Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1561-H1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

VIOLENT CRIMINAL INCARCERATION ACT OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas). Pursuant to House
Resolution 63 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 667.

{time} 0917

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 667) to control crime by incarcerating violent criminals,
with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Thursday, February 9, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott] had been disposed of, and the bill was open for
amendment at any point.
Four hours and ten minutes remain for consideration of the bill under
the 5-minute rule.
Are there further amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,
amendment No. 2, Watt No. 2.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 17,
strike lines 16-23 and page 18, strike lines 1-3.
Page 18, line 4, strike the letter ``g'' and insert instead
the letter ``f''.

amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer my new amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 16,
strike lines 10-20.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

{time} 0920

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment actually relates to the procedure by
which an appeal is taken from an order in which relief has been granted
in a prison lawsuit.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am uncertain as to what this amendment is. The
amendment that was read does not seem to be amendment No. 3 that was
printed in the Journal. I would like to understand what amendment we
are on at this point.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The gentleman's side has a copy of them.
We redesignated the amendments because when the bill came out of
committee it came out in a different form that the amendments that were
printed in the Record conform with. So we have gone back and conformed
the amendments to comply with the actual printed bill.
Does that address the gentleman's concern?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. It does. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I had given the gentleman's side a copy
of this amendment and the revised amendments yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, resuming my time, the bill provides that when an order
has been entered by the court and the defendants in the case who have
already been found to have violated a constitutional right by prison
overcrowding or in some other way violating a prisoner's rights and an
effort has been made to try to correct that, when the motion to revise
that order is made, that order continues in effect during the pendency
of the motion to revise the court's order. Well, that is exactly what
happens in any lawsuit. If the court ever enters an order in a case,
that order stays in effect until the court comes back and changes that
order or until some higher court changes that order.
The provisions of this bill would say if the court has entered an
order, the order is in effect, the defendant files a
[[Page H1562]] motion with the court to change that order or to
eliminate that order, then simply because the defendant filed a motion
to change the order, if the court did not act on that motion within 30
days or some arbitrary time, the defendant would win the motion.
There is absolutely no precedent for this kind of radical change in
any area of the law. Basically, what it says is you take overcrowded,
overworked Federal courts, and you, without adding any additional
personnel, any additional space, any additional opportunity for them to
get the aid that they need--and everybody knows the courts are already
overworked--and you take that and use it as an excuse to, in effect,
change the whole burden of proof and process that we have followed in
our country for years and years and years.
Another example of some political sloganeering taking precedence over
reasonable public policy and thought in this body.
I would simply submit that this provision makes no sense from a
public policy perspective. It may make some sense from an appeal to the
political electorate's perspective, but I would even think it does not
make any sense once you think about it and talk it out from that
perspective.
So I would ask my colleagues to be reasonable, go back to the process
that has existed in all other cases in our court system and allow that
process to continue to exist in this case.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there a Member
in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I claim the time in
opposition?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this provision of the bill which is being attacked by
the current amendment is a provision that is simply designed to insure
the expeditious consideration of motions for relief filed by States and
local governments.
What happens in many of these cases involving prison conditions is,
the court, unfortunately, will not expeditiously consider such motions
for relief by the States and local governments. In some cases, that can
result in dangerous criminals actually being let out on the street.
Now, what we have in the bill is something that is very reasonable;
it gives the court adequate time to consider the motions for relief and
simply provides that if the court does not act on the motion for relief
filed by the State or local government within the time period
specified, then there will be a stay.
Now, once the court acts on the motion, the stay goes away. This is
simply a mechanism to encourage the court to act swiftly, to consider
these matters which are of great public importance. If the court ends
up ruling against the State or local government, at that point the
State or local government will have the ability to appeal that order of
the court.
Now, I think it is important to understand there are two different
time periods that are specified in the bill. One time period is for 30
days. That means that a stay will come into effect 30 days after a
motion has been filed. But that only happens in circumstances where
there has been no prior finding by the court that an individual's
constitutional right have been violated. So that is a very unique
circumstance, where there has been an order imposed that is not based
on a specific finding of such a constitutional violation.
I believe there is a compelling case in such circumstances for
allowing the State or local government to obtain swift relief from
onerous impacts of such a court order that is not based on a finding of
specific constitutional deprivation.
Now, it is true that other cases, where there may have been a finding
of a constitutional deprivation, are subject to the stay provisions,
but that stay provision only comes into place after the court has had
the motion for more than 180 days.
Now, I believe 180 days is certainly an adequate period of time for a
court to consider such a matter, particularly given the fact that these
matters involve the public safety and involve the issue in many cases
of keeping violent criminals off the street who would otherwise
potentially be released under the court's order.
So I believe these are reasonable provisions.
The important thing to understand there is there is nothing, there is
absolutely nothing in this bill that keeps the court from keeping in
place the provisions of the order. If the court will simply make the
findings that are necessary under the law, if the court will simply
deal with the matter in an expeditious manner, the court will provide
whatever relief is appropriate for a constitutional deprivation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
additional time as I may consume and would like to address a couple of
questions, after I make a comment, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady].
Again, this is one of these situations like we saw yesterday and day
before yesterday where I am not sure the other side has read the
provisions of its own bill.
Mr. Canady represents to my colleagues here that under one part of
this, the 30-day provision, no order needs to be in effect. But I do
not know where he is getting that from if he has read the provisions of
his bill.
It says, beginning on the 30th day after such motion is made in the
case of a motion made under subsection B. Subsection B of this bill, an
order is already in effect by a court because subsection B deals with
termination of relief, relief that has already been ordered by the
court.
So on that point, I think he is just absolutely wrong in his reading
of his own bill.

{time} 0930

Second, I would simply ask the gentleman whether he knows of any
other situations, legal situations in this country, in which, where an
order is in effect by the court, and somebody is trying to get from
under that order, and they file a motion with the court to terminate
it, a disposition of that motion is made in one way or another without
the court having acted on it? Is there any other legal precedent for
this that he can cite in any other area of the law?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. That is the typical situation in the case of
appeals from a judgment of the court.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We are not talking about appeals. We are
talking about going back to the same court that entered the order. This
provision has nothing to do with appeals. This has to do with a motion
in the court where the relief was granted. Is there any other precedent
in the whole body of law in this country where a similar provision
exists?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. There are provisions of law that stay certain
orders against governmental entities. I am familiar with those in a
variety of States where an order may be entered against a particular
governmental entity. There is a stay imposed specifically because of
the status of the party as a governmental entity. That is something
that is found in the law, but let me go back tot his point that the
gentleman raises about the 30-day stay.
Now this is a conversation, quite frankly, that we had in the
Committee on the Judiciary, and I am simply going to repeat it to my
colleague.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time
because we are operating on my time here, and I will reserve the
balance of my time and let the gentleman make his point on his time
since I have limited time here.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as we discussed at length in the Committee on the
Judiciary, the 30-day stay only comes into
[[Page H1563]] place in circumstances where there is an absence of a
finding by the court that prison conditions violated a Federal right.
I say to the gentleman, if you want to look on page 16 of the bill,
beginning at line one, that's where you'll find it.
Now obviously there is going to be a court order in place. I never
indicated that the stay only comes in place when there has been no
court order. Obviously there is nothing to stay if there is no court
order. We are talking about a court order, however where the court
order does not have a finding by the court that prison conditions
violated a Federal right.
Now all we are saying, it is in those circumstances the local
government or the State should be entitled to very swift consideration
of a motion for relief from an order that has not been based on the
finding it should be based on. That is all that we are providing here.
Now, as I said, this is the same explanation that was provided in the
Committee on the Judiciary. The plain language of the bill indicates
that that is what we are talking about, and the gentleman can see it
there on page 16.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I agree with one thing that the gentleman said. This is the
explanation they gave for this provision in committee; that is true.
The explanation in committee was wrong. The explanation they are
giving on the floor today is wrong. The wording of this bill
specifically says the 30-day provision applies in any civil action with
respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief has been
granted.
So he has got a 30-day provision for that, and he has got a 180-day
provision where retrospective relief has been granted, but in both of
those cases relief has been granted.
Now let me just say to my colleagues and to the American people that
yesterday or the day before yesterday--I am losing track of time now
with all of these bills that keep coming at me--we set up a different
standard of law with respect to aliens than we set up with respect to
gunowners as far as the fourth amendment is concerned. Under that
provision we are treating one part of our population differently than
we treat other parts of our population. Here we are today setting a
lower standard again for the rights of other citizens simply because we
do not like those citizens.
I would say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and to all of
my colleagues, We can't set a different standard of law and decide in
advance who is a bad guy and who is a good guy. Our whole criminal
justice and court system is designed to make those determinations. We
can't make those determinations on the floor of the Congress of the
United States. It's the courts' responsibility to make those
determinations, and when we start with moving the courts' authority, we
are undercutting our rights, and this makes no sense, and I hope my
colleagues will join me in opposing it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time just to sum up very quickly.
The issue here is whether we are going to allow courts to continue
micromanaging prison facilities and to allow them to delay their
consideration of motions for relief from their micromanagement. That is
the issue. I believe that we have seen a history of abuses in this
area. There is a compelling public interest in ensuring that local
governments and the States are able to obtain relief in an expeditious
manner.
Now we are not tying the courts' hands here. We are simply saying to
the court, ``Act, consider these matters, deal with them because they
are of public import because they are matters that have a grave impact
on the public safety. They're matters that in effect are life-and-death
matters.''
Let me say this also:
We are not setting a lower standard for anybody's rights here. This
bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that people who have a
legitimate claim, people whose rights, whose constitutional rights, are
in fact being violated, can have a remedy. But what we want to stop is
the overinvolvement of the courts in managing the prison systems.
I say to my colleagues, That's what this is about, and, if you want
to have a more rational policy in this area, you will oppose this
unfavorable amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield
just so I can make a point?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The issue is not whether the courts will
micromanage prisons. The issue is whether Congress will micromanage the
courts, and that is what we are doing by putting this provision in the
law.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I respectfully disagree. I think we are
addressing an important public matter here, and this is certainly
within the province of the Congress' responsibility, and indeed I
believe it is incumbent upon the Congress to address this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 93,
noes 313, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 112]

YEAS--93

Abercrombie
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E.B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--313

Ackerman
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
[[Page H1564]] Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--28

Allard
Andrews
Becerra
Boucher
Chapman
Chrysler
Collins (MI)
Deutsch
Ford
Frost
Gillmor
Greenwood
Hayes
Herger
Hinchey
Johnston
Lofgren
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Rangel
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Tucker
Walsh
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 0959

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Chrysler against.
Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Weldon of Florida
against.

Messrs. POMEROY, FRANKS of New Jersey, and de la GARZA, Mrs. MALONEY,
Ms. FURSE, and Messrs. COLLINS of Georgia, MARKEY, and ENGEL changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. MEEHAN, and Mr. STUDDS changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 112 on H.R. 667 I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

{time} 1000

amendment offered by mr. riggs

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Riggs: After subsection (b) of
section 504, insert the following new subsection (and
redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly):
``(c) Availability of Funds for Jail Construction.--A State
may use up to 15 percent of the funds provided under this
title for jail construction, if the Attorney General
determines that the State has enacted--
``(1) legislation that provides for pretrial release
requirements at least as restrictive as those found in
section 3142 of title 18, United States Code; or
``(2) legislation that requires an individual charged with
an offense for which a sentence of more than one year may be
imposed, or charged with an offense involving violence
against another person, may not be released before trial
without a financial guarantee to ensure appearance before
trial.''.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to address the
twofold problem of jail overcrowding in many of our communities across
the country today, and also it is designed to address the problem of
instances where individuals who have been arrested for serious crimes
and violent offenders are being released back into our communities
after arrest on their own personal recognizance and promise to appear
in court.
This has become a particularly exaggerated problem in our communities
because in many instances, these individuals are not only failing to
appear in court to stand trial on original charges, but too often are
going back out into our communities and are committing additional
crimes. My amendment might be known as the jail, not bail, amendment to
H.R. 667.
Under my amendment, each State would be given the flexibility to use
up to 15 percent of its funding under the act for jail construction.
However, the chief law enforcement officer of each State, the Attorney
General, would have to find that in order for the local communities to
utilize these funds, that the State has adopted pretrial release
restrictions that are at least as restrictive as those in effect in the
Federal system, or that individuals charged with serious offenses or
crimes of violence are not released without security. That means
without the requirement of posting a commercial bail bond.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to underscore to my colleagues that this is not
a mandate, only an additional option for each State that qualifies and
utilizes funding under this act.
Let me go back to the original problem that I mentioned, which is the
problem of jail overcrowding. There is clearly a need for greater
prison capacity in each of our States.
In many instances, and I know this certainly is the case in
California, our local jails, and these are the county-run facilities,
are often holding individuals who have been convicted of felony charges
and are awaiting transfer to State prison, so my amendment is designed
to recognize the problem of jail overcrowding and recognize the fact
that, again, local correctional facilities are often being used as an
adjunct of the State penal system.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that jails are a less secure facility than
a prison. Jails are designed to detain temporarily prior to trial those
who have been
charged with a crime, or to incarcerate minor offenders. Increased
enforcement efforts and a heightened public concern about crime have
added the pressure on all of our correctional facilities, but
certainly, again, our local correctional facilities in communities
throughout America.

