[Pages H1302-H1314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT OF 1995

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 60 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 60

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 665) to control crime by mandatory victim
restitution. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and
[[Page H1303]] report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the
House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instruction.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 60 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 665, a bill designed to ensure that criminals pay
full restitution to their victims for all damages caused as a result of
the crime committed and to any other persons who are harmed by an
offender's unlawful conduct.
This legislation is the first in a series of anticrime measures which
the House will consider this week. It is only fitting that the first
bill, the one dealing most directly with the casualties of crime, the
victims themselves, be considered under an open, wide open, rule,
because each and every Member here brings to this debate a unique and
personal perspective on this issue.
For, tragically, crime is so pervasive that no citizen escapes its
reach.
This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, and makes in order the Committee on the
Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. Under this rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may give priority and recognition to Members who have printed
their amendments in the Congressional Record.
Let me just emphasize once again to my colleagues that preprinting of
amendments is not mandatory. It is purely optional. Members who have
not published their amendments will still be permitted to offer them at
the appropriate time.
The majority on the Committee on Rules continues to encourage Members
to exercise this option in the future not only to receive priority
status but also to inform our colleagues in advance of the number and
type of amendments they are likely to be offering.

{time} 1250

Mr. Speaker, throughout my years as a judge and prosecutor, I worked
closely with victims of crime, and was very often moved by their
plight. These individuals and their families did not ask to be victims,
yet after experiencing crime firsthand, they bravely embarked on the
process of trying to recover from unexpected, unwanted, and totally
undeserved trauma.
The committee report accompanying H.R. 665 includes some very
sobering statistics. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, from 1973 to 1991, more than 36 million people in the
United States were injured as a result of violent crime. In 1991 alone,
crime resulted in an estimated $19.1 billion in losses. Clearly, there
are tremendous costs associated with crime--emotional, physical, and
financial--all of which must be borne by individuals, families, and
ultimately, by this Nation.
After years of elevating the rights and needs of criminals, the
American public is beginning to recognize that crime victims have very
real needs as well. Their voices are finally being given a meaningful
role in the public policy process, helping them turn their personal
anguish into positive action. Despite this progress, crime victims'
rights are still often overlooked, and additional
reforms are needed to bring some balance into an often one-sided
process. One of those reforms is the right to adequate restitution from
the perpetrator for losses incurred as a result of the crime itself.

That is the purpose of H.R. 665--to mandate that restitution be
awarded by the court in Federal proceedings, and that it also be
considered for persons other than the victim who may have been harmed
by the criminal's unlawful acts.
Although this legislation cannot erase the victims' suffering, it is
an important step toward securing justice and ensuring greater
accountability on the part of criminals themselves. H.R. 665, would
require criminals to come face-to-face with the harm suffered by their
victims and also just as important provide the victim with some small
sense of satisfaction that the system addresses their needs as well.
Only one amendment was offered during the Judiciary Committee's
markup of H.R. 665, and it was accepted by voice vote. The bill itself
was reported favorably, as was this rule. Should there be any remaining
concerns about the legislation, this open rule would give the House
ample opportunity to discuss them.
Mr. Speaker, crime victims do not ask for our pity and do not ask for
our sympathy. They simply ask to be treated with the respect and
compassion their circumstances deserve. I strongly support the Victim
Restitution Act of 1995, and urge adoption of this very open rule so
that we may continue the spirit of openness and deliberation that is
needed in the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague,
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], as well as my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle for bringing this resolution to the floor.
House Resolution 60 is essentially an open rule which will allow full
and fair debate on the important issue of victims restitution. Under
this rule, germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule,
the normal amending process in the House of Representatives. I am
pleased that the Rules Committee was able to report this rule without
opposition and I plan to support it.
Although this rule is open it does include a provision allowing the
Chair to give priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record. This is unnecessary to the rule
and sometimes confuses Members who are not sure whether the printing
requirement is mandatory.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 60 allows the House to consider a very
important piece of legislation, H.R. 665, the Victim Restitution Act.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1973 to 1991, 36.6
million people in the United States were injured as a result of violent
crime. In 1992, there were nearly 34 million victims of crime
nationally. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that criminals pay
full restitution to their victims for all damages caused as a result of
a crime.
Since crimes against people and households have resulted in an
estimated $19.1 billion in losses in 1991 alone, it is only fair that
restitution be ordered. By requiring full financial restitution, the
act requires an offender to face the victims of his crime, and the
victims to receive some compensation for their emotional and physical
harm resulting from the crime. I understand this bill does have
bipartisan support and major amendments are not expected. I sincerely
hope we will continue to see open rules on the more controversial crime
bills coming down the pike as well.
As I indicated before, I support this open rule and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], our very able
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Process of the
Committee on Rules.
[[Page H1304]] (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Columbus, OH,
Judge Pryce, for yielding this time to me and would like to say how
happy we are to have her as a member of the Committee on Rules. It is
already making a difference, as you have just heard.
Mr. Speaker, what a difference 7 months makes as well. Last August
this House spent countless hours in an effort to pass a crime bill
conference report that I do not think anybody was enthusiastic about.
After keeping Members in town for an extra week and a half of sweet
persuasion, as I think Speaker Foley used to call it--some others of us
would call it arm-twisting--the Democratic leadership was able to eke
out a very small majority to pass out the rule and the bill.
I had the privilege of managing the crime bill rules for the minority
last August, and two things about that debate really stand out in my
mind. The speech by Minority Leader Bob Michel preceding the original
vote on the crime bill, I think, can now be seen as the turning point
in 40 years of congressional history and, in some ways, the start of
the 104th Congress.
An energized Republican minority at that time joined by dissatisfied
Democrats defeated the rule, actually defeated the rule, signalling the
beginning of the end, I think, for the old order. Republicans won a
hard-fought battle for a seat at the bargaining table because of that
vote, primarily, and many saw for the first time a light at the end of
the permanent minority status tunnel that we were in.
However, despite that long bipartisan negotiation that followed, I
think most Members of the House were under-whelmed by the
final crime bill product, and so here we are today.
Our Members on this side in fact did make a promise then, we promised
to revisit the crime bill and to address its many shortcomings if we
were put in the majority. The American people listened, and we are here
today as the majority. A short 7 months later, just over a month into
the 104th Congress, we are fulfilling that promise. And we are doing so
under an open rule.
Let us not forget that the original rules, there were several of them
for consideration of last year's omnibus crime bill, were some of the
most creative, I think you can read contrived for that, that we have
seen, including special provisions to report and consider a rule on the
same day, a multitude of waivers, including waivers for not having a
report on the bill, a report on the bill, and for dispensing with the
normal 3-day layover. In other words, Members did not necessarily know
what was in the bill. And a closed amendment process that picked and
chose among the scores of amendments that were actually filed. What a
difference 7 months make, and what a difference a new majority makes.
Today we have an open rule, as promised, to proceed under.
So I cheerfully urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
It is worth your vote.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of the Committee
on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, like the other Democratic members of the Committee on
Rules, I am very glad the bill is being brought up under an open rule,
but I must say that I think it could just as easily have been brought
up under suspension of the rules, especially given the great hurry to
finish the Contract With America within 100 days.
Mr. Speaker, there is no controversy at all around this bill. It had
one amendment in committee that passed by voice vote. The bill itself
passed the committee on the Judiciary by a voice vote. The majority
could have just as easily put this under the suspension calendar, and I
do not know why they did not, unless they want to show all the open
rules that they have amassed over the year.

