[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H598-H609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
        WITNESS PROTECTION AND INTERSTATE RELOCATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 366

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2181) to ensure the safety of witnesses and to 
     promote notification of the interstate relocation of 
     witnesses by States and localities engaging in that 
     relocation, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the

[[Page H599]]

     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered by title rather than by 
     section. Each title shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 366 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2181, the Witness Protection and Interstate 
Relocation Act of 1997. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure the 
safety of State witnesses and to promote the notification of the 
interstate relocation of witnesses by States and localities engaging in 
that relocation.
  Resolution 366 provides for one hour of general debate, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule further provides that the bill 
will be considered by title, with each title being considered as read.
  The Chair is authorized by the rule to grant priority in recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record prior to their consideration.
  In addition, the rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone votes during the consideration of the bill, and to 
reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15 minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this resolution is a fair rule. It is an 
open rule for the thorough consideration of H.R. 2181, the Witness 
Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997.
  H.R. 2181 is a step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, to address 
the very real problem of gang-related witness intimidation, which is an 
increasingly frequent problem as gangs expand their influence and 
membership beyond State lines.
  In a recent survey, over half of the prosecutors in large 
jurisdictions cited intimidation of witnesses as a major problem in 
criminal proceedings.
  This bill, among other things, establishes a new Federal offense for 
traveling interstate with the intent to delay or influence the 
testimony of a witness in a State criminal proceeding by bribery, 
force, intimidation or threat.
  In Florida, our department of law enforcement has identified the 
presence of over 300 gangs with a membership of over 10,000, including 
motorcycle gangs, street gangs, prison gangs, militia gangs and racist 
gangs. However, of the current prison population in our State, less 
than 2 percent of those behind bars were convicted as part of gang-
related crimes. Clearly it is very difficult to actually convict gang 
members, especially when witnesses are reluctant to testify for fear of 
retaliation in gang-related cases.
  Witnesses in State proceedings are sometimes relocated to other 
States. Currently no Federal law exists which requires the notification 
of the State or local enforcement officials that a witness, sometimes 
with a criminal record, has been relocated to this new jurisdiction. 
This lack of notification has presented its share of serious 
difficulties. This legislation, H.R. 2181, promotes coordination among 
jurisdictions when a witness is relocated interstate.
  It is my understanding that some Members may wish to offer germane 
amendments to this bill, and, under this open rule, they will have 
every opportunity to do so.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for 
his hard work on H.R. 2181, and would urge my colleagues to support 
both this open rule and the underlying bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a completely open rule. It 
is obviously very fair. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and urge my 
colleagues to support it so that all alternatives and potential 
improvements to this legislation may be considered.
  Law enforcement officials around the country report that gang-related 
witness intimidation is now endemic in a growing number of areas. 
Witnesses' refusal to testify is a major concern, because it undermines 
the administration of justice, while simultaneously eroding public 
confidence.
  H.R. 2181 addresses the problem of gang-related witness intimidation 
by establishing a Federal offense for traveling in interstate or 
foreign commerce with the intent to delay or influence the testimony of 
a witness in a State criminal proceeding.
  Such intimidation is increasingly interstate in nature and now poses 
a severe impediment nationally to the prosecution of violent street 
gangs and drug-trafficking organizations.
  In 1994, a survey of 192 prosecutors found that intimidation of 
victims and witnesses was a major problem for 51 percent of the 
prosecutors in large jurisdictions. That is over half. Prosecutors 
interviewed for the 1996 National Institute of Justice Report on 
Preventing Gang and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation estimated that 
witness intimidation occurs in 75 to 100 percent of violent crimes 
committed in neighborhoods with active street gangs. Increasingly, 
gangs are promoting community-wide noncooperation through public 
humiliation, assaults and even the murder of victims and witnesses.
  This type of community-wide intimidation cannot be allowed to 
undermine our judicial process by threatening our witnesses and our 
juries. I strongly support the witness notification relocation 
provisions in the legislation, as well as the goals of the witness 
intimidation provisions.
  But, nevertheless, despite the laudable goals of the bill, provisions 
were included that allow for the death penalty for witness 
intimidation. The committee voted 17 to 7 against an amendment that 
would have deleted the death penalty provisions.
  I find this death penalty provision troubling, because this past 
February the American Bar Association passed a resolution declaring 
that the system for administering the death penalty is unfair and lacks 
adequate safeguards. The resolution declared that executions should be 
stopped completely until a greater degree of fairness and due process 
can be achieved.
  My fear is that the proliferation of new death penalty offenses that 
we keep churning out only works to guarantee that executions will 
indeed become more haphazard. I do not oppose this open rule, however.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 366 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2181.

                              {time}  1256


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H600]]

House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2181) to ensure the safety of witnesses and to promote notification of 
the interstate relocation of witnesses by States and localities 
engaging in that relocation, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Snowbarger in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and a 
member of the minority party each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2181, which is before us today, represents another 
important step by this Congress to address the unacceptably high levels 
of violent crime ravaging our country today. A lot of people do not 
realize that when they read about or hear that the violent crime rate 
in the country has come down the last two or three years, that it is 
still as high as it is, and that is why when they turn on their 
television sets at night and watch violence so much on that set, it is 
not out of proportion, even though some critics want to say it is.
  Back in 1960 there were about 165 violent crimes for every 100,000 
people in our population. That is 165 for every 100,000 people. About 4 
years ago, we reached a little height in terms of the total number of 
violent crimes at about 685 violent crimes for every 100,000 people in 
our population, a huge difference between 1961-65 and the 165.
  Now that we have had a marginal decrease in the violent crime rate 
over the past couple years, that is, down to the last year's figures of 
about 630 violent crimes for every 100,000 people, still more than 4 
times as many violent crimes committed in the last year in this country 
per capita, per 100,000 in the population, as was the case in 1960. Way 
too much.
  It means if you go to a 7-Eleven store, a convenience store, in the 
evening to buy a carton of milk, it is 4 times more likely you are 
going to get robbed or murdered or mugged or raped or whatever by an 
assailant than it was back in 1960.
  We cannot take the country back to 1960 in a lot of ways, but we 
certainly should be able to take it back there in terms of the total 
numbers of violent crimes per capita in this Nation.
  It is absolutely outrageous that this is the case, and that is why we 
have tried over the last year or two in this Congress to address those 
issues. That is why we have the law that went into effect to encourage 
the States to adopt truth in sentencing, to make those who commit 
violent crimes serve at least the greater portion of their sentence, 
the 85 percent rule, rather than in the last few years where it was at 
about 33 or 34 percent of their sentences.

