them.
  The local law enforcement officials I met with, praised the Byrne 
grant program because it let them apply federal resources to local 
crime problems without oppressive federal mandates. Byrne grants are 
the way we say to local law enforcement across the country ``you know 
your job better than Washington--here are desperately needed resources 
to help--apply them as you see fit--not as some Congressional Committee 
staffer may want to mandate''.
  Yet Byrne grants are stripped out of the bill by Brewster-Hunter and 
this motion to recommit will be supported by some of those who speak 
the loudest against federal mandates. Why? Because again, preserving 
unlimited manufacture of military-style assault weapons is more 
important to these members than giving local law enforcement the tools 
needed to protect Americans while minimizing risk to police officers.
  A final point of Brewster-Hunter I find especially objectionable 
involves eliminating $300 million for battered women's shelters. Three 
weeks ago I toured the shelter in Bismarck North Dakota. This 
facility--a converted single family house now holds eight families--
women and children who have literally been battered out of their homes. 
Every effort was made by the shelter to make the facility cheerful and 
as homey as could be. However, operating on a shoestring this simply 
was not possible. There was a very limited space, families with nothing 
in common but being victimized by domestic violence were literally on 
top of one another, and baby cribs--normally a sign of such precious 
joy in our lives--were crammed into corners. What's more, those in the 
shelter were the lucky ones. Countless abuse victims across the country 
are trapped in their emotionally devastating and all too often life-
threatening situations because they simply have no where else to go.
  Was $300 million for battered women's shelters pork--required to come 
out of the crime bill. Hell no it was not pork and anyone voting 
against this funding should ponder long and hard how such a cut can be 
justified. In my belief even those feeling strongly on assault weapons 
should not vote against helpless victims of domestic violence as the 
Brewster-Hunter motion of recommit requires them to do this afternoon.
  As we now prepare to vote I urge you to support the bipartisan crime 
bill strengthened and improved by the intense negotiations of the last 
48 hours, but to reject the torpedo aimed at the crime bill in the 
guise of the Brewster-Hunter motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the motion to recommit 
and in opposition to the conference report.
  This whole exercise has been a fraud on the American people. For 
example, the President and the liberal leadership have promised 100,000 
cops on the streets. In reality, when you take into account the 
training, pensions, and other manpower factors per officer it only 
boils down to around 20,000. Why can we not talk in realistic terms? 
The administration likes to hold a carrot of expectation out there 
knowing it cannot meet that goal.
  Second, I completely disagree with the gun ban. These are not 
machineguns or rapid fire street sweepers that they have been painted 
in the media. Many of these semiautomatic weapons are like the firearms 
many folks in southern Missouri have for hunting, shooting, and 
collecting. We would be doing the public a world of good if we 
concentrated on giving criminals mandatory minimum sentences for any 
offenses committed with guns, like an alternative, much leaner, true 
bipartisan bill I supported going into the vote. Further, mandatory 
minimums do not take $30 billion to implement.
  The more I have studied this so-called crime bill, the more obnoxious 
it becomes--bloated with social spending on new Federal programs and 
full of loopholes which protect the criminal and not the victim. The 
administration knows it is playing with funny money because they cannot 
fund the full 30 billion dollars' worth of promises. And finally, it is 
farfetched, illusory, to believe the President's claims that this is 
the strongest anticrime initiative ever.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, studying this bill, I have come 
regrettably to the conclusion that this is probably a good crime bill 
for urban America but it is not a good crime bill for all of America 
and I think that is disappointing. The fact is that there are 3 
programs I would like to give as an example.
  First of all the $8.8 billion spent for the cops on the streets. That 
is competitive grants to the Attorney General. We do not have grant 
writers in small town America. Then to require that we are going to 
turn that over to property taxes in years 2 through 5 does not make any 
sense.
  Second, there is $7.9 billion in prison grants but the criteria are 
such that my own State of Wisconsin will not even qualify to be able to 
compete for that type of money.
  Third, there is $5.9 billion being spent for crime prevention 
programs. I will point out the biggest of those programs known as the 
Local Partnership Act is based on a formula that is calculated on the 
per capita number of violent crimes.
  Ladies and gentlemen, crime is a real problem in this country, but 
this bill is not a real solution against crime for all of America. Vote 
for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago a group of men rushed into an 
apartment building in Worcester, Massachusetts, and shot 4 people in 
broad daylight. One man was killed in the attack that resulted from 
another drug deal gone bad on the streets of America.
  In February of this year, the Chief of Police of Paxton, MA, another 
town in my district, was gunned down by three men who as it turned out 
were released early from prison because of overcrowding. The 38-year-
old chief left a wife and 3 children. Mr. Speaker, at the funeral as I 
looked at their eyes, I vowed to fight for a crime bill in the Congress 
of the United States. We need more police, we need tougher sentences 
and we need more prison space. Pass the bipartisan conference report.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Kim].
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I was a little concerned about the bashing 
going on this morning to those who oppose this bill, been called such 
as we have been bought out by NRA, calling us gorillas. I resent that.
  Let me tell why I am opposed to this. First I called every police 
chief in my district, 41st District of California. They all oppose 
this. Why? Because there are too many conditions attached to this grant 
money. They would rather not apply for this. It is going to cost them 
more money to get a benefit out this grant. Second, we have a 
perception that our district will not get anything out of this thing. 
They are probably right. We are located about 40 miles away from Los 
Angeles. They know they are not going to get anything out of this 
grant. This is for someone else. We are tired of subsidizing someone 
else all the time. Why? Because of a lack of trust. They do not 
believe, they do not trust the Federal Government.
  My second reason is, 85 percent of people in my district oppose this 
bill. They are not all NRA members, I can tell you that. Why? Because 
it is excessive social spending. It is a redundant program we have. We 
have 266 programs already. Adding another 30 more? We do not even know 
what program we have. We do not even know who is controlling this 
anymore.
  Besides in our district we are not going to get anything out of this 
program. We do not have any midnight basketball program in my district. 
So those programs it seems to us are irrelevant to crime. Simply give 
us money, we will spend with the best of them. That is why we oppose 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday an editorial in the Wall Street Journal says 
that California will lose $250 million in taxpayers' money, New York 
$238 million, Illinois $105 million, but Arkansas will gain a $44 
million windfall. I do not see why California has to subsidize other 
States such as Arkansas. We have our own crime problem. I think it is 
better to have an equitable distribution formula. Just give us money 
without any conditions attached. We know how to spend it.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. He loves fighting crime and he worked tirelessly to develop 
innovative approaches to both punishment and prevention, as well as the 
favorite topic in his life, the gun ban.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks], our chairman, for yielding me the time. He has always been a 
tough and smart leader of our committee. Even when we go head to head, 
he has always been fair. I respect the chairman for that.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 days, this House has been tested by fire, 
but good, sound steel only gets tougher when it is passed through 
flames. In the past few days, Mr. Speaker, we on our side have had to 
reach out to moderate Republicans. It was painful. And many of us had 
to give in ways we have not had to give before. But it will produce a 
bill and it is the way we should go in the future.

                              {time}  1800

  This bill has balanced funding for police and prisons and prevention. 
This was a good, sound, balanced bill when we started. It is a good, 
sound, balanced bill now.
  Balanced does not mean equal, but it does mean a fair share, and the 
bill is fair. It gives a fair share to each of the basic elements we 
need to fight crime: police, prevention, and punishment.
  Or course the bill has the assault weapons ban we approved in the 
last conference. The American people want this ban against deadly 
killing machines, and the American people are demanding we pass it now.
  We can all pick at this bill and point to what we do not like and 
recreate the gridlock of last week, last year and the last decade. But 
the moment is here, the question is clear and America is watching. A 
vote for this bill is a vote for a good, tough, smart crime bill. It is 
a vote for the future. But most of all, my colleagues, a vote for this 
bill is a vote of confidence. It is a vote of confidence that America 
can rise above the divisions of party, of race, of class. It is a vote 
of confidence in the work and the wisdom of this House working as a 
bipartisan team.
  Let us pass this bill and go home with our heads high.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to this anticrime, 
noncrime bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and visitors, electronically 
and in person to this esteemed Chamber----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Chair will admonish the 
gentleman that he may not address guests in the gallery or viewers on 
television.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I shall not do that again, and please do not 
take that out of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time will not be taken out of the 
gentleman's time.
  The Chair again recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have here the readout from our computers 
in the back of the House and I think the recommit vote is going to be 
very, very close, very exciting.
  But I am a realist, and I think that Republicans will have delivered, 
I think, a terrible waste of money with some effective parts around the 
edges to you. Will we get credit and the loyal opposition? No, it will 
be like NAFTA. It will all be the comeback kid and the stunning 
victory.
  But please, remember, you had 58 votes a week ago Thursday, and you 
had 55 a few minutes ago, a change of 3, and they were changed by good 
friends, Charlie, and John Lewis that were changed a week ago during 
press conferences. So now you have none; during the negotiations, a 
couple of switches back and forth. We went from 11 to 42, so we will 
give you the margin of victory if you win.
  But I have nine grandchildren you are putting this debt on, and some 
of it is necessary debt, the moves against violent thugs in the 
streets, but a lot of it is unnecessary, politically duplicative and a 
waste of money. Now my nine grandkids cannot put me up there with Henry 
Gonzalez with 25 and Ron Packard's 27. But we cannot do this deficit 
spending, these duplicative programs. It is not right.
  Vote for the recommit.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my neighbor, the 
gentleman from the Eastern Shore of Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  (Mr. GILCHREST asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the crime bill.
  I bet there are about 435 people in this House who have the 
unshakeable opinion that they could improve this bill if they had the 
chance. But our best efforts have produced the package that is before 
us, and we are left with only one question: Is this bill better than 
the status quo? I think the obvious answer to that is yes.
  No one seriously believes that we can go back to the drawing board. 
If this bill is defeated, our overcrowded prisons will continue to 
release violent prisoners early, our states will continue the fight 
without help from the Federal government, and some valuable criminal 
provisions will be lost.
  The label ``pork'' simply no longer applies to this bill. Who is 
opposed to the Violence Against Women Act? Have not most Republican 
crime bills contained prison drug treatment? Are not block grants a 
Republican, federalist approach to crime prevention? The prevention 
side of this bill has been consolidated, cleaned up, and reduced to a 
level which no one would oppose in a less politically charged 
atmosphere.
  If we defeat this bill, say goodbye to the sexual predator 
provisions, the Dole-Molinari language, truth in sentencing, prison 
money, victim restitution, law enforcement money, prison money, HIV 
testing for rapist and all the other strong provisions of this bill. I 
urge support for the bill.
  Let us make those provisions law.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], who is a member of the committee.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, this prime-time crime bill which is crafted 
for purpose of the evening news on television does not fight crime.
  On the other hand, what do our people back home feel about the 
contents of this legislation? In my office, the general complaint has 
been not about the crime features but rather on the duplication of 
spending programs. When they learned, that is my constituents, when the 
learned that we have $25 billion worth of programs already in place 
where the dollars are flowing through the pipeline at this very moment 
on the very same types of job training and youth sports programs that 
are now contained in this prime-time crime bill, they are and have 
expressed that they are aghast at what the Congress is doing.
  Do we not have a full understanding that the American people do 
regard overspending and duplication and deficit building as something 
that has to be stopped? It is the question of not fighting crime that 
bothers them as much as the Congress' inability to do the right thing 
with respect to their dollars. They want more policemen, but they do 
not want policemen to be funded partially by us and then the tax load 
to be placed on them down the line. That is what happens with the 
unfunded mandates that are part of the community police funding in this 
bill.
  They do not want the kind of send-back-to-me dollar bill that goes 
back to Washington and then never gets back to their capacity to fight 
crime in the city streets.
  The death penalty we know about, and many know where I stand on that. 
There is no use repeating that any longer. I just wanted to build a 
record now where someday I know I am going to be saying, ``I told you 
so.''
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, when we began this session we heard an 
extraordinary speech by the President of the United States in his State 
of the Union. In that speech he correctly condemned the current state 
of the social welfare system in America and called upon us to end it as 
we know it today. He called upon us to reform it in a fashion that 
would in fact prevent not only the waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
system, but more importantly, end it as a way of life for too many of 
our citizens who are condemned to live in that social welfare system.
  In that speech he correctly pointed to it as a system that deprives 
primarily women and children of the right to live a joyous, adventurous 
life, and instead condemns them to a dangerous and desperate journey. 
He called upon us to end it as we know it. He called upon us in fact to 
look at it as a system that breeds criminals, that has bred for us in 
our center cities and now even in the rural areas for people of all 
races and colors and creeds a desperate situation.
  Today we are attacking crime in America by expanding that social 
welfare system.

                              {time}  1810

  I think we are making a mistake. There are some in this Chamber, some 
of whom I believe that we have had a very honest and fair debate with, 
who believe that social welfare spending is the way to stop crime in 
America. I suggest to you it has not succeeded. In fact, I think our 
President was correct when he said it does the opposite for us.
  I think those of you who believe in expanding the social welfare 
system will win today, but we really should not win today. We ought to 
have a bill today that attacks crime by expanding law enforcement, by 
expanding the capacity of our States to deal with criminals, and we 
ought to deal sooner or later with true reform in the social welfare 
system instead of spending more money on it in the hopes crime will go 
away.
  This debate is not about guns. Do not let people kid you. We passed a 
gun control bill. It is already in the Senate. It can be adopted.
  I hope you will vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff].
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate today centers around competing visions of 
what is needed to fight crime in America. Do we accomplish this through 
feel-good programs and social workers, or do we take a tough, no-
nonsense law and order approach.
  Do we make excuses for criminal behavior, or do we hold criminals 
accountable for their behavior.
  The Democratic leadership bill, both the original and the modified 
version we are debating today, takes the social welfare and pork 
approach to the tune of $7 billion.
  Many of the social welfare programs in this bill are questionable and 
duplicative of other programs currently available. So-called 
``Community Schools'' for dance and art classes, self-esteem and self-
awareness seminars, and grants to provide--and this is a direct quote--
a ``multi-issue forum for public policy discussion.'' This is crime 
control?
  Some of these social welfare programs are pure pork. The Local 
Partnership Act, a key element of this crime bill, was originally 
drafted as part of the President's economic stimulus package in 1993. 
The LPA will give cash to big cities to use for just what about 
whatever they want, from job training to public works projects.
  The Model Intensive Grant Program makes no excuses that pork is the 
object. The conference report itself says that these grants will 
address--quote--``deterioration or lack of public facilities, 
inadequate public services such as public transportation, and 
employment services offices.''
  Even two of the sections of the bill with which I agree, cops on the 
beat and prison funding, have strings attached in the compromise bill.
  There is a better way. The Brewster-Hunter ``Back to Basics'' crime 
bill targets funds to where they are needed most. There is no money for 
pork and untested social welfare experiments.
  The contents of this bill has been stated before, but they are worth 
repeating. Grants for prisons, grants for state and local law 
enforcement, border enforcement, registration of sex offenders and 
community notification, truth-in-sentencing, and death penalty appeals 
reform.
  The choice is before us. Do we want to spend billions of dollars on 
big city bailouts and social workers, or do we want to make the streets 
and parks safe for our citizens to enjoy?
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and the 
Brewster-Hunter substitute bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Machtley].
  (Mr. MACHTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight we conclude 10 days of 
renegotiating the provisions of the crime bill. I, like many of my 
Republican colleagues, 10 days ago voted against the rule, having 
already voted for the House bill, because I believed then, and I 
believe now, that we could have had a better bill.
  Tonight we have a better bill as a result of the bipartisan work 
which went on during the past 10 days. We will vote tonight for a 
vastly different crime bill. It is certainly not a perfect bill.
  Each of us, Democrats and Republicans, could rewrite specific 
provisions much better than perhaps we think are in the bill now. I 
would have preferred a cheaper bill, but that is not our task tonight.
  Our task tonight is to break the gridlock. It is to send a message to 
the criminals that we are serious about crime. It is to answer the 
voiceless voices of the victims of crime. Our task tonight is to pass a 
crime bill, to go home and tell the people of this country that we are 
sending a message to the criminals of this country that lawlessness 
will not survive in our streets, that we will take the streets back for 
our citizens.
  Yes, tonight as I vote against the motion to recommit and for this 
bill, I have great confidence that we are sending a strong message to 
the people in this country. This is a bill that is not perfect, but it 
is a bill that deserves both Republican and Democratic support.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, recognizing full well that the perfect is the enemy of 
the attainable good, I nonetheless cannot find it in myself to vote for 
this bill.
  I applaud the fact there were negotiations to reach out and make it 
bipartisan. The effort has failed. It has failed for me because, out of 
$7 billion of preventive programs, only $370-some million are subject 
to a block grant.
  Even now the police funds will not go to any community whose policing 
plans have not been approved by those who agree that they are 
politically correct in Washington. The prison money will not go to the 
States who do not let the Attorney General determine how their 
corrections systems should be run and how their prisons should be 
designed and built.
  That is an impossible leap of faith for me to take, and I must 
continue to oppose the bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. King].
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago I stood in this well and voted against the 
Brady bill; 4 months ago I voted against the crime bill; and 10 days 
ago I voted against the rule.
  Tonight I am voting for the bill.
  I would like to address my Republican colleagues: 10 days ago we 
scored, we attained a tremendous victory, not just for our party but a 
victory for the American people. We stopped a bill that had serious 
deficiencies.
  During the last 10 days under the direction of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and with positive help from our 
leadership, we changed this bill. We have brought about $3.3 billion in 
cuts, the overwhelming majority coming from social welfare programs. We 
have strengthened the bill as far as violence against women, rape, 
sexual predators, and drug dealers.
  We heard the gentleman from New York say it was painful for the 
Democrats, and it was. Let us take advantage of that pain. Let us not 
let this victory evade, elude our grasp.
  We have attained a victory not just for ourselves but for the 
American people. Do not let it pass away.
  Maybe we have not seen many victories over the years, and we do not 
know when one is staring us in the face. We have a victory tonight, a 
victory where we can go back to the American people and say we have a 
good crime bill, more cops, more prisons; we have cut the social 
welfare spending.
  This is a bill the Republicans should and must support. I ask for a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], a member of the committee.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier on this floor the gentlewoman with the gentle 
voice from New York City, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter], pointed out that of all of the people in the world that we 
know of that are put upon, it is the mayors of our cities, and she is 
exactly right.
  But the reason the mayors of our cities are put upon is because we 
have knocked them over the heads. We have knocked the cities and 
counties of America over the head with unfunded Federal mandates, and 
now this Congress is about to come along with a bill scaled down from 
$33 billion to $30 billion. That is not much movement, but scaled down 
to $30 billion, offering a couple of aspirin to the mayors of our 
country, a couple of aspirin for, for example, grant programs for 
midnight basketball and a grant program for cops on the street.
  So now, Members of Congress who want to vote for this, whomp up some 
compassion. Get those eyes a little bit watering. Get them looking real 
sad and compassionate, and then reach out your hand with those couple 
of aspirin to those mayors and say, ``We are going to help you. We are 
going to help you,'' and then realize that you are the falsely 
compassionate Uncle Sam who knocked them over the head year after year, 
taking their money, and now you want to give them a little bit of a 
little bit of a grant with a whole lot of strings attached.