{time} 1300

Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary said this bill was noncontroversial. So, an open rule
for the bill is a good step, but not exactly a courageous one.
Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is what may happen when we get the more
controversial parts of the crime bill to the floor. Last week the
majority brought up three bills under open rules that passed last
session under suspension. Well, I say to my colleagues, ``You know,
it's one thing to have a definition of what an open rule or closed rule
is, and it's one to use open rules when you can and suspensions when
you can, and especially when the chairman keeps prodding people, `Hurry
up, hurry up, we have only got a hundred days, and Ronald Reagan's
birthday,' and so on, an I'm just afraid it might be somebody else's
birthday Sunday and we might not even be able to go home.''
But today my Republican colleagues are bringing up a bill that has
few, if any, amendments under an open rule, but it looks like tomorrow
or the next day they will bring up bills that do have amendments under
a closed rule. In other words:
``You can have an open rule, if it doesn't look like you're going to
use it.''
Mr. Speaker, let us continue this trend of open rules on crime bills,
whether Members have amendments or not.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from upstate New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Where it is about 30 below zero without the wind chill
factor right now.
It just bothers me that here we are trying to be as open, and fair
and accountable as we possibly can. I just want to inform the gentleman
that we are right now entertaining a suggestion from his minority
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and other Democrat
leaders on trying to do exactly what the gentleman is complaining
about.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The time of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has expired.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask, ``Why doesn't he yield him such time
as he might consume?''
Mr. MOAKLEY. I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Solomon, we know you're
all-powerful, but please let Mr. Hall do what he wants to do.''
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Well, as I was saying, the Democrat minority would like
to bring up on the floor, as early as maybe even this afternoon or
tomorrow morning, the habeas corpus or the death penalty bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Under an open rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. We are trying to accommodate our colleagues; with no
rule at all by unanimous consent, so the gentleman ought to, as my
colleagues know, be cooperative. We are going to consult.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I will be very cooperative. All I want to do is show the
rules, the definition of the rules, that we worked when I was chairman
and the definition of the rules that the gentleman is working as the
chairman. Last week, Mr. Speaker, we put three bills on open rules,
when under my chairmanship they went through the Suspension Calendar.
Mr. SOLOMON. I do not want to belabor the point.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce] for yielding and would like to congratulate her on her superb
management of this bill, and I would simply respond to the former
chairman, the now distinguished minority ranking Member's position on
suspensions versus open rules, and we need to recognize, Mr. Speaker,
that under the suspension provisions amendments are not allowed, and
the main reason that we have proceeded with this open amendment process
is that we allow Members to have a chance to offer amendments, whereas
in the past open rules were granted when there were virtually no
amendments that were even being considered at all, and so our
[[Page H1305]] goal here is to allow Members that opportunity.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, there were no amendments offered in committee on
the ones that went through suspension last year, and there was one
amendment that was accepted by voice vote in the Committee on the
Judiciary, and then after that was accepted, the entire bill was
accepted on voice vote.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under the open amendment
process we did not announce here on the floor for Members to come
upstairs, the reason being that we planned to have a completely open
process. Two amendments were filed with the Record here, so there were
amendments the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] offered, and we, in
fact, have wanted to have free and fair debate and an open process.
We are not simply trying to run up the number of open rules we have,
which tragically was the case in the 103d Congress, and so the
Suspension Calendar actually does restrict Members from having the
opportunity to participate----
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, would you and Mr.
Solomon go back over the Record a couple of years, and take all the
bills that we put under suspension, and make----
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely not because it is a completely different
structure.
Mr. MOAKLEY. It is a completely different regime.
Mr. DREIER. That is true, too.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, can there by any doubt in the America of
today that crime, that lawlessness, that violence that is afflicting
our families and their homes and their businesses on streets and
highways across this country is a No. 1 concern?
Indeed at the very moment of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there are
honest, hard-working Americans who are out there being subject to
violence to their life, to destruction of their property, from those
who are lawless, who are the target of this legislation, and yet one
would think that, knowing the enormity of this problem, our Republican
colleagues, who have a commanding majority, would be here structuring a
debate so that we could have an open and free-flowing discussion of the
most effective way to fight crime in this country.
That is not occurring here.
In fact, the underlying agenda of what is occurring here today is not
open and free-flowing debate. Rather it is the attempt to split, and to
split asunder, the first truly comprehensive smart crime fighting
measure that this Congress enacted within less than 9 months. That bill
is not presented to us today in whole. It is split into itty-bitty
parts.
And where do we begin in that debate? Do we begin up front in trying
to prevent crime? Do we begin with the law enforcement officers, all of
whom, all of the major law enforcement organizations, back this smart
crime bill; do we begin with them? No, we begin at the tail end.
I can tell my colleagues that this debate is a classic case of the
tail wagging the dog, and, as a fellow named Doggett, I am an expert on
that subject. I can tell my colleagues, ``When you begin at the tail
end of crime instead of dealing with the dog, instead of dealing with
the police, and with the crime fighting, and with the crime prevention,
you begin at the wrong end.''
So what do we find ourselves doing in this great building at a time
that Americans are dying, at a time that Americans are having their
property stolen? We are here talking about a bill that everybody agrees
on, that there should be restitution. Of course there should be
restitution.
As a State senator, I sponsored crime victims compensation
strengthening amendments to ensure that criminals in our State of Texas
did some restitution and did some repayment to victims. But, by golly,
do my colleagues know a victim anywhere in this country who would not
rather have the crime prevented? Who would not rather have the law
enforcement officer there on the beat in the community instead of
getting restitution?
Our Republican colleagues bring us a bill to fight crime that we
agree with, and why do they do it this way, under this great open rule?
Well, I will tell my colleagues why. Because somewhere among the
splintered bills of this great crime bill that was passed by the last
session of Congress, right at the tail end of the presentation is the
measure concerning our police, concerning crime prevention.
Why is it that the police always have to come in last? Why is it that
the crime prevention has to come in last? Because the Republican
majority that claims to be against crime has structured a debate that
does not allow for a free-flowing discussion of whether we ought to end
the commitment to a hundred thousand police on American streets, end
the Federal commitment to effective local crime prevention programs,
and take all that money that the police would have gotten that have
added 25 new police to my hometown in Austin, who are being trained
right now, take that money and pour it into concrete, pour it into
steel bars, and somehow think we can build prisons fast enough to house
all these violent criminals if we do not do a better job of preventing
crime in the first place.

