[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 50 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3599-H3605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 735, 
         ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 405

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I many consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             general leave

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the 
rule providing for the consideration of the conference report on S. 
735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which 
was passed overwhelmingly by the other body last evening. This is a 
simple, fair rule which waives all points of order against the 
conference report, and against its consideration, in order to permit 
the House to consider provisions which may exceed the scope of 
differences between the House and the Senate.
  Ms. Speaker, the devastating terrorist attack that took place in 
Oklahoma City nearly 1 year ago today serves as a poignant and powerful 
reminder that the threat of domestic terrorism is a very real and 
present danger in our society. One hundred and sixty-eight innocent 
people, including dozens of children, lost their lives in that attack. 
Combined with the nearly 500 people who were injured in the blast, the 
bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City ranks as the worst 
terrorist incident ever to take place on American soil. Unfortunately, 
it was not the first. The bombing of New York's World Trade Center 
building in 1993, Americans for the first time faced the sobering 
prospect that terrorists are at work right here in the United States.
  Among the lessons we have learned from these tragic events is that 
law enforcement must be prepared to respond effectively and immediately 
to terrorism when it occurs. More importantly, as technology rapidly 
advances, law enforcement officials at all levels must have access to 
reasonable and legitimate tools that will enhance their ability to 
prevent terrorist acts before they result in the loss of human life.
  The difficult task which this body has faced during the past year has 
been to balance the needs of law enforcement with the need to preserve 
essential civil liberties. Today, under the terms of this simple, 
straightforward rule, we will debate a conference report that I believe 
improves upon the House-passed bill, while still assuring the Federal 
Government an appropriately limited but responsible role in the fight 
against terrorism.
  Several key provisions have been added to the House-passed bill in 
this bipartisan conference report that will assist our country's fight 
against terrorism. For example, it provides procedures to allow for the 
removal of alien terrorists, fairly and with due process, but also with 
adequate protections to safeguard sources and methods of classified 
information.
  It provides improved steps for designating foreign terrorist 
organizations, and contains provisions that severely restrict the 
ability of terrorist groups to raise funds in the United States. As we 
all know, Mr. Speaker, money is the lifeblood of these ruthless 
organizations, and if we cut off their flow of funds, including the 
blocking of financial transactions, we will surely diminish their 
ability to carry out these cowardly, heinous acts here at home and 
abroad.
  With regard to the exclusion of alien terrorists, the conference 
report authorizes State Department officials overseas to deny entrance 
visas to members and representatives of those same groups deemed to be 
foreign terrorist organizations, and it also allows the United States 
to stop or prohibit assistance to foreign countries that do not 
cooperate with our antiterrorism efforts.
  And finally, in a move that will hopefully prevent future tragedies 
like the loss of Pan/Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the 
conference report requires that foreign air carriers traveling to and 
from United States airports follow the identical safety measures that 
our own American air carriers must follow under regulations issued by 
the FAA.
  Equally important are other provisions contained in the conference 
report, including three key elements from the Contract With America: 
First, there are reasonable reforms to curb the abuse of habeas corpus 
by convicted criminals. This will help, finally, to free the judicial 
process from endless and frivolous appeals from prisoners convicted of 
capital offenses while victims and families of victims wait helplessly 
by for years and years for justice to finally be done.
  Second, improved procedures for deporting criminal aliens are 
included which allow judges to order the deportation of aliens 
convicted of Federal crimes at the completion of their sentence.
  Third, the bill calls for mandatory victim restitution. Securing the 
right to adequate restitution is a long overdue victory for crime 
victims and their families. For too long, our criminal justice system 
has devoted significant attention and resources to the plight of 
criminals. As a result, crime victims have often suffered twice--first 
at the hands of the criminals, and then by an inadequate, insensitive, 
inattentive justice system. By requiring fair restitution, we will give 
victims of crime some of the ranking and legal status they deserve 
while they recover from their unwanted and unwelcome trauma.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this debate is not about who, or 
which