Let me turn to the other issue, Mr. Chairman, which is the question
of requiring secured bail from offenders, and these are individuals who
have been charged with crimes, versus free bail, which is the practice
of releasing individuals right back out into the community on what is
known as OR, their own recognizance, and their personal promise to
appear in court at a later date to stand trial on the original charges.
According to the Justice Department's own statistics, 60 percent, 60
percent of State felony defendants who are released prior to trial are
not required to post bail. This has created an unintended effect in our
local communities, because one-third of these individuals are either
rearrested for a new offense before trial, or fail to appear in court
as scheduled. Of course, as we all know, failure to appear in court on
original charges is in and of itself an additional crime.
Mr. Chairman, of those already on pretrial release, 56 percent are
released again when arrested on new felony charges. That literally
boggles the mind, the notion that somebody could be released on a
felony charge, and this is an initial crime, for an initial crime and
an initial arrest, released back into the community, again many times
simply on their written promise to appear in court at a later date, and
then commit additional felony crimes.
What we know from the research is that those on secured release, that
is to say, those who have been required or who have associates or
relatives who have assisted them in posting a commercial bail bond, are
far more likely to come back to court and answer the charges against
them than those who are released on their own recognizance. Fewer
people are rearrested while out on secured release.
My amendment, by requiring in most instances the posting of a cash
bail, would save the taxpayer money, since
[[Page H1565]] private industry is then put in a position of monitoring
criminal defendants and not taxpayer-supported officials.
Mr. Chairman, the justice system should favor the victim, not the
criminal. That is the common theme that runs throughout our efforts
here on the floor over the last few days as we enact the crime
provisions, the anticrime provisions, I should say, in the Contract
With America.
My amendment, like the rest of the Contract With America, will reduce
Government, reduce taxes, and reduce crime.

Rio Dell Police Department,

Rio Dell, CA, December 29, 1994.
Dear Congressman Riggs, I am writing to you on behalf of
the Law Enforcement Chiefs Association of Humboldt County. We
are facing a critical point in trying to enforce the laws of
this state and country. Due to the Humboldt County Jail
capacity rating of 200 inmates, we are being forced to cite
and release persons for auto theft, persons committing
burglary and other types of felonies. All misdemeanors have
to be cited and released in the field.
The problem with the cite and release system is that these
persons are given a date and time to appear in court. Problem
is, they never show up for their court appearance. So then a
warrant is issued for them. They are picked up, arrested, and
cited and released again. These subjects know they are not
going to go to jail, so they don't show up in court, again
and again. This goes on and on, month after month, year after
year.
It has gotten to the point that it is causing a morale
problem with all police officers in all law enforcement
agencies in Humboldt County. If a citizen knows that a
subject was picked up, arrested, then they think that this
person is in jail. So next, they see them on the street the
same day and then they come after the officers, wanting to
know why the person is not in jail. The officers try to
explain to them the way the system is working. But the
citizens don't care about that. They blame the police
officers and the police departments because these subjects
are back out on the street. Ninety five per cent (95%) of the
warrants we get from the court state, ``Do not cite and
release. Mandatory appearance requested.'' We still have to
cite and release these persons because the jail will not take
them.
We have a new jail being built that will not be completed
until 1997. And even then we will be back to square one
again. Within thirty days, we will be facing the same problem
again as the new jail will not hold over 250 inmates.
We are losing the streets to these criminals because of the
system. They know that if they are arrested, all we can do is
cite and release them again. Point. My department arrested
the same person three times in one week for burglary. We have
had to cite and release persons with over $100,000 in
warrants because they did not meet the criteria to be housed
in the County Jail.
We are seeking your help in securing the abandoned Navy
facility at Centerville Beach in Humboldt County to be used
as a County Jail Farm with the following usage; to house all
these subjects with these outstanding warrants and persons
that are arrested that did not meet the criteria for the main
jail.
Also, we wish to establish Project Challenge. At one time,
we had Project Challenge but we lost the funds because the
state cut funds on us. Project Challenge deals with drug
users who will work with us to try to get off drugs, try and
make useful citizens out of them.
The Centerville Beach Navy facilities face the Pacific
Ocean. It has all the equipment that would be needed. It has
its own power system, if needed. It has a large gymnasium
that would be beneficial for the inmates, and a large
kitchen. There is over 17 acres, nine of those acres could be
farmed and used to raise cattle that could be used to feed
the inmates at this facility and those at the main jail. They
could farm produce.
We, the Chiefs of Law Enforcement of Humboldt County,
believe that if we can secure this facility, and if inmates
are kept busy and with the clean environment that this
location has, it is possible to turn some of these inmates
around and make useful citizens out of them. Get these people
on the right path and out of the system.
No inmate would be released from this location as it is ten
miles out from any city. So all inmates would be transported
back to the main jail in Eureka and released from that
location.
We, the Chiefs of Law Enforcement Association of Humboldt
County, hope that you can help us secure funds, possibly from
the new Crime Bill, to secure the facility. We will be
forever indebted to you for any help that you can render us.
Sincerely,
G.P. Gatto,
Chief of Police.
____

[From the Times-Standard, Feb. 8, 1995]

Federal Funds for Police OK'd

(By Kelly Johnson and Christopher Rosche)

Help is on its way in the fight against crime in Eureka,
city officials said Tuesday.
Arcata, Fortuna, Rio Dell and the Del Norte County
Sheriff's Department also will receive money to cover part of
the cost of one new officer each.
The Justice Department announced the grants to the three
cities Tuesday as part of anti-crime legislation Congress
approved last year. President Clinton, who supported the
legislation, had earlier promised federal seed money to put
100,000 more police officers on the nation's streets.
Tuesday's grants went to communities having populations of
less than 50,000. California was cleared to receive $16
million to help hire 212 additional officers in cities
throughout the state.
Eureka will receive $75,000, Mayor Nancy Flemming told the
City Council at a meeting Tuesday night.
Police Chief Arnie Millsap is interviewing officers to fill
current vacancies, she said, calling the interviews an
``important step forward.''
``They're on their way, folks, and it is going to help,''
she said of the new officers.
Arcata and Fortuna also are eligible for the maximum
$75,000. Rio Dell could receive up to $66,883.50, the Justice
Department said.
Del Norte County's cap is $70,292.25.
The money to all agencies, however, will not be available
until the new officers are sworn in.
The communities in line to receive money must also submit
budget information and community-policing plans.
In Eureka, Mayor Flemming thanked her City Council
colleagues Tuesday night for ``moving forward aggressively to
get all these frightening numbers down and get our city back
the way we want it.''
Legislation introduced by state Assemblyman Dan Hauser, D-
Arcata, also would help, Councilwoman Jean Warnes said. His
bill would require the state to transport Pelican Bay State
Prison parolees back to the counties in which they were
convicted.
She urged residents to call or write Rep. Frank Riggs, R-
Windsor, for help in fighting crime in Eureka. The city can
use its high crime statistics to show the state and federal
government that Eureka needs even more help, she said.
In a sampling of two dozen California cities, Eureka
appeared to have a 1993 per capita crime rate second only to
Oakland's. City statistics show that property crimes in
Eureka sharply increased from 1993 to 1994.
A big problem, officials said, is Humboldt County's ``cite
and release'' jail policy. People who commit nonviolent
crimes are released because the jail is too crowded.
That policy is ``scaring us to death,'' Flemming aid.
Councilman Jim Worthen said he personally will ask federal
representatives for help when he travels to Washington, D.C.,
next month on behalf of the National League of Cities.
Eureka also must continue to work with other local cities
to find solutions to the crime problem, Councilman Lance
Madsen said.
In its fight against crime, Eureka has to do something
about the ``conspiracy and blackmail by the homeless
movement,'' Councilman Jack McKellar said. But the city is
limited in what it can do about the homeless problem by state
and federal requirements and possible legal challenges, he
said.
On Capitol Hill, the new Republican majority is working on
anti-crime bills that would replace the grants earmarked for
police hiring, drug courts and social programs with combined
block grants. The money would go directly to local officials
who would determine, within some limits, how it would be
spent.
The new legislation would not, however, cancel police
grants already awarded.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida, the
distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I think the gentleman offers an excellent amendment,
Mr. Chairman. What he is doing is carving out an ability for the
States, if they want to, to use up to 15 percent of their money for
jail construction and jail operation, not just State prison moneys;
prison construction, provided that they have the same type of strong,
tough bonding requirements on pretrial release that the Federal
Government has.
I think that is a very constructive amendment. It limits the amount
that could be used for the jail purposes, keeps within the concept of
what the prison grant program is all about, and it would add a
condition which some States will meet. Some States will not, but it is
an excellent carrot, as well, for that purpose, so I commend the
gentleman on his amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. I would like to point out, to follow up what the
subcommittee chairman said, that we do have current statistics or
recent year statistics from the Justice Department, and I would like to
point out to my colleague on the other side of the aisle that in the
calendar year 1992, and this is Justice Department statistics for those
arrested on serious charges, 37 percent of those arrested for violent
offenses were released on a nonfinancial basis; 24 percent were
released simply on their own
[[Page H1566]] recognizance and personal promise to appear in court at
a later date.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am curious about the gentleman's
amendment. If the court were to devise or a jurisdiction were to devise
a system which allowed for a deposit, say, of 10 percent of the amount
of bail with the court, refundable if the defendant showed up for
trial, would that be an acceptable alternative to buying a bail bond
from a private bail bondsman under this proposal?
{time} 1010

Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time to respond to the gentleman, because I
think that is a very legitimate question, it is the intent of my
amendment to let the States develop those standards.
Mr. BERMAN. So one would not be required to utilize a private bail
bondsman under this proposal.
Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct, that would not necessarily be
the requirement.
Mr. BERMAN. One more question. If the jurisdiction in certain kinds
of situations offers a kind of confinement, home monitored confinement
or some other alternative to assure themselves the individual's
presence, is that a suitable alternative?
It is different, it is more restrictive than OR. It provides security
for the law enforcement authorities about where the individual is. Is
that an acceptable alternative to buying a private bail bond?
Mr. RIGGS. I think the gentleman makes some very constructive
observation and questions, and I appreciate them. As the author of the
amendment and maker of the motion I would find that to be an acceptable
alternative to simply releasing an offender or defendant on personal
recognizance.
Mr. BERMAN. Could I suggest then instead of casting this in terms of
without a financial guarantee, strike the word; either put financial
guarantee or other suitable guarantee. I think that perhaps will solve
the problem, other suitable guarantee.
Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to give some further
thought to the gentleman's suggestion. What we are striving for here
though is a financial guarantee in most instances, not all, but most,
because again, the evidence clearly shows that the financial guarantee
is much more likely to ensure the defendant's return to court or an
appearance in court to stand trial on the initial charges, No. 1, and
much less likely to commit a subsequent crime while free on release.
Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and I appreciate
him doing so, I do not have my own knowledge of the statistics, but I
accept the proposition, and I know that in some jurisdictions there are
creative alternatives, electronic monitoring devices that ensure the
individual cannot leave the home without the authorities knowing, these
kinds of things.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Bilbray and by unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think this issue is the old bracelet
concept. As an individual who has operated the system for 10 years, I
just would like to point out to my colleague from California that we
are really talking about apples and oranges here. This is a great
system. We have used it as an alternative to incarceration, but as far
as I know they are being used for presentenced individuals, they are
not for sentenced individuals, as an addendum to incarceration, not as
a guarantee to come back, because there is that issue of processing
that has been addressed again and again. We have used that very
effectively in San Diego County and across California, but to use it in
lieu of bonding, I think we have administrative problems.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. Let me suggest at this point to the gentleman that we can
informally meet to discuss this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time. I will just be very quick.
The amendments as proposed is an absolute requirement of a financial
guarantee. The gentleman from California, from San Diego spoke about
his experiences. He may be right about San Diego. I think there are
some other jurisdictions where alternative systems, not simply OR
release, but alternative systems are utilized to monitor a defendant in
the pretrial phase, and I think providing a little bit of flexibility
in this provision so we do not rule out those nonfinancial situations
as well as what the gentleman has already done would help to make it
clear that you do not have to buy a private bail bond and the gentleman
does not intend this to be a bail bondsman bill. This is for law
enforcement, and there should be alternatives to the bail bondsman
clearly that those are allowed. Those are the only suggestions I would
have.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Again I would be
happy to look at the language that would address, as the gentleman from
California put it, alternative arrangements. But I would refer the
gentleman to paragraph one under clause c in my amendment which allows
the Attorney General to make the determination if States have enacted
pretrial release requirements, and that is fairly broad, at least as
restrictive as those found in the Federal system. And I think the
gentleman may be looking at just the second paragraph which talks about
a financial guarantee.
Mr. BERMAN. If I can just reclaim my time, section 3142 is what? In
other words, at least as restrictive as those in 4132? Those allow
alternatives to financial guarantees.
Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman would withhold for a moment, we can
perhaps go right to the United States Code and find those provisions.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Under section 3142, which runs a couple of pages at least,
it does speak at the beginning of that section about release or
detention of a defendant pending trial, and I quote,

Upon the appearance before a judicial officer of a person
charged with an offense, the judicial officer shall issue an
order that, pending trial, the person be--(1) released on
personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured
appearance bond.

That is under subsection b of the section.
Mr. BERMAN. Just to reclaim my time, if what I hear is correct, since
the gentleman is providing in subsection c the alternatives of one or
two, then the alternatives described in 3142 are sufficient if they
exist at the State level to quality for this provision?
Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct. I think that would address the
gentleman's concern.
Mr. BERMAN. Therefore, it is not an automatic requirement of a
financial guarantee?
Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BERMAN. It is that or the provision set forth in section 3142?
Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a disturbing proposal for the following
reasons: We are first of all dealing with pretrial and we are requiring
cash bail. What if the person does not have cash? What if the person
does not have any previous convictions? It is not clear to me at all
why we need to be micromanaging into the 50 States in the Union to
determine how they ought to have bail requirements in each State, and
it is because of that that I do not have any sympathy for creating new
micromanaged
[[Page H1567]] requirements that would take 15 percent out of the
prison construction to allow for jail construction if in fact we merely
tighten up the bail requirement by requiring cash at the beginning when
guilt or innocence has not yet been proven.
So I am disturbed about this amendment, and since it has not been
passed through the Justice Department, they have given us no indication
that they would be supportive of it, and I do not remember it coming up
in the committee during the discussion of the crime bill, I am very
unexcited about here, with a dozen Members on the floor, we are now
going to create another micromanagement position for the States.

