[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 123 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, with reference to the earlier statement on
the crime bill, Senator Mitchell and I will have a meeting a little
after 2 p.m. We do not know what will happen at that meeting. We are
trying to proceed in good faith on each side. That may or may not be
resolved. If not, we will have a vote this afternoon on the point of
order.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will not take long. I know the
distinguished Senator from Virginia has been waiting. I have to correct
the record.
While I was off the floor, it was suggested by some of my Democratic
colleagues that I changed my opinion on the trust fund concept, that
the reason that I am critical of this bill and its trust fund is one of
political motivation.
That is hardly the case. I will remind my colleagues that I did
support the trust fund and its concept in the Senate bill. That was a
completely different bill from this bill.
This bill's trust fund is not the same at all. It is not even the
same proposal. The old trust fund that was $22 billion, we passed out
of the Senate. This one is $30 billion. Clearly, it is $13 billion in
deficit. The old trust fund was budget neutral as we passed it on the
floor. That is why we did not raise a point of order against it. This
one contains $13 billion in deficit spending.
My fellow citizens out in America should just think about that. We
have a bill here that is going to spend $13 billion more than we have.
The old trust fund was a 5-year plan, which required more spending in
the early years. This new trust fund requires nearly half of its
spending to be in the years 1999 and 2000. Who is kidding whom? This
trust fund promises the country to pay for the crime bill. But it also
trusts the Clinton administration to pay for most of it after the 1996
election.
Let me just make another point here, because I think it is important
to set the record straight. My colleagues should not misconstrue my
support for the original Senate crime bill.
When the Senate bill originally went out, it was the Biden-Hatch
bill. It was a tough-on-crime bill, and it did not have the pork in it
that we now have in the conference report. Frankly, it was a good bill,
and its trust fund was deficit neutral.
I did say this morning that I questioned, and it has been through the
ensuing months that I have questioned it, whether this administration
will cut 250,000 employees and thus provide the moneys for the trust
fund. I really do not believe it will. I do not know anyone else who
believes that it will either.
To make a long story short, President Clinton and his allies are
suggesting that the conference bill before us is pretty much the same
bill we supported in the Senate last November. They know better. I
think they are simply putting up a smoke screen to cover their
hijacking of scarce crime-fighting resources into Great Society-style
social spending boondoggles.
Like I say, the distinguished Senator from Delaware worked long and
hard and deserves a lot of credit. I also have worked long and hard. I
certainly have worked long and hard to help get the violence against
women bill through. And we are going to try to do that before we get
through here. We are going to try and pass this bill with that
provision intact.
Let me tell you something else. Some of these people have bowed, once
again, to their party's liberal wing and they do not want the American
people to know it.
The bill I supported in November did not have the $1.62 billion Local
Partnership Act in it. We consider that not only deficit spending, but
a boondoggle. The Senate bill did not have the $625.5 million Model
Intensive Grant Program boondoggle. This is to name just two of the
pork provisions, to the tune of nearly $2.25 billion, sent to us by the
other body and contained in this conference report. I might add they
are two of the programs we would like to remove from the bill.
The original bill I supported in November did have tough mandatory
minimum sentences for the use of a gun in a crime. The bill I supported
in November had tough mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to
minors and for using minors in a drug crime.
The bill I supported in November contained the tough Dole-Hatch-Brown
antigang provisions, with tough Federal penalties for violent juvenile
gang offense. The bill I supported in November contained the Simpson
criminal alien removal provision, making it easier to deport criminal
aliens after they have served their sentences, rather than letting them
walk out of prison and able to commit more crimes. We would like to
change that and enact the Simpson criminal alien removal provision. It
will be one of the amendments that we will bring up if we are
successful on this point of order, or on any agreement the
distinguished leaders of this body work out.
The original bill I supported in November contained the Smith-Simpson
Terrorist Alien Removal Act, which made it easier to boot out alien
terrorists from this country.
The bill I supported in November contained the Moseley-Braun-Hatch
provision to prosecute violent juveniles 13 and older as adults for
certain heinous crimes. We are tired of these kids--drive-by shootings
and all of the other things that they have done. And I commend the
distinguished Senator from Illinois for having been the sponsor of that
amendment and having made such cogent and eloquent arguments for it on
the floor, and she did.
The bill I supported in November fully restricted so-called drug
court treatment programs to nonviolent first offenders. This bill goes
way beyond that, with money being wasted on hard core offenders. I am
not against doing it in theory, if we had unlimited money to spend.
Hope still springs eternal in my breast. But why not use those scarce
funds for first-time offenders? The current bill does not.
All of these and more are missing from the bill before us. Once
President Clinton and his allies, in a conference controlled by
liberals from his side of the aisle, got their hands on the Senate
bill, these tough provisions went out the window and they larded the
bill up with more and more pork programs.
The President and his liberal congressional allies took a Senate
bill, which was not perfect, by any means--there were provisions we did
not like in it--but which had more pluses than minuses, and both turned
it into a vehicle with pork for special interests and softened it
considerably.
The Senate bill, apparently, was just too tough on crime for this
President. It was only $22 billion, in contrast to the $8 billion more,
$30 billion bill we have before us now in this conference.
So nobody should misconstrue my position on the trust fund. It is
completely different now than what it was when I argued in favor of it
on the floor of the Senate.
I thought it was splendid at the time, but that was last November.
The more I think of it and the more I see how this administration is
operating and, frankly, the more I see how the Congress is operating, I
do not have any real faith that we are going to reduce Federal
employment by 250,000. In fact, Federal employment is growing every
day. I really doubt seriously that we are going to have the trust fund
money to be able to fund this bill.
Last, but not least, even if we did, even if the trust fund worked,
the benefits are now put off until 1999-2000, so it will be paid for
only after this President is reelected, if he is reelected. And, even
if they were, you would still have a $13 billion deficit. We would be
spending $13 billion more dollars that we do not have.
Now, I do not think that is the way to do business. I do not think
that is the way to run our country. That is one reason why we are
raising such Cain here. We are not just going to roll over and play
dead because we are outmanned here. We know the Democrats have
controlled the Congress for most of the last 60 years. And we know that
this administration ignored the Republicans in the Senate. We are just
not going to be ignored. We think we are right on these issues. We are
going to fight until we at least have a chance to bring these issues up
and bring them up in a decent way.
I also understand that the distinguished Senator from California
indicated that she thought I was being disingenuous with regard to
guns. Well, how can she come to that conclusion? I do not think any
Senator on the Democrat side has been in our Republican caucus meetings
where we agreed to what the issues are. I have discussed what happened
in those meetings. And I made it very clear that the gun issue was not
and is not the issue.
Yes, we do not like the ban. We did not like getting beaten on it. We
do not like having second amendment rights taken away from the people.
We do not like decent, law-abiding sports people losing their right of
access to a number of these firearms. But we lost.
And I do not know of anybody on our side who is now trying to make
the gun ban issue the major issue. It does not have to be. Moreover, it
does not have to be under the proposals that the minority leader is
making to the majority leader.
So to even imply that I am disingenuous implies that somebody over
there must have a spy in our meetings. A person who just plainly cannot
hear well and cannot see well.
Keep in mind, the Senate bill passed 95-4 with the gun ban in it only
because the bill otherwise was a tough anticrime bill. Only two
Republicans on this side voted against it. And yet, people on this side
of the aisle, the Democrat side, have been talking about guns for the
last few days because that is the only issue they have. They cannot
talk about the bill and the pork issue because they know that the bill
is loaded with pork. They cannot talk about tough provisions on crime,
even the Moseley-Braun provision, because it is no longer in there. The
mandatory minimum provisions for committing crimes with the use of a
gun, it is no longer there. Now, what kind of ``anticrime'' reasoning
would take that out?
And, by the way, the two Republicans who opposed this bill when it
went out of the Senate did not oppose it because of the gun issue. They
opposed it because of the death penalty. And they made that clear.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we are tired of business as
usual in this body. We may be a minority and we may get tramped on from
time to time, but you are not going to tramp on some of us without an
effective fight back.
I have to say, this administration just ignored the Republicans in
the Senate, even though Senator Dole sent a message to the President
offering to help in this matter. He offered to cooperate, offered to
bring Republicans along, offered to try to resolve the issues. The
administration figured, by resolving some issues with a number of young
Congresspeople over in the House that they could simply bind the
Senate, and the Senate would just roll over and play dead. It just so
happens, we do not have to do that, nor will we.
The American people expect more from us. We will give them more. We
are going to stay here as long as we have to. If we have to go to a
point of order and if we win, we are going to bring up these
amendments. If we lose, then the American people are going to lose once
again because you are going to have a $30 billion bill loaded with
pork. That is likely to be funded first, instead of the prisons,
instead of police, instead of law enforcement. And many of these
anticrime provisions are not very tough at all in this bill.
When the House defeated the rule, everybody said it was about guns.
Senator Biden said that on the floor; so did the President. But guns
are still in the bill.
And I am telling anybody that thinks that I may be disingenuous that
I think it is disingenuous for the Democrats to try to make that the
issue when it is not. They have been doing it from word one because
they do not have the arguments to uphold the provisions of this bill
that we have been talking about. And they know it. They figured they
were going to get along by hiding all of the pork in the bill, this
1960's style social spending, because they know that people want a
crime bill, a real crime bill.
Well, I am personally sick of it and we are not going to roll over
and play dead just because we are a minority.
So, Madam President, I feel deeply about having a crime bill. Nobody
wants one more than I do.
I would like to have the Senate crime bill. We cannot get that now.
But I would like to reform it and make it a little bit better so that
at least when people in this body vote for it they do not have to hold
their nose.
Frankly, it is something that needs to be done. Maybe we will be
successful, maybe we will not, but we are giving it everything we have.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from to Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, as the Senate stands deadlocked over a $30
billion crime bill, 5-year-old Andre Grady lies paralyzed and fighting
for his life in a Norfolk, VA, hospital, an innocent victim of the kind
of violence the crime bill is designed to address.
Last week, while riding his bike outside his grandmother's house at 3
o'clock in the afternoon, Andre was gunned down in a drive-by shooting.
The responsibility for determining who shot Andre now lies with the
judicial system.
The responsibility to help prevent senseless violence from claiming
more innocent 5-year-olds in Andre's neighborhood--and in neighborhoods
all across the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Nation--lies with us
today.
We have pending before the Senate the conference report on a $30
billion crime bill that passed this body in a very similar form by a
vote of 95 to 4 just 9 months ago.
A bill that focuses on prisons, police, punishment, and prevention.
Let me repeat that, Madam President, this bill focuses on prisons,
police, punishment, and prevention.
That means that if this bill passes, more police officers are put on
our streets, providing reinforcement for the men and women who
currently serve our communities, enhancing the overall safety of our
neighborhoods, and providing a real deterrent to those contemplating a
criminal act.
If this bill passes, prison sentences are toughened and extended,
keeping violent criminals off the streets for greater periods of time.
If this bill passes, prison systems are expanded, allowing for the
implementation of tougher and longer sentences.
If this bill passes, juveniles guilty of violent crimes will be
treated as adults, ensuring greater fairness to victims and reducing
recidivism through tougher sentencing.
If this bill passes, greater access to prevention programs will
reduce both the number of young people engaging in violent criminal
acts and the number of people falling victim to violent crime.
If this bill passes, expanded provisions to protect women against
violent crimes will be implemented.
Very importantly, Madam President, if this bill passes, 19 types of
dangerous assault weapons--designed to kill large numbers of human
beings--will be outlawed.
The police officers, the sheriffs, the commonwealth's attorney's and
the judges in the Commonwealth of Virginia with whom I have spoken
support this legislation overwhelmingly. They support it because it
gives interested States and localities the resources they desperately
need to fund anticrime initiatives on a voluntary basis. This is not a
Federal mandate. States and localities simply do not have the capacity
to shoulder the entire financial burden alone.
Law enforcement officers have told me they fear turning a dark corner
and facing an assault weapon more sophisticated and more deadly then
the one they carry to protect our streets and our neighborhoods.
In addition, the Virginia General Assembly is currently reviewing a
proposal to eliminate parole in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This has
already been done at the Federal level, but to do so in Virginia, we
would need an enormous amount of new funding to build and expand
prisons. The crime bill could help fund this initiative.
We ought to pass this bill and we ought to do it now.
Virtually every major law enforcement agency in the country has
expressed support for it.
It includes $9 billion to hire 100,000 new police officers--a
potential $215 million for Virginia.
It includes $9 billion to build new prisons and boot camps--a
possible $108 million for Virginia.
It includes $3 billion to enhance activities at the Federal Bureau of
Investigations and the Drug Enforcement Agency, and $7 billion for
proven and effective crime prevention programs--a guaranteed $108
million for Virginia.
It also includes tough, increased penalties for crimes committed with
firearms, for drug use, for drug-trafficking, for sex offenses, for
assaults against children, and for ``gang'' crimes.
In addition, this bill expands the Federal death penalty to cover
over 50 new offenses, including terrorism, murder of a law enforcement
officer, large-scale drug trafficking, drive-by shootings, and
carjackers who murder.
In an effort to keep more prisoners in jail and deter repeat
offenders, it eliminates the automatic granting of good time credits
and creates incentives for States to adopt truth-in-sentencing
guidelines, which requires prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of
their terms, and mandates life imprisonment for criminals convicted of
three violent felonies or drug offenses.
Some opponents of the bill are now criticizing its price tag--and I
am about as tough on Government spending as anyone.
But the indisputable fact is this bill is paid for. It is paid for
with the money saved by reducing the Federal work force, by 252,000
positions.
And while I understand some of the concerns about specific provisions
in the bill--no bill is ever perfect, and I am convinced that, on
balance, it will reduce crime in America and make our streets safer.
It is worth the money we will save from downsizing the Federal
bureaucracy.
We cannot continue to just debate this issue. We have been doing that
for almost 6 years and we cannot devise parliamentary maneuvers to try
to delay its passage further.
We have communities under siege that cannot wait any longer for help
and they are counting on us for help.
We have Americans insecure in their own homes and neighborhoods and
we have it in our power to help.
And we have a 5-year-old child named Andres, who lies paralyzed in a
Norfolk hospital fighting to recover from a senseless gunshot wound
when he should be spending an innocent summer afternoon riding his bike
in front of his grandmother's house.
Madam President, it is time to act, it is time to pass the crime
bill.
I thank the Chair and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, within a relatively short period of
time, the Senate is going to get an opportunity to determine whether or
not the crime bill before us will be passed entirely unchanged or
whether, as was the case in the House of Representatives, it could be
improved; not improved in the marginal fashion which took place in the
House of Representatives, but dramatically.
Because this crime bill requires a waiver of the Budget Act, voices
other than those who crafted the conference committee report, are going
to be heard. After a conference committee which added to the pork and
subtracted from the law enforcement provisions of the bill which was
passed by the U.S. Senate, for myself I am confident that one way or
another we are going to get that opportunity to improve this crime
bill.
