[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
{time} 1620
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4092, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 401 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 401
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 further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent
crime. No further general debate shall be in order. The bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule
and shall be considered as read. Except as provided in
section 2 of this resolution, no amendment shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed in the
report may be offered only in the order printed, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments
printed in the report are waived. If more than one of the
following amendments printed in part 1 of the report relating
to habeas corpus is adopted, only the last to be adopted
shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the
House: by Representative Hyde of Illinois; and by
Representative Derrick of South Carolina.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part 2
of the report of the Committee on Rules or germane
modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc
offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read
(except that modifications shall be reported), shall be
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the purpose
of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed
in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form
of a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally
proposed to be stricken. All points of order against such
amendments en bloc are waived. The original proponent of an
amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a
statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the
disposition of the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 3. 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 made in order by this resolution. The chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five
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 be not less than 15 minutes.
Sec. 4. 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 finally 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.
Sec. 5. After passage of H.R. 4092, it shall be in order to
take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 3355, with a
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider the Senate
amendment in the House. It shall be in order to move to
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment inserting
the text of H.R. 4092 as passed by the House in lieu of the
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate. All points of
order against that motion are waived. If the motion is
adopted, then it shall be in order to move that the House
insist on its amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3355
and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 401 provides for further
consideration of H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed
in the report to accompany the rule. The amendments shall be considered
in the order and manner specified in the report and shall be considered
as read. The amendments are not subject to amendment, except as
specified in the report, and are not subject to a demand for a division
of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the
amendments printed in the report.
The rule provides that if more than one of the following amendments
relating to the subject of habeas corpus is adopted, only the last
adopted will be reported to the House: the amendment by Representative
Hyde of Illinois and the amendment by Representative Derrick of South
Carolina.
Under the rule, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee may at any
time offer amendments en bloc consisting of the amendments printed in
part 2 of the report with germane modifications. The amendments en bloc
are debatable for 10 minutes and are not subject to amendment nor a
demand for a division of the question. All points of order are waived
against the amendments en bloc. The original proponents of the
amendments are permitted to submit statements for the Congressional
Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is permitted to postpone
consideration of a request for a recorded vote and to reduce to 5
minutes the time for voting after the first of a series of votes. The
rule provides one motion to recommit.
Finally, if the House passes H.R. 4092, the rule provides for a hook
up with a companion, H.R. 3355, with a Senate amendment. The rule makes
it in order to take H.R. 3355 with the Senate amendment from the
Speaker's table and to consider the Senate amendment in the House. The
rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an
amendment inserting, in lieu of the proposed Senate matter, the text of
H.R. 4092 as passed by the House. All points of order are waived
against the motion. If the motion is adopted, the rule makes in order a
motion that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate amendment
and request a conference.
Mr. Speaker, today crime is no longer a problem faced only by big
cities. Fear of crime is prevalent in communities both large and small
throughout our Nation. In my district, crime terrorizes what was once
peaceful and safe. The rule before us today will allow the House to
further consider H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act.
Mr. Speaker, in the State of the Union Address, the President urged
Congress to set aside partisan differences and to pass a strong, smart,
tough crime bill. In response to this call, the House has before it
today a far-reaching bill that does exactly that.
H.R. 4092 will help our Nation to move toward a future free from
crime and violence through a commitment of resources unprecedented in
the history of the House of Representatives.
The bill authorizes over $15 billion in funding to address the crime
problem on a number of different fronts. The bill provides $3.45
billion in Federal grants that will place 50,000 more cops on the beat
and provides $3 billion to assure adequate prison space and help States
to build new prisons for the incarceration of violent repeat offenders.
The bill also focuses on crime prevention and authorizes $7 billion
for community programs intended to prevent crime and targets $525
million for programs providing employment opportunities for young
adults in areas with high-crime and high-unemployment rates. The bill
authorizes $100 million to reduce gang activities and the use of
illegal drugs by juveniles and authorizes $20 million for programs in
which law enforcement and child and family services agencies work
together to deal with incidents of violence involving juveniles and
children. The bill authorizes $7 million to prevent crime against older
Americans.
H.R. 4092 sends a message to criminals through stiffer penalties that
crime does not pay. The bill expands the Federal death penalty by more
than 60 offenses, including drive-by shooting, the murder of a police
officer, drug trafficking, and kidnapping. The bill incorporates the
``three strikes and you're out'' legislation and mandates life
imprisonment for a conviction of a Federal violent felony if the
defendant previously was convicted of two serious Federal or State drug
offenses or violent offenses with a potential sentence of 10 years. It
also provides that juveniles 13 years or older could be tried as adults
for certain violent Federal crimes.
The bill overhauls the rules for death row inmates who have exhausted
the State appeals process by allowing one Federal appeal within 1 year
of the final State decision. This will end the abuse of the appeals
system which allows death row inmates to file seemingly endless
appeals. The bill also requires States to provide defendants with
competent lawyers to help ensure that criminals will not be let out of
jail due to a technicality or mistake made by the trial court.
The bill further includes the use of ``bootcamps'' for youthful
first-time offenders. The bill provides $200 million for States to
develop new programs to ensure the punishment of youthful offenders,
who might otherwise be placed on probation. These grants can be used
for alternative punishment such as bootcamps which would teach troubled
youngsters the value of hard work and instill discipline.
Finally, H.R. 4092 also addresses the problem of violence against
women and provides grants to State and local governments for programs
to reduce violence against women and punishes those who commit crimes
against women. The bill establishes new Federal crimes of interstate
domestic violence, stalking, and establishes a National Task Force on
Violence Against Women.
Mr. Speaker, far too many of us no longer feel safe in our own
neighborhoods. Violent crime is on the rise across our Nation and the
time has come to take back our cities and streets from the criminals
and to ensure all Americans the freedom to live and work in safety.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 401 is a fair rule that provides for
further consideration of this wide-reaching crime bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, as you might expect, I rise in opposition to
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, in Singapore they cane you for vandalizing cars. In
America, the voters should cane the Committee on Rules for vandalizing
the legislative process.
By unfairly imprisoning a number of good perfecting Republican
amendments, the Democratic majority has weakened what could have been a
very tough crime bill. By using the king-of-the-hill procedure, the
Committee on Rules allows weak, liberal amendments to impersonate tough
anticrime amendments.
In almost every section of this bill, we see a tough Republican
amendment that is destined to be weakened by a following Democratic
amendment. From death penalty procedures to truth in sentencing, the
Committee on Rules has copped a plea and gotten away with impersonating
an anticrime crusade.
Ironically, the other body was allowed to reflect the people's will.
They passed a tough crime bill that addresses everyday concerns. Here
in the people's House, the people's will may be subverted, unless we
defeat this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen accounts in the press indicating that we
Republicans are bent on obstructing this process through diversionary
tactics and delaying tactics, and all the rest. I will tell you, when
you are in the minority and you have to fight for time and an
opportunity to open up the process, we have to use all the mechanisms
that are at our command.
I would hope, and we have admonished our Members, that as we go
through this process, whether it be in consideration of the rule or
consideration of the bill, that those on our side who have served with
such distinction on the Committee on the Judiciary, who have
significant amendments to offer, know the subject well, in and out, in
their 5 minutes of time try to clearly and precisely differentiate what
we are proposing versus what the other side is proposing. And there is
a difference, a meaningful difference, not in the name of obstruction,
but simply by way of eventually giving the American people the kind of
product they have been demanding.
So I would hope as this debate unfolds that there will be clear
attention given to those clean lines of demarcation on what these very
complicated amendments mean. It takes the attention of the House, the
complete attention of the House, to discern those differences.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a no vote on this rule, that we might
come up with one that would certainly open up the process and provide
the opportunity to express the people's will.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, it may be instructive to remember a little recent
history. When the cry and hue went out for an ``instant crime bill'' a
few months ago, the other body responded by bypassing the relevant
subcommittees and full committee and proceeding willy-nilly to the
floor. The 960-page product of rushing to legislative judgment without
the benefit of careful committee deliberation is now laid out clearly
for all to see. Moreover, the procedural pattern for considering that
bill was to allow all nature of amendments--however frivolous--into the
debate and, not surprisingly, into the final result.
Well, this committee and this body chose a different way to proceed.
Our committee spent difficult yet productive time in having numerous
hearings, developing draft after draft of provisions to better achieve
the goals of punishment and prevention with the least burdensome
results on the Federal and State governments involved. This effort
culminated in H.R. 4092, a combination of 24 separate bills which
either passed the House last fall or were reported by the Judiciary
Committee last month.
{time} 1640
The committee reports on this body of work constitute a stack about
that deep, about 2 inches. These are the committee reports on every
single one of the bills included within this 4092, despite what the
Members might have heard from misinformed individuals.
There have been some who have decried this deliberative process--who
have claimed that we should act without deliberation and now would want
to endlessly debate amendments for the next 2 or 3 months. Perhaps--
also in their thinking--is the idea that such a process will permit
this bill to fall by its own weight.
I reject that approach. And I believe the Rules Committee has been
eminently fair and eminently prudent in laying out the procedure and
the amendments made in order. Major amendments in every plank of the
bill have been made in order--death penalty, death penalty procedures,
new prisons, habeas corpus, and ``three strikes you're out.'' The
noncontroversial amendments--numbering 31 in all--will be gathered
together in the form of an en bloc amendment which I intend to offer
today. They were not chosen based on party affiliation or identity of
the sponsor but rather were based on the subject matter addressed. The
en bloc amendment will be followed by some 30 to 35 other substantive
amendments addressing diverse aspects of the bill.