{time} 1020

And I thoroughly think that we should be getting kind of full of
telling States of how to manage their criminal justice system.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT. I would like to ask the gentleman: You have indicated we
did not have hearings, so we did not have an opportunity to flesh out
the constitutional implications.
Do you have any idea how the various States will be affected by this
amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Well, because there was no hearings, we are trying to
see how this even fits into the Federal Criminal Code and into the
existing sections, and even into the bill itself. So bringing something
of this magnitude down on the floor is just to me something that we do
not need to deal with now. I mean, maybe there was some reason this did
not come up in the hearings, but there is no way that I am going to now
suggest that on all of the things that we have put on the States that
we are now going to tell them how they ought to handle their pretrial
bail circumstances.
You know, can I suggest that may be some bail bondsman's
organizations may be, politely, behind some of this emphasize to create
new requirements that would need their services? Because I do not know
why else we would want to do it this way, and the gentleman is even
thinking about the suggestion of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman] that maybe even if it could be paid into the courts would be at
least a small amelioration of the problem that I see, and the gentleman
is still reflecting on that.
So, as you can tell, there is very little enthusiasm on this side of
the aisle for the amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking Member
for yielding to me.
I guess my concern goes substantially beyond the ones that have been
expressed and back to the provisions of the fourth amendment to the
Constitution which says excessive bail shall not be required, and yet
here we are kind of micromanaging the State courts again and having it
done by a group of people who have told us that they believe in all
these States' rights, and all of a sudden we are telling the States
what to do in every area of the court system, every area of the
incarceration system. That is basically where I am.
I mean, I just cannot understand why States' rights advocates are
consistently coming into this body and micromanaging what the States
have been doing. We have had no involvement in all of this time. I just
have trouble understanding that.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking Member for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out again, as I said in my opening
remarks, that my amendment will give greater flexibility to States by
permitting those that adopt strict pretrial release practices or,
speaking to the concern of the gentleman from California, require cash
bail for defendants charged with serious and violent crimes to use some
of the funds under the act for jail construction.
This is not a new mandate. It is simply an additional option, and I
appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. May I suggest that we do not know what the various
States are really doing on a State basis, and so we now have another
qualification in the prison construction bill that tells the States
what they must do to qualify for construction funds, and then we are
now telling them how to run bail bonding at the same time, and then the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is resisting the modest proposal
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] which might make it at
least palatable to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], even if
it is does not for myself.
So I now find myself more often defending States' and local
governments' rights to determine what their laws are going to be. Is
there some assumption built into this amendment the States do not know
when they have a dangerous crime or a person who may not show up in
court, and that the only way that we are going to get them to show up
in court is that we give a 15-percent set-aside in prison construction
money for them to build more jails? And is that the real reason that
they are not keeping people who you apparently think ought to be put on
bail?
I mean, what are we doing in this process? Why are we here now?
Merely because we have a crime bill to tell the courts that they are
letting out too many people without getting cash bail and they are not
coming back, and they would come back faster if you put bail
requirements, cash bail requirements, on them, and to make sure you do
that, we will give you some money to build some more county jails or
State jails?
I do not think this is something that this committee has investigated
sufficiently for us on our side to give any blessing to it in this
brief discussion.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have reached an area where we
are talking about micromanaging States as it relates to bail and other
issues. This is an issue for the Congress to talk about, because it is
a national issue; I think just as any other national issue, we do have
standing in putting certain qualifications on the States, being it is a
country issue, it is an issue of the United States as a whole, and just
as there was a bubonic plague in this country at one point, we cannot
expect one State to give inoculations and the others not to.
This is just as bad as a disease plague, this crime. We have to treat
it across this whole country in the same way in order to have a
national effect, and unless I am wrong, I think we do have standing in
telling the States that they should be doing this in concert with all
the States.
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I am not saying we do not have any
right to look into this matter. All I am saying is that we had
hearings, witnesses, markup, and now we meet on the floor to pass a
pretty complex piece of legislation, and now it comes up, and so it is
the timeliness part that I am inquiring into. I need a lot more
information.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, the remainder
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear to my colleagues, because
I think they are expressing genuine concerns, No. 1, I am not acting as
a foil for the commercial bail bond industry. I somewhat resent that
inference.
I am trying to address, however, a major public safety concern which
is related to jail overcrowding and the fact that we have increasingly
moved away from financial guarantees or alternative release provisions
that will attempt to do two things; first, ensure that that individual
appears in court at the scheduled date to stand trial on the original
charges, and all the evidence is that they are much less likely to
appear in trial if they are released back into the community on their
own recognizance and personal promise to appear, much like signing a
traffic citation.
And, second, we are attempting to cut down on the immediate
recidivism. The criminal justice system should not have a revolving
door at the front.
[[Page H1568]] These individuals are going right back out into the
community, many times beating the arresting officer
back on the street, or committing subsequent serious crimes.

So I am addressing a major public safety concern. I am doing it in
the form of flexibility to the States that want to, working with the
State attorney general, adopt arrangements that will, in fact, lead to
pretrial release form across this country.

{time} 1030

That is the intent of my amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, one final question, if I may. Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, why do we assume the State courts cannot figure out
that they need more jails to house people?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mr. mc collum

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment marked B.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: add at the end, the
following new title:

SEC. 1. BUREAU OF PRISONS COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 4047. Community service projects

``(a) Subject to the limitations of subsection (b), the
Chief Executive Officer of a Federal penal or correctional
facility may, as part of an inmate work program, provide
services to private, nonprofit organizations, as defined in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or to
a component of any State government or political subdivision
thereof. Such services shall be provided pursuant to rules
prescribed by the Attorney General.
``(b) Services provided under subsection (a)--
``(1) shall be used only for the benefit of the recipient
entity and not for the benefit of any individual or
organization other than the recipient; and
``(2) shall not displace an employee of the recipient or
result in a reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits
of any employee of the recipient.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of chapter 303, title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``4047. Community service projects.''.

Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Does a Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment,
but I would like to use the time allotted.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. I
hope it is noncontroversial and we can dispose of it.
Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Prisons has informed me that they have
some questions that have been raised about their ability to be involved
in community service projects with the 95,000 or so Federal prisoners
around the country. This would make it possible for the law to let them
go do a lot of community service projects, of course under
restrictions, for private, nonprofit organizations or local cities or
communities.
Apparently, right now the interpretation of the law is they can only
do these community projects and work projects, if there is a Federal
hook; that is, a Federal program or some Federal nexus being involved
in the money perhaps that goes to the local community service group
that they are providing work and assistance to.
This would allow them to go out to whatever nonprofit organization,
city or county or political subdivision, whatever it may be, and
provide community service.
We have been very careful to restrict this; it does not involve the
production of any product that would go out, although that might be an
arguable thing that we should allow them to do at some point in time in
the prison industry. But this does not get involved in that, not
involved in the debate over prison expansion or expansion of prison
industries.
What it says is, inmate work programs can go out and help people as a
community service, a volunteer thing, in lots of ways they are not now
allowed to do.
I would think for the purposes of getting more work out of prisoners
and getting them to do, giving them an opportunity to do a public
service while they are at it, that this is a very good, simple
amendment, appropriate to the bill with which we are dealing today. It
is something they badly want.
I would encourage its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my concern here--and we just received this amendment--
is that we are not getting into the very sensitive area of products
being produced by inmates. There is a whole area that is very sensitive
in this regard, and I am very concerned that that is not happening
anywhere throughout this provision.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have been careful to scrutinize this, very careful.
When we saw some language in the Bureau of Prisons they felt was not
offensive in that regard because it involved some nature of products
which would be exempt normally from all the considerations, I even
struck that language from the amendment.
So we are not offering anything that even has the word product in it
so we do not get into that kind of debate. We have taken it out of
there, any reference to the word product in the original language is
gone from this amendment. It is strictly service; literally that is
what it is, nothing else. Every reference to any kind of product or
prison industry is gone.
What it reads now, so that we will be very clear is: ``Subject to the
limitations of subsection (b),'' which is where we talk about the
services provided,

* * * the chief executive officer of a Federal or penal
correctional facility may, as part of an inmate work program,
provide services to private, nonprofit organizations, as
defined is section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 or to a component of any State government or political
subdivision thereof.

Strictly of services.
(b) talks about the services, what the services can be,

* * * shall be used only for the benefit of the recipient
entity and not for the benefit of any individual or
organization other than the recipient and shall not displace
an employee of the recipient or result in a reduction in
hours, wages, or employment benefits of any employee of the
recipient.

It is really what it says it is, pure volunteer-type community
service projects without displacing the worker at all.
As far as the section 501(c)(3) organizations, and State or local
units of government, so there is no problem.
Mr. CONYERS. I believe this gentleman is satisfied as to the concern
that I had. I see nothing but services throughout this, and that is the
only word repeated throughout this, and the word ``product'' is crossed
out.
I assume that what we see is what we get, and I am prepared to accept
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
[[Page H1569]] The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. cardin

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin: Page 8, strike lines 7
through 11, and insert the following:
``(1) $990,300,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $1,322,800,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $2,519,800,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $2,652,800,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $2,745,900,000 for fiscal year 2000.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
I would like to hear the discussion first before I withdraw or
otherwise deal with my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered is a modest cut in the
dollars that are provided in this bill for additional prison
construction. It is a cut of $7.2 million per year. This will allow us
flexibility when we consider H.R. 728, to reinstate the funding level
for the GREAT program that was enacted in the 1994 legislation.
The GREAT program is the Gang Resistant Education and Training
Program. It is a program that has been very successful, operated by
Treasury with local law enforcement and school officials. It provides
police officers in our 7th grade in our schools in order to work our
youth to prevent gangs from developing. It has worked in many of our
communities.
What it does is instill a better attitude with young people
concerning police officers, which has been proven to deter gang
activities.
Let me just cite some of the results quoted from the Arizona GREAT
program. As a result of that program, we have seen a drop in the
percentage of all ethnic groups who say they belong to a gang, who want
to be gang members. The percentage of students who reported getting
into various kinds of trouble decreased after participating in GREAT.
The percentage of students who know gang members and who want to be
gang members decreased after students participated in the GREAT
program.
The GREAT program has worked. It currently is a partnership between
the Federal Government and local law enforcement, along with our
schools.
Mr. Chairman, we have a problem in Baltimore. I did not realize we
had a gang problem in Baltimore. I have met with our police
commissioner in our city, Mr. Frazier. He has pointed out that we are
starting to see more and more gang activity in our cities. As a result
of the legislation passed last year by this Congress, Baltimore is now
one of the 11 communities which have a GREAT program operating. It is
going to provide police officers in our schools in Baltimore, working
with our youth to deter gang activities.
Currently, there are nine communities that had GREAT programs, prior
to the enactment last year of this legislation. As a reslt of last
year's legislation, 11 more communities have this program. We are
doubling the funds for the GREAT program. Originally
only Hawaii; Phoenix; Albuquerque; Portland, Oregon; Kansas City;
Detroit, Philadelphia; Tucson; and Prince Georges County had GREAT
programs.

As a result of the legislation last year, Trenton, New Jersey; New
York City; Washington; Boston; Miami; Memphis; Las Vegas; Los Angeles;
Milwaukee; Wilmington; and Baltimore now are in this program.
Mr. Chairman, I am imploring the sense of fairness of all Members of
this House. We are here to set priorities.
The amendment that I am suggesting will be a very modest cut in
prison construction, $7.2 million. According to the information that
has been made available for me, the average cost of a medium-security
prison would cost $36 million today, and a maximum-security prison in
Florence, CO, costs $66 million. $7 million will hardly build the
entrance to these types of facilities or the reception center.
Compare that to building part of a prison, to developing 11 programs
in our communities working with the police and students to stop gang
activities.

{time} 1040

Clearly we are better served by putting the money into our schools,
putting the money into prevention. Yes, prevention. Last year we had a
good balance between prevention and prison construction. I am just
asking that in this one case a program in which the Federal Government
has assumed a good deal of responsibility in making funds available to
local governments, that we provide the wherewithal through this
amendment so that we will be able to continue that program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the reservation of a
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of a point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. I did not see that
there was any problem with this amendment technically. I do, however,
oppose the amendment.
What the gentleman is attempting to do is take some money, strike it
from this bill, x amount of dollars, and then have it reserved or be
able to argue next week, presumably when we bring up the prevention and
the local block grant programs, that there is some money available to
tack on that he saved to tack on some program for gang prevention.
First of all, I do not like the idea of taking any money out of the
prison grant program. I think we got the right amount in here. I see no
reason to do that, to reduce it by whatever sum, however paltry it may
appear. I think these several millions of dollars over the 5-year
period is not that paltry. It is pretty significant. It is, I think, $7
million 1 year, a couple million another, and it all adds up to $20 or
$30 million more.
But besides that, in principle we are beginning already by this
amendment the debate on the local community block grant concept
that is going to come up next week in the block grant bill where we
are going to provide, or we do provide in that bill that will come out
here on the floor, some $10 billion to the local cities and counties to
use as they see fit to fight crime. I am quite sure that when we get to
that and we have that debate the point will be well made, and everybody
here can see it and understand it, that the best arguments that the
gentleman is going to make about having gang prevention programs will
succeed in many cities. They will succeed, I think, in quite a number
of them, probably in Baltimore, near his area, maybe in Orlando, in my
city, when the plea is made to the city council or to the county
commission who gets the moneys under that bill, but not every community
needs gang prevention programs. Not every community has a gang problem,
and it seems to me that that is the essence of what that debate next
week is going to be.