The history of the debate since the original conference committee
report is relatively short, and memories are still fresh about the
arguments that were made in the White House and in the press and in the
House of Representatives immediately following the defeat of the rule
for the consideration of the original product of that conference
committee.
They were that a crime bill was dead for this year.
They were that this was a sneaky parliamentary trick designed to kill
the bill.
They were that the only concern of the opponents were those who
wanted to defeat the assault weapons ban.
They were that the bill was as close to perfection as was possible
and could not possibly be changed.
During the course of the succeeding week, each of those arguments
turned out to be fallacious. In fact, the defeat of the rule, the
technical rule, in the House of Representatives, did not mark the end
of the crime bill. In fact, it turned out that a handful of dedicated
Members, mostly from the minority party, mostly relatively junior,
succeeded in removing $2 billion, $3 billion of the pork from the bill,
adding at least a handful of good law-enforcement provisions, including
one that had been sponsored by this Senator and accepted unanimously by
the Senate of the United States.
Lo and behold, those who voted in favor of the bill then in the House
of Representatives, the President of the United States said, ``Gosh,
now we have a better bill than the one that just 1 week ago was
defeated.'' ``However,'' they all reported, ``it must be absolutely
perfect now because we certainly do not want the Senate of the United
States to debate it in detail. We don't want the Senate of the United
States to avail itself of the same right to amend, to change before it
comes to a final vote that the House of Representatives took.''
We hear exactly the same arguments today. First, that the budget
point of order is a mere technicality. It is, however, Madam President,
something more than a technicality that a budget point of order that
was waived last November for a $22 billion bill, might not be waived
for a $30 billion bill. In the mind of this Senator at least, who may
not have been here long enough to consider several billions of dollars
to be a mere technicality, that difference is a profound difference. It
is all the difference in the world and overwhelmingly merits a real
debate over a point of order and an upholding of that point of order so
that this bill can be reduced to being at least roughly the same size
it was when it left this body the better part of a year ago.
When a bill is produced, as this one was, not just by one party, at
least before the last meeting last Sunday night, but only a handful of
Members of even that party, when it includes matters that were not
earlier debated, when it excludes matters for which both Houses voted
by significant majorities, something is wrong with the procedure and
another debate is more than appropriate.
Madam President, this Senator hopes that there will be an agreement
involving the majority party and the minority party which will outline
and limit both the number of amendments which ought to be considered
and the time during which they ought to be debated. This Senator feels
that there is a very real possibility of such an agreement. But if
there is not, that we should avail ourselves, as our rights as
Senators, to reexamine a number of significant provisions in this bill.
In fact, it seems to me that the very delays on the part of those who
say we must pass it in exactly the form in which it was passed by the
House, have increased public scrutiny of the bill, have increased
public criticism of much that is in this bill, have increased the
demands from all across the country, as well as from Senators on this
side of the aisle, that we get down to passing a bill which actually
does something for our law enforcement and which does not just scatter
money widely across the land for whatever any individual Member thinks
might have been a good idea.
When we end up in this bill with more than $1.5 billion for a program
identical to a program which was proposed as a part of the notorious
and unlamented stimulus agreement a year and a half ago, with no
changes other than the preamble--then for economic recovery now for
crime control--we are not dealing seriously with the fiscal concerns of
the people of the United States of America.
Madam President, for this bill to be acceptable, a wide range of
programs in the bill which are not directly related to the safety of
our people in their homes, on their streets, in their schools, must be
removed. We must be serious and focused in our attentions in this bill.
And then, Madam President, in the quiet before the storm here early on
this Wednesday afternoon, I, at least, express my confidence that we
are going to get that opportunity; that Members will be allowed to
vote.
I hope--I do not know whether I am correct in this regard or not--
that one of the strong law enforcement provisions which can be restored
to the bill is one which the distinguished occupant of the chair, at
this point, introduced and, I believe, passed unanimously through the
Senate relating to violent crimes by juveniles and allowing them, to a
greater extent than is the case today, to be tried as adults when they
have acted as adults and endangered and wounded and killed people just
as adults will.
I hope that is one of the opportunities that we have because it is
certainly an example of one of the strong antiviolence provisions of
the original proposal in the Senate that simply disappeared from this
bill during the course of the meetings of that secret conference
committee between the House and the Senate.
Madam President, this Nation needs a crime bill, but it does not need
just any crime bill. It needs one that will attack the problem
successfully and well, more than by simply a splattering of money
across the landscape.
This morning, there was a report on a national network from Kansas
City, MO, with a very, very high crime rate, in which the police
officers are simply overwhelmed and need more members. The chief of
police had discovered, however, that the promise of 100,000 new cops on
the beat was a hollow promise, a promise which my jurisdiction, when I
was attorney general of the State of Washington, had it extended any
further, would have been required to bring a suit to enjoin false
advertising, a promise of 100,000 new police officers, with a big
asterisk that the beneficiary pay 25 percent of the cost the first
year, 50 percent of the cost in the second year, 75 percent of the cost
in the third year, and all of it thereafter.
The response there, and the response has been from many of my law
enforcement officials, if we had that kind of money, we would have
already hired those police officers. But we certainly cannot do it on a
partial Federal subsidy for 3 years, a period of time basically that it
takes to train them to be good, effective police officers, and then be
left with the entire cost ourselves.
This was a promise that was made that is not kept in this bill.
Lord knows, we could have kept that promise with less money than is
in this bill if we had switched money from many of this wide range of
other programs into this one. I think that you will see, when
amendments are proposed, there will be money taken out from projects
that looked good to Members on this side of the aisle, that were
sponsored by Members on this side of the aisle, as well as those
programs which were added either on the other side of the aisle in this
body or in the House of Representatives.
We need a lean, mean anticrime bill. This Senate is likely to vote
very quickly this afternoon on whether or not that is what we are going
to get.
The people of the United States are up in arms over what was sold to
them as a crime bill and what they now understand is very largely a
pork bill. I look forward to the debate on specific amendments. I look
forward to a defense of specific elements in this bill when we can vote
on them individually on their own particular merits.
I strongly suspect that there will be a bipartisan majority, joining
Members of both parties in this body, to restore crime-fighting
measures, to remove money measures which could not pass on their own
merit and were hidden away in this bill in hopes that they could be
passed without debate, without careful examination.
If we do that, if we follow that kind of debate, we, first, will be
responsible to the citizens who sent us here, and, second, we are
likely to end up with a bill that I suspect the President will end up
signing and saying, my gosh, they improved it still more in the Senate
than they did in the House.
The pretense that somehow or another to change one thing in this bill
will kill it is exactly that. The pretense that it is perfect at the
present time so that we should not touch anything in it is just exactly
that. The pretense that it is not filled with pork is just exactly
that. And the pretense that it does everything that needs to be done to
strengthen the hand of our law enforcement officers is just that.
We have an opportunity to change pretense into reality, and to pass a
very good anticrime bill if it is allowed to be amended, as I believe
it will, during the course of today and succeeding days.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I have not yielded the floor.
Mr. BROWN. I asked the distinguished Senator to yield for the
purposes of a question.
Mr. BIDEN. I did not hear that part.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may yield for a question.
Mr. BROWN. There is included in the bill some $6 to $7 billion in
spending, often called pork barrel spending but the advocates of that
spending describe it as preventive spending. The Senator has a long
career in the legal profession, particularly as a prosecutor. How much
crime will be reduced by the $6 to $7 billion in new spending that is
included in the bill?
Mr. GORTON. My own estimate, I say to my colleague from Colorado, is
very little. But I must confess, to a certain extent, that is only an
estimate because so much of what is in this bill either duplicates
existing programs or is entirely untested that it literally seems to me
simply to be a blind throwing away of money in the hopes that somehow
or another crime rates might somehow be affected.
I find this particularly strange, I can say to my colleague, from
Colorado, because of the fact that there are now being funded, in part
by money from the Federal Government, a number of crime prevention
programs which have been of demonstrable value in reducing crime. One
of them, one particularly close to the heart of this Senator, is the
Byrne grants for multijurisdictional drug task forces. Here we had, as
recently as January of this year, a proposal by the President of the
United States in his budget to wipe them out, to cancel them after 3 or
4 years of increasing success. No single item in this year's budget
exercised law enforcement officers in the State of Washington, I know
from firsthand experience, and law enforcement officers from across the
country as did the cancellation of these Byrne grants. And with a
bipartisan majority, ultimately they were restored, first, cautiously
in a budget resolution and, ultimately, as recently as last Thursday or
Friday, by the appropriations bill for the Justice Department to a
point at which they will be increased over last year.
It was a wonderful coincidence for this Senator because that great
restoration took place just as we had headlines in newspapers in
eastern Washington about a magnificently successful major drug bust
conducted by the very teams that were being funded in part by these
Byrne grants.
But in a bill that was going to cost ultimately $33 billion, was
there anything more for Byrne grants? No. No. Just a whole bunch of new
sets of ideas.
There is another program, still new, called weed and seed--aid from
the Federal Government to roughly 20 major cities across the country,
of which one is located in the State of Washington, which brings
together law enforcement officers and various social welfare agencies
that zero in on high-crime neighborhoods. It has been a marvelous
success in the city of Seattle, and I am told it has been an equal
success in a number of other cities across the country. Why not add to
a successful experiment like that with respect to crime prevention
efforts?
These are only a couple of examples of where we know that this kind
of work could work. But instead, where we have 266 job training
programs, we will add a 267. We are going to have I think about 155, or
we have 266 juvenile programs, and we are going to add two or three
more. There is no study of which of those work, no relation, no
figuring out what we should add to because it is already highly
workable. It is just another set of programs of that sort.
The National Community Economic Partnership, what has that to do at
this point with crime prevention? Would we have passed at a time of
burgeoning budget deficits a $270 million brand new grant program
totally untied to crime statistics at all had we voted on it
separately, individually? I think not. But one of the things that we
will attempt to do during the course of the rest of this debate by
sustaining a point of order is to let the Senate of the United States
vote specifically on whether or not its Members think that is the way
in which we ought to be spending money.
Mr. BROWN. I might say to the Senator that the contention by the
advocates of this pork barrel spending that it would reduce the crime
rate flies in the face of our experience. Since 1960, we have seen
welfare spending explode from $30 billion to $230 billion, and at the
same time we have seen the crime rate not go down but go up, over
tripling in that same period.
Mr. GORTON. Almost, I might add, by looking at the chart at the same
rate.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator from Colorado or Oregon yield for a
question?
Mr. BROWN. I might simply follow up that comment with a question.
What proof is there----
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
Mr. BROWN. That pork barrel spending will indeed result in lower
crime rates?
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GORTON. I just did. I would like to answer the one that I already
yielded to.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. GORTON. I will after I have taken care of this one.
I think the question asked by the Senator from Colorado was whether
or not I have any indication with my background that these programs
which we have attacked as spending programs are likely to have a
significant impact on reducing crime rates. My response to that is any
such question obviously can be answered in any way. Certainly, the
experience of the last 20 or 30 years, as outlined on the chart there,
would indicate that to so believe that would be a triumph of hope over
experience that literally dozens or hundreds of these programs in the
past have not been accompanied by any lessening of the crime rate, and
to think that doing more of the same thing, particularly by doing it in
an uncoordinated fashion, is going to have a dramatic and positive
impact on crime is to put it, at least, without significant proof.
I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. I have a very short question of the distinguished Senator
from Washington, Madam President, and I suspect, by association, the
distinguished Senator from Colorado.
The distinguished Senator from Washington is a lawyer and has a great
deal of legal experience, probably has worked with a lot of charts, and
knows that if this occurs, thus, this follows.
I am wondering if the distinguished Senator from Washington believes
that just because I do a graph that has one line going up, and another
line below is going up, that that means necessarily the first line
follows the second. I suspect that it would be possible for me to take
the very attractive chart of the distinguished Senator from Colorado
and show the stock market increased over that period of time. I suspect
the stock market would go up in real dollars.
I ask my friend, the distinguished Senator from Washington, would
that mean therefore that the stock market went up over that period of
time and that we can conclude that the stock market causes increased
crime?
I would like to ask question of the distinguished Senator from
Washington. He has the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Yes. I appreciate the question from the Senator from
Nebraska.
My answer to his question is that, of course, he is correct; that
from the point of view of logic courses that he and I both took when we
began college, you cannot necessarily put two isolated factors together
and show that they have risen or fallen at the same time together and
say that one is the cause of the other.
I may say, however, that was not the question that I was asked by the
Senator from Colorado. He did not ask me whether or not I thought that
the increase in welfare spending had caused the increase in crime on
his chart here. He asked me, in light of these two facts, whether I
thought that another increase in welfare spending contained in this
bill was going to cause a dramatic drop in the crime rate. My answer to
that question was no. I was not asked the question whether or not I
thought that his welfare spending chart was the cause of the increase
in the crime rate.
In any event, the Senator from Nebraska gives me the opportunity to
repeat the point for which I came to the floor; that is, there ought to
be time in this debate, which essentially has gone on for 1\1/2\ years,
I think, from the middle of last year when we first began to talk about
crime, as to whether or not a number of specific programs in this bill
are appropriately a part of a crime bill, or ought to be voted on
separately, and whether or not a number of anticrime substantive
measures, which were debated and passed by the Senate of the United
States and dropped in this bill, ought to be restored.
The only way in which we can have that debate rather than an
amorphous, generalized debate on the whole bill is to sustain a point
of order raised under the Budget Act, or have a unanimous agreement
that we will go to these amendments.
I am here simply to say that these are questions that we ought to
allow to be debated in the context of specific amendments aimed at
specific grant programs that are included in this bill.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I sincerely hope my friend from Washington--I wish he had
followed the debate up to now like he says he wants to follow it from
here on. I find this fascinating. I have always thought my wife, a
former Republican, and most of my friends are Republicans, that
Republicans grasp concepts as rapidly as Democrats do.
But I am finding that on every issue where the Republican minority,
and the minority in the Republican Party, does not like what is going
on, they conclude they need more time. I do not think they are really
slower. I am sure that is not true.
I do not understand where my friend from Washington was as we debated
these points the last 6 years. I do not know where he was the last year
when we debated this very point that my brilliant friend--and he is a
brilliant man with two advanced degrees, a very fine fellow from
Colorado--is about to raise. We have debated that point.
The other thing is that I am also stunned at how so many people who
have been around here for a while do not understand how the Congress
works, do not understand the Constitution, and the way the process
works here. The way the process works is we debate issues on this
floor, in this body, that go into a bill that sometimes are not debated
on the House side. And the House, golly, they sometimes debate
particular aspects of a piece of legislation that we do not debate.
That is why we have conference committees. That is the purpose of a
conference committee because sometimes one body puts into a piece of
legislation something the other body does not. Under the way in which
the legislative process was designed to work in this country, instead
of going back and repeatedly debating them and debating them on both
sides of this Chamber, meaning this end of the Capitol and that end of
the Capitol, we have a conference committee to resolve the differences.