[[Page H3600]]

political party, is more committed to fighting terrorism. I think we 
would all agree that keeping our Nation's cities and communities safe 
and secure is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is one of the 
fundamental duties and responsibilities of government.
  This conference report accomplishes the very difficult task of 
providing our citizens with an increased level of safety and security, 
without trampling on our rights in the process. These provisions 
represent necessary, but narrowly drafted tools that will go a long way 
toward assisting our law enforcement professionals in combating the 
genuine threat of international terrorism.
  So as we near the 1-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, I 
urge the House to accept the work of the conferees and send a clear 
signal to would-be terrorists that their cowardly, destructive acts 
will not be tolerated by the American people or by this institution. 
For the victims of Oklahoma City and victims of other tragic events, 
and their brave families, I urge your support for this conference 
report.
  The Rules Committee reported this rule by unanimous voice vote 
yesterday, and I urge colleagues to give it their full support. Let's 
pass this fair rule, and let's pass the conference report without any 
further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the tragic anniversary we will 
observe tomorrow. The loss of 168 men, women, and children in Oklahoma 
City because of an irrational and immoral act, has left a scar on our 
national psyche that will never really heal. But, Mr. Speaker, if 
something good is to come from such tragedy, then let it be a greater 
awareness that the freedoms we enjoy in this great Nation are indeed 
precious and that they are in need of protection.
  Let us never forget those who died, those whose blood was spilled, 
those whose lives were irrevocably and irreversibly changed. Let us 
honor them by working diligently to protect the freedoms that embody 
the moral fabric of this great country of ours. The barbarous actions 
of one individual or of a group cannot be allowed to undermine the 
freedoms and liberties that constitute the American way of life. But, 
as we know all too well, in the world today, we must be ever vigilant 
and ever ready to come to the aid of those ideals we all hold so dear.