{time} 1310

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that in the course of this debate we
recognize that if all that is accomplished out of these splintered
bills is to take money away from our policemen, many of whom are here
today as I speak covering a press conference defending the crime bill
that was passed last week, if we take that money away from our law
enforcement officers, that thin blue line that protects American
communities, if we take away that commitment and if we destroy a
Federal commitment to an effective local crime prevention program,
which is exactly what this series of bills does, if we take all that
money and we pour it into concrete and we pour it into steel bars and
we pour it into boondoggles, Mr. Speaker, there is no way we can build
fast enough to replace what we have destroyed.
I support this victims restitution bill. I do not know of anyone who
does not support it. But, by golly, we need to be on the side of our
law enforcement officers. We need to keep adding more law enforcement
officers and more prevention and then take care of restitution.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to one
of our new colleagues, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Foley]. The gentleman from Florida has already proven to be a very
active and very effective Member of the House of Representatives, and
we are very pleased to have him with us.
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio and, of
course, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for
their leadership on the crime bill.
This is the Victim Restitution Act. ``Victim''--let us say that word
repeatedly--``victim.'' This is not about hurting the police officers.
We want to help them, but we cannot help them unless we make the
victims whole from their tragedies. Let me tell the Members about a
personal experience I had.
My home was broken into. The perpetrator of the crime was a juvenile.
He had been arrested 17 times. Each time the parents came into the
courtroom and said, ``Your Honor, we're trying. He's really a nice
young man. We're doing our best.''
Each time the judges would say, ``O.K., go home. Probation.''
When my home was robbed, the judge looked at the family when the
parents started that same pablum about ``My good child,'' and said,
``You know, you must be proud of your son. Who wouldn't be proud of a
child that had been arrested 17 times? I'll make a deal for you. Mr.
Foley has lost 3,000 dollars' worth of valuable possessions from his
home. If you're not in the courtroom, parent, at noontime tomorrow with
a check made payable to the Clerk of Courts for $3,000, I will put in
[[Page H1306]] an arrest warrant for you and your son and you'll stay
in jail until you decide who is going to be the boss of the family.''
With that the father hit the kid in the head and said, ``Look what
you got me into.''
It took money out of the parents' pockets to recognize that they are
responsible for their children.
Let me tell the Members another story that happened in my district.
Joe Dubeck, a young man in my district, was stabbed in the chest. After
nearly dying on the way to the hospital, he was rushed into intensive
care. While he was laying on the gurney, the assailant was bailed out
with $3,000. Three thousand dollars, and he is out of jail. Joe Dubeck
spent weeks in recovery, and thankfully, he is seeking recovery, and I
am happy to say that he is now back with his wife and children. While
he continues that recovery, however, his small business that he was
building is undergoing serious challenges.
For far too long we have forgotten the innocent victims of crime.
This House resolution and H.R. 665 are going to help prevent that. The
bill restores common sense in the criminal justice system by holding
criminals responsible for their actions.
I rise in support of this bill because of the Dubeck family and the
many young families like them that have had to watch from the sidelines
as our system coddles the villains and ignores those who abide by the
laws of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to get tough
on the criminals, to support law enforcement officers who want this
bill to pass because they are tired of arresting criminals who are
released before their report ink is dry. They want this bill to pass
because it will help them do their jobs to protect the members of their
communities.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution 60
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 665.

{time} 1312

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 665) to control crime by mandatory victim restitution, with Mr.
Riggs in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to explain this victims restitution bill,
I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full
Committee on the Judiciary, the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act was not so
omnibus. It did nothing for the victims of crime.
This bill remembers that crime has victims; this bill remembers that
the victims for too long have been forgotten in the sentencing process;
this bill remembers that the victims for too long have been without
standing to address and advise sentencing judges of the economic harms
visited upon them through the criminal actions of the offender.
This bill directs Federal judges to impose upon convicted defendants
restitution orders to pay back their victims for the harm caused by
virtue of their criminal activity. No longer will the defendant's
financial situation take precedence over his victim's. Instead,
consideration for the victim is a primary consideration in the
sentencing process, just where it belongs. Today criminals know that
crime pays. Now it will pay the victims. Defendants are financially
responsible for physical, emotional, or monetary harm. Victims can be
reimbursed for child care, transportation, and other reasonable
expenses related to their participation in the prosecution of the
offense.
The court under this legislation must consider the victim's financial
circumstances when determining the manner and method of payment or
restitution. The victim will be paid either a lump sum, in interval
payments, or in kind. In-kind payments include return of the victim's
property and replacement of the property or services rendered. The bill
guarantees that the victim of criminal activity will not be overlooked
at any point in the criminal justice proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, this is a restitution bill with teeth.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this may have been a bill that could have
been a candidate for the Suspension Calendar, but I think it will move
rapidly through the House under the procedure that now exists.
I rise in support of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1995. It
is a good measure which has the broad support of Members on both sides
of the aisle. In essence, the bill changes the current law which gives
Federal judges the discretion to order restitution.
{time} 1320

Now under H.R. 665, judges would be compelled to order convicted
offenders to pay restitution to their victims. It is clear to me that
this provision draws upon the 1994 crime bill enacted into law which
created a similar provision to enable women who had been victims of
violence to recover damages from their attackers, another good measure
that we all supported.
An innovative aspect of this legislation is the provision that
restitution may also be ordered for any other person, that is, one who
is not a victim, who has yet suffered physical, emotional, or monetary
injury from the criminal act or conspiracy or pattern of unlawful
activity.
For instance, in drug dealing and racketeering cases there are
thousands of victims who now have a chance of meaningful economic
recovery for the damages inflicted upon their communities. In
neighborhoods where crack houses now spread destruction among young
people and where businesses are afraid to operate, it is not enough to
arrest of few low-level drug dealers who can easily be replaced.
Now, after a conviction, when the trial moves to the damages stage,
all the victims will now be empowered to rise in unity against the
hugely profitable drug dealers to seek restitution for their injuries.
But let us be candid: This provision should be a useful tool in white
collar prosecutions as well. It is needed to combat environmental
pollution by requiring corporate defendants who have been convicted of
toxic discharges to pay homeowners whose property has been damaged or
who have suffered emotional injury. It is needed to pay restitution to
victims of price fixing or securities violations or for those who are
victims of criminally negligent actions of manufacturers.
Of course, in many cases involving poor defendants, the chances of a
victim recovering any restitution at all are about as good as getting
blood from a turnip. In fact, only 18 percent of the current Federal
defendants are under a restitution order, suggesting that this may be
an impracticable idea in many ways.
However, given the broad possibilities of helping reduce fear in
neighborhoods and holding corporate criminals accountable for their
actions, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
[[Page H1307]] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have introduced H.R. 665, the Victim
Restitution Act of 1995, and to speak in favor of its passage today. It
is very fitting that we begin our floor consideration of crime
legislation in the 104th Congress with a bill about victims. Perhaps no
group has been more forgotten in our criminal judicial process than the
victims of crime. Too often they are denied justice, but even more they
must endure their losses without compensation.
Under current law Federal judges are merely authorized to order
offenders to make restitution to their victims. While the restitution
may be ordered in addition to any other penalty if the crime is a
felony, it can only be ordered in lieu of any other penalty if the
crime is a misdemeanor. There is no provision for restitution to be
paid to anyone other than the immediate victim of the crime.
Under H.R. 665, however, Federal judges would now be required to
order criminals to make restitution to their victims. The bill also
would give the court the discretion to order the offender to make
restitution to persons other than the victim, but who have also been
harmed by the offender's unlawful conduct.
Specifically, H.R. 665 would ensure that offenders make restitution
to their victims by mandating that restitution be paid to victims of
crime, in addition to any other penalty authorized by law. Judges would
be able to substitute restitution for other penalties only in the case
of misdemeanor crimes. The bill would also help to ensure that all
persons harmed by an offender's unlawful conduct receive restitution by
giving judges the discretion to award restitution to all persons
harmed by the offender's conduct, regardless of whether that harm was
physical, emotional, or financial.