Maybe that is a surprise to people. I thought everybody knew there were
conference committees.
I thought they knew the purpose of conference committees. My friend
from Washington says ``when this bill is acceptable.'' I have news for
him: It is acceptable to 57 people here. Is that not an unusual thing?
It is acceptable--right now. Right now, this bill, which we are going
to be put through parliamentary hoops on, is acceptable. The
appropriate thing, the proper thing, the precise thing my friend from
Washington should say is: When this bill is acceptable to me, Slade
Gorton, and when this bill is acceptable to a minority of us, 41 of us,
when we deign to accept it, then the majority of you can have it.
The majority of the House already said this was acceptable. The
majority of the Senate is prepared this moment to say it is acceptable.
But it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to my friend from
Washington, until he debates things which have already been debated.
But it is not acceptable to him.
Second, my friend says things--as I said, I wish he had paid
attention to the debate as closely in the past as he said he is going
to in the future, because had he paid attention, he would know he made
a number of factual misstatements. I will stand here later when he gets
to come back to make it clear, if he wants to debate the points I am
about to raise, where he is factually inaccurate. He said this bill
went out of here--this crime bill--that was just a nice old bill he
voted for. Golly, it got over there in that House and they did
something different to it, and those old folks got together in that
conference committee and they really jerked it around, and one of the
results of that was that we cut law enforcement.
I would like to point out to him that we increased the amount of
money spent on law enforcement from the bill he thought was a good
bill, to the bill he is going to vote down, now by $1.3 billion.
Factually, $1.3 billion more money in law enforcement--that was his
phrase--now than in the bill he voted for.
Second, factually, we increased the amount of money for prisons $3.2
billion more than in the bill he voted for. This bill we are about to
vote on, this conference report, if they ever let us vote, this bill
has $3.2 billion more dollars than he voted for.
So if my calculation is correct, there is $4.5 billion more--if you
count prisons as law enforcement--law enforcement money in this bill
than the bill he thought was so good enough to vote for. So he is
factually--not politically, not rhetorically--he is simply factually
incorrect. I am sure some of his staff will call that to his attention.
Third, he says it includes matters that were not debated earlier.
Guess what? Has he ever found any bill he has ever voted for--see, the
public does not understand this because this is not their full-time job
to do this. But what we ultimately vote on are not bills. We ultimately
vote on conference reports. That is the only thing that ends up
becoming a law--a conference report, which is something that the House
and the Senate have finally agreed to. We do not have two different
Governments here, where the Senate passes a bill and the President can
sign the Senate bill, or the House passes a bill and he can sign the
House bill. If that were the case, we would teach our kids in school,
well, there are House laws and there are Senate laws. But there are
not. I understand that one of the great Speakers of the House, Sam
Rayburn, used to have a thing he called the ``Rayburn board of
education,'' to teach new Members about how the process works.
Conference reports are what we vote on. They are not amendable. Why
do my friends think there is a Senate rule and a House rule that says
once the conference passes a report and one of the two Houses, the
House or Senate, votes for it that the conference is disbanded and they
are legally not able to meet again, and then it is not amendable in the
other House? I feel a bit insecure talking about the Senate rules with
the man back here who literally knows them better than any man has in
the history of this body--not this body, but the history of this body.
I think he would sustain what I am saying, but he would say it in a
more articulate fashion than I am.
I do not understand what these folks are talking about. They know
full well you cannot amend a conference report. You can get a
concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment at the desk and all
this other malarkey, but you cannot amend a conference report without
starting a whole new bill over again. They know that. Maybe they do not
know it, in which case they now know it, and they will withdraw this
approach they are taking. But if they do know it, then they know the
truth of what they are saying. They want to kill this bill--or at least
start from scratch again.
Madam President, I go back to the point made that police officers are
against this bill. Again, for the 50th time, I will put in the Record
the following number of pages listing all the law enforcement
organizations--I will not take the time to read them again--that all
endorse the bill.
My friend from Washington was a prosecutor. Maybe that is why he does
not understand some of this, because he focused so much on prosecution.
But the way in which cops always got help, the way in which he got help
when he was a prosecutor, the way in which the States get help from the
Federal Government for this law enforcement thing, is not the Federal
Government says: By the way, we are doing away with the distinction
between State and Federal jurisdiction and we, the Federal Government,
from this point on are going to pay your bills. That is not how we do
it. That is not how it has been done.
We say: You all need some help and here is the deal. We will put up X
amount of money if you will put up X amount of money. We did that this
year in something my friend from Washington, if I am not mistaken--and
I may be--strongly supported, another $150 million for a supplemental
appropriation in which my friend from West Virginia made sure the
police got, and that is how we got it. And that said: Look, for every
dollar you want from the Federal Government, you have to put up a
dollar. For every single city, State, county, that came to ask for that
money that got a penny from the Federal Government, 10 did not get it,
because there was not enough money. So that is why we put more money in
there.
Why all of a sudden is it, oh, my goodness, you mean to tell me we
are not going to pay forever to pay for the salaries of police officers
in our cities and the counties from the Federal Government? I mean, is
that really what my friend from Washington thought? Holy mackerel, I am
sure the staff will straighten him out on that and explain to him--or
it may be that he thought that. I do not know. If you were not a local
person asking for these moneys and you have never been involved in
this, you might think that is what the Federal Government does. Madam
President, the Federal Government does not do that, has not done that,
is not doing that now. So what is the surprise?
Madam President, my friend says that these Byrne grants are important
things. The bill he voted for, where there was $23 billion, had no
money for Byrne grants. Yours truly, me, added a billion dollars in
this conference report. How can he be unhappy with this conference
report on the grounds of Byrne grants when that has a billion dollars
in there when he was happy with the bill that went out of here that he
voted for that had no money for Byrne grants?
I hope you can understand my sense of confusion here. I hope anybody
listening can understand why I am a little confused. It astounds me. It
astounds me that a man can come in and say this is a bad conference
report because of Byrne grants, and the thing he said was a good deal
did not have Byrne grants, and the conference report that he says is a
bad thing has the Byrne grant money in it--$1 billion.
Now, Madam President, it was also pointed out by my friend from
Washington State--and I will not take all the time to do all that I
would like to respond to my friend from Washington--he comes along and
he said, ``Here is what I want to do.'' He said, ``What we ought to do
is we ought to just start this thing all over again from scratch.''
Then earlier today, my friend from Utah, who does know all this stuff
because he has been an expert on this and deals with it, spoke. It is
his jurisdiction. Let me make it clear if it were a telecommunications
bill or health care bill, I do not know much about it. I try to
understand, but I do not offer myself as an expert. That is not my job
to do every single day like this is in the Senate. I am pretending
everybody should know everything. I wish they would pay more attention
to the debate and not what someone tells them or what they read in the
paper some advertisement they see. My friend says this bill is a
product of the Democrats ``bowing to the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party.''
Let me define the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The liberal
wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties. That is
what is in this bill. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has 70
enhanced penalties, and my friend from California, Senator Feinstein,
outlined every one of them. I gave a list to her today. She asked what
is in there to every one of them. The liberal wing of the Democratic
Party is for 100,000 cops. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is
for 125,000 new State prison cells.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is not the old wing I knew.
So if that is what he defines as the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party, then I suspect I would like to see the conservative wing of the
Democratic Party.
There was another thing my friend from Washington said. I will cease
after this. There is so much to say because there is so much
misinformation going out on the airways now. My friend from Washington
and my friend from Utah said, ``This point of order lies,'' implying it
lies because the bill is more expensive than the one that left here.
They said: ``That is a problem. We ought to get the cost down on this
bill.''
Let us do that. Get that cost down. They said they are not for
anything that did not go out of here at $22 billion. That further
confused me because remember when the House of Representatives got hung
up on the debate about racial justice and the House of Representatives
got hung up on the gun control issue and it looked like the conference
would not meet because we could not get the House to agree to come and
meet with us, my Republican friends wisely said: ``Look. Those
Democrats are not making any progress over there. So let us introduce
our own bill.'' And there were big press conferences, and the press
came to me and said, ``What do you think of that new Republican bill?''
I went back. I thought I remembered that Republican bill that they
signed. I do not know if everyone signed on, but they usually do
everything together, to their great credit. I do not know how many they
got. Maybe it was 40 or 41 on, or maybe all, or maybe 20. I do not
remember the number. But a lot of Republicans said, ``This is our
alternative.''
This is the last point I will make, and I will come back to these
points after others get to speak. Keep in mind now what the premise of
my friend from Utah, my friend from Washington, and possibly my friend
from Colorado is: This bill just costs too much money. This conference
report with $30.2 billion in a trust fund with real dollars over the
next 6 years, that is just too expensive. We should have stayed with a
trust fund proposal that was $22-some billion, even though the increase
was because we added more cops, we added more prisons, and we added an
extra year of commitment to the States.
Is it not kind of fascinating that my friend from Washington says one
of the problems he has with the cop provision is we do not promise the
States enough, right? Then we add an extra year so they have a
commitment for even another year, and he says that one of the problems
with this bill is it is 6 years long and it cost too much money, that
we commit for too long down the road.
Keep in mind now, if the issue is money, and I would suggest there
may be a little bit of--the fancy word we used in this body is being
``mildly disingenuous.''
I went and got the press release that was attached to the bill of my
Republican friends when this conference report was stalled in the
House. They had press conferences. They went on television. They went
to the floor here. This is from their press conference what they
released on June 30, 1994, just a couple months ago or 2 months ago
almost now. Guess what the first thing it says in here, and I am
quoting.
The Republican proposal is a deficit neutral $28.24 billion
5-year plan.
I know my friend from Colorado is a bright guy and really is quicker
with numbers than I am because he always has charts. That is a more
expensive bill than the bill you say is too expensive to vote on
because $28.24 billion over 5 years on an annualized basis is more than
$30.2 billion over 6 years.
I find incredible the ingenuity of my Republican friends who say the
conference report is too expensive, the only bill that made any sense
was the bill that went out of here that was much less expensive, but in
the meantime we propose a bill that is more expensive. Do you all find
that confusing or is it just me?
When I regain the floor after everyone speaks here, I hope one of my
Republican friends can explain to me how they could be for $28.24
billion in a trust fund over 5 years, against $30.2 billion for a
conference report for 6 years and for a $22.3 billion bill for 5 years.
Again, I have to admit Republicans have always confused me, and I
have to admit that particularly minorities within a minority of the
Republican Party have confused me the most.
But make no mistake about it, my friend from Washington said, and I
am going to get the exact phrase, ``when this bill is acceptable,'' let
me be the first to announce, because no one seems to listen, let me
announce again the bill is acceptable to over 55 Members of this body.
If they let us vote in the next 20 seconds, I promise them I can prove
to them that 55 at least, and I suspect 63 or 64, but 55 people are for
the bill. It is acceptable right now. But if they want to be petulant
and it is not acceptable to them and they want to take their ball and
go home, I understand. They can do that. That is the nature of the
rules. But the bill is acceptable now, right now. If they let us vote
by the day's end, it will be on the President's desk probably tomorrow,
and 100,000 cops will start their way to the streets, 124,000 prison
cells will start to be built, and tens of thousands of people's lives
will be changed because they will not be in jeopardy.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, are we rotating?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has been
recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Are we not rotating the speaking, Madam President, which I
understand was the agreement with the Republican and Democratic
leaders?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no order to that effect.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
(Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished Senator, I
will not be long.
Mr. President, after Caesar had spoken in the Roman Senate,
protesting against the death penalty, Sallust--meaning Gais Sallustius
Crispus, a Roman historian who lived between the years 86 and 34 BC--in
his report of the debate, writes that for the accomplices of Catiline,
Cato, when called on by the Consul to speak, demanded that they be put
to death under the ancient laws of the Republic. From Cato's speech, I
quote only the following strain:
Do you think it was by arms that our ancestors raised the
State from so small beginnings to such grandeur. * * *
But there were other things from which they derived their
greatness. * * * They were industrious at home, just rulers
abroad, and to the Senate chamber they brought untrammeled
minds, not enslaved by passion.
``* * * and to the Senate Chamber they brought untrammeled
mind, not enslaved by passion.''
Mr. President, I have listened to this debate as much as I cared to
listen and as much as I could bear to listen at times. I have viewed
and listened to it from the chair. I have listened to it from my office
and viewed it on the screen, and I have listened to it at home in the
evenings.
There has been a great deal of edification in my doing so. But there
has also been, I think, Mr. President, too much of the use of political
assault rifles. I think there is too much politics involved in this
debate. That has struck me, as I have listened to this debate--the
crossfire, the sniper fire, the political ambush. And that is not
edifying, or informative, or instructive to the people who are watching
their television sets throughout the land.
I would like, Mr. President, if I could, just for a few minutes, to
speak a bit more seriously and soberly. I do not intend to engage in
the Democrat-versus-Republican crossfire, the flowing of partisan
charges and countercharges. I hope that I might bring a little more
light than heat to the debate in the few words I shall have to say. And
I hope that I shall speak with an ``untrammeled mind, not enslaved by
passion.''
Mr. President, there are some Senators who would like to defeat this
conference report by means of a 60-vote Budget Act point of order
against its consideration. Such a point of order is indeed available to
them under section 306 of the Budget Act. That point of order does not
relate to the spending provided in this measure. Rather, section 306
prohibits the inclusion of certain budgetary matters in measures not
reported by the Senate Budget Committee. Since this measure was not
reported by the Budget Committee, yet reduces discretionary spending
caps and creates a new category of spending, namely the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund, the conference report is subject to such a point
of order.
The very same point of order as has been stated on this floor by
numerous Senators could have been made against the underlying bill. The
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund was included in that bill by a
Senate amendment, which I offered on November 4 of last year. In fact,
the very distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] and I
discussed this very point before the amendment was voted upon in the
Senate. The vote on the amendment was 94-4, with the same people who
would now raise the point of order voting in favor of the amendment at
that time. I might add, Mr. President, that among the cosponsors of the
amendment were Senators Dole, Hatch, Gramm of Texas, Mack, Thurmond,
Domenici, Mitchell, Biden, Sasser, Kerry, Dodd, Dorgan, Conrad,
D'Amato, Cohen, Lieberman, Bryan, Wofford, Robb, Hollings, and
Lautenberg. Let me go through that list again.
Among the cosponsors of that amendment were Senators Dole, Hatch,
Gramm of Texas, Mack, Thurmond, Domenici, Mitchell, Biden, Sasser,
Kerry, Dodd, Dorgan, Conrad, D'Amato, Cohen, Lieberman, Bryan, Wofford,
Robb, Hollings, and Lautenberg.
To act as though this conference report creates some new unforeseen
Budget Act point of order is a bit disingenous, to say the least.
During the debate on my amendment, Senator Domenici stated the
following: ``I am sure the distinguished chairman agrees with me that
the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget
Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation under the
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that has not been reported by the
Budget Committee. The section 306 point of order can only be waived by
an affirmative vote of 60 Senators.''