It is time to move forward. The committee has done its job and
subcommittee Chairmen Edwards, Hughes, and Schumer should be commended,
together with subcommittee Ranking Members Hyde, Moorhead, and
Sensenbrenner.
For those who had a 20-point agenda, of which only 15 points were
achieved by the rule, I am sorry, but we cannot accommodate 20-point
agendas from 435 Members, from the left and the right, from Democrats
and Republicans. I personally believe the omnibus legislation before
Members will set a prototype for how to fashion crime legislation into
the next century by breaking through the rigid mold that has
characterized crime efforts of the past two decades. It is hardnosed
about punishment, yet forward-looking in seeking to prevent a whole new
generation of young people from going down the wrong road. We can do no
less.
The rule is a good one; vote for it and let us get on with the
business of passing the best crime bill to come down the pike in many
years.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, Americans are fed up with criminals and crime. They want
tougher crime laws, better enforcement, and more consistent, meaningful
punishment. Most know that the Federal Government cannot solve this
problem on its own, State and local enforcement and court actions play
a major role. But many issues are Federal; regrettably, not all those
issues are covered in the bill before us, despite this timely
opportunity to include them.
Crucial proposals to improve this bill and make America safer were
shut out by the Rules Committee majority--20 of them on tie votes. We
heard from more than 100 members on 180 different amendments in a
bipartisan good faith effort to make this bill better. Skeptics and
White House spin doctors suggest that those of us seeking broader
debate are trying to block passage of a crime bill. Wrong. We want a
crime bill--a good crime bill. We are not being obstructionist--we are
trying to be deliberative. I agree that we should proceed with dispatch
which we are, but I vehemently disagree with the President's
irresponsible statement that amendments proposed to this bill--by
Democrats and Republicans--are, in his words, ``frivolous or
political.'' He seems to harbor some type of a conviction that any
proposal differing from his own personal view is ``frivolous'' and
``political.'' I refer to his personal view--because we still do not
have his bill. There is no Clinton crime bill.
But one way or other, we will pass a crime bill within the next few
weeks. I hope it will be with broad bipartisan support but the question
is, will it be a bill that fulfills the challenge of fighting crime? Or
will it be a missed opportunity to do the right thing? This is not
about which party scores quick political points. This is not about
another White House photo opportunity. This is about making America's
streets, schools, communities, and homes safe once again. I am urging a
``no'' vote on this rule, but I do not ask a party-line vote. Crime is
not a partisan matter. I urge a ``no'' vote because a better rule will
give us a better bill to deliver to the President and to the American
people. The President has put us on notice that he will sign the crime
bill ``in less than a minute''. That being the case shouldn't we take
the extra time here on the Hill to get it right. Unintended negative
consequences are so often the legacy of short circuiting the full
deliberative legislative process.
Vote ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information on rollcall votes
in the Committee on Rules on amendments to the proposed rule on H.R.
4092:
Roll Call Votes in Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed Rule
on H.R. 4092 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
Open Rule: This amendment to the proposed rule provides for
a two-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4092, The
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat.
Modified King-of-Hill: Strike existing king-of-hill
language where it appears and substitute language providing
that, ``if more than one amendment is adopted, the amendment
adopted receiving the most favorable votes shall be
considered as finally adopted and reported back to the
House.''
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
6. Sensenbrenner: Strike Subtitle I of Title X--Local
Partnership Act.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat.
170. McCollum: Transfers half the funding for Title X
(Crime Prevention and Community Justice) to Title VI, Violent
Repeat Offender Incarceration.
Vote (Defeated 4-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat, Gordon,
Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior.
171. McCollum: Bars exclusion in Federal proceedings of
evidence obtained in circumstances justifying an objectively
reasonable belief that a search and seizure was in conformity
with the fourth amendment.
Vote (Defeated 3-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter.
Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Gross.
172. McCollum: Amends Title III and makes serious violent
assault felonies against victims either less than 18 years
old or 64 years old or older punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment twice that authorized without regard to this
section.
Vote (Defeated 4-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat, Gordon,
Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior.
180. McCollum: Amends Title V, Mandatory Life Imprisonment
for Persons Convicted of Certain Felonies, to provide
mandatory prison terms for use, possession or carrying of a
firearm or destructive device during a serious violent felony
or serious drug trafficking offense for which the person may
be prosecuted in a court of any state.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat.
160. Smith (TX): Establishes a Criminal Alien Tracking
Center to help identify, incarcerate and deport criminal
aliens; requires registration of aliens on criminal probation
or parole; increases funding for INS investigators;
establishes expedited deportation procedures for certain
criminal aliens; expands definition of ``aggravated'' felony
to include trafficking in explosives, child pornography,
spying and other specified activities; increases penalties
for failure to depart or reentering after final order to
depart; provides wiretap authority for aline smuggling
investigations; and increases criminal penalties for passport
and visa document fraud.
Vote (Defeated 4-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon,
Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Wheat.
177. Gingrich: Creates violent crime reduction trust fund
financed with reductions in federal employees (similar to
Senate language); requires that 90% of the funds be used for
prison construction grants to states that have enacted truth-
in-sentencing laws.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
42. Zimmer: Doubles the maximum imprisonment and fine for
any offense if the adult offender (over 18 years old) uses a
child to commit the crime or to assist in avoiding
apprehension. After a previous conviction for this offense,
the maximum imprisonment and fine are tripled.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
134. Hutchinson: Provides penalties for the following
offenses when committed within a federal jurisdiction: the
intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary
manslaughter, assault or aggravated assault of a child before
birth.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
24. Burton: Provides the death penalty or life imprisonment
without parole, probation or suspension for trafficking in
those drugs specified in the amendment by amounts specified
in the amendment.
26. Burton: Sense of Congress that criminal background
checks should be performed for all prospective employees or
volunteers of state-license or tax-funded organization that
interact with children.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
25. Burton: Provides death penalty for murders committed
during a sexual assault.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
82. Canady/Geren: Requires states applying for grants under
the Violent Repeat Offender Incarceration Act to include in
their application to the AG assurances that they have
established a system to prosecute juveniles who are 14 years
or older and charged with violent crimes as adults. Requires
states to keep records of these crimes for use in future
proceedings.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Gordon.
9. Castle: Restricts the sale and donation of excess
firearms owned or held by federal agencies and codifies GSA
regulations restricting such transactions.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Gordon.
15. Clinger: Expands Title III--which increases penalties
for assaulting children--to include the elderly.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss,
Nays--Moakley, Frost Bonior, Hall, Wheat. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Gordon, Slaughter.
2. Cunningham: Exempts current and former law enforcement
officers from state laws that prohibit the carrying of
concealed firearms.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat. Not
Voting: Derrick, Gordon, Slaughter.
14. Doolittle: Denies federal benefits, including social
security and welfare payments, to individuals convicted of
crimes of violence.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting:
Derrick, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
65. Doolittle: Provides the punishment of life imprisonment
after three violent felony convictions. Does not require that
the convictions arise from separate episodes.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting:
Derrick, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
46. Dornan: Adds the requirement of a ``profit-seeking
purpose'' to the definition of ``pattern of racketeering
activity'' under RICO Act.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting:
Derrick, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
136. Dunn/Deal: Encourages states to establish registration
and tracking procedures and community notification with
respect to released sexually violent predators, including
convicted stalkers.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick,
Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
86. Franks (NJ): Creates new title, ``Penalties for Repeat
Sex Offenders'', to increase penalties for repeat sex
offenders. Makes second offenses punishable by not less than
five years and not more than three times the maximum sentence
otherwise applicable. A third offense would be punishable by
mandatory life imprisonment.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick,
Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
87. Franks (NJ): Requires federal prisoners to obtain
General Equivalency Degree (GED) before being eligible for
early release from prison.
Vote (Adopted Voice Vote).
140. Gekas: Clarifies loophole in drive-by murder provision
by including defendants who immediately exit and remain close
to a motor vehicle.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Quillen, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter, Solomon.
137. Goodling: Increases penalties for individuals
possessing a firearm while committing a misdemeanor drug
crime (such as simple possession), and makes it unlawful for
anyone using a firearm during a misdemeanor drug crime to
possess a firearm for 5 years conviction.
83. Goodling: Strikes Title X, subtitle J, the Youth
Employment and Skills Crime Prevention Program in its
entirety, as it is duplicative of programs for disadvantaged
youth under Title II-C of the Job Training Partnership Act,
and the Youth Fair Chance Program established under Title IV,
Part H of the Job Training Partnership Act.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Quillen, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter, Solomon.
152. Hefley: Makes grants conditional upon a state or
multi-state compact having a policy that calls for and
assures that those who have been convicted of a violent
felony serve at least 85% of their sentence.
153. Hefley: Amends Title 18, U.S. Code to cap
``satisfactory behavior'' time credit for prisoners at 36
days. Currently, the cap is 54 days each year.
154. Hefley: Prohibits payment of Social Security or
veterans' benefits to those confined by court order in
connection with verdicts of ``not guilty by reason of
insanity'' or similar verdicts.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat.