                              {time}  1300

  That has been very successful, by the way, in over half the States 
now, with a pool of money being offered to them to build more prisons 
if they will agree to change their laws to make that truth-in-
sentencing requirement, so violent criminals serve at least 85 percent 
of their sentences. That is why more than half of the States, to get 
that pool of money, have changed their laws now and we have those laws 
in place in those States. That is going to mean those who commit those 
violent repeat crimes are going to be locked up for long periods of 
time, not to be back out on the streets to commit the crimes.
  We have also done some other things that are equally important in a 
bill that passed this Congress, at least passed this House, this body, 
last year, with regard to juvenile justice, where we are attempting to 
get some consequences put in the juvenile justice laws of this Nation 
very early on, so that those who commit misdemeanor crimes, spray 
painting graffiti on a building as a teenager, or perhaps running over 
a parking meter, breaking a store window, vandalizing the store, 
whatever, get a chance to see that there are some consequences, be it 
community service or otherwise. We have done an incentive grant program 
to the States in this proposed legislation that is now pending in the 
other body that would provide the States with additional resources if 
they would simply make sure, and assure the Attorney General of the 
United States, that they are putting consequences in some kinds of 
punishment, from the very early misdemeanor crimes that juvenile 
delinquents have, because we know most violent crimes proportionately 
are committed by teenagers in their middle to later years of teenaged 
life.
  This is all part of a pattern, this bill today, H.R. 2181, to try to 
get control over this extreme violence that is out here in our country 
today. Yesterday we passed a bill in the House that would give some 
real tough teeth to Federal laws with regard to gun use. Whenever there 
is a violent crime committed using or in some way brandishing or 
discharging a firearm, or if there is a drug trafficking crime at the 
Federal level involving the possession or brandishing or discharging of 
a firearm, if that is indeed the case, then if the bill that passed the 
House becomes law, anyone who does that, in addition to whatever 
sentence they get for the underlying crime they are committing, anybody 
who does that is going to get 10 more years on for possession, 15 more 
years on for brandishing, and 20 more years added onto their sentence 
for the discharge of a firearm in connection with that crime.
  Today H.R. 2181 is another step in that effort. It is another smart, 
tough response to the problem of juvenile violent crime we are talking 
about. It is the product of two hearings, this bill today, one which 
was held in my home district of Orlando, Florida, with a great deal of 
input from the Justice Department and the U.S. Marshals Service. It is 
derived in part from a proposal in the President's juvenile crime bill 
and it has strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, today there is a crisis emerging in our country. 
Violent street gangs are intimidating and retaliating against witnesses 
who have the courage to testify against them. In every major city in 
America today the rule of law is under attack by violent street gangs 
that are using violence and the threat of violence to silence those who 
would help bring those who are criminals in those gangs to justice. The 
stories of witnesses paying the ultimate price for their willingness to 
testify are as tragic as they are numerous.
  Eduardo Samaniego, a courageous 14-year-old from Pomona, California, 
was one such victim. The son of a maintenance worker, Eduardo avoided 
gangs, although they virtually engulfed his working class 
neighborhoods. As much as possible he lived the life of a typical 
adolescent, becoming a star Little League baseball player, and dreaming 
of making the big leagues.
  But one afternoon right in his own neighborhood Eduardo witnessed a 
gang murder. To his parents great pride, he was one of only three 
witnesses among approximately 15 who had observed the shooting who 
agreed to testify. He spoke up firmly at the preliminary hearing, but 
he never had a chance to testify at trial. Within a week Eduardo was 
fatally shot in an alley near his home. Not surprisingly, the two other 
witnesses subsequently refused to testify at trial.
  The threatened violence and actual violence used by gangs against 
such witnesses is by itself enough to demand action, but the spectacle 
of violent street thugs getting away with undermining the 
administration of justice in cities, counties, and States throughout 
the country is simply intolerable. Sadly, their outrageous conduct has 
already led to the erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and 
our judicial system in too many communities, making community 
cooperation even more difficult to obtain.
  Intimidation of witnesses is on the rise around the country, with the 
problem now endemic in a growing number of cities, cities as diverse as 
Los Angeles, California, Des Moines, Iowa and Washington, D.C.
  The tentacles of street gangs extend and even flourish behind bars. 
Fear of retaliation is often fed by the belief that incarcerated gang 
members will return quickly to the community life after serving brief 
sentences and will be able while incarcerated to arrange for other gang 
members to target potential witnesses. Meetings that I had of the 
Subcommittee on Crime in the last Congress around the country with 
various community leaders in five different sections of the country 
reinforce

[[Page H601]]

the fact that indeed this was the case, that there is an awful lot of 
crime being directed and conducted out of prisons today in this Nation, 
far too much, and much of it is gang-related, and much of it involves 
witness intimidation, to try to allow the person who is serving jail 
time, who is the leader of the gang or the leader of organized crime in 
that community, or drug trafficking crime, whatever, to get off the 
hook or to get one of his compatriots off the hook.
  The mere fact that a crime is gang-related can be sufficient to 
prevent an entire neighborhood from cooperating. In New York City, a 
local gang executed a man for a petty drug theft. The gang then 
decapitated him and used his head as a soccer ball, kicking it around 
in the street. This atrocity served the gang's purpose. According to 
local law enforcement, the lack of cooperation by residents in this 
neighborhood prevented law enforcement officials from solving nearly 30 
homicides in 1994, and contributed to an atmosphere of rampant violence 
in which an average of 8 gunshots occurred each night.
  The traditional steps taken by State and local law enforcement to 
counter the problem of witness intimidation continue to be helpful, but 
these measures, which include requesting high bail, prosecuting witness 
intimidation vigorously, and enhancing witness and victim protection 
program services, are by themselves increasingly not enough.
  As gangs have become more interstate in their operations and scope, 
their ability and willingness to track down witnesses who have moved to 
other States has increased. As a result, State and local law 
enforcement officials such as those who testified in our June, 1997 
Subcommittee on Crime hearing have called for a greater Federal role in 
responding to interstate witness intimidation.