The bill would ensure that restitution is paid in full by requiring
that restitution orders be calculated without regard to the offender's
ability to pay or the fact that the victim has received or is entitled
to receive compensation from some other source. But the bill does allow
the judge to consider the offender's finances and assets, projected
earnings, and other financial obligations when deciding how to schedule
the offender's payments of the restitution actually awarded.
The bill's provisions ensure fairness by limiting the victim to one
recovery through a provision which requires that the restitution award
be set off from any damages that the victim may recover against the
offender in a civil action relating to the crime. The bill also
provides that insurers which pay compensation to victims will be
entitled to receive the restitution payments once the victim is made
whole.
The bill's provisions have teeth, so that offenders will comply with
restitution orders. The bill provides that if the offender fails to
live up to the terms of the restitution order, the court may revoke any
probation or supervised release granted to the offender, hold the
offender in contempt of court, enter a restraining order or injunction,
or take any other action necessary to force the offender to comply with
the restitution order. The bill also allows the Government and the
offender to enforce the order as a civil judgment in Federal court.
The bill ensures that judges will have maximum flexibility in
awarding restitution. Under the bill, judges may award restitution in
the form of money payments or in-kind restitution such as the return of
property, replacement of property, or services to be rendered to the
victim or even to a person or organization other than the victim. It
also allows both victims and offenders to petition the court to modify
the restitution order if the offender's economic circumstances change
at a later date.
I might make sure at this point, Mr. Chairman, that everybody is
clear that this bill covers not only violent crimes that most people
think of when they think of crimes, but whatever white-collar crimes
you might conceive of, including Federal crimes involving fraud. Mail
fraud in particular, I would point out, would be covered by this. If
some elderly person in my home State of Florida were to be defrauded in
the process of some hooligan coming through with mail fraud or some
other Federal fraud crime, that certainly is covered. It also would
cover any kind of situation involving a securities fraud or securities
scam or any other crime of a Federal nature involving a pecuniary loss
to an individual as well as those kinds of crimes involving physical
harm, as has been pointed out in this previous discussion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the
subcommittee for making that clarification, because we raised this
briefly in the full committee, and also in my remarks. So we are
talking about the fact that corporate defendants and white collar
criminals would all be caught under this, as well as those who commit
street crime.
Mr. McCOLLUM. They will be caught under this bill. Restitution would
apply to all types of Federal crimes as far as the injuries are
concerned. It is very clear we are talking about pecuniary as well as
injuries to the person.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman, and thank him for
that further detailed explanation.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also point
out that as we look through this restitution provision, you will note
that there are other victims who might be not considered normally a
victim who are going to get some kind of compensation. For example, let
us assume that you have a single mother, a single parent, who is going
to come to court to testify against a criminal defendant. That person
may not be the victim in the sense of having been the person who was
harmed, but perhaps she witnessed the activity, and she has to leave
her child with a child care sitter or somebody to care for that child
and has to pay those costs.
Under this restitution bill, the court could order that the accused,
who then becomes the convicted person once he is convicted of the
crime, the judge could order him to pay restitution to this witness,
the mother, who had to pay the child care fees and so on.
So it is a very broad restitution bill. It leaves a lot of discretion
to the judge, but it mandates that he compensate, at least through the
order of restitution, the actual victim of the crime.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley], who authored, I believe, the first one of these restitution
proposals several years ago, and it is finally coming to fruition.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend the Committee on the
Judiciary for bringing this crime victims restitution bill to the floor
today. It is not I think an accident that this is the first of several
crime bills in which the new majority attempts to rewrite the crime
bill of 1994. I applaud them for their efforts and for their foresight.

{time} 1330

Mr. Chairman, I obviously rise in support of H.R. 665, the Victim
Restitution Act.
This has been a long time coming for this Member. Five years ago, in
the 101st Congress, I introduced the first mandatory victims'
restitution bill into the Congress. Then minority leader, Bob Michel,
and I offered an amendment to the 1990 crime bill on the floor of the
House, and with Bob Michel's strong support, we passed that crime
victims' restitution bill on a voice vote.
Our good friend and colleague in the other body, Senator Don Nickles
from Oklahoma, introduced a similar bill that was passed in the Senate,
so we had a crime victims' restitution bill that had passed in the
House, in the 101st Congress, passed in the Senate, and then somehow
disappeared from the conference committee report. Lo and behold, that
was to set the pattern for crime victims' restitution bills during the
last 5 years.
I think that is unfortunate, because this bill is essentially based
on personal responsibility, saying to the bad guy, ``Look, not only do
you have to
[[Page H1308]] face jail and fines, but you also have to try to make
that victim whole. That is, as a personal responsibility, you have
violated not only the law of the land but you have violated some other
individual or group of individuals and, therefore, you should have to
be required to make that person whole.''
That is really what this provision is all about. So we fought and
fought. Last year in the 1994 crime bill, same old stuff, introduced a
bill, had 150 some cosponsors, bipartisan in nature. Went to the
Committee on Rules and asked that the amendment be made in order. Guess
what? The Committee on Rules, about midnight, essentially stiffed us
one more time. We were not able to bring up crime victims' restitution,
even though I had, again, the strong support of Bob Michel, and though
he is no longer with us and has retired, I am sure that this is a proud
day for him as we finally see this legislation on the floor and
ultimately going to be enacted into law.
This bill holds support for victims. It holds an offender accountable
for his actions and strengthens some of his personal responsibilities,
something that we have too little of today, society. I am just excited
about the prospects for this bill.
Let me say also to my friend from Florida, who has shown great
leadership on this issue, that all of the crime victims' restitution
organizations, the crime victims' groups that are all over the country,
and I know he has some in his district, I have got some in my district,
all of them for numerous years, at least 5 years since I have been
involved in this project, have strongly endorsed mandatory crime
victims' restitution. I think we owe it to those folks who have worked
long and hard for this day to pass this legislation. I commend it to my
colleagues.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. Jackson-Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Victim
Restitution Act of 1995. Let me add that none of us clearly can imagine
or walk in the shoes, the footsteps, in the footprints of victims.
Clearly I believe that what we have done in a really bipartisan
manner is to be able to say to the more than 36 million victims in this
Nation that this House will stand with you. Many times victims have
approached some of the systems that have been put together by States
which in good faith have offered victims restitution. They have not
been mandatory. They have not been required. Some victims have been
confused as to how they access this compensation.
It is also important to note, as I stand here, that coming from the
18th congressional district in the State of Texas, that importantly
victims come in all shapes and sizes, all races, male and female,
children, families. We come now under this particular act to be able to
say to these individuals that ``we will now stand for you and with you.
Restitution is not only offered but it is required. And we will not
treat you like another litigant in the courtroom, asking you to show
what other compensation you have received. But we will say to you that
regardless of insurance and other sources, it is important for the
person who did the crime, and was convicted to show the victim the
deference and the respect of restitution for the emotional, financial
and other kinds of loss that you have received.''
I think that we are truly going in the right direction. This
legislation gives the court the discretion to provide restitution to
someone who is not just the crime victim, who in some manner has been
harmed physically, emotionally, or financially by the criminal's acts.
That speaks to some very tragic situations that have occurred in my
district in Texas, where a grandmother now is taking care of the
children of her deceased daughter, a loving daughter who stood by her
children, who simply was going to the grocery store in order to provide
them with the necessities of life and never, never came home.
Now we have that grandmother who is left to care and love and nurture
those children. Oh, she does it in good spirit and love. She does it
with enthusiasm. But yet she does it with great need, need for support,
need for restitution from that particular criminal or that person who
was the offender.
I think we are starting in the right place. And I think the place
where we are starting is a bipartisan place, which offers to the
American people a commitment to the victims of crime.
We should go further, of course, as we proceed with this bill. We
certainly should look at prevention. We should look at expanded cops on
the streets. All of those are parts of the aspects of making sure that
we face crime in an intelligent manner, but a compassionate manner.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Victim Restitution Act of 1995,
because I know the victims in my community. I know the police in my
community who have come to me to share in these many stories. As a
lawyer, I have seen individuals, as victims, who have had various
situations that have required assistance.
So I simply say that it is important that we stand for the victims
and support the Victim Restitution Act of 1995.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer], the distinguished ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
former chairman that subcommittee.
{time} 1340