We should provide resources to the cities and the counties with
maximum flexibility to fight crime, to use in the best way they see fit
in their particular community, because what is good for somebody in
Fresno, CA, might not be good for somebody in New London, CT. It is an
entirely different scenario in each case, and what the gentleman is
suggesting doing here today is take some money, let us save some money
today, so I can offer a specific, targeted, categorical grant program
for gang prevention in a bill that will come up next week that is not
even designed for categorical grants. It is designed entirely the
opposition direction, for pure block grants with maximum flexibility
that does not designate how this money is to be used, nor do you have
to say you have to use it for that in order to qualify for it.
So, I have to oppose this amendment, do oppose it for both the
reasons of its cutting the money out of this bill and because of the
gentleman's stated purpose for doing it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1570]] Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Department's gang resistance
education amendment is a worthy program, and I think the amount is
small enough so that, if it is deleted from prison construction
legislation, there will be no great harm done. It is not like we have a
whole string of these. This is the only one of this kind that I know
that has occurred, and I met several times with the Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury, Ron Noble, who is fully committed to eliminating the
influence of gangs through demonstration projects.
Now we all complain about the increase of gang participation. Here is
something that we can do about it, and so I do not want to jeopardize
this provision, and I support very enthusiastically the amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] for his comments.
Clearly we are here to make choices, and this is a very minor cut as
far as prisons are concerned, cannot even build part of a prison of any
significant size.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a minuscule amount of money, but it
is money that will actually work. Gang reduction programs work. A
program was studied in a Spokane, WA, school. They used a school to
offer at-risk youth a variety of recreational and educational
activities just Friday and Saturday nights. There was a volunteer
effort of local merchant-donated materials. There was an intense
evaluation that found that crime was reduced in the area after the
program was implemented. The view of police officers as positive role
models by youth was enhanced, and most of the participants recommended
the program to their friends.
This will reduce crime. The minuscule amount of money that will get
lost in rounding off in the prison construction changed to this kind of
program can do the most good. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would
adopt this very worthwhile amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that my friend from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] cannot point to any harm done by this amendment,
yet the absence of enacting this amendment and providing the
wherewithal will have severe consequences on communities that are
trying to prevent gang activities, working with the police and working
with the schools, and I would urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just have to point out the fact that this is not minuscule, and any
of us who get here and think that a million dollars, and this is much
more than that, this is $20, $30 million when it cumulatively is looked
upon over the 5-year life of this bill; anybody that thinks this is
minuscule has really got blinders on. This is what the public gets
outraged about, to think we can come up here and think that a million
dollars, or $2 million, or $3 million, or $7 million, or $30 million,
is minuscule. It is not. It is something, real money.
And the second point I would like to make is, yes, I do see some harm
in this. This is the camel's nose under the tent, sure enough, because
what the gentleman is suggesting is that we take this money and allow
him then next week in a different bill to say and make the claim that
he is using this money for categorical grant programs when this side of
the aisle does not believe there ought to be categorical grant programs
for prevention in general. We do not believe that the money ought to be
designated by the Federal Government to go for gang prevention any more
than we believe it ought to be designated to go for cops on the
streets. We believe that the moneys that are submitted to the States,
actually submitted directly to the counties and the cities in that bill
to be offered out here next week, should be given to them to use in
their sole discretion to decide whether they want to use it for gang
prevention or something else. But we should not create special programs
in this area that weed out all whys, and we do not know that.
So I think this is a very significant amendment. I think it is an
amendment that thrusts us into the debate next week, and I think the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] knows good and well that it does,
and I strongly oppose it for that reason.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman know what an average
cost for a maximum security prison is today?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I do not have it off the top of my head, but I am sure
it is more than your bill by quite a lot, or your amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. And the same thing with a medium security prison. We
cannot build a prison for the amount of money that is in the amendment
that I have brought forward, but yet in the absence of this amendment
being made available, 11 communities will go without a program dealing
with any antigang activities.
I think it is a clear choice.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Well, reclaiming my time, I would like to say to the
gentleman, I don't believe any community is going to go without a gang
prevention program that wants it, and we're going to have a bill out
here that provides to the cities and communities of this country over
$10 billion next week to use as they want to use. Surely those that
want gang prevention programs and think they are important will be able
to find a lot more than this gentleman's amendment would provide for
that purpose next week.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I have to point out that just
yesterday, after the gentleman tells us today that this money is for
prisons and should only be used for prisons, just yesterday, when we
were debating the question of unallocated funds, the gentleman
hurriedly put together an amendment to send these unallocated funds
back to the Federal Government, not to the local governments that he
says ought to be the decisionmaking entities, but rather back to
Federal Government to build Federal courthouses----
Mr. McCOLLUM. First of all, reclaiming my time, we did not send the
money back by that amendment to build Federal courthouses. We sent it
back for very severe law enforcement purposes, including the FBI, the--
--
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I will not right now--to criminal investigators of the
INS and for purposes of building more Federal prisons, if that is what
is needed.
Second, what we are dealing with are apples and oranges here. We are
dealing with are apples and oranges here. We are dealing with a
question of prevention programs versus prisons. We are dealing with two
different things here.
{time} 1050

Yesterday we were dealing with a question of the unallocated funds if
we do not use them all up. Today we are stripping money out altogether,
not designating 36 or however many million dollars for some other
purpose if it is not used in this bill. We are actually stripping money
out of this bill altogether presumably so the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Cardin] can make an argument next week that he saved this money
for another amendment that he can offer for a categorical grant program
that this side of the aisle simply does not believe with in principle.
Not that we do not believe there should be gang prevention programs,
but we do not believe that the Federal Government should be dictating
through categorical grants that you have got to have a gang prevention
program to get X amount of money. That is the difference.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
[[Page H1571]] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to this point, because I was on the
floor when we had the debate about unallocated funds, and I want to
really heighten the contradiction that has taken place here today.
In point of fact, the gentleman from Florida did allocate money to
Federal courthouses and Federal prosecutors, and, by his own statement,
INS, another Federal agency. I do not know how we got from local prison
funds back to the INS and back to the FBI and back to the Alcohol,
Firearms and Tobacco Bureau and back to Federal courthouses, because
that was the testimony of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] on
this floor when he said yes, we need more Federal courthouses and more
Federal prosecutors and we need more Federal this and that.
The fact of the matter is the gentleman had no problem taking money
out of the program, unallocated funds, and sending them back to the
Federal Government, but yet now when we have the very legitimate
program that deserves attention, he resists taking a very small amount
of money for a very worthwhile cause.
It seems to me that gang prevention is a better use of our dollars
than continuing to build these prisons or, as what happened yesterday,
sending money back to Federal agencies.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Wynn] who made the points he did. Yesterday's amendment that he
keeps referring to, there was some confusion during the discussion, but
there was absolutely no money and is no money being allocated or
reserved or blocked off that is not used for the grant programs under
the prison program here today for the possible use in constructing or
operating a Federal courthouse.
There were several provisions being made though in case the money is
not used up in this bill, in case the States do not use it all. I think
they will use it all for building prisons or operating State prisons,
but if they do not, then the appropriators may use the moneys left from
these grant programs at the end of the periods of time out where they
are not used, for the purpose of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
INS investigators, U.S. attorneys, as I recall, and the National
Institute of Justice for Technology Development.
I believe that was the limit of what we did yesterday. The point is
still the same, and that is that Mr. Cardin's amendment is not designed
to tell us where to put unallocated, unused funds in this bill. The
gentleman is striking several million dollars from this bill
altogether. That is quite a different matter.
I am strongly opposed to that, and I am strongly opposed to the
principles being espoused to use that money, to hold it back somehow so
it might support an argument on an amendment next week that we set up a
new categorical grant program which will be in violation of the basic
principles of the bill produced next week.
So I am very strongly opposed to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is
pretty direct in that there is no money left over, so this is the only
opportunity we have to preserve the GREAT anti-gang program.
There are two parts to this program, if I could point out to my
friend from Florida. One is yes, it preserves the money, which is
absolutely essential if we are going to be able to have the programs
continued. But it does a second thing. The GREAT Program is a
partnership in more than just dollars with Federal law enforcement. It
also is cooperation between Federal law enforcement and local law
enforcement. The police officers locally are trained through the
National Police Service, so we use the training facilities nationally.
Without the Federal program existing, it is going to be much more
difficult to be able to continue this type of partnership.
I would urge my colleague to think about what we are doing here
today. We are here to make choices. We have passed many amendments that
restrict what States can do, how they can receive moneys for prison
construction. When it suits us, we have a Federal involvement in micro-
managing and establishing national priorities, however you want to
characterize it. When it is appropriate for us to say we cannot let
people out on their own recognizance, to get Federal funds, we say
that. If the locals must have certain guidelines on sentencing, we say
that.
But I would hope that we would have a national policy that our law
enforcement people would work with local law enforcement to stop
juvenile gang activities, to work in our schools. The GREAT Program
offers us that opportunity. This amendment preserves it, and I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, only to say in closing that this amendment would strike a
sizable amount of money, several millions of dollars from the Prison
Grant Program. The bottom line of what it does is try to lay a
predicate for a debate next week over the whole premise of the local
community Block Grant Program.
It would be an undermining amendment. It is a camel's nose under the
tent. It is a bad amendment, and I urge a no vote.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 295, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 113]

YEAS--129

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Luther
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Rangel
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--295

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
[[Page H1572]] Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--10

Becerra
Collins (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frost
Johnston
Lofgren
Martini
Smith (TX)
Stark
Zeliff

{time} 1116

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Martini against.
Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Zeliff against.

Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. TALENT changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. RIVERS, Mr. MORAN, Mr. DOGGETT, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mrs.
MEEK of Florida, and Mr. COLEMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. mccollum

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked amendment
``A.''
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: Add at the end, the
following new title: Section 1. Administration of Federal
Prison Commissaries.
Section 4043 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking the current language and inserting the following:
``(a) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons may establish,
operate, and maintain commissaries in federal penal or
correctional facilities, from and through which articles and
services may be procured, sold, rendered, or otherwise
provided or made available for the benefit of inmates
confined within those facilities. Only those articles or
services authorized by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
may be procured from or through prison commissaries for the
use of inmates.
``(b) There is established in the Treasury of the United
States a revolving fund to be called the Prison Commissary
Fund which shall be available to the Federal Bureau of
Prisons without fiscal-year limitation to carry out the
purposes, functions and powers authorized by this section.
Funds currently on deposit in the ``Commissary Funds, Federal
Prisons'' account of the Treasury shall be transferred to the
Prison Commissary Fund.
``(c) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons may
accept gifts or bequests of money for credit to the Fund. The
Director may also accept gifts or bequests of other property,
real or personal, for use or other disposition by the Bureau
of Prisons. A gift or bequest under this section is a gift or
bequest to or for the use of the United States under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
``(d) Amounts in the Prison Commissary Fund which are not
currently needed for operations shall be kept on deposit or
invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United
States and all earnings on such investments shall be
deposited in the Prison Commissary Fund.
``(e) There shall be deposited in the Fund, subject to
withdrawal by the Federal Bureau of Prisons--
(1) revenues received from the sale of articles through
prison commissaries;
(2) revenues received from services rendered by prison
commissaries;
(3) a gift or bequest of money for credit to the Fund;
(4) proceeds from the sale or disposal of donated property,
real or personal, for credit to the Fund;
(5) earnings or interest which may be derived from
investments of the Fund;
``(f) The Fund shall be available for the payment of any
expenses incurred by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in
establishing, operating, and maintaining prison commissaries
and the Prison Commissary Fund, including the employment of
personnel, the purchase of equipment, security-related or
otherwise, and those expenses incurred in the provision of
articles or services procured, sold, rendered, or otherwise
provided or made available to inmates.
``(g) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized
to use monies from the Prison Commissary Fund for the general
welfare of inmates. No inmate shall be entitled to any
portion of the Fund.
``(h) Employees compensated by or through the Prison
Commissary Fund may be assigned additional duties other than
those directly related to commissary activities.
``(i) The provisions of sections 554 and 555 and 701
through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to
the making of any determination, decision, or order under
this section.''.

SECTION 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 1321(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``Commissary Funds, Federal Prisons''.

Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday,
February 9, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, right now under the Federal law there is
simply one sentence or two, I guess it is, under section 4043 of title
XVIII of the United States Code dealing with prison commissaries.
It simply says The Attorney General may accept gifts or bequests of
money for credit to the `Commissary Funds, Federal Prisons.' A gift or
bequest under this section is a gift or bequest to or for the use of
the United States under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,'' et cetera.