  Title I of H.R. 2181 responds to this problem by establishing a 
Federal offense for traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with 
the intent to delay or influence the testimony of a witness in a State 
criminal proceeding by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat. The 
penalties provided for such an offense, in addition to fines, are 
imprisonment for not more than 10 years if serious bodily injury 
results, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, and if death results 
from the offense, the sentence may be for any terms of years or for 
life or the death penalty.
  At our June 1997 subcommittee hearing a deputy district attorney from 
Los Angeles County, Jennifer Snyder, provided compelling testimony 
regarding the value of tough penalties for those who intimidate 
witnesses.
  When asked whether the penalties provided in this bill would have any 
deterrent effect, and relying on the existing California State law for 
what occurs in that State, she stated, ``Gang members know that it is 
the death penalty to kill a witness. We have heard that in our wire 
intercepts, we hear it in their casual conversations. They know the 
difference between mad dogging, or staring at a witness, and what is 
going to cost him if they actually go through with it and kill them. So 
it does have an impact when you are talking about increasing the 
punishment.''
  In addition to establishing a new crime and tougher personalities 
aimed at protecting witnesses, title II of the bill seeks to protect 
witnesses by facilitating safe and effective witness protection 
programs.
  Witness protection programs are an indispensable tool in combating 
violent crime. In cases involving drug trafficking and organized 
criminal activity, prosecutors often must rely on the testimony of 
witnesses who were involved in some facet of the illegal operation.
  In order to encourage them to testify, the government may need to 
offer protection when such witnesses are subject to retaliatory threats 
by defendants.
  As the subcommittee learned during its November 1996 field hearing, 
the nature and sophistication of witness protection programs varies 
widely. Some localities have no witness protection and relocation 
capability. And even those that do have such capability vary 
considerably. While most programs do not relocate witnesses out of 
State, others, such as Puerto Rico's program, do so frequently.
  There is currently no Federal law directly addressing the interstate 
relocation of witnesses. As such, unless required by a State's own law 
or by other agreement, programs are under no legal obligation to notify 
local law enforcement officials and witnesses with criminal records who 
are relocated interstate.
  The potential problems associated with failing to provide 
notification were highlighted by the June 15, 1996 incident in Osceola 
County, Florida. On this occasion, Florida Highway Patrol officers and 
plainclothes Puerto Rico police officers moving a witness narrowly 
averted an altercation. The Florida troopers thought the officers from 
Puerto Rico were criminals posing as FBI agents, while the officers 
from Puerto Rico apparently thought the Florida troopers were assassins 
sent to kill their witnesses.
  As a result of this incident, the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement and the Puerto Rico Department of Justice entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding to regulate the relocation of witnesses 
between the State and the Commonwealth. I am pleased to report that 
there have been no incidences since this Memorandum of Understanding 
was implemented.
  Title II of this bill addresses the need for coordination among 
jurisdictions when a witness is relocated interstate, by directing the 
Attorney General to survey State and local protection programs with the 
aim of making training available to those programs.
  The Attorney General is also directed to promote coordination among 
State and local interstate witness relocation programs, in part by 
developing a model Memorandum of Understanding for interstate witness 
relocation. This model Memorandum of Understanding is to include a 
requirement that notice be provided to the jurisdiction to which the 
relocation has been made in certain cases.
  It is also noted that that particular notification has to be narrow. 
You cannot just blanket notify everybody that might possibly be in law 
enforcement or you do not protect your witnesses.
  There needs to be a targeted method of doing that in order to provide 
protection in those States where these witnesses are relocated for the 
residents of those States because, often, these witnesses who are 
relocated themselves are potentially very dangerous since they were 
involved, often, in the underlying crime some way or another and are 
being protected in order to get them to testify against somebody who is 
perceived by the other State or jurisdiction's authorities to have 
committed a more heinous crime or maybe be the organizer and the head 
kingpin of that criminal enterprise.
  Title II also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants under 
the Byrne discretionary grant program to those jurisdictions that have 
interstate witness relocation programs that have substantially followed 
the Memorandum of Understanding in terms of how it has been structured 
and proposed as a model.
  Mr. Chairman, the two titles of this bill, taken together, represent 
a strong commitment to protect witnesses in federal and State criminal 
trials, and in doing so, to strengthen the criminal justice systems 
around the country which are increasingly overwhelmed, particularly by 
gang violence, but by violence generally.
  Mr. Chairman, I have traveled through the drug source countries of 
South America over the last three months, and I have seen the tragic 
results of unchecked drug trafficking and violent crimes. I have seen 
what happens when the rule of law is under siege. The tradition of 
democratic self-government breaks down, and ordered liberty becomes a 
thing of the past.
  In the United States, we cannot tolerate such lawlessness directed 
against our justice system. We must ensure that we have the right laws 
and the right penalties in place to send an unmistakable message to 
those who would subvert justice.
  We must have the provisions in this bill which would provide for 
very, very tough penalties, including an up to the death penalty where 
murder occurs, for people across the State line to intimidate or kill a 
witness to avoid their own conviction or the conviction of somebody in 
their gang or somebody in their criminal enterprise.
  We do not have that law now. It needs to be on the books, not only so

[[Page H602]]