  Let us be more creative. The time has come to be creative; repeal 
unfunded Federal mandates; free up the localities to fight crime.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to be presumptuous, but I 
think I have a pretty good idea of what the American people want. They 
want what we want, to feel secure in our homes, to feel safe in our 
communities, to, without fear, send our sons and daughters off to 
school and travel this great Nation of ours. That is what they want.
  What does this bill do? This bill provides $8.8 billion for community 
policing. Will it get 100,000 cops? We do not know for sure, maybe 
more, probably a little bit less. But it is a commitment, $8.8 billion 
for community policing, and they want to get the violent criminals off 
the streets and behind bars where they belong.
  The typical criminal in America today serves one-third of his or her 
sentence. Why? Because they are letting them out early to make room for 
the next wave of criminals. And $9.7 billion in this bill is for 
prisons.
  It also addresses prevention. Punishment is very important. It should 
be swift. It should be fair. It should be stern. But we should try to 
prevent, as much as humanly possible, that crime from being committed 
in the first place. Sure, punishment is important, but so, too, is 
prevention.
  I stand here proudly in support of this bipartisan conference report. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and stand 
tall with the American people and support this very important measure. 
It does this House and our great Nation proud.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a 
meaningful crime control bill. I rise in support of a bill that 
provides certainty of sentencing, additional needed resources to local 
police departments, additional funds for the construction of essential 
prison space, and for mandatory sentences for the illegal use of 
firearms.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that the conference report before us 
today provides us with the type of crime bill I have described. For 
this reason, I reluctantly must oppose it.
  I will also support the motion to recommit so that we can have the 
conferees consider the back to basics crime bill which I cosponsored 
along with over 150 of our colleagues. That bill provides more police, 
more prison space, truth in sentencing, and mandatory penalties for 100 
percent of the illegal use of firearms, not for just the one-half of 1 
percent that are committed with so-called assault weapons.
  I know that some will criticize me for not being sufficiently 
concerned about crime. Others will accuse me of not supporting the 
President.
  But, Mr. Speaker, while these false and unfounded criticisms will be 
made, I oppose this conference report because the people I represent in 
the Fifth Congressional District have urged me in no uncertain terms to 
do just that.
  While this conference report is admittedly better today than it was 
just a few short days ago--particularly in light of reducing the amount 
of funding in greater respect of both our budgetary situation and in 
trying to more effectively target the funding that is provided, it is 
still not as good as it can be.
  I do not believe that we must accept whatever is offered to us or be 
labeled as soft on crime. I do not believe that there is some 
artificial deadline that must be met to avoid having the American 
people think that the Congress is unwilling to act on crime.
  I do believe that portions of this bill are in violation of the 
Constitution. I cannot accept the rhetoric that suggests we need to ban 
certain weapons in order to deal with crime. I reject this premise for 
several key reasons.
  First, the nearly 200 weapons banned by this bill according to 
statistics are used in only one-half of 1 percent of all violent 
crimes. This conference report allows the precedent of infringing upon 
a constitutional right in the name of crime control and then does an 
exceedingly poor job of achieving its goal.
  Second, professionals within my congressional district--prosecutors 
and police--tell me that in their experience that these weapons are not 
used in violent crimes in their jurisdictions. They tell me that this 
provision offers a false sense of security to Americans weary of crime.
  Third, where does it end? We have tried gun registration. That does 
little to help deal with illegal use of weapons. We have tried waiting 
periods. Again, it has put the onus on law-abiding citizens and done 
little for the illegal possession and use of weapons. We have already 
for a number of years prohibited the ownership of certain types of 
weapons. Yet these weapons are in the possession of criminals who have 
used them in crimes despite the fact that they are banned. So we ban 
some more guns today, and then we can expect that in a few years 
opponents of gun ownership will come back with a list of only a few 
more.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is too important for us to knowingly 
ignore. We have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I 
intend to keep my commitment to my oath, and I implore my colleagues to 
remember that they took the same oath.
  It has often been said that the American people are ahead of Congress 
in knowing what is needed and what is practical. My phones, my mail, 
and my faxes are screaming that this bill is bad. The constituents with 
whom I meet cannot believe that the Congress is willing to grasp at 
straws with good intentions instead of strangling crime with a truly 
tough and meaningful crime bill like back to basics.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report and a 
``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, the American people want safety in their 
homes, schools, and streets. This bipartisan conference report attempts 
to do that with police, prisons, and prevention.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains the Violence Against 
Women Act, legislation of particular importance to the women and girls 
of our country.
  The Violence Against Women Act, which I introduced last year with 
Representatives Schroeder, Slaughter, and Schumer, addresses many of 
the safety, legal, and judicial issues that women face every day in our 
society.
  The legislation will:
  Require all States to enforce protection orders regardless of State 
of origin and encourage mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence 
cases;
  Provide grants for more effective law enforcement and prosecution 
strategies, including police training, and for rape and domestic 
violence prevention programs in schools;
  Provide funding for emergency shelters for battered women and their 
children;
  Provide protections for battered immigrant women who are the spouses 
of U.S. citizens, or legal residents, and their children;
  Provide training for judges and other court personnel about rape, 
sexual assault, and domestic violence;
  Make gender-motivated crimes civil rights violations;
  Allow local and State criminal justice agencies to access Federal 
crime information databases for use in stalking and domestic violence 
cases; and
  Require the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to collect 
national domestic violence statistics.
  In addition, two other bills I introduced, the National Domestic 
Violence Hotline Act, which provides funding for nationwide, toll-free, 
multilingual hotline assistance for battered women, and a fair trial 
resolution, which allows battered women to present evidence of past 
abuse in criminal trials--were added to the Violence Against Women Act 
late last year.
  This legislation will have a very real impact on the lives of women 
everywhere in this country. Every 5 minutes a woman is raped; every 15 
seconds a woman is beaten by her husband or intimate partner. Violence 
is a sad fact of life for women and girls, no matter where we live, 
work, or go to school.
  The Violence Against Women Act will mean safer homes and safer 
streets for women and girls. For too long we have tolerated increasing 
levels of violence against women and girls. For too long we have 
tolerated the twin evils of sexism and violence. Today, the House of 
Representatives has said ``No more.''
  Let's not lose the Violence Against Women Act. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against recommital.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The Chair will explain the 
status at this point: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] obviously 
has the right to close.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a popular saying a few years ago: ``Are you 
better off today than you were 4 years ago?'' The question for this 
week instead is: ``Are we better off this week than last week?'' The 
answer to that question is ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I voted against the rule that brought this bill up last 
week as I did today, and I did because it eliminates amendments.
  No, this bill is not perfect. Frankly, I would like to see a couple 
of amendments. But we are beyond that. We are now at the stage of 
whether or not we are going to vote ``yes'' or are we going to vote 
``no.'' This bill includes money for prisons and cops, it includes 
money in block grant form for communities. Those are the folks who are 
on the front lines. Those are the folks who need this money in the form 
that they can use it with some flexibility.
  They know what works, and they know what does not work.
  Let us help those communities by making this week a better week than 
last week.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, there are parts of this package with which 
I violently disagree.
  Most specifically, I find the assault weapons ban to be offensive, 
obnoxious, and contrary to the rights guaranteed to all Americans under 
the second amendment. I fought against the inclusion of his language in 
the House bill, I voted against it on the floor, and I sought to have 
it removed in the conference report.
  And for that reason alone, I would vote against it--were it not for 
the many other good and important things in this conference report.
  This is, on balance, a tough and smart package. It will put 100,000 
new cops on the beat to fight crime on our streets. $10,000,000,000 is 
in here for prison construction. It institutes the death penalty for 
cop-killers, terrorists, and drug kingpins. It helps ensure truth in 
sentencing by ensuring that prisoners serve almost all their sentences. 
It provides over $1 billion to protect our borders from illegal aliens. 
It bolsters funding to combat violence against women. And it helps 
protect our communities from sexually violent predators.
  As deeply torn as I am, I have concluded that the best interests of 
the country as a whole on this issue, the No. 1 issue of concern to the 
people, require that I support final passage.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  I want to commend my Republican colleagues for working so hard to 
avoid a complete debacle and who stuck with our basic principles--for a 
law and order bill. The kind of bill we Republicans have fought for for 
more than 6 years. It is simple and straight-forward.
  First, It is 3 strikes and your in to violent criminals; second, It's 
money for new prisons; third, it expands the death penalty; and fourth, 
a strong bill on sexual predators and violence against women and erases 
much of the social spending.
  These are goals we Republicans have waved the law and Order banner on 
for years.
  Let us stop the nit-picking.
  Let us stop the politics.
  Let us pass the bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
Congressman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge].
  (Mr. RIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last week I voted against the crime bill rule because I 
believed the bill did not provide enough protection for the people of 
Pennsylvania. Simply put: I thought we could do a better job.
  The wait was worth any criticism I might receive. The bill has been 
substantially improved. The measure is tougher, stronger, and better. 
Our commitment to more police has been preserved. More prison cells 
will be built. Community notice of sexual offenders has been added. The 
unconscionable release of drug pushers has been thwarted. Local 
communities will have more dollars and greater flexibility to design 
their own anticrime measures. Much wasteful spending has been 
eliminated. Funding formulas reflect crime fighting needs, not 
political priorities. We've retained the special program to help women 
fight back against violent crime. Finally, we have a crime bill whose 
centerpiece is crime control. It's about time. It was worth the wait.
  Many of the changes would independently warrant support. None more 
important or tragic than the the sexual predator provisions. Had the 
tough provisions we have put back into this bill been in effect earlier 
this summer, it is possible that a 13-year-old girl by the name of 
Megan Kanka would be alive today. Unfortunately, Megan was raped and 
strangled by a man who had twice previously been convicted of sexual 
offenses.
  Megan was not protected from her assailant back then. Last week's 
bill would not have helped her either. Today's bill could have.
  Was it worth a week's wait? You bet is was.
  But still, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. More can and must 
be done to fight crime in rural areas in my home State of Pennsylvania 
and across the Nation.
  So as we prepare to approve this crime bill and enter into the 
meaningless political battles of who won and who lost--who is up and 
who is down--remember this: all of the ruckus of the last week was not 
about one party or the other's fortune, it was about people like Megan 
and her family, people who just wanted to feel safer in their homes, on 
their streets, and in their communities.
  This is a good measure. Let us support it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead], a member of the committee.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit. The 
motion to recommit has more money in it for correctional facilities, 
$12 billion; more money in it for grants to States and local law 
enforcement.
  States and local governments will not be required to pay $4 for every 
$1 that they get from the Federal Government. It has strong punishment 
for sex offenders, it establishes truth in sentencing.
  I know that our bill that we got out of the conference committee is 
better than what we had 10 days ago. Many of the corrections have been 
made. But it is still too much full of fat. There is literally $6 
billion of fat in it that are programs that are duplicative of programs 
already in existence. We need to put our money into law enforcement, 
where we will do something about crime in America and not just talk 
about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. In the 
interest of providing a stronger anti-crime bill, I support the motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, while I praise my colleagues on their diligent and 
commendable work in trying to formulate a reasonable compromise, I 
remain concerned that this legislation, which authorizes a total of 
$30.2 billion in funding for crime prevention, prison construction, and 
law enforcement efforts, will not significantly reduce crime.
  Extensive negotiations have occurred since the defeat of the 
procedural rule. Subsequent to the defeat of the initial efforts on the 
crime bill, my colleagues have made real improvements to the anti-crime 
legislation, including: removing the provision providing $10 million 
for Lamar University for a criminal justice study center; strengthening 
the sexual predator language to include quarterly verification 
requirements, lifetime tracking, and community notification; 
eliminating the retroactive release of drug offenders from Federal 
prisons; and, adding language to require mandatory HIV testing during 
rape trials.
  Nevertheless, this legislation does not go far enough. At a time when 
violent crime is on the rise, my constituents want tough legislation 
that will keep violent criminals off our city's streets, and in prison 
where they belong. The American people have spoken, and they will not 
settle for legislation that does not provide our law enforcement 
officers with the resources necessary to combat the forces that 
threaten to destroy the very fabric of our society. I have listened to 
my constituents, and I cannot support legislation that imposes unfunded 
mandates on our cities and towns, legislation that decreases prison 
funding and legislation that duplicates existing Federal programs.
  This measure claims that it will provide funding for 100,000 police 
officers. However, the figures do not add up. On closer inspection it 
is evident that the funding will guarantee the hiring of only 20,000 
police officers, a 3 percent increase in our nation's police force. 
Thus, in order to permanently provide additional police officers, State 
and local governments will be required to pick up the tab. This funding 
will, no doubt be raised by raising taxes or cutting back on other 
valuable services. Furthermore, this legislation enables local 
governments the flexibility to utilize funding for purposes other than 
the hiring of additional policemen.
  This legislation includes less prison funding than was in the 
previous conference report, and even less funding than was included in 
the legislation that I supported in the original, House-approved crime 
bill--this conference report allocates $7.9 billion for prisons. The 
previous conference agreement funded prisons at $8.5 billion, while the 
previous House-approved legislation included $13.5 billion in funding--
accordingly, this legislation will do little to keep criminals behind 
bars, and does even less to end the revolving door that often frees 
violent convicted felons.
  Furthermore, the preventive programs, that are included in this 
conference agreement, are in many instances, already in existence. 
According to the General Accounting Office, we currently have 266 
programs that are aimed at assisting our youth who are at risk. 
Moreover, there are in existence an additional 155 job training 
programs. To reauthorize these duplicative programs is wasteful and not 
an efficient way to create legislation that will truly reduce crime, or 
assist the youths who we are so desperately trying to help. What we 
need is more coordination of these programs, not the duplication of 
existing programs.
  I believe that this legislation can, and must, be further improved. 
Instead off supporting this imperfect legislation, I fully support the 
Brewster-Hunter alternative. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I 
believe that it will help us reduce violent crime. The premise behind 
the Brewster-Hunter legislation is simply, yet tough. Specifics of this 
legislation include: Providing $12 billion in grants to correctional 
facilities; Providing $10.6 billion to State and local law enforcement 
agencies; providing $2.5 billion for border enforcement and the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]. Including a mandatory 
$150 million in funding allocated to the U.S. Border Patrol; and 
mandatory registration of all sexual predators, lifetime tracking of 
offenders, Quarterly address verification, and mandatory community 
notification.
  The Brewster-Hunter legislation combines the kind of ``get-tough'' 
provisions that my constituents, and the American people, want. This 
legislation increases prison funding and provides significant 
assistance to local law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this 
legislation reduces social spending and strengthens our Nation's law 
enforcement capabilities.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. McCOLLUM. 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 conference 
report, and I ask that the following be made part of the Record:
  Mr. Speaker, William F. Buckley recently observed that, ``We have had 
235 executions since 1976 and approximately 350,000 murders. Almost as 
many Americans have been murdered since 1976 as were killed in Vietnam 
and in the two world wars, which totaled over 390,000 lost lives. There 
are now more than 10 times as many men and women in the death houses as 
were executed in 1976.''
  Mr. Speaker, what we continually see are convicted killers making a 
mockery out of our judicial system with endless appeals. Serial killer 
Ted Bundy was on death row for over 12 years before he was executed. 
John Wayne Gacy was on death row nearly 15 years before he was 
executed.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's crime bill does nothing to reform habeas 
corpus or to eliminate the enormous legal loophole called the 
exclusionary rule. Evidence which points to the criminal's guilt should 
be allowed in court.
  There should be an elimination of the endless appeals process, and 
yet H.R. 3555 fails to address that concern. Gone should be the days of 
convicts appealing their sentences multiple times in Federal courts. 
There should be one appeal to the Federal level after inmates have 
exhausted their State appeals.
  A tough on crime bill should contain block grants to States earmarked 
directly to fighting crime and not tied to the micro management of 
Washington telling communities how to best use the grants in their 
communities.
  Yet there is hope Mr. Speaker. The back to the basic crime bill 
proposal, offered by Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Bill Brewster, goes 
a long way to restoring some common sense to Congress' halting efforts 
to write the kind of crime bill Americans want to see come out of their 
government. This is a bill that has broad, bipartisan support. Let me 
call to my colleagues' attention just a few sections of this 
legislation.
  The bill calls for increased border patrols and assistance to the 
inspections program to apprehend illegal aliens.
  The bill authorizes grants to the States to build, improve, operate, 
and modify correctional facilities. This government should be assisting 
in every way possible the building and maintaining of correctional 
facilities.
  The bill also authorizes grant money specifically to communities, 
States, and their local law enforcement agencies to fight crime.
  The bill also punishes sex offenders by mandating registration for 
all predators, lifetime tracking and mandatory community notification.
  This back to basics crime bill will end the practice of setting 
violent criminals free based on technicalities.
  The Hunter/Brewster bill establishes truth-in-sentencing. Imagine 
that: Convicts actually will be required to serve out their sentences.
  Our legislation will also abolish the country club comforts for 
prison inmates. No more video games, no more pool tables, just a 
requirement to work.
  Mr. Speaker, let us craft a crime bill that passes this House 
overwhelmingly. Let us not govern by the 218 rule--218 members and you 
win--no.
  Let us put together a bill that focuses on punishing the criminal and 
fighting crime, not on basketball programs, crafts, and $10 million 
gifts to schools.
  The Hunter-Brewster bill has achieved a great deal of support in a 
very short period of time. This is proof positive that Republicans and 
Democrats can come together on a reasonable, rationale, commonsense 
crime bill that is good for the American people, good for our police, 
and tough on violent crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, we are about to spend over $30 billion of 
the taxpayer's money without having read a word of the bill. I suspect 
that if this new crime bill compromise were in fact a good deal for the 
American people someone would be telling us and them the details of 
what is in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly know that some provisions of the crime bill 
before us could help the people of my district. The Sexual Assault 
Prevention Act and the Youth Handgun Safety Act, among many others, are 
bills I have cosponsored and important parts of them I am told are 
incorporated in this legislation. But while some provisions could help 
the people of my district, every provision is going to cost the 
taxpayers of my district a lot. They deserve value for their tax 
dollars, not waste. They deserve not just any crime bill, but a good 
crime bill.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of Illinois according to the Wall 
Street Journal are going to send $100 million more dollars to 
Washington to pay for this bill than they will get back. That is crazy.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined with a bipartisan group of over 100 
of my colleagues to propose a commonsense alternative to break the 
gridlock over the crime bill. I say let us end the bickering and pork 
barreling and return to basics. We proposed a tough bill that I 
guarantee you any citizen could recognize as a crime bill.
  Our bipartisan solution does nine basic things. They are things 
people want done.
  First, we provided $12 billion in no strings-attached grants to 
States to build prison cells. We must stop returning dangerous 
criminals to the streets. Let us give the States money to build cells 
without endless Washington red tape.
  Second, we provided $12 billion to States for law enforcement. We let 
them use the money to hire police and then use those police as local 
communities want, not as Washington dictates.
  Third, we tell criminals three strikes and you are out--off the 
streets and in jail for life.
  Fourth, we provided $2.5 billion for border enforcement to help stop 
the illegal flow of immigration that is costing taxpayers billions in 
Government services.
  Fifth, we allow the police to notify a community or neighborhood when 
a convicted sexual predator has moved in. Only the out of touch 
American Civil Liberties Union could oppose such a commonsense idea. It 
is about time we put the needs of victims ahead of criminals.
  Sixth, our bipartisan compromise stops the endless appeals process 
for death row inmates and convicted felons.
  Seventh, we stop judges from throwing vital evidence out of court and 
allowing criminals to go free because of silly technicalities.
  Eighth, our bipartisan bill ends stupid sentencing and parole 
policies which have resulted in the average murderer spending only 5.5 
years in jail. We provide for real Truth-in-Sentencing. If you do the 
crime you do the time.
  And ninth, we establish mandatory penalties for crimes with firearms. 
We take the criminals who steal guns and commit crimes with them and 
put them away for a long time.
  Mr. Speaker, our bipartisan effort is not perfect. Frankly, it could 
be even tougher and I would be happier with it. We would be pleased to 
see it debated and amended by this body. I for one would like to see 
the death penalty for cops provision strengthened and many provisions 
in the Violence Against Women Act added. But, unlike those who are 
pushing the so called compromise here today, at least we can honestly 
say to the American people that our back to basics crime bill is about 
crime control, not about pork and not about social programs.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is a reason to change or improve the hundreds 
of social programs already targeted for at-risk youth or to add to the 
$25 billion we spend each year on those programs, let us have that 
debate. But let us not hold up the crime bill with it.
  Mr. Speaker, why is not the commonsense bipartisan bill I just 
described being given a fair and thorough debate here today? Instead 
the President insists we swallow a flawed bill or get no bill at all. 
It is a take it or leave it arrogance that people in this House and 
in America are tired of. Instead of backroom deals, why don't we get to 
vote on these provisions, right here in the House of Representatives, 
as our constituents want and expect us to do.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to pass a good crime bill this year. I 
cosponsored the Republican crime bill when it was introduced last fall. 
I called upon President Clinton to send to us his own bill, which to 
this day he has never done. I even voted in favor of a less than 
perfect bill when it first came through the House last spring. I did so 
because I wanted to be constructive and pledged I would work to improve 
it before it came back to the House for final passage.
  Frankly, there are those who want to take advantage of our strong 
desire to pass a crime bill to lard in billions of dollars for social 
programs that have little or nothing to do with crime. They are 
literally holding up grants to States for prisons and police in 
exchange for welfare spending. They are holding the safety of Americans 
hostage in a cynical extortion attempt.
  Mr. Speaker, the folks who have been calling my office this week 
believe the balance between tough law enforcement and crime prevention 
is off. They are not insensitive or uncaring. They are not trying to 
stop all prevention programs. But they recognize that we have 266 
Federal prevention programs already. What they want us to do now, to 
correct the balance, is to provide more cops, more prison cells and 
more real honest sentences. The bill before us last week did not do 
it--and sadly this bill still does not do it because we are not 
listening to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, let us pass a crime bill every taxpayer who reads it 
will recognize as a crime bill. The so called compromise is better than 
last week's bill. At least it rejects the plan the President supported 
that would have released from prison more than 10,000 convicted drug 
pushers. It is beginning to move in the right direction. If we need to 
stay here another week or two weeks until we get it right, let us do 
so.
  Mr. Speaker, there are $30 billion at stake. There are 240 million 
taxpayers who deserve a real crime control bill that will make them 
safer in their homes and schools and on our streets. To do any less 
than our best on an issue of this importance would itself be a crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I hate to spend $30 billion that 
we do not have and charge it to my grandkids.
  Mr. Speaker, every member of this body wants to be tough on crime. 
Many members are eager to vote for a crime bill before the November 
election--even a bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill spends $30 billion we do not have. In the 6 
years of this bill we will add another $2 trillion of debt for 
America's taxpayers.
  Making a bad bill slightly better through negotiations does not 
justify passage. With this bill Federal judges, the Attorney General, 
and Federal bureaucrats will reduce the prerogatives of local and State 
government on how they run their law enforcement and build and operate 
their jails and prisons.
  Under this bill rural communities will pay more taxes for more social 
programs in urban areas. The $7 billion for crime prevention are social 
programs for youth that have been tried and failed. States like my 
State of Michigan will be a net loser in terms of taxes in and dollars 
out.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we do not give in to politics of the moment and 
that we have the courage to send this bill back to conference.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the 
substitute.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would come to the 
House floor and quote the Washington Post, but today in a story titled 
``The House Nears Crime Bill Agreement,'' it says Republican 
negotiators also claim to have won a cut of $3.3 billion from a 
Democrat crime bill, but those funds were never likely to become 
available anyway. So, I ask my colleagues, ``Why support a bad piece of 
legislation?''
  Mr. Speaker, it has already been pointed out that the second 
amendment has eroded in this piece of legislation. Speakers have 
pointed out that there is no good-faith exception for our police 
officers in conducting searches and seizures. These are not 
constitutional scholars. Speakers have pointed out criminals still have 
endless appeals. This still has $5.9 billion for programs that have 
dubious merit. Why should we be spending that type of money under the 
heading of prevention? Why dial 911 and get a social worker?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bad piece of legislation because it does 
not accent law enforcement. This is a touchy-feely piece of legislation 
that gives new meaning to the phrase hug-a-thug. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for the motion to recommit and against the crime bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
  (Mr. SLATTERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan 
conference committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan conference 
committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, Emanuel Cleaver, mayor of Kansas City, MO, wrote last 
week a compelling editorial supporting the crime bill.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle to take a 
few minutes to read Mayor Cleaver's statement.

 Kansas City's Experience Shows That Programs in Crime Bill Can Work--
   Basketball Leagues and Police Bike Patrols are Not `Pork' But are 
                    Proven Methods of Keeping Peace

                          (By Emanuel Cleaver)

       As crime runs rampant on our streets, the Nation's cities 
     were victimized once again by a congressional hold-up.
       Last Thursday, we were subjected to one of the most cynical 
     acts of legislative trickery and dolce far niente in recent 
     history when the U.S. House of Representatives stalled the 
     first real national attempt at comprehensibly fighting crime 
     that I can remember.
       While our Nation's leaders continue to debate the 
     significance of this legislation, their indifference 
     resonates well beyond the waters of the Potomac. As the 
     members of Congress sit well-protected behind metal 
     detectors, Capital Police and U.S. Marshals, the people they 
     represent are increasingly victimized by crime on their 
     streets and in their homes.
       Kansas City, like most other major metropolitan cities, is 
     struggling with this disease. Crime prevention is the number 
     one issue in my city and across the country. Americans know 
     the time for a national mobilization effort has long passed. 
     National opinion polls repeatedly demonstrate that average 
     Americans support this initiative. We want 100,000 new police 
     officers. We want community policing. We want the anti-crime 
     bill's holistic approach to crime prevention.
       Yet why was it stopped? Why did 225 representatives fail 
     the citizens of Kansas City and the United States?
       Simply put, negative politics. The Beltway culture of 
     gridlock and pessimism is out of step with main-stream 
     Americans like you and me.
       Special interest politics won a week ago by exerting the 
     NRA's fear-mongering influence and claiming pork barrel 
     politics. Is the anti-crime bill ineffective government 
     largess or is it a substantive crime-prevention program? I 
     believe the answer lies in the streets and neighborhoods of 
     Kansas City.
       Ask the residents of Kansas City's Olde Hyde Park whether 
     or not community policing is pork barrel. Last year community 
     policing in that small neighborhood helped decrease crime 23 
     percent and shut down 15 drug houses within the first six 
     months of implementation. Police officers working hard-in-
     hand with central city residents empowered Olde Hyde Park 
     through action and the restoration of hope. Pork barrel?
       Ask the numerous Kansas Citians who have fought over 
     locations for our new Community Action Network [CAN] centers 
     whether or not the Anti-Crime Bill is pork barrel. They know 
     intuitively that comprehensive approaches to crime prevention 
     such as CAN centers will reduce crime and foster neighborhood 
     stabilization. Pork barrel?
       Ask the participants of the Mayor's Night Hoops whether or 
     not midnight basketball leagues are pork barrel. Run on shoe-
     string budget since 1992, Mayor's Night. Hoops offers over 
     600 young men and women a positive alternative to the 
     potential trouble of the streets. In the three summers 
     since its inception, there has never been a single 
     incident of violence or crime at the games. Pork barrel?
       Finally, ask the friends and family of the 153 Kansas 
     Citians murdered in 1993 whether or not we have too many guns 
     on our streets. How much blood will we tolerate before we rid 
     our nation of the people-killing machines known as assault 
     rifles?
       While every American may not agree with every provision 
     contained within this legislation, we know that continually 
     pandering to special interests will not make our 
     neighborhoods safer.
       I originally opposed the Anti-Crime Bill because it failed 
     to include death penalty appeal provisions based on historic 
     racial discrimination. Nevertheless, I joined Seattle Mayor 
     Norm Rice and other big city mayors in urging the 
     Congressional Black Caucus to support this legislation. Why?
       In 1993, there were no African-American Kansas Citians 
     executed by the judicial system. However, 111 blacks were 
     murdered on our streets. It is as simple as that.
       I know what it feels like to be a victim of crime. I know 
     what it is to have a gun held to your head. Eight years ago, 
     I was robbed in my church office by a crazed drug addict. I 
     was luckier than most--I only lost my wedding ring, my watch 
     and a few dollars.
       But think of those who haven't been as fortunate. Think of 
     the over 50,000 children that have been murdered by guns 
     since 1989. Think of the countless murders, burglaries, 
     thefts and assaults that will happen today. Think of what 
     lies ahead if Congress continues its inaction. Congress must 
     pass the anti-crime bill now. That's why I was in Washington 
     on Wednesday.

