Robert Wexler

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is certainly meritorious. Nobody wants Russia to transfer antiship cruise missiles to China. That is for certain. But this amendment would also cut off all assistance to Russia if those arms transfers in fact take place. There is always a question of balance. We provide assistance to Russia because it is in the national security interest of the United States to promote economic reform, promote democracy and help prevent future Chernobyls. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] stated earlier, made these points eloquently during our committee markup of the bill. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] offered a waiver to the Rohrabacher amendment to allow the President to make a judgment whether continuing assistance to Russia was in the national security interest of the United States. The Hyde position prevailed. The committee bill included an amendment with the waiver. There is no such waiver in this amendment before us now. The amendment gives the President absolutely no flexibility and raises one issue above every other priority in United States.-Russian relationships. The amendment distorts United States policy toward Russia, and in fact what it is saying is there would be absolutely no circumstance in which there would be a valid security interest of the United States to provide aid for Russia once the transfer of such an antiship cruise missile was made. I do not believe that that is a plausible policy for the United States. This is a veto item for the President, and I strongly urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] for his leadership in bringing it to our attention. The situation in East Timor has been a festering sore for Indonesia, for United States-Indonesian relations and, most importantly, for the people of East Timor for more than two decades. This amendment puts the House of Representatives on record as supporting a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor. It deserves our support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for drawing attention to this human rights case. Mr. Choephel should be released immediately. That is the bottom line. I and others, I hope, will support the amendment.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. We in Congress have a moral obligation to help stop a terrible trend of destruction by landmines that maim and hurt thousands of individuals throughout the world each year. Are my fellow Americans aware that there are over 100 million uncleared land mines throughout the world that claim over 500 lives a week? Every year, another 26,000 people are injured or killed due to landmines. What is truly sad and unfortunate is that the victims of these tragic accidents are not only soldiers of war. Landmines do not respect peace treaties or accords. Landmines cannot distinguish between the footfall of a soldier and that of child. The innocent victims of landmines are often children who had the misfortune of stepping on a landmine while walking through the woods to collect firewood or to pick fruit. Today, we have an extraordinary opportunity to take bold steps to save future generations of innocent civilians. We can join the 156 nations who support a complete ban of landmines. The United States can no longer stand idly by while thousands of innocent civilians are injured and killed each year.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to help make certain that America's senior citizens and America's veterans get treated fairly as this Congress attempts to balance our budget by the year 2002. The Consumer Price Index should be an economical calculation, not a political one. The Consumer Price Index and the cost-of-living raises should reflect that supposed basket of goods that each and every American will purchase each and every month. When the Department of Labor goes into America's drugstores and they look at the kinds of drug prescriptions that America's senior citizens have to purchase each month that cost $150 and $200 at a clip, they will understand that the cost-of-living supposed increases that may overstate inflation in fact are needed by America's senior citizens. The cost-of-living inflation with respect to home health costs and the kinds of long-term health insurance that America's senior citizens need require us to make an economic calculation, not a political one, that truly reflects the true basket of goods that America's senior citizens and veterans are required to purchase each month.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for Floridians and for all Americans. Nearly 1,000 criminals who have committed the most heinous crimes imaginable have been released from Florida's prisons without serving nearly their full sentences. Once again the victims and their families will relive the worst nightmare, knowing that the criminal who destroyed their lives is free to commit the crime again. This is an outrage, and Congress must stop it now. Imagine it was your 6-year-old son who was sexually molested by a friend you trusted enough to bring into your home. Imagine it was your wife or sister who was brutally raped. Imagine it was your 17-year-old son who was repeatedly stabbed to death. These are not hypothetical examples. All of these vile criminals were among the 1,000 prisoners already released from Florida's prisons. The criminals who committed these heinous crimes are now walking free due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that creates a so-called constitutionally protected right to gain time, an early release mechanism created by Florida officials in 1983 to alleviate prison overcrowding. History shows that a frighteningly high percentage of these criminals will molest, murder, and rape again and again. Last month Floridians saw a chilling example of what happens when violent felons are released from jail prematurely. Lawrence Singleton was released after serving only 8 years, only 8 years of his 14-year