that when that does occur we can see justice carried out for the ones 
who perpetrate this crime, but in order to send the message, the 
message to those who do talk, as Ms. Snyder, the Los Angeles County 
prosecutor, told us, who do talk among themselves, whose wire 
intercepts we have heard, who understand what the penalties and the 
prices are. And when they understand it, they will be far less likely 
to go over and do this kind of intimidation across State lines.
  I want to thank the Justice Department and the Marshals Service for 
their input into this much-needed bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) for that extensive review of the witness intimidation and 
relocation bill. We can all support the notion that those who obstruct 
our system of justice must be subject to penalties, and we can support 
measures designed to make such conduct a Federal crime. If State lines 
are crossed, which is along the lines of measures proposed in the 
administration's juvenile justice bill, I think that this is also a 
good thing to do.
  May we also indicate our support for the need to collect information 
regarding what States are doing in terms of relocating witnesses and 
notifying other States of those relocations. We need Federal standards 
for such programs, and I fully support witness relocation and 
notification provisions contained in this bill. And if it were not for 
the inclusion of the death penalty, I would support this legislation.
  Recently, the Death Penalty Information Center issued a report 
entitled ``Innocence and the Death Penalty: The increasing danger of 
mistaken executions.'' This report described 16 instances since 1973 in 
which condemned prisoners had to be released from death row because 
mistakes had led to wrongful convictions. The figure represents more 
than 1 percent of the approximately 6,000 people sentenced to death in 
that period. And, of course, there are no measures to calculate the 
number of innocent people actually executed.
  Last year, the American Bar Association passed a resolution declaring 
that the system for administering the death penalty in the United 
States is unfair and lacks adequate safeguards. They further declared 
that the executions should be stopped until a greater degree of 
fairness and due process could be achieved.
  So 25 years after the Furman vs. Georgia invalidation of the death 
penalty in the Supreme Court, finding that the penalty was so wantonly 
and so freakishly imposed that those being sentenced to die received 
cruel and unusual punishment, I am sorry to say little has changed. The 
death penalty is still inflicted upon a capriciously selected, random 
handful. Moreover, the proliferation of new death penalty offenses only 
works to guarantee that its imposition will even become more hazardous 
and more capricious.
  There is compelling evidence for many jurisdictions that the race of 
the defendant is the primary factor governing the imposition of the 
death sentence. In Georgia, the district attorney in one circuit sought 
the death penalty in 29 cases, and in 23 of those 29 cases, the 
defendant was African-American, although blacks made up only 44 percent 
of the population.
  Similar evidence is emerging under the Federal death penalty for drug 
kingpins. Of the 37 defendants for whom the death penalty was sought 
between 1988 and 1994, four were white, four were Hispanic, but 29 were 
African-American.
  Death sentences are even more frequently imposed when the victim is 
white. Since 1977, more than 80 percent of the country's death penalty 
cases have involved white victims, while about half of the homicides 
committed each year in the United States involve black victims.
  A study by Professor David Baldus at the University of Iowa of over 
250,000 homicide cases in Georgia, which controlled for 230 nonracial 
factors, found that a person accused of murdering a white was 4.3 times 
more likely to be sentenced to death than a person accused of murdering 
a black. Although fewer than 40 percent of Georgia homicide cases 
involved white victims, 87 percent of all the cases in which a death 
sentence was imposed involved white victims.
  We are also concerned that the imposition of the death penalty has 
become so routine that there is now immediate support for the addition 
of this penalty whenever it is suggested. A death penalty attached to a 
new crime is deemed unremarkable and seldom engenders serious debate or 
discussion, and that is why I raise it on the floor with the measure 
before us.
  Given the overwhelming concerns of fairness and accuracy with which 
the death penalty is imposed, combined with the lack of a proven 
deterrent effect, it is my strong desire and intention to modify the 
measure that is on the floor to contain a life sentence rather than the 
death penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2181, which is to address the 
very real problem of intimidation of witnesses. The instances of 
intimidation across State lines is especially pronounced in gang and 
drug cases, frustrating the ability of State and local authorities to 
successfully prosecute these cases to include the Federal Government.
  The intimidation of witnesses is specifically intended to undermine 
and subvert our system of justice. I believe that it is an insult to 
the integrity of the judicial system. Let me give an example.
  The last case that I was involved with in the United States 
Attorney's Office involved two Colombians charged with the distribution 
of cocaine. Three of our witnesses were also witnesses in a State 
collateral case, one of which was an informant who we had spoken to. 
The following morning they were found in the kitchen of an apartment, 
their hands tied behind their backs, washcloths stuffed in their 
mouths, and the back of their heads were blown off with shotguns.
  Mr. Chairman, I can share that in all other cases that these 
individuals had been involved, not only in Federal cases, but also in 
State cases, no one would step forward to testify. The intimidation was 
very real and it was very effective. We never found out who actually 
pulled the trigger and killed these people, but I would have enjoyed 
having the opportunity to have prosecuted them.
  Such a strategy of violence intended to intimidate does have a 
chilling impact on the system and I saw it firsthand. Opponents to this 
bill believe that in such instances the death penalty should not be 
used as the ultimate punishment. I disagree. The death penalty is 
appropriate to those who would kill to undermine our judicial system 
for their own personal gain.
  Mr. Chairman, this intimidation does undermine and have a chilling 
impact upon the judicial system. It is not healthy and I support this 
bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan), the newest member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), chairman of the subcommittee, not only for his 
leadership on this particular issue, but for his eloquence in 
presenting it before the House. In doing so, I wish also to thank and 
congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
our ranking member, for his articulate presentation today, and for the 
dissenting views he and others put forth in the subcommittee report.
  Although I do differ with the gentleman from Michigan in his opinion 
respecting the death penalty, aside from this philosophical difference, 
his statement respecting the merits of the bill itself is in line with 
those of the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, it is significant that all the members of the 
subcommittee

[[Page H603]]

who heard this bill see a real need for this particular legislation. 
Our differences are over the level of penalty that should be imposed 
for the most egregious cases.
  This bill strikes a particular chord with me, because before I 
arrived in Congress I spent 10 years as both a criminal trial court 
judge in Los Angeles County and as a member of the Los Angeles County 
District Attorney's Office. Specifically, during my tenure in the 
District Attorney's Office, I was assigned to what was called the hard-
core gang murder unit.
  My job on a daily basis for a couple of years was prosecuting gang 
cases, particularly gang murder cases. It was very common for members 
of that unit like myself to carry over 20 open gang murder cases.
  Mr. Chairman, those were extremely difficult cases to prosecute. The 
difficulty did not come from the lack of ballistic evidence, because we 
often had ballistic evidence. They were not difficult because we did 
not have fingerprints. Often we had fingerprints. And the difficulty 
did not come from a lack of witnesses. There were generally many 
witnesses. The difficulty came in getting those witnesses who saw the 
crime to come to court and testify. The whole trick to trying gang 
cases was getting the witnesses into court to tell what they saw.
  Generally speaking, when a violent crime occurred, in the excitement 
of the moment or in the confusion when the police arrived, we often 
could find a lot of people who were willing to tell the police exactly 
what they saw, exactly what they heard, and identify the perpetrators. 
But once the police crime scene tape came down, once the squad cars 
left and once the detectives returned to the station, those witnesses 
became victims within their own community--helpless to the intimidation 
and threats from gang members. It did not take long for any of them to 
find out what the bottom line was to their safety.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a curious phenomenon from the time of the 
crime until we empaneled the jury: a predictable loss of a witness' 
memory. Often we would try to do whatever we could to accommodate these 
witnesses, such as preparing to move them out of the neighborhood. But 
even that became problematic, because the sophistication of gangs 
throughout this country has become such that their boundaries are no 
longer within a neighborhood or a city. Their sophistication and their 
reach crosses State lines. That is why the current situation cries out 
for the remedy being suggested by this legislation.
  The need for this bill is uncontroverted from both sides, and that is 
why I again congratulate and thank the gentleman from Florida, the 
subcommittee chairman, for bringing this to the floor. Again I thank 
the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, and the minority 
members of the subcommittee, for their support for the bill in concept.
  Mr. Chairman, this will make an incredible difference to those who 
are on the front lines every single day trying to prosecute these cases 
to make our neighborhoods safe, and for those who must live in these 
areas. And I cannot emphasize enough to my colleagues what a difference 
this bill will make once it is on the books. It will note of those 
people who ought to be protected, those whom we call upon to do their 
civic duty and go before the bar of justice to help convict dangerous 
offenders. This will be a significant help to their level of comfort 
and safety.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my regret that 
H.R. 2181, the Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act, 
expands the death penalty in federal law.
  Members of this Congress have heard definitive testimony from law 
enforcement officials that witness intimidation and coercion are 
increasing at a disturbing rate. As the instance of intimidation rises 
for gang-related and drug crimes, Congress must be responsive. 
Witnesses need to feel confident that they will be removed and 
protected from aggressors. Creating a series of new opportunities for 
courts to impose the death penalty, however, is not the answer.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my views on H.R. 2181, 
the Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997.
  While this bill includes many valuable provisions which would improve 
States' witness protection and relocation programs, I cannot, in good 
faith vote for final passage due to a provision currently in the bill.
  My fellow colleagues, my moral and religious values prevent me from 
voting for a bill which calls for imposition of the death penalty. I 
believe those who commit serious crimes should be severely punished, 
even to the extent of life imprisonment, but I do not believe in the 
death penalty. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life, and my 
voting record consistently reflects this belief.
  I hope that when this bill goes to conference the death penalty 
provision is removed. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to provide the States with the means to protect 
witnesses who put their lives at risk to do the right thing and to set 
strong and reasonable penalties for those who engage in witness 
intimidation or obstruction of justice.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support you in your efforts 
to address the crisis of witness intimidation; however, I do have some 
concerns. The problem of witness intimidation is a growing problem and 
one that must be addressed by this Congress. In a growing number of 
criminal cases around the United States, police and prosecutors are 
unable to prosecute cases successfully because key witnesses refuse to 
testify for fear of retaliation by defendants.
  This problem is particularly acute in gang- or drug-related cases. In 
fact, prosecutors report that the mere fact that a crime is gang-
related is often sufficient to ensure neighborhood silence. This 
situation is frustrating for prosecutors because the absence of an 
overt threat precludes the use of traditional responses to witness 
intimidation.
  It is hard not to sympathize with the witnesses to these crimes who 
choose to remain silent out of fear of harm to themselves or their 
loved ones. These are people who are surrounded daily by crime, 
violence and death. They witness first-hand the horrors that the nation 
sees only on the six-o'clock news. They know that the threat of 
retaliation is not an idle one.
  A 1994 survey of prosecutors found that 51 percent of prosecutors in 
large jurisdictions and 43 percent of those in small jurisdictions, 
identified intimidation of witnesses as a problem. Several prosecutors 
interviewed for the 1996 National Institute of Justice Report, 
``Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation,'' estimated 
that witness intimidation occurs in 75 to 100 percent of the violent 
crimes committed in neighborhoods with active street gangs.
  This all points to the fact that witness intimidation is a very 
serious concern because it undermines the administration of justice and 
erodes public confidence in the justice system.
  However, I do have some concerns about this legislation includes the 
death penalty for witness intimidation that results in death. Recently, 
the Death Penalty Information Center issued a report entitled 
``Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Mistaken 
Executions.'' This report describes 69 instances since 1973 in which 
condemned prisoners had to be released from death row because mistakes 
had led to wrongful convictions. This figure represents more than one 
percent of the approximately 6,000 people sentenced to death in that 
period. If an amendment is offered which would give a federal judge 
discretion in removing an imposed death penalty sentence and commuting 
it to life imprisonment when the facts do not support the imposition of 
a death penalty, then my colleagues should support such an amendment. 
This legislation addresses the problem of witness intimidation by 
establishing a new federal offense for interstate travel to intimidate 
a witness. It also requires that States which relocate witnesses into 
other States notify law enforcement in the ``recipient'' state.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I support the Witness Protection and 
Interstate Relocation Act as passed by the House of Representatives 
today. I voted for the bill because I believe protection of witnesses 
is one of the most important principles of the judicial process. We 
cannot tolerate interference or tampering with witnesses at any level 
of the judicial process, and any effort the federal government can make 
to ensure greater witness protection is a step in the right direction. 
While I do not agree with some of the details of the bill, in my mind, 
the importance of protecting witnesses, a cornerstone of our system of 
justice, supersedes those concerns.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
important legislation.
  H.R. 2181 establishes meaningful guidelines for interstate witness 
relocation procedures. The legislation will help avoid conflicts 
between law enforcement agents of differing jurisdictions. In 1996, 
Florida officials narrowly missed an armed conflict with Puerto Rican 
agents who were protecting a witness in central Florida. This 
legislation will ensure that state officials are fully aware of witness 
relocation efforts in their communities so we can avoid the types of 
problems we've experienced in Florida.
  Between 1987-1996, 83 witnesses have been relocated to Florida from 
Puerto Rico