I then responded to the Senator from New Mexico as follows: ``I want
to be clear that a 60-vote point of order does lie against the pending
amendment. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico and I discussed
this earlier today, and we both agreed that it did, that it would
lie.''
Therefore, Mr. President, it should come as no surprise to any
Senator that a section 306 point of order would have lain against that
measure or would lie against this measure. We all knew that such a
point of order would exist upon the adoption of my amendment, if the
conferees agreed to retain it.
Now, that is the way it was.
And all those sayings will I over-swear;
And all those swearings keep as true in soul
As doth that orbed continent the fire
That severs day from night.
The trust fund is a novel concept which should be used only rarely,
but crime in this country is a major, major crisis that justifies this
approach and the conferees in their wisdom realized that fact.
With regard to the trust fund, as my colleagues will recall, the
crime bill passed by the Senate last year authorized 77 percent of
trust fund spending for strengthened law enforcement efforts--
specifically, 50 percent for increased State and local assistance and
strengthened Federal efforts to control our borders; and, 27 percent
for State prison construction grants. The remaining 23 percent of the
trust fund was authorized for spending on prevention programs. That was
last year, when the Senate passed the bill.
The crime bill conference agreement on the floor today has a similar
anticrime emphasis, with 77 percent of the trust fund authorized for
increased Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts and, again,
23 percent for prevention programs. The only difference--the only
difference--is the shift within law enforcement to provide even greater
assistance to States for prison construction. In essence, this
conference agreement acknowledges the fact that if we want the States
to follow the Federal lead and mandate truth-in-sentencing, then we
have to help by assisting the States with the funding to build more
prisons.
In total, the crime bill conference agreement authorizes nearly $13.5
billion for law enforcement assistance, including $2.6 billion for
increased Federal efforts and $10.8 billion for State and local
assistance. Of particular note is $8.8 billion to hire additional
police officers in communities throughout America; $1 billion to expand
the popular and effective Byrne Formula Grant Program; $200 million for
additional local prosecutors; $240 million for rural drug enforcement;
and $1.2 billion to strengthen border enforcement.
Another $9.7 billion is included in this conference agreement for
State prison construction grants and for the reimbursement to the
States for the costs of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens.
On the prevention side, a total of $7 billion is included in this
conference agreement to support drug courts, implementation of the
Violence Against Women Act, drug treatment in State and Federal
prisons, and the Local Partnership Act.
So, for those who come to the floor to oppose this crime bill
conference agreement and suggest that it is laden with ``social
programs'', let the record show that this simply is not the case. The
conference agreement now before this body contains the same emphasis on
prevention that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported by a
vote of 95 to 4 just 9 months ago. Twenty-three percent of the trust
fund will support prevention programs--programs that are primarily
antigang in focus and which permit localities flexibility in their
implementation.
For instance, the term ``midnight basketball'' has crept into the
debate in a very disparaging way. Some State and local communities may
prefer to use their grants for midnight basketball, or for 7 p.m.
basketball, or 5 p.m. basketball or 6 a.m. basketball; others may want
to use their grants for boys and girls clubs; and still others may use
their grants for programs to prevent crimes against the elderly. These
and others are qualified activities but are not mandates. In the final
analysis, local communities--my home town of Sophia--will have the
right to choose. They are the ones on the firing line.
This conference agreement provides greater budgetary control than did
the Senate-passed bill last year, combined with greater flexibility to
fund those programs through the annual appropriations process.
No element of the trust fund is off-budget and a separate sequester
process is created to ensure that each year crime trust fund
expenditures stay within the amounts provided in the act.
The conference agreement also allows the Appropriations Committees
each year to transfer up to 10 percent of the funds authorized from any
particular program to any other program. This gives the House and the
Senate the opportunity in each of the next 6 years to examine carefully
the various programs for which authorizations are provided in this act
and to set the funding levels for them in the appropriations bill.
Certain Senators during this debate have stated that the savings in
Federal civilian personnel costs, which were anticipated in the
creation of this trust fund, will never occur. Therefore, they say that
we are, in fact, going to be increasing the deficit if we fully fund
the programs authorized in this act. That is simply not correct.
Mr. President, their ``words are a very fantastical banquet--just so
many strange dishes.''
First, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 was enacted
into law earlier this year. That is law. And that act sets annual
civilian personnel reductions for the Federal Government for each of
the years 1994 through 1999. I have here CBO's analysis of the effects
of those personnel reductions which, as I have said, are required to be
made by law.
The law says they will be made. That is what the law says. I cannot
change it. Mr. President, you cannot change it. For that law to be
changed, Congress must change it. That is the law. Until Congress
changes it, that will be the law.
For 1994, according to CBO, Federal civilian personnel had to be
reduced from 2,103,600 to 2,084,600 (a reduction of 19,000 positions);
for 1995, such personnel reductions will have totaled 76,475; and by
the end of 1999, total Federal civilian personnel reductions will equal
221,300, according to CBO.
Second, the CBO analysis calculates the annual budgetary effects
which will occur from the above-stated Federal civilian personnel
reductions.
Those reductions are going to be made. The law says so. They have to
be made. How they will be made--by attrition, whatever--they will have
to be made. That is what the law says. You cannot get around that law.
Now, what are the annual budgetary effects of those personnel
reductions which are set in place by law?
Over the period 1994-1999, CBO estimates the savings will be $34.29
billion in budget authority and $33.59 billion in outlays.
Therefore, Mr. President, the facts are that we have enacted into law
the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 which, unless changed
by law, will result in Federal civilian personnel reductions totaling
221,300 positions over the period 1994-1999 and these personnel
reductions will result--according to CBO--in budgetary savings totaling
$34.29 billion in budget authority and $33.59 billion in outlays.
The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, which is authorized in the
pending conference report, will receive annual deposits over the period
1995-2000 which will total $30.2 billion.
Let me say that again. The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund,
authorized in the pending conference report, will receive annual
deposits over the period 1995 to the year 2000 which will total $30.2
billion.
As one can see then, the savings over the period 1994-1999 from the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 are more than sufficient to
fully cover the entire trust fund authorizations contained in this act.
Furthermore, there is no deficit spending in this act. There is no
spending in this act at all. This is not an appropriations bill. The
spending will only come about in annual appropriation acts.
Let me make clear that any Senator who has problems with some of the
funding provisions of this legislation need not kill this bill to have
his or her problems addressed.
This is not an appropriations bill. This is an authorization bill.
Not one thin dime--not one--not one thin dime is appropriated in an
authorization bill. This legislation will be without teeth, as far as
funding is concerned, until the Appropriations Committees act each year
to fund the provisions of this crime bill. Any Senator can address
programs or provisions not to his or her liking at that time. ``There
are many events in the womb of time which will be delivered.'' So, Mr.
President, if somebody thinks there is pork in this bill, let them
offer an amendment to future appropriations bills to remove it.
That will be the time, this will be the place. That will be the
legislation on which to act to remove any perceived so-called pork.
No special vehicle is needed for that. There is no need, may I say to
my friends on the other side of the aisle in particular, there is no
need to attempt to reopen this conference report to do that. Those
claims are a ruse to disguise an effort to kill this bill.
If there is the perception that there is pork in this bill, the time
to remove the pork is when the appropriations bills come before the
Senate each year. That is where the funding is. That is where the money
is and if there is pork, that is where the pork will be and any Senator
may offer an amendment to remove it.
It is simply not accurate for any Member to claim that there is a
need to take down this entire conference report because of
dissatisfaction over some funding provisions. The appropriations
process is still alive, it is well, and it still remains as a good
vehicle and the proper vehicle for addressing the funding specifics of
this crime bill.
So let no one hide behind dissatisfaction over one or two provisions
in this important crime bill. There will be another turn at bat next
year without totally killing this important legislation. I may have
changes I will want to try to make at that time. Others may have
changes. But, let us not be so insistent on perfection that we take
down a major piece of important legislation--one of great benefit to
the citizens of this Nation, many of whom have been terrorized by crime
in our streets--on the thin, flimsy reed of needing to make a
correction here and now. That claim is not justified and just not so.
Mr. President, the people of this Nation are watching this Senate. I
hope they are. I hope they do not get turned off by the political
sniping, the partisan firing of political assault weapons. They are not
watching Democrats or Republicans. They are watching one of the bedrock
institutions of their Government. Are we going to prove to them that
inside the beltway here we live in a cocoon? Surely we have only to
take note of the killing and crime that go on here in the District of
Columbia where we meet at this very moment to realize that we have a
horrific problem in this Nation concerning violent crime.
No wonder people have questions about the efficacy of their
governmental institutions when we behave in this fashion. No wonder
people are frustrated with this Congress. We dither and posture and we
insist on having our own way while people out there are being
brutalized, raped, robbed, and murdered by criminals. How can one claim
to be tough on crime and then vote to hold up this bill on a procedural
point of order--a point of order that was discussed when this bill was
initially before the Senate and that was deemed not useful to raise
because of the critical importance--the critical importance--of this
bill.
That is why it was not raised. I said it could be raised. Mr.
Domenici said it could be raised. But we deemed it of such importance
at that time to pass the bill that it was not raised.
This is the type of posturing which will ultimately make the Senate
an irrelevancy--ultimately make the Senate an irrelevancy--in the life
of this Nation. If we cannot respond to the overwhelming violence in
this Nation when people are afraid on the streets of their own
communities and behind the locked doors of their own homes, perhaps we
are already irrelevant.
If we cannot put aside our own small personal nits and picks, our
fear of certain special interest groups, our fixation on partisan
warfare for an issue as critical and as pervasive as rampant violent
crime in our streets, then how do we dare call ourselves Senators?
How can we claim to be representatives of the people when the
people's major concern falls upon deaf ears in this body and we
trivialize the debate by putting political party first before the
people, before the Nation?
In conclusion, let me repeat my endorsement of the crime bill
conference agreement before the Senate today and urge my colleagues to
support its prompt passage. Enactment of this crime bill will make a
difference. It will authorize additional police officers to communities
throughout America; it will strengthen Federal enforcement of our
Nation's borders; and it will provide the prison beds to prevent the
Russian-roulette release of violent offenders before they have served
their full sentences.
Mr. President, crime is a terrible problem in our land. Our people
fear for the safety of their children and their grandchildren. Metal
detectors are becoming familiar fixtures at our schoolhouse doors. How
shameful! Our prisons are overflowing. How long is this Senate going to
wait to act? How long are we going to let the people ``twist slowly in
the wind'' while we engage in partisan argumentation on this Senate
floor? How long will we continue to let the problem of rampant,
violent, criminal activity terrorize law-abiding citizens while our
monumental egos lock in mortal combat?
Let us pause and remember the words of the Preamble to our
Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Note the words ``promote the general welfare.'' That does not mean the
general welfare of a political party. It does not mean the ``general
welfare'' of any one special interest group. Those hallowed words
``promote the general welfare'' do not mean the general welfare of any
Senator's campaign for reelection to this body or to any Senator's
campaign for the Presidency, or for any other office.
They mean the ``general welfare'' of the people of these United
States.
Please let us stop this ruinous public display of partisan trench
warfare on this floor. Let us remember why we are here, rise to the
occasion, act like Senators, and do something that will help us all,
regardless of party. There is nothing which would more ``promote the
general welfare'' in the short run than to pass this worthy crime
legislation.
People are dying. People are suffering. Lives are being shattered. It
is time to come together, for our people, and let this measure pass.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his thoughtful discourse.
While we come to a different conclusion in this matter, his factual
presentation was most helpful in the debate and it provides a basis for
working together as we move forward.
Mr. President, I do not intend to take a long time, but I do want to
lay before the Senate some of the reasons for raising the point of
order. It stems from the fact the conference committee that was
appointed was far more liberal than both Houses. Indeed, it drafted a
conference committee report that is not only inconsistent with what the
American people want but also inconsistent with what both the House and
the Senate enacted.
Those are serious charges, but I think it is important for Americans
to understand what was left out of this conference report. Let me be
specific because it is important to understand that measures which were
approved by overwhelming votes in the Senate and which had significant
support in the House were just dropped from the conference report.
Included in the items that the conference committee simply omitted
from the bill was the criminal alien deportation provision offered by
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
This measure passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. It calls for the
expedited deportation of illegal aliens who have been convicted of
violent felonies. Let me repeat that. For someone who is convicted of a
violent felony and who is an illegal alien, this provided for their
expedited deportation.
The conference committee was so liberal that they left that out of
the bill entirely even though this body overwhelmingly approved it.
That needs to go back in. It needs to go back in not because it
represents my view or another's view but because it represents the view
of the American people.
The second provision, the Dole-Hatch-Brown Federal anti-gang
provision. As the distinguished President is well aware, in Colorado we
have had a number of gang members come in from California, gangs moving
from Los Angeles to Denver and Aurora and setting up shop.
If you talk to the Aurora police, you quickly find that they not only
know the names of the gangs and that the gangs are the same as the Los
Angeles gangs, but the organization is similar. They have literally
moved hundreds of gang members from California into the Denver area.
They sell drugs; they sell crack cocaine; they engage in a wide variety
of violent crimes. There is an urgent need for Federal involvement to
address the interstate nature of this violence problem.
One of the roles of the Federal Government is simple identification.
Federal assistance in identifying gang members that are traveling
across State lines to set up a nationwide gang system is a Federal
challenge and ought to be addressed. That has overwhelming support. It
was simply dropped by the conference committee. That does not represent
the will of this body, nor the will of the American people.
A third provision is the Moseley-Braun prosecution of violent
juveniles. This provision passed in the Senate and was dropped by the
conference committee, again, defining itself as much more liberal than
our membership or that of the House.
What did the Senator from Illinois want to do? She focused on
mandating prosecution of violent juveniles as adults in those
circumstances where they involved a Federal sexual offense or Federal
crimes of violence with a firearm. In those two circumstances of
violent crime she asked for juveniles to be tried as adults.
I remember the moving speech that she made on this floor. To take
that amendment out and throw it away does not symbolize a real
commitment to the wishes of this body or to strong law enforcement. Our
distinguished colleague from Colorado, Senator Campbell, has been a
leader, both at the State level and the Federal level, in ensuring that
those people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime receive
strong, tough penalties.
I remember the Campbell amendment that strengthened and toughened
penalties for people who misused firearms in that way. The Federal
mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm in the commission of a
crime were dropped from our bill and not included in the conference
committee's report. It was because the conference committee was far
more liberal than this body. They did not represent us when they went
to the conference committee.
Men and women of good conscience will disagree on the propriety of
mandatory minimum sentences. But there is one such penalty that I find
difficult to believe was dropped by the conference committee: mandatory
minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors. People who sell drugs to
our kids--that is what we are talking about--who sell drugs to our kids
or who employ children in the drug trade, deserve a much tougher
sentence. That was dropped by our conference committee--once again, far
more liberal than this body and far more liberal than the American
people.