45. Klug: Prohibits possession of a firearm at or near a
day care center or a community center.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat.
71. Kyl: Provides for pretrial detention in serious sex
offense cases; increases penalties for repeat sex offenders,
repeat child abusers, and for drug distribution to pregnant
women; increases sentencing guidelines for sex offenses;
requires HIV testing for defendants in federal sex offense
case; authorizes courts to enforce restitution orders by
suspending federal benefits for offenders who refuse to
comply with restitution obligations; protects the victim's
right to impartial jury by equalizing the number of
peremptory challenges accorded the defense and the
prosecution in felony cases; allows for evidence of similar
crimes in sex offense cases; and provides for right of victim
to fair treatment in legal proceedings.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat, Goss.
38. Levy: Penalizes those who transport firearms across
state lines or international borders with the knowledge they
will be used to kill, injure or intimidate; provides life in
prison or death penalty if weapon is actually used in a
violent crimes.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat, Quillen.
88. Manzullo: Designates police and fire chaplains as
public safety officers thereby making them eligible for
federal death and injury benefits.
Vote (Adopted Voice Vote).
169. McCollum: Strikes half the funding authorized for
Title X, Crime Prevention and Community Justice.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
166. McCollum: Amends Title VI--Violent Repeat Offender
Incarceration, increases the funding authorization from $600
million to $1.485 billion for each of the fiscal years 1994-
1998.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
91. Molinari: Provides for death and disability benefits
for retired public safety officers who die or are permanently
injured and totally disabled as a result of injuries while
responding to a fire, rescue, or police emergency.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
92. Molinari: Changes Federal Rules of Evidence by
providing for the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes
in sexual assault cases and child molestation cases.
Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
5. Oxley: Requires criminals convicted of federal crimes to
make restitution to their victims.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
29. Packard: Gives federal law enforcement officials access
to legalization immigration files for the purpose of a
criminal investigation.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
178. Pryce: Requires Federal Bureau of Prisons to prevent
prisoners from strength-training or improving their fighting
ability and to remove all equipment designed for those
purposes.
Vote (Adopted Voice Vote).
21. Quinn: Requires a federal permit for all purchases of
explosives and requires a photograph and a set of
fingerprints to accompany the application.
Vote (Defeated Voice Vote).
141. Schiff: Extends U.S. jurisdiction to crimes committed
overseas by civilian employees of the military or their
dependents if those acts would be federal crimes if committed
in the U.S.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
142. Schiff: Adds the commission of robbery as qualifying
for one of the first two strikes under the three strikes
provision.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
143. Schiff: Adds ``Battery while armed with a deadly
weapon or resulting in serious bodily injury'' to the list of
specified violent felonies under the bill.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
144. Schiff: Changes the mandatory life imprisonment for
persons convicted of certain felonies from ``three strikes''
to ``two strikes.''
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter, Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
146. Schiff: Adds to the three strikes provisions--
mandatory life for the conviction of two serial violent
felonies.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
95. Smith (MI): Alters requirements for federal grants to
correctional facilities for diversional programs.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
50. Solomon: Expresses the Sense of Congress that no
federal department or agency should study or finance research
involving the legalization of drugs.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
51. Solomon: Strikes title II of the bill, maintaining
current sentencing for those involved in serious drug
offenses.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
75. Stearns: Creates a new title, ``Carrying of Concealed
Handguns'', to allow, notwithstanding any provision of the
state law, the carrying of a concealed weapon if the
individual is 21 years of age, has no felony convictions or
history of mental illness, and has completed successfully a
handgun safety course offered by the state.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
122 Stearns: Expresses Sense of Congress that the
Constitution provides all citizens the right to keep and bear
arms.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
84. Vucanovich: Allows and grants made under subsection (b)
of Section 2001 to be used for programs, projects and other
activities to provide for overtime costs, training, the
purchase and maintenance of vehicles and equipment,
technology and civilian support staff.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
113. Weldon: Provides state and local authorities $30
million in matching funds from the Crime Prevention Trust
Fund for gun buy-back programs.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
128. Wolf: Provides for pilot programs, conducted by the
Federal Prison Industries (FPI), to test the feasibility of
teaming private U.S. firms with FPI to produce goods
currently made offshore to the meet the need for increased
employment of federal prisoners.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
40. Zimmer: Requires mandatory minimum five-year prison
term for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, a fugitive from justice, a drug addict or illegal drug
user, or one who transfers or receives stolen firearms,
without possibility of parole, suspended or concurrent
sentence. Doubles penalties for certain violations of
firearms law and increases penalties for use or possession of
a firearm in the commission of a violent crime or drug
trafficking.
Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
41. Zimmer: Limits remedies available in district court for
a successful challenge to the constitutionality of conditions
of confinement, specifically denying the court jurisdiction
to impose population ceilings, adjust release dates, or
prohibit use of tents or prefabricated housing structures.
Requires consent decrees regarding conditions of confinement
also to provide only narrowly tailored relief.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
55. DeLauro: Authorizes special grants to states that enact
laws to revoke the driver's license of anyone who brings a
handgun into an elementary or secondary school zone, that the
revocation is immediate and automatic upon receipt of
notification from a principal or equivalent official, and
that the revocation is for five years on the first offense
and ten years for each further offense.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
8. Harman: Denies felons convicted of violent drug-related
crimes the right to appeal to BATF for the right to own
firearms.
Vote. (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
123. Orton: Creates a new category of federal prosecution
against ``child abuse and endangerment: for inflicting
serious physical injury on a minor or permitting another to
inflict such injury on a minor under one's care or custody.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Frost, Gordon.
12. Reynolds: Adds a new title that bans 175 specifically
named semi-automatic weapons.
Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Frost, Gordon.
17. Traficant: Requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to
give 30 days prior notice to all interested parties who were
instrumental in convicting a federal prisoner that he or she
is being released.
18. Traficant: Allows a sentencing judge the flexibility to
give non-violent offenders alternatives to imprisonment.
Provides that non-violent offenders must pay to have their
photos in local newspapers.
20. Traficant: Provides penalties of not more than $100,000
to anyone who intentionally affixes a fraudulent ``Made in
America'' label to any product that is purchased with funds
authorized under H.R. 4092.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting:
Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon.
78. Waters: Creates new title, ``Voting Rights for Former
Offenders'', to provide that the voting rights of a U.S.
citizen, who otherwise is qualified to vote in any election
for federal office, shall not be denied or abridged because
he or she has comitted a criminal offense.
Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not
Voting: Derrick, Frost, Wheat, Gordon.
Adoption of Rule--
Vote (Adopted 6-4): Yeas--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall,
Wheat, Slaughter; Nays--Solomon Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Not
Voting: Derrick, Frost, Gordon.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 59 12 20 47 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Apr. 12, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
Act. 1994).
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994..... MC H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce 3 (D-2; R-1).... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).
Restructuring.
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994.... MO H.R. 6: Improving America's NA.............. NA........................ A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).
Schools.
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994..... MC H. Con. Res. 218: Budget 14 (D-5; R-9)... 5 (D-3; R-2).............. A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).
Resolution FY 1995-99.
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994.... MO H.R. 4092: Violent Crime 180 (D-98; R-82) 68 (D-47; R-21)........... .................................
Control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a profound remark: Two plus two equals
four. In other words, there is a logical and rational process called
cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every
action causes an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as
controversial as that statement may be.
A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fields--it is likely that
the crop will fail.
A company neglects to invest in research and development--it is
likely that the company will not be profitable.
In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which
oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its
population--which leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed,
uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect,
create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent,
and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and
it is the case in countries throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in
America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood
poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our
children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members
think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk
about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11
times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our
kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as
many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap
between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty
continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some
relationship to crime?
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people
in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and
sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order
to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the
neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of
priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future
of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.
{time} 1650
And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison
more people per capita than any other country, and all of the
executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can
either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs,
rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.
Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one
of hate and vengeance.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the previous speaker that
yes, two plus two equals four.
Fact: Why are liberals for this bill and why are conservatives
against it? No question about it, this bill in its present form coddles
criminals and makes it tough on law enforcement officials.
Mr. Speaker, the frustration caused by the arrogant Democrat
leadership around here would be almost unbearable to me, who has been
here for 16 years, were it not for the fact that elections are less
than 6 months down the road, and boy, are things going to change.
Mr. Speaker, 104 Members took the time to draft and submit and to
testify on some 180 amendments before our Committee on Rules on this
crime bill. We took 12 hours of testimony from these 104 Members. In
addition, yesterday we put in another 4 hours up in the Rules Committee
just marking up this rule.
Now 46 Republicans on this side and 45 Democrats on that side are
being denied their constitutional rights, your constitutional rights to
represent the 600,000 people back home. That is 25 percent of this body
being shut out of the legislative process, 45 Democrats and 46
Republicans who are the victims of this drive-by procedural mugging.
That is right, Members are being mugged.
This rule denying your amendments is almost identical to the gag rule
the Democrat leadership tried to foist on us just before recess 2 weeks
ago when we voiced our strong opposition on this floor and the press
was here watching it. The Democrats pulled the bill. Why? And then
Majority Leader Gephardt convened a meeting the next day with me, and
with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our Republican whip,
and with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], our leader on this
bill. And we sat down and we talked about it. We came away from that
meeting with a clear impression that a much fairer and a much more
bipartisan rule so that you 45 Democrats could be recognized would come
out of that Rules Committee. And we were told that we would be engaged
in a meeting during this 2-week process.