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers], not only for the time but for his leadership on this
important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points. The last one will be
about the bill. I would like to talk about two other things first.
First is the timing of the whole six crime bills. I would say to my
colleagues--and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who in all
the years I have worked with him, including his brief tenure as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the
Judiciary, he has been very fair--that today we only have one or
possibly two bills on the floor.
I know that the majority leader and others are saying we have to meet
certain deadlines on the crime bill and on the contract. There is a
great deal to debate on the last three bills, the exclusionary rule,
the prisons bill, and the police prevention bill.
What we had urged, Mr. Chairman, through our leadership, and I know
they met with the Speaker this morning and late last week, was that we
hurry up, we do these bills together, and give us more time Thursday,
Friday, Monday, and Tuesday for exclusionary rule, prisons, and
prevention. To just do this restitution bill, which is not
controversial in the least and has broad bipartisan support, and then
not do anything else today, and then rush us in on Monday and Tuesday
to do both habeas and prevention would not make much sense.
I would just make that point: Mr. Chairman, let us use that time
today.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may not be aware, but when
this restitution bill is finished, and I do not believe it is going to
take much time, we are going to move right into the exclusionary rule
bill. We should complete that today.
In addition to that, as the gentleman may be aware from discussions
yesterday, there are ongoing discussions with the ranking member of the
gentleman's full committee in an effort to bring up some of these bills
earlier, which we are more than happy to do if we can waive some of the
technicalities involved in it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very
worthwhile thing, to do the exclusionary rule today. That makes a good
deal of sense. That was the main urgency I had. I would not have wanted
to adjourn at 3 o'clock and be told we did not have time to debate.
The second point I would make is on a different point. It is on the
general crime bills themselves; that is, what the American people want
is this: They want us to do something real about crime.
[[Page H1309]] They knew that we did something real last year. The
tough on punishment, smart on prevention, hundred thousand cops formula
had broad and wide public support from one end of America to the other.
There may have been minor imperfections in those bills, most of which
were cleared up by the time the bill reached the President's desk, but
the basic concept was there.
Mr. Chairman, I am virtually certain--I have seen polling data, I
have talked to people in law enforcement and everywhere else--that the
American people do not want to rip up that bill and start all over.
They certainly do not want to just make a few quick and rather cheap
political points to say, ``We had a better one than you had.'' They
want us to work together on crime.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about is just what it is
all about. If the new majority wants to build on our old crime bill,
fine. Everything can be improved. That is what is happening in
restitution. The very restitution measures that were in the Violence
Against Women Act, this bill expands to all other victims. Good idea.
It does not destroy what we did before; it builds on it.
However, I must say much of the rest of the bill, particularly on the
police and the prevention side, as well as on the prisons, goes back.
To rip up those bills and start all over does not make any sense to
anyone in America, and it seems to me that we are making a big mistake.
Therefore, I would use this bill, the restitution bill, as a model of
what we should do, working together, building on what was done last
year, which was at least in the field of crime, quite epochal. It was
the first time the Federal Government got involved.
However, we should not destroy for the sake of destroying, destroy
for the sake of saying, ``See, we did it better.'' It is almost like
little kids in the schoolyard going, ``Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, our bill
is better than yours, and we are doing a new one.'' That does not make
any sense. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do
that.
Mr. Chairman, my third point is on the substance of this bill itself.
This is a good bill. Members will not find much argument from many
people on this side about that. It restores restitution to people who
deserve it from those who have committed crimes. As I said, it builds
on what we did in the Violence Against Women Act last year.
We are all for it. We do not expect a lot of debate. The gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has a couple of amendments. Other than that,
we will move through it quickly.
I want to compliment the majority for coming up with this proposal.
It is a good idea and I fully endorse it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott], a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on
Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this bill will streamline the procedure by
which victims can get restitution. Victims already have the right to
sue and could go into civil court, but since everybody is right here in
court to begin with, they can get the restitution that they deserve.
There is one problem. It does not provide extra money for the judges
and the probation officers for the extra work they will do. However, on
the whole, it will allow victims to get more justice while they are in
court.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would believe that victims would appreciate
more of a focus on preventing the crimes to begin with than what to do
after they have been victimized. This bill focuses on what happens
after the people have already been victimized. We are, in other crime
bills, taking money away from prevention and police officers that could
have prevented their crime to begin with.
Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will restore some of that money to crime
prevention and community police officers. In the meanwhile, I guess we
have to deal with the fact that victims will be out there victimized
because we did not have the foresight to prevent the crimes before they
occurred.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress, I had come
from a State which had paid a great deal of attention to the rights of
victims, and like many other States, had established crime victims
compensation commissions and boards, with ample appropriations to cover
some of the damages suffered by crime victims which could not have been
recovered in court.
When I came to the Congress, President Reagan and President Bush and
now President Clinton all paid their respects to victims of crimes in
various ways, including Rose Garden ceremonies with anecdotes of heroic
incidents involving victims of crimes, and the families of victims
gathered for the proper respect that the public should have and the
President did in each case pay to the victims of crime.
However, today, we elevate our consciousness and the awareness of the
public to a new level of respect for the victims when we include, as we
do in this bill, a feature of mandatory consideration by the judges of
the most important aspect of crime victims; namely, restitution, to try
to restore them to the position that they were in before the dastardly
crime had occurred.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when we act today, what we are doing is
sending a signal once and for all that the victims of crime who have
for too long become a secondary feature in a criminal case in court now
become equal to the juries and to the judge and to the citizens who are
witnesses, and to their families, when we accord them the ultimate
satisfaction and the ultimate sense of justice when we make sure that
restitution is ordered on their behalf against the very individual who
caused the damages in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, on the old television show ``Baretta'',
the detective used to say, ``Do the crime, do the time.''
Today we are telling the criminals they will owe more than time.
Crime is not restricted to large cities. Even in my district that
includes many rural areas, threats to personal safety are a top
concern.
Crime is not restricted to certain age or income categories but the
sad fact is that the problem is even more severe among minorities and
the poor.
Most alarming of all are the statistics regarding women and crime. A
rape occurs every 5 minutes in our country and an aggravated assault
every 29 seconds.
Last year, Congress passed a bill that spent billions of dollars on
criminals. This year we are going to pass a bill that makes the
criminals pay.
Today we are considering an important bill that does more than give
criminals time, if forces them to pay their victims for what is really
irreputable harm.
For too long, crime bills have been about criminals. Now, we are
recognizing that crime is about the victims.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill. This is a bill we should
pass today. I urge my colleagues to join me and vote for this measure.