When the bill left this Senate, it was paid for. There was a total of
$22 billion in the crime fund and a $22.3 billion reduction in the
discretionary spending caps. That trust fund that passed the Senate was
paid for.
Let me quote a letter from the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee which was introduced into the Record on August 22 by the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Here is a quote:
Next, the violent crime reduction trust fund language
reduces the caps on discretionary spending. This ensures that
the Congress cannot use these savings for any other purpose.
If any Senator sought to spend this money to spend in excess
of newly lowered caps for any purpose other than the crime
bill, then any other Senator could raise a point of order
that would take 60 votes to waive.
That quote is from the Senator from Tennessee, the chairman of our
Budget Committee. That is a very important point because our
distinguished appropriations chairman referred to that trust fund and
those caps.
Mr. President, the difference between the bill that is before us from
the conference committee and the bill that we passed is not just in the
amount of money; that is, this bill spends over $30 billion versus the
one that left here which was $22.3 billion. The difference is that our
bill was paid for and the committee report is not. How is it not paid
for? Two years of spending are added during which the discretionary
spending caps are not lowered.
So two things are different about this bill as it comes from the
conference committee than when it left the Senate. When it left the
Senate every penny it spent was paid for by lowering the caps. As it
comes back to us, 2 years of spending are added where there are no
caps--$6.5 billion in 1999, and $6.5 billion in the year 2000. That is
why people have problems with this bill. It is different than what left
the Senate. It is not paid for.
I have heard the President on television a number of times talk about
how strong a bill this conference report is because he holds it out
that it is paid for. It is not paid for. If the President wants a bill
that is paid for, he is going to favor the amendments that will be
offered after the point of order is made and upheld. If the President
means what he says, he does not want the conference report kept in its
current form.
That is why there was no need to offer a point of order when it left
the Senate: it was all paid for when it left the Senate. When it came
back, it was not paid for.
There are some additional changes that occurred. I will not go into
all of them. But let me simply sum it up by saying this: What we have
before us is dramatically different, and it is dramatically different
because it left out some of the strongest anticrime provisions that
were included in the Senate. The omission of these tough penalties is a
result of the conferees simply ignoring the wishes of the Senate.
That is why this bill has been fussed about in the House and the
Senate. It is why it has taken far longer to pass than it should have.
It is because we have conferees, theoretically representing the Senate,
that have simply forgotten their obligation to the Senate and have not
stood up for the specific provisions that we insisted upon once, or
even twice. Is this a way most legislatures do business? No; it is not.
The State legislatures of most States operate conferences in a
dramatically different way. Let me be specific because these are fair
changes that we ought to institute here.
First of all, we should demand that the meetings be open. No secret
sessions should occur. We should demand that conferees give notice of
when they are going to meet. That was not done here either. Members met
in secret without public notice.
Third, Colorado and most States allow for minority reports. That is,
if the conferees are not able to agree in conference, they allow
someone who is not in the majority in the conference to send back a
minority report. The purpose of it is simply to make available to the
body an alternative so that the bodies can work their will. It is a
device to allow the majority in both the House and the Senate to make
itself heard. That is not within our rules. And it is a tragedy because
it leads to circumstances like this where a bill comes back from
conference that not only does not represent the will of the Senate, but
does not represent the will of the American people either.
And lastly, there is a dramatic difference that exists between the
U.S. Congress and Colorado and most State legislatures. Conferees are
normally limited to the scope of the differences. Keep in mind what
happened here: This bill came out of the Senate spending $22.3 billion.
It went to the House, and they made it $27 billion. It goes to
conference, and they compromised on $33 billion the first time and a
little over $30 billion the second time. I suppose if you have a sense
of humor this appeals to you. To say my position is $22 billion and
your position is $27 billion and we are going to compromise on $33
billion or $30 billion may show a lot for your flexibility. But it does
not show a darned thing for your math.
This conference committee, so far to the left of this body, ignored
the clear wishes of both the House and the Senate. As a consequence,
the conference committee denies the House and the Senate the ability to
make their will. That is why this point of order is being offered, to
simply allow people to vote on the real issues and let the majority of
both the House and the Senate work their will.
The real underlying problem with this is the breakdown in our
conference system, a breakdown in the system that denies the majority
to work its will.
Some have replied that Republicans are trying to stop this bill or
slow the bill down. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want a
vote on this bill. I want a vote on the real alternatives, and I want
to get on with it. I think the American people deserve a strong
anticrime bill.
Mr. President, the facts are these. Only 1 out of 10 serious crimes
results in imprisonment in this Nation. If there is a question as to
why you have a breakdown of law and order, it is because there no
longer exists the certainty that if you commit the crime you will do
the time. As a matter of fact, 9 out of 10 serious crimes do not result
in imprisonment.
We have established the opposite of certainty of punishment. We have
adopted a system that provides a high probability of no punishment.
Three out of four convicted criminals are not incarcerated. This is
part and parcel of why ignoring the mandatory minimum sentences is such
a serious matter that ought to be dealt with.
Mr. President, I want to draw the attention of the Members of this
body to the chart that I have on my left. It has been suggested by a
number of Members of this body that the $6 billion to $7 billion of
pork barrel spending in this bill would reduce crime. In fact, it is
called that; it is ``crime reduction or crime prevention money.'' The
suggestion is that if you spend more money on welfare or programs of
this kind, you will reduce crime.
Mr. President, let me acknowledge that there are many good programs,
and some could well have that impact. But to suggest that the key to
reducing crime is to increase this kind of spending simply is not borne
out by the facts. Most State legislatures, when they come up with
spending programs, will do something more than just pass them. The
conscientious legislators will ask the proponents of the program: Tell
me what results you expect. They do not just put the rhetoric out
there. They say: Write it down for me. Put it in figures. Whether it is
$5 billion more, $6 billion more, or $7 billion more, how much will
that reduce the crime rate? What specific results do you expect from
the expenditure of public money? That is good budgeting and good common
sense. When you spend the taxpayers' dollars, you specifically identify
a goal that you expected to accomplish.
The thesis is that this additional spending of $6 billion to $7
billion would reduce the crime rate. Ask yourself what our record has
been. Since 1960, welfare spending in the United States has gone from
$30 billion up to $230 billion. It is much higher right now. If the
thesis that higher spending on welfare items and on Government social
programs were the key to reducing the crime rate, you would expect
almost an eightfold increase in welfare spending to have reduced the
crime rate. If that were your thesis, you would expect almost an
eightfold increase would have wiped out crime entirely. What happened
to crime? The crime rate tripled at a time when welfare spending
exploded almost eightfold. The crime rate tripled.
Mr. President, I am not suggesting that the increase in welfare
spending caused the increase in the crime rate. I do not know of
strong, valid proof that would show that. But I do know that those
figures are relevant to show that an increase in Government welfare
programs and an increase in Government social programs are not the key
toward reducing the crime rate. There is no other conclusion. If you
honestly believe that we can solve this crime rate simply by more
spending, please look at the facts. The facts indicate that it has not
worked, and I do not believe it will work.
Mr. President, some have said these pork programs can accomplish some
good. Let me go through some of them.
The Local Partnership Act is included in the conference report. This
is a proposal by Representative Conyers for an economic stimulus. The
bill that he introduced, H.R. 5798, which this provision was lifted
from, does not even mention crime. Let me emphasize that. The bill does
not even mention crime. It was put on the crime bill, frankly, because
it could not pass on its own merits. It involves $1.6 billion, and in
the words of the original Conyers bill, the legislation is to address
``declining social services.''
I ask Members to consider whether or not they think this $1.6 billion
really is going to reduce crime.
The Model-Intensive Grant program. That is a creative label. It
spends $625 million to find meaningful alternatives to crime. This may
include a new recreation center in some lucky Member's district, or
improved public transportation, or almost anything else you can think
of--except criminal punishment. Could some of the money go for a good
purpose? Certainly, it could. But should we not, as guardians of the
public money and as those who take people's hard-earned savings away
from them in taxes, demand specifics before we hand out the dough?
The Family and Community Endeavor Schools Grant Program. This
provides $243 million for academic and social development, and
educational, social and athletic activities, nutrition services,
mentoring programs, and parental training programs. It provides $243
million.
Mr. President, if these programs were the key toward reducing crime,
why have the ones we have tried not worked? We have 154 job training
programs on the Federal level on the books now--154. I know of nobody
who comes to the floor and says they are a ringing success, that they
have solved the problem of unemployment. If 154 Federal programs for
job training have not worked, why will three new ones in this bill make
the difference? The truth is that what is missing is not more Federal
grant money or Federal training programs. What is missing is far more
serious than that: it is real crime control.
The Community Schools, Youth Services and Supervision Grant Program.
This one gives $567 million to private community organizations. The
money is earmarked for supervised sports programs, extracurricular, and
academic programs, including entrepreneurship, cultural, health
programs, social activities, arts and crafts, dance programs, tutorial,
and mentor programs. The money can also be used for renovation of
facilities. Once again, there is no clear objective and no clear
indication of what we are going to get for the funds. Once again, there
is duplication of existing services.
There is the Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth which
provides $36 million to fund activities to increase the self-esteem of
such youth, assist such youth in making healthy and responsible
choices. Mr. President, we have described almost every desirable, nice
attribute we can with all these new spending programs. But, once again,
they duplicate ones that are in existence, and they lack any
clarification, any clear goals or any significant, long-term record of
achievement of those goals.
The National Community Economic Partnership gives away $270 million
in taxpayer dollars to encourage private investment in distressed local
communities. Private investment is encouraged with $270 million in
``nonrefundable lines of credit.''
Ask yourself: are Government handouts to encourage community economic
partnerships the answer to crime?
The key to economic prosperity is not Government handouts. If it
were, our growth rate would be the greatest in the world. Think about
it for a minute. If the real key to economic progress, either in the
inner cities or the Nation as a whole, were more Government handouts
and national community economic partnerships and Government subsidies,
then why have we not had runaway growth in the last several decades? It
is because we have had runaway Government handouts and runaway
Government spending.
The truth is that real economic progress is not the product of
Government handouts and subsidies. If it were, we would not have a
problem to talk about. The truth is real economic growth comes from
rewarding people for hard work, allowing productivity and incentive to
foster in the society, and letting Government eliminate the regulations
that impede the creativity of each individual.
This measure is not a blueprint for increasing economic activity. It
is another failed program.
Other pork includes the saturation jobs program, again duplicating
154 existing programs, midnight sports leagues, supervised sports
recreation programs, and funds for recreational facilities.
Many of these sound good. But we ought to at least allow a separate
vote on these items. We ought to at least ask ourselves if they are
real crime prevention measures, how much crime they will prevent, how
they will reduce the crime rate, and what we expect from them.
Almost all of these programs duplicate existing programs that have
failed, that have not done the job, that have not reduced the crime
rate.
It does not mean that we give up. It does not mean that we do not
try. But, Mr. President, I personally believe it is appropriate to ask
Members to at least vote on these programs. I personally believe it is
appropriate to put back into the anti-crime bill the tough penalties
and the mandatory minimum sentences that can make our streets safer.
People who use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime ought
to do additional time. This crime bill should not be simply an excuse
to hand out more Federal money, but it ought to reflect our commitment
and our conviction that the safety of our streets is important and
worth protecting, that it is far more important than a simple pork
barrel bill, that it is far more important than simple Government
handouts.
Mr. President, I intend to vote to sustain the point of order if it
comes forward. I intend to vote for responsible amendments to put the
crime bill back into the form both by Members of this body and by the
House intended it to be in.
The President said the crime bill was paid for. We ought to make sure
it is paid for. The President talked about 100,000 new policemen.
Critics have pointed out that there is only enough money in the bill
for 20,000 policemen, not 100,000, and that money is phased out over
time. I do not accuse anyone of bad faith coming up with the 100,000
number.
My own estimate is that the difference lies in the ancillary cost,
the cost of training policemen, the cost of equipping the policemen,
the cost of providing the car, the salary increases and fringe
benefits.
I think it would be foolish to think that we are going to get 100,000
new police officers. But I do think we ought to have a chance to work
on that, so that we can actually make it happen.
One alternative that I hope will be considered by this body is the
suggestion that I received from the mayor of Denver just recently. He
suggested we use some of the money for policemen to provide overtime
pay to their existing police force which is already trained, already
equipped and which can work overtime. By using some of this additional
money for overtime pay, we can circumvent the extra costs and make the
dollars go further.
And last, Mr. President, let me say this: it is not unreasonable that
people who act in good faith and good conscience will come to different
conclusions about crime. That is not to suggest that one side has a
monopoly on the truth. The truth is that compassion and assistance at
times can well be helpful. It is also true that tougher penalties must
be used as well.
If we are to solve this problem that goes to the very core and the
very heart of American society, we have to be willing to move in both
directions. But we must insist that those who represent this body in
conference are true to the Senate. We must insist that the conference
bill reflects the will of the Senate, the will of the House, and the
will of the American people.
The bill, as it comes from the conference, does not do that. The
bill, as it comes now from the conference, has eliminated many
provisions that the American people strongly support. It includes a
number of pork barrel handouts that the American people strongly
oppose, and I do not believe we do our job properly if we do not
address these issues to make a good, get-tough crime bill.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from Nebraska is
recognized.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the statement I will give to you--but I
must say I was listening very carefully to the distinguished Senator
from Colorado. I would like to respond to some of the things that the
distinguished Senator said.
I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Colorado. He and
I earlier this year both went into the tank on a specific proposal to
cut spending, a proposal for which I have been rewarded still with
letters from constituents who say they may never vote for me again
because of the cut proposal that I put in there. So I appreciate his
leadership in that regard.
Let me say, Mr. President, that one of the promises that I made to
the people of Nebraska is to do something about crime. Thus, I have
spent a lot of time with law enforcement officers, police chiefs,
sheriffs, county attorneys, prosecutors, defenders, people who work
with children, judges, school teachers, parents, and community leaders.
I have spent a lot of time, and I must say that one of the most
difficult things that you have with crime is there are not any clear
answers, there are not any real simple easy solutions.
But there is one thing I am quite certain about, and that is that the
people of Nebraska, if they read this bill, would not judge it to be
liberal. Indeed, I expect, and I already know, in fact, that the
liberals in Nebraska, particularly those who work on the defense side
of the equation, are opposed to the bill. They do not like the death
penalty provision. They do not like the mandatory minimum provisions.
There are a lot of things in this bill they do not like.
I can understand why a liberal will come to the floor and say ``I am
against this bill.'' I would greatly respect that conclusion. I must
say I do not understand how someone who says ``my philosophy is
conservative'' comes to the floor after reading the particular bill in
question. I know there are liberals in Nebraska who oppose this bill
because, in fact, it does take a very tough stance on law and order
and, as a consequence, they will have opposition, and I respect and
appreciate that.
Second, Mr. President, I heard the distinguished Senator from
Colorado talk a lot about the pork in this proposal, particularly the
$6 billion over 6 years program for prevention. I noted with great
interest that the distinguished Senator from Colorado did not talk
about accountability for the money we are spending on prisons or the
money we are spending on law enforcement, both of which are about 80
percent of this particular piece of legislation.