I canceled a trip to Korea on a trade mission to try to bring jobs to
my district because of a pending meeting that we could sit down and
negotiate a fair rule. No meeting ever took place, and this restrictive
rule guaranteeing the outcome before a single vote is taken is being
jammed down our throats today.
And Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the President of the United
States of America had the audacity on Monday to use the Justice
Department auditorium steps as a TV studio to make a partisan attack on
this crime issue. He said we should not waste our time with frivolous
or political amendments.
That is an insult to every Member of this body. I for one deeply
resent the President attempting to dictate to this Congress what
amendments are and are not appropriate on this floor.
Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is the same President who has
not even bothered to send his own crime bill to this Congress 15 months
later. And yet he has the gall to tell us how to write our crime bill.
And keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that he dares to charge us, the
Republicans, with delay when we introduced our tough crime bill 8
months ago in August, and it is still languishing someplace. Nobody can
find it.
Mr. Speaker, what kind of frivolous and political amendments are the
Republicans being denied? The Smith of Texas amendment establishes a
criminal alien tracking center. Is that frivolous? Is that nongermane?
The Gingrich violent crime trust fund to fund more prisons, is that
political? The President of the United States asked for that, and it is
not in this bill, and we cannot offer the amendment. Is that political,
Mr. President, wherever you are?
Is the McCollum amendment to shift more money from prevention
programs to building more prisons, is that frivolous, Mr. President? Of
course not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The Chair will advise the
gentleman that he may not address the President directly, and the Chair
would call that to the attention of the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for calling that to my
attention. I seem to have forgotten it.
Is this Solomon-Hayes bipartisan amendment to restore current minimum
sentencing, and listen to this, America, for serious drug offenders,
sentences which are stricken by the bill, is that frivolous? I guess it
is if Members think recent dramatic increases in drug trafficking, drug
abuse and drug-related crimes is frivolous. My constituents do not
think so.
Neither do the kids over in Baltimore who were just caught in the
fifth grade selling cocaine.
Who sold it to them? They ought to go to jail with a minimum
sentence, and we are repealing it in this bill. And I cannot offer the
amendment to stop it.
Mr. Speaker, the people are mad as hell about the rising crime rate,
and they want to get though crime. They want to lock up these violent
repeat offenders, and they want to throw away the keys. I do not want
to let them out as this bill would do.
Mr. Speaker, by denying the Members their right to offer these
amendments that would make the crime bill tough on criminals and
helpful to law enforcement, the liberal Democrat leadership is
guaranteeing that the final bill will be a watered-down cop-out that
makes it easier on criminals and harder for law enforcement to
apprehend and convict these murderers who take the lives of law-abiding
citizens. And they are often your daughters and your wives and mine
too. And they let them go free. And that is wrong, and this bill is
going to do nothing to stop it.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and commend the Rules
Committee for this excellent rule, which has been crafted under the
most difficult of circumstances.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank President Clinton
for restoring the Byrne Memorial Fund Formula grants, which fund some
State and local law enforcement programs.
In northwest Indiana, the Byrne Memorial Formula grants fund the
activities of the Lake County Drug Task Force, which on the afternoon
of Tuesday, August 17, 1993, raided a home in Dyer, IN, and seized 176
pounds of cocaine with an estimated street value of $15 million.
On February 20, the Drug Task Force working in conjunction with other
local and Federal law enforcement agencies seized 3,100 pounds of
marijuana in Michigan.
The Clinton administration's action will make it possible for
successful programs like the Lake County Drug Task Force to continue to
compete for Federal dollars to get drugs off of our streets and put
criminals behind bars.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Levy].
(Mr. LEVY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, I recommended that this House adopt
legislation that would criminalize the interstate transportation of
firearms by persons knowing that the firearms would be used unlawfully.
As the crime bill approached the House floor, I proposed that my
firearms measure be incorporated into it through an amendment that the
Rules Committee is now refusing to allow.
I became interested in this subject after a lone gunman shot up a
commuter train in my district. When the shooting stopped six Long
Islanders were dead, many more were injured. The firearm used in the
crime was purchased legally in California by an angry young man who
waited 15 days to purchase the weapon as the law of California
requires.
The Brady bill was not in effect when this gun was purchased. Had it
been, it would have made no difference.
To my many friends who supported the Brady bill, let's admit today
that despite its passage, there will be cases--like the Long Island
Railroad massacre--in which handguns fall into the wrong hands. And it
is our obligation to punish those who use firearms in violent crimes.
So why won't we do that?
Mr. Speaker, it is a Federal crime to transport explosives across
State lines for the purpose of using them illegally. An alleged
criminal in upstate New York faces the death penalty under Federal law
because people died when they opened letter bombs that he made using
explosives purchased in Kentucky. Why should we treat firearms
differently?
In fact, Mr. Speaker, you can spend a year in jail under our law for
illegally transporting dentures in interstate commerce.
Think about that. If you and I left here today, bound for New York--
one of us with illegally made false teeth in his pocket and the other
with a gun--and the one with the gun used it in a homicide in New
York--the guy with the false teeth would have committed a Federal crime
but the murderer would not.
This is madness. Defeat the rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who has been
instrumental in this legislation.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today, make no mistake
about it, is a bill that if it passes in its present form would end the
death penalty in the United States. According to the prosecutors with
whom I have spoken, and I have spoken with a number, it is their
opinion that it is highly improbable that after this bill became law we
would ever have another death penalty carried out in the 36 or 37
States where the death penalty is currently available.
This bill has other deficiencies, but none is more glaring than that.
I will leave it to others to explain the details of it, but it is
fairly straightforward that you find in the habeas corpus provisions
where there are statements in this bill, as it is now written, which
would reverse the Supreme Court decision that says that once somebody
has gone on Death Row, and a new Supreme Court ruling comes down on
some technical matter not related to their original trial, but on a
criminal law matter, they may not go into Federal court and seek to
have their death penalty reviewed. However, if this bill became law,
that decision of the Supreme Court would be reversed. We would have the
months of delay every time there is a new Supreme Court ruling on a
criminal technical procedural matter as each Death Row inmate went back
into court and sought to have his matter reviewed.
{time} 1700
As a practical matter, the death penalties of this country would come
to a grinding halt.
The same thing is true with respect to the death penalty when it
comes to the so-called Racial Justice Act, where an inference of
discrimination is built in that prosecutors would have a very difficult
time overcoming, an inference of discrimination on the basis of
statistics where you say in a given jurisdiction a certain number of
those in minorities, racial minorities, are getting more death
penalties than whites are getting in a district as related to the total
population of the minority to the white population in that
jurisdiction.
Those kinds of roadblocks, those kinds of back-door problems are very
severe in this bill. The bill, therefore, is a bad bill. It is a bill
that is going backwards instead of forwards in solving the problems we
have with crime in this Nation, if you look at it from that
perspective. It is one of the reasons we are so concerned on our side
of the aisle when we are not allowed to offer amendments that would do
things to improve this bill.
Yes, we will have amendments to address those two particular problems
on the floor, and I hope my colleagues take them out of this bill and
erase them so we will have a bill at least that is not harmful,
although it certainly is a bill that, without the amendments that we
are being denied by the Committee on Rules, will not be wholly
adequate.
Secondly, there are no teeth in the prison grant program in this
bill. The No. 1 problem facing this Nation in crime is the revolving
door. Most of the crimes that are a concern to the American people are
violent repeat offenders who commit State crimes. Six percent of all
criminals commit about 70 to 80 percent of all violent crimes in this
country and are serving an average of less than one-third of their
sentences.
If we are going to provide money and, yes, we should provide money
for prisons, for States to build more prisons to house these violent
criminals, then we should provide some eligibility requirements to
insure that the States are going to change their laws to guarantee that
those who commit violent crimes and are repeat violent offenders serve
at least 85 percent of their sentences instead of getting out after
serving only a fraction.
We need to put deterrence back into our criminal laws again. Law
enforcement officials tell all of us regularly that criminals do talk
to each other, and there is a message system out there. Right now they
factor in the minimum amount of jail time they expect to serve as the
cost or price of doing business.
Until we put the message of deterrence back into our criminal system
and put swiftness and certainty of punishment into that system and
incarcerate those who commit these violent crimes for a long period of
time and throw away the keys, those 6 percent of the criminals, and
take them off the streets and more or less permanently, we cannot solve
the violent-crime crisis in this country.
What is also wrong with this bill is the fact that the priorities are
wrong. There are about $8 billion for prevention of root causes of
money being spent in one title of this bill, the fairly diverse shotgun
approach that is out there supposedly solving the underlying cause of
crime.
The problem we have with this bill, the underlying bill, in this
regard is very simple: All of us believe that we ought to be getting at
root causes at some point, but we have a problem like somebody who has
been run over by a truck, and you have a paramedic come on and he has
got big crush injuries, his arm is cut off, he is bleeding to death.
The paramedic's first problem is to stop the fellow from bleeding to
death and apply a tourniquet.
Our first problem is to take the violent criminals off the streets.
Root causes? Yes, we should be addressing them. When you only put $3
billion toward prisons and you put $8 billion toward root causes, we
have the cart before the horse, and it is very wrong.