{time} 1350

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the committee.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the minority leader
on this committee for yielding time to me.
I am not going to jump up and down about this bill, either for it or
against it. I will probably vote for it, but I do think that we need to
point out some things to the American people about this bill and some
concerns that I have.
No. 1, there is a provision in this bill that talks about when a
person is on probation or parole and is not able to meet the
restitution schedule, that probation or parole can be revoked, and I
think that gets us dangerously close to being back to the point of the
old
[[Page H1310]] debtors prison, and I want the American people to be
aware that that provision exists in the bill.
There is a process for going back into the court and getting the
restitution order revised, but I think that process is going to be
very, very difficult. So it causes me some concern.
The second point I want to raise is the matter of due process under
this bill. There is really no detailed way drawn out in the bill for
due process to be given to the defendant in this case. The probation
officer goes out and finds certain information, brings it back to the
court, there is no process for a hearing at the initial level to decide
whether the restitution is just or how much restitution will be
awarded, and there are some concerns that I have about that.
I simply thought that it behooved me to stand up and say that despite
the fact that this bill generally moves in a good direction, there are
some concerns. Those concerns were not addressed in committee because
of the pace with which this bill was being moved, and I thought it
would be remiss of me not to point out those concerns to the American
public.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume to close the debate.
I simply want to point out the fact that as we move through this
process, we are beginning to bring to the floor six bills that
comprised the Contract With America crime legislation that the
Republicans, when we took over as the majority in the House of
Representatives, committed to bring out in the first 100 days.
There are six separate bills, but in the proposals we put forward, we
did it in one complete crime process.
The second piece of legislation that will come out later today deals
with the evidence rules in search and seizure cases to open up more
avenues for the officers of our criminal justice system to get
convictions.
The next bill that we have will deal with prison grants and prison
construction in an effort to provide a better scheme in order to
resolve the issue of what we think is most important, and that is,
requiring those who have committed repeat violent felonies to serve at
least 85 percent of their sentences.
Another bill that will be out here very shortly deals with expediting
the process of deporting criminal aliens. Those are aliens who have
committed crimes in this country and are sitting in our jails taking up
jail space and oftentimes actually are released and go out into the
public and get lost again to commit more crimes before they are
deported.
Another bill that we are going to be bringing forward very shortly
deals with the process of the issue of how we speed up carrying out
death sentences in death row cases to try to end the seemingly endless
appeals of death row inmates.
And the last of this series of six deals with the issue of the block
grant programs that we think should be used in place of cops on the
streets and the prevention programs that were passed in last year's
crime bill.
The gentleman from New York referred to this latter bill when he said
that he was perfectly happy with the restitution bill that we have out
here today, but he did not really think we ought to be tinkering around
the edges with what was done already.
I would suggest to him and to all others who may be observing this
proceeding today of our Members here, that we are not going to be
tinkering with
that. We are going to be making a major overhaul when we get to it. We
are going to be taking virtually all the grant programs that were
proposed last year in the prevention area and the cops-on-the-street
program which constituted together a combined amount of almost $16
billion and we are going to be putting these together in community
block grants to the cities and to the counties of this country with the
highest crime rates, according to those rates and their population. We
are going to be giving them this money in the amount of about $10
billion in order that they may, in their pure exercise of their
judgment, decide what is in the best interest of their communities in
fighting crime, whether that be hiring a new police officer, paying
overtime pay to existing police, or doing some prevention program, gosh
knows what it may be. But it will be their decision. We will allow
maximum flexibility to the local communities instead of having
Washington dictate it.

I would just suggest that when we finish the six bills out here,
including the one that the gentleman from New York referred to, we will
have at that point in time actually made some very major revisions in
the laws. We are not going to be tinkering with what was done last
year. We are going to be making major revisions and we are going to be
putting forth a general principle that Republicans believed at the time
of that debate was important.
Mr. Chairman, I am not here to debate those bills, I am here to close
the debate, but I felt because of the comments that were made I needed
to explain that.
I close the debate on this restitution bill. It is not controversial.
We do need to provide adequate restitution to those who are victims of
crime. The bill before us today, H.R. 665, does that. It does go a long
way to making victims whole again and making sure that those who have
committed their crimes, be they violent crimes or be they white-collar
crimes, pay not only in the sense of paying by punishment but paying in
literal dollars and cents to those who are their victims and the other
people whom they have cost in some way through their crimes
compensation that will at least in some small measure provide relief to
those individuals who are the victims and others who have been harmed
by this process.
It is a good bill and I urge the adoption of the bill today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, if you would have noticed, our colleague from North
Carolina raised a very sensitive point that troubles me and I would
just like the gentleman to agree that we really need to look very
carefully into the matter of someone on parole or probation who is
brought back into the system for not meeting his restitution order, the
suspicion being that he might be unemployed or unable to pay and that
there ought to be some procedure that makes sure that we have not
created a mini debtors prison in the process.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, the court has
the discretion, I might point out to the gentleman from Michigan, to
make sure that he can change or modify the particular order of
restitution at any time if the economic circumstances of the offender
have changed, so that I do not believe the difficulty the gentleman
from North Carolina raised is really present. I understand his concern.
But we say here in one of the provisions of the bill, ``A victim or the
offender may petition the court at any time to modify a restitution
order as appropriate in view of a change in the economic circumstances
of the offender.''
I really believe that that will remedy the problem that the gentleman
is concerned about.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the trouble I have with
that provision, and that provision is fine and it contemplates a
situation where the economic conditions of a defendant have changed and
there is the time to do that, but I am not sure under this bill what
court the defendant has the right to go back in front of immediately,
before his probation is revoked, before his parole is revoked. There
seems to be a disjoint between the process for raising that issue and
the process of revocation of the parole and probation. That is the
trouble I have with it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If I may reclaim my time, the revoking of probation
when restitution is not paid is discretionary with the court. The word
is ``may.'' So presumably the court that is going to be revoking it is
going to be the court that indeed handed out the restitution in the
first place.
But I would submit to the gentleman that you could have different
judges in the same court. We have that in many
[[Page H1311]] civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings today
in our courtrooms where for one reason or another, maybe a judge
retires, maybe a judge is ill, maybe a particular judge is not there
and he delegates it to a different one. But it is the same court.
I would submit to the gentleman that I would share his concern, but I
really believe the language is very broad and I do not think his fears
will come to any real truth is reality.
Nonetheless, I suppose we could always come back and address it. The
gentleman would have a right, if he could find a better way of doing it
in the amendment process, to deal with it in the amendments that we are
about to offer.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
665, the Victim Restitution Act. This legislation represents title III
of the Taking Back Our Streets Act, one of the 10 points of the
Republican Contract With America, and begins our efforts here in the
House to address our Nation's crime problem.
The bill before us today embodies one of the most fundamental tenants
of our Nation's justice system--that criminals pay for the consequences
of their crimes. H.R. 665 mandates that those convicted of a Federal
crime provide full restitution to their victims for damages caused as a
result of the crime. The court may determine the amount of restitution
based on the victim's situation and regardless of the economic
resources of the criminal.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces a crime problem of epidemic proportion.
Each year, one in four U.S. households fall victim to violent or
property crime. That translates into nearly 5 million victims of
murder, rape, robbery, and assault, and 19 million victims of arson,
theft, and burglary. According to the Department of Justice, in the
past two decades more than 36 million people in the United States were
injured as a result of violent crime.
In addition to the physical and emotional costs of these crimes there
are substantial economic costs as well. In fact, in 1991 alone, crime
against people and households cost an estimated $19 billion. Each year
crime-related injuries force Americans to spend 700,000 days in the
hospital. Today's legislation will help the victims of these crimes
recoup the costs of these recoveries, and I strongly support its
passage.
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, every day, career criminals exact an untold
cost on American societal and cultural life. When the perpetrator of a
crime commits his illegal act, be it an environmental crime, a white
collar crime, or a crime of violence, the effect on the victims goes
far beyond what the newspaper headlines tell. If the person responsible
for injuring the victims goes to prison, he may pay his debt to
society. But the victims of the crime are not made whole. There are
physical, emotional, and financial costs that are not compensated
unless that person brings a civil suit, a long and unpredictable
process. Sadly, these individuals are often not paid any monetary
restitution for their loss.
Imagine this on a larger scale. Imagine this occurring in towns and
cities across our Nation, all those victims of crimes whose lives have
been dramatically disrupted by individual crimes. We as a society
suffer. Indirectly we all pay these costs of crime in our Nation. ``No
[person] is an island * * * every [person] is a piece of the
continent.''
Presently, Federal courts have discretion to order restitution be
paid to victims by offenders. Why not make this a requirement? This is
not a radical notion. Although a small step, this measure will ensure
that to some extent, there will be compensation for those victimized by
Federal crimes. Steps will be taken to make those affected by crime
whole again. This bill also prohibits double-dipping, so injured
parties will not receive undue compensation. Passing this bill is the
least we can do here in Congress to help repair the damage done to
peoples' lives by this epidemic of crime.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Victim
Restitution Act.
H.R. 665 addresses a fundamental question of fairness. Should victims
have to suffer the burden of damages caused by criminals, or should be
criminals compensate the victims of their crimes? I believe we must
send a clear message that those who commit crimes will not only have to
pay their debt to society, but also to those they have wronged.
In Jacksonville, there are two facilities that offer assistance to
victims: Hubbard House, which provides a full range of services to
victims to domestic violence, and the Victims' Service Center, which
provides services to victims of all types of crime. Both facilities are
funded by private donations, businesses, and the city of Jacksonville.
I mention these programs because they are excellent examples of local
government and business responding to the needs of crime victims.
However, these kinds of initiatives are not enough--and it is time for
Congress to join the fight and pass H.R. 665.
{time} 1400