As I said, when I talk to law enforcement people in the State of
Nebraska, they are not sure any of it is working. I heard a very rock
solid conservative chief of police in Grand Island say to me the other
day when talking about this piece of legislation which he supports
say,'' I have been arresting people for 30 years and thrown them in
jail. I am not sure any of it is working any longer.''
This question of accountability, what works and does not work, is not
just in prevention. It is also in the area of prisons and law
enforcement.
I think an honest person would come to the floor and say, ``We are
not sure what is going to work. We know that something needs to be
done. We know action needs to be taken. Gosh, we do not know.''
I, indeed, point out that colleagues are concerned on the preventive
side, unlike the law enforcement side and prison side, because of
concern for accountability.
We have written in on page 64 language that says that all grant
applications have to have specific measurement accounts for youths
served by the program. We do not have that kind of outcome requirement
for law enforcement or for prisons. We do put it, I think quite
appropriately, given the imprecise nature of the programs on prevention
area.
The distinguished Senator from Colorado says this bill does not
express the will of the American people. I hope we have the debate. My
advise to the majority leader is do not lose this debate. Let us come
down and look through all 33 titles. Let us read to the American
people. Let us tell them what is in this bill. Let them decide, do they
want Republicans and Democrats to come together and vote for this piece
of legislation?
I must say, based upon my conversations with people in Nebraska who
want a conservative approach to law enforcement, and I will speak to
that later, I must say my reading of this bill there may be things in
there they do not like.
I indicated earlier I expect liberal Nebraskans are going to oppose
this bill. They, in general, will say, look, you made a good-faith
effort to listen and try to put something in place that will change the
way things are going and make our streets and communities safer.
I hear the distinguished Senator from Colorado talking about changes
that were made in the House having to do with criminal illegal aliens,
gangs, prosecution of violent juveniles, and minimum mandatory
sentences. I support all the things that distinguished Senator from
Colorado was talking about.
But I say to Americans who are watching this debate, do not believe,
by implication, that there is nothing in this bill dealing with
criminal illegal aliens or gangs or prosecution of violent juveniles or
minimum mandatory sentences.
Again, I say, I expect that liberal Nebraskans in fact will not like
titles 13 and 14 and 15 that deal with all of these things.
Again, I hope that the citizens of this country have the opportunity
to look at this piece of legislation. I hope this debate provides them
with the opportunity to carefully examine it. Is it perfect? No. Do we
know what works? Unfortunately, we do not have good guidelines to make
absolutely certain this is going to work.
I hear the distinguished Senator from Colorado say, ``Well, this is
not paid for and that is why I am going to vote against it.''
Well, on that basis, there are 100 votes against the defense
authorization. On that basis, there are 100 votes against the
transportation authorization. It should not come as a surprise to
Americans--certainly not the distinguished Senator from Colorado, who,
as I said earlier, joined with me, or I with him, going in the tank
earlier this year recommending specific lines of $95 billion total of
reductions in authorizations--it should not surprise Americans to
discover that that goes on with every authorizing piece of legislation.
Mr. President, this debate is about crime. In Nebraska, it is the No.
1 problem for the majority of the people. It is a problem, as I have
alluded to, without easy answers. It is a problem which places our
moral beliefs into conflict with our need to feel safe in our homes and
to feel safe when our children walk to school.
Crime is a problem whose heroic stories are mixed with failures,
tragedies, terror, and disgust. It is a problem where the soaring
spirit of mankind comes crashing down to earth. We walk away from
American crime scenes shocked and dismayed.
It is a problem, Mr. President, which has drawn us to debate one more
time a comprehensive crime bill. Given the difficulty of passing this
bill, you might guess it to be monstrous in size, complexity, and
costs. It is not.
Measured by size or complexity, it is smaller and simpler than the
Republican health care bill. In length, it is 368 pages, Mr. President.
It contains 33 titles. It is understandable, even by those of us in
this body who are not lawyers.
Measured by total dollars spent per year, it is smaller than
virtually all of the 13 appropriations bills passed by this Congress
each year.
For all the hoopla about pork and waste, the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes us to spend an average of $5
billion per year, ranging from a low of $2.4 billion in 1995 to $6.5
billion in the year 2000. That average figure is less than one-third as
much as we spend per year on foreign aid; less than one-half the amount
we spend on the farm bill; and one-ninth of the amount we will spend
just to cover the increased cost of Federal health care programs.
If you compare the volume of our speeches about crime or the demand
from the citizens of our States to do something about crime with the
amount of money we are including in this bill, you are bound to ask
what all the huffing and puffing is about. You might ask why we are
creating a special trust fund for crime when we do not for foreign aid,
or the farm program, or health care? You might ask why, when we are
finally debating an issue where Americans are willing to spend money,
do we suddenly become unanimously concerned about the deficit?
The simple answer to all three is that we are confused. Uncertainty
is the order of the day, even for those of us who have spent a lot of
time asking questions and listening to the answers of Federal, State,
and local law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defenders, judges,
juvenile advocates, educators, and parents explain what they fervently
believe needs to be done.
In spite of that confusion and in spite of the high-decibel dispute
going on in the Senate this week, this crime bill is noteworthy because
in Nebraska Republicans and Democrats agree more than they disagree
about what needs to be done. While some here are using this issue for
political purposes beyond coming to the aid of the men and women who
are fighting the battle against crime, at home there is a lot more
consensus on this issue than with most others.
There is consensus in four key areas.
First, there is consensus amongst Nebraskans that our laws must be
tougher on the criminals and more understanding of the victims. There
is consensus that delays in carrying out punishment or leniency in
granting parole has weakened the chain that holds in check the violent
impulse of intentional crime.
That is why this bill provides stiff new penalties for violent and
drug crimes committed by gangs. It triples penalties for using children
to deal drugs near schools and playgrounds. It enhances penalties for
crimes using children, and for recruiting or encouraging children to
commit a crime.
That is why this bill expands the Federal death penalty to cover
about 60 new offenses, including terrorism, murder of law enforcement
officers, large-scale drug trafficking, drive-by-shootings, and
carjackers who murder. It mandates life imprisonment for criminals
convicted of three violent felonies or drug offenses. It increases or
creates new penalties for over 70 criminal offenses, primarily covering
violent crimes, drug trafficking, and gun crimes.
Nebraskans feel like we are being suckers when it comes to
immigration enforcement. That is why this bill provides expedited
deportation for aliens who are denied asylum. It increases penalties
for smuggling aliens and for document fraud. It provides new money for
border patrol agents, asylum reform, and other immigration enforcement
activities.
Nebraskans of both political parties believe that victims of crime
need help. That is why this bill allows victims of violent and sex
crimes to speak at the sentencing of their assailants. It also requires
child molesters to pay restitution to their victims. And, it prohibits
diversion of victims' funds to other Federal programs.
The second area of consensus in Nebraska is that we must come to the
aid of our local law enforcement officials in order to increase the
likelihood that criminals will be caught, thereby decreasing the
incentive to violate the law in the first place. And there is consensus
that crime is not a problem confined to our urban areas.
That is why this bill authorizes about $2 billion per year in
multiyear grants to be made available to State and local police
efforts, including a special provision for rural law enforcement. This
is a relatively small amount given the challenges faced by our
community police force. The most legitimate criticism of this program
is that it is too little and too late to save lives already lost.
There is also consensus that our Federal crime fighters are being
asked to do more and more with less and less. That is why this bill
authorizes about $500 million per year for the FBI, the Drug
Enforcement Agency, Immigration and Naturalization Services, the Border
Patrol, the U.S. Attorneys, the Treasury Department, the Justice
Department, and the Federal courts combined. This is a rather small pat
of butter to cover a rather large piece of toast we have given these
agencies in the form of new work to do.
Forty-five percent of this bill's authorization is for law
enforcement. Of the $30.2 billion total over the entire 6-year period,
$13.5 billion will be available to city police departments, sheriffs
offices, courts, prosecutors, and public defenders. If you include the
spending for new drug courts that nearly everyone believes is needed to
enforce our drug laws, then half of this bill's spending is on law
enforcement.
The third area of consensus is that Nebraskans believe we need to
change our prison policies. Nebraskans want violent criminals behind
bars. They want to build and operate prisons and incarceration
alternatives such as boot camps. They want to make certain that
sentences are carried out as advertised and, they do not want criminal
illegal aliens to be let off the hook.
That is why this bill authorizes about $1.3 billion per year in
grants to States to build and operate prisons and incarceration
alternatives. That is why this bill authorizes $300 million per year in
grants to States for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens.
Of the total spending in this bill, 32 percent will go to build new
prison and incarceration alternatives and operate existing ones. This
means that $8 out $10 spent by this bill will go for law enforcement,
prisons, and drug courts. Why this is not seen as a major victory for
Republicans who have been arguing in favor of this course for years is
beyond me.
Fourth, at home there is consensus that we must try again to prevent
crime before it occurs. In the words of Omaha Police Chief Jim Skinner
``our boat is taking on water.''
To be clear, the demand for spending on prevention is as strong with
law enforcement officers as it is from social workers. That is not the
only difference between prevention in the nineties and social programs
in the sixties. In the nineties we do not excuse the adolescent
criminal's behavior with theories about society's failure. We do not
indulge weaknesses with talk about it being someone else's fault.
We insist upon personal responsibility from parents who must teach
the values which are the first line of defense against crime. We
require bench marks and taxpayer accountability. We understand the need
for demonstrable progress to keep the citizens's trust.
That is why the $1 billion per year available to local communities is
allocated the way it is. This is not a top-down effort. This is a
partnership which begins with the local community putting forward a
plan and matching money. Rather than a Washington-knows-best approach,
this crime prevention begins at home.
Before you assume this money is going to be wasted listen to the list
of community efforts to be supported. I heard my friend from Colorado
list some in a disparaging fashion. I would love to have a debate about
each and every one of them. I believe it is important for the American
people.
This bill funds community schools for after-school weekend and summer
safe-haven programs to provide children with positive activities and
alternatives to the street life of crime and drugs.
At almost every townhall meeting, almost every meeting I have with
citizens in Nebraska, it is this kind of program they talk about being
needed. It comes from law enforcement officers.
This bill funds local efforts to fight violence against women and
children. Women and children are the most vulnerable targets of violent
crime. Both in and out of the home this American problem is a top
priority of urban and rural law enforcement officials.
This bill funds local partnership action for anticrime efforts in
drug treatment, education, and jobs; model intensive grants for model
crime prevention programs targeted at high-crime neighborhoods;
community corporations to stimulate business and employment
opportunities.
Again I heard it disparaged earlier. Mr. President, there is no
better solution for the problem of crime than finding an individual a
job that provides that individual with the dignity, to feel as if he or
she has some worth.
This bill provides funding for drug treatment for State and Federal
prisoners and crime prevention block grants to be used as local needs
dictate.
As I said earlier, crime prevention is not an exact science. There
are very few proofs which can be offered to skeptical taxpayers. There
are very few guaranteed successes. In truth, any person who enters this
field must be prepared for the wrenching pain of failure. Crime
prevention is most definitely not for the cynic or the faint of heart.
Still, there is not a community in Nebraska where leaders are not
working on projects to fill the holes in the leaking boat. They know
the first step is to strengthen the family. They know we must help our
children grow up with the values of hard work, discipline, deferred
gratification, and, most important, respect for the property of others.
They have tough-minded ideas to go with their compassionate hearts.
They need a Federal partner, and this bill gives them one.
Contention is not absent from the Nebraska consensus. Two issues
stand out. First, a strong, dedicated, and principled minority believe
passionately that the death penalty is neither morally justified nor a
deterrent against the kinds of crimes which it is applied.
I confess I am not morally comfortable with executions. And I am not
persuaded of this penalty's capacity to deter. My decision to support
the public taking of a life is based on one belief: In some cases it is
the right punishment; in some instances it is appropriate for the
crime.
Second, an equally dedicated and principled minority believe that a
ban on the manufacture of assault weapons is an unreasonable and
unnecessary restriction of Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right
to bear arms. While they do not oppose the prohibition in this law of
the sale or transfer of a gun to a juvenile or the prohibition of gun
sales to, and possession by, persons subject to family violence
restraining orders, the ban on assault rifles looks like a dangerous
first step on the road to a ban on all guns.
I have concluded this ban on 19 specific weapons, and weapons with
specific features, does not represent such a step. For the 1 percent of
the crime victims who are on the receiving side of these weapons, and
for the police whose lives are at risk, I have concluded this
restriction is both necessary and prudent.
However, I also need to be clear that I will defend the right of
Nebraskans to own and use guns safely. I do not believe the second
amendment is an archaic principle clung to by fanatics and nut cases. I
believe it is just as necessary and proper right to extend a free and
independent people in the late 20th century as it was in the 18th.
Further, I believe that gun ownership is itself a deterrent to crime
which is commonly overlooked and understated by too many enthusiasts of
gun control.
There is one last specific concern about the assault rifle provisions
of this bill which I need to raise on behalf of Nebraskans who worry
that this law could be overreaching. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms helped compile the list of features that could result in the
banning of hand guns, rifles, or shotguns that should not be banned. If
this bill becomes law, I intend to hold hearings next year to determine
if this definition is too expansive.
The problem of crime will not be completely solved if we can get
beyond the political posturing and pass this bill. Instead, we will
begin to make a realistic try. Crime is a problem with a solution. Do
not think it is not. But do not think we are going to solve this one
without doing a lot of things differently.
Crime used to be a problem for other people. You know, it was a big
city problem. No, it was an inner-city problem. A problem we could
ignore because it was not affecting us in a personal way.
Lately, however, crime has been getting very personal in Nebraska.
When a woman is afraid to take a walk at night in Memorial Park in
Omaha, crime is getting personal. When parents are afraid to send their
child out on Halloween in Central City or out to play in Pierce, crime
is getting personal. When North Omaha children sleep on the floor
because of drive-by shootings, when South Omaha students talk about
friends who have died of gun battles, then crime is getting personal.
Not only is crime becoming personal, its face is changing. A decade
ago when the news carried the picture of a person accused or convicted
of a violent crime, the image was of someone we did not know. It was a
stranger's face. Cartoonists could, and did, draw the stereotypical
unshaven, grisly looking character we all loved to fear.
Lately, the faces are becoming more familiar. Lately, they are
looking more and more like our own children. Lately, we are not only
afraid for our children, we are afraid of them.
That is why there was so much support for the punishment meted out by
Singapore authorities, against an American teenager. Caning is tough
medicine. In truth it is a method of torture.
It is just as true that American adults and their families are being
tortured by teenage hoodlums, gangs, and thieves. We are too often
being tortured by children who have become predators showing no regard
for the property, privacy, of the rights of others.
This crime bill allows us to begin to take a different direction with
crime. It says we have been too lenient with criminals of all ages. It
says we have not enforced the discipline children need to distinguish
right from wrong. It says that respect for others must be taught, and
if it is not learned, disrespect will be punished.