We were not allowed amendments in this bill today for changing the
exclusionary rule to overcome the technical problems of allowing
evidence in in search-and-seizure cases. We do not have an opportunity
to offer the amendment that would address the criminal alien problem.
Twenty-five percent of the criminals in this country in prisons today
are aliens.
We have not been allowed to offer an amendment that would double the
sentences of those who commit crimes against children under 18 and
those over 64, or to double the time in jail for somebody who commits a
crime against a child, and we do not have the money for trust funds.
There are lots of things that are not in the bill. The bill is
inadequate, but it is also a bad bill. As I said earlier, if this bill
passes, we will never have another death penalty carried out in this
country. We need to correct that. We need to defeat this rule.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994. This is a bill that has been a long
time in the making. And it is a bill that helps answer the fears and
concerns of people all over this country--fears that crime is out of
control and that our communities are no longer our own.
In my district, I hear those fears expressed every day and I see the
harsh reality behind them. I talk to students--one of whom told her
teacher she could not take a test. Why? Because that morning on the way
to school she had seen someone shot in the head. Another student in my
district was recently shot and wounded and a third was arrested for a
shooting that took place at a mall in my hometown. Parents, seniors,
children--they have all come to me worried about the safety of those
they love and are asking us to take action. And that is what this bill
will do.
Compared with the previous crime-related measures that Congress has
considered, this crime bill distinguishes itself in several ways: It
represents the largest commitment the Federal Government has ever
pledged to the crime problem; it addresses the needs of victims; and it
strikes an appropriate balance between punishment and prevention.
This bill contains tough new punishments to deter crime and put
habitual criminals away. It will put repeat violent offenders away for
life upon conviction of a third offense; it will expand the list of
Federal offenses for which the death penalty can be imposed; and it
will allow for the prosecution of young offenders in Federal court as
adults for certain serious, violent offenses.
I am particularly pleased that the bill puts such a strong emphasis
on youth crime prevention, authorizing funding to assist at-risk youth
with after-school treatment and recreation programs in our most crime-
ridden cities. It also addresses one of the most tragic of violent
crimes--domestic violence.
In addition, it also recognizes the importance of coordinating the
efforts of law enforcement and social service organizations who are
dealing with the special problems associated with children and
violence, by authorizing the Police Partnership Act.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait any longer. We are familiar with the
startling national statistics on crime. We know that every 2 minutes
someone in the United States is shot. We know that every 17 seconds a
violent crime--a murder, rape, robbery, or assault--is reported. And we
know--some of us firsthand--that almost a third of all families in
America have had someone victimized by crime.
In Connecticut, gun-related deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds now
exceed all disease-related deaths combined. Last weekend in my hometown
of New Haven, three people were shot and one killed in gun-related
incidences--including one drive-by shooting. Elderly people in my
district talk about being repeatedly robbed and assaulted in their own
homes--the list of victims goes on and on.
We must take action now. We must deliver a meaningful crime bill to
the American people to restore their hope and to help bring peace to
our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on the
Omnibus Crime Control Act and pass this landmark legislation.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. King].
(Mr. KING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, when the Chinese freighter, the Golden Venture ran
aground off the coast of New York last June, it alerted the Nation to
the evil reality of human smuggling and slave trade.
Subsequent hearings by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus detailed
the network of Chinese gangs in New York who amass great fortunes by
trafficking in human cargo. Just last week, the press reported that
these New York gangs are now smuggling Chinese nationals into this
country through Virginia.
These gang lords amass great fortunes by charging $30,000 per
immigrant--or $6 to $9 million per ship--and then enslaving their human
cargoes in lives of narcotics, gambling, and prostitution.
Despite the best efforts of Federal and local law enforcement
officials, we are not winning the war against these gangs because, very
simply, our laws are incredibly weak. The average sentence for slave
trading is 18 months; the maximum fine is $5,000--not a bad cost of
doing business when the profit is up to $9 million per cargo.
Last July, I introduced the Alien Smuggling Prosecution Act,
cosponsored by Congressman Kennedy, to extend the RICO statute to human
smuggling and give the Government the weapons to break the backs of
these slave trade gangs. If RICO applies to the smuggling of tobacco,
it should certainly apply to the smuggling of human beings.
Mr. Smith included my bill in his crime package which was rejected by
the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith's legislation deserves full
debate and I urge, therefore, that the rule be defeated.
[From the New York Post, Apr. 6, 1994]
China ``Hostage'' Ship Gives Feds the Slip--183 Smuggled Into Grip of
Ruthless New York Gang
(By Larry Celona and Murray Weiss)
A freighter with 183 Chinese nationals hidden in its hull
has slipped into U.S. waters and delivered its human cargo
into the arms of violent New York gangs, The Post has
learned.
Heavily armed members of the Fuk Ching gang reportedly
shepherded the smuggled immigrants from the boat into trucks
with commando-like precision and drove them to ``safehouses''
in New York City and Baltimore, law-enforcement sources said.
Investigators believe the Fuk Ching is holding the
immigrants hostage and demanding a smuggling fee of $30,000
per person--or $6 million--from their relatives, the sources
said.
The sources said the FBI has joined the investigation. The
agency has had success in probing the Fuk Ching, which is
based in Chinatown and was responsible for the sensational
Golden Venture operation last June.
In that case, six immigrants died in choppy Jamaica Bay
when a freighter carrying 298 aliens from China's Fujian
province ran aground off Queens.
The tragedy brought to light the magnitude of the Chinese
smuggling trade here--and how the Fuk Ching gang ruthlessly
makes millions of dollars by keeping their ``hostages'' in
cramped safehouses in Brooklyn and Queens.
According to the sources, the freighter in the latest case
left mainland China four months ago--originating from the
Fujian province--with its human cargo hidden in squalid
conditions.
There were conflicting accounts about whether any federal
law-enforcement agency had been tracking the latest ship to
slip into the country.
After making its 11,000-mile trek, the freighter docked in
Virginia 10 to 14 days ago, rather than risk making its way
to New York.
Sources said the 183 aliens were met by machine gun-toting
Fuk Ching gang members, who herded them into rented trucks.
Several trucks were driven to Baltimore, where there is a
large Chinese population.
The FBI believes the rest were brought to Brooklyn and
Queens, where they have been frantically telephoning
relatives in the United States and China to raise money to
buy their freedom.
The Fuk Ching gang is known for keeping its captives
chained, freed only to work minimum 14-hour days in
restaurants controlled by the gang.
Nineteen Fuk Ching members--including gang leader Ah Kay--
were arrested in connection with the Golden Venture tragedy.
Since then, authorities said, the gang has increasingly
used ports in Virginia as docking points for its smuggling.
While drug smugglers face terms of life behind bars, those
convicted of smuggling people into the country face only five
years in prison.
Spokesmen for the FBI and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service declined comment.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee and the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, and my dear colleagues, it is a delight to
appear in combat, with a small ``C,'' with my friend from South
Carolina, the father of the October Surprise excursion which only cost
us $3.5 million, and I will say to the gentleman and produced zilch,
and I will say that the gentleman, when he gets his head in a
direction, he proceeds that way wherever it leads, and he has done a
similar benefit to the community in introducing a new habeas corpus
provision 2 days before we got to the floor for our big half-hour
debate on crime this year.
We talked about education for a month, but we got a half-hour on this
side to debate crime, out of the largesse of the Democrats' heart, and
I appreciate that.
But my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, who is skilled in
many fields, although he does not serve on the Committee on the
Judiciary, introduced his own habeas corpus bill, without hearings,
without consideration by the attorneys general of the States' attorneys
of this country, and it is the ``king of the hill'' provision that will
override my amendment when we do get to that.
Now, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick], who is, as I
say, a very skilled legal mind, talks about his habeas corpus proviso
attenuating, shortening the endless hearings that consume habeas corpus
appeals. What he does not tell you about is that even under his
amendment under this bill that the Democrats bring forward that is
tough on crime, when a man is accused of murder and cannot afford a
lawyer under this bill, the defense bar, not the court, must appoint
not one but two criminal lawyers who are very skilled in criminal law
and in the handling of psychiatric testimony.
{time} 1710
In other words, they have got to pick an Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence
Tribe or, if they are busy at the time, then they get Jerry Spence and
Melvin Belli.
Until those appointments are made and are functional, the statute of
limitations stops. It could go on for years and years and years. The
social spending that is near and dear to the hearts of the Democrats
makes up the bulk of this bill, something like $6.9 billion, and for
prison space, crumbs.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the prior speaker
that although my amendment was not before the Committee on the
Judiciary, a good lawyer is always available.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the rule, but I
believe, as we did with the education bill, that every Member's idea
should have been brought to the floor and debated and all amendments
should have been made in order.
But we are about to expand police in our country, and that is needed.
But I think we would be better off by having a few more parents.
We are going to build more jails, but I think we would be better off
with more parents.
We have more probation officers; we would be better off with more
parents.
We are going to have more courts and more judges, and I think America
would be better off with more parents.
Ladies and gentlemen, America is not safe. It is very simple; a crime
bill is not enough. We have got to change the tax laws and the trade
laws, and we need more parents and more jobs, and we are not getting
them.