{time} 1120

The problem has been expressed to me in the strongest of terms by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and its Director, Ms. Hawk, that we do need
to have some clarification of the authority that they have to operate
Federal prison commissaries, and this bill is a perfect bill to give
that which should be a very noncontroversial opportunity for us to do
it.
Right now the prison commissaries are being operated under DOJ
circular No. 2126, under which a lot of questions have arisen about the
authority of the department and the Director to operate these
commissaries for the benefit of the prisoners and to collect funds and
receive gifts and whether or not the prison inmates have some right to
these funds and so on and so forth.
What this amendment does today is to provide express statutory
authority for the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to
establish, operate and maintain commissaries within Federal prisons.
It also provides the Director has the exclusive authority to
determine which articles or services will be provided by or through the
commissaries.
[[Page H1573]] We also have a provision that establishes in the U.S.
Treasury a revolving fund which will be used to carry out the
establishment, operation, and maintenance of a Federal prison
commissary system. It authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
to accept gifts or bequests of money as she can right now for a credit
to the fund or gifts of real or personal property for the use or
deposition by the Bureau of Prisons as can be done now but clearly
clarifies where it goes.
It allows for the investment of these funds prudently and wisely
where they are established in the Treasury. It provides for the
authorization of departments to effect the revenues from the sale of
commissary articles; it authorizes payment of expenses from the fund
including the payment of expenses for the operation of prison
commissaries and for the operation of a commissary fund and the
expenses of commissary employees' salaries and the purchase of security
equipment and nonsecurity equipment for the commissaries.
It authorizes the director to use the moneys from the fund for the
benefit if inmates, and it specifies that no inmate has any interest,
property or otherwise, in the moneys deposited or withdrawn from the
fund.
It recognizes that employees compensated through the fund have a
responsibility to perform commissary-related duties as well as general
institutional and security-related duties, and it provides that
judicial review is not available for any decision or determination made
by the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding the maintenance, operation,
et cetera of commissaries.
I believe that this is a very necessary thing to do. We are beginning
to see through the Federal prison system great questions raised about
the authority for commissaries that have existed for years and years,
as a matter of fact, since 1930 in our Federal prisons, and they are
operating with actually no statutory authority other than the fact that
they can receive gifts. It does not make a lot of sense and people want
to litigate this now, and quite frankly this is a very straightforward
procedure. There are no hidden anything's in it, and this prison bill
seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to clarify once and for all
the question of prison commissaries.
I would hope the other side would accept this in the noncontroversial
intent that it is offered.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have only had a brief chance to peruse this. Let me ask the
gentleman a couple of questions.
First of all this has been sent over by the Bureau of Prisons and is
supported by the administration?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. Second of all, it would allow people to give gifts to
prisoners?
Mr. McCOLLUM. It would, but the gifts are already permitted under
section 4043. That is all that they have, though. We do not have a
formal framework for how they utilize it or set it up. This does not
add anything new, but it does allow gifts. It does continue that
practice.
Mr. SCHUMER. So present law allows gifts?
Mr. McCOLLUM. That is correct. That is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. What if these gifts were of a nature that conflicted
with the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey, an amendment I
supported?
Mr. McCOLLUM. We have restrictive language on gifts that are already
going to prohibit them from taking anything that has been passed
subsequent to the law that is already on the books, so I would presume
the court would interpret the restrictions as applicable that we are
passing here today.
Mr. SCHUMER. I take it the gentleman would not characterize this as
soft on prisoners in any way?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, absolutely not. This is
not in any way soft on prisoners. This is strictly giving the
prisoner--in fact the prisoners may have restricted authority here
because the Bureau of Prisons has it all. It has the authority over the
commissaries.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina; Page 5,
line 21, strike the word ``and''
Page 6, line 2, strike the period and add ``, and''
Page 6, after line 2, insert the following: ``(4) The State
has adopted procedures for the collection of reliable
statistical data which compiles the rate of serious violent
felonies after the receipt of grant funds under Section 502
or Section 503 in comparison to the rate of serious violent
felonies before receipt of such funds and will report such
statistical data to the Attorney General.''

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This simply requires the States to have a process for collecting
reliable statistical data regarding the impact of grants that are being
made under sections 502 and 503 of this bill on the incidence of
violent felonies and reporting that statistical information to the
attorney general.
Mr. Chairman, on yesterday afternoon, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Scott] offered an amendment which would have taken a small amount
of funds and allowed a process to be put into place at the Federal
level to monitor the impact of these programs on crime. I offered and
then withdrew a more aggressive amendment than this one which would
have denied funds unless there was a showing that the increased
sentencing and the truth-in-sentencing legislation was having some
impact on crime, and I withdrew that amendment.
This simply asks the States to have a process for collecting data on
the impact that these moneys are having on the incidence of violent
crime.
I should point out that on the next bills that are coming, the
prevention bills, I intend to offer the same kind of language.
One of the concerns that I really have is that because of the outcry
of the public to do something about crime, we are trying to respond
legislatively to that outcry, and I commend my colleagues for trying to
do that, but in the haste of doing it, we are not providing any process
for determining what things are having an impact on crime and what
things are not having an impact on crime. So even if we end up reducing
the incidence of crime, we are not going to know which programs we
should continue to support and which programs we should be pulling back
from and withdrawing our support from.
What we should be doing is trying to get some handle on what kind of
programs, whether they are Federal programs, State programs or local
programs, are in fact having an impact on crime, whether it is
prevention, whether it is increased sentencing, whether it is building
more prisons, I do not care. All of those things need to have an
assessment process built into them and all of them need to have some
process for assuring the collection of statistical data that at least
allows the government, either State, local or Federal, to make an
assessment of their impact. This begins in that direction with respect
to the grants only that are made under sections 502 and 503 of this
bill, but I would say I am not trying to attach this only to these
programs.
{time} 1130

I will be offering a similar amendment on the prevention programs, on
the cops programs. We ought to be trying to assess what is working and
what is not working.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1574]] The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind the
body that we still continue to operate under the 10 and 10 rule, 10 in
favor, 10 opposed.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to claim that 10
minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am reluctant to support this amendment even though I know what the
gentleman wants is data which I think we should have.
The reason I am reluctant is because I believe that data, I say to
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], is already available
under the uniform reporting acts, the statistical reporting acts, that
come in. What you are doing here is conditioning receipt of the grant
moneys in this bill on the States providing still a separate type of
report.
My judgment is that we can gain this data. We should have this data
already available to our subcommittee. I would be glad to work with the
gentleman in order to make sure that we bring and highlight whatever
data he wants. If we do not have this power or if for any reason we are
wrong about it, then we will find a way to get that data and make sure
it does come independent of this. Because I do believe our subcommittee
ought to have this data. You should have it. I do not think we should
add something that messes up, or potentially does, an already working
reporting program or add another layer of bureaucracy or restriction on
the grant program.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Just for the purpose of inquiring whether
you might entertain a revision, this just simply says that if the
information has already been checked under some other process, we would
exempt that State from it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has been kind enough
to furnish us the amendment this morning which we do have, but it is
one of those things which, like some we furnished over there, we have
not had time to digest. I would prefer not to put anything in the law
right now. I would simply assure the gentleman this type of data is
something the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime wants, would like
to have. If we do not have it, I believe we do have it, based on
representations made to me in limited resources we have this morning, I
would be happy to work with him to make sure we do get it in some other
form, but not as a restriction or a caveat as a condition precedent to
allowing these grants to flow.
If the gentleman would accept that, I would urge him to withdraw this
amendment and let us proceed with the rest of them and we will go
forward in the committee and make sure we get this data, but not
through the use of this bill or through the restraints he is trying to
impose today.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a
response.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am
not inclined to withdraw it, because if we are already checking the
data, it seems to me that this amendment is harmless, because all the
State would have to do, and if the gentleman will look at the bill
where I have put this, this is under an additional requirement, and all
the State would have do, if they are already providing the information,
is to assure, and that is the bill's term, now, not my term, is assure
that the information is being collected already, and so even if we do
have a process already for doing this, all the State would be required
to do is give the assurance that there is a process already in effect,
and I do not know what harm that would do.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I probably have voted against more of the
amendments offered by the gentleman from North Carolina than for, but
this one seems to me to be so reasonable. All it is saying is let us
measure it. I think we should measure every prevention program. I think
we should measure every police program.
One of the reasons perhaps that your side gained the majority is
because Government programs were passed without seeing their effect.
What is the harm of this language? It is done. I voted against the
gentleman's amendment in committee, because what that did, it said if
you measured it and it was negative, you stopped the money, and you
would not build any prisons. He has taken that out. All he says is let
us measure. How can you be against that? It is sort of Luddite. We
ought to see the results of what we are doing.
I would ask the gentleman to reconsider his opposition or perhaps
mute it when the vote is called.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I myself am not sure it is that bad of an amendment.
Let me tell you what some of my heartburn might be, if I understand it
right.
In education or law enforcement, one of the problems we have is too
much paperwork. I know when I was in the service, during the war, all
our paperwork went in the trash barrel. We went out on the carrier
level and did what we had to do, and we were able to be much more
effective.
After the war back in the squadrons at the bases, I spent 80 percent
of my time filling out Federal reports on what we should be doing and
what we should not, and I was not able to do the things I really needed
to do to train the unit.
This Member's idea is I do not want the Federal Government, the
bureaucracy back here, to have to receive reports. I want the State and
local, I want us to have goals and let the State and local establish in
their own particular area what they need to do and what those standards
should be. What might be good for Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin might not
be good for Pete Wilson in California.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just want to point out to the gentleman
from California that this amendment, if the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum] is right, that the States are already required to do it. We
are not adding one iota of paperwork other than one page in the grant
request that says, ``We have a process for doing this,'' where one
sentence in the grant request says that.
But if he is wrong, that we are not collecting it, I cannot believe
we would take the position that we are setting up for program grants
billions of dollars of money and will not require the States that are
applying for the money to at least have in place some process for
tracking the impacts on crime.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will ask a question
of the author. The gentleman has a handwritten piece of my copy of the
amendment. It says, ``The state has adopted procedures for the
collection of reliable statistical data,'' and is that ``which compiles
the rate of serious''?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Yes; yes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I just wanted to make sure the word was compiles, c-o-
m-p-i-l-e-s.
If that is the case, if the gentleman would accept a unanimous-
consent request, I am going to make it and see if he will agree to add
this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's amendment
be modified at the end to add the words ``if such data is not already
provided,'' and I will send this down to the desk right now.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I happily accept that proposed modification.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that
modification to the amendment be accepted.
The text of the modification is as follows:

[[Page H1575]]

Modification offered by Mr. McCollum to the amendment
offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: At the end of the
amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina, insert ``if
such data is not already provided.''

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina, as
modified: Page 5, line 21, strike the word ``and''
Page 6, line 2, strike the period and add `` ; and''
Page 6, after line 2, insert the following:
``(4) The State has adopted procedures for the collection
of reliable statistical data which compiles the rate of
serious violent felonies after the receipt of grant funds
under Section 502 or Section 503 in comparison to the rate of
serious violent felonies before receipt of such funds and
will report such statistical data to the Attorney General, if
such data is not already provided.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, with the modification, I would agree to
concur in the amendment as the gentleman has drafted it. I think he has
made a good argument. We want the data. I believe it is already here.
If it is not, then we will get it. That is the end of that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
making my amendment better and clarifying it, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
amendment offered by mr. chapman

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment printed in the
Record, designated No. 20.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Chapman: Page 2, lines 24 and 25,
strike ``either a general grant'' and insert ``general
grants''.
Page 2, line 25, strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.
Page 6, line 6, strike ``title, if the State'' and insert
``title if,''
Page 6, line 7, strike ``title--'' and all that follows
down through ``the'' on line 9, and insert ``title, the''.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, I want to take just a couple of minutes and an
opportunity to lay the groundwork on where I think we are now in the
bill, and I hope my colleagues will pay attention to what the
underlying legislation requires and what the amending process to this
point has done.
Because what my amendment does is broaden the eligibility of States
to apply for grants under H.R. 667. I want to read from the bill as it
is filed and as it currently exists, under section 501(b), and the
caption of the section is ``limitation.'' What this bill does is say an
eligible State or States may receive either, either a general grant
under section 502, which is the general grant fund, or, either/or, a
truth-in-sentencing incentive grant under 503. Under the section of
``limitation,'' this law will prevent States from applying for both
even if those States are meeting the requirements of both sections.
That is clearly what the statute says.
What my amendment says it should not be an either/or situation. Those
States that are doing the deal and getting the job done and increasing
their sentencing in meeting an appropriate threshold ought to be able
to apply for all the funds in both pots. That is the current law. That
is current law. Even though the current crime bill authorizes slightly
less money than this one does, this one divides $10 billion into 2 pots
and says the State can only apply for one or the other.
{time} 1140