I urge Senators to support the conference report and oppose the Gramm
point of order. Nebraskans and all Americans need the changes provided
in this legislation, and they need them now.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will try to be very brief. First of all, I intend to
vote for the point of order, and I look forward to voting on a number
of amendments that are likely to come forth if, indeed, an agreement is
recognized.
It is rather amusing that we should be criticized on this side of the
aisle for attempting to improve the crime bill since that is exactly
what happened on the House side in the process of reaching an accord.
And that accord was reached as a consequence of a number of Republicans
joining in a bipartisan effort to improve the crime bill.
I will add, Mr. President, that improvement came directly as a result
of the reduction of some of the so-called pork programs that are in
this legislation. Why should we not in this body have that same right?
Clearly, we should.
I am going to dwell on something a little different from points made
by some of my colleagues. This bill, as it stands now, adds $13 billion
to our Federal deficit. I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation
as to how we are going to pay for that. It is simply added to the
deficit, and I think the American public is beginning to wake up to the
machinations of this bloated Government.
An individual, obviously, can add to his credit card, he can write a
check, but he must pay. The Federal Government goes through a budget
process, then when it needs it simply adds to the deficit. That
addition, in this case, is some $13 billion.
What have we done in this bill? We started with a Senate crime bill
that cost $22 billion. It went over to the House and was increased to
$29 billion. It went to the conference and increased to $33 billion and
was revised once more and was brought down to $30 billion. You would
think that a compromise would suggest somewhere in the area between $22
billion and $29 billion. No, it was not. It was $33 billion, now down
to $30 billion.
The conference report is one I cannot support, even considering the
modifications made by the other body, and I object to the bill for a
number of reasons. I think that there is not a tough enough position
taken on crime. It has become a means for those who care more about the
criminal than the victim. A bill that funds so-called ``feel-good''
social pork under the banner of ``Let's get tough on crime.''
You can see the pork in this, but one would ask, ``Where's the
beef?''
The bill that the President called the toughest, the smartest crime
bill ever would have put as many as, it is estimated now, some 16,000
Federal inmates already tried and convicted back on the streets. I will
tell you, people in my State do not support that. Not only that, they
do not support this crime bill. Our calls have been running 95, 96, 97
to 1. I checked yesterday. We had about 130 calls condemning the crime
bill, one in support of it.
If we are going to put these criminals back on the street, what do we
really accomplish? It would have made it harder to convict child
molesters and rapists. It dropped mandatory community notification of
the whereabouts of recently released violent criminals. It dropped
mandatory HIV testing of rape suspects. Fortunately, the other body was
tough enough and smart enough, as I said earlier, to cut 3 billion
dollars worth of pork and force some of these important provisions to
be added back to the bill.
I think we need to be tough and smart in the Senate today. As I have
said before, when the bill left the Senate it authorized $22 billion in
Federal spending, fully offset--fully offset--by savings from Federal
employee reductions.
Well, whether those Federal employee reductions would really ever
occur is another question, but at least they identified the funding.
When the House added the $7 billion in spending, the conference added
another $6 billion, as I said, and the revised conference cut $3
billion.
We are still looking at a bill that is $8 billion--that is right, $8
billion, with a big ``b''--more expensive than what the Senate passed.
Now, $8 billion later, some Members on the other side of the aisle have
said let us stop using the so-called technicalities to change the bill.
They are referring to the fact that this bill violates the Budget Act
and it takes 60 votes to waive the Budget Act.
Suddenly, it has become convenient for some Members to claim that the
Congressional Budget Act, the only method we have to control the
deficit--the only method to control the deficit--is somehow a mere
technicality. I suggest, what a convenient argument.
Was it a technicality when many on that side of the aisle relied on a
similar Budget Act violation to kill a bipartisan effort by 53 Senators
to gain control of the deficit by creating a legislative line-item
veto? Was it a technicality when they used a similar Budget Act
violation to kill a bipartisan effort by a majority of Senators that
would have prevented raising the defense budget to pay for social
spending?
Mr. President, the American public should not be fooled about so-
called technicalities. Raising a point of order under the Congressional
Budget Act is the only tool we have to prevent--to prevent, Mr.
President--unlimited deficit spending. As all of my colleagues should
recognize, the crime bill that left the Senate did not increase that
deficit. But the bill that has emerged from conference almost certainly
increases the deficit and, I have said, by as much as some $13 billion.
So in the rush to get this crime bill to the President before Labor
Day, I ask, have we forgotten the deficit and the debt? I remind my
colleagues that just a month ago, the Office of Management and Budget
released its midseason budget review. That report has not been
discussed here to any extent, but it should, because that report
contains some devastating news about the deficit, news that should keep
us up perhaps all night around here as we address our responsibility
for fiscal responsibility. It not only showed that the deficit is going
back up next year, but that because of higher interest rates, the
Government is going to spend an additional $125 billion--$125 billion
on top of the $1.173 trillion we already pay--for interest--interest,
Mr. President--over the next 5 years.
I was a banker in my former life. We lived on interest. It is like
having a horse that eats while you sleep. It goes on and on and on. It
is taking a bigger chunk out of our budget--14 percent. Canada--do you
know what the Canadian budget interest costs are? Over 20 percent of
their budget.
Let us reflect back in December 1980. What was the prime rate in the
United States? It was 20.5 percent, December 1980, prime rate. Rates
are going up today. If the 1980 rate was applied to the accumulated
debt of this Nation today, we would be looking at nearly a third of our
budget going to pay interest on the debt. So do not say it cannot
happen around here. Oftentimes, what goes around comes around.
Let me leave you with one more statistic, Mr. President. And we are
talking about the pork in this bill and the $13 billion of deficit
spending. Two years from now interest on our national debt will exceed
all spending--all spending--on defense.
That is how far we flip-flopped. Interest does not provide one job.
It does not provide any inventory. It does not provide any plant
expansion. It simply has to be paid.
So, Mr. President, as we address the reforms on this side, I want to
take all the pork out. I want prisons. I want capital punishment. I
want what we need to take care of the criminal problem. I am not
concerned about midnight basketball. If you want midnight basketball, I
think it is appropriate that the States and cities address that. Should
that really be a responsibility of the Federal Government? I think it
is fine to have all the activities you want, but is it an obligation of
the Federal Government? I do not think so. But I think building prisons
is. I think having harsh penalties that criminals can understand in
advance are, and habeas corpus, which is not in here, unfortunately.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to go ahead and finish because I am just
about through, and then I would be happy to yield.
So I would ask the President if a mere $13 billion increase in the
budget deficit is a technicality. I do not think so, and I do not think
the American people believe it.
The simple fact is that this crime bill as it is structured now does
not do the job. The bill in reality pays for some 20,000 new policemen
nationwide. That is about one new officer for each police department in
the Nation. And the problem with it is that the Government picks up the
tab on the first 75 percent the first year, 50 percent the next year,
the next year it is the other way around, the Federal Government picks
up only 25 percent of the tab and in the fourth year that obligation
falls on the local government entirely.
In my State of Alaska, every year we have, unfortunately, some 660
people out of 100,000 victimized by serious crime--car theft, larceny,
rape, murder. This crime bill is too weak, in my opinion, to make a
real difference, and in the opinion of the people in my State who are
addressing these problems.
So who is going to benefit? Well, we know that a few politically
connected big city mayors--15 of them--are going to benefit from
discretionary grants handed out by the Attorney General. Over $5
billion was cut in the $13 billion Senate-passed prison construction
bill--$5 billion cut. We need more prisons. The compromise report
passed out of the other body actually cut an additional $800 million
from the first conference report. My State of Alaska ranks first in the
Nation in the cost of corrections and 12th in the Nation in
incarceration rates. Prison construction is important to my State and
was an important element of the bill the Senate passed. Now there is
not even a guarantee that the $7.9 billion remaining will actually go
for a sufficient number of prisons. And, of course, the administrative
costs are going to come out of that.
Some of the new social programs in this bill sound good but not after
it becomes clear that these programs really rob resources from really
tough law enforcement programs while increasing--increasing--the
deficit, Mr. President--we are not paying for it.
I want the Senate to vote up or down some of these unnecessary
programs. The crime bill should not spend $50 million on social workers
or a quarter of a billion on community development when the real need
is someplace else.
I also want the Senate to vote up or down on important provisions the
Senate already agreed to but were dropped along the way.
Nonpermanent aliens convicted of violent crimes should be deported.
That was stripped out of the bill. We should insist on tougher Federal
penalties for violent street gang crimes. Juveniles who commit Federal
sexual offenses as well as other Federal violent crimes ought to be
tried, in my opinion, as adults, and we should insist on enhanced
mandatory minimum sentencing for selling drugs to minors or employing
minors in the drug trade.
But when middle Americans see what they are really getting, that is,
a weak crime bill at a price we cannot afford--and we cannot because we
are adding to the deficit--they are going to be angry with Congress.
They are angry now and rightfully so.
Finally, Mr. President, the conference report contains a ban on
certain firearms, and as one who hunts, I am very familiar with these.
Unfortunately, it is a ban based on the characterization--I repeat--the
characterization of the firearm's appearance, not its functional
capability. A ban that is clearly in conflict with the constitutional
guarantee that the citizens of this country have the right to bear
arms.
The constitutionality of this measure in the face of the second
amendment has already been discussed at great length. I would like to
see a vote. I want a vote on the right to bear arms with no
limitations. We want to see our Members stand up and be counted on this
as we should and not hide behind a charade.
Frankly, in my opinion, Mr. President, that is reason enough to
oppose the conference report. But even in the absence of this
provision, this is simply not a tough crime bill. This is a political
bill, and we all know it. This is a bill designed to provide a little
political cover for some 30-second TV ads. In my opinion, Mr.
President, it is a travesty to ask the American people to pay some $30
billion for that. And that is an additional $13 billion added to the
deficit. As a consequence, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to
reject the conference report.
I yield the floor. I would be happy to respond to my friend from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I know the Senator from
West Virginia has been waiting, and I do not want to disturb the order
here. I will wait to respond to a number of issues raised by the
Senator. But I really want to raise the most important issue here to
dispose of the reality of where we are.
The Senator says that this is not funded and it increases the
deficit. I ask the Senator whether or not he has read the conference
report, specifically pages 319 through pages 321, in which it is very
clearly set out as a matter of law that these reductions must take
place; that the money can only be appropriated exclusively for this
purpose to the levels set and that unless it is appropriated it cannot
be spent.
Now, is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is aware of that. The bill does not cap
expenditures each year. And I am sure----
Mr. KERRY. That does not in and of itself add to the deficit.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond----
Mr. KERRY. That does not in and of itself add to the deficit, does
it?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. On the contrary. I would like to have a chance to
reply. It certainly does add to the deficit, because there is
absolutely no spending cap certain years. And as a consequence, I
wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts can identify where it is going
to be paid for, specifically, how the $13 billion that is the spending
caps and it is an additional amount, not offset specifically by the
reduction in Federal employees and not controlled by caps, will be paid
for. As far as I am concerned, Mr. President, the Senator and I can
debate this in a year from now or 2 years from now and we will, I
think, agree we have added $13 billion to the deficit.
Mr. KERRY. Let me ask the Senator, is the Senator from Alaska
insinuating or accusing directly or stating that the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the President pro tempore of
the Senate, who just gave a long address on the Senate floor
articulating how this is paid for under law, is he suggesting that that
distinguished Senator has misled the entire Senate and the country?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska would respond by specifically
stating that there are no caps in certain years and as a consequence--
--
Mr. KERRY. That is not what I asked the Senator.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Without the caps, in replying to the Senator from
Massachusetts, there is no guarantee that there is adequate ability to
offset that additional $13 billion that is just hanging out there.
Mr. KERRY. The Senator from West Virginia----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We went from $22 billion to $30 billion and the caps
were in place 5 years in the Senate bill.
Mr. KERRY. I would say to the distinguished Senator, Mr. President,
that this talk about the caps is smoke screen, subterfuge, smoke and
mirrors. It is the whole process here. The Senator from West Virginia,
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has made clear to the
Senate and the country that as a matter of law this is paid for by
reductions of 252,000 employees. The Senator from Alaska and his
friends come to the floor again and again, and they just want to say
something and make it true even though it is not true.
I ask the Senator, is he saying the Senator from West Virginia has
misled the country in his comments in the Chamber?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I respond by simply stating the fact that we have an
accumulated debt of $4.6 trillion. Now, did that occur by various
members of the leadership or committee chairmen misleading us? I do not
know how to explain to my friend from Massachusetts the reality, but we
have accumulated $4.6 trillion worth of debt. Our deficit this year is
$170 billion. How did that occur? It occurred through the good efforts
of 100 Senators trying to be responsible. But we are irresponsible in
the sense that we are dedicating some--well, it is roughly 14 percent
of our budget--to interest on the debt. Now, how did that occur?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be delighted----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It occurred through efforts similar to this.
Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted to answer the question of the Senator
from Alaska. When President Carter left office, the debt in this
country was less than $1 trillion. When Presidents Reagan and Bush left
office, indeed, the debt of this country was over $4 trillion. For the
first time in the history of this country since Harry Truman was
President of the United States we can now say that we have had the
third consecutive year of deficit reduction.
It came about through a reduction bill that every single Republican
said was going to bankrupt the country, would not provide new jobs, and
was not going to be real deficit reduction.
I ask America. Who do you want to believe? Do you want to believe the
people who told you the sky was going to fall in last year when we
passed the budget, but nevertheless we have the deficit reduction? Do
you want to believe the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee who said this is funded? Or do you want to believe the
Senator who just stands on the floor and says we have this debt?
How did it happen? It happened under the watch of President Reagan
and President Bush, and I might add with the complicity of the
Congress. But never once did they veto those appropriations bills.
So I do not think it is very hard to find the answer for how we got
where we are. The question is how we are going to get out of here with
this crime bill.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I could respond to my friend, I would state the
fact and the reality is--he can agree or disagree--the Government is
going to spend an additional $125 billion on top of the $l.173 trillion
to pay for interest over the next 5 years. Is he suggesting that figure
is inaccurate? Because it is not.
Mr. KERRY. No. I am not suggesting that.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Or that figure occurred because of deficit spending? I
would hope he would acknowledge that.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, here is the game. We are going around in
circles. I asked a question. Is the Senator misleading? We still have
not had an answer. I pointed out where in the law it is paid for, and
he is talking about interest on the debt. I understand interest on the
debt. I supported Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I have been prepared to vote
for balanced budget laws. Let us get it done. But this bill will not
increase the deficit. To come out and tell Americans that is going to
happen is just incorrect. It is the game that is being played here.
I will await my turn in line. I thank the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia. I thank my colleague.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I could respond, I would simply challenge my good
friend. The position of the Senator from Alaska--if I may respond--is
that the first $22 billion was paid for when it left here. There is no
way to identify specifically how it is paid for now.
