With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3571. H.R.Rep. No. 100-390, at 6 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2137, 2142. Contrary to the purpose of the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984, which was to increase all fines, the Criminal Fine Improvements Act of 1987, according to the House Report, was designed to hamstring all future Congresses by providing that they could establish a lower fine only by express language. In other words, the Criminal Fine Improvements Act of 1987 did not look back, but rather looked forward. The 100th Congress’s ability to restrict the power of future Congresses (by requiring them, if they desire to set a lower fine level, to, in addition to setting the lower fine level, specifically exempt the statute from § 3571) is suspect. See Cooper v. Gen. Dynamics, 533 F.2d 163, 169 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>); cf. Williams v. United States, 240 F.3d 1019,

A: holding that 1991 amendments to other aspects of  3910114lai clarified intent of 1988 amendments to statute
B: holding that psychiatrists evaluation of a defendants future dangerousness implicates the fifth and sixth amendments
C: holding that one congress cannot insulate a statute from amendments by future congresses
D: holding that an excessive force claim is governed by the fourth amendments objectively reasonable standard rather than the fourteenth amendments shock the conscience standard
C.