[[Page H604]]

alone. More than 1 out every 10 of these have a criminal record. 
Without a formal process for notification and cooperation, we are 
unknowingly jeopardizing the lives of innocent Americans and law 
enforcement agents. This legislation will protect these citizens and 
public safety officers.
  There are serious questions about the appropriate procedures for 
interstate relocation. I attempted to address these concerns when I 
traveled to Puerto Rico last year and met with the Justice Minister to 
craft an agreement between our two states. This was followed by the 
first, and only, Memorandum of Understanding on interstate witness 
relocation procedures.
  This legislation will build on our efforts to facilitate coordination 
between jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Congressmen McCollum and Romero-Barcelo, in sponsoring this important 
legislation and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rogan) for his wise comments, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by title, and each title shall be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Witness Protection and 
     Interstate Relocation Act of 1997''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
       TITLE I--GANG-RELATED WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND RETALIATION

     SEC. 101. INTERSTATE TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN WITNESS INTIMIDATION 
                   OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

       Section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce 
     with intent by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat, 
     directed against any person, to delay or influence the 
     testimony of or prevent from testifying a witness in a State 
     criminal proceeding or by any such means to cause any person 
     to destroy, alter, or conceal a record, document, or other 
     object, with intent to impair the object's integrity or 
     availability for use in such a proceeding, and thereafter 
     engages or endeavors to engage in such conduct, shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, 
     or both; and if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 
     1365 of this title) results, shall be so fined or imprisoned 
     for not more than 20 years, or both; and if death results, 
     shall be so fined and imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or both, and may be sentenced to death.''.

     SEC. 102. CONSPIRACY PENALTY FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
                   OFFENSES INVOLVING VICTIMS, WITNESSES, AND 
                   INFORMANTS.

       Section 1512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Whoever conspires to commit any offense defined in 
     this section or section 1513 of this title shall be subject 
     to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the 
     commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?

                              {time}  1330


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 3, after line 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 103. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF DEATH SENTENCE 
                   RECOMMENDATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 3591(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a defendant who has 
     been found guilty of an offense described in section 1512(j) 
     or 1952(b) for which a sentence of death is provided shall 
     not be sentenced to death but shall be sentenced to life 
     imprisonment if court has any doubt that the defendant 
     actually committed the offense.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3594 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting 
     ``, subject to the second sentence of section 3591(a)'' 
     before the period.