So under this law there is actually less prison money available to
States, less prison money available to the States than under current
law. Surely that cannot be the intended consequence of the author of
the bill, who is wanting to expand prison construction and put more
criminals in prison for longer periods of time all over this country.
Yet that is the result.
My amendment will change that. It breaks down the wall between two
grant funds and says a State doing the job can apply for both grant
funds or funds from both pots.
It also says--and it makes a very important change, and I want all my
colleagues to understand this change--under this bill the bar is set so
high that every State, to be eligible, must meet an 85 percent truth-
in-sentencing standard, and my colleague, the friend, the gentleman
from Florida, said yesterday that to qualify for that, States may have
to lower their penalties. Did I stand up in my chair? Lower their
penalties for violent crime so they can qualify for the second pot of
money? Is that what this is about, lessening the penalties for violent
crime in America so we can meet an 85 percent standard? Surely that is
not the intended result.
What my amendment will do, it will say, if you are meeting the
criteria of increasing sentences, putting more violent prisoners in
prison and doing it longer and you are doing it so good that the entire
country moves toward tougher sentencing, you are still 10 percent
better than the national average, then you can qualify for the second
pot of money even if you have not quite reached the 85 percent
standard. Surely, surely no question, no State in America, according to
the Department of Justice--arguably, only three--but if you do not live
in North Carolina, Arizona or Delaware, you cannot qualify. Your State
cannot qualify for the second pot of money.
If you are doing the job, under my amendment, doing it right, moving
toward increasing your sentences, and beating the national average
every year by 10 percent, then you can. It is a commonsense amendment.
It makes sense, and it should be adopted.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is a dramatic improvement on H.R. 3. If you want
to build more prisons, that is. Yet maybe there was some who did not
like the block grant approach because they did want to move the States
along rather than give them the money and move along by themselves.
It is a compromise amendment. It is one of these rare instances where
you can have your cake and eat it too, because we are encouraging the
States, under the Chapman amendment, to have tougher sentences. I think
we need that.
We are also saying they have a real chance, if they toughen up their
sentences, to get their money. Let us face it, under H.R. 3, as we made
the point yesterday, not only the 3 States be eligible, but for the
other 47 to be eligible they would have to spend some $60 billion on
their own before being able to meet the 85 percent standard.
My colleagues, let us not wish something to be so. The public, the
Congress, the legislatures, the mayors, we have been wishing crime to
go down for decades. But it keeps going up. It does not go down to the
levels where it should. This amendment is not a wishing amendment, this
is an actuality amendment. It greatly improves H.R. 3, and I compliment
the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Reclaiming my time, let us not ignore what we did
yesterday. We plucked the pocket, yesterday, of 47 States. This bill
takes money passed by Congress, signed by the President, currently in
the law for prison construction to fight violent crime, will rescind
money already in the pipeline, it is going to rescind money already in
the pipeline going to every State in America.
Surely, if we are serious about wanting to fight violent crime, we
need to get the funds out there, and this amendment gets it to States
that are doing the job.
If we are going to expand prison construction, let us not trick the
American people, let us not trick the Members of Congress by saying we
are going to put $10 billion in prison construction funds but you
cannot apply for both pots.
[[Page H1576]] Under the statute, that is what this law will do. This
is a commonsense amendment that ought to be adopted.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman [Mr. Chapman] for his
amendment.
You know, in the 104th Congress so far we have heard an awful lot
about giving more flexibility to the States. I find it highly ironic
that the bill before us takes flexibility away from North Dakota's
prison plan to make people serve 85 or greater of their sentences. I
might add, North Dakota has people serving a longer portion of their
sentence than any other State in the country.
Under the bill passed last year, we were set to get eligible to
receive $8.8 million for prison construction, but under the language--
this is a quote from the law--``to construct, develop, expand, modify,
operate or improve correctional facilities to insure such space is
available for violent offenders.''
Let me read to you the language in the bill that is before us. It
would allow us to take the money to build, expand, and operate. This is
a critical distinction. They have taken from North Dakota the ability
to advance plans that take prisoners out of the State penitentiary, the
nonviolent ones, send them out to county jails, to make bed space for
violent offenders in the State penitentiaries, just what we want to
accomplish.
But because of a drafting error, they have taken from North Dakota
this right to access money for bed space for violent offenders. We have
done it because we have been overly prescriptive. We have taken from
States flexibility. We have imposed a one-size-fits-all approach out of
Washington, DC.
I just wonder how many Members, and goodness knows I will be watching
when they vote for this, are going to actually be voting taking money
away from their States, money their States would have been eligible for
that would not be because they will be voting for language that simply
does not work relative to the scheme of State flexibility as we
approach the lengthening of time violent offenders serve.
That is why I commend the gentleman for his amendment and yield back
to him in this discussion.
parliamentary inquiry

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Are we proceeding under the 5-minute rule today?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. We are proceeding under the 10-minute rule,
10 minutes for each side.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Then at this point I would like to ask if the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will proceed. I would like to reserve the
balance of my time at this time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A Member opposed to the amendment will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is doing, make no mistake about it,
is to strike the truth-in-sentencing incentive program that is in this
bill. The $5 billion setaside is set aside in order to encourage the
States to move to the provision we would like for them to do in their
laws, of abolishing parole for violent felons in their State, to make
them serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
If you are a serious violent felon, the objective of this whole
exercise is to get you incarcerated, locked up, and have the key thrown
away so that you are not out there going through this revolving door
and preying on a lot of people again and again and again, as has been
happening. We will, by passing this gentleman's amendment today,
destroy that incentive altogether. The carrot will be gone. The offer
of $5 billion out there, if you are just changing your laws, will not
be out there anymore. Sure, we know only a handful of States qualify
today for that pot of money, but that is the idea, the whole idea
behind having that pot of money reserved strictly for those States to
change their laws to comply, to get them to change them, to get them to
make that step that has been so difficult for them to do, by saying,
``Look, we will give you the money to build the prison beds. We will
give you 75 percent of the money it takes to build every single prison
bed that is required for you to remove every single serious violent
felon in your State off the streets and make them serve at least 85
percent of their sentences.'' It would make the States do this if they
are to get the money.
They obviously do not have to do it today or will not have to do it
not tomorrow if they do not want this money. But the idea is to build
the political pressure in those States. I think once this bill passes,
the public in every State in the Union will demand that their
legislatures and Governors change their laws immediately to do it and
spend whatever State resources are necessary to do that.
{time} 1150

Mr. Chairman, it is my judgment, and most Republicans on this side of
the aisle agree with me, that this is perhaps the most important thing
we could do today in crime fighting at all in this country, is to
provide this carrot out there to build the public pressure to get the
resources necessary, and we provide most of them probably the vast
majority of what is necessary from the Federal end to take the repeat
violent felons off the street and stop this revolving door. If the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas prevails, he will simply
have for the whole $10.5 billion the easy requirements. Just making
progress toward incarcerating people for longer sentences is good
enough to get the entire amount of money, and I would submit that that
is a wrong-headed approach, it is not what we should be doing out here
today. It destroys completely the effort to control the violent
criminal revolving door in this country, and this is, in my judgment,
the most serious killer amendment of the day, and I would urge its
defeat in no uncertain terms.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Chapman] for 30 seconds.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask unanimous consent to
have an additional 5 minutes of debate in addition to 30 seconds.
The CHAIRMAN. Would that be on each side?
Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is that 5
minutes on each side?
We are getting an additional 5 minutes? That, I believe, is the
construct; is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. That is the request.
Mr. McCOLLUM. All right Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Chapman]?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say the easy standards that
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] talks about, the law requires
that to be eligible for even the easy money. States must put more
violent criminals in prison every year than they did the year before,
States must put them there for longer periods of time every year than
they did before, and they must parole them less frequently every year
than they did the year before. That is not an easy burden to meet, and
to meet under this amendment the second pot of funds, not only do you
have to do that, but you must out-reform the national average each and
[[Page H1577]] every year by 10 percent. If States are doing that, the
very idea that we would tell them they are not eligible for the
funding.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Chapman] and want to make a point about how strongly I am in favor of
the Chapman amendment because it clarifies the two vital and
fundamental weaknesses in the bill before us.
On February 1, 9 days ago, we passed H.R. 5 right here. It prohibited
unfunded mandates. We passed this law 9 days ago prohibiting unfunded
mandates.
On page 3 of H.R. 5 it says, to begin consideration of methods to
relieve States, local governments, of unfunded mandates imposed by
Federal court interpretation of Federal statutes and regulations. It
says further, to end the imposition by Congress of Federal mandates. It
goes on, and on, and on.
I voted for this. Many people on both sides voted for this. Yet in
this bill we are providing exactly the kind of unfunded mandates that
we just 9 days ago prohibited.
Let me read for my colleagues page 3 of this bill, H.R. 667, page 3.
We not only are talking about tougher sentences, which I am for; I
voted for the gentleman's tougher habeas corpus and exclusionary rules,
but now we are telling the States, ``You have to, in order to be
eligible to receive funds under subsection A, one, increase the
percentage of convicted violent offenders; two, increase the average
prison time actually served; three, increase the percentage of sentence
to be actually served.
We are mandating down the line not just tougher penalties,
percentages, average time, percentage of convicted violent offenders.
Are we not saying 9 days ago we are not going to do anything more like
this? And we do it.
Second, the fundamental flaw in this bill, in addition to the
unfunded mandates, is that this is the bailout bill. This is the
bailout bill for States that have not made the tough decisions to build
some of these prisons. We are going to funnel money to them. We are
going to take the money away from States like Indiana, which will lose
$48 million, and States that have made tough decisions and sometimes
said to their citizens, ``You have to pay up to build these new
prisons.'' Now we are saying with these unfunded mandates we are going
to steer moneys to the States that have not made these tough decisions.
We are going to provide Federal funds to do it, and we are going to
bail these States out.
That is not right.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Chapman] tries to clean up the unfunded mandates and the fairness to
different States that is terribly skewed in the formula in this bill.
Forty Republicans voted for current law. The Chapman amendment tries to
steer us back to current law, and I would encourage some bipartisan
support for this amendment. If this does not pass, I would encourage
defeat of this bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think everybody has to understand that
this is a repeat of yesterday's debate. We have already had a couple of
amendments to try to get at the truth in sentencing and knock it out.
This is just another effort to do that. That needs to be clearly
understood.
I know there are people who do not agree with truth in sentencing,
and they obviously strongly do not agree because that is the reason why
they are making a third try at this today.
There are over 6 million violent crimes every year in this Nation.
Only 150,000 people are convicted of violent crime out of the million
crimes that are committed. Now some of them obviously are being
committed by the same people. Only 90,000 of the 150,000, that is 60
percent of those convicted, ever go to prison for committing a violent
crime, and those who do go to prison of that 60 percent of the 100,000
that are convicted of the 6 million crimes that are committed every
year that are violent, they only serve an average of 38 percent of
their sentences.
So, what we are saying is here today, in this bill, we want to get
these people to serve their time. We want to make sure that the carrot
is out for them to do that and that we actually provide the resources
to the States to make sure that they have their folks locked up. I
doubt if very many States, if any in this Union today, are locking up
near enough prisoners in their prisons to comply with this in any sense
of the word that we would like for them to do, but what we have set
forth, for the first pot of money, the $5 billion that is out there in
part A, that is not disturbed in our judgment in any way from last
year's bill to amount to a hill of beans, and we are simply going to
require three little things to be done by the States to qualify for
that money, and virtually every State has already qualified.
Just look back at the statistics down at the Justice Department of
the last 10 years that are submitted, published every 2 years, by the
State, and my colleagues will see that every State is marching toward
increasing the length of time somebody has to serve, increasing the
actual sentence for some of these violent criminals, all these violent
criminals, and increasing the percentage of time, and there are three
separate things, but they are complying. It is not hard to comply with.
I would say 99 percent of the States, probably all the States, will
receive money under part A without having to do anything more than
assure the Federal Government of what they are already doing.
But what this amendment does that is mischievous about it is, first
of all, it strikes all three of these requirements. It in essence says,
notwithstanding anything else in this bill, all you got to do is show a
10 percent average increase in the time served over the entire course
of whatever in your State, and, by God, you get the money for part A,
and you get the money for part B because we are going to do away with
any qualifications for part B that are different from part A. In other
words, you strike truth in sentencing altogether, and you just say,
``If you have increased the average times served by 10 percent of your
violent felons in your prisons, you can get every penny in this bill,''
and I think that is absurd. That is precisely why we are having the
debate out here today, and it is a very wrong-headed thing to do.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
First of all, of all the amendments that I have had come forward,
this one is the most obtrusive. The gentleman fails to see the solution
to a very simple problem, that, if you let criminals out early, they
are going to commit more crimes. Our intent is to keep them in there
for the longest amount of time.
Governor Allen's idea of no parole at all; if you get a sentence,
that is what you are going to stay in there for; that is what I would
like to see. But, if you let, as James Cagney said, let these low-down,
dirty rats back out, they are going to be low-down, dirty rats on our
streets, and the gentleman is talking about an unfunded mandate. We are
giving the States a positive incentive to do this. This is not an
unfunded mandate.

{time} 1200

What we want to do is make sure that if someone is sentenced to an
amount of time that is a felon, that they are going to serve their
time, and not get back out early and do the same thing. Because it is
proven by statistics they get back out, and they have not been helped,
we want to make sure that is done.
The gentleman says that the law requires that we put them in longer
and that we parole fewer. But it is not working again. This again is
another positive incentive for the States that are not living up to
that to follow through and keep these critters in longer.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman
from California that I serve with on
[[Page H1578]] the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities,
that whether you call it a positive incentive or an unfunded mandate,
you are stipulating in law three things: From percentage of convicted
offenders, to average prison time, to percentage of sentence to be
actually served. That is not a positive incentive for some States. That
is a very specific mandate.
I am for truth in sentencing, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum] knows. But I do not think we should prescribe down to three
and four different criterion variables what these States have to do.
Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question of the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum], he said in his comments that some States will have to
change laws, that the people will force the State legislatures to meet
and change laws. That will take some time. The gentleman from Florida
knows that some States are in short session this next meeting period.
Indiana may only meet for a couple of months. Other States may not have
the time to qualify for this.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, there is no question that States
will have to change their laws, most of them will. To get the second
pot of $5 billion for truth in sentencing, they will have to go to the
85-percent rule. There is no question about that. That is the idea.
But they will not have to change their laws to qualify for the first
pot of money. I believe 99 percent, from what we have seen, already
qualify for part A of the money.
I would also like to respond to the gentleman on the unfunded
mandate. This is not an unfunded mandate in any way, shape or form.
This is a grant program, clearly distinguished from the bills we had
out here earlier that ban unfunded mandates.
If the States do not want this money, they do not have to do what we
require them to do. We are not mandating they do these things. We
simply say if you want to get this money, here is the carrot. You have
got to come get it. Unfunded mandates do not yield carrots.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made the
point. Illegal immigration in our State, we have a policy and the
Government does not support it, they do not get the money. It is not an
unfunded mandate. They do not have to participate if they do not want.
We are not mandating that they do it. But if they do not, they do not
get the money.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
to respond briefly.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that I think we understand that this
bill picks the pockets of the States of hundreds of millions of dollars
that are currently in the pipeline under current law.
The gentleman from California makes a good point. We want folks to
put people in prison that are violent criminals and keep them there.
That is what last year's crime bill did.
This takes the money back. This sets the bar so high that the
progress that is being made cannot be met. I do not understand why the
gentleman would want to set a standard that the Attorney General, you
say 99 percent of the States meet it. Are you sure? The Attorney
General has looked at it and says none of the States meet it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would just like to point
out that there was no money appropriated for prison construction for
this fiscal year, so we are not taking any money back in what we are
doing.
Second, the statistics that the Attorney General has collected over
several years that we have seen shows that progress is being made and
States would qualify. So I beg to differ with the gentleman.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, progress may be being
made, but the States do not qualify. They are not going to be eligible
under the law, and the gentleman has set the standard so high that he
is making it impossible to comply.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I have two quick points. Under the
gentleman's own bill, the Attorney General would be the administrator.
So even though the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] may say States
qualify, unfortunately, if I were a Governor who wanted to build
prisons, I would have to put more stock in what the Attorney General
said, because she is giving out the money, not the gentleman from
Florida.
Second point: The gentleman from California said we want a carrot to
encourage the States to increase sentence time. Agreed. But when you
put a carrot out there, you want them to be able to reach it, so they
can jump. If you put the carrot up so high that they cannot even see
it, they are not going to try to reach for it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] has
expired, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, I do not see how anyone can argue
that under what the gentleman's amendment does, States would qualify
who will not qualify for part A of the grant money under what is in the
bill. Now, you can debate all you want on part B, the truth in
sentencing, 85 percent rule, because I am willing to concede only three
or four States, half a dozen States, currently qualify for that. That
has never been in question, because the fact of the matter is States
are being given this money as the carrot.
But under part A, what the gentleman would have after I read his
amendment, what he is doing in striking indeterminate sentencing as an
exception out of this, he is saying,

Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
section 502(b), a State shall be eligible for grants under
this title if, not later than the date of enactment of this
title, the offenses of murder, rape, robbery, and assault
exceed by 10 percent or greater the national average of time
served for such offenses.