But I want to talk about this crime bill with some specificity. In
China they have a new consumer protection law: If you are a worker and
you manufacture a faulty product, you can get a life sentence. That is
certainly excessive. They now have a law that deals with fraud; a
president of a company in China pulled off an illegal scheme on a bank
of $300,000, and he was executed. Certainly, that is excessive.
Now, we talked about the caning in Singapore. Caning is a whipping
across the buttocks. It is bloody; it is painful. That was for spray-
painting automobiles.
In America, if you spray-paint an automobile, in most cities you
would get a lecture and a fine.
Now, I am not saying that we should be caning people, but anyone in
Singapore who spray-paints an automobile or commits vandalism gets
caned, and here is all I know: There is very little crime in China and
there is very little, if any, crime in Singapore.
In America, it is Dodge City.
We have gone overboard coddling murderers, rapists, and the rights of
those creeps, while we are seeing tombstones pop up like mushrooms.
I am going to have a tough vote this year, a tough vote on that Hyde
amendment, because I think Henry Hyde's intentions are right. There are
going to be some tough votes in this House. But I will say this, that I
am glad the Committee on Rules put in the fraudulent-label law. I think
it is time for companies who import products and put American labels on
them, it is time for them to get hit in the pocketbook. I am concerned
about jobs and I am concerned about families.
I think we should change the Tax Code, change the trade laws, keep
families together, create jobs, and it will do more about crime in this
bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a distinguished member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
rule. The crux of this bill is about $8 billion of social spending, and
this rule does not allow a debate, it does not allow an amendment, does
not allow anything to touch that $8 billion.
Programs are funded in this bill to increase the self-esteem of the
young criminals and to fund midnight basketball recreation programs.
There are some of us who think that that money would be better spent on
building more prison space for those who are convicted by a jury of
their peers.
But, furthermore, the legislation that this rule protects does not
allow for funding of these programs. So, instead of the $8 billion
being funny money, it is phony money, because it is an unfunded
authorization bill and the amendment that the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich] proposed to set up a trust fund to pay for this was not
made in order by the Committee on Rules.
Much is said about hiring 50,000 cops on the beat; but looking at the
text of the legislation, the cities and municipalities do not even have
to use the money to hire more police officers. They can use it for any
other municipal function, including welfare and education.
So it is misdirected money.
But finally, even if this bill does provide money and it is used for
law enforcement, the money will run out in 3 years. So, communities
will be put in an unpleasant catch-22 situation of either having to lay
off the cops on the beat 3 years from now or putting the cost of those
cops directly on the real estate tax rolls.
That is a fraud. We should not be doing things like this in the name
of fighting crime. We should be backing up our rhetoric with money and
there is no money in this bill.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUGHES. You know, Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another
crime bill. And we start off once again by an acrimonious debate over
the fact that a lot of Members did not have their amendments made in
order. I understand that. We have as much consternation on the
Democratic side as the Republican side over that. And I regret that
that is the case, because there are too many important issues that we
need to debate to be sidetracked by that particular debate.
But what really troubles me is not that; what troubles me most is
that there are so many Members on this side of the aisle who are
friends of mine, who do not want a crime bill, they want the issue.
They want the issue in November.
That is sad, that is a sad commentary, because the crime problem is
too serious to be a political football. But that is what it has become.
This is a good bill. It does not have all the provisions that I would
like in it.
To a lot of Members, the 50 death penalties in there are not enough,
they would like to have 50 more. And as the chairman of our full
committee has indicated, we could not accommodate some Members but I
have always believed in capital punishment and I believe we should
reserve it for the most egregious of offenses. And I say to my
colleague from Illinois that I understand his concern about those
provisions dealing with habeas corpus. We have had this debate for a
long time. But his support of the Powell Commission, which would set up
two standards in this country for attorneys, one for the rich and one
for the poor, is something that I could not accept and I suspect that
most of this country could not accept.
Under the Powell Commission recommendation, if in fact you will not
accept the reforms of habeas corpus--and we do have to reform habeas
corpus because it is in shambles and it is disgraceful that we have so
many bites of the apple. I mean they keep going up, back and forth, for
15, 16, 17 years, rehashing, in many instances, nothing new. That is an
abuse of the system. We do need to reform it. But when we do, it seems
to me we need to preserve a system that will in fact reach those
situations where we have potentially innocent defendants. And the
Derrick amendment would create a 1-year statute of limitations and it
would provide competent counsel.
I say to my colleagues that one of the problems we have in the
criminal justice system with capital cases is during that 15-year
period of time, 50 percent of the capital cases in this country are
thrown out because of incompetent counsel. That is not saving
taxpayers' money, that is not good criminal justice.
My colleagues on this side of the aisle would create a dual system of
justice in this country, exactly what we do not need. It is a good
bill. It does not have everything that I would want in it, but I think
it is probably one of the best comprehensive bills we have reported out
of the Committee on the Judiciary in many a year, and I am proud to
support it, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
{time} 1720
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is a member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. I agree with
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] that crime is an
important issue for the country. It is probably the most important
issue for our people right now. I have to say that I do not share his
confidence that the Clinton administration has really a top priority of
getting tough on crime. I know that has been the rhetoric, but I would
point to the budget.
Mr. Speaker, the administration recommended in the Department of
Justice budget for the next fiscal year a reduction in the number of
employees employed in the criminal division and a reduction of the
number of criminal prosecutors out in the U.S. attorneys offices. At
the same time, Mr. Speaker, they recommended an increase in the number
of antitrust personnel at the Department of Justice. Now I have nothing
against the antitrust division, but I would point out that, when
President Clinton gave the State of the Union Address, he did not say
the American people were afraid of being mugged by a bunch of antitrust
violators.
Mr. Speaker, what this rule comes down to right now is what is the
importance of a bill that will address, or that hopes to address, the
most important issue before the American people, which is crime?
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] very correctly, in my
opinion, cited H.R. 6, an education policy bill which we had on the
floor of the House of Representatives for a number of weeks in which we
had an open rule, which means, of course, that any Member could offer
an amendment whenever they wished. I ask, ``Isn't the fight against
crime at least equal to our education policy?'' I would suggest that it
is even more important because we cannot educate our children, we
cannot be more productive in the workplace if we are not safe to send
our children to school in safety, to go to work in safety and to even
be in our homes in safety.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this rule and in place of it a
rule that will respect the request of dozens of Democrats and dozens of
Republicans who seek to offer amendments to this bill to debate it to
its fullest extent to produce a truly concrete and effective bill
against crime.
I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for having yielded this
time to me.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland].
Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly urge passage of this
comprehensive crime bill as soon as possible. Violence is on the rise
across this country and the battle against it will take nothing short
of a historic response from this Congress.
Imagine, if my colleagues will, a country where more than 23,000
people died violent deaths in 1992. Imagine a country where gunfire is
a daily occurrence in many neighborhoods and where it is not safe to
walk to the grocery store or run some other simple errand after dark.
Imagine a nation where a woman is raped every 47 seconds and where
gunfire could soon overtake car accidents as one of the leading causes
of death of young people. That country is not Bosnia, or Somalia--that
country is the United States of America.
In eastern Nebraska, we have seen an alarming rise in the number of
violent crimes. Just last month, a 94-year-old woman was brutally
attacked and robbed as she walked home from the neighborhood drug store
in an area that one would normally consider safe. What are we coming
too?
One of the most troubling things about rising violence is that the
character of crime is changing. First, younger and younger kids are
committing violent crimes. Over the past decade the number of juveniles
arrested for murder increased 142 percent. Second, juvenile criminals
commit crimes that are often more impulsive and random. Random violence
heightens our sense of vulnerability. Third, the widespread
availability of handguns is allowing violent criminals to strike with
increasing ferocity.
This crime bill will help give communities like Omaha the tools we
need to fight crime and get violent criminals off the streets. Let us
pass it quickly.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chief
deputy whip of the minority party, the gentleman from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] for having yielded this time to me, and the debate about this
rule comes down to a question of why not allow amendments to be debated
on the House floor? The answer to that is clear. The reason why we are
not having amendments debated on the House floor is because of the
internal politics of the Democratic caucus.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats cannot allow certain amendments to come to
the floor or they will lose people within their own caucus for final
passage of this bill, and so what they have done is they have gone
inside themselves and they have produced a rule that ensures that tough
amendments cannot come to the floor. What they want to be able to do is
talk tough and act weak.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, what we have on this floor is a lot of tough talk
and one of the weakest bills that one could possibly imagine. This is a
bill that will make thugs and thieves very happy. Why will it make
thugs and thieves very happy? Because it does not just preserve the
status quo. That it does is actually weakens present law. It ensures
that we will probably never be able to carry out death penalty
provisions. It ensures that more technicalities will be in the law for
people to get off. Yet it simply ensures that thugs and thieves across
this country will find in the Federal law more respite than they have
in the past.
What is it that our middle class citizens have been saying? What has
the middle class citizenry across the country been saying about crime?
I say to my colleagues:
``If you're walking across a parking lot late at night in a shopping
center, and you're afraid, most of middle class America is not saying,
`What that thug that I think may come at me needs is a little more
welfare,' and yet what the Democrats have on the floor today is a bill
that expand welfare to criminals. If you're walking downtown, and you
see a glass window being broken, most of middle class America doesn't
say, `What that thief needs is a good midnight basketball league.' Most
of middle class America says at that point, `It's time to get those
guys and put them behind bars to stay.' If you're locked behind the
door of your apartment or your house afraid to come out at night, and
you're a middle class citizen, you're not saying, `What that thug needs
out there in the night, wants and needs, is a new social worker.'''
