[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.
____________________