Well, that is still going to be a requirement to qualify for part A.
It will be the only requirement for parts A or B under your amendment.
What we are suggesting is you do not even have to have a 10-percent
variation with regard to the national average. You just have to have
some for ours. You have to show an increase since 1993 of the
percentage of convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison of the
percentage. Just any increase. Not 10 percent, but any increase. Your
own State has to show that increase.
Second, you have to show an increase in the average prison time
actually to be served, that you bumped up the time under the
regulations for sentencing. If somebody got 6 years, the sentence they
have been given, and they are serving only two now in your State, you
have to show that your actual prison time is going to be 2 years and 1
day. But it does not require a big 10-percent increase.
Third, you have to show an increase in the percentage of the sentence
to be actually served, the percentage of the 6 years, from whatever it
was before. If it was 2 years, it is one-third, you have to bump up by
whatever little fraction that would be; 2.1 years obviously shows an
increase in the percentage of the sentence. That is not actually hard
to comply with.
What the gentleman is doing by all of the debate and all of what he
is saying out here today is simply arguing the same old point he argued
yesterday and that we have heard argued on two major amendments out
here before, and that is the gentleman does not like the carrot. The
gentleman does not like the second pot, which is what you destroy.
There is nothing about the first pot that we are doing anything with.
It is very easy to get the first pot.
But what we are all arguing about today is whether we set aside $5
billion and say to the States we want you to get this money, to change
your laws to make sure that serious violent felons
[[Page H1579]] serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. Truth in
sentencing. Essentially abolish parole and only have good time.
That is what we want them to do with the 85-percent pot of money, $5
billion. And what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] would do by
his amendment, make no mistake about it, would absolutely strike that
out of this bill. There would be no truth in sentencing requirement
whatsoever to get any money in this bill at all. It would disappear,
and the whole thrust of the whole truth in sentencing debate would be
resolved in favor of those States and those groups that do not want any
restrictions and do not want to go to that. And I think that would be
absolutely the height of folly. It would be an undermining of a basic
principle that the Republican side of the aisle believes deeply in our
crime legislation, what we offered last year, and what is part of the
Contract With America.
So this is a killer amendment. It strikes the guts out of this bill
as we have written it, and I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Chapman].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 247, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 114]

YEAS--176

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Inglis
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--248

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnson (SD)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--11

Becerra
Brown (CA)
Collins (MI)
Frost
Hall (OH)
Johnston
Lofgren
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Tauzin
{time} 1228

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Smith of Texas
against.
Mr. Johnston for, with Mrs. Smith of Washington against.

Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. EDWARDS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1230

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman
will state his inquiry.
Mr. COLEMAN. I would just inquire of the Chair in terms of statements
that had been made earlier in respect to the length of time that we
have for votes. I noted, just as a housekeeping matter, that the Chair
in my view correctly permitted about 20 minutes, or I assume 20. When I
came in, it said zero. We waited another 5 minutes to finish the vote.
I think the Chair correctly did that, because of the crowding on the
elevators and attempting to get here from committees by many of the
Members.
I was just wondering whether or not the Chair would permit an
expansion on the statement earlier made by the Speaker with respect to
the amount of time we will be allowed to have for votes. We were told
17 minutes would be all we would get. I notice we just got 20, maybe
more. I am wondering whether or not we are going to continue to have
that kind of leeway in the event crowds occur in coming to the House
floor to cast our votes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Speaker was very clear when he stated
his position that he would not stop a Member from voting who is in the
well.
Mr. COLEMAN. Actually that is not my inquiry. I was just wondering
whether or not we were going to all be given some additional
opportunity in the case of crowding to get here to cast our votes. I
think that without any question, statements to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Chair correctly handled this vote by allowing at
least 20 minutes for us to cast this vote. I am just hoping that the
Speaker will be advised of the amount of time it took
[[Page H1580]] today and perhaps we can relax the hard-and-fast rule we
were told applied on the first day.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that
this vote did proceed in conformity with the Speaker's advisement.
Mr. COLEMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was certainly in excess of 17
minutes, was it not?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. What the Speaker said about Members
proceeding to the well and being allowed to vote still holds.
Mr. COLEMAN. But after 17 minutes they will not
be allowed to vote from the well; is that my understanding?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The 17-minute restriction still holds.
Members should come to the Chamber and to the well as quickly as they
possibly can.
Mr. COLEMAN. But the chair was correct in allowing extra time. I
think all of the Members attempted to do that on both sides of the
aisle. The attempts, I just advise the Chair, will continue to be made
more difficult by having, as you know, more citizens inside the Capitol
utilizing many of these same elevators.
I just suggest to the Chairman that he handled it correctly. I hope
that we could get the Speaker to agree that the hard-and-fast rule of
17 minutes is going to be very difficult for some Members to make. Out
of a mere courtesy to our colleagues, I would hope that we would not
hold hard and fast to some of these stated rules that we started the
first of the session with.
I thank the Chairman for his consideration.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his
observation.

amendment offered by mr. scott

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
Page 2, strike line 4 and all that follows through the
matter preceding line 1, page 12 and insert the following:

TITLE I--PRISON GRANT PROGRAM

SEC. 1. GRANT PROGRAM.

Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:

``TITLE V--PRISON GRANTS

``SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

``The Attorney General is authorized to provide grants to
eligible States and to eligible States organized as a
regional compact to build, expand, and operate space in
correctional facilities in order to increase the prison bed
capacity in such facilities for the confinement of persons
convicted of a serious violent felony and to build, expand,
and operate temporary or permanent correctional facilities,
including facilities on military bases, for the confinement
of convicted nonviolent offenders and criminal aliens for the
purpose of freeing suitable existing prison space for the
confinement of persons convicted of a serious violent felony.

``SEC. 502. GENERAL GRANTS.

``In order to be eligible to receive funds under this
title, a State or States organized as a regional compact
shall submit an application to the Attorney General that
provides assurances that such State since 1993 has--
``(1) increased the percentage of convicted violent
offenders sentenced to prison.
``(2) increased the average prison time actually to be
served in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to
prison.

``SEC. 503. SPECIAL RULES.

``Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) through
(2) to section 502, a State shall be eligible for grants
under this title, if the State, not later than the date of
the enactment of this title--
``(1) practices indeterminent sentencing; and
``(2) the average times served in such State for the
offenses of murder, rape, robbery, and assault exceed, by 10
percent or greater, the national average of times served for
such offenses.

``SEC. 504. FORMULA FOR GRANTS.

``To determine the amount of funds that each eligible State
or eligible States organized as a regional compact may
receive to carry out programs under section 502, the Attorney
General shall apply the following formula:
``(1) $500,000 or 0.40 percent, whichever is greater shall
be allocated to each participating State or compact, as the
case may be; and
``(2) of the total amount of funds remaining after the
allocation under paragraph (1), there shall be allocated to
each State or compact, as the case may be, an amount which
bears the same ratio to the amount of remaining funds
described in this paragraph as the population of such State
or compact, as the case may be, bears to the population of
all the States.

``SEC. 505. ACCOUNTABILITY.

``(a) Fiscal Requirement.--A State or States organized as a
regional compact that receives funds under this title shall
use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to
guidelines which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General.
``(b) Reporting.--Each State that receives funds under this
title shall submit an annual report, beginning on January 1,
1996, and each January 1 thereafter, to the Congress
regarding compliance with the requirements of this title.
``(c) Administrative Provisions.--The administrative
provisions of sections 801 and 802 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1068 shall apply to the
Attorney General in the same manner as such provisions apply
to the officials listed in such sections.

``SEC. 506. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title--
``(1) $497,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $830,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $2,027,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $2,160,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $2,253,100,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(b) Limitations on Funds.--
``(1) Uses of funds.--Funds made available under this title
may be used to carry out the purposes described in section
501(a).
``(2) Nonsupplanting requirement.--Funds made available
under this section shall not be used to supplant State funds,
but shall be used to used to increase the amount of funds
that would, in the absence of Federal funds, be made
available from State sources.
``(3) Administrative costs.--Not more than three percent of
the funds available under this section may be used for
administrative costs.
``(4) Matching funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of
a proposal as described in an application approved under this
title.
``(5) Carry over of appropriations.--Any funds appropriated
but not expended as provided by this section during any
fiscal year shall remain available until expended.
``(c) Evaluation.--From the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the
Attorney General shall reserve 1 percent for use by the
National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness
of programs established under this title by units of local
government and the benefits of such programs in relation to
the cost of such programs.

``SEC. 507. DEFINITIONS.

``As used in this title--
``(1) the term `indeterminate sentencing' means a system by
which--
``(A) the court has discretion on imposing the actual
length of the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum;
and
``(B) an administrative agency, generally the parole board,
controls release between court-ordered minimum and maximum
sentence;
``(2) the term `serious violent felony' means--
``(A) an offense that is a felony and has as an element the
use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person or property of another and has a maximum
term of imprisonment of 10 years or more.
``(B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its
nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force
against the person or property of another may be use in the
course of committing the offense and has a maximum term of
imprisonment of 10 years or more, or
``(C) such crimes include murder, assault with intent to
commit murder, arson, armed burglary, rape, assault with
intent to commit rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery; and
``(3) the term `State' means a State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, February 9, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the series of crime bills we have now effectively
block-grant the prevention and police money from the 1994 bill and then
cut that block of money by $2.5 billion and increase the prison
construction money by $2.5 billion.
This amendment restores the $2.5 billion to the prevention and cops
block grant.
We have already seen, Mr. Chairman, the good work in getting the
police out on the street. Many of the police have already been funded.
The bill has only been in effect a few months and police have been
funded already. Those cops are on the street practicing community
policing and effectively reducing crime.
Mr. Chairman, during the hearings on H.R. 3 and in the Committee on
the
[[Page H1581]] Judiciary consideration of the bill, we also heard reams
of testimony on crime reduction that can be effectuated by primary
prevention programs.
Mr. Chairman, we heard testimony that the cost of drug courts was
about one-twentieth of what it cost to put people in prison, and the
recidivism rate was so low that you cut crime by approximately 80
percent. Head Start and Job Corps both save more money than they cost,
Mr. Chairman.
We have testimony in the record showing drug treatment programs which
are so effective, they save $7 for every $1 that you put into the
program. We have seen recreational programs. Mr. Chairman, where for 60
cents per participant, the crime rate in Phoenix, AZ, was cut
significantly. Fort Myers, FL, 28 percent reduction in crime for very
minimal expenditures. Gang intervention programs, drug courts, early
childhood development, vocational training. Those kind of programs, Mr.
Chairman, will reduce crime.
The $2.5 billion that is added to the prisons in this series of bills
which we seek to transfer will be an insignificant portion of the money
spent on prisons. Virginia has adopted a truth-in-sentencing or so-
called truth-in-sentencing provision. The way we got to 85 percent, Mr.
Chairman, was to reduce the sentence 50 percent, letting those who
could not make parole, the most heinous of our criminals, let them out
in 50 percent of the time so that the less risky prisoners could serve
more time. That cost us $7
billion

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend that kind of money, we ought
to put it in programs that will actually work.
Mr. Chairman, the $30 billion crime bill from last year designated 75
percent of the money for law enforcement and prisons, despite all of
the overwhelming evidence that vastly more crime reduction can be
accomplished through prevention programs. The present bill compounds
the problem by increasing the prisons and decreasing the money that
could go to police and prevention.
If our goal is to prevent crime, Mr. Chairman, we should take the
politics out of crime, spend the money where it will actually do some
good, and, that is, on prevention and police officers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized
for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I am not going to consume much on this amendment. I think
it should be clear that if we voted, as many of us, in fact the clear
majority did, a very large majority, against the amendment earlier
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], to strike $30
million, $36 million from the prison grant program, we certainly would
want to oppose an amendment that would strike $2.5 billion from the
program.
The gentleman obviously who is offering this amendment is offering it
in sincere concern for the prevention programs which he liked in the
last Congress, which this side of the aisle wants to do away with, did
not agree with, and does not want to put more money into.
Next week we will have an opportunity to vote on a combination of
local block grant programs that will combine the prevention and the
cops on the street programs of the last Congress into a $10 billion
program to let the cities and the counties of this Nation, their local
governments, decide how to best fight crime in their community, whether
that be by hiring a new police officer or doing some kind of
prevention program, whatever that they may choose to do. I think $10
billion is plenty of money for that. I think most Americans believe
that.