  Mr. BROOKS. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, without fail, every election year brings another crime 
bill before Congress. This year is only unusual in the magnitude of the 
proposal--over 300 pages of new and amended Federal laws--and the price 
tag--over $33 billion. Otherwise, it is election year business-as-
usual; a rehash of the failed Reagan and Bush war on crime and drugs 
strategies of the 1980's--a war we are losing with expensive and failed 
Federal policies.
  To his credit, President Clinton called for a new strategy--strong, 
smart, focused, and tough, with a new emphasis on prevention. I share 
his goal, but this election year grab-bag won't result in the change we 
seek.
  An extraordinary coalition of Oregonians urged me to oppose the crime 
bill. That coalition included the director of Oregon's Department of 
Corrections, the American Civil Liberties Union, the director of 
Oregon's Council on Crime and Delinquency, the NAACP, the Oregon 
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, as well as gun owners and civil 
libertarians from every corner of the State.
  I supported the President's initial $9 billion proposal that provided 
Federal assistance for prevention and local law enforcement efforts. 
Unfortunately, the final bill the conferees produced is a $30 billion 
crazy quilt of ineffective get tough strategies, projects tailored for 
the districts of those Members who happen to sit on the conference 
committee, and an across-the-board cut from prevention programs.
  Let me give you an example of how this bill distorts crimefighting 
priorities. Of the $30 billion in the final crime bill, perhaps $100 
million would wind up in Oregon. In order to take advantage of that 
funding, the State of Oregon would be required to adopt a host of 
inflexible new mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that will cost 
Oregon taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for new prison 
space and divert money away for successful crime prevention programs.
  Although the President asked for a robust community policing bill, 
the bill ultimately will fund only a small fraction of the promised 
1,500 new cops for Oregon. Furthermore, desperately needed money for 
additional judges, prosecutors, and attorneys will not be funded under 
this bill.
  The highly touted ``three strikes, you're out'' provision is highly 
problematic. As the bill stands, this measure ultimately means 
expensive warehousing of aged criminals, mandatory minimum sentences 
for small-time drug offenders, and the federalization of some State 
crimes. It is ironic that the United States has the highest per capita 
incarceration rate in the world, yet one of the highest rates of 
violence. This ``three strikes, you're out'' approach doesn't satisfy 
my goal of getting truly dangerous, repeat offenders off the streets, 
while rehabilitating nonviolent offenders by using more cost effective, 
alternative punishments.
  Take a look at the bill's new Federal mandate that prisoners serve 85 
percent of their sentences before being eligible for parole. This 
inflexible requirement would make it impossible for States to release 
many nonviolent, rehabilitated, and geriatric prisoners who no longer 
present a danger to society, but cost taxpayers plenty.
  This is the largest public works policy to come down the pike in a 
long time. It provides $10 billion to build prisons, but no money to 
run these prisons. We are fast becoming a Nation with more prisons than 
schools. We need to fund programs like community policing as well as 
targeting at-risk kids before we lose another generation.
  The crime bill also adds 66 new crimes punishable by death, including 
4 crimes that do not result in death. This expansion of capital 
punishment is unconscionable particurly when it lacks any safeguard 
against racial bias in death penalty sentencing.
  Let us address the issue of the assault weapons ban. I would oppose 
this bill regardless of the assault weapons ban.
  Many otherwise progressive people seem to be willing to stomach all 
of the bad in this bill in favor of the ban on certain assault weapons. 
I am not. I support taking sensible steps to keep guns out of the hands 
of criminals. but this provision bans a limited number of weapons, 
based to a large extent on appearance, while allowing the continued 
sale of weapons identical in function. Besides that, this class of 
weapons accounts for only a tiny percentage of the Nation's violent 
crimes. In the District of Columbia, the Nation's murder capital, 1,400 
murders occurred over the past 4 years--only 4 involved so-called 
assault weapons.
  Although the Brewster-Hunter alternative anticrime bill deletes some 
of the troubling provisions in the final crime bill, including the 66 
new death penalties and the so-called ``assault'' weapons ban, it still 
has other major defects. This $26.5-billion bill has the same problem 
of unfunded Federal mandates that will cost Oregon taxpayers hundreds 
of millions of dollars as the underlying bill. Most problematic is that 
this bill contains no money for prevention or alternative incarceration 
of offenders no matter how meritorious or effective the programs.
  I cannot support any anticrime legislation that treats the symptoms 
of crime while ignoring its root causes. If we cannot stop at-risk 
youth from committing crimes, we are committing our Nation to 
generations of prison construction and criminal punishment.
  This crime bill is a classic case of election year posturing that 
gives the public a false promise of protection. The bill appeals to 
people's fears, but falls far short of increasing public safety. It 
will do more to prevent successful local crime prevention than to 
prevent crime. And its punishment provisions will unnecessarily punish 
the Oregon taxpayer.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and 
against recommittal in the context of a statement to be submitted to 
refute the pitiful and woebegotten remarks of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania about Hawaii.
  Mr. BROOKS. 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 support of the bill and in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sangmeister].
  (Mr. SANGMEISTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. SANGMEISTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the issue of 
crime, and the long process which will conclude today with the passage 
of a Federal crime bill.
  Many issues have come across my desk in the years I have spent in the 
public sector, none more important than crime. As a State prosecutor 
and State Senator, I have seen the terrible destruction that crime 
imposes on individuals in our communities. I have observed how crime, 
and the criminal justice system, directly affects our States, our 
cities, and our neighborhoods. As a member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, I have struggled, along with everyone else, through the 
legislative process--hoping that one day we would finally pass a 
comprehensive, balanced, intelligent, crime bill. Well my friends, that 
day is now.
  Today, the American people will have moved one step closer to having 
a crime bill which, in this Congressman's opinion, will help make our 
communities, our hones, and our families safer from crime. It is their 
efforts that have brought us to this point. It is their frustration and 
fear that have guided this process. We must never forget that the 
American people wanted this bill and today, they will get it.
  What we can do at the Federal Government to reduce crime in this 
country is still subject to much debate. We have a nation where States 
carry much of the burden, and most of the responsibility, in fighting 
crime in the streets. The American people must understand precisely 
what this Congress, and this President, can accomplish by passing a 
crime bill. The benefits are far too significant to be dismissed, the 
consequences too devastating if we fail.
  Will 100,000 more cops help? Only time will tell, but it certainly 
won't hurt. Will death penalty for drug kingpins stop the drug problem 
in this country? Not entirely, but it will send the message that this 
country will no longer tolerate such activities. Will building more 
prisons put every single person who has committed a crime in jail, and 
keep them there? Probably not, but it will ensure that we have more 
space to keep those individuals who deserve to be in prison--in prison, 
rather than letting them go as we do now. Will money allocated for 
prevention programs be well spent? Some argue the opposite, but we owe 
it to the American people to try everything in our means to stop the 
violence before it occurs.
  Sure, more can always be done, more debate generated. Personally, I 
would have preferred reforming our habeas corpus and exclusionary laws 
to close loopholes that criminals currently use to escape punishment. 
However, the clock is running, and this country can no longer wait for 
a more perfect bill. Members from both sides of the political spectrum 
can be pleased that we have done our part, that Congress has worked its 
will to fashion a piece of balanced legislation that reflects the wants 
and needs of the American people.
  Not everyone will be completely happy with everything in this bill. 
This is the legislative process, this is what we were elected to do, 
this is what we have accomplished. Tomorrow is another day, but we have 
a task ahead of us right now. Let us give the American people what they 
deserve--let's pass the crime bill today, before another person dies a 
needless death, before another women is raped, before another child is 
abducted, before the American people lose all hope for a brighter, 
safer tomorrow.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  (Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary a question.
  If the motion to recommit succeeds and the motion is silent on the 
death penalty provisions, on the assault weapons provisions, is there 
any guarantee that the conferees are required to report a bill that 
will not contain an assault weapons ban in our expansion of the Federal 
death penalty or related provisions?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Because there is no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, I will be 
voting against the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  (Mr. KLUG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line on this for many of us is what 
did Republicans get out of this bill who held out last week for the 
crime bill? Well, in short we got $1 billion more for prisons instead 
of hugs, and understanding and social workers.
  We got one less Texas-sized pork project and $3.3 billion less in 
spending. We got a new lock on the jail house door for 16,000 drug 
prisoners who would have been released early from prison. We got tough 
sexual predator language. We got mandatory HIV testing in rape trials.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, we got a bill that is tougher, cheaper, and a 
lot smarter than the bill that was in front of us 8 days ago, and I pay 
tribute to my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Molinari] and the rest of us for all of the tough work we have 
done.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference 
report.
  Politicans nationwide are boasting that this is the toughest crime 
bill ever. But, the American people, including grassroots police 
officers in Minnesota, know this bill is nothing more than an election-
year gimmick, and they won't appreciate pulling 30 billion of their 
hard-earned dollars from their pockets to pay for it.
  This is a bill that only makes the politicians feel good, expands 
welfare programs for criminals and offers little hope that it will 
actually make our streets and neighborhoods safer.
  All week, we have heard that the White House was willing to bargain 
with the American taxpayer. Well, this legislation may be President 
Clinton's idea of a compromise, but it will not sell beyond the 
beltway. Only in Washington can you cut just $3 billion from a bad bill 
and say you are doing something good for the American taxpayer.
  When we last took up the crime bill, we did what the people wanted us 
to do, we voted ``no.'' The people want spending cuts.
  Americans deserve a real crime bill, not a Great Society welfare 
spending program for criminals. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
American taxpayer and vote against the conference report and for the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe].
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some myths floating around 
the Chambers here that the law enforcement officers are for this bill 
and are for gun control. It may be that the heads in Washington of some 
of these organizations are, but not the ones on the beat. I will tell 
my colleagues about an experience I had last week.
  The Fraternal Order of Police in the State of Oklahoma were having a 
meeting, and the first thing I said when I spoke was, ``I'm going to be 
against this bill,'' and, ``You don't stop crime by taking guns away 
from law-abiding citizens.'' They stood up, applauded for 5 minutes, 
and the next day they endorsed me.
  Mr. Speaker, the people in the streets, the cops on the streets, are 
opposed to any type of a crime bill that does not have habeas corpus 
reform, exclusionary rule reform, and they are opposed to gun control. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the soft-on-crime conference 
report.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks].
  I do rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the 
recommit. We all support crime control. There is not a Member in this 
House that does not feel we must do something about the crime in this 
country. There have been two sticking points. Those sticking points 
have been the gun ban and the social programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the gun ban is not an issue. It passed this House 
several months ago. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] won that 
issue. It is in the Senate now. So, why in the world should we put it 
in the bill?
  The same thing with social programs. Why should we put billions of 
dollars in this for social workers rather than criminals?
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and myself put together a 
bill, H.R. 5008, that does several things. It puts the money where it 
should be, in prisons and in law enforcement officials. We put $12 
billion in this recommit for additional prisons within our States.

                              {time}  1840

  We put $12 billion in State grants for different law enforcement 
people. The conference bill only puts $9.8 billion in cops on the 
street. We put $2.5 billion for border patrol as opposed to $1.1 
billion. We put the three strikes and you are out. We put truth in 
sentencing.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5008 within the scope of this conference will do a 
lot to control crime in this country, yet it costs $3.5 billion less 
than the conference bill. Mr. Speaker, I would urge this conference to 
move forward and vote for the recommit, and let us put a bill out that 
costs taxpayers less and criminals more.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Ravenel].
  Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, of course the most objectionable feature of 
this bill is its assault on the second amendment. In that context, I 
would just like to remind the house of a couple of things. You know, if 
they had banned the assault weapons of 1775, we probably would not have 
been able to win the first American Revolution. And when they were 
touring the death camps after World War II, and a group went to 
Treblinka, the question was asked, how could 6 million Jews and other 
minorities, twice the population of Israel, how could they have let 
what happened to them happen to them? Why did they not fight?
  Of course, the answer was, with what?
  So naturally, Mr. Speaker, I will vote to recommit.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], America's favorite 1-minute speaker.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, prevention makes sense. When it costs 
more money to send a kid in America to jail than it does to send that 
kid to Harvard, prevention makes sense, dollars and cents.
  There is one other word missing in this debate called 
``unemployment.'' Show me an American that works in our factories and 
works in our businesses, and I will show you an American that does not 
work on the streets.
  We have got to bring the NRA and police together. They are both the 
good guys, and they are apart. And that is bad for our country. We 
should work on that, but we should pass this bill. We need a policy 
that we can all live with in America, and this sets us on that course.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy vote. But you cannot cite your second 
amendment right by strapping a Stinger missile on your back, and there 
is some common sense here tonight. Let us take it.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli], a member of the committee. This 
is the gentleman's last term and we will miss him, but we are glad he 
is here now.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and against 
the motion to recommit, commend the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman 
from New York, and the gentleman from New Jersey, who brought this 
about.
  Since the bill did begin at the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal 
Justice, on which I am privileged to serve, I take a certain amount of 
pride that we have reached this juncture, on the verge of passing a 
very balanced bill, balanced with both punishment and prevention 
measures.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very difficult for all of us. It has been a very 
difficult week, very tense, very painful, very tormenting. But if we 
tonight will pass this bill, and if we usher in an era of new 
bipartisanship and of new collegiality in working on major legislation 
like this, then I think the pain and torment will have been very well 
worth it.
  So I hope we do pass the bill tonight and move into a new era when we 
can work together from the very start of the process, all the way 
through the end of the process. This is what American people are asking 
us to do. We have a chance to realize that by our votes tonight.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks].
  (Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I praise the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and 
the others who worked on the bipartisan compromise. There is no 
question that we have a better crime bill today thanks to the 94 
percent of the Republicans and the 23 percent of the Democrats who 
voted against a rule 10 days ago. There are no cuts for police 
officers; there is more money for prisons; and social programs have 
been cut. Block grants that would give greater control over social 
spending programs to our cities and towns have been incorporated into 
the bill.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I am a little old-fashioned. I believe that the 
best form of crime prevention is punishment. To me the second best form 
of crime prevention would be to strengthen the family. Government make-
busy programs are the wrong approach. Voluntarily financed make-busy 
programs, that is fine.
  We are giving billions of dollars in welfare payments, coming from 
taxpayers, because of a failed family structure. Now we have more 
taxpayers dollars going to keep our young people busy once again 
because of a failed family structure.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for 
several reasons. First of all, it is phony on gun control. My son's 
turkey rifle is going to be listed under it, along with 200 weapons, 
and it is nothing like an assault weapon. He has not been able to kill 
a turkey for the last 2 years.
  The National Association's past director of sheriffs says that the 
community grant program is phony and he does not plan to apply for it 
for use in his area. And there is plenty of pork still left. While 
improved, it is a bad vote and a bad bill, and I intend to vote against 
it.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I was sent into the negotiations by a group 
of Republicans who said that we want to improve the crime bill. They 
were a group of Republicans who were essentially worried that if we did 
not work to improve the bill dramatically over a short period of time, 
that our side would be picked off, and that we would ultimately be 
forced to vote again on a crime bill that did not make dramatic changes 
to the conference report last week.
  What is it that we wanted when we started the negotiations? What is 
it that the Republicans complained about as we began negotiations?
  We said we wanted less social spending program money in the bill. We 
said we wanted more prisons and more police, and we wanted more 
flexibility for local governments through block grants. And we wanted 
to tighten up many of the legal reforms that we had in the conference 
report.
  Well, let me give you my report about what we were able to do after 
we emerged from very tough negotiations.
  No. 1, we decreased the total amount of money in the bill from $33.5 
billion to $30.2 billion, a $3.3 billion savings.
  Second, we wanted more money for prisons. What we were able to do was 
increase the amount of money and real money in the prison trust fund 
section from $8.3 billion to $9.7 billion, more than what we ever had 
in this House bill.
  Next, the majority party offered a cut in the total amount of 
spending for law enforcement officers. That cut was flat-out rejected, 
and we were able to maintain $8.8 billion for community policing in 
this bill.
  Now, we also said we wanted to have a block grant program. And we 
have heard so much about midnight basketball. Let me show you want we 
have done. We have taken 12 categorical grant programs that the 
Republicans said we needed to have, and we have eliminated those as 
individual categorical programs, and we have put them in one block 
grant and have given the local communities the flexibility to spend 
that money the way they see fit. We have changed the formula on the 
basis of which we spend this money, moving toward a formula that will 
be based on violence in communities, another significant concession 
from the majority party.

                              {time}  1850

  The bottom line: The bill is not perfect. We said we wanted to have 
less spending in the social area. We are down in the area of prevention 
funding to $4.3 billion over 6 years, excluding the Violence Against 
Women Act, which Members on both sides of the aisle support--a total of 
$4.3 billion over 6 years.
  We were able to increase prisons and protect police by cutting the 
amount of money--by cutting the amount of money in the social spending 
programs. Did we get everything we wanted? Of course we did not get 
everything we wanted.
  But what I will tell my colleagues is, we were able to vastly improve 
this bill. And what we are viewing is a tough negotiating process that 
is the future of this House. This is the way we will govern this House 
and govern this country, by making tough, tough decisions and coming 
toward the middle to serve our country.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. 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. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, last week, Thursday, I stood in this well 
and at that time I said, and I will say again, there is not any Member 
in this body that is in favor of crime. Every one of us wants to fight 
crime.
  I also commended the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for the work 
that he has done on this bill. And I say again the same thing.
  I also said one other thing that was very important, that gave those 
Republicans on this side the opportunity to do what they have done. And 
that is, even though there were Members on my side saying we had to do 
it Thursday night or it was not going to be done, well, folks, we did 
not do it Thursday night, and we do not have to do it tonight.
  If Members want a good bill, then let us keep on working. Is 
everybody in a big hurry to go home or do they want a bill that really 
gives money for penitentiaries, that lets the States decide--not our 
Attorney General decide--who is going to build a prison and how they 
are going to build it.
  Why do we not wait and have a good bill? I say vote for the motion to 
recommit. It gives us an idea of what some of us are talking about. 
Vote against this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan 
effort to defeat this schizophrenic conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report to accompany H.R. 
3355, the Omnibus Crime Control Act.
  While there is certainly need for reform of our criminal justice 
system and a need to deal with crime in America, this legislation will 
address neither. In fact, I would assert that if incidents of crime are 
reduced after the passage of this legislation, it would be 
coincidental.
  We must first remember that over 90 percent of crime is dealt with by 
state and local officials. This bill promises federal help to our local 
police, however, it does not fully deliver. While the bill claims to 
pay for 100,000 more police, it provides money for only about 20,000 
and forces the states to pick up the tab for the rest of the cost when 
the federal cash runs out. Requiring the states to pick up the rest of 
the tab may not be so unreasonable a request if the states did not 
already have to comply with onerous federal regulations and unfunded 
mandates which lost them millions of dollars each year.
  The ban on semi-automatic rifles contained in this legislation will 
not take guns out of the hands of criminals, but will take them out of 
the hands of peaceful citizens. Gun bans have never reduced gun-related 
crime in America, yet proponents have touted this provision as 
necessary to fight urban crime. The passage of this ban will mean only 
the beginning of the end of our inalienable right protect our homes and 
families.
  Although cuts have been made in spending, a substantial amount of the 
spending remaining in this bill will be spent on unproven ``crime 
prevention programs'' which amount to renamed welfare programs. Mr. 
Speaker, I believe that we now know what President Clinton intended 
when he said he would ``end welfare as we know it.'' I, for one, would 
never have guessed that he would put the Attorney General in charge of 
one of the biggest federal welfare projects in history. It is absurd to 
believe that we can reduce urban crime by paying kids living in the 
Cabrini Green housing project to play basketball at midnight.
  I will be supporting the alternative crime bill offered by 
Representative Hunter. That bill will put the money where it is most 
needed--in police and prisons. It also provides more border patrol 
agents. The reforms in habeas corpus and truth-in-sentencing will 
address fundamental problems in the criminal justice system. Finally, 
rather than banning guns indiscriminately, it establishes mandatory 
prison terms for thugs with guns.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 
3355 and yes on the Hunter alternative.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in 
support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the conference report on the 
crime bill, a report we never have received copies of before we are 
called upon to vote on it. If this bill is as good as some Members are 
saying it is, we would have done it days ago.
  Throughout the year there have been various anti-crime proposals that 
truly are tough on criminals. However, the liberal leadership of the 
House of Representatives has not allowed these bills to be considered 
in the committee process or by the full House.
  Instead, the crime bill we are now considering fulfills the liberal 
agenda of those that control the Congress. Social programs consume 
about one-third of the crime bill funds--all of these programs are 
duplicative of 266 existing programs which cost $25 billion annually.
  This crime bill is a cruel hoax on the American people. We are 
creating false hopes that our country's crime problems will be solved 
by the federal programs enacted in this bill. This is simply not true.
  Many of the provisions in this bill will require local governments to 
enact very expensive mandates. The Wall Street Journal estimates that 
the State of Illinois is a net loser under this bill. Programs in 
Illinois will receive $105 million less in crime funds than the 
Illinois taxpayers contribute to the system. The bill continues to feed 
the insatiable appetite of a Federal Government that is too big and 
spends too much.
  This is not to say that the Federal Government cannot provide needed 
crime fighting assistance to state and local governments. We should 
provide funds for prisons and police in block grants. Instead, we are 
claiming to fund 100,000 police when in fact we are not. The police we 
are funding must be hired under a quota system and directed under 
community committees, and local units of government must pick up three-
quarters of the cost of new officers on the street.
  While we need new prisons, the Federal Government need not dictate 
how these prisons will be constructed or what size ever cell must be. 
This again is federal dollars to which strings are attached and which 
cause new mandates on local law enforcement units. In fact, accepting 
federal construction money may be opening the door to more federal 
rules on how states must operate their prisons.
  President Clinton called last week's vote on the rule a Republican 
trick to defeat the crime bill. The trick is that the Democratic 
leadership did not allow an open rule on this bill which would give 
Members the opportunity to offer amendments to improve the bill and 
vote on issues individually. Instead, the Democratic leadership is 
holding funds for prisons and police hostage in order to pass more 
welfare spending. I resent this attempt and urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, acquisitions surrounding this bill have been 
recklessly hurled from stem to stern. If Members voted against the 
rule, they did so to embarrass the President, the accusers proclaimed.
  The truth of the matter is that most of us who voted no did so 
because the bill is defective. A bad bill, my colleagues, is worse than 
no bill.
  Vote to make a bad bill better. Vote to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
tells me it ain't so, $9 billion in socialized spending and you call 
that a real victory? Tell me, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], 
with the Penny-Kasich that we all support, tell me that this is not 
true, that you are calling this a victory? Tell me that this is not a 
victory where the left wanted to cut out of its social cuts $0.8 
billion for cops and you maintained it at $8.8? Tell me that is a 
victory? It ain't true.
  The Brewster-Hunter bill provides $12 billion for cops, $12 billion 
for prisons, $2.5 billion for border patrol. And guess what? There is 
no Federal strings to it. Our cops, our mayors, our law enforcement 
agents are going to love it. If Members ever heard of states rights, 
this bill goes toward it, to recommit. I ask my colleagues to support 
the recommittal and reject the conference report.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the distinguished chairman of 
the DCCC.
  (Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and against 
the motion to recommit, and I want to laud my colleagues for their 
bipartisan approach to the conclusion of this bill.
  My decision to vote against the crime bill was made only after 
careful consideration and prayerful deliberation. It had nothing to do 
with political considerations. While I think passage of the crime bill 
is ``good politics'', much of it represents bad public policy.
  My vote is based solely on conscience and on my evaluation of public 
policy and the merits of the Bill. As concisely as possible, here are 
some of the concerns I had about the Bill and some of the reasons I'm 
voting against it.
  Sixty new Federal death penalty provisions and no means of assuring 
that they are not administered in a racially discriminatory way. I have 
always opposed the death penalty based on my moral, religious and 
conscientious beliefs. Consequently, I do not support ``official 
killing'' by our Nation or our State any more than I support individual 
acts of violence.
  In addition to the moral considerations, three points need to be made 
about the death penalty from a public policy perspective:
  (1) No study has ever documented that the death penalty is a 
deterrent to crime. In fact, all the studies confirm that the death 
penalty has no impact on crime. In States which have no death penalty, 
crime is no greater.
  (2) The death penalty is not a cornerstone of Federal criminal law. 
Before this crime bill was passed there were only two Federal offenses 
for which the death penalty could be imposed, airline hijacking that 
results in death and the ``drug kingpin'' offenses. The dramatic change 
in Federal policy represented by an increase from two offenses to over 
sixty offenses for which the death penalty could be applied should, at 
a minimum, have been accompanied by careful evaluation of the 
objectives the change in policy was designed to be achieved.
  (3) All the statistics confirm that the death penalty has been 
administered in this country in an extreme, racially discriminatory 
manner. Since the death penalty was approved for Federal drug kingpin 
cases in 1988, of the 37 cases in which the death penalty has been 
sought 34 have been against black or Hispanic defendants and only 3 
against white defendants. During this administration in all 11 cases in 
which the death penalty has been sought the defendants have been black. 
Despite the confirmed history of racially biased implementation of the 
death penalty, efforts made by me and others to include in this bill 
Racial Justice Act provisions which would have started to address the 
racial disparity were rejected.