  Mr. CONYERS (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 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that in cases 
where a jury has imposed the death sentence or death resulting from 
witness intimidation, if a court has any doubt regarding the 
defendant's guilt, the court shall sentence the defendant to life 
imprisonment rather than death.
  This amendment is offered because of the Supreme Court's decisions 
regarding what has come to be known as ``actual innocence.'' 
Incredibly, the Supreme Court has held that actual innocence, without 
proof of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, is not 
enough to stop a death sentence.
  In the case, only a few years back, of Herrera v. Collins, the Court 
ruled that a death row inmate who presents belated evidence of 
innocence is not ordinarily entitled to a new hearing before being 
executed. In that case, Judge Rehnquist stated that the Federal habeas 
courts sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation 
of the Constitution, not to correct errors of fact.
  According to the Supreme Court, newly discovered evidence has never 
been regarded as a sufficient basis for the Federal Court relief in the 
absence of some underlying constitutional violation. And that is 
notwithstanding the finality of a death penalty. If a mistake has been 
made, there is no way to undo it.
  For the last 26 years, a little over 1 percent of the nearly 7,000 
Americans sentenced to death have been released from death row after 
new facts came to light indicating their innocence. This means that at 
least 700 people who were sentenced to death were not guilty. In the 
State of Illinois alone in the past few years no fewer than nine death 
row inmates have been released after their innocence was proven.
  While the system worked in these cases, if we ignore the fact that 
many of these people were imprisoned wrongfully for many years, the 
evidence that cleared these men turned up by accident and could well 
have been discovered too late to halt their executions. This means that 
although we do not know how many innocent people have been executed, we 
do know that there are such people and that their numbers are 
substantial.
  This amendment is an accommodation to the irrevocable nature of the 
death penalty. It provides that where doubt of guilt remains, the 
opportunity to reverse the conviction on the basis of new evidence must 
be preserved, and a death sentence obviously does not allow for this.
  The effect of this provision, then, would allow the trial judge to 
stop the imposition of the death penalty only in cases involving the 
death of witnesses in those cases in which experience has shown the 
greatest likelihood of erroneous conviction. In practice, this would 
mean the judges would exclude the death penalty in cases that turned on 
sometimes notoriously unreliable evidence of uncorroborated eye-witness 
identifications on the bargained-for testimony of accomplices and 
jailhouse informants.
  The court would remain free to sentence the defendant to life 
imprisonment without possibility of parole. Only the death penalty 
would be precluded and only in cases where the judge, based on his 
experience, could conclude that the possibility of miscarriage of 
justice actually existed.
  This amendment will not totally eliminate the possibility of error in 
capital cases involving witness intimidation, but it would provide a 
safety check, reducing the risk of sentencing innocent people to death.
  No such safety mechanism exists now. The trial judge can only 
determine whether the evidence is sufficient

[[Page H605]]

to convict and impose a death sentence. But as the law currently 
stands, a judge has no power to protect the defendant against the 
possibility of factual error by the jury.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the same is true on appeal. While 
appellate courts must review the adequacy of the evidence and the 
procedural regularity of the trial and sentencing, on appeal all 
factual determinations must be made in the light most favorable to the 
prosecution and appellate courts are powerless to reverse a death 
sentence based on questionable but legally sufficient evidence unless 
some harmful procedural error occurred at trial.
  Only by means of this amendment will trial judges, in the limited 
number of cases involving violations of this act, acquire the power to 
ensure that the death penalty will not be imposed when the evidence 
appears strong enough to convict but not strong enough to bet a life on 
it.
  Even those who in this Chamber do not oppose the death penalty, I do 
not think they can be in favor of executing innocent people; and, 
therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  The death penalty has been debated on this floor many times, and I 
respect the gentleman's views and philosophy on this subject differ 
from mine considerably, but it is particularly poignant today, in light 
of this bill and how the death penalty would be applied if this new 
Federal crime were created and the issue of the death penalty 
generally.
  I think it is probably true to say that there is no more important 
situation to have the deterrent effect of the death penalty than in 
this case where we have witness intimidation.
  The truth of it, so everybody understands this, and I will make it 
very clear, the amendment the gentleman from Michigan is offering today 
would prohibit the death penalty from applying in this legislation to 
the witness intimidation cases where somebody crosses a State line and 
kills somebody to prevent them from testifying.
  Do we support, the question really should be, capital punishment for 
vicious criminals who brutally kill bystanders who happen to have the 
misfortune of witnessing a serious crime and are brave enough to come 
forward and testify against the criminals? That is what we are talking 
about in this legislation. If we vote for the amendment, we are voting 
against the possibility of the death penalty for that provision.
  Believe me, just as the prosecuting attorney in Los Angeles said, 
that I mentioned, Ms. Snyder, in my opening statement on this bill, 
there is an understanding among those in the street gangs who are doing 
this witness intimidation and who do cross State lines and have people 
killed to keep them from testifying. There is an understanding about 
what the punishment is. And if the death penalty is there, they are far 
less likely to do it.
  We all know the overwhelming majority of the American public supports 
capital punishment. For as long as I have been a Member of this body, 
the House has consistently voted in favor of the death penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, there is good reason for this record of strong support. 
The death penalty is the just punishment for the most heinous of 
crimes, and there are few crimes more heinous than the murder of a 
witness. Such murders destroy the lives of the victim and the victim's 
family and rock the very foundations of the criminal justice system.
  It is absolutely essential that the possibility of the death penalty 
exist in this situation. How else will we deter a drug gang member who 
faces the possibility of a long prison term from killing a critical 
witness called to testify against him? If the death penalty is not an 
option, such criminals assume that they have nothing to lose if they 
kill witnesses. They face no greater punishment if they get caught. We 
cannot sit idly by and let it occur. That is why gang prosecutors so 
strongly support the death penalty provisions in this bill.
  Let me say we have heard a lot of about the imposition of the death 
penalty in America. A few facts, I think, might set the record 
straight.
  The death penalty is actually rarely used in comparison to the number 
of murders in this country. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all 
murderers are executed. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all 
murderers are executed.
  Death penalties are imposed with extraordinary care and accuracy. 
There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone truly innocent has been 
executed since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.
  While I respect the statistics the gentleman from Michigan raised a 
moment ago with regard to the fact that there are some people who have 
been put on death row who have been ultimately exonerated, they were 
not executed, obviously.
  And there is a long period of time for appeal. The average time for 
appeal in this Nation has been about 10 years. We hope with the change 
in the habeas corpus laws we passed last year it will get down to 4 to 
6 years. But it is a long period of time.
  If somebody is truly innocent, there is going to be plenty of time 
for them to get off death row. It is not as though it were occurring 
right before the sentence was being carried out.
  The average time a convicted murderer sits on death row before they 
are executed, as I said, is 10 years.
  In 1996, there was a total of 3,219 prisoners on death row; and only 
45 were executed.
  Among the offenders on death row, 66 percent had at least one prior 
felony conviction and almost 10 percent had a previous murder 
conviction. Forty-two percent were on probation, parole or supervised 
release at the time they committed the crime which landed them on death 
row.
  Studies by anti-death penalty scholars, including last year's report 
by the Death Penalty Information Center, or a highly publicized 1987 
study from Stanford Law Review, failed to sufficiently confirm that one 
innocent person had been executed. In fact, both studies showed that 
innocent individuals were released, as I said earlier, well before 
their executions.
  There are many other facts about capital punishment that we could 
discuss but time does not permit me today.
  Let me conclude by saying on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, that it 
should be defeated. When gang members can joke about killing snitches, 
we know America is in trouble. If we strip the death penalty from this 
bill, Congress will take a dangerous step closer to turning America's 
criminal justice system over to brute force rather than to the rule of 
law.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Leave the death 
penalty in in this bill. It is as important or more important than in 
any other provision of Federal law to have the death penalty for those 
who cross States lines to intimidate and to actually kill a witness who 
otherwise would testify.
  The message is important, the deterrent message; and, obviously, the 
execution itself, in some cases, is certainly as justified as in any 
other heinous crime.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Conyers, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  The only two points I wanted to bring up is this is not about whether 
we are for or against the death penalty. This amendment is to make sure 
that, if the court has any doubt that the defendant actually committed 
the offense, the court would be allowed to suspend the sentence of 
death and provide a sentence of life imprisonment.
  And with reference to the gentleman's observation that there is no 
evidence that any person that has been executed was innocent, it is 
pretty hard after the execution to ask people to continue to look for 
evidence that the execution was wrong. We know

[[Page H606]]

that they were on death row and we have saved them because the effort 
and the energies persisted while they were alive.
  So I would not want the gentleman to conclude from the fact that we 
have not proven that people executed were in fact innocent turns on the 
fact that they were in fact guilty. That is a pretty long stretch.