  This legislation has come about because of the act of a terrorist. 
The conference report is not perfect: some Members may oppose it 
because of provisions relating to habeas corpus reform. Others may 
oppose it because it does not contain new wiretap authority for law 
enforcement officials to trace and track homegrown as well as 
international terrorists operating within our borders. But, I submit, 
it is the best we can produce when we must balance the need to 
vigorously defend and protect our safety while simultaneously defending 
and protecting our freedoms and liberties. I hope the legislation 
before us achieves that end.
  This conference agreement does give us some tools which will help 
protect our shores and our people from the threat of international 
terrorism. The conference is to be commended for including new 
authorities to identify and designate foreign terrorist organizations, 
to prohibit fundraising on behalf of such terrorist organizations, and 
to exclude or remove alien members of those groups from our country. 
These authorities are essential if we are to begin to deal effectively 
with the unwelcome and unwanted intrusion of international terrorism.
  However, Mr. Speaker, because the conference report does not contain 
language granting law enforcement agencies new wiretap authority, I am 
going to oppose ordering the previous question on this rule. While I am 
gratified that the conferees did include new powers to deal effectively 
with international terrorism, there is a concern that the fight against 
domestic terrorism is seriously handicapped because the wiretap 
authorities requested by the Department of Justice are not part of this 
agreement.
  Therefore, a vote against the previous question is a vote to enhance 
this legislation by granting new wiretap authority that will allow law 
enforcement officials to keep up with the modern technologies used by 
almost every American, including those who plan barbarous acts like the 
one which killed 168 men, women, and children 1 year ago tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
for explaining the rule. It is not necessary to repeat her explanation.
  Mr. Speaker, this Friday will mark the 1-year anniversary of the 
bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. There have been a 
number of terrorist incidents like that in 1993. The New York Trade 
Center building was another terrible tragedy.
  The deliberations on this bill have demonstrated that Members on both 
sides of the aisle do hold very strong, sincere views about the powers 
that should be granted to law enforcement to track and prosecute 
terrorists.
  The balance between public safety and order, and individual rights, 
is always a difficult dilemma in a free society.
  For this reason, significant time was needed to consider this 
legislation, and certainly the time has been devoted to it.
  Today we have before us the final product. It achieves, I think, a 
fair balance and includes many provisions to not only prevent and 
punish terrorism, but also includes the ultimate punishment for those 
who would kill others, the effective death penalty.
  As a matter of fact, the very first provision in this conference 
report, title I provides for a reform of the death penalty process with 
specific time limitations to insure that the process does not drag on 
forever and ever and ever, sometimes as much as 10 and 15 years. This 
provision alone is so important that it is more than sufficient 
justification for supporting this conference report today.
  The conference report also includes a provision dealing with 
mandatory victim restitution and provides for specified assistance to 
victims of terrorism, and that is so terribly, terribly important. For 
too long in this country we have paid too little attention to the 
victims of crime while we have focused huge resources to protect the 
rights of the accused criminal.
  Mr. Speaker, there is also a section which prohibits providing 
material support to, or raising funds for, foreign organizations 
designated as terrorist organizations.
  This and the other provisions in this conference report designed to 
limit terrorism will never be a complete solution to the problem, but 
this conference agreement is a huge step in the right direction of 
terrorism prevention.
  I would particularly like to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for all of 
their hard work in finally getting this bill here to the floor, along 
with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], who is sitting here. 
Without their help, this legislation certainly would not be here today. 
This has been an especially tough assignment in a long list of tough 
assignments for the Committee on the Judiciary.
  In addition, sitting over to my right, I would like to recommend the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for his extra efforts in shaping this 
final product. Without his efforts we never would have been here today 
either. The conference agreement before the House today includes many 
of the provisions sought by the gentleman from Georgia, and we take off 
our hat to him.
  Mr. Speaker, adoption of this rule is necessary to allow the House to 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report. I would ask for 
a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and on the conference report and on the 
previous question, as well.
  I do not know where this previous question fight has come from. This 
was not discussed in the Committee on Rules prior to today. Certainly 
the conference has already been abandoned because the Senate has 
already passed the bill. We should stop fooling around

[[Page H3601]]