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 665

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Victim Restitution Act of
1995''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY RESTITUTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS.

(a) Order of Restitution.--Section 3663 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``may order, in addition to or, in the case
of a misdemeanor, in lieu of any other penalty authorized by
law'' and inserting ``shall order''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The requirement
of this paragraph does not affect the power of the court to
impose any other penalty authorized by law. In the case of a
misdemeanor, the court may impose restitution in lieu of any
other penalty authorized by law.'';
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) In addition to ordering restitution to the victim of
the offense of which a defendant is convicted, a court may
order restitution to any person who, as shown by a
preponderance of evidence, was harmed physically,
emotionally, or pecuniarily, by unlawful conduct of the
defendant during--
``(A) the criminal episode during which the offense
occurred; or
``(B) the course of a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of
unlawful activity related to the offense.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B) by striking ``impractical'' and
inserting ``impracticable'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2) by inserting ``emotional or''
after ``resulting in'';
(4) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) in any case, reimburse the victim for lost income and
necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses
related to participation in the investigation or prosecution
of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the
offense; and'';
(5) in subsection (c) by striking ``If the court decides to
order restitution under this section, the'' and inserting
``The'';
(6) by striking subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h);
(7) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (m); and
(8) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d)(1) The court shall order restitution to a victim in
the full amount of the victim's losses as determined by the
court and without consideration of--
``(A) the economic circumstances of the offender; or
``(B) the fact that a victim has received or is entitled to
receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or
any other source.
``(2) Upon determination of the amount of restitution owed
to each victim, the court shall specify in the restitution
order the manner in which and the schedule according to which
the restitution is to be paid, in consideration of--
``(A) the financial resources and other assets of the
offender;
``(B) projected earnings and other income of the offender;
and
``(C) any financial obligations of the offender, including
obligations to dependents.
``(3) A restitution order may direct the offender to make a
single, lump-sum payment, partial payment at specified
intervals, or such in-kind payments as may be agreeable to
the victim and the offender.
``(4) An in-kind payment described in paragraph (3) may be
in the form of--
``(A) return of property;
``(B) replacement of property; or
``(C) services rendered to the victim or to a person or
organization other than the victim.
``(e) When the court finds that more than 1 offender has
contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each
offender liable for payment of the full amount of restitution
or may apportion liability among the offenders to reflect the
level of contribution and economic circumstances of each
offender.
``(f) When the court finds that more than 1 victim has
sustained a loss requiring restitution by an offender, the
court shall order full restitution to each victim but may
provide for different payment schedules to reflect the
economic circumstances of each victim.
[[Page H1312]] ``(g)(1) If the victim has received or is
entitled to receive compensation with respect to a loss from
insurance or any other source, the court shall order that
restitution be paid to the person who provided or is
obligated to provide the compensation, but the restitution
order shall provide that all restitution to victims required
by the order be paid to the victims before any restitution is
paid to such a provider of compensation.
``(2) The issuance of a restitution order shall not affect
the entitlement of a victim to receive compensation with
respect to a loss from insurance or any other source until
the payments actually received by the victim under the
restitution order fully compensate the victim for the loss,
at which time a person that has provided compensation to the
victim shall be entitled to receive any payments remaining to
be paid under the restitution order.
``(3) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of
restitution shall be set off against any amount later
recovered as compensatory damages by the victim in--
``(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and
``(B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent provided by
the law of the State.
``(h) A restitution order shall provide that--
``(1) all fines, penalties, costs, restitution payments and
other forms of transfers of money or property made pursuant
to the sentence of the court shall be made by the offender to
an entity designated by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts for accounting and payment
by the entity in accordance with this subsection;
``(2) the entity designated by the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall--
``(A) log all transfers in a manner that tracks the
offender's obligations and the current status in meeting
those obligations, unless, after efforts have been made to
enforce the restriction order and it appears that compliance
cannot be obtained, the court determines that continued
recordkeeping under this subparagraph would not be useful;
and
``(B) notify the court and the interested parties when an
offender is 30 days in arrears in meeting those obligations;
and
``(3) the offender shall advise the entity designated by
the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts of any change in the offender's address during
the term of the restitution order.
``(i) A restitution order shall constitute a lien against
all property of the offender and may be recorded in any
Federal or State office for the recording of liens against
real or personal property.
``(j) Compliance with the schedule of payment and other
terms of a restitution order shall be a condition of any
probation, parole, or other form of release of an offender.
If a defendant fails to comply with a restitution order, the
court may revoke probation or a term of supervised release,
modify the term or conditions of probation or a term of
supervised release, hold the defendant in contempt of court,
enter a restraining order or injunction, order the sale of
property of the defendant, accept a performance bond, or take
any other action necessary to obtain compliance with the
restitution order. In determining what action to take, the
court shall consider the defendant's employment status,
earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness in
failing to comply with the restitution order, and any other
circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's
ability to comply with the restitution order.
``(k) An order of restitution may be enforced--
``(1) by the United States--
``(A) in the manner provided for the collection and payment
of fines in subchapter B of chapter 229 of this title; or
``(B) in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action;
and
``(2) by a victim named in the order to receive the
restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil
action.
``(l) A victim or the offender may petition the court at
any time to modify a restitution order as appropriate in view
of a change in the economic circumstances of the offender.''.
(b) Procedure for Issuing Order of Restitution.--Section
3664 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a);
(2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d);
(3) by amending subsection (a), as redesignated by
paragraph (2), to read as follows:
``(a) The court may order the probation service of the
court to obtain information pertaining to the amount of loss
sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the
financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and
earning ability of the defendant and the defendant's
dependents, and such other factors as the court deems
appropriate. The probation service of the court shall include
the information collected in the report of presentence
investigation or in a separate report, as the court
directs.''; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
``(e) The court may refer any issue arising in connection
with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate or
special master for proposed findings of fact and
recommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo
determination of the issue by the court.''.