                              {time}  1345

  Those were the two points in his refutation I wanted to bring forth.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I do want to 
address that. I am glad he pointed it out to me. The point about any 
doubt is what bothers me in his amendment more than anything else. He 
has suggested that a person shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if 
the court has any doubt. As the gentleman knows, the rule of law with 
regard to this matter is reasonable doubt now, not any doubt 
whatsoever. I think by passing this, he effectively means there will be 
no death penalty when he puts out any doubt. It is very difficult to 
come up with cases where that standard would be applicable and it would 
be I think an extraordinary change in the law that exists in all other 
death penalty cases to my knowledge in the Nation, let alone here in 
the Federal system, to have the contingency of this as any doubt as 
opposed to reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is the current standard, 
which he would not need an amendment to do as the gentleman knows. I 
oppose this. I think he has cleverly drawn this. I respect why he has 
done it. Again he and I philosophically differ. But I think it is 
clever by one too much. Effectively it would end the death penalty or 
not allow it in most of the cases, or at least in a great many of them 
that would be involved in the prosecution under this bill. I think my 
remarks earlier were equally applicable regardless of the subtlety of 
this point he is making which is true and technically correct.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me the additional time, but I 
again strongly oppose this amendment and urge its defeat because we 
need an ordinary, everyday, plain vanilla death penalty provision in 
here if we are going to deter gangs from going across State lines and 
intimidating people and witnesses, especially the death penalty part 
applying when they kill somebody when they do that, kill a potential 
witness.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 300, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--113

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dixon
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pappas
     Paul
     Payne
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Yates

                               NOES--300

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brown (FL)
     DeLauro
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Kennelly
     Klink
     Luther
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Schiff
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1408

  Messrs. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, CLEMENT and PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCOTT and Mr. HOEKSTRA 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. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes 
pertaining to H.R. 2181, the Witness Protection and Interstate 
Protection and Interstate Relocation Act and H.R. 1544, the Federal 
Agency Compliance Act. At the time I was attending the funeral of 
former Connecticut governor and Senator Abraham Ribicoff. If I had been 
here, I would have voted yes on Roll Call #19 and yes on Roll Call #20.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title I?
  The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                TITLE II--WITNESS RELOCATION AND SAFETY

     SEC. 201. WITNESS RELOCATION SURVEY AND TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) Survey.--The Attorney General shall survey all State 
     and selected local witness protection and relocation programs 
     to determine the extent and nature of such programs and the 
     training needs of those programs. Not later than 270 days 
     after the date of the

[[Page H607]]

     enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall report 
     the results of this survey to Congress.
       (b) Training.--Based on the results of such survey, the 
     Attorney General shall make available to State and local law 
     enforcement agencies training to assist those law enforcement 
     agencies in developing and managing witness protection and 
     relocation programs.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsections (a) and (b) for 
     fiscal year 1998 not to exceed $500,000.

     SEC. 202. FEDERAL-STATE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 
                   REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF INTERSTATE WITNESS 
                   RELOCATION.

       (a) Attorney General To Promote Interstate Coordination.--
     The Attorney General shall engage in activities, including 
     the establishment of a model Memorandum of Understanding 
     under subsection (b), which promote coordination among State 
     and local witness interstate relocation programs.
       (b) Model Memorandum of Understanding.--The Attorney 
     General shall establish a model Memorandum of Understanding 
     for States and localities that engage in interstate witness 
     relocation. Such a model Memorandum of Understanding shall 
     include a requirement that notice be provided to the 
     jurisdiction to which the relocation has been made by the 
     State or local law enforcement agency that relocates a 
     witness to another State who has been arrested for or 
     convicted of a crime of violence as described in section 16 
     of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Byrne Grant Assistance.--The Attorney General is 
     authorized to expend up to 10 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated under section 511 of subpart 2 of part E of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for 
     purposes of making grants pursuant to section 510 of that Act 
     to those jurisdictions that have interstate witness 
     relocation programs and that have substantially followed the 
     model Memorandum of Understanding.
       (d) Guidelines and Determination of Eligibility.--The 
     Attorney General shall establish guidelines relating to the 
     implementation of subsection (c) and shall determine, 
     consistent with such guidelines, which jurisdictions are 
     eligible for grants under subsection (c).

     SEC. 203. BYRNE GRANTS.

       Section 501(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (25);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (26) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(27) developing and maintaining witness security and 
     relocation programs, including providing training of 
     personnel in the effective management of such programs.''.

     SEC. 204. DEFINITION.

       As used in this title, the term ``State'' includes the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 3, line 4, insert the following before the quotation 
     mark:
       ``When considering whether to inflict the death penalty for 
     a violation of this section, the jury shall consider, as a 
     mitigating factor, whether the evidence, although sufficient 
     to permit a finding of guilt, does not completely remove all 
     doubt about the defendant's guilt.''
       Page 3, line 14, insert the following before the quotation 
     mark:
       ``When considering whether to inflict the death penalty for 
     a violation of this section, the jury shall consider, as a 
     mitigating factor, whether the evidence, although sufficient 
     to permit a finding of guilt, does not completely remove all 
     doubt about the defendant's guilt.''

  The CHAIRMAN. That is an amendment to title I, and we have gone 
beyond title I at this point.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is on the same lines as the 
previous amendments. This amendment also provides a safeguard against 
executing innocent people. Unlike the last amendment, however, which 
allowed the judge to void the decision by the jury, this amendment 
simply proposes a way for the jury to consider the possibility of the 
defendant's innocence.
  I offer this amendment to exclude the death penalty as an option 
whenever the evidence does not foreclose all doubt regarding a 
defendant's guilt.
  In 1988, the Supreme Court held that a defendant has no 
constitutional right to have a capital sentencing jury consider as a 
reason not to impose the death penalty the possibility that the 
defendant may be innocent. This means that if the jurors are to 
consider the possibility of error as a reason to vote against imposing 
the death penalty, the law must explicitly provide for such 
consideration.
  Under current law, the jurors are told to consider a long list of 
specific mitigating factors as reasons not to sentence a defendant to 
death. These factors can include that the defendant is mentally ill, 
youthful, under duress or suffered impaired capacity at the time of the 
crime. The law does not, however, require the jury to consider the most 
basic reason of all for worrying against the imposition of death, the 
possibility the defendant is actually not guilty of the crime for which 
he has been convicted. The amendment would add residual doubt to the 
list of mitigating factors a citizen jury can consider.