with this and making political points. We ought to get over here, vote 
for the previous question, vote for the rule, and then vote for this 
vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] for yielding me the time, and this is on the rule. I am going to 
have more to say on the bill later.
  But one the rule I would urge that we vote down the previous 
question, and that is because this bill has one glaring omission, and 
that is the ability to do multipoint wiretaps.
  The bill, if we ask law enforcement what was the No. 1 thing they 
needed to fight terrorism, and I have talked to lots of them, they 
would say it would be the multipoint wiretap. The multipoint wiretap 
has no civil liberties problems. Let me explain to my colleagues what 
it is: Still have to go to court to get the wiretap, and still have the 
probable cause standard.
  However, in the past we have tapped, when they got a tap, it is on 
the person's phone number. So they say, ``I want to tap number 345-6789 
because John Smith, there is probable cause to believe John Smith is 
doing illegal things, and we want to find him.''
  But these days technology has allowed criminals and terrorists to get 
ahead of that. Why? They get cellular phones, and they change their 
number every third day. It takes law enforcement time to find that new 
number, and then under present law they would have to go to court and 
get a new court order.
  Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense, and in the original bill that was 
introduced by myself and the subsequent bill introduced by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the multipoint wiretap provision 
was put in. However, it was taken out because of the objection of some. 
I do not know what the objection is, frankly. Part it of may have been 
misnomered. It was first called roving wiretap, and roving implied it 
would go to any person. So now the name has been changed to multipoint 
wiretap.
  It is still opposed by the far right and by some in the civil 
liberties community on the far left. But, my colleagues, they are 
simply wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, when we discussed it in conference, the Senator from 
Utah asked the gentleman from Georgia and others what is a reason to be 
against these taps, and none was given. The only explanation given by 
my good friend from Florida was, well, there is a lot of 
misinformation, and Mr. Hyde, Mr. Hatch, who have worked laboriously on 
this bill, and I salute them and I will in my later remarks, and the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, all agree we should have that in 
a later bill and bring it to the floor.
  Well, my colleagues, we should do it now. This bill is not strong 
enough.
  I will vote for the bill. It is better than what we have now, and 
progress has been made since the Barr amendment stripped out the heart 
of the bill, and the gentleman from Georgia has changed his mind and 
supported some of the provisions that were stripped out in the House 
previously.
  So, in my judgment. The bill is OK, but it could be a lot better. It 
is only half a full glass. And by voting down the previous question, 
and then voting on the concurrent resolution offered by the gentleman 
from Texas, we could restore the provision that law enforcement 
considers first and foremost what has been needed to fight the fight 
against terrorism.
  So I would ask my colleagues to put down partisanship, to put down 
fear of some extreme groups who by misinformation and fear have 
mischaracterized this provision. Let us pass it now. We do not know 
what is going to happen in this Congress. I would say the odds are that 
we will not pass a multipoint wiretap later on in the year, despite the 
intentions of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to get it.
  So to toughen the bill up, to give law enforcement what they need 
without violating any civil liberties, we should vote down the previous 
question, add the multipoint wiretap provision, and then we could say 
we have passed a good bill.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr] who was very instrumental in the drafting of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia has not changed his mind on 
anything. The provisions that we have added back into this bill during 
the conference proceedings are different from those that were in the 
bill earlier and that were removed in the Barr amendment. The gentleman 
from New York may not be aware of that, but they are different. They 
are protective of civil liberties. They grant our law enforcement 
community the very specific narrowly crafted tools that it needs in 
certain key areas. But nothing has changed in terms of my regard for 
civil liberties, my regard for taking a very close look at those 
provisions and allowing those only insofar as I am able to be enacted 
into law that are absolutely essential.
  The gentleman goes on and on about multipoint or roving wiretaps. The 
American people and Members of this body certainly are aware of the 
vast power that our Government currently has with which to wiretap. 
There indeed are provisions in current law in Title 18 of the United 
States Code that already provide for multipoint wiretap. They may not 
be the provisions that are the easiest to implement, but they are 
there, and they are used.
  There may very well be civil liberties problems with the proposal of 
the other side. It is a vast expansion of current authority, and I do 
not feel that it would be at all appropriate to consider it 
precipitously as we would be doing today. Rather, Mr. Speaker, there is 
a provision in section 810 of this conference report, as presented to 
the House today, that provides for a comprehensive study by the 
administration, by the Attorney General, on the entire issue of 
wiretaps. That study would have to be completed in 90 days.
  I and my colleagues who believe in effective but accountable law 
enforcement believe that that is the appropriate way to go so that we 
can study this with the deliberation that it requires, look at current 
law, which is vast in the area of wiretap authority for our Government, 
be very mindful of civil liberties and craft, if crafting new 
legislation is necessary, the most limited, not the most expansive, way 
of achieving that result.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a 
classic case of, once again, the Republican Congress moving in a way 
which links two completely separate issues, and therefore mixes up and 
puts a number of Members of Congress that are very interested in 
establishing tough new standards on antiterrorism law, it forces us to 
vote against the bill because of the irreparable damage this does to 
our constitutional rights under habeas corpus.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the death penalty in this 
country, but I also believe very strongly, absolutely as strongly, that 
we ought to give people the absolute right to appeal their decisions 
under the constitutional guarantees of this land, to make certain that 
we do not make mistakes once which impose the death penalty.
  Why is it necessary, why is it necessary to link the death penalty 
and the constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus to a terrorism bill? 
This is just a political deal. It is a political deal to get votes on 
the right, to get them to link up and vote for a bill that should stand 
on its own hind legs. It should stand on its own forelegs.
  But what we have is, instead, a glomming together of separate ideas 
that are necessary to patch together the votes because of the craziness 
that has invaded this body. Please, can we not recognize that there are 
severe threats, as we have seen in Oklahoma, as we have seen in New 
York, as we have seen in provisions which are included in this bill, 
which I was able to get passed in conjunction with the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], to make certain that we protect against Government-
sponsored labs from providing all sorts of terrorist agents, such as 
serin and other pathogens that we have seen, the Ebola virus and the 
like, that have been made too readily available to anyone who writes in 
to a Government lab