  Because of my moral beliefs about the death penalty and the history 
of racism the application of the death penalty, it was apparent to me 
that voting for this bill would have required me to be both immoral and 
racist. I was not inclined to be either.
  Prevention funding not guaranteed. Despite all the hoopla about the 
prevention programs authorized in this bill, many of which are good and 
could have an impact on reducing crime if implemented, there is no 
guarantee that funds will ever be appropriated for these programs. In 
fact, there is much reason to be concerned that a coalition of 
representatives, who typically have as their highest priority deficit 
reduction and usually represent a majority in the House, will instead 
divert the funds during the appropriations process to deficit 
reduction. By providing that the funds can be used only for the crime 
prevention programs authorized in the bill or for deficit reduction, 
the bill invites a fight over the use to be made of the funds during 
the appropriations process each year. Remember also that the funds for 
this purpose are the ones projected from expected savings from reducing 
the Federal work force by 270,000 people.
  Children as young as 13 to be tried as adults. In my opinion, this is 
just bad public policy. The federal system has no mechanism, like 
States do, for dealing with juveniles. We're creating an administrative 
nightmare for the Federal Government, expanding the Federal 
Government's reach into areas normally reserved to the States and 
decreasing the likelihood that young offenders will be rehabilitated.
  Sex offenders must register. The last experience this country had 
with requiring people to register, the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, 
proved to be a demeaning experience for the Nation. I think the 
registration required under this bill is un-American also. All our 
notions of justice in this country up to now allow defendants who have 
served their time and ``paid their debt to society'' to move on with 
their lives. This bill requires each of them to keep the government 
informed for life of his or her whereabouts by reporting in not less 
than quarterly. It also requires State and local governments to keep 
track of this information, a classic unfunded mandate.
  DNA profiles to be established. In many states DNA evidence is not 
admissible because there are still questions about how reliable it is. 
This Bill authorizes $25 million for the FBI to establish DNA profiles 
on all criminal defendants. Again, I believe this establishes a 
dangerous, un-American precedent for our government to monitor the 
lives of its citizens.
  Three strikes and you're out. Many states which passed three strikes 
and you're out legislation are already beginning to rethink the public 
policy implications of this politically popular proposal. Providing 
room, board and free medical care to 70, 80 and 90 year olds who have 
long since passed their crime committing years will cost the states and 
the federal government untold amounts of money. No study of the long 
term cost implications of the three strikes and you're out provisions 
in this Crime Bill has been done. That may be good politics, but it's 
bad public policy.
  No Pell Grants for prisoners. There is a strong correlation between 
lack of education and criminal conduct. Consequently, public policy has 
always encouraged the education of prisoners during incarceration in an 
effort to rehabilitate them, prepare them to be more responsible 
members of society after their release and reduce recidivism. Denying 
Pell Grants for prisoners to improve their education represents a 
radical change in that public policy. This may satisfy the public's 
demand to be tough on criminals, but is shortsighted and misguided.
  Other bad ideas. The list of bad ideas in this Crime Bill goes on--
more enhanced criminal penalties for ``hate crimes'' (which I've 
previously opposed), more federal mandates, more federal criminal laws 
in areas which have no federal connection (car jacking, drive-by 
shootings, etc.) and have historically been reserved to the states, 
more prisons and more limits on remedies for prison overcrowding and 
civil rights violations.
  In case you haven't gathered by now, I'm not real high on this Crime 
Bill. While I hope it will have some positive impact, I'm not 
optimistic that it will. I share the frustration of my constituents 
about crime and understand that some constituents are concerned that I 
voted against this Bill. However, I simply think this was a political 
response to a real problem.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
and in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several months we have asked 
the American people two basic questions. The first question is, do they 
want a crime bill that provides for more police and more prisons. The 
American people have said yes. But the second question, do they want to 
spend in excess of $7 billion in social spending, which did include 
midnight basketball and dancing lessons and arts and crafts, met with a 
resounding no from the American people.
  That is why this crime bill failed the first time around. So in 
response to that, a number of Members from this side worked with a 
number of Members on the Democrat side, and they put together a bill 
that cuts the pork down about 30 percent, down to somewhere around $5 
billion left on social spending.
  My colleagues, the problem is, the people have overtaken us in this 
process. The American people do not want $9 billion in social spending. 
They do not want $7 billion in social spending. They do not want $2 
billion in social spending. They want a crime bill that is 100 percent 
fat free.
  So let us give that to them. If Members support the motion to 
recommit, they are telling the conferees to go back and come back with 
the Brewster-Hunter bill that does a couple of things that are very 
important.
  It gives us $2 billion more in prisons and jails than the conference 
report. It gives us a billion dollars more in police. It gives us a 
billion dollars more in border control, and it does it all without 
having any social programs. And it comes in $4 billion less than the 
conference report.
  My colleagues, it is late Sunday evening and tomorrow morning 
millions of Americans are going to leave their homes and go to work to 
make the money to pay for this crime bill. Let us give them their 
money's worth. Vote for the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], perhaps the finest legal mind 
to sit on the committee for a decade, as well as a former prosecutor 
who helped shape tough yet enlightened policy in a wide variety of 
areas, including prisons.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding to me, and I thank him for his remarks. Even my mother does 
not say things like that.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks]. I know that this has not been easy for him, because he has 
done everything he can to get the assault weapons out of this bill, and 
I salute him for being the statesman that he is and for moving ahead.
  I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. 
I followed his career as Governor, and I did not know him very well, 
for his bipartisanship, and that of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich]. That is what we need. There is too much politics in this 
Chamber. One of the saddest things that I have experienced over the 
years I have been here is the lack of comity I have seen in the last 3 
or 4 years, and the lack of bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, Members all know that crime in this country is on fire. 
Our cities are shooting galleries, with armed thugs and druggies. It is 
time to stop fiddling and it is time to pass a crime bill. This crime 
bill, Mr. Speaker, in many respects is much better, in my judgment, 
than the one we rejected. I worked in conference, as the chairman will 
confirm, to try to tighten some of the prevention programs, and I 
salute the gentleman for doing that. I think it advances us in the 
right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the other provisions are absolutely awful, 
absolutely awful, but I swallowed hard and I support it, because it is 
a good bill. It is the best we can do. Look, there are a thousand pages 
to this bill. There are over hundreds of provisions. If Members want to 
vote against it, they can find a provision to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, somebody said it is not about interest groups, but let 
us not kid ourselves. There are two big interest groups in this country 
that are involved in this crime bill. Do the Members know who they are? 
They are the NRA on the one side, and our police and our Governors and 
our mayors and our county officials and our district attorneys on the 
other side. Members have a choice today who they are going to stand 
with. Are they going to stand with the NRA, or are they going to stand 
with those that represent the public interest?
  Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan bill. There are those that said 
that we needed a bipartisan bill. We worked our will in a bipartisan 
fashion, and we have a bipartisan bill. Those that want no bill now are 
the same people that found a reason in many respects to vote against it 
last time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, there are some that want a bill, and 
that is obvious, because they came forward and worked together in a 
bipartisan fashion. Everybody that I have heard criticizing the bill 
criticized the prevention side. Look, I will take a back seat to nobody 
in this House for being a tough prosecutor. I did it for 10 years in 
the trenches, working with youngsters, and we are losing another 
generation of youngsters because we have not intervened.
  I would say to the Members, Mr. Speaker, ask any chief of police 
about crime prevention and he will tell you that is as important as 
building more jails. They are both important. We do that in this bill. 
It is a good bill. We can save another generation because we are going 
to do the things we should have done years ago. Vote for the bill and 
against the motion to recommit.
  Like most every Member, I wish that the bill contained some 
provisions which it does not, and I would prefer to drop or modify 
others.
  Overall, however, the bill offers tremendous potential to truly 
impact upon the rampant crime which plagues our country and deeply 
troubles our citizens. They want us to be both tough on crime and smart 
on crime, and the bill provides both in a balanced approach of both 
better enforcement and stronger support for prevention efforts.
  The bill is a good bill overall. However, as one of the House 
conferees on the bill, I cannot say the same for the process which 
produced it.
  In the early eighties, we set sail on a questionable course of 
producing far-reaching and often inadequately considered comprehensive 
crime bills every Congress.
  In the push to produce this year's behemoth, particularly in the past 
few days, we seem willing to sacrifice good policy to political 
expediency if good policy gets in the way of reaching a political 
solution.
  With the acquiescence if not the encouragement of our leadership, a 
new team of ad hoc conferees was sent in by our Republican 
counterparts. Some of the changes they suggested or demanded were good, 
some were bad. Unfortunately, policy was not a controlling factor in 
determining what was accepted and what was rejected in too many 
instances. Indeed, in the end, as the hours wore on, policy became 
meaningless.
  The worst example of such bad policy is the so-called ``sexual 
predator'' provision. Under a banner proclaiming tough registration 
requirements for sexual predators, we are adding the Schumer-Gorton 
provisions, which register almost no sexual predators. We were told we 
had to adopt this proposal because it mirrors a State program which has 
been highly successful. In fact, the director of the State program told 
us that the proposal is a ``hodgepodge of inconsistent provisions,'' 
which would cost a fortune to set up, and that, had it been in effect 
in his State, would have registered only 18 sexual offenders instead of 
the 7,000 the State currently has registered.
  Probably the worst feature of this hodgepodge is that it requires 
registration of only those sexual offenders who committed their crimes 
against persons previously unknown to them. For example, this 
registration requirement would probably not reach the child molester 
and murderer who recently murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in New 
Jersey, since he has lived across the street from Megan and might not 
be considered a stranger within the meaning of the law. This is a 
result of the inexplicably narrow definition of a sexual predator under 
the Schumer-Gorton language.
  Fortunately, the registration system already in the bill provides for 
registration and tracking of all sexual offenders, so the phony 
toughness of this proposal does not mean that its flaws allow true 
sexual predators to escape identification and monitoring.
  It is regretable, however, that those who want rhetoric at the 
expense of real registration have joined forces with those who are 
uneasy about a system which is both tough and effective. The result is 
a registration requirement which is so fundamentally flawed that it is 
meaningless.
  I also regret that we have rolled back the very narrow provisions in 
the bill to allow judges to make small adjustments in unduly harsh 
mandatory minimum sentences.
  The need for such adjustments has been called to our attention by a 
near unanimous Federal judiciary, most of them judges appointed by 
Presidents Reagan and Bush. In large part, the congressional advocates 
of allowing some relief for these first time, nonviolent defendants who 
had a minor role in drug crimes calling for inflexible mandatory 
minimum sentences are Members, on both sides of the aisle, who designed 
and pushed through these mandatory minimums a decade ago. I acknowledge 
with some regret that I was one of those Members.
  It is somewhat ironic that proponents of these adjustments are now 
being accused of being soft on crime by others who only discovered 
these issues in the last few weeks or days. I chaired the Crime 
Subcommittee from 1981 to 1991, the period during which these and 
dozens of other tough crime control laws were passed. I am proud of my 
role in passing those tough laws. At the same time, I make no claims to 
infallibility, and am willing to make corrections where we went too 
far, or when, as in the case of mandatory minimums, unintended 
consequences produce unduly harsh results. I am deeply disappointed at 
the mean spirited reception that these modest relief mechanisms have 
received.
  I am also seriously concerned about the changes in the rules of 
evidence that are included within this bill. These are the proposed new 
rules of evidence 413, 414, and 415. I do so on several grounds:
  We in the Congress many years ago set up an extensive process called 
the Rules Enabling Act which has served us well for a long time. Under 
this particular process, changes in the rules of evidence and procedure 
for Federal courts originate not in the Congress but in the Federal 
Court System.
  In this procedure, the governing body of the Federal Judicial 
Conference of the United States develops and proposes rules changes 
which must be approved by the Supreme Court before being submitted to 
Congress. The changes go into effect 6 months after submission unless 
rejected or modified by the Congress. The Federal rules of evidence, 
like all other Federal rules, affect the daily business of all our 
courts and also serve as a pattern for many State procedural rules.
  The committees set up by the Judicial Conference which propose these 
rule changes are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
and include Federal judges. State court justices, constitutional 
scholars and outstanding members of the bar.
  The pervasive and substantial impact of the Federal rules demands 
exacting and meticulous care in drafting amendments. This is not 
evident in the proposal before us. The existing rule making process 
involves a minimum of six levels of scrutiny or stages of formal 
review. This has gone through none of those levels.

  The rule changes in this bill are based on a Senate amendment that 
was offered on the floor of the Senate and had maybe 20 minutes of 
debate. It is procedurally and substantively flawed. There has been no 
debate on the potentially enormous impact it would have on civil or 
criminal cases.
  It is the height of irresponsibility to suggest that we should change 
our rules of evidence on the basis of no hearings, totally abandoning 
the process we set up and which has served us well. These particular 
new rules would create an exception to rule 404 which excludes 
admission of a person's character for the purpose of proving action on 
another occasion.
  Substantively, the existing rule states that we cannot convict a 
person for a particular crime based on past conduct of a similar 
nature. In prosecutions of sexual assault or child molestation 
offenses, this type of evidence is particularly inflammatory and thus 
potentially prejudicial to the fact finding process.
  These proposed new rules would go even further and allow admission of 
evidence of acts even if the defendant had been acquitted on this 
evidence in the past. Any evidence, regardless of conviction could be 
offered under these changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that in our actions on crime bills we all have a 
tendency to try be tough on crime, but this is ridiculous.
  Frankly Mr. Speaker, what the bill before us would do will raise very 
serious constitutional questions. This is particularly true since in 
this very conference report we have amended rule 412 of the rules of 
evidence--which, by the way, has been processed pursuant to the Rules 
Enabling Act--which would prohibit the admission of evidence of the 
past history of a victim of a sexual offense.
  The analogous damage which can be caused by an improper inference and 
could cause unfair harm to a victim's testimony in a sexual assault 
trial prompted the change in rule 412. The change was to ensure that 
the trial should be fair to the victim and not focus on her past sexual 
behavior. These same concerns should be a factor in considering the 
changes proposed in rules 413, 414, and 415, but are not.
  At the end of my statement I would ask that a letter to Chairman 
Brooks from the Honorable Alicemarie Stotler, chair of the Committee of 
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference, in 
opposition to the proposed rules changes for these reasons, be entered 
into the Record.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the proposed new rules are not only seriously 
suspect on constitutional grounds, but they are extremely bad public 
policy. If the primary evidence in a prosecution's case in chief is 
evidence of prior acts--which would be possible under the changes--we 
would be sinking into the star chamber procedures that have long been 
rejected by civilized societies everywhere. This is not a question of 
whether you are being tough enough on criminals or protecting victims. 
This is a question of protecting our system of justice and fair trials.
  As one of the House conferees on the conference report, I would like 
to explain one change we made in the prison grant portion of the 
conference report.
  In title II of the bill, the amended conference report deletes 
language from the original conference report relating to grants for 
State correctional facilities. This amendment removes authority for use 
of the Federal grant funds to fund programs that are outside the normal 
operational activities of correctional facilities. This means, for 
example, that an intensive supervision program operated entirely 
outside a correctional facility and with no custodial element, would 
not be eligible for funding, even though intensive supervision is a 
correctional program.
  The amendment makes no change in the authority to utilize Federal 
funds to operate correctional facilities. As a result, normal 
operational activities may receive Federal support. Activities such as 
drug treatment, training, and work release remain eligible, even though 
the operational activity may be internally referred to with the 
correctional facility as a program.
  Similarly, the amended conference report continues funding 
eligibility for boot camp facilities and other alternative confinement 
facilities, including operation of such facilities, while deleting 
authority for other alternative programs unrelated to these alternative 
facilities.
  The amendment is not intended to dictate or circumscribe the 
components of an operational plan being carried out by a correctional 
facility, whether it be a conventional facility or a boot camp or other 
alternative facility. The intent is merely to exclude funding for 
programs which, however meritorious they may be, are unrelated to the 
operation of correctional facilities which are eligible for Federal 
funding support.
  It is overall a good conference report. It preserves the essential 
elements of the previous bill, tightens the prevention programs in a 
block grant mechanism, and finally provides a strong law enforcement 
component along with a serious effort to prevent crime.
  I urge you to support the conference report and vote against the 
motion to re-commit.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield our final 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], our final speaker, a young 
woman who has worked as hard as anyone else in this building to help 
put this legislation together, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise as someone who voted last week to 
defeat the rule on the crime bill conference report. I voted against 
the rule because the original conference report added social spending, 
stripped out tough provisions, and stripped out Republican 
participation and Republican ideas.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, after a week of debate and intense 
negotiations, a better product truly emerges. Tonight we vote on a 
report that is less expensive than before. We vote on a report that is 
tougher than before, and we vote on a report that more clearly, but not 
perfectly, reflects the true priorities of America.
  Mr. Speaker, courts must get tougher on criminals because of the 
changes we made. Women and children, because of the changes, may see 
just a little more justice this week than last. We have added community 
notification of sexual predators, mandatory HIV testing for rapists, 
the opportunity for admission of prior evidence in rape and child 
molestation cases, mandatory victim restitution, and for all of that, 
we have acknowledged the need to build even more prisons.
  Mr. Speaker, these provisions are added to the original provisions of 
the Violence Against Women Act.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the 
bipartisan crime bill. I urge all my colleagues to join with me in 
thanking the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for 
their leadership and commitment, and also the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich], for his guidance in this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to 
think and vote for this bipartisan crime bill. I truly believe, we 
truly believe, it is tougher for the criminal, it is fairer for the 
victim, and it is, in fact, better for all of our future.
  Mr. Speaker, the revised conference bill contains a critical reform 
that I have long sought to protect the public from crimes of sexual 
violence--general rules of admissibility in sexual assault and child 
molestation cases for evidence that the defendant has committed 
offenses of the same type on other occasions. The enactment of this 
reform is first and foremost a triumph for the public--for the women 
who will not be raped and the children who will not be molested because 
we have strengthened the legal system's tools for bringing the 
perpetrators of these atrocious crimes to justice.
  Senator Dole and I initially proposed this reform in February 1991 in 
the Women's Equal Opportunity Act bill, and we later reintroduced it in 
the Sexual Assault Prevention Act bills of the 102d and 103d 
Congresses. The proposal also enjoyed the strong support of the 
administration in the 102d Congress, and was included in President 
Bush's violent crime bill of that Congress, S. 635. The Senate passed 
the proposed rules on November 5, 1993, by a vote of 75 to 19, in a 
crime bill amendment offered by Senator Dole. This Chamber endorsed the 
same rules on June 29, 1994, by a vote of 348 to 62, through a motion 
to instruct conferees that I offered.
  The rules in the revised conference bill are substantially identical 
to our earlier proposals. We have agreed to a temporary deferral of the 
effective date of the new rules, pending a report by the judicial 
conference, in order to accommodate procedural objections raised by 
opponents of the reform. However, regardless of what the judicial 
conference may recommend, the new rules will take effect within at most 
300 days of the enactment of this legislation, unless repealed or 
modified by subsequent legislation.
  The need for these rules, their precedential support, their 
interpretation, and the issues and policy questions they raise have 
been analyzed at length in the legislative history of this proposal. I 
would direct the Members' attention particularly to two earlier 
statements:
  The first is the portion of the section-by-section analysis 
accompanying these rules in section 801 of S. 635, which President Bush 
transmitted to Congress in 1991. That statement appears on pages S3238 
and S3242 of the daily edition of the Congressional Record for March 
31, 1991.
  The second is the prepared text of an address--entitled ``Evidence of 
Propensity and Probability in Sex Offense Cases and Other Cases''--by 
senior counsel David J. Karp of the Office of Policy Development of the 
U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Karp, who is the author of the new 
evidence rules, presented this statement on behalf of the Justice 
Department to the Evidence section of the Association of American Law 
Schools on January 9, 1993. The statement provided a detailed account 
of the views of the legislative sponsors and the administration 
concerning the proposed reform, and should also be considered an 
authoritative part of its legislative history.

  These earlier statements address the issues raised by this reform in 
considerable detail. In my present remarks, I will simply emphasize the 
following essential points:
  The new rules will supersede in sex offense cases the restrictive 
aspects of Federal rule of evidence 404(b). In contrast to rule 
404(b)'s general prohibition of evidence of character or propensity, 
the new rules for sex offense cases authorize admission and 
consideration of evidence of an uncharged offense for its bearing ``on 
any matter to which it is relevant.'' This includes the defendant's 
propensity to commit sexual assault or child molestation offenses, and 
assessment of the probability or improbability that the defendant has 
been falsely or mistakenly accused of such an offense.
  In other respects, the general standards of the rules of evidence 
will continue to apply, including the restrictions on hearsay evidence 
and the court's authority under evidence rule 403 to exclude evidence 
whose probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial 
effect. Also, the Government--or the plaintiff in a civil case--will 
generally have to disclose to the defendant any evidence that is to be 
offered under the new rules at least 15 days before trial.
  The proposed reform is critical to the protection of the public from 
rapists and child molesters, and is justified by the distinctive 
characteristics of the cases it will affect. In child molestation 
cases, for example, a history of similar acts tends to be exceptionally 
probative because it shows an unusual disposition of the defendent--a 
sexual or sado-sexual interest in children--that simply does not exist 
in ordinary people. Moreover, such cases require reliance on child 
victims whose credibility can readily be attacked in the absence of 
substantial corroboration. In such cases, there is a compelling public 
interest in admitting all significant evidence that will illumine the 
credibility of the charge and any denial by the defense.
  Similarly, adult-victim sexual assault cases are distinctive, and 
often turn on difficult credibility determinations. Alleged consent by 
the victim is rarely an issue in prosecutions for other violent 
crimes--the accused mugger does not claim that the victim freely handed 
over this wallet as a gift--but the defendant in a rape case often 
contends that the victim engaged in consensual sex and then falsely 
accused him. Knowledge that the defendant has committed rapes on other 
occasions is frequently critical in assessing the relative plausibility 
of these claims and accurately deciding cases that would otherwise 
become unresolvable swearing matches.