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that what middle class America wants is
thieves behind bars. They want to get career criminals off the streets.
They want violent young thugs in our society treated as adult
criminals. They want us to begin to do the things that are necessary to
clean up crime in the country.
We need to consider a serious crime bill on this floor that has tough
language in it. The Democrats in their committees cannot produce that
kind of bill. They will not even allow us to try to produce that kind
of bill with votes on the House floor because it does not fit their
internal political situation.
That is the shame of where we are in the Congress today. Legitimate
amendments that allow middle class Americans to get what they want in a
crime bill simply will not be allowed to be debated on the floor here
this afternoon.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we can defeat this rule and
come back with a bill that will allow middle class America to have the
tough crime bill it wants.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I have been listening to the
kinds of conversation that I heard from our distinguished colleagues,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], for 19 omnibus crime
bills. ``Make 'em tougher and tougher.''
Mr. Speaker, here is what the gentleman calls a weak crime bill. It
has 66 death penalties; count them.
I rise here merely to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, even though it
has got too much punishment in it and not enough prevention, a novel
idea to those who are trying to sound tough and get reelected, but I
want to quote a letter from the Conference of Mayors sent to me by
Mayor Dennis Archer in Detroit from Mayor Wellington D. Webb in Denver
and Mayor Sharpe James in New Jersey, and it talks about the Racial
Justice Act which may be eviscerated if we are not diligent on this
floor in the coming week. Here is what they say:
We believe that both supporters and opponents of the death
penalty will agree that these racial disparities in the
imposition of the death penalty deny African-Americans equal
protection under the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. The
Racial Justice Act specifies a procedure for defendants to
offer evidence,
And I hope that that is carefully supported by Members of both sides
of the aisle.
The letter in its entirety is as follows:
City and County of Denver,
Denver, CO, March 31, 1994.
Hon. Kweisi Mfume,
Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus, 2419 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We write in support of H.R. 4092, the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the
Crime Bill that is currently before the House.
We are very concerned about violent crime, and feel that
there is an urgent need for a multifaceted strategy to combat
it. We are pleased with President Clinton's advocacy of
federal funding to put 100,000 more police on our streets, a
federal ban on assault weapons, and federal funding for
constructive intervention for young offenders. This has
alerted the entire nation to the need for bold new
partnerships involving all levels of government and citizens
to rebuild communities and families.
We wish to support your efforts to blend the need for
certain and severe punishment for today's most serious
offenders with the need for compassion and community-building
to provide potential offenders with alternatives,
opportunity, and hope.
Accordingly, there are several provisions in this bill
which we believe to be critical to achieving some measure of
parity between punishment and prevention by addressing the
root causes of crime alongside of the need to sound tough.
First of all, we strongly support the $6.8 billion in crime
prevention measures contained in Title X of H.R. 4092. For
the first time in the history of omnibus crime bills, there
is an opportunity to include a comprehensive legislative
package directed at preventing crime in our communities from
which our cities will greatly benefit.
Second, we strongly support the inclusion of the Racial
Justice Act in H.R. 4092. The Racial Justice Act is a crucial
civil rights measure which would help eliminate racial
considerations from improperly influencing the decision to
impose the death penalty.
Study after study has documented racial bias resulting from
abuse of prosecutorial discretion in charging, plea
bargaining and sentencing. In Georgia, for instance, a study
showed that African Americans who kill white people received
the death penalty 16.7 percent of the time while whites who
kill whites are sentenced to die only 4.2 percent of the
time. Seven of nine people executed in the Middle Judicial
District of Georgia were black, and 71 percent of those
executed in Alabama were black.
We believe that both supporters and opponents of the death
penalty will agree that these racial disparities deny African
Americans ``equal protection'' under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Racial Justice Act specifies a procedure for
defendants to offer evidence in court, including statistical
evidence, in support of their claim of racial bias in death
penalty decisionmaking. Given that the Crime Bill includes 66
new death penalty crimes, it is critical that the Racial
Justice Act be included at this time.
We understand that efforts will be made during the debate
of the House of Representatives in April to delete, or
seriously modify, both the Prevention Package (Title X) and
the Racial Justice Act (Title IX). We urge you to oppose
these efforts so that H.R. 4092 can be passed quickly,
thereby enabling the Senate and House conference to promptly
complete Congressional consideration of significant crime
legislation.
Sincerely,
Wellington E. Webb,
Mayor, Denver, CO,
Chair, U.S. Conference of
Mayors Task Force on Violence.
Sharpe James,
Mayor, Newark, NJ.
Dennis Archer,
Mayor, Detroit, MI.
{time} 1730
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
(Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule.
This past Christmas, four bombs exploded in western New York killing
five people.
The individuals responsible for these heinous acts were able to
purchase these explosives because of a loophole in Federal explosives
law, a loophole that allows anyone to walk in and purchase explosives
with any valid ID. A loophole that could be closed today by an
amendment I have to offer. But sadly, that's not going to happen.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is supported by the Institute of Makers of
Explosives, National Rifle Association, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms. The amendment is based on legislation I had already
introduced which bipartisan support. My amendment would require a
Federal permit for certain explosives transactions and require a
photograph and fingerprints to be taken when applying for a Federal
permit.
I offered my amendment and testified before the Rules Committee.
However, my amendment was not made in order.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not controversial. What it does is save
lives. Why can't we have a vote on my amendment?
My New York colleague, the distinguished gentlelady, Mrs. Slaughter,
a member of the Rules Committee, has her own explosives amendment, but
it is different from mine. I have no objections to her amendment and I
plan to vote for it. However, her amendment does not close the loophole
that allowed this terrible tragedy in western New York. The were over
47,000 transactions in 1993 that used this loophole, involving 693
million pounds of explosives.
How many of these transactions are another tragedy waiting to
happen--and where will they happen? How many more people must be killed
or hurt?
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. This was a horrible tragedy
in my district--and it could happen in any one of yours. Vote for your
constituents today and defeat the rule--or--vote for more business and
usual in Washington. The choice is yours.
Amendment to H.R. 4092 Offered by Mr. Quinn of New York
At the end insert the following:
TITLE --EXPLOSIVES
SEC. . CONTROL OF RESTRICTED EXPLOSIVES.
(a) Prohibition Against the Distribution or Receipt of
Restricted Explosives Without a Federal Permit.--
(1) In general.--Section 842 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by inserting ``that are not restricted explosives''
after ``explosive materials'' the 2nd place such term
appears; and
(II) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C)
and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) to distribute restricted explosives to any person
other than a licensee or permitee; or''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by
inserting ``that are not restricted explosives'' after
``explosive materials''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``if the explosive
materials are not restricted explosives,'' before ``a
resident''.
(2) Restricted explosives defined.--Section 841 of such
title is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) `Restricted explosive' means high explosives,
blasting agents, detonators, and more than 50 pounds of black
powder.''.
(b) Requirement That Application for Federal Explosives
License or Permit Include a Photograph and Set of
Fingerprints of the Applicant.--
(1) In general.--Section 843(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting ``shall
include the applicant's photograph and set of fingerprints,
which shall be taken and transmitted to the Secretary by the
chief law enforcement officer of the applicant's place of
residence, and'' before ``shall be''.
(2) Chief law enforcement officer defined.--Section 841 of
such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) `Chief law enforcement officer' means the chief of
police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee
of any such individual.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period
that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.
____
Institute of Makers of Explosives,
Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
Hon. Jack Quinn,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Quinn: Reference is made to your letter
dated March 17, 1994 requesting comments on legislation you
propose to introduce that would: (a) prohibit the
distribution or receipt of ``restricted explosives'' without
a federal permit, and; (b) require federal permit
applications to include photograph and fingerprints.
As discussed during meetings with your staff, IME has
recognized the need to strengthening existing federal
regulations for many years. The loophole in current
regulations that allowed the purchase of the explosives used
in a wave of bombings in your district during late December
1993 needs to be eliminated and the permit application
process for individuals needs to be strengthened.
Your proposed legislation addresses both issues and the
Institute of Makers of Explosives therefore supports the
legislation you will introduce next week.
It has been a pleasure working with your office. I have
been particularly impressed with the time and effort Earl
Whipple and Beth Meyers have devoted to this issue which
allowed IME to voice its positions. Be assured IME is
prepared to discuss matters involving commercial explosives
at any time.
Sincerely,
Frederick P. Smith, Jr.,
President.
____
National Rifle Association,
of America,
Washington, DC, March 22, 1994.
Hon. Jack Quinn,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Quinn: Thank you for your letter of
March 18, 1994 requesting my comments on your draft
legislation entitled ``Restricted Explosives Control Act of
1994''.
I appreciated having the opportunity of working with your
Legislative Director, Earl Whipple, in addressing the
concerns that the National Rifle Association had with the
original bill as introduced. I am pleased that the new draft
has resolved our concerns.
Again, I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with
your staff on an issue of particular importance to you and
your congressional district.
Sincerely,
Susan Lamson,
Director, Federal Affairs.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to another very distinguished Member,
the gentleman from greater San Dimas, Claremont, CA, [Mr. Dreier] the
well-known, hard-charging reformer and a member of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Sanibel, FL, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise that I rise in strong opposition
to this rule, for more than a few reasons.