The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been printed in
the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will
be considered as read.
Are there any amendments to the bill?

Amendment offered by Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, the amendment
numbered 1, printed in the February 6 Congressional Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 4, line 24, after
the period insert ``A restitution order shall direct the
offender to give appropriate notice to victims and other
persons in cases where there are multiple victims or other
persons who may receive restitution.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered by myself
and members of the Progressive Caucus and I believe should not be
controversial. In fact, I believe that it is consistent with the intent
of the proposed legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is no argument about the need for restitution for
violent crimes, and I believe that the intent of this legislation is to
cover white collar and corporate crime as well. The gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] has made that quite clear. The amendment that I
am offering simply requires that companies convicted of crimes must
notify the victims of those crimes. Convicted companies should be
required to notify as best as possible all of their victims.
Let me give an example if I might. Price fixing goes on in America
and I think there is no debate about it. We have had circumstances
where companies that deliver oil, heating fuel to people's homes are
convicted of price fixing, they are charging their customers too much
money. It seems to me to be appropriate that if that company is
convicted of price fixing, all of the victims, people who have paid
more money than they should have, should be notified of that conviction
and then again do as they choose to do. And that essentially is what
this amendment is about.
I have talked to the majority and I believe that they are not in
disagreement with the intent of this amendment.
I yield to the gentleman for a response.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman please repeat the
question?
Mr. SANDERS. I was suggesting that we had talked about this issue and
that the gentleman is not in disagreement with the intent of the
amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentleman is quite correct, I am not in
disagreement, though I would suggest that we might be able to modify
the gentleman's amendment to make it more palatable, because I think
there is a question about how an offender would know under the broad
language the gentleman has who all his victims are.

Modification Offered by Mr. McCOLLUM to the Amendment Offered by Mr.
SANDERS

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like at the appropriate time, if
now is the appropriate time, to ask unanimous consent to modify the
gentleman's amendment to add at the end of the words, ``and where the
identity of such victims and other persons can be reasonably
determined.''
If the gentleman would concur in that, I ask unanimous consent, Mr.
Chairman, that modification be made to this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. I would concur, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, let me just raise the issue of whether that same shortcoming
does not exist under the other language in the bill, that there is a
lot to be desired in this bill on the issue of identifying who has been
injured and who is entitled to have restitution made to them.
[[Page H1313]] If we are going to address it with respect to corporate
defendants, it seems to me that we ought also to be making that
language broad enough to cover others.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on his own
reservation?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In
the case of the victims being determined in the normal course of this,
the burden is on the prosecutors in the case to bring forth the
evidence and present it to the court. In the case of the Sanders
amendment, it is requiring a burden on the offender to determine who
his victims are and in some cases that will be very simple. But there
is no prosecutor involved here. This is after the fact, he has to
notify them after the fact. So the court is not in the process at that
juncture, the government is not in the process, and it is all left up
to the individual. That is the reason why I believe it is appropriate
to give some caveat of reasonableness here so that this person, whoever
it may be, is not being asked to do the impossible. Whereas in a case
again of the major part of this, if the government cannot show what it
is supposed to show, nobody is going to be harmed, and there is no
burden on any individual.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Further reserving the right to object,
and I will not object if the sponsor of the amendment is satisfied, but
it seems to me I cannot understand why we are putting corporate
defendants in some separate section of the bill as opposed to putting
them in with all of the other defendants.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. It is my understanding also they were
being put in the bill someplace different from all other defendants.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, we are not. The gentleman
from Vermont's proposal applies equally to noncorporate defendants as
to corporate. He simply is providing, as I read it, a very broad
interpretation. I think his intent is primarily to get at the
corporate, but he actually gets at everybody in this case.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is my time to begin with.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina controls the time now
on his reservation.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am reserving the right to object, and I
yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My concern here is to make sure that in what would most likely be a
corporate crime, multiple victims are notified. When somebody stabs
somebody we know what is going on. If somebody rips off hundreds of
people, it is very likely those hundreds of people will not know that
they have been ripped off, will not be notified of that, will not have
the opportunity to seek redress and that is the purpose of this
amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation
of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] desire
his amendment be modified as proposed by the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. SANDERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification offered by Mr. McCollum to the amendment
offered by Mr. Sanders: At the end include ``and where the
identity of such victims and other persons can be reasonably
determined.''

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders, as modified: Page 4, line
24, after the period insert ``A restitution order shall
direct the offender to give appropriate notice to victims and
other persons in cases where there are multiple victims or
other persons who may receive restitution and where the
identity of such victim and other persons can be reasonably
determined.''.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing more to add to the
discussion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that on our side we strongly
support the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont and commend the
chairman of the majority for accepting a commonsense provision that
would make victims of corporate activity able to be notified of their
right to appear in court and to state their claims for restitution. I
am proud to join in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman--it was not long ago when we could go out in the streets
and to the parks of our neighborhood and feel perfectly safe. Sadly,
that is no longer the case. Now, it is virtually impossible for a day
to go by without a headline detailing the newest criminal outrage.
It is time that criminals understand their behavior will not be
tolerated. Punishment must be certain, swift, and severe. Until they
fear the consequences of being caught, we do not have a chance to win
the war on crime.
H.R. 665 the Victim Restitution Act, goes a long way in achieving
this goal. It instructs Federal courts to award restitution to crime
victims and allows those courts to order restitution to other people
harmed by the criminal's unlawful conduct. Criminals who commit Federal
crimes now know they will literally pay a price for their actions.
Presently, such restitution is permitted, but not required.
I am especially supportive of this measure because victim restitution
is widely considered one of the most effective weapons to help fight
violence against women. By requiring full financial restitution, this
act required the offender to directly face the harm suffered by his
victim by his unlawful actions.
It also strives to provide crime victims with some means of recouping
the personal and financial losses resulting from these terrible acts of
violence.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 665.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

{time} 1410

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments? If not, the question is
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Vucanovich) having assumed the chair, Mr. Riggs, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 665) to
control crime by mandatory victim restitution, pursuant to House
Resolution 60, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
[[Page H1314]] 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 431,
nays, 0, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 97]

YEAS--431

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--3

Frost
Wilson
Yates

{time} 1432

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

____________________