  The practical effect of the new rules is to put evidence of uncharged 
offenses in sexual assault and child molestation cases on the same 
footing as other types of relevant evidence that are not subject to a 
special exclusionary rule. The presumption is in favor of admission. 
The underlying legislative judgment is that the evidence admissible 
pursuant to the proposed rules is typically relevant and probative, and 
that its probative value is normally not outweighed by any risk of 
prejudice or other adverse effects.
  In line with this judgment, the rules do not impose arbitrary or 
artificial restrictions on the admissibility of evidence. Evidence of 
offenses for which the defendant has not previously been prosecuted or 
convicted will be admissible, as well as evidence of prior convictions. 
No time limit is imposed on the uncharged offenses for which evidence 
may be admitted; as a practical matter, evidence of other sex offenses 
by the defendant is often probative and properly admitted, 
notwithstanding very substantial lapses of time in relation to the 
charged offense or offenses. See, e.g., United States v. Hadley, 918 F. 
2d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. dismissed, 113 S.Ct. 486 (1992) 
(evidence of offenses occurring up to 15 years earlier admitted); State 
v. Plymate, 345 N.W. 2d 327 (Neb. 1984)--evidence of defendant's 
commission of other child molestations more than 20 years earlier 
admitted.
  Finally, the practical efficacy of these rules will depend on 
faithful execution by judges of the will of Congress in adopting this 
critical reform. To implement the legislative intent, the courts must 
liberally construe these rules to provide the basis for a fully 
informed decision of sexual assault and child molestation cases, 
including assessment of the defendant's propensities and questions of 
probability in light of the defendant's past conduct.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the compromise 
legislation, which is much too fat for me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (H.R. 3355) which 
is again being considered by the House. The conferees made certain 
changes from the bill which was rejected last week. In my view, 
however, these modifications were not enough to justify changing my 
position against this measure.
  My constituents want a crime control bill that does precisely that: 
control crime. They want violent criminals, especially repeat violent 
offenders, put away so they will not be able to commit more crimes. 
They want justice to be swift, and punishment for severe crimes to be 
severe.
  For this reason I also intend to vote in favor of the Brewster/Hunter 
back to basics crime control bill which will be offered as an 
alternative measure. I shall vote in favor of this measure because I 
believe it is a tough crime control measures which eliminates the 
social welfare programs contained in the compromise agreement--welfare 
programs which basically duplicate existing law. The provisions of the 
bill: (1) provide $12 billion in grants to correctional facilities to 
expand prison facilities with no federal strings attached; (2) provide 
$12 billion in grants for state and local law enforcement agencies; (3) 
provide $2.5 billion for border patrol enforcement and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS); (4) include habeas corpus reform to 
stop the endless appeals process for death row inmates and convicted 
felons; (5) provide a ``good faith'' exception to the exclusionary rule 
which will end the practice of setting criminals free based on 
technicalities; (6) provide convicted felons to serve at least 85 
percent of their prison sentences--that is, truth-in-sentencing; and 
(7) end the country club comforts for prisoners by requiring able 
bodied individuals to work and abolishes luxuries.
  I want to emphasize, however, that if the Brewster/Hunter bill is 
sent to the conference committee, it is my hope that the provision 
providing $12 billion in grants for the hiring of local policemen will 
be stricken from the bill. I frankly question whether the Federal 
Government should be paying salaries of local policemen at a time when 
the Federal Government is adding some $350 billion each year to the 
national debt. Have our local governments become powerless to put a 
sufficient number of policemen on their streets? Is it necessary to 
borrow another $9 billion from our children to pay for what has always 
been a responsibility of state and local governments?
  I opposed the compromise agreement proposed by the Democratic 
leadership because I believe the bill is more of the last 30 years of 
Federal crime policy--weak enforcement initiatives combined with social 
welfare spending layered on top of the existing patchwork of Great 
Society programs which haven't helped to make a dent in the ever-
growing crime rate.
  H.R. 3355 includes some 31 new social welfare programs totaling at 
least $6.9 billion. These may include--I still have not been provided a 
copy of the voluminous compromise): $3 million to track missing 
Alzheimers' patients; $50 million to the U.S. Olympic Committee to set 
up sports programs in high crime areas; $630 million for after school 
weekend and summer programs; $40 million to fund midnight basketball 
and other sports leagues. And, here Congress has written detailed 
instructions about how many teams have to be in each league, how many 
players must be on each team, how many players must live in public 
housing, and so forth; child-centered activities: hundreds of millions 
of dollars for arts and crafts, dance programs, recreational 
activities; model intensive grants: several hundred millions more in 
grants that can be used by mayors for almost anything they desire.

  The chief motivation behind this legislation is not to put murderers, 
muggers, and drug kingpins behind bars. Last spring, the President 
unveiled his so-called economic stimulus package which died quickly 
because it consisted mostly of social spending for State and local 
interests that had little to do with job creation. Now that polls show 
that people are most concerned about crime, the same failed programs 
have been relabeled ``crime-prevention,'' and tucked away in the crime 
bill.
  As Richard Cohen pointed out in his column in the Washington Post, 
the crime bill ``is a political response to a political problem that if 
enacted, will leave the streets no safer than they are today * * *. The 
problem with the crime bill is that it had no animating doctrine. It is 
so at odds with itself that if it were a person it would be 
institutionalized as schizophrenic.''
  Mr. Speaker, the rationale for these massive new social programs is 
that crime will be reduced if government provides recreational 
activities, more social services and so on. But this argument belies 
the fact that society has spent $5 trillion on the war on poverty since 
1965, yet the national crime rate stands at its highest level ever. In 
addition, we already have within our Federal statutes some 266 programs 
dealing with at-risk youth and over 150 different job training 
programs. We don't have to create more of these programs.
  One-third of the funds--nearly $9 billion over 5 years--are 
supposedly aimed at putting 100,000 new officers on the street. First 
of all, it would take an estimated $42 billion to hire this many new 
policemen. According to Princeton professor John DiIulio, $9 billion 
would fund only about 20,000 fully funded positions. Allowing for sick 
leave, disabilities, vacations, desk work and three shifts a day, it 
takes 10 officers to put 1 officer on the street around-the-clock. So 
the 20,000 positions become 2,000 around-the-clock cops, and they are 
to be distributed to at least 200 jurisdictions. In addition, the bill 
puts so many conditions on receiving these funds that many State 
officials have said they will not be able to hire any new policemen 
because the program would cost them money. One recent study of the bill 
finds that it would put two new social workers on the street for every 
new cop it funds.

  Moreover, as previously stated, I don't believe our debt ridden 
Federal Government should get into the business of paying the salaries 
of local policemen at a time when the Federal Government is adding some 
$350 billion each year to the national debt. What we are doing here is 
to recreate revenue sharing. We've already traveled down that road. The 
Federal Government cannot finance the very basic responsibility of 
local governments which is what the ``cop on the beat'' is.
  There are, of course, some sound anticrime features to the bill. 
Roughly one-third of the funds in the bill would assist States in 
building more prisons, although the U.S. Attorney General would be 
afforded new powers in regard to State prison construction. However, 
the bill does not provide the funds be conditioned on criminals serving 
at least 85 percent of their sentences, that is, the so-called truth in 
sentencing requirements. As I understand it this new conference report, 
like the previous one, concludes that 60 percent of the prison funds 
are not conditioned on any truth-in sentencing requirement and 40 
percent are based on a formula that requires only some progress toward 
longer sentences.
  The bill also contains a watered-down version of the so-called three 
strikes and you're out provision. The provision imposes mandatory life 
imprisonment without parole for criminals convicted of three violent 
crimes or serious drug offenses. On the surface this is a strong crime 
control provision which I do support. However, as reported by the 
conference committee, the provision is weak and ineffective. The 
fundamental flaw is that the third strike must be a Federal crime or 
drug offense. Since 95 percent of violent crimes fall under State and 
local statutes, few criminals will be affected by this provision.
  The bill also reportedly guts one of the most effective law 
enforcement tools to induce cooperation against high-level drug 
traffickers, that is, mandatory minimums in sentencing. Mandatory 
minimums apply--with a single exception--to drug dealers, not users.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the $30 billion cost of the bill is supposed to 
be funded from projected savings over 6 years from Federal personnel 
cuts ordered in separate legislation enacted earlier this year. The 
savings are allegedly to be placed in a trust fund. I question whether 
any savings from Federal personnel reductions over the next 6 years, to 
the extent it may occur, will be sufficient to finance the costs of 
this crime bill and/or will ever be applied to the crime bill costs. I 
have never seen a trust fund in the Federal Government that ever has 
one cent in it. The funding aspects of this bill are pure fantasy. To 
my knowledge the costs of the crime bill are not even budgeted. I 
believe that most, if not all, of the costs of the bill will simply add 
to future deficits and our national debt.
  Joan Beck had an insightful column in last week's Chicago Tribune, in 
which she wrote:

       Maybe the key question is to ask taxpayers whether the $30 
     billion they would have to shell out for this bill would make 
     them feel safer and less worried about being a victim of 
     crime. That's the crucial question.

  The answer I arrived at, after carefully reviewing the original 
legislation as well as this compromise version, is no.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here about this bill. What I want to 
say is, as I said at the beginning of this debate, men and women who 
are reasonable can differ in their view of what has been done and what 
has not. However, we had a bad bill to begin with. We have a slightly 
improved bill that got a little bit of a trim around the edges, but not 
a haircut, and we still have a bad bill.
  It was $33 billion when it went into this conference report, and it 
is $30 billion now that it is out of here. We have no business spending 
this kind of money, particularly when we just trimmed a little bit off 
of the social welfare spending programs, and brought them down from $9 
billion to $7 billion in that arena. This is still loaded with Great 
Society social welfare programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the men and women who negotiated on my side 
of the aisle were doing it in good faith, but that is still the truth 
of the matter.
  We have not really strengthened prison bills. The net amount of money 
in here for prison construction, Mr. Speaker, to help the States solve 
the problem of the revolving door and get truth in sentencing, is 
actually less than it was in the previous report back out here for us.
  If we want to talk about community policing, Mr. Speaker, it is a 
sham in this bill. It always has been a sham. It has not changed one 
penny, because we are not going to get 100,000 cops, we are only going 
to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000, and the States are 
going to have to pay four-fifths of the money that will be paid for any 
new cop on the street.
  Mr. Speaker, the only way we can get a decent bill out of here, one 
that is tougher and does not waste the taxpayers' money, is to vote for 
the motion to recommit that I am about to offer, that is the Brewster-
Hunter proposal, that puts all of the money into prisons and into real 
cops on the street, and not this phony thing that is in this bill, and 
does what is necessary to put swiftness and certainty of punishment 
back into our system again to help the States, to send a deterrent 
message, to make sure that once again, we as a nation can be proud that 
we have done something that the people really want, instead of doing 
the kind of social welfare spending junk that is in the main bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I say that with all due respect to the work that went 
in. It is improved, but it is so marginal that we can hardly see it. We 
have a bad bill, and we need to vote that bill down. However, in 
preference to that, I urge a vote on the motion to recommit; that is, 
the Brewster-Hunter proposal that puts the money and effort and the 
right kind of strength in here that ought to be there, instead of this 
bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished majority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 
is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, a week ago we defeated the first crime 
bill that came back from the conference. I was disappointed, because I 
thought it was a good effort that had a good balance, and was a large 
crime bill that was the most comprehensive effort we have ever made in 
history to try to deal with the matter of crime. We were defeated. I 
learned a long time ago, however, that in a democracy, you do not win 
every vote and you do not win every issue.

                              {time}  1910

  Rather than just going off and accepting defeat, in the last 5 days 
we have reached out to Members of the other party and Members of the 
other party have reached out to us. We began a series of discussions 
and negotiations that have yielded the bill that is before us today. 
There were tough compromises that were made. I want to thank the 
minority leader and the minority whip and many of the Members that 
worked on this side. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary on our side, I want to thank 
the Speaker of the House, all of whom worked together to reach the bill 
that we have today.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Through the determination and the 
decency of Members on both sides of the aisle, the bill that was good 
last week is better, in my view, this week. We kept the principles of 
the bill. It has punishment, harsh punishment. Most of the money in the 
bill, the vast majority, two-thirds of it, goes for greater law 
enforcement and for prisons, as well it should. But in addition, this 
bill for the first time in the history of our country recognizes that 
if we put all of our effort on what happens after crimes are committed, 
we have no chance of stopping crimes from being committed.
  Some will say that the Federal Government has no capacity for 
fighting crime and preventing crime and we should not even try. I do 
not believe that.
  We did make improvements in what we did in this bill and I give 
credit to our friends on the other side. We block-granted 13 
categorical programs. I think that is an improvement, because now 
mayors of cities will have a greater ability to decide how to spend 
those moneys. But some would say we should not even try, and I would 
say to the Members of the House, and this is the most important point: 
We must try to figure out how to begin preventing crime in this 
country.
  Every child we lose, every child we lock up is a child we cannot 
afford to lose. Four days ago, a 13-year-old boy here in Washington, 
Michael Stokes, was killed by another 13-year-old boy. Yesterday the 
pastor, Wilbert Miller, at the funeral said this:

       Children should not have to see their friends' blood 
     staining the street corners. God's children don't deserve to 
     die.

  If we start saving some of God's children, maybe in 10 or 50 years 
this Congress will not have to pass another crime bill.
  Ladies and gentlemen, vote for this bill.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, as one of the leaders of the bipartisan 
group which worked to craft a comprehensive, trimmed-down crime bill, I 
rise today to urge passage of this tough, balanced bill that provides 
much-needed police, prisons, punishment, prevention and treatment.
  Since I first came to Congress, my top priority has been to pass a 
tough, balanced and fiscally responsible crime bill. This bill 
represents a balanced, bipartisan compromise, with a reduction of $3.5 
billion in non-essential spending.
  Now that we've eliminated this non-essential spending, it is 
completely paid for by a trust fund established from the reduction of 
the federal workforce by 252,000 employees.
  America is losing the fight against crime and drugs. That's why we 
need this tough, comprehensive and balanced crime bill that provides 
more police, prisons, punishment, prevention and treatment.
  Every major law enforcement organization in America supports this 
compromise crime bill. We need to give our cops the resources to 
effectively fight crime, and this bill does that.
  We desperately need the added cops on the beat, tougher sentences for 
violent criminals, more prisons and boot camps, and effective drug 
treatment and prevention programs.
  We also need the Jacob Wetterling Child Protection bill, which I 
wrote. The children of America and their families need the Wetterling 
bill to protect them from child abductors and molesters, and cops want 
it as a resource for investigating child abduction and molestation 
cases.
  The children of America and their families also need the other two 
child protection bills I authored--the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention 
Act and the Assaults Against Children Act--which are part of this 
important bill.
  We also need the Violence Against Women measures to deal with the 
unprecedented violence against women in America.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand at an historic crossroads. It's time to take 
off our Republican hats, take off our Democrat hats, and pass this 
bipartisan bill to address the epidemic of violent crime and drugs in 
America.
  The good, law-abiding people of this country deserve nothing less.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for myself, many of my 
colleagues and the American people when I say I am sick and tired of 
this hug-a-thug approach to crime. While the crime bill has been 
improved by Republicans, it's still not good enough. Americans don't 
want our judicial system coddling criminals. The American people want 
safety, and they are demanding rights for victims and rights for their 
communities.
  However, this crime bill federalizes prisons, takes greater control 
over State and local spending, imposes a gun ban on law-abiding 
citizens, and takes a hug-a-thug approach to rehabilitating criminals.
  First, the money for prisons in this bill is subject to Federal task 
force supervision. In other words, the States can build prisons with 
Federal money, but only if they do it according to Federal regulations. 
The funding for cops on the street also directs power away from 
communities as it allows law enforcement to decide how to spend it. The 
three strikes and your out provision is also a sham, requiring that the 
third offense be Federal and that each strike be a separate incident.
  With regards to gun control--has it occurred to some of you that 
those of us who oppose a gun ban might actually believe in what we are 
doing? If the NRA supports us, does that make our convictions a crime?
  Finally, this bill still contains billions of dollars for funding of 
prevention programs. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that real criminals 
are laughing at your programs. You can't be serious when you say you 
hope to produce muggers that watercolor, rapists that can waltz and 
robbers that are more in touch with their inner selves.
  I urge my colleagues to begin real welfare reform tonight. Vote for 
the motion to recommit and vote against this hug-a-thug crime bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. I believe 
the conferees have crafted a tough, comprehensive, and balanced crime 
package.
  I know the work on developing this bill has been challenging and time 
consuming. However, the hard work was necessary so that a strong bill 
could be produced which would have real short and long term effects in 
the fight against crime. Mr. Speaker, I have had extensive dialog with 
many of my constituents since we began this crime bill debate over a 
year ago. They are very concerned about the crime dilemma and the 
problems associated with it.
  Crime is of great concern to them and the danger it poses to the 
security of their homes, streets, communities, and schools and the 
safety of themselves, their children, families, and neighbors. Since we 
were sent here to represent them, it is incumbent upon us to do what we 
can to move crime to the bottom of the charts. Passage of a tough, 
smart, crime bill moves us a step closer to fulfilling our duty.
  Mr. Speaker, when I leave here today, I want to be able to assure the 
parents, the friends, and the community of Greenbelt, MD, which still 
mourns the senseless death of 13-year-old Carlton ``C.J.'' Brown, that 
the Federal Government has taken a significant step in the fight to 
curb violent crime. C.J. was a beloved, honor student in the prime of 
his life who was killed when a melee broke out between two rival 
groups.
  In an all too common occurrence, C.J. just happened to be in the 
wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, another mother and father 
are now without a child and another community is without a future 
leader. Stories like this about innocent citizens falling victim to 
senseless violence are now too common. That is why we must enact this 
legislation which aims to help alleviate such violence.
  Mr. Speaker, the crime bill we have before us can do that. It is a 
tough bill which packages police, punishment, and programs designed to 
keep young people off the streets and out of gangs.
  Even though we do not have major league baseball today, by approving 
this crime bill, we do tell repeat violent offenders--``three strikes 
and you are out.'' I am very pleased that this bill includes the 
``three strikes and you are out'', which I proposed last year. This 
provision says to repeat violent offenders that they have forfeited 
their rights to be members of our society and that they will go to jail 
forever, never to plague us again. A poll taken earlier this week shows 
that 74 percent of the American people favor this provision of the 
bill.
  The bill also includes increased funding to help States build prisons 
and boot camps to house violent offenders. Additionally, it provides 
funding to place additional police officers on the streets.
  These police officers will play a crucial role in community policing 
efforts such as those in Prince Georges County, MD, moreover, it 
includes the Violence Against Women Act which includes provisions 
designed to curb violence against women and increase the penalties on 
those who commit crimes of violence against women.
  This provision could help thwart violent attacks such as the brutal 
torture and murder of Stephanie Roper who fell victim to a senseless 
attack. These strong measures combined with others in the bill will 
help to reduce the plague of crime that confronts us.
  The time for this bill is now. We must not continue holding up 
Federal assistance to the States and local governments.
  Since the majority of crime is committed at the State and local 
levels, these entities can best judge where Federal resources need to 
be allocated. The block grants in this conference report will need 
those who fight on the front lines with additional resources to make 
our communities safer.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has very broad support and has garnered the 
support of the following: The National District Attorneys Association, 
The National Association of Attorneys General, the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National 
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National 
Sheriff's Association, the International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers, the International Union of Police Associations, the Major 
Cities Chiefs, the National Association of Police Organizations, the 
Police Executive Research Forum, the National Trooper's Coalition, the 
Police Foundation, the Democratic Governor's Association, 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 Democratic Mayors, the National 
Association of Counties, and most importantly the American people who 
sent us here.
  Enough is enough. It is time for this body to release the chains 
which hold this crime bill hostage so that C.J. Brown's family, the 
Greenbelt, MD community and other communities that I represent, 
Stephanie Roper's family, the various police departments in my district 
awaiting funding to hire more police, will take comfort in knowing that 
help is on the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I support final passage of this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the conference report on H.R. 
3355, the Omnibus Crime Control Act. It is not a great bill, but it 
is--in many respects--a good bill. It is certainly a better bill, far 
better, than the conference report we considered in this House just 10 
days ago and returned to the conference when the rule was defeated.
  How has it been made better? It has reduced the overall cost of the 
bill for the American taxpayer--by more than $2 billion. It does so by 
making a 10 percent cut in 28 social programs, eliminates the jobs 
program which has nothing to do with a crimefighting measure, and 
consolidates 13 other programs into a single block grant, thus giving 
States the opportunity to decide how to allocate the money.
  It took out the outrageous pork-barrel spending in the district of 
one Member, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  It increases funding for prisons by $1.2 billion and targets some of 
that money to States with a truth-in-sentencing provision.
  It prohibits the retroactive release of drug offenders serving time 
under minimum sentences. The bill last week could have released as many 
as 16,000 drug offenders.
  It changes the rules of evidence of prior sexual offenses so that a 
prosecutor may enter that evidence in the record.
  It makes victim restitution mandatory.
  It requires HIV testing in rape cases.
  It incorporates the provisions offered by our colleagues, Ms. Dunn 
and Mr. Zimmer, and requires the registration of sexual offenders 
located in a community.