[[Page H3602]]

and claims that they need these terrible pathogens that can be used for 
all sorts of destruction.
  Those are good provisions, those are antiterrorism provisions. Habeas 
corpus has nothing to do with an antiterrorism bill. It forces too many 
of us to finally vote ``no'' on this bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the remarks of the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], now I am 
confused. I remember they used to criticize a former President by 
ridicule, saying he could not walk and chew gum at the same time. It 
would seem to me that handling two ideas is not that difficult: habeas 
and antiterrorism, even if what he said is true, that they were not 
related; however, they are.
  If someone gets convicted of bombing a building and killing people, 
people who are the victims of that, and survivors, would like to be 
sure that the appeals cannot go on and on and on, as they do now. So 
bringing to closure and bringing the sentence that is imposed into 
reality does have something to do with bombing buildings, and that has 
something to do with terrorism.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not quibble with the 
fact that we can impose tougher sentencing on people involved in 
terrorist activities. That is, obviously, a terrorism issue. But I 
would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], there is no one in 
this Congress who has stood up more eloquently for this Constitution in 
so many cases, since I have been here over the course of the last 
decade, than he.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. At times, when it cuts against even 
issues that the gentleman believes in, I have seen him stand up on the 
House floor to stand up for the Constitution of this country. What we 
have here is an undoing of the Federal Government's rights to intervene 
in the State courts. That is what is wrong with this bill.
  The gentleman can make the argument that this is necessary because he 
is so angry at these terrorists and the kinds of activities that they 
are involved with, but that does not excuse us from intervening in a 
way that the Constitution has always protected this country. If we are 
going to do it, we ought to do it on its own two legs, not by linking 
it to this terrorism bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman's concern. It is a common 
one. It has to do with the deference that Federal courts will give to 
State court decisions. I believe that is what he is talking about. We 
will discuss that at some length in our debate on the bill, but the 
Federal judge always reviews the State court decision to see if it is 
in conformity with established Supreme Court precedence, or if it has 
been misapplied. So it is not a blank, total deference, but it is a 
recognition that you cannot relitigate these issues endlessly.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial 
and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the debate has centered on the most important 
feature of this bill, in my judgment, and that is the habeas corpus 
provisions. It took us a generation to convince the people on the left 
that we ought to have a workable, reassurable, predictable death 
penalty that would inexorably exact the punishment that was intended.
  We worked fro 20 years in this Chamber to try to accomplish a death 
penalty, because 80 percent of the American people wanted to see it 
happen. Then when we see the World Trade Center tragedy and other 
terrorism that has wreaked havoc across our land, then we reinstate the 
notion that we need the death penalty to allow a jury to exercise that 
ultimate option.
  Now we have before us a habeas corpus procedure that forbade the 
final solution to the death penalty problem; namely, the execution of 
the killer. Here is a killer who viciously kills hundreds of people in 
one act, who can sit in a cell and file paper after paper, habeas 
corpus and other documents, to prevent the ultimate punishment that the 
jury prescribed for him.
  In this antiterrorism bill, there is a strong, strong chain of events 
that lead from the kinds of acts that we abhor, like Oklahoma City, 
like the World Trade Center and others too horrible to conceive, where 
a jury is entitled to impose the death penalty. And we should not 
shrink from the responsibility of making sure that their final judgment 
is not set aside or weakened or laughed at by reason of the frivolous 
appeals that have been filed time after time in the history of these 
actions.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I will support the conference 
report. It is a good antiterrorism mechanism that allows for the death 
penalty to be applied as a deterrent to future bombings like Oklahoma 
City, and as a punishment for those who do commit those kinds of acts.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], from the Committee on 
Rules, for being generous with his time, because I may not have time on 
the debate of the bill itself to make some of the points that I would 
like to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I am as upset about the Trade Center bombing and the 
Oklahoma City bombing as anybody in America. I do not want anybody to 
be misunderstanding what I am saying. But we are about to perpetrate a 
fraud on the American people, because this bill is not any longer about 
terrorism, the bill is about matters that go well, well beyond 
terrorism and we are, unfortunately, using these two terrorist acts as 
the predicate for undoing some important constitutional protections.
  I will not even spend my time talking about the death penalty 
provisions in this bill. What I will spend my time talking about is the 
importance of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus, which most people are 
not going to understand, because a lot of people think habeas corpus is 
about the death penalty. It is not. Only 1 percent or less of habeas 
corpus petitions involve the death penalty at all. That is, less than 
100 out of 10,000 habeas corpus petitions involve the death penalty.
  Habeas corpus appeals have been brought by gun owners who feel that 
they have been unjustly imprisoned for exercising their second 
amendment rights. They have been brought by pro-life protesters, who 
feel that they have been unjustly imprisoned by their first amendment 
rights being suspended. They have been brought by people who have been 
protesting on the pro-life side. They span the whole philosophical 
gamut of our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional attack that we are engaged in. 
First, petitioners are limited to one petition, 1 year of exhausting 
their appeals. By imposing this limitation, important new evidence, 
even new compelling evidence of one's innocence, can no longer be 
offered in a court of law to prove one's innocence. Compelling new 
evidence of one's innocence can no longer be offered, after that one 
bite within 1 year.
  We have seen the advances that our country has made in DNA, and DNA 
evidence is now coming forward to reveal that people who have been in 
jail for 10 years, 15 years, are being held unjustly, without 
any contradiction, and we are willing to compromise the most basic 
thing, innocence, for political expediency.