Some money has already been granted out this year under the existing
law. So actually more than that would be eligible to be spent according
to my calculations.
I see no reason whatsoever to take $2.5 billion from the prison
program, strike it altogether, to give the gentleman from Virginia an
opportunity next week to argue that he has stricken this money, now
that he has done that, he has saved it, he can now increase or add to
or argue for more money under the $10 billion program. I suspect next
week he is going to be opposed based on his arguments in committee to
the concept of block grants, anyway, as opposed to doing it under the
categoricals that are in current law.
I understand the opposition and the differences of opinion. I just
want the Members to understand clearly that what the gentleman wants to
do is to strike a very sizable proportion, $2.5 billion, from this
prison grant construction and operation program that is designed to
take the violent felons off the streets and provide money to the States
so that they can build the prison beds necessary to get an end to
parole for these serious violent felons. He wants to strike the money
that would allow the States to do this, a huge $2.5 billion amount, and
I am very strongly opposed and urge the rejection of this amendment.
{time} 1240

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Virginia for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because although I support truth in
sentencing, I do not support pork, and that is the problem with the
bill as it is currently drafted.
We watched yesterday afternoon when the Republicans basically
presented us with a porkfest. We had a lengthy debate, and in the
course of that debate it was pointed out that there is a $5 billion pot
of money called truth in sentencing incentive grants, $5 billion, but
of that $5 billion what we found out was only three States could
qualify, and the gentleman suggested, ``Oh, no, more States would want
to do this.'' But I checked with my people in Maryland and they said
even though we have already doubled our sentencing requirements, the
time-served requirements, that even with this bill Maryland would
probably not be able to get any money because it would not be cost-
effective, it would cost the State too much money to build the prisons
even with the grant that we could get from the Federal Government.
So the debate went on and finally the gentleman conceded that yes,
there are probably going to be some States that would not be able to
take advantage of this money, so the question became what do we do with
the unallocated funds? To those of you who are deficit hawks, watch
out. Unallocated funds, rather than have these funds go back to the
Treasury for deficit reduction, these funds, which could be $2 billion,
$3 billion, because remember only three States qualify, the funds would
be suddenly given back to the Justice Department for Federal
courthouses and Federal magistrates and to the INS Service.
So I see a grave contradiction today, Mr. Chairman. While the
Republican chairman suggests we ought to give all of this money to the
local governments for prisons, not only is the money not going for
prisons, it is not going to the local government, it is reverting back
to the Federal Government, not for prisons but for courthouses and INS
and other Federal investigatory bureaus.
I do not think that is what the American people want. I think yes, we
can have truth in sentencing and yes, serious violators ought to serve
more time, no disagreement there.
The issue becomes whether we take the unallocated funds and have a
porkfest for Federal investigatory agencies or whether we use
unallocated funds and spend it on deficit reduction. I believe we ought
to spend it on deficit reduction, which is why I support the amendment
of the gentleman from Virginia which suggests that this money ought to
be cut.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for speakers, and I
reserve the right to close.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
[[Page H1582]] (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott
amendment. The people of my district are as concerned about crime as
any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In fact, crime is
a defining issue in urban centers like the one I represent. Every time
I meet with constituents, crime is at or near the top of the agenda. In
my district kids grow up on street corners because there are few
healthy alternatives. There are no parks, no playgrounds, and no
recreational centers, and overcrowded, ill-equipped schools neither
prepare nor inspire the children for useful and productive careers.
Prisons alone are not the solution. Without prevention, we will never
get control of the crime problem. Punishment and prevention are flip
sides of the same coin.
Last year we struck a difficult balance between those two impulses.
The Crime Control Act provided for more prisons and stiffer sentences.
It also made an investment in proven crime prevention programs for
education, recreation, and drug treatment. It offered the kids on the
corners alternatives and hope for a better future.
This bill upsets the delicate balance between punishment and
prevention. I support this amendment because it helps get us back to
the middle ground that we found last year. This bill pledges $12.5
billion for prison construction, $2.5 billion more than was authorized
in the 1994 act.
Where will this money come from? From prevention programs? That is
$2.5 billion less for our kids. No afterschool and summer programs for
at-risk youth, no antigang initiatives, no sports leagues or
recreational facilities, no drug treatment programs. With this bill we
will be saying to your youth, ``We don't care about you, we do not
expect anything from you. Prison is okay.''
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the American people are desperate for
urgent action. I understand the temptation to adopt catchy phrases and
simple solutions like lock them up and throw away the key. But forget
it. It is not about catchy phrases, it is about solutions.
I urge the President and the leadership of this House to maintain the
delicate balance that was reached last year. I cannot and I will not
support a measure that slashes critical social programs in order to
appease the critics on the right. I will not play politics with the
future of America's youth.
I urge my colleagues and the American people to see through this
Republican charade of deception.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has indicated that there
will be a block grant of $10 billion for localities to decide what they
want to do in terms of prevention or police. Obviously they will have
the discretion to do what they want, but they will have $2.5 billion
less to do it with if the bill is passed without this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, if we had a problem of people falling off a cliff, we
could decide to build a fence on the cliff or we could decide to buy
ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows us to build a fence, save money,
prevent crime, and I would hope it would be the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make an observation on the
comments made earlier by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] only to
the extent of explaining once more that the unallocated funds in the
prison construction program, if the States do not claim those moneys,
which I think they will claim virtually all of them, that is a bone of
contention I suppose with some of the others of the other side, but if
they do not claim all of the money even under the $10\1/2\ billion
allocated here, then the moneys here are cordoned off and reserved for
use by the appropriators for use in the expenses of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service for investigators and for expenses of the Bureau
of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. attorneys
for activities and operations related to the investigation,
prosecution, and conviction of persons accused of serious violent
felony and incarceration of persons convicted of such offenses.
So it is not court houses and it has very direct preferences related
to what we are doing here today in trying to get the kind of money
necessary to the States that they can take this group of prisoners,
these felons off the streets and lock them up for very extended periods
of time. And the gentleman wants to take $2\1/2\ billion out of this
today so that he can urge you next week that he is going to put that
money in prevention programs instead of into building more prisons.
It is just a difference of opinion. But make no mistake, this would
take a huge amount, $2\1/2\ billion, out of the prison program, $2\1/2\
billion that are really needed if we are going to finally stop the
revolving door involving serious violent felons who just commit crime
after crime in this country.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 268, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 115]

YEAS--155

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Ensign
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hancock
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inglis
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Longley
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Porter
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NAYS--268

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
[[Page H1583]] Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--11

Becerra
Collins (MI)
Dunn
Frost
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Johnston
Lofgren
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark

{time} 1306

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Smith of Texas
against.
Mr. Johnston for, with Mrs. Smith of Washington against.

Mr. PALLONE and Mr. SPRATT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SANFORD, WARD, ENSIGN, GREENWOOD, and ROTH changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, the
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bliley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 667) to
control crime by incarcerating violent criminals, pursuant to House
Resolution 63, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment
adopted by the Committee of the Whole House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended? If not, the
question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

motion to recommit offered by mr. conyers

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on
the Judiciary with instructions to report the bill back to
the House forthwith, with the following amendment: Page 9,
after line 6, insert the following:
``(7) Unallocated funds for public safety and community
policing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,
funds transferred under paragraph (6) may only be made
available for the program under part Q of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1965.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

{time} 1310

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Bliley). The gentleman from Florida
withdraws his reservation of a point of order
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 5 minutes
in support of his motion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues of the Congress, this
recommit motion takes, perhaps, up to $5 billion in unallocated funds
and puts back into the cops on the beat program.
Now, yesterday the new majority whispered a secret about this prison
funding proposal on the floor today. They finally admitted that the
truth-in-sentencing scheme would probably be so burdensome on the
States that most would never qualify for it, and then the gentleman
from Florida offered what I call a ``cover your back'' amendment saying
that unexpended funds would be used for Federal law enforcement. This
motion to recommit would allow those unexpended funds, which we are all
sure will happen, to be used for the most important program we have in
the crime bill, the cops on the beat program.
Mr. Chairman, the President's police program is the single most
desired crime-fighting response demanded by our citizens across the
several States. The Republican majority is proposing to repeal the
program and put in its place revenue sharing and a prison funding
program that in the end will actually provide less money for prisons
and not one guarantee for a single community policeman.
People are afraid to go out of their houses to the corner store. The
average response time in our neighborhoods to violent crime is getting
longer and longer, and people, are demanding change. We can build all
the prisons we want, but without police officers on the beat we will
never apprehend them.
So let us do what the police are asking us to do, to get them from
behind their desks and on the beat, provide them more resources to
fight crime. No one, no one can deny the effectiveness of this program,
and this will be the far better place to put those unexpended funds.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] for yielding this time to me. I rise in full support of the
motion to recommit.
Let me just recollect to all of my colleagues our view, the attorney
general's view, the Justice Department's view, which gives out this
money. Under present law, every State qualifies. Under this law, no
State qualifies.
Even the gentleman from Florida earlier this morning in the debate
admitted that presently, in his views, only three States, three medium
and little States, medium sized and little States, would qualify. So,
let us assume that we are right. I ask, Shouldn't that money go to put
officers on the beat instead of just sitting there? By all means.
I say to my colleagues, If you are right, the money will be spent on
prisons, but if this amendment passes, if you're wrong, which most
people will look at it and think at least the money will be spent on
cops walking the beat.
I say to my colleagues, Don't, sell out your States. Don't for some
nice ideological model way up in the sky that's unattainable, tell your
States they can't get millions of dollars to build prisons. Don't sell
out your police.
Please support the motion to recommit.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] for yielding, and I just want
[[Page H1584]] to remind the Members of the House that the gentleman
from Florida with his amendment last night has readily admitted that we
are not going to spend all this money on prisons. Otherwise why would
he have offered the amendment that leaves this money, after 2 years, to
go to the Department of Justice to be used for their program? Well, if
that is the case, and I agree with the gentleman from Florida; I said
that before; there are not going to be very many prisons built with
this bill. We have a present law that is a lot better than their
program, that is a lot better, but if this is going to be the case,
instead of putting it all in the FBI, or all in the Department of
Justice, can we not use some for cops on the beat? I think that is
where crime fighting actually begins, with the policemen on the beat,
in our local communities.
I ask, What's wrong with saying that, if we don't spend it on
prisons, let's use some of it to help our local law enforcement?
I strongly urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I
strongly oppose this motion to recommit. I have had some words that I
have heard from the other side over there that have misstated at least
what I said earlier in the debate and a lot of words that have gone
through. I want to make it perfectly clear in my judgment, and the
judgment of the vast majority of our side of the aisle, I believe that
every State of the Union is going to qualify for part A, the pot that
has $5 billion in it with virtually no restrictions on it. Part B, the
pot that has the truth in sentencing money in it for requiring the
States in order to get it to change their laws to require serious
violent felons to serve at least 85 percent of their time, is going to
be a carrot where most States will not have, and that is our idea, have
not qualified, though I think somewhere in the neighborhood of six or
eight States already are in that posture as opposed to the three the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] keep stating to us. I believe
that virtually all of this money will be consumed, probably all of it,
by the States by time the 5 years runs out in both pots, but yesterday
we passed a particular amendment which is being proposed today by this
motion to recommit with instructions to be changed of what would happen
to any moneys that were not actually given out by the Attorney General
in these grants because there were not requests for them or whatever,
and we said yesterday, and we voted yesterday, to do this in this
committee, that the funds, if there were any unused ones, would go for
the purposes of Immigration and Naturalization Service investigators,
and the expenses of the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, and Lord knows they need a lot of it, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and U.S. attorneys for activities and operations related
to the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of persons accused of
a serious violent felony, and the incarceration of persons convicted of
such offenses.
It seems to me that that is an appropriate place to place the
residual money, if there is any, which I do not think there will be
from the prison grant program that is designed to try to get the
serious violent felons off the street and solve the revolving door. We
do not need to have a big debate out here tonight over cops on the
street again.
What the gentleman's motion to recommit would do would be to say
every single penny will go, not for the purposes I just enumerated,
which is what we passed yesterday, but every single penny, if any is
not spent in this bill, would go instead to the President's cops on the
streets program which we will address next week.

{time} 1320

We on this side of the aisle think that program needs to be merged
into a community block grant program. We do not agree with that
program. So consequently the purposes for which this is intended are
not going to be served by the motion to recommit if it is passed today.
So I urge in the strongest of terms a no vote to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electornic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 227, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 116]

YEAS--193

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--227

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Molinari
Moorhead
[[Page H1585]] Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--14

Becerra
Berman
Boucher
Coburn
Collins (MI)
Frost
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Johnston
Lofgren
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Thomas

{time} 1336

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Smith of Texas
against.
Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mrs. Smith of Washington
against.

Mr. LoBIONDO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HILLIARD and Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 265,
noes 156, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 117]

YEAS--265

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnson (SD)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--156

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Cubin
Danner
DeFazio
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Portman
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--13

Becerra
Berman
Collins (MI)
Deutsch
Frisa
Frost
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Johnston
Lofgren
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark

{time} 1354

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Smith of Texas for, with Miss Collins of Michigan
against.
Mrs. Smith of Washington for, with Mr. Johnston against.
Mr. Deutsch for, with Mr. Berman against.

Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. LUTHER, and Mr. FORD changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________