                              {time}  1415

  The amendment provides that the jury may consider any doubt that the 
defendant committed the offense, notwithstanding that such doubt may 
initially not be considered to constitute reasonable doubt.
  This amendment should be unobjectionable, even to my colleagues 
opposed to the death penalty. This does not take away anything from the 
power of the trier of fact, nor does it overturn a trier of fact's 
determination. This amendment merely instructs the jury to consider, 
among other mitigating and aggravating factors that they already 
consider, whether the jury has remaining doubts as to whether the 
defendant is actually the perpetrator of the crime.
  Again, this amendment will not stop innocent people from winding up 
on death row or even being executed. It will, however, offer another 
check, another way for us to say hold on, we better be certainly sure 
that a person committed an offense before we sentence him or her to 
death, at least in cases arising from violations of this particular 
statute.
  This extra safeguard, I think, is certainly desirable, in light of 
the consequences. When you vote on this amendment, remember that since 
1976, 66 inmates have been freed from death row based on strong 
evidence of their innocence. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I equally and strongly oppose this amendment, as I did 
the one before this offered by the gentleman from Michigan. The 
amendment, while clear in its nature, is one which effectively destroys 
the death penalty provisions in this bill and sets a different course 
for the consideration of whether to impose the death penalty or not 
from any other law of this Nation that I am aware of, either State or 
Federal.
  What it does effectively is to say that you have to completely remove 
all doubt before you impose a death penalty. It is given as a 
mitigating factor, which sounds innocent enough, but what happens in a 
criminal trial when you get to the sentencing phase on the death 
penalty under Federal law is that under the Supreme Court ruling and 
under the legislation that has been established since the court several 
years ago overturned the death penalty as unconstitutional, there has 
been a way to reestablish it, and that way involves a weighing of 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are put forward for 
consideration with regard to the death penalty.
  There is very precise statutory language constructs in Federal law 
with regard to this. There are listings of what those aggravating 
factors are and what those mitigating factors might be, and here is 
what you produce to the jury or to the deciding court.
  In this particular case, what the gentleman from Virginia is trying 
to do is to suggest that the burden gets a lot higher for the 
prosecution seeking the

[[Page H608]]

death penalty in a witness intimidation murder case; again, one of 
those cases which I think is the most heinous of all crimes, where you 
are intimidating a witness and trying to prevent him or her from being 
able to testify to get a conviction in a major gang-related case or an 
organized crime or otherwise case.
  Well, gosh knows, when that situation occurs, murdering the witness 
is the strongest form possible of intimidation. Not only does it 
intimidate, obviously eliminating that witness altogether, but it 
intimidates other witnesses, which is what this legislation is all 
about, by sending an extraordinarily strong message. We are trying to 
send one equally strong or stronger back that says look, if you go 
across a state line and kill a witness, you are going to get the death 
penalty for doing that.
  Well, what is happening here though is because under the gentleman 
from Virginia's construct, you would add another mitigating factor that 
says to whoever is deciding this, before you can give the death penalty 
after the conviction has occurred of killing a witness in an 
intimidation across the state line matter, you have got to have removed 
completely all doubt. It does not say just all doubt, it says 
completely remove all doubt of the defendant's guilt.
  Let me tell you, there are example after example where somebody could 
interject some spurious, rather simplistic type of evidence, that would 
allow some doubt to exist. I think some doubt exists in lots and lots 
of cases where the death penalty is imposed.
  For example, you can have a whole stack of evidence over here of the 
crime and that somebody did it, but you can have a single witness come 
in and say gee, Sam is my best friend and he was with me drinking last 
night.
  Does that create reasonable doubt, when you have got all this other 
evidence outweighing it on the other side in the guilt or innocence or 
sentencing phase? The answer is no, it does not create reasonable 
doubt. But if it is a jury instruction or an instruction under the law 
to the court on the death penalty, it could create some doubt, however 
tiny, however small that is, which would effectively mean that in 
virtually any case, anybody could drum up somebody to walk in and give 
an alibi, even though there is overwhelming evidence they committed the 
heinous crime for which they are getting the death penalty or might get 
the death penalty. Then you would not be able to say, a decider of the 
death penalty, the sentence, could not say that all doubt had been 
completely removed, which is what is required by the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  So the bottom line is, the gentleman's amendment is just as 
pernicious as the previous one. It effectively eliminates the death 
penalty for those who would commit the crimes for which it is intended 
that they receive the death penalty in witness intimidation, witness 
murder, in this bill that is before us today.
  I urge strongly the defeat of this amendment. It is a killer 
amendment in the true sense of the word, in that it eliminates the 
death penalty teeth of this bill, and it needs to be defeated.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just submit to my colleagues that what would be 
pernicious is not the provisions of this amendment. What would be 
pernicious is if our country put somebody to death, and then found that 
what they were being put to death for was untrue. And that has been 
happening more and more recently with the advent of new technological 
advances, such as the advances in DNA research. We are able now to go 
back 20 or 30 years and find out that people have in fact been put to 
death by our country, by our system of criminal justice, for a crime 
that they did not commit. That is what is pernicious.
  This amendment has nothing to do with the burden of proof. The burden 
of proof is whether you are guilty or innocent. In our system of 
justice, that burden of proof is, in a criminal case, beyond a 
reasonable doubt.
  This amendment goes to what is considered after there has been a 
determination of guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It goes 
to what you consider in determining whether there is a death penalty 
assessed, whether you put somebody to death.
  So this is not about the burden of proof on guilt or innocence; this 
is about what you consider in deciding whether someone should be put to 
death by our criminal justice system.
  Simply put, the amendment says if there is one iota of doubt, if 
there is any doubt about it, the jury which is considering whether to 
put a person to death or not ought to be able to take that into 
account. That is all it says.
  I submit that is a very reasonable proposition. The notion that we 
are doing something un-American by trying to remove any doubt before we 
use the official forces of the government to put a citizen to death is 
surprising to me.
  I think this amendment is imminently reasonable. I encourage my 
colleagues to support it. It is not pernicious, it is just plain good 
sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II of the bill?
  There being no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Lazio of New York) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snowbarger, 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. 
2181) to ensure the safety of witnesses and to promote notification of 
the interstate relocation of witnesses by States and localities 
engaging in that relocation, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 366, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 366, 
nays 49, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               YEAS--366

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)

[[Page H609]]


     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--49

     Barrett (WI)
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Furse
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Jackson (IL)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Scott
     Serrano
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weygand
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kucinich
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brown (FL)
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Klink
     Luther
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Nadler
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Sanchez
     Schiff

                              {time}  1446

  Mr. McGOVERN and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________