  Habeas corpus is only in the Federal Constitution, yet this bill says 
that the Federal courts must defer to State courts in the 
interpretation. That is unprecedented. Never has it happened in this 
country. Sandra Day O'Connor, not one of your liberal bastions, and you 
can call me anything, but she is certainly not there, she said that the 
Federal courts must presume the correctness of the State courts' legal 
conclusions on habeas, or that State

[[Page H3603]]

courts' incorrect legal determination has ever been allowed to stand 
because it was reasonable.
  What is a reasonable, unreasonable, interpretation of the 
Constitution? We have to defer only if the State court does something 
out of the ordinary, or unreasonable. It is the Federal court's 
prerogative and responsibility to determine our Federal constitutional 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, even Justice Rehnquist recently said that ``Judicial 
independence is one of the crown jewels of our system of government.''
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot sacrifice our constitutional principles 
because we are angry at people for bombing. The constitutional 
principles that I am arguing for are for every single American, and the 
minute we start compromising them to get terrorists, to get anyone, we 
must compromise them for everyone.
  Think about the number of cases in our judicial system that involve 
terrorist acts. They are few. We get angry about them. But think, on 
the other side, that our Constitution was written not to protect those 
people, but to protect every American. We are sacrificing our own 
individual liberties and our own constitutional rights for the 
political expediency that goes with passage of this bill.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the great State of Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I support the rule and I will 
support the conference report. I think there are a lot of positive 
things that are in the conference report, including mandatory victims' 
restitution, a bill that I have introduced in several Congresses and 
hope will finally get a signature for that particular provision, habeas 
corpus reform, which I have also supported, and particularly the FBI 
counterterrorism center and funds available for that counterterrorism 
center.