  It sets aside money for the Violence Against Women Program.
  Mr. Speaker, these are all good provisions, but the bill misses the 
mark in several important areas: 50 percent of the money for prisons is 
still not conditioned on having States adopt truth-in-sentencing 
guidelines.
  The money for cops on the street is less than honest. If it actually 
funded 100,000 additional law enforcement officers, it would provide 
only $14,000 for each cop; the reality is that only 20,000 to 27,000 
more officers could be funded with this money--and then only for a 
limited period of time.
  It has far less money for prisons than the bill initially passed by 
the House months ago--$7.9 billion instead of $13.5 billion.
  It has no reform of habeas corpus provisions, so that we might end 
the costly, lengthy appeals of death row inmates. It does not include 
the provisions for expedited deportation of criminal aliens--a truly 
inexplicable deficiency.
  And, of course, it still has in the bill a ban on the sale or 
ownership of certain assault weapons. Mr. Speaker, this provision does 
not belong in this bill. We have passed this bill separately in the 
House--though not with my support. The Senate could simply take this 
measure from the desk, vote on it tomorrow and send it to the President 
where it awaits an eager signature.
  But, on balance--and a complicated piece of legislation like this is 
always a balance--I find this crime bill a step forward. Americans, 
Arizonans, want us to do something about crime. They want us to give 
tools to law enforcement officers and prosecutors to fight criminals. 
This bill makes a modest step in that direction.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, crime is a serious problem in America. 
Americans no longer feel safe in their own neighborhoods. While the 
population of the United States has increased 44 percent since 1960, 
violent crime increased by more than 500 percent in that same time. 
Every single day, 14 Americans are murdered, 48 are raped, and 578 are 
robbed. One-third of all Americans will be robbed in their lifetime and 
three-fourths will be assaulted.
  The best way to deter crime is to provide swift, certain, and tough 
punishment to criminals. The first conference report did not strike the 
proper balance between punishment and prevention. That is why I voted 
against the rule last week, and urged the House leadership to reconvene 
the conference and improve the bill. Furthermore, I cosigned a letter 
to President Clinton with other moderate Republicans which formed the 
basis for the bipartisan agreement that brought forth the conference 
report we have before us today.
  The bipartisan conference report we are considering today is 
significantly stronger than the original conference report because it 
emphasizes funding for prisons and police more than social spending. 
Funding for prisons increased by $1.4 billion, while social welfare 
prevention programs were either eliminated or cut by 10 percent, 
resulting in total reductions of $2 billion. In fact, most of my 
constituents have opposed funding for these programs.
  It is regrettable that the administration waited so long before being 
willing to work with moderate Republicans on a crime bill. If 
Republicans had been brought into the process sooner, a crime 
conference bill would have passed by now. However, I am pleased that 
the administration did finally agree to work on a bipartisan crime 
package.
  I am concerned, however, that the conference agreement does not 
include tough mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who commit 
crimes with firearms. I joined a majority of my colleagues in 
supporting tough provisions to increase mandatory minimum repeat 
offenders using semiautomatic firearms could be sentenced to life in 
prison. Incredibly, however, the conference report does not include 
these provisions. In addition, it wrongly infringes upon the rights of 
law-abiding citizens to bear firearms.

  I certainly understand and share my colleagues' and constituents' 
concern with the number of violent, gun-related crimes. Gun control, 
however, is not an effective approach in addressing this problem.
  The District of Columbia is a good example of the ineffectiveness of 
gun control. The District's gun control law is one of the strictest in 
the Nation. Yet year after year, the District sets a record for 
homicides. In 1992, 443 people were killed in the District with the 
majority of deaths being caused by handguns. No deaths were caused by 
rifles of any kind. At the same time, I think it is important to note 
that while Maine ranks second in the Nation in guns per capita, it 
ranks 49th in violent crimes per capita.
  The conferees, however, did make some important improvements to the 
crime conference report--many based on the letter I signed to the 
President. For example, the total cost of the bill was reduced by $3.3 
billion, and the bill is funded entirely from the crime trust fund 
which will be created with the savings from streamlining the Federal 
work force. In addition, the bill increases funding for prisons by $1.4 
billion, and two-thirds of the cuts were made to social welfare 
prevention programs.
  This reduction in social welfare prevention programs is in keeping 
with the will of most Americans. According to the national crime bill 
survey conducted by Luntz Research Companies, social programs rank at 
the bottom of proposals to reduce crime. When asked to choose, a clear 
majority of voters--57 percent--believe that stronger punishment is a 
better way to prevent crime.
  Other positive changes are that the conferees narrowed the 
retroactivity of new rules reducing mandatory 5- and 10-year Federal 
sentences for some nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. Conferees 
also agreed to allow neighborhoods to be notified if sexual predators 
are released into their neighborhoods, and to allow prosecutors in 
sexual assault cases, rape and child molestation cases, introduce 
evidence that the defendant has committed similar crimes in the past--a 
provision that was supported overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 
348 to 62. In addition, conferees eliminated the $10 million for 
research program at a university in a conferees district--a provision 
which was not in either the House or Senate-passed crime bills.
  The conferees retained many of the important provisions which were in 
the House-passed crime bill that I voted for last April. For example, 
it includes three-strikes-you're-out provisions which focus on keeping 
repeat violent offenders off of the streets for good. It mandates that 
a felon convicted of a violent Federal felony with two prior State or 
Federal violent felony convictions on his or her record, be sentenced 
to life in prison. This provision is absolutely critical if we are to 
wage an effective war on crime.
  In addition, this bill has an important provision asking the Attorney 
General to consider closed military installations in rural areas for 
conversion into Federal prisons, if such a plan is cost effective and 
consistent with local reuse plans. for example, Loring Air Force Base 
in Loring, ME, is scheduled to close in September of this year, and the 
devastating economic impact of the closure on the region could be 
offset if the base was converted into a prison facility.
  The crime bill also includes $1.62 billion for the Violence Against 
Women Act, which provides funds to combat crime against women. Women 
and children are frequently victimized by the worst crimes in our 
society. Consider the horrible stabbing deaths of a Washington, DC, 
woman and her 13-year-old daughter in May of this year, allegedly by a 
former boyfriend who was enraged by her demand for child-support 
payments. Mr. Speaker, these crimes have no place in any society, and 
this crime bill takes important concrete steps to combat violence 
against women.
  The crime conference report could be improved even more. Congressman 
Michel will offer a motion to recommit the bill to conference, with 
instructions to make funding for prisons, police, and border patrols 
the highest priority. This motion will give conferees the opportunity 
to adopt provisions of the bill recently introduced by Representatives 
Brewster and Hunter, including a $4 billion increase in prisons, a $1.2 
billion increase in State and local law enforcement funds, truth-in-
sentencing provisions to ensure that criminals serve at least 85 
percent of their sentencee, and it does not earmark valuable Federal 
resources for unproven social welfare prevention programs. In addition, 
the Brewster-Hunter bill takes the tough, proven, crime-deterrent 
approach by requiring mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who 
commit crimes with firearms, rather than banning semiautomatic 
firearms. Should this motion be defeated, however, I intend to support 
the crime conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans have the right to be personally secure, to be 
free from the fear of violent crime. The bill before us today takes 
positive steps to both punish criminals and keep them off of the 
streets, and to address the roots of crime as well. The conferees 
clearly should have included the provision to provide mandatory minimum 
sentences for violent criminals who commit with a firearm, and should 
have removed the ban on semiautomatic firearms. Nevertheless, this bill 
will provide many benefits to communities and States struggling to deal 
with rising crime, and consequently I am giving it my support.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule 
and the conference report on H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Ordinarily, I vote for rules related to 
bills to be debated and voted upon in the House, even when I intend to 
vote against the bill. Only in extraordinary cases have I voted against 
a rule with the intention of precluding a bill from coming to the 
floor. The principle for voting for a rule, even where I disagree with 
the merits of the legislation, is steeped in my firm belief in the 
constitutional right of free speech and debate. I have taken the 
extraordinary step of voting against the rule on the crime bill as my 
only means of protesting the extraction of the racial justice 
provisions from the crime bill conference report.
  The racial justice provisions were incorporated in the crime bill 
which was passed by the House by a vote of 285 to 141 on April 21, 
1994. The conferees sent the conference report back to the House, after 
stripping the racial justice provisions from the bill. The bill now 
includes 60 additional Federal crimes for which capital punishment can 
be imposed. In the absence of a provision in that bill on racial 
justice, I cannot in good conscience vote for the rule. The vote which 
I cast in the House of Representatives must be commensurate with my 
conscience and rooted in the basic principles to which I subscribe 
relative to both freedom and justice.
  Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics 
reported recently that nationally African-Americans account for 40 
percent of the prisoners serving death penalty sentences. This 
percentage is three times greater than our Nation's total African-
American population which is only 12 percent. In my own State of Ohio, 
African-Americans make up 50 percent of the total number of persons 
serving death penalty sentences. It should be noted that Federal courts 
have found constitutional or racial bias violations in at least 40 
percent of the death penalty convictions and sentences reviewed in the 
past 15 years. Under the Clinton administration, all 10 of those being 
tried in Federal death penalty cases are African-American.
  In a society in which racism is institutionalized, it seems to me 
that fairness and justice would dictate the necessity of inclusion of a 
provision relating to racial justice, particularly when you are adding 
60 new and additional crimes for which you can impose the death 
penalty. The situation is now more exacerbating considering that the 
same Congress that 3 months ago saw the necessity for passing a racial 
justice bill, is now trying to pass a crime bill excluding it.
  It is true that inclusion of prevention funding for the purposes of 
providing social remedies is a new approach to crime prevention in this 
Congress. But, even this prevention provision has been greatly reduced 
within the last 24 hours from the original amount that was in the 
conference report. This sacrifice is a further example of another last 
minute compromise to gain support for this bad bill at any cost. While 
I support prevention funding as a means of preventing both crime and 
criminal activity, I can in no way equate that or any sum of money with 
the exchange of my vote, which is based upon conscience and principle.
  In addition to this basic principle regarding the rule and the crime 
bill itself, it will be my intention, if the rule passes, to vote 
against the bill. The three-strikes-and-out provision which will turn 
our prisons into aged warehouses, geriatric and hospice wards, is 
unacceptable to me. This proposal will do little to end crime. Already, 
the U.S. incarceration rate is the highest in the industrialized world, 
at 450 per 100,000 citizens. In the African-American community, 
however, the average rate is 1,300 per 100,000 citizens. More 
incarceration is obviously not the answer.
  The inclusion of the provision permitting 13-year-olds to be tried as 
adults for certain crimes is another unacceptable provision. The 
mandatory nature of this provision is unprecedented in the Federal 
system. This measure will simply facilitate the matriculation of 
juveniles into the world of a revolving door of adult street crime and 
imprisonment. A constituent, Dr. Edward Dutton who is also a 
psychiatrist with extensive experience working with our youth, in a 
letter to me pointed out that at the present rate of incarcerations ``* 
* * mostly young, male, African-Americans * * * the African-American 
community is being exterminated by the criminal justice system.''
  Lastly, I must continue to oppose the immoral, barbaric, and 
uncivilized taking of human life in the name of the Government. It is 
as immoral for the State to deprive a human being of life as it is for 
anyone else to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, as I cast my vote against the rule and against the crime 
bill I will be mindful of the poignant statement of Justice William 
Brennan in McCleskey v. Kemp when he said:

       It is tempting to pretend that minorities on death row 
     share a fate in no way connected to our own, that our 
     treatment of them sounds no echoes beyond the chambers in 
     which they die. Such an illusion is ultimately corrosive, for 
     the reverberations of injustice are not so easily confined. 
     The destinies of the two races in this country are 
     indissolubly linked together, and the way in which we choose 
     those who will die reveals the depth of moral commitment 
     among the living.

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, as has so often happened during the 103d 
Congress, the twists and turns that important legislation takes before 
a final vote, and the charges that are made for and against the 
measure, are both unexpected and wildly exaggerated. The debate today 
over this bipartisan compromise crime legislation is certainly no 
exception. If you are looking for a reason to say no to any significant 
initiative, as so many of my colleagues are, you certainly can find 
reasons. But it seems to me that we are accomplishing at least three 
significant things here today.
  First, we are considering a bipartisan initiative on one of our 
Nation's most pressing problems. Without question, my greatest 
disappointment as a Member of Congress has been the rarity with which 
we make such bipartisan efforts. On every issue, there are people on 
both sides of the aisle who would rather see a problem go unsolved than 
see the other side get credit for solving it. Too often, the 
administration and Democratic leadership have failed to reach out for 
bipartisan support. Too often, the Republican Members have walked 
locked-step in opposition to Democratic initiatives. Today, we have a 
significant number of Republicans who reached out to the Democratic 
leadership, and, thankfully, the Democratic leadership accepted their 
hand. The result is a bill that makes no one completely happy, but 
which everyone believes is a step forward.
  Second, what the bipartisan group is saying is that the Congress 
ought to significantly reprioritize a large segment of Government 
spending. Specifically, we have as a Congress voted to cut 252,000 
bureaucrats from the Federal Government, making the Federal bureaucracy 
the smallest since President Kennedy served in the White House, and 
return the money saved through this reduction in the bureaucracy to the 
States and the local communities to help them in their fight against 
crime.
  The bipartisan group is also saying that, as a legislative body that 
represents the entire Nation, we recognize that the fight against crime 
requires different initiative in different areas. Some communities need 
help hiring more police officers, others do not. Some States need help 
building more prisons, others do not. And yes, some communities need 
help with programs that keep young people off the streets and in 
productive activities. I recognize the deeply felt desire of many 
Americans to believe that Government cannot substitute an athletic 
program for stronger families. They are right. But we legislate today 
for some communities where it is safer for children to stay in school 
after hours than to go home to their families. We cannot pretend this 
does not exist. Allocating a small percentage of these funds to 
programs that build character through athletic and academic activities 
should not be derided as pork barrel spending.
  Third, we take a small but important step in the search for a sane 
firearms policy by banning the manufacture and sale of 19 assault 
weapons. Many have claimed during this debate that the assault weapon 
ban was not a critical issue. But the truth is that this bill would 
have passed overwhelmingly on many occasions if it were not for the 
presence of this ban in the bill. Indeed, one only need consider the 
contents of the Brewster-Duncan motion to recommit, which argues that 
its benefit is the absence of prevention spending, to see that the 
assault weapon ban is a major stumbling block, since that proposal 
eliminates the ban from the bill. If the sponsors of the motion to 
recommit truly wanted to offer a crime bill focused only on law 
enforcement activities, they would have left in the assault weapon ban.

  As usual, the arguments for and against the assault weapons ban are 
overblown. When this Congress passed the Brady bill, some said it would 
take a large bite out of crime; others said it would do nothing. I only 
believed that it would save lives by taking guns out of the hands of a 
few criminals who otherwise would have bought weapons over the counter. 
This view has been proven correct, as nearly 200 convicted felons in 
Ohio have been stopped from purchasing guns since the Brady bill took 
effect. Likewise, I do not believe that the assault weapon ban will 
fundamentally change the reality on the streets of our country. But I 
do believe that it will save lives even though no one will ever know 
whose life it is we saved.
  The assault weapon ban is really a very simple proposal. There are 
already many weapons which are restricted for military use in this 
country. Civilians are not allowed to own fully automatic machineguns, 
nor can they purchase bazookas or shoulder-held rocket launchers. 
Today, we add 19 new and very dangerous weapons to this list, while 
explicitly exempting over 600 other weapons. This is a move I strongly 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, whenever I have been in doubt over how to vote as a 
Member of Congress, I have thought first and foremost about the 
children of my district. Earlier this year, I held three county-wide 
summit meetings with the youth in the 19th district. At each meeting, 
they talked about the need for them to have safe places to go and 
positive activities to occupy their time. They also said they were 
scared by the prevalence of dangerous weapons on our streets. I believe 
that this bill responds in an important way to their concerns and 
deserves broad support. That is why I will vote yes on this bipartisan 
conference report.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, there are those that claim that the crime 
bill is just another social welfare program.
  I challenge them to tell that to the New York City woman whose 13 
month old baby was shot to death as he lay sleeping in her arms. I 
challenge them to tell that to Mary McDonald, whose husband was killed 
and whose son was wounded when a crazed gunman opened fire on the Long 
Island Railroad. I challenge them to tell that to my own husband and 
daughter, who were attacked in our own home by three armed thugs.
  Rather than social welfare program, this bill is an ounce of 
prevention and a pound of punishment. It is a clear warning to those 
who would break the law that they would be wise to consider another 
line of work.
  This bill would provide billions for new prison construction--that's 
not pork, that's punishment. This bill would put 100,000 more cops on 
the street--that's not pork, that's punishment. This bill will ensure 
that the truth in sentencing provisions can be enforced so prison will 
not be a revolving door--that's not pork, that's punishment.
  Mr. Chairman, some have argued that the crime bill needed to be 
changed. And indeed, unfortunately it has changed. I think that this 
bill didn't need to change--it's this Congress that needs to change.
  I am glad that at least this bill has maintained the assault weapons 
ban. If this Congress is unable to take assault weapons off the 
streets, then we should fly the white flag of surrender over the 
Capitol dome instead of Stars and Stripes.
  Let's provide the funding for the policemen, prisons, drug courts, 
Violence Against Women Act, and yes the bipartisan prevention programs, 
that this country so desperately needs. It's time to pass this bill. It 
would be a crime to vote against it.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss with the people of the 
19th District of Illinois and this Nation my views on the crime bill 
which is now before us. This has been a long and arduous process, 
reflective of the serious crime problem facing this country and the 
serious efforts which have been made to address it.
  I voted for a crime bill in the House on April 21. The bill called 
for just under $28 billion in spending on crime--$5.5 billion in law 
enforcement, $14.1 billion for prisons and incarceration, and $8.1 
billion on prevention. Importantly, the bill did not have the onerous 
gun control provisions which I have opposed throughout my career in 
public service.
  Discussions of substantial issues facing this country involve 
compromise, with give and take on both sides. That is the beauty of 
Democracy.
  So the House was obligated to consider the bill which the Senate had 
passed, a $23 billion measure which included a ban on so-called 
``assault weapons.'' The House and Senate then went to a conference 
committee to produce a final version of the bill.
  When that compromise came to the House on August 11, I was dismayed 
by a number of both specific and broad elements of the bill and the 
process by which it had come to us for consideration. We had not been 
given adequate time to review the hundreds of pages and determine how 
the approaches being set forth would assist crime fighting efforts in 
our district. We had a $33.5 billion bill, far more expensive than both 
the House or the Senate bill. And we had a bill which included the ban 
on ``assault weapons.''
  Against the wishes of the leadership of my party in the House, 
against the wishes of our President, and against the wishes of some 
people in my district who truly believed this was a good bill, I voted 
against the rule governing debate on the bill, thus demanding that the 
conference committee come to us with a better bill. That vote was 225-
210, and in my mind, sent a clear signal that we needed substantial 
changes.
  During the days following that vote and leading up to today's vote, I 
spent a considerable amount of time reading and listening to differing 
views on this issue. I talked with judges, prosecutors, gun owners, 
parents, my staff and my family, all in an attempt to do what I thought 
was the best thing for the people in my district and in this Nation.
  The bill which comes before us today is still not perfect. Because I 
believe that we could make changes, including addressing my concerns 
with the gun control provisions, I once again voted against the rule, 
again suggesting to the conference committee that a better bill was 
needed.
  But the rule passed, 239-189, moving forward consideration of the 
crime bill. At that point in time, the House was then presented with a 
new development and a whole new set of circumstances to consider. Many 
of my colleagues who shared my concerns over second amendment issues 
and with the levels of spending in the bill produced a last-minute 
package, which is commonly referred to as the Brewster bill. The bill 
has some strengths, primarily its focus on prison construction, 
providing more money for law enforcement personnel, three strikes and 
you're out sentencing and no weapons ban. But the bill has substantial 
weaknesses as well, lacking an expansion of the death penalty which is 
provided in the conference report and lacking any effort to provide up-
front prevention.
  Under certain circumstances, this would be a starting point for 
consideration of a crime bill. But to vote for the motion to recommit, 
in essence endorsing a bill which was introduced just hours prior to 
the vote was not a viable alternative.
  In the final analysis, my choice was to determine whether the bill 
which was now before us was worthy of my support.
  What had my votes against the rule, against bringing the bill to the 
floor accomplished? The final compromise was just over $30 billion, 
slightly more expensive than the House version which I supported and 
less expensive than the first agreement which I opposed. The final 
agreement has substantially more money in law enforcement, in cops on 
the beat provisions which should help our communities address their 
crime problems. To accomplish that goal, we had to shift some money 
from prison construction and prevention programs. But the bulk of the 
shift occurred in the prevention programs, and the final bill has a 
strong prison construction component.
  The House bill had about $8.1 billion in prevention, while the final 
bill has about $6.9 billion, a substantial decrease in spending. We 
also eliminated a number of suggestions for Federal programs and put 
the money into block grants which States and localities can access for 
their own local solutions to crime problems.
  Most importantly, I had to decide whether voting for the motion to 
recommit or voting against the final crime bill would help us, in the 
final analysis, pass a crime bill. I decided it would not. The process 
had moved forward to the greatest extent possible. It was more 
bipartisan. And after years of debate and disagreement, it was time to 
pass a crime bill.
  I know there are many friends and supporters who will disagree with 
my analysis. I know that they will feel as though I should have voted 
against any bill which includes gun control, or perhaps should have 
voted for any bill without gun control. I respect their views.
  I voted against the weapons ban when it was presented to the House 
for an up-or-down vote on the weapons ban alone. I wish we had been 
able, by continuing to oppose the rule, to strike the ban from the 
bill. But I do not believe that my vote on the final bill reverses my 
historic support for the rights of law abiding Americans under the 
second amendment. I will remain vigilant in my support of the rights of 
law abiding citizens.
  These were very difficult decisions, a responsibility which I 
accepted when I asked the people of the 19th District for the privilege 
of representing them in the U.S. House of Representatives. People whom 
I respect will disagree with me and I will continue to respect them.
  Ultimately, I had to examine this issue on balance. I had taken my 
objections to gun control as far as I could. I had worked to find 
middle ground on prevention programs. I had encouraged the House to 
build prisons and put police officers on patrol. Of course, the final 
bill is not perfect. But on balance, it was the best, most responsible 
and most effective response to crime which we could reach. For those 
reasons, it earned my vote.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report to H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994. This comprehensive crime control measure is an 
effective means of providing the much-needed protection for our 
neighborhoods and our families.
  Mr. Speaker, the combination of punishment and crime prevention found 
in this bill will have a significant effect in controlling the war that 
is raging on our Nation's streets. Passage of the crime bill is 
especially helpful in the city of Philadelphia, which would greatly 
benefit from the increased police presence on our streets, the 
toughening of sentencing for repeat violent offenders, and effective 
prevention efforts.
  In addition, passage of the H.R. 3355 would allow cities to challenge 
federally imposed prison caps. The city of Philadelphia, which I 
represent, suffers under one of the worst Federal prison caps in the 
Nation. In 1986, a U.S. District judge imposed a consent decree cap on 
the number of prisoners permitted to be detained in order to settle a 
class-action legal suit brought against the city by inmates who claimed 
the prisons were overcrowded. This cap limits the number of inmates 
which can be detained to prevent overcrowding of the jails. However, as 
a result of this arbitrary prison cap, many criminals are released 
moments after they are arrested due to a lack of holding facilities and 
prison overcrowding. Police are forced to spend their valuable time re-
apprehending the same criminals who commit the same crimes, hours or 
days later.
  Criminals rarely, if ever, report for trial. In Philadelphia, of all 
the defendants released under the prison cap, 47 percent fail to appear 
in court. What this means is over a period of 6 years, from 1988 to 
1994, over 230,000 unanswered bench warrants existed due to prisoners 
refusing to appear in court. Philadelphia's police force does not have 
the resources to go after these brazenly lawless individuals, and 
justice is never administered. Due to this consent decree cap, imposed 
to comfort the grievances of prisoners, the law-abiding citizens of 
Philadelphia were placed in unnecessary danger.
  In 1991, the city of Philadelphia was forced to release tens of 
thousands of prison-cap defendants with pending criminal charges. Of 
these defendants, over 8,000 were rearrested for new charges, including 
77 murders, 851 burglaries, 1,993 drug charges, and 1,102 robberies.
  This crime bill attempts to end this dangerous procedure of releasing 
criminals by allowing the city to challenge federally-imposed prison 
caps. The prison overcrowding provision of H.R. 3355 would be applied 
retroactively and grant the City of Philadelphia an opportunity to 
appeal the consent decree of the Federal District court and, possibly, 
alleviate the dangerous situation present in Philadelphia.
  In addition, the crime bill would require that any claims of ``cruel 
and unusual punishment'' made by prisoners be handled on an individual, 
case-by-case basis, and that any relief found legitimately necessary to 
remove these conditions be made in the least intrusive manner.
  Mr. Speaker, the City of Philadelphia, and the entire Nation, needs 
this crime bill. Our Nation needs the stronger, more noticeable police 
presence found in the Cops on the Beat provision. One hundred thousand 
additional beat-cops would do more than anything else to catch 
criminals and prevent crime from occurring in the first place.
  Our Nation needs the Violence Against Women Act which would increase 
the Federal resources available to combat violence against women.
  Our Nation needs the Assault Weapon Ban which would ban the 
manufacture and importation of weapons of war, and attempt to get these 
deadly weapons off of our streets.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass the crime bill and stop the madness of crime 
and warfare present on our city streets.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, tonight we will finally vote on H.R. 3355, the 
conference report to the crime bill. It has not been an easy path; the 
process which led us here leaves much to be desired.
  Last week, a clear majority of Republicans and Democrats voted 
against allowing floor consideration of the bill until improvements 
could be made.
  Negotiations in the ensuing week have cleared the way for an improved 
crime bill. Of course, we can do even better--there are still several 
objectionable provisions in this bill, which is why I voted to recommit 
the bill to conference one last time. But at least, as a result of 
these negotiations, thousands of convicted drug dealers will not be 
released from prison to go back out on the streets and deal drugs. This 
time, we have included many of the important provisions of H.R. 688, 
legislation I introduced with Representative Molinari to reform our 
Nation's sexual and domestic violence laws. This time, we will include 
an amendment requiring registration of released sexually violent 
offenders and then notification of communities when a sexually violent 
predator moves into an area. And, in this crime bill we provide 
additional resources for the border patrol to fight illegal 
immigration. We have cut the cost, reduced duplicative social spending 
and toughened law enforcement.
  This legislation is not the bill I would have written. I have tried 
every step of the way to improve it; and our persistence has paid off. 
There will be no other opportunities now that the rule has passed and 
the motion to recommit has failed. As a result, I am prepared to 
support the bill to ensure the law enforcement and criminal justice 
reforms some of us have fought so hard for during this and other 
sessions of Congress.
  In this new bill we will have more money going to law enforcement and 
prisons. The compromise contains $7.9 billion in funding for prisons 
instead of only $6.5 billion provided for prisons in the original crime 
conference report. Instead of cutting funding for additional police 
officers by 10 percent, the compromise retains the $8.8 billion for 
additional police officers (although States must still jump through far 
too many hoops to get funding for prisons and police; I would prefer 
far more of the funding be given out in block grants so each State can 
decide for itself how best to fight crime).
  The legislation I have supported throughout this process, H.R. 2872, 
the House Republican crime bill, 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; provide a 
good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and, provide tough 
provisions to combat sexual and domestic violence.
  One of the most important elements of the sexual violence provision 
of the compromise, added as a result of negotiations following defeat 
of the rule last week, is its inclusion of two key provisions of the 
Republican crime bill and of H.R. 688, the Dole-Molinari-Kyl Sexual 
Assault Prevention Act. The first provision changes the Federal Rules 
of Evidence so that, in sex offense cases, evidence of prior similar 
conduct of the accused can be admitted at trial. Victims of sexual 
violence deserve to be treated more equitably during the criminal 
justice process and this is one important way to do this.
  The other important sexual violence provision which has been added to 
the crime compromise as the result of negotiations is the requirement 
that the accused in rape cases be tested for HIV and AIDS. For the 
thousands of victims of rape each year, inclusion of these two 
provisions was critical to my support of this crime bill compromise.