sentence for raping a 15-year-old girl, severing her forearms, and leaving her for dead. This young girl lived. But last month Singleton struck again and murdered a Tampa woman. How many Floridians must die because of this absurd U.S. Supreme Court decision? The whole premise of gain time is a contradiction. Releasing violent prisoners before they serve their full sentence is just plainly wrong. A child molester, a murderer, or a rapist has earned absolutely nothing. For years Florida was known as the crime capital of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has slapped law- abiding Floridians in the face. That is why Congressmen Foley, McCollum, and I today filed a bipartisan constitutional amendment empowering States to keep their violent offenders behind bars and allowing the American people the opportunity to exercise common sense when our Supreme Court has failed to do so. Our sheriffs can catch them, our State attorneys can prosecute them, our judges and juries can sentence them, our State legislatures can appropriate the money to build the prisons. But after all, this ridiculous loophole sets these violent people free. Something is dramatically wrong when a technicality and interpretation by judicial decree overrides good sense, good judgment, and good government when as many as 16,000 dangerous criminals are free to terrorize our neighborhoods and when the Supreme Court places the rights of violent criminals above the rights of law-abiding citizens. The Constitution of the United States must be changed.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make the post of the U.S. marshal a professional position rather than a political appointment. Currently, marshals are typically designated by the Senators of the respective States. Under this bill, they would instead be appointed by the Director of the Marshals Service. This bill was originally proposed by the President as part of his reinventing Government initiative. It is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association because they believe it will improve the Marshals Service. I agree with them, and I urge support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 672, a bill to make a number of technical corrections to title 17 of the United States Code, including corrections to drafting errors in the Satellite Home Viewer Act, section 104(a), dealing with restoration of copyright protection in certain preexisting works; licenses for nonexempt subscription transmissions; negotiated licenses for jukeboxes; notice time for infringement actions, copyright office fee schedules, court proceedings, and reports pursuant to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no objections to any of these amendments to law and recommend their adoption under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] to H.R. 924. The purpose of this bill is to permit victims of a violent crime, or those whose loved ones have been victimized, to watch the trial of the person accused of committing the crime. Traditionally, a criminal trial is viewed as being a confrontation between the State and the defendant. The victims of crime were left out of the picture. We need to make sure that victims are treated fairly by the justice system, especially when allowing greater victim participation will have no prejudicial impact on the trial and will not in any way compromise the defendant's rights. In recent years, the Congress, like many States, has allowed victims in certain circumstances to make victim impact statements at the sentencing phase of the trial. This bill does not expand or affect the right under existing law to make such statements. However, in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing trial, the judge recently held that people who will make victim impact statements, if the defendant or defendants are convicted, cannot watch the trial. Mr. Speaker, I believe the judge's ruling in the Oklahoma City case was a misinterpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, and we must now clarify that rule to make it absolutely clear that the intent is not to exclude victims from trials. The judge's ruling was apparently based on the evidentiary rule that in most cases people who are witnesses at a criminal trial cannot watch the testimony of other witnesses. The purpose for this rule is that we do not want one witness' recollections to be influenced by another witness' testimony. But that rationale simply does not apply to people making victim impact statements. The facts and issues they are addressing are totally different from the facts addressed by the other witnesses at trial. The idea that their testimony will be affected by watching the trial just does not make sense. As one of the Oklahoma City survivors put it, a man who lost one eye in the explosion, ``It's not going to affect our testimony at all. I have a hole in my head that's covered with titanium. I nearly lost my hand. I think about it every minute of the day.'' That man, incidentally, is choosing to watch the trial and to forfeit his right to make a victim impact statement. Victims should not have to make that choice. Mr. Speaker, this bill was reported out of committee on voice vote. The manager's amendment makes a number of changes to the bill as reported, but they do not substantively change the bill, with one exception. The exception is that the manager's amendment adds a new, unrelated provision that would make a technical correction to a provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that Congress changed last year. This correction is uncontroversial. Finally, I would like to note that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking minority member on the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Crime, have asked me to note their support on this bill for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this amendment and this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt].

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.