                              {time}  1245

  I think that the conference committee overall did an excellent job in 
crafting this legislation. I have to agree, however, with my good 
friend from New York, Mr. Schumer, on one particular provision that was 
left out of the conference report, and that is the multipoint wiretap 
provision.
  I can see no reason why that particular provision, which was 
requested specifically by the FBI and by Director Freeh, would be left 
out of the conference report. All of the safeguards that are currently 
in the law regarding wiretaps would be contained in that provision.
  Wiretaps are an important tool of law enforcement to try to 
determine, before these kinds of tragedies exist and before they 
happen, to be able to catch the particular individuals involved. That 
is what law enforcement is all about.
  Let us understand one thing here. The FBI and law enforcement is not 
the enemy. The enemy is the terrorists and people who would take 
advantage of our open system to further their political goals through 
the use of violence.
  Our best protection against that kind of violence is the ability of 
law enforcement to ferret out beforehand those kinds of individuals, 
and use lawful techniques to investigate those perpetrators or those 
potential perpetrators. So let us give, hopefully, the benefit of the 
doubt to our judicial system and to our law enforcement officials to 
make those kinds of determinations.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who in the past have done this for a living 
understand how important wiretap evidence is. I am sorry it was not 
part of this conference report, but we ought to get to that later and I 
would suggest we do so.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today as we consider the antiterrorism bill, we do so in 
the memory also of those who were brutally killed when Libryan 
Government agents placed a bomb on Pan Am 103 on December 21, 1988. We 
can never forget the horror of that day.
  As we learned of the loss of Pan Am 103, each of us thought of the 
great human tragedy that had struck the families of those who were 
passengers on that plane. Those passengers were flying home for the 
Christmas holidays, and each of us knew in our hearts how much their 
families were suffering.
  For those who lost their loved ones in this despicable act of state 
terrorism, there can never be a moment's rest while those responsible 
for the murder of their loved ones remain at large.
  My good friend Victoria Cummock of Coral Gables, FL, is president of 
a group called ``Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie.'' Her husband, John 
Binning Cummock, was a victim of the Libyan terrorists that day.
  Victoria and many others in her group have worked for many years with 
diligence and dedication to encourage the Congress to enact effective 
legislation against terrorism so that no other family will again 
experience the tragedy that befell the families of Pan Am 103. Although 
nothing can ever replace their loved ones and there is no word of 
comfort that any of us could say to alleviate their loss, we can bring 
the Libyan Government to justice by voting for this bill.
  The bill creates a right for American citizens to sue in American 
courts any government that sponsors state terrorism. I am sure that an 
impartial jury, considering the nature of the Libyan act and its origin 
in Libyan Government policy, will conclude that financial compensation 
is indeed due to the families of the Pan Am 103 victims.
  The administration, for reasons that no one has ever really 
satisfactorily explained, opposed giving the families of the victims of 
state-sponsored terrorism this right to compensation, but it has 
changed its mind in recent weeks. I am glad that the White House has 
agreed to sign this important bill into law.
  The families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie have endorsed this bill. I urge 
all of our colleagues in the House to support this legislation and send 
it to the President for his signature.
  We grieve for the loss of the Cummock family and indeed all of the 
victims of the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie incident.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I regret the gentleman from North Carolina has 
left the floor. I hope he can hear me, anyway. He said some rather 
harsh things.
  He said this bill is a fraud. Since I am the chief sponsor of the 
bill, I guess I am trying to impose a fraud on America. Frankly, given 
the hyperbolic tendencies of all of us, even that is a little bit much.
  He said the bill has nothing to do with terrorism. Then he talked 
about habeas corpus. I just wish he would read the bill, or at least 
the same bill that I read.
  This bill provides for an open designation process of what is a 
foreign terrorist organization. It denies those terrorist organizations 
the ability to raise money in this country. It provides authority to 
the State Department to deny entrance visas to members of those 
designated foreign terrorist organizations. It provides a fair and even 
process to deport alien terrorists. It denies assistance to foreign 
countries that do not cooperate with us in our antiterrorism efforts.
  It provides that foreign air carriers that travel to and from the 
United States abide by the same safety measures that American air 
carriers must follow; mandatory victim restitution, not discretionary; 
criminal alien deportation improvements; granting Federal courts 
jurisdiction to hear civil suits against state-sponsored terrorism; 
mandatory minimum penalties for explosive crimes; protection of all 
current and former Federal employees who are attacked on account of 
their employment.
  That has nothing to do with terrorism? I find that incredible.
  As far as the deference that a Federal judge must give in a habeas 
proceeding