  The compromise also includes many other important provisions of H.R. 
688. There has been a need to find a better way to respond to sexual 
and domestic violence. In Phoenix, Arizona, for example, the number of 
domestic violence cases investigated jumped from 995 in 1983 to 14,254 
in 1993.
  As with the Sexual Assault Prevention Act, this compromise will 
provide federal funding to states, shelters and law enforcement 
communities to combat violence against women. Grants will be provided 
for battered women's shelters, training of law enforcement officers and 
prosecutors to more effectively identify and respond to violent crimes 
against women, and develop programs to dealt with stalking. Also 
included are general discretionary grants of $500,000 to combat 
domestic and sexual violence. The bill also authorizes funding for 
victim/witness counselors for victims in domestic violence and sex 
crimes cases.
  Another important provision of our legislation included in the 
compromise creates a new federal offense for interstate travel to 
commit spouse abuse or to violate a protective order. This is 
particularly important given the increase in protective orders filed in 
Arizona, particularly in Maricopa County. In the first three months of 
this year, 698 requests for protective orders were filed in Maricopa 
Superior Court, an 8 percent rise over the previous quarter and a 32 
percent increase over the first quarter of 1993.
  This crime measure also includes from our bill the following measures 
to combat sexual violence: suspension of federal benefits if the 
perpetrator falls behind in restitution payments; extension and 
strengthening of the rape shield law to cover all criminal and civil 
sexual assault cases; right of the victim to address the court before 
the defendant is sentenced; a national baseline study on campus sexual 
assault; right to be hear regarding the danger posed by the defendant 
if he is released before trial; death penalty for certain federal rape 
and child molestation cases; increased penalties for recidivist sex 
offenders; increased penalties for sex offenses against victims below 
the age of 16; and, mandatory restitution for victims of sex offenses.
  Another important area in the fight against crime is stopping the 
flow of illegal aliens across the nation's borders. This compromise 
includes $1.19 billion for asylum reform, immigration enforcement 
activities and border patrol agents. This provision is especially 
important to Arizona, which has been left out of the Administration's 
Illegal Immigration Enforcement Plan. That plan has given Texas and 
California several hundred new border patrol agent positions, while 
Arizona has only received 33 new support positions. The result has been 
a significant increase in illegal crossings across Arizona's border; a 
57 percent increase in illegal immigrant apprehensions has occurred 
between October-June 1993 and October-June 1994. I have contacted the 
Attorney General several times to request additional border patrol 
agents for Arizona but so far these requests have not been fulfilled.
  The crime conference report also includes $1.8 billion to reimburse 
states for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. This key concern 
for Arizona, which incurs costs of approximately $100 million a year to 
incarcerate criminal aliens. In fact, the state of Arizona has filed a 
lawsuit against the federal government for the cost of incarcerating 
these criminal aliens. It is my hope that this bill will help alleviate 
these unfair costs.
  Another important component of crime legislation which must be 
included is sufficient funding for prison construction to keep violent 
criminals behind bars. If we knew that we could reduce the problem of 
violent crime by 70 percent with just a few actions, would we do it? 
This is a particularly important question for Arizona where the violent 
crime rate has increased 129 percent between the years of 1975 and 
1993, according to the Uniform Crime Report.
  According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, 
approximately seven 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.
  As stated, the crime bill compromise more adequately provides funding 
for prison construction funding for the states. According to government 
data supplied by Michael Block of the University of Arizona, between 
1980 and 1990, the 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 rate. Redirection of funds for 
more prison construction was another reason I support this compromise.
  Fighting crime is not a one time proposition. Beyond this crime 
compromise, much still needs to be done. I will continue to work to 
pass the important provisions of H.R. 2872, the Republican crime bill, 
that were not included in today's compromise. For example, the best way 
to reduce gun violence is to mandate strict penalties for crimes 
committed with guns rather than to ban semiautomatic weapons, the 
effect of which will not be to reduce violent crime. There should be 
exclusionary rule reform allowing evidence obtained in good faith but 
outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial. I 
will also continue to work toward habeas corpus reform, which would 
limit the endless number of appeals available to death row inmates.
  This crime bill is not a panacea for our Nation's crime problems but 
it will help. I remain committed to correcting the objectionable 
features in the bill and to passing other tough reforms to our criminal 
justice system. For the safety of Arizona and the rest of the Nation, I 
hope the other members of this body will join me in this continuing 
fight.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for 
consideration of the Conference Report to H.R. 3355, and in support of 
the Conference Report. While I do not believe that this bill, in 
itself, will stop crime, I do view it as a reasonable attempt to 
address some of the problems our society is currently facing.
  Mr. Speaker, the Conference Report that we are currently considering 
is a compromise. This bill represents the middle ground between people 
such as myself, who believe we should concentrate on prevention 
measures, and those who believe the Federal Government should focus 
only on punishment. I support the prevention measures contained within 
this bill and, frankly, I would like to see more resources devoted to 
crime prevention. As a realist, however, I recognize the need, 
especially the political need, to balance prevention with punishment.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to address some of my 
colleagues, especially those on the other side of the aisle, who try to 
dismiss the prevention provisions in this bill as ``social pork.'' 
While I do not mean to belittle the crime problems facing the 
communities represented by those Members, it is fair to say that some 
of the communities I represent have crime problems that are 
unimaginable to them. I represent streets that are, at any time of day, 
occupied largely by the bodies of drug addicts and victims of violent 
crimes. I represent entire neighborhoods where parents teach their 
children to avoid stray bullets before they teach them to walk. I 
represent children who no longer dream of their futures; they simply 
fight to survive.
  It is for these children that I support and promote the prevention 
programs. There is no way that punishment, by itself, can address the 
magnitude of the problems facing these neighborhoods. I implore my 
colleagues to allow this legislation to go forward and to retain the 
prevention programs. Please permit those of us facing the worst of the 
problem--those of us who have grown up and lived amid the crime, the 
drugs and the violence--some input on how we should address the 
situation.
  I believe that the programs contained in this bill will help parents 
throughout the country sleep a little better. They are intended not 
only to help control crime in urban areas, but also in the suburbs and 
rural areas as well. The crime problem in the United States is not 
selective nor is it segregated by neighborhood. We all have an interest 
in abating this growing problem, and I believe that this bill will help 
all of us cope.
  My support for this bill is not, however, unqualified. As an opponent 
of the death penalty, I am ardently opposed to expanding the number of 
Federal crimes for which the death penalty may be applied. I am also 
very troubled by the removal of the essential fairness in sentencing 
safeguards, known as the Racial Justice Act. These provisions were 
included in the bill that originally passed the House. President 
Clinton has assured us that he will enact an executive order to address 
bias in death sentencing, and will create a bipartisan commission to 
make further recommendations on the issue. It is clear a victory to 
have the White House, for the first time, go on record acknowledging 
racial disparity in death sentencing and attempting to do something 
about it.
  Efforts had been made to reach a compromise on the Racial Justice Act 
so that it may be included in the final bill. I, along with other 
proponents of Racial Justice, offered to make major changes in the 
language that would substantially deal with the concerns of those who 
have been opposed to the measure. Unfortunately, Racial Justice was not 
approved by the Conference Committee.
  The Act would have allowed defendants convicted of a capital crime to 
present statistical evidence of racial bias at their sentencing 
hearing. Such a hearing would take place only after the jury had 
recommended the death penalty. Racial bias could be inferred if ``race 
was a statistically significant factor in decisions to seek or to 
impose the sentence of death in the jurisdiction in question.'' The 
bias could be based on the race of defendants or the race of victims, 
and the evidence would have to include ``comparisons of similar cases 
involving persons of different races.''
  The Racial Justice Act would not have ended the death penalty. In 
fact, it would have had absolutely no effect in a large number of 
jurisdictions that do not have enough defendants on death row to show a 
statistically significant pattern. In addition, the prosecution could 
rebut the evidence by showing that the case is unique and does not fit 
a pattern of racial bias, or show that the appearance of race-based 
sentencing is a coincidence.
  Critics have coined Racial Justice ``the death penalty quota'', but 
Racial Justice is only about statistical fact and the right to have 
those facts used in court. The use of race as a ``statistically 
significant factor'' is not without precedent. The Voting Rights Act 
and the Civil Rights Act allow the use of racial statistics to show 
unlawful discrimination. If an individual may use statistics to defend 
his or her right to vote, obtain adequate education and gainful 
employment, it would only be fair to allow an individual the right to 
use racially significant statistics if those same statistics mean the 
difference between life without parole and death.
  There are other provisions of this crime bill that I do not believe 
will be effective in the fight against crime, and may even be 
counterproductive. For example, the bill eliminates Pell grants to 
prisoners. Less than 1 percent of Pell grants awarded go to 
incarcerated students and, in this fiscal year, less than 0.5 percent 
of the Department of Education budget went to programs for incarcerated 
individuals.
  At a cost of over $30,000 a year to keep someone behind bars, it is 
more expensive to send someone to prison than to Yale. In addition, 
recidivism rates that average 50-70 percent can be reduced to 15-30 
percent through post-secondary education while incarcerated. It is very 
unfortunate that this crime bill does not give offenders the chance to 
turn their life around through education and become productive members 
of society upon their release.
  Another issue to which I take objection is the death penalty. The 
death penalty has proven to be the most atrocious display of government 
sanctioned racism that exists today in America. Statistics have shown 
time and time again that the death sentence is applied in a grossly 
unfair and discriminatory fashion.
  History shows that minorities have received a disproportionate share 
of society's harshest punishments, from slavery to lynchings. The race 
of the victim also constitutes a factor in the discriminatory fashion 
in which the death penalty is applied. Of the 229 executions since the 
death penalty was reinstated, only one has involved a white defendant 
for the murder of a black person.
  As I said earlier, though, there are positive aspects in the bill. 
The bill contains a number of provisions that I, other members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, members of the Hispanic Caucus, and other 
progressive members of the House have worked very hard to retain.
  The Assault Weapons Ban Act is a significant and very important part 
of the crime bill we are debating today. This Act will ban 19 specified 
assault weapons and their copycat models--weapons of mass destruction 
that have no place in civilized society. The assault weapons ban names 
another 670 weapons that are protected from the ban for hunting, 
sporting and other legitimate uses.
  The Congressional Black Caucus was instrumental in ensuring that 
prevention was significantly addressed by this bill. The bill 
recognizes that solutions to crime are often found in the community, 
therefore, it includes the Local Partnerships Act. The Local 
Partnerships Act will provide direct grants to States and localities 
for education, substance abuse, jobs programs and other anti-crime 
strategies. The funds to cities and towns in Maryland would amount to 
$32 million, and communities would be allowed discretion to target the 
funds where they are needed most.