As we all know, the desire to bring about a tough crime bill is what
everyone says we want. But if we end up getting this rule, and if we
end up passing the crime bill that is before us, we will be getting a
crime bill that is weaker than the status quo. So the choice is a very
simple one. Do we want a tough crime bill that is actually going to
demonstrate more concern for the victim than the criminal, or do we
want a crime packet that is going to demonstrate more concern for the
criminal than the victim? That is really the choice we have here.
Any Member who chooses to vote in support of this rule is voting to
deny an opportunity for what President Clinton calls frivolous
amendments, but let me tell the Members what a couple of those
amendments are. Anyone who votes for this rule is voting to deny the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], an opportunity to offer his amendment
which would specifically track and target criminals who are illegal
immigrants. That is a major problem in my State of California, in the
State of Florida, and, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
said, even in the State of New York.
If we vote in support of this rule, we are voting to deny the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] his right to offer an amendment
to put $4 billion into increasing the number of prisons instead of
using that money to float questionable crime prevention programs.
If we vote in favor of this rule, we are voting to deny the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] an opportunity to offer what the President
described as a frivolous amendment, although I think it is something
other than that, an amendment to increase penalties for violent sex
offenders; and Mr. McCollum's amendment that would address the issue of
those who prey upon children and senior citizens.
If we vote for this rule, we are voting against the opportunity of
the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] to offer his amendment
which would deny Federal welfare benefits to convicted violent
criminals.
If we vote in favor of this rule, we are voting against the
opportunity for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] to offer
his amendment which would close a loophole in the law covering drive-by
shootings which now allow those to step out of their car, and get in a
shooting, and then jump back in and speed away. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] simply wants to close that loophole, and this
rule does not allow that.
Unfortunately, this rule is very unfair. It is going to, in fact,
strengthen the criminal's status in this country, and we need to do
everything we possibly can to defeat the rule and bring about a tough
crime package.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close on our side.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time on our side to the
minority whip, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich],
to close debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich] is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Florida, for yielding time to me.
Let me just say that I was doing some reading recently about a safer
America, and I ran across a fascinating story.
In 1933, there was an effort to assassinate President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and the assassin missed and he killed Mayor Cermak of Chicago
who was standing next to the President. The assassin was arrested;
there were eye witnesses. The assassin was tried, and less than 35 days
after the assassination, the assassin was given the death penalty and
he was executed so that people in America who had seen the horror of
Mayor Cermak being killed could remember, 35 days later, why the man
was being executed.
Mr. Speaker, in Georgia 2 weeks ago, we had a man executed for a
terrible murder, a man executed after a long period of appeals. That
murder occurred 16 years ago. Sixteen years. It took 192 times as long,
19,200 percent more time, because of all the appeals the criminal
defense lawyers have built into the system over the years. What I find
sad about this rule is that the Democratic machine after 40 years is
still protecting the criminal defense lawyers. For 40 years the
Democrats have run the House, it has gotten harder and harder to have
an effective death penalty, for 40 years.
The Democrat machine came in again; they refused to make amendments
in order; they refused to give people a fair chance at creating a tough
bill; they drafted the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary in favor
of criminal defense lawyers. It is the first time I have ever heard
where they, the Democrats, are now going to require the States to hire
two, two criminal lawyers for every death penalty, two, in order to
make sure that everything is done to protect the person convicted of
murder.
So let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote
against the machine, vote against this rule. Vote ``no.''
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, we are at a historic moment here today. For
the first time, Congress is making crime fighting a top priority. We
have a real consensus on both sides of the aisle that a major crime
bill is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is overdue. We have let crime and lawlessness
fester to the point where a frustrated public is ready to endorse the
brutal caning in Singapore.
This bill is balanced. It has tough measures, like ``three strikes
and you're out'' and money to build prisons to ensure that violent
criminals are put behind bars.
Mr. Speaker, it also has the most ambitious and comprehensive crime
prevention programs in history. Tough sentences and prison cells are
very important, but not enough. We also have to help young people at
the crossroads to choose honest and productive lives rather than gangs
and crime.
More important, the bill will put 50,000 more police officers on the
street doing community policing. Beat cops both punish and prevent.
The long and short, Mr. Speaker, is we are deluged in this Nation
anywhere we go with crime and the concomitant fear. We can argue the
procedural points. We can debate and debate and debate. The public is
saying, ``Stop all that and do something.'' This bill finally does.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] has expired.
The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 2
minutes to close debate.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, we can talk about
this rule as not being fair, but there were 107 amendments that were
not made in order. Five of them were bipartisan, 53 of them were
Democrats, and 49 of them were Republican amendments. This is a very
fair rule and it deals with what the American people want to deal
with--the crime issue.
Mr. Speaker, the example that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Gingrich] gave, my amendment will take care of that, because what it
says is that you see these people that are on death row for years and
years and years and years, and their sentence is never carried out. My
amendment says: One year, they have one petition, and it must be done
by a capable attorney.
``Three strikes and you're out.'' Three violent crimes and the
criminal is in there for the rest of his life. I cannot understand what
is going on in this country. I see these people standing up here
talking about crime. Yet they are not willing to do away with assault
weapons. They are not willing to do away with those guns that are used
to mow down people, those guns that are killing people in this country.
Every day I hear people stand up and talk about crime. They are
concerned about crime, but they are not willing to go for a 5-day
waiting period to have a handgun. I hear people stand up here and say
they are concerned about crime, but they are not willing to fight the
lobbies who are for guns in this country and are fueling many of the
campaigns in this country. So it really does not make a whole lot of
sense.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It deals with what the American
people want to deal with. The rule is fair, and I ask that the Members
support the rule.
Mr. Kyl Mr. Speaker, this week the House will finally begin debate on
anticrime legislation. President Clinton and House Democrats have been
talking tough on crime. However, H.R. 4092, the crime legislation being
championed by the House Democrat leadership, is weak on substance and
strong on misdirected spending programs.
As currently drafted, H.R. 4092 will do little to strengthen our
criminal justice system--crime will not go down and the law-abiding
citizens of Arizona and the rest of the Nation will be robbed of the
opportunity to reclaim their streets and communities from criminals.
Members should have the opportunity to vote for tough criminal
justice reforms, but the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee has
twice refused to allow floor consideration of amendments to strengthen
our criminal justice system. In his radio address this weekend,
President Clinton called these necessary amendments frivolous. This,
from a President who has not drafted a single line of the crime bill we
are debating today.
I was the author of one of these supposedly frivolous amendments,
rejected by the Rules Committee on a straight party-line vote, 3 to 4.
My amendment, which includes most of the provisions of the Sexual
Assault Prevention Act introduced last year by Representative Susan
Molinari and I, would significantly expand and toughen sexual violence
laws and increase the rights of the victims of these crimes. As
drafted, H.R. 4092 will not bring about these needed changes.
My amendment would, among other provisions: Double the maximum
penalty for recidivists convicted of sexual assaults; require HIV
testing of accused sex offenders (results inadmissible at trial);
provide for pretrial detention of the accused; suspend Federal benefits
to offenders who refuse to comply with restitution obligations; protect
victims from abuse in Legal proceedings; and, make admissible at trial
evidence of similar crimes of the accused.
Allowing for evidence of similar crimes of the accused at trial is
particularly important. It would go a long way toward neutralizing the
psychological damage a rape victim often experiences going through the
judicial process. It is common in rape and child molestation cases that
the victim is too traumatized intimidated or humiliated to file a
complaint and go through the full procedure of a criminal prosecution.
However, the victims in such cases are often willing to bear the burden
of testifying when they find out that the person who marred their lives
has also victimized others
As the cochair of the Republican Policy Committee Task Force on
Women's Issues, I have held a number of hearings dealing with sexual
violence, At those hearings, witnesses testified that the most
important thing we can do to protect and empower citizens from sexual
and domestic violence is by restructuring our criminal justice system,
including increasing penalties for offenders.
Paul McNulty, former director of policy at the Department of Justice,
said at one of the hearings,
Given what we know about the recidivist nature of sex
offenders, you might think that the criminal justice system
does all that it can to keep them in prison. Unfortunately,
nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of
those who are arrested for rape are not sentenced to prison.
Only 33 percent of all such arrestees go to prison. For those
who are sent to prison, only a fraction of their sentences
are actually served. * * * It is, there fore, quite clear
that the most effective way to prevent sexual assault is to
punish violent criminals by removing them from the streets. *
* * That is why we strongly endorse H.R. 688 * * * (the Kyle
bill). * * * As former Attorney General William Barr stated
last year when discussing this bill, `It brings criminals to
justice and justice to victims.'
My sexual assault amendment is an extremely important component of
our efforts to combat crime, particularly violence against women and
children. The Congress should have the opportunity to pass the Sexual
Assault Prevention Act in its entirety as part of comprehensive crime
legislation. The Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee has made
this impossible. For this, and a myriad of other reasons, I urge my
colleagues to vote against the rule to H.R. 4092.
{time} 1740
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 176, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 103]
YEAS--244
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--176
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Andrews (NJ)
Bacchus (FL)
Blackwell
Fish
Gallo
Grandy
McCandless
McCurdy
Roukema
Smith (OR)
Tanner
Wilson
{time} 1801
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Bacchus of Florida for, with Mrs. Roukema against.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________