[[Page H3604]]

to a State court decision, I simply say the State judge went to the 
same law school, studied the same law and passed the same bar exam that 
the Federal judge did. The only difference is the Federal judge was 
better politically connected and became a Federal judge.
  But I would suggest to my colleague when the judge raises his hand, 
State court or Federal court, they swear to defend the U.S. 
Constitution, and it is wrong, it is unfair to assume, ipso facto, that 
a State judge is going to be less sensitive to the law, less scholarly 
in his or her decision than a Federal judge. The Federal judge still 
has to look at the work product of the State court to decide if they 
got it right.
  Somehow, somewhere we are going to end the charade of endless habeas 
proceedings, and this bill is going to do it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately vote for the conference report. 
However, I again urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on the 
rule.
  If the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment 
to the rule which would provide that the House will have adopted a 
concurrent resolution directing the Clerk to correct the enrollment of 
this conference report by adding language granting law enforcement 
agencies new wiretap authority.
  Mr. Speaker, the text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Section   . Upon the adoption of this resolution, the House 
     shall be considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution 
     directing the Clerk of the House to correct the enrollment of 
     S. 735 and consisting of the text contained in the next 
     section of this resolution.
       Section   . Resolved by the House of Representatives (The 
     Senate concurring), that in the enrollment of the bill (S. 
     735) the Terrorism Prevention Act, the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives shall make the following corrections:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR MULTI-POINT WIRETAPS.

       Section 2518(11) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(11) The requirements of subsections (1)(b)(ii) and 
     (3)(d) of this section relating to the specifications of 
     facilities from which or the place where the communication is 
     to be intercepted do not apply if in the case of an 
     application with respect to the interception of wire, oral or 
     electronic communications--
       ``(a) the application is by a federal investigative or law 
     enforcement officer, and is approved by the Attorney General, 
     the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, 
     or an Assistant Attorney General (or acting in any such 
     capacity);
       ``(b) the application contains full and complete statements 
     as to why such specifications is not practical and identifies 
     the person committing the offense and whose communications 
     are to be intercepted; and
       ``(c) the judge finds that such specification is not 
     practical.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say in closing that the conferees have worked very hard to 
produce an agreement that I believe assigns the Federal Government a 
reasonable and legitimate role in the fight against terrorism. This 
legislation has not been developed hastily. In fact, it has been nearly 
a yearlong process to craft a bill that provides law enforcement with 
the tools they need to effectively deter and punish terrorism, but in a 
way that balances public safety and security with individual rights and 
liberties.
  It is vitally important that would-be terrorists understand our firm 
commitment to protecting our citizens from the threat of terrorist 
acts, especially here in these great United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 274, 
nays 148, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 124]

                               YEAS--274

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     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
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--148

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott

[[Page H3605]]


     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bartlett
     Dingell
     Fields (TX)
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     McIntosh
     Skaggs
     Souder
     Tanner

                              {time}  1314

  Mr. STUPAK, Mr. GEPHARDT, and Ms. RIVERS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOLDEN, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Messrs. OBEY, WAMP, 
PETERSON of Minnesota, MOLLOHAN, and WISE changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 289, 
noes 125, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               AYES--289

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--125

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Crane
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Greenwood
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Largent
     McIntosh
     Millender-McDonald
     Owens
     Reed
     Salmon
     Tanner
     Thompson

                              {time}  1324

  Mr. LUTHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________