  Another important program included in the prevention package is the 
Model Intensive Crime Prevention Program. This program would provide 
grants to up to fifteen model programs for intensive community services 
in high crime areas. These grants would be provided to selected 
communities for programs to fight the social conditions that contribute 
to crime in the community and provide alternatives to crime.
  Unfortunately, this new Conference Report eliminates a number of 
targeted programs. These programs, however, have been replaced with a 
new Local Crime Prevention block grant. This new block grant will 
provide funds for localities for a wide variety of prevention programs, 
ranging from midnight basketball to establishing Boys and Girls Clubs 
in low-income housing.
  The Crime bill provides funds for grants to States to put 100,000 
more cops on the streets. Strong, more effective law enforcement 
capabilities are essential in the fight against crime. Community 
policing will lead to better communication and relations between the 
police and the communities they serve, so that we may all contribute to 
the safety of our neighborhoods. In my State of Maryland, this would 
amount to up to 2,000 police officers plus funding for the 
implementation of community policing.
  The bill also enacts the Violence Against Women Act. This is an 
important and long overdue effort to combat crimes against women. Women 
have, too often, been victims of crime because of their gender. The 
Violence Against Women Act includes grants for domestic violence 
shelters and rape crisis centers, education programs to combat judges' 
gender and racial bias in sexual assault and domestic violence cases, 
rape prevention programs on campuses and a civil rights cause of action 
for victims of crimes. In Maryland, this would mean a total of over 
$500 million to combat crimes against women.
  Mr. Speaker. It is imperative that the Congress pass a crime bill 
this year. Although I do not agree with some of the provisions of the 
bill, there is too much invested in this effort to allow it to fail. 
The constituencies we represent have called for action and requested 
that we pass a smart bill that is tough on crime. This bill achieves 
the delicate balance between law enforcement, prevention and 
punishment. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
enactment of the Crime bill.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the most comprehensive 
crime package in our Nation's history, the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
  In recognition of the critical role that our communities play in 
fighting crime, the bill focuses attention and resources on the State 
and local levels--the front-lines where the bulk of the responsibility 
for responding to crime lies. And it moves us closer to meeting our 
overall goal of ensuring that justice is dispensed equally and fairly, 
and that punishment is also fair, fast, and consistent.
  It contains the three-strikes-and-you're-out provision, which will 
keep repeated violent offenders off the streets. It also supports 
programs that reduce gang membership and provide alternatives for youth 
who are at risk. Other provisions provide substance abuse treatment for 
Federal prisoners and increased sentences for Federal hate crimes. 
There are also measures to reduce the incidence of violence against 
women, and to punish those who commit crimes of violence against women.
  The bill also bans certain specific assault weapons. This legislation 
will have very little affect on the right of the average American to 
bear arms. It includes weapons used almost exclusively by organized 
crime, gangs, and drug cartels, but does not include any weapons, 
semiautomatic or otherwise, used for hunting. The further restrictions 
on the sales and ownership of assault weapons that are in this bill 
will not cause a major reduction in crime. However, they will make it 
much more difficult for drug dealers, violent criminals and psychopaths 
to get their hands on military-style semiautomatic rifles and certain 
shotguns and pistols.
  Although we do not have detailed, nationwide statistics on the 
misuses of these weapons, the Oakland Police Department weapons unit 
reports that criminal misuses of assault weapons in Oakland fell by 
virtually half since the enactment of the California ban. This is a 
small price to pay to help curb the unnecessary and senseless violence 
that plagues communities throughout our country. If 1 life or 1,000 
lives are saved because we are able to keep an assault weapon out of 
the wrong hands, it is worth the effort.
  The bill includes a number of provisions that attack crime in rural 
areas, too, including one which I introduced along with my colleague 
from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, a former police officer and State trooper. 
The Fazio-Stupak amendment expresses the sense-of-Congress that rural 
areas should continue to receive the level of support that they had 
prior to enactment of this crime bill--that rural America should not 
receive less funding than it did in fiscal year 1994. It was developed 
in response to feedback which I received from sheriffs and police 
chiefs in my district who, in a visit to Washington earlier this year, 
expressed their concern that they would lose Federal funding that 
supports their efforts to fight drugs and the violence that accompanies 
this persistent problem. In response, my amendment will help ensure 
that rural communities do not lose ground as the rest of the country 
moves forward on new anticrime strategies.
  Because crime is not an isolated problem, it cannot be dealt with in 
isolation. And there is no one solution to the overwhelming problem of 
crime in our neighborhoods and communities. But this bill is an 
important step toward confronting and addressing it. It is a good place 
to start, and the time is now. We should all be able to put aside our 
partisan differences and come together on behalf of what is good for 
this country--our communities, our families, and our children. I urge 
my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join me in support of 
this crime bill and to support this conference report.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I come to this debate from a veiwpoint 
which I believe many share--that the primary responsibility for crime 
fighting and criminal justice lies with our State and local 
governments. This is the second time this month that Congress has 
considered a version of the crime bill. In my opinion Congress has 
again placed too much emphasis on the ability of the Federal Government 
to restrict and regulate when it should be acting as a partner to our 
State and local governments.
  State and local governments are responsible for detecting, 
prosecuting and administering the vast majority of crimes in our 
country. Nearly 99 percent of criminal laws on the books are State 
laws, not Federal. Likewise, States prosecute and sentence well over 95 
percent of violent criminals in our country. If we are fully committed 
to fighting crime at the local level, then the Federal Government must 
act as a partner to State and local governments by fully funding 
additional police officers and in helping to fund prisons.
  The crime package is the most expensive ever, and if approved would 
authorize $30.2 billion for three main activities--police, prisons, and 
prevention. For most people, this alone appears to be a positive step 
toward fighting crime. Indeed, there are some positive aspects to this 
legislation. Perhaps the most important is the Byrne Grant program 
which allows states and local governments to devise creative approaches 
to fighting drugs and crime. Do not be fooled, however. The crime 
package is heavily weighted toward urban areas and will do little for 
rural areas like western Wisconsin.
  The centerpiece of the crime package is the ``cops on the beat'' 
program. Supporters claim that the program will put an additional 
100,000 police on our streets over 6 years. Well, almost. The program 
only funds about half of the cost of hiring an additional officer over 
6 years. Each year, the local government has to fund more of the cost 
of hiring the officer in the form of salary and benefits, and 6 years 
the towns themselves most fully fund the new officers. As the Wisconsin 
Counties Association wrote to me recently: ``[T]his is nothing more 
than a time-released unfunded mandate. County governments in Wisconsin 
cannot afford this type of federally imposed increase in law 
enforcement personnel.'' In other words, the Federal Government is 
mandating and regulating, not acting as a partner.
  Experience also shows that most of the money under this program will 
go to big cities. Earlier this year, the Clinton administration tested 
the ``Cops on the Beat program. Over half of the grants for new 
officers went to 4 states which are politically important: California, 
Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Although most of the remaining grants 
were made to cities with a population of less than $150,000 people, 
only 16 percent of the money went to towns with a population of 10,000 
or less. Wisconsin received just over $2 million in the pilot program. 
Over half of this amount went to departments in the Milwaukee 
metropolitan areas--more evidence that big cities will do well under 
this legislation.
  The second prong of the revised crime package allocates $7.9 billion 
for grants to States to construct new prisons. In order to receive some 
of the money, however, States must change their criminal law to comply 
with the many requirements in the package. For example, 50 percent of 
the funding authorized by the bill is reserved for States which enact 
truth-in-sentencing laws, under which violent criminals must serve at 
least 85 percent of their sentence. Wisconsin does not meet this test, 
having just enacted a similar provision that violent criminals serve at 
least 75 percent of their sentence. The rest of the money is 
discretionary, allowing the Department of Justice great authority to 
determine where the money goes.
  The third prong of this crime package is prevention. The prevention 
programs have been trimmed down in the revised conference report to 
$5.9 billion from $9 billion The major program, the Local Partnership 
Act, will provide $1.6 billion to local governments across the country. 
Each State is guaranteed a portion of the money, but the money will be 
allocated based upon the rates of violence in cities in the State. In 
short, this will direct most of the money toward the large Urban areas.
  Despite the promise of such a large crime fighting package, each of 
the programs authorized still must go through the annual appropriations 
process. The bill creates a crime trust fund, a special fund which can 
only be used to pay for crime fighting activities. Over $30 billion of 
these programs are intended to be funded through the trust fund. Over 
$22 billion of the trust fund money is to come from restructuring of 
the Federal work force, but the sources of the rest of the funds have 
not been completely specified. In addition, the whole $22 billion is 
not immediately available. Instead, it will gradually accrue over 5 
years. The bottom line is that it is doubtful that all of these 
programs will be fully funded, and some are likely to not be funded at 
all.
  We do know that the trust fund will be financed in part from cuts in 
other important programs. One of the alarming consequences of the crime 
bill is that the Clinton administration has traded funding for 
education programs in exchange for more dollars for the trust fund. In 
his budget blueprint this spring, President Clinton initially requested 
$7.56 billion for the chapter 1 Program, which provides education 
assistance for disadvantaged students. Last month, the House passed the 
fiscal year 1995 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill which provided $7.24 billion for chapter 1, $320 
million less than the President's request. The Senate passed its 
version this week providing a similar amount. Despite strong annual 
support from both houses and this program and the fact that the program 
serves barely over 50 percent of the eligible students, the $320 
million was diverted to the crime trust fund. Funds have also been 
diverted from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug 
Enforcement Agency.
  I have indicated that I will vote to send the revised conference 
report back to the conference committee. This does not mean that I 
think Congress should turn away from trying to pass a crime initiative, 
however. I have cosponsored the Brewster-Hunter compromise measure 
which contains many of the same provisions as the current crime bill, 
but it fulfills the Federal role in crime fighting. The Brewster-Hunter 
package would allocate more money than the revised conference report 
for additional fully funded police officers at the local level. It 
would also increase funding for prison grants to States without 
excessive strings attached. Finally, it would increase funds for border 
enforcement so that we can get a handle on illegal immigration.
  One can assume that, after the modifications, there will be enough 
votes to pass the crime bill conference report, although the House 
leadership was unable to do so on its own the first time. If they do 
pass this crime bill, it will be without my vote. For this is not 
Federal aid to local law enforcement for assistance in its fight 
against crime, this is the Federal Government imposing additional 
restrictions and more mandates.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again lend my support to 
this crime package. I firmly believe that it could have been a better 
bill if some members of this body had not insisted on playing ugly 
partisan politics with it. It is deeply disappointing that meaningful 
prevention programs had to be scaled back in order to make the bill 
agreeable to some Members. Still, this bill will go a long way toward 
making our families and communities safer.
  Recently, I met with local law enforcement officials and joined local 
officers on the beat in my district. I heard a balanced message about 
stopping crime from them: We need tough punishment and smart 
prevention. With that message in mind, I support this comprehensive 
anticrime package--a package that contains severe penalties for repeat 
violent criminals and meaningful programs to prevent crime before it 
happens.
  This anticrime package includes a ``truth in sentencing'' provision 
that calls on States to ensure that criminals serve their rightful 
sentences before being paroled. States that do not abide this law will 
risk losing their Federal funds for fighting crime.
  The anticrime package contains Federal funding to put 100,000 more 
law enforcement officers on our streets. The bill also emphasizes 
community policing so that officers can get to know their community and 
work with neighbors to prevent crime.
  Domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury and death 
for American women, and I am pleased that the Violence Against Women 
Act has been included in this bill. This tough new law strengthens 
penalties for crimes against women and girls, while adding new funds 
for prosecutors, victim assistance, and programs to fight rape and 
domestic violence.
  In addition, I strongly support the bill's provisions to keep combat-
style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals by banning the 
manufacture, sale, and possession of these deadly weapons. I am pleased 
that this body was able to stand up to the special interests, like the 
NRA, who sought to prevent the will of the people from prevailing.
  The anticrime package expands useful and effective crime prevention 
programs for youth. It provides funding for drug prevention and 
rehabilitation services, as well as programs that will keep youth off 
the streets and out of trouble.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress move to give our families the 
security on our streets and in our neighborhoods that they deserve. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in passing this crime package.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I must join my colleagues who have spoken 
before me to say that this bill does not contain pork. I'll tell you 
what pork is: Pork is the billions of dollars in tax breaks for the 
rich and for the corporations, who got fat during the 1980's while the 
poor got poorer. Pork is the supercollider and star wars--billions of 
dollars in wasted spending.
  Gang resistance, drug treatment, youth development programs are not 
pork, but focused intervention in the lives of people who currently 
have no hope for a better existence. These programs are cost-effective 
deterrents, prudent alternatives.
  My constituents are tired of all the rhetoric and all the politics. 
They are tired of hearing about the deaths of innocent children caught 
in the crossfire of drive by shootings. They are tired of watching 
America's War on Crime, which is nothing but an embarrassment. People 
talking about pork need to go to my district in Brooklyn and see first 
hand what we need, and I bet you will find that more prisons is not the 
answer. If prisons and death penalties were all that we needed, then we 
would not be debating crime year after year after year.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I must say that the NRA did not elect me. The 
people of the 12th District did, and I'm going to vote for their needs, 
not the desires of the NRA. I will not play politics with the lives of 
America's youth. I urge my colleagues and the American people to see 
through this charade of deception and vote for the conference report.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, August 11, I voted against a 
rule to allow consideration of the pending crime bill.
  There were provisions in the bill which I strongly supported--moneys 
for community policing and prevention programs, an assault weapons ban 
and drug treatment funding. The Violence Against Women Act would 
strengthen laws against domestic violence and authorize nearly $2 
billion for rape prevention and battered women's programs.
  There were other parts of the bill I found objectionable.
  Most objectionable to me was the expansion of the death penalty to 
cover 60 new Federal crimes. In the end, that was the deciding factor 
for me in opposing the rule on the crime bill.
  I am opposed to the death penalty with every fiber of my being. I am 
morally opposed to the State taking human life because I feel human 
life is sacred, a gift from God. During my 14 years in the California 
State legislature, I consistently opposed capital punishment. I can do 
no less in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  I am opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds. There are, 
however, plenty of other reasons to reject capital punishment as public 
policy.
  The death penalty is disproportionately imposed on the basis of race. 
Forty percent of prisoners on death rows across the United States are 
black. Eighty-four percent of the prisoners executed since 1977 were 
convicted of murdering white victims, despite the fact that blacks and 
whites are homicide victims in roughly equal numbers. Prior to a 1986 
Supreme Court decision, a number of black prisoners were convicted and 
sentenced to death by all-white juries after the systematic exclusion 
of blacks from the jury panel. Since this ruling was not retroactive, 
many remain on death row. Discretion by prosecutors in deciding when to 
seek the death penalty can mean unequal outcomes for the same crime in 
jurisdictions with longstanding histories of racial discrimination.
  Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, aimed at drug kingpins, 75 
percent of those convicted have been white but 78 percent of death 
penalty prosecutions under the Act have involved blacks.
  The death penalty disproportionately falls on the poor, those without 
the resources to hire adequate legal counsel. Many public defender 
systems are woefully inadequate. In the past 18 months at least 4 
prisoners executed were defended at trial by lawyers who had never 
before handled a capital case. Poor defendants also suffer from lack of 
adequate counsel to appeal their cases.
  Clearly, the well-to-do do not end up on death row. Unequal resources 
equals unequal justice.
  The death penalty is final. It leaves no room for error. And yet an 
October 1993 report by the House Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitutional Rights listed 48 documented cases of innocent men freed 
from death row since 1972.
  There is no evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to 
crime. Texas is second to none among States in executions. Nearly 400 
people are on death row. Since 1976, Texas has executed more than 70 
persons, more than twice as many as runner-up Florida. Six innocent 
people have been sentenced to death and later released in the past 7 
years.
  Notwithstanding an aggressive application of the death penalty, Texas 
has a sky-high crime rate. Its crime rate grew by 24 percent within the 
same time period and violent crime increased by 46 percent. Texas leads 
the Nation in police officers killed. Detailed studies, comparing 
similar States with and without the death penalty, have found no 
evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than any other 
punishment.
  The death penalty is justifiable neither on moral grounds nor on 
grounds of efficacy in the fight against crime. It is, however, a 
convenient tool for some to pretend they are doing something about 
crime in the streets without really doing much at all.
  People of good will can disagree on this or that side of this crime 
bill. For my part, however, I cannot vote for a crime bill that 
sweepingly expands the death penalty to 60 new crimes. Simply put, I 
cannot separate what many describe as a ``procedural vote'' from the 
substance of the matter.
  Public officials are ofttimes criticized for failing to stand on 
principle, for being too willing to compromise who they are and what 
they believe. I will not do this.
  I look forward to voting ``aye'' on a bill that attacks the root 
causes of crime and assures us of safe streets without expanding the 
opportunity of the State to put more people to death.
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is with much sadness that I 
bring to the attention of my colleagues yet another act of senseless 
youth violence in my district.
  On July 31, Crystel Cabral, disappeared. On August 7, Crystel's body 
was found in the desert. She had died of two gunshot wounds to the 
head. Two youths are being held for her murder.
  Crystel was a model citizen of my district. She is remembered as a 
giving, trusting, caring, and fun-loving teenager. She helped her 
teenage friends cope with their growing pains, volunteered her time to 
comfort and feed the homeless, and has just returned from a yearlong 
student exchange program in Argentina.
  Crystel was just beginning to live her life until someone decided 
they needed a car, and would do anything, including murder, to get one. 
Crystel was tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her life 
was taken in exchange for a joyride.
  This tragedy comes on the heels of many other acts of youth violence 
in my district. During this summer, in one community in my district, 
the following senseless acts of violence have occurred:
  An 18-year-old Chandler man died of a gunshot wound when a fistfight 
with four other teenagers turned deadly.
  Anique ``Nickie'' Fater, 45, was shot to death June 7, allegedly by a 
teen trying to snatch her purse in a grocery store parking lot in 
Gilbert.
  Raymond Alvarado, 29, was shot and killed by a teenager over what 
witnesses said was a dispute over a bag of potato chips.
  Two youths burned a cross in front of a Jewish restaurant, a bagel 
shop, and a synagogue in vicious displays of hate.
  Two Mesa High School football players were shot in a motel parking 
lot after an argument with a group of young men.
  Brian Patrick Lindsay, 20, a Scottsdale resident and a Northern 
Arizona University student, was fatally shot several times in the chest 
while working at a fast food restaurant. The youths fled the scene with 
sandwiches and chips.
  Both Greg Whipperman of Mesa, and Robert Valdez of Chandler were shot 
while riding their bikes in different parts of the East Valley, on the 
same day. Luckily, both survived.
  Mr. Speaker, what's the going rate for a life these days? A handful 
of potato chips? A few submarine sandwiches? Or is it just the price of 
gas money to drive around and shoot people on their bikes for kicks? 
Why has this hate been allowed to invade our communities?
  These senseless acts further underscore the need to pass the crime 
bill before us today. I call upon my colleagues to put aside the 
politics of gridlock. Help me help the families who are on the 
frontlines of this battle.
  The time has come to put the safety of working families first. The 
crime bill will help rid our streets, schools, and homes from the fear 
of violent crime.
  For Crystel Cabral, her family and friends, I want to provide our 
communities and families with the tools necessary to beat this problem. 
The first step is to pass this crime bill.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will 
debate and hopefully pass the conference report on the crime bill, 
clearing the way for swift enactment of serious anticrime legislation. 
For 6 years now, Congress has grappled with the issue of crime, and 
although we came close to passing a bill last Congress, it 
unfortunately died in a Senate filibuster. With the passage of this 
crime bill, we are breaking that cycle of gridlock and responding to 
one of the most important problems in our society.
  I would like to emphasize a few of the more important provisions in 
the conference report that will make a difference in the lives of 
average Americans. One such provision is its strong commitment to local 
law enforcement. It is no secret that the vast majority of crime occurs 
on the State and local level. In fact last year, 99 percent of the 
arrests for violent crimes were made by State and local police for--and 
this is important--violations of State laws. The Federal role in crime 
prevention is comparatively small.
  With this is mind, the single best step Congress can take to combat 
crime is to provide State and local law enforcement with the funds to 
hire more police. This crime bill authorizes $8.8 billion for community 
policing, which translates into 100,000 new police officers nationwide. 
In Wisconsin that means about 2,000 new police officers walking the 
beat. That single fact will make more of a difference on our streets 
than probably any other.
  Another critical aspect of this legislation is the ``three strikes 
and you're out sentencing'' provision. Too often we turn on the TV at 
night and hear about horrible crimes committed in our communities and 
learn that the offender had a history of violence, a history that never 
would have happened if that offender were in prison.
  Unfortunately, the sad truth of the matter is that far too often, and 
for a variety of reasons, some of the most dangerous people are allowed 
to walk our streets and commit new crimes. Studies have shown that the 
majority of violent acts are committed by a small group of repeat 
offenders. Some estimates show that 70 percent of all violent crimes 
are committed by just 6 percent of the criminals arrested.
  Under the--three strikes and you're out--provision, a person 
convicted of a third violent felony must go to prison for life. This 
means repeat murderers, rapists, sex abusers, carjackers, kidnappers, 
extortionists, and so forth will not be treated with kid gloves. This 
is more than just talk. Three strikes and you're out means that violent 
repeat offenders will receive the reward they worked so hard for: life 
in prison.

  This legislation also contains the ban on assault weapons, which 
passed the House, with my support, last spring. Every year, more than 
12,000 Americans are murdered with guns. This is a tragedy. Many of you 
may remember last spring when Waukesha Police Capt. James Lutz was 
murdered with an assault weapon. He simply had no chance against the 
hail of bullets from that weapon.
  The crime bill contains provisions banning the possession, 
manufacture, and transfer of 19 types of powerful assault weapons. It 
also contains a ban on the possession, sale, and manufacture of other 
firearms that have particularly lethal characteristics. These weapons 
simply have no legitimate sporting purposes. They exist solely as tools 
to kill numerous people more rapidly, and I strongly believe they have 
no place on our streets.
  Some people have criticized the assault weapons as an infringement on 
the constitutional right to bear arms. This is not the case. The 
measure specifically lists 650 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns 
which are exempt from the ban. As a gun owner myself, I think this 
makes sense. I don't want to take guns away from legitimate sportsmen. 
Americans should be able to enjoy hunting and shooting. However, no one 
needs a gun with a grenade launcher or flash suppressor to enjoy 
hunting, shooting, or collecting. I am pleased with the assault weapons 
ban and believe it is an integral part of this anticrime package.
  As for moneys spent on prevention, this measure contains $380 million 
for local crime prevention programs. Since crime is primarily dealt 
with on the local level, it makes sense that localities should decide 
for themselves which programs work best for them. In this way, we 
provide support for community-based activities that strengthen families 
and social ties resulting in less violence on the streets and a lower 
crime rate. In short, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  I believe the measure contained in this historic crime bill are 
important to all Americans, and while they will not end crime, they 
provide a very important step toward making our streets safer.
  In closing, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of 
the Brewster/Hunter crime bill alternative. Americans are fed up with 
the politics Congress has been playing on the crime issue and are 
demanding action. They are demanding a crime bill that controls crime 
and gets violent criminals off our streets. The Brewster/Hunter 
alternative does just that. It strikes at the heart of crime through 
control, not social spending.
  I was present as this bipartisan alternative evolved, and I feel it 
is the best approach to controlling crime. This measure keys in on the 
provisions of the original crime bill that we all agree on. The 
contentious provisions that divided us--gun control, the death penalty, 
and redundant crime prevention spending were left out with the hope 
that we can pass a tough crime bill this year. I believe that some 
crime prevention spending is necessary, but we should debate the issue 
and the other controversial measures as stand alone bills and let them 
pass or fail based on their own merits.
  The Brewster/Hunter alternative provides billions for prisons, cops 
on the street, and Border Patrol agents. It makes basic judicial 
reforms, such as: habeas corpus reform, exclusionary rule reform, truth 
in sentencing, mandatory penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and 
mandatory penalties for crimes committed with a gun, a mandatory 
lifetime registration for sexual offenders.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are truly serious about controlling crime, we 
should get behind the Brewster/Hunter crime bill alternative.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my views on the 
anticrime package now before the House.
  On August 11, I voted against the rule on the crime bill, joining 57 
other Democrats and 167 other colleagues in the House to send the rule 
down to defeat. This rule did not allow those of us who oppose a ban on 
assault weapons or who opposed other parts of this bill any opportunity 
to make a change to the conference report, not even a motion to 
recommit the bill back to the conference committee to improve it 
overall.
  Since that time, House leaders and President Clinton have been 
working to improve this bill in an effort to gain a majority of votes 
for passage of the rule and the bill. The conference report before us 
today is an improvement over the bill we considered last week--but it 
can be improved even further. That is why I intend to again oppose the 
rule on the crime bill. With more work, we can make this bill stronger 
and tougher on crime.
  First, like the bill presented to the House last week, this 
conference report includes a ban on assault weapons, another effort to 
keep gun control in this bill. I have voted against gun control 
consistently since I came to Congress, and I believe this would be a 
better bill without this provision. The original crime bill I supported 
in April when it passed the House did not have this provision included.
  Second, one provision that was in the bill but taken out during the 
conference committee was the racial justice act, which would make sure 
that those sentenced to death were not sentenced in a racially 
discriminatory manner. I voted for the racial justice provisions, and 
believe they should be in the conference report.
  Third, prison construction is still not as high as it should be, to 
the level included in the House-passed bill. The House approved $13.5 
billion in new prison construction in April, and last week's crime bill 
cut that to $8.7 billion. This report cuts even that amount to $7.9 
billion, and I believe we can and must include additional funds for 
incarceration of our most violent criminals.
  Fourth, the price tag for this crime bill is still too high. The 
House-passed level of $27 billion represents, I believe, a more 
accurate level of funding needed to efficiently assist the states in 
law enforcement duties for the next 6 years.
  As a former police officer, I know that the most effective way to 
combat crime is to put more police on the streets. We should also give 
local governments and police departments more funds to use to meet 
their needs. In my many meetings with law enforcement officials, I 
heard that in addition to police funding, they needed funds for new 
cares, radios, and technologies to help stop crime. This bill needs 
more flexibility to help these local police meet their own unique needs 
in both urban and rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to Congress I have supported 
legislation to help fight crime. In 1988 and 1992, the House passed 
legislation which I supported to strengthen penalties and help fight 
crime. I have not voted against a crime bill, and I do not intend to 
vote against final passage this evening.
  Last week, I voted against the crime bill rule, but if the rule had 
passed I would have voted for final passage. I voted against the rule 
again today, and will support the bill on final passage if it succeeds. 
We made this bill a better piece of legislation in the last week, and I 
believe if we had another week it could be even better.
  However, on balance the good parts of this bill outweigh the bad 
parts. It includes important provisions, such as the ``three strikes 
and you're out'' language. It expands the death penalty for heinous 
crimes, and strengthens Federal rules against repeat sex offenders. It 
will put more cops on the beat, and overall will help reduce crime in 
our nation.
  I regret that this is not a perfect bill. In a democracy, it is 
always impossible for every President, Member of Congress or U.S. 
Senator to write their own crime bill prescription. However, it is my 
strong belief that those of us who stood on principle last week to make 
this bill better were successful.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and 
Enforcement Act.
  In addition to the strong punishment and prevention provisions to 
control and combat crime, this bill also represents a major step 
forward in the fight against illegal immigration. Under this 
legislation, State and local governments will for the first time be 
reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted 
of felonies, a provision based on an amendment I offered and which was 
overwhelmingly passed by the House last April. The conference report 
also provides $1 billion for a variety of very important border control 
measures which I have long advocated, including hiring 1,000 new Border 
Patrol officers. The measure also calls for eliminating asylum abuse by 
expediting deportation for immigrants whose application for asylum has 
been denied and by specifying that, unless exceptions are made by the 
Department of Justice, those applying for asylum cannot be authorized 
to work here. In addition, criminal alien detention centers are 
expanded, deportation proceedings for aliens convicted of a felony are 
expedited, and penalties are increased for visa and passport abuse 
crimes.
  The reimbursement for the costs of imprisoning criminal illegal 
aliens is especially important, however, to my State of California. 
There are between 23,000 and 35,000 undocumented aliens incarcerated in 
State prisons. At an annual cost of $18,000 or more per prisoner, this 
translates to a yearly financial burden of between $420 million and 
$615 million on the criminal justice systems of the State and its 
communities.
  These costs, which are increasing rapidly, are the result of the 
Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws--a failure 
that has resulted in the unlawful entry into the U.S. of millions of 
illegal immigrants. Yet, while State and local governments have the 
responsibility for incarcerating criminal aliens and processing their 
cases, the have no jurisdiction, obviously, over the enforcement of 
immigration laws, no authority to deport aliens who are convicted of 
crimes, and no authority to ensure that those deported are not 
permitted to re-enter the country.
  This conference report assures that at least $1.8 billion over the 
next 6 years from the Crime Control Trust Fund will be provided to 
State and local governments for the cost of incarcerating illegal 
aliens, and beginning in the year 2004, full funding for reimbursement 
will become automatic. While additional funds are still needed, and I 
had hoped that the mandatory funding date would have been earlier, this 
legislation marks the first time the Federal Government has moved 
beyond simply acknowledging responsibility for this burden and has 
actually provided a substantial amount of funding to address it. And, 
by relieving States and localities of this substantial expense, this 
bill will free up local and State revenues for other public purposes--
including the very purpose served by this legislation, crime control.
  Now that the Federal Government will be required to assume some of 
the burden resulting from its failure to enforce our immigration laws, 
I believe the administration, and the Congress, will put more resources 
into keeping people from entering the U.S. illegally in the first 
place. Specifically, we must continue to strengthen our Border Patrol 
to make it more difficult to cross our borders illegally, a need this 
legislation recognizes by authorizing the hiring of an additional 1,000 
Border Patrol agents.
  Currently, the Border Patrol is woefully undermanned and severely 
lacking the sort of modern equipment that is essential simply to 
control the flow of aliens across borders, much less do the job 
efficiently. The Border Patrol estimates that for every one individual 
apprehended at the border, at least three cross undetected. To solve 
this problem, we need more Border Patrol agents, and the agents need 
dependable vehicles, secure communications systems, night vision 
equipment, motion sensors, and computers for tracking people who have 
repeatedly entered or tried to enter the country illegally and for 
identifying weaknesses in our border security.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to establish a credible immigration policy based 
on tough enforcement along our borders, full Federal responsibility for 
any failure in enforcement, and fairness to State and local 
governments. H.R. 3355 is a major step forward in achieving our goals, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on 
the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                     motion to recommit offered by

                             mr. mc collum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am 
opposed to the bill in its present form.
  The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman the designee of the minority leader?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I am the designee of the minority leader.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCollum moves to recommit the conference report to 
     accompany the bill H.R. 3355 to the committee of conference 
     with instructions that the managers on the part of the House 
     prioritize authorizations within scope that will maximize the 
     availability of funds from the trust fund for programs for 
     Public Safety and Policing, Prisons, and Border Patrol.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the motion to recommit 
is. I would yield to the gentleman. Can the gentleman tell me, is it 
the Brewster motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER. The Chair controls debate on the parliamentary inquiry. 
Will the gentleman state the parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HUGHES. This gentleman does not have a copy of the motion to 
recommit.
  My inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is this: Is what are we voting on on the 
motion to recommit? I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have 1 minute 
to explain his motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Chair will recognize the 
gentleman from Florida for 30 seconds to explain the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the Chair and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is to recommit within the 
framework of the way that the parliamentarian has told us we have to 
operate to get as much of the Brewster-Hunter proposition as possible 
that is within the scope of the conference. We cannot enact or we 
cannot send back, like a bill, a self-executing opportunity if we had 
just passed a bill. This has to go back to conference, to the 
conference committee.
  The way this motion to instruct conferees has been drafted, it says 
that within the scope, they will maximize these things, which is the 
only way we can write this. But this is Brewster-Hunter, there should 
be no mistake about it. It is the intent if Members vote on this to see 
the conferees go back and do the Brewster-Hunter proposal. That is the 
way it has been constructed.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] for 30 seconds.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, in other words, if the gentleman will 
respond to me, it is not Brewster. The gentleman is doing what, asking 
that it be returned to the conference with instructions on 
prioritizing?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield to me, this 
is Brewster within scope.
  Mr. HUGHES. No, no, I reclaim my time. What the gentleman has said, 
in essence, is that it is not Brewster.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. It is Brewster in scope. That is precisely what it is.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, that answers my question.
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on 
the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 232, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 415]

                               AYES--197

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

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     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
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Callahan
     Herger
     Rowland
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Washington

                              {time}  1932

  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote number 
415, the McCollum motion to recommit. Had I been here, I would have 
voted aye.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 195, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 416]

                               AYES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     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)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--195

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Unsoeld
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Callahan
     Rowland
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Washington

                              {time}  1951

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________