So I simply do not accept the generalization of my good friend from
Massachusetts who is claiming that somehow, through a magic reduction
of Federal employees, which I think in our lifetime we have yet to see,
it is going to suddenly occur and make up this difference.
I would suggest that reality dictates that is not going to be the
case. We funded $22 billion. Now there is $13 billion that is not
offset. It is out there. We are going to add it to the deficit. We are
going to be paying interest on it.
I thank the President. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield the floor?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. I still would be happy to respond to any
questions.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before yielding the floor to the Senator
from West Virginia, let me say to my friend that I hear his passionate
disagreement. But he is not just disagreeing with me. He is disagreeing
with what he says. He is disagreeing with what the distinguished
President pro tempore of the Senate said.
More importantly, I think he is ignoring what is already happening.
There are less Federal employees today than--I think this is correct--
since the time of President Kennedy. That has happened during the
course of the last year and a half under the performance review. It is
happening.
Senators can come to the floor and wish away these realities. But the
American people do not want wishes and partisanship, they want facts.
And the fact is people are being reduced today. The fact is there is a
trust fund. The fact is this money must be appropriated each year. And
the U.S. Senate will have to stand here and be accountable for what it
does today. If we say we are going to reduce that debt, we can be held
accountable in the future. The question is do we want to be?
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia was to be
recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a
question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield to
the Senator from Massachusetts to yield for a question to the Senator
from New Mexico?
Mr. KERRY. I am going to stay on the floor, I say, and I would be
happy to have a colloquy.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will stay also and give my remarks. I do not have to
ask a question. I thank the Senator for his generosity.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, yesterday every American was made a
potential victim of a grave crime. The perpetrators made no effort to
conceal their motive or their weapon. They looked at the possibility of
enacting an historic, desperately needed anticrime bill, and believe it
or not, their reaction was to pull the trigger.
Today, we can only hope this was a temporary moment of insanity.
There is no excuse, no plea, no alibi that could possibly justify a
band of Senators ganging up to kill an anticrime, antidrug,
antiviolence piece of legislation that they heralded and voted for en
masse--by a vote of 95 to 4--less than a year ago.
Nor is there anything subtle about this attack on the crime bill. Now
that the stakes are human lives, we had better call it like we see it:
Just a few too many Senators are thinking far too much about something
called winning seats instead of defending streets.
Let us face it, this is a big election year. More Democrats are up
than Republicans. Keep the crime bill from passing this Senate, keep
the crime bill from the President's desk, and maybe you will score some
points for Republicans.
But what about everyone else? Why worry about the people of our State
who still will not be safe? Why think about our police officers who
risk their lives every day for the rest of us, and who are begging the
Senate to pass this bill? Why give a minute's thought to the criminals
and the gangs still on the street, buying more Uzis, selling more
drugs, mowing down innocent people?
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that pure politics could lead
to this new, all-time low on an issue that is as fundamental as the
safety and lives of the American people. How can anyone in the group of
95 Senators, who voted for the crime bill last November, explain this
incredible retreat? Has political self-interest really come to this?
When I was listening to the debate last night, I heard at least one
Senator ask why it matters if this crime bill sputters for a few days.
First of all, the Republican blockage against this crime bill puts
the passage of a crime bill in grave jeopardy, period. The Senators
blocking this crime bill have to decide right this minute whether they
will let us protect Americans.
But let me point out the reason to get the hurdles out of the way. It
is called human lives.
Again, just 10 months ago, on November 19, 95 Senators voted for the
passage of this anticrime bill. And thanks to the heroic efforts of the
Senator from Delaware, many of our colleagues in both Houses, and the
President, we now have the final version, called the conference report,
of a bill that is almost identical to the Senate version that those 94
Senators voted for.
In just 6 of those months, 1,829 violent crimes were committed in my
State alone--1,829 violent crimes, between December 1993 and May 1994--
36 murders, 183 rapes, 419 robberies, 1,191 assaults.
That is why every minute counts. That is why anyone blocking the
passage of this crime bill cannot come up with a single excuse for
putting politics over the safety of their constituents.
I say to the American people that we need your help. We need you to
call your Senators who are forming the blockade against the crime bill
to come out and vote for a bill to make you and your families and
police officers and our streets more safe. Ask them a simple question.
Will you vote to protect me and my family from the terror of crime?
Will you do it today?
Every piece of this bill is urgently needed. It has got money to
build more prisons for violent criminals. It will set up boot camps for
people young enough who maybe can be kept from a lifetime of preying on
others. It will slap longer sentences and tougher penalties on
criminals that have no business being on our streets. It will put more
police officers on those streets. And yes, this bill will give our
communities, our schools, our States more funds and more tools to try
to prevent crime and channel people into jobs, into classrooms, into
places that may convince them that there is a better way.
This crime bill also retains the ban on a very specific list of 19
military-style assault weapons. This one provision, out of a
comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with crime on many
fronts, has generated the most conflict of all over this bill when it
comes to its actual contents.
As the Senator of West Virginia, I understand the concerns about gun
control. My State has a proud heritage of hunting and sporting. The
vast majority of West Virginians are law-abiding, good people--and my
obligation is to defend their rights to protect themselves and their
liberties.
But I also feel a sacred obligation to deal with the changing world
before us, with its new dangers that rage at our police officers and
our people. This is the reason I have voted for this ban on 19 kinds of
assault weapons. Because these guns are now, in today's world, the
weapons of choice for some of the most dangerous criminals. We simply
have to try and keep them from stamping out lives senselessly.
This bill does not say that a ban on military-style assault weapons
will end crime. It will not even come close. But this part of the bill
is just one of many, many steps we must take at every level, through
government and as citizens, to defend ourselves from today's dangers.
West Virginians who worry about the possibility of more restrictions
on guns will want to look at the part of this legislative package that
actually protects more than 600 other kinds of guns in order to ensure
our law-abiding citizens that these are guns that they can legally own
and collect.
Police officers and sheriffs in West Virginia, and their fellow
officers across this country, have asked us to include this ban on
assault weapons. They fear for their lives as they try to defend ours.
I think they deserve this response from all of us, as we pledge to give
our communities and leaders the many tools--the funds, the punishment,
the public commitment--in the rest of this bill to fight crime in every
way we know how.
Mr. President, again, this is the crime bill that 95 Senators voted
for last November. This is the crime bill that we're trying to enact
today. It costs the same amount of money over 5 years that it cost last
November, paid out of the same kind of trust fund that 94 Senators
voted for last November. It includes virtually the same desperately
needed measures to make our people and our police officers safer that
it did last November. The only difference between last November and
today is whether taking on crime or taking on Democrats is more
important.
And the Senators coming up with dozens of reasons to hold up this
bill know perfectly well that every single one of us had a chance to
contribute to what's in this package and what isn't. This bill includes
provisions and programs that resulted from countless hours of
negotiation among virtually every Member of this body.
I am upset about this for a reason. My State needs this bill to pass,
today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month.
Most people do not think about West Virginia when they decry
America's crime problems. Yes, the problems are much worse in other
States and in the big cities. But we all know that crime has made its
way to every town and neighborhood.
I have spent a lot of time recently talking about crime with the
leaders and police officers and people of my State. In June, I held a
statewide summit on crime to learn about the kinds of crime that are
preying on our State and to talk about how together we can fight to
stop it.
We in West Virginia are seeing our streets and our schools and our
communities become less safe. We shudder along with the rest of America
at the wave of killings and shootings that fill the evening news and
our morning newspapers. We proudly still have the lowest crime rate in
the country. But behind that one comforting statistic, West Virginia is
experiencing drug trafficking, domestic crimes, gangs, and a startling
increase in violent crime.
The people and law enforcement of West Virginia need this crime bill
to pass today.
Listen to what Rufus Park, the mayor of Charles Town, WV wrote me:
It is my strong conviction that the drug problem is much
too great for us to solve on our own and with our limited
resources, and that we must have assistance from the Federal
level.
Listen to what Larry Starcher, a chief judge in Morgantown, wrote me:
You have my support for the crime bill. While we may not
agree with every facet of it, it is a needed piece of
legislation--particularly more police officers.
I know that every single Senator has gotten these letters and phone
calls from the people of their States who are on the front lines. We
are hearing and reading the fears and the needs of law enforcement
officials all over America. People who have every reason to expect that
selfish politics shouldn't hold a candle up to public safety and to
waging the fight against crime.
Those are the voices that we should respond to. Those are the people
we should feel most responsible to. Mayors desperate for help to make
their towns' streets safe again. Judges begging for the resources to
make their courtrooms, once again, more than just revolving doors. Cops
already overwhelmed by their jobs and asking for help. Teachers--and
students--eager to make schools a refuge from the mean streets, not an
extension. And everyday people tired of giving up their neighborhoods
to thugs, and now watching a group of Senators throwing up roadblocks
to a bill that may make a difference.
This crime bill will make a difference in West Virginia. Some of us
worked hard to include grants for rural States like mine, so we finally
get some help. There is $1.7 million in rural law enforcement funding
in this bill for West Virginia. If we prove that we will keep violent
offenders in jail, and we will, West Virginia can get $17 million for
more prison space and boot camps. We are guaranteed $44 million to hire
more police officers. Our courts and law enforcement officials can
apply for grants to keep better track of crimes; beef up our courts;
protect more women from the domestic violence that plagues our State;
and help our communities with their different crime and drug problems.
At our summit on crime in June, West Virginians heard the tragic news
that domestic violence continues to destroy lives and families around
our State. This is another reason that passing this crime bill is so
urgent. This package includes the Violence Against Women Act, a
bipartisan proposal to help the victims of domestic violence. Here is
another area where Senator Biden has extended steadfast leadership on
behalf of Americans and the people of my State, and I am proud to note
that I cosponsored his bill.
I have visited a West Virginia shelter for battered women and
children, and talked to them about the trauma they have been through in
their own homes. They need help and they have already waited far too
long for that help. Passing this bill is the only way we can institute
a series of steps, including $1.62 billion of real support, to protect
and bring relief to these victims.
Since May of this year, two brutal murders occurred in West Virginia
where one family member killed another. In one case, a small child
watched as her mother was killed, and had to climb over the body to run
for help.
How can anyone hear a story like this, knowing there's help for our
communities to combat domestic violence, and stand in the way of
passing this bill?
West Virginia can start winning the war on crime if and only if the
Senate roadblock on this bill comes crashing down.
Mr. President, I am here to beg for sanity. The obstructionists are
picking on the innocent. Nothing is worth denying the chance we have
today to defend the safety of the American people.
If we are not allowed to pass this bill, things will only get worse.
If a Senate blockade prevails, through a budget point of order, through
threatening letters, through filibustering or cloture votes, the only
winners--the only winners--will be the thieves, the gangs, the cold-
blooded criminals that prey on the streets and schoolyards and
backyards of every single State in the Union.
For all we talk about taking on crime, now we have a chance to really
do it. We can put more police officers on the streets, and those police
can be better trained and equipped. We can give judges the ability to
keep truly dangerous people where they belong--behind bars--and serve
their communities better. We can get to at-risk kids early and keep
from them from becoming career criminals that just get carried along
through the criminal justice system. We can protect women and kids from
being victimized.
Americans deserve so much better. The people of my State deserve so
much better. Around this country, citizens are struggling to protect
themselves, their children, their fellow citizens. And here they watch
a group of Senators protecting some kind of political edge or advantage
that I don't even understand.
Mr. President, on behalf of the people I represent, I ask my
colleagues to take down the roadblocks. Restore peace and sanity within
these walls. Together, we joined as 95 Senators last November and
promised help to our people against crime. Together, we must join
again, right now, and keep that promise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I have had several discussions today
with the distinguished Republican leader, the most recent one just a
few moments ago, and following that discussion I am announcing there
will be no rollcall votes today.
The distinguished Republican leader and I have had several
discussions, the most recent one in which he presented to me a proposal
for how best to proceed with this matter. That proposal was prepared as
a result of a Republican Senators caucus held today.
I indicated to my colleagues that it would be necessary for me to
convene a meeting of Democratic Senators tomorrow morning for that
purpose, following which we will then be prepared to respond to the
proposal.
So the debate will continue this evening for as long as the managers
wish to do so, but there will be no rollcall votes, and we hope to have
an announcement tomorrow morning with respect to the schedule.
I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, as the Senate prepares to take action on
the conference report of the crime bill I add my voice to the chorus of
those who will support final passage of the bill. It is clear that
there is no issue more important in the minds of Rhode Islanders and
Americans than the crime epidemic which currently plagues our country.
The time for decisive, broad based, and meaningful Federal assistance
is long overdue and I am pleased that the 6 years of work that went
into forging this crime bill has produced a package which looks as if
it will finally turn rhetoric into reality. And here very great and
real credit must go to Mr. Biden, the Senator from Delaware. Our
cities, towns, and neighborhoods will directly benefit from the
increased law enforcement, relief from prison overcrowding, tightened
and revamped sentencing, and prevention measures in this bill and they
need this assistance immediately. If the Senate approves this
conference report, I am confident that the President and the
administration will act with due haste so that this much needed shot in
the arm for our local crimefighting efforts will be administered as
soon as possible.
Before I begin to speak to the broader aspects of the bill however, I
feel that I must address some confusing and misleading information that
has come out in debate today regarding the effect of the bill on a
program in our capital city of Providence, RI.
On the floor and on news programs earlier today, it was said that
according to the mayor of the Providence, RI, $3 million would go to a
program which would have graffiti artists trained to be mural artists.
I was not aware of this supposed actual example of what this bill is
going to do in my home State, as it has been claimed, so I contacted
the mayor's office and inquired as to what this was all about. The
answer I received certainly cleared things up and I can tell the Senate
unequivocally that this bill will not send $3 million to retrain
graffiti violators into mural artists in Providence. Indeed, I ask
unanimous consent that a letter I have received from the mayor of
Providence, Buddy Cianci, on this subject be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Mayor of Providence,
Providence, RI, August 24, 1994.
Senator Claiborne Pell,
U.S. Senate
Washington DC.
Dear Senator Pell: I am honored that members of the United
States Senate have brought Providence, Rhode Island into the
national debate regarding the Crime bill. However, there have
been some misunderstandings that I would like to clear up.
When the Crime Bill is passed, Providence will not spending
$3 million a year to convert graffiti writers into painters
of public murals.
We expect that our entire LPA allocation would be $3
million over six years. Only a small portion of the $500,00
we would receive annually would go to the graffiti program.
You should know that people who live in urban neighborhoods
strongly support our efforts to rid the city of graffiti
vandalism. Last October, I created a special task force to
address this problem. In less than a year, graffiti on more
than 1,000 homes and other structures in Providence has been
painted over. Meanwhile, about 60 graffiti-writers have been
arrested and convicted. The courts assigned these youths to
the public service of cleaning graffiti from buildings in
their own neighborhoods. To date, about 200 buildings have
been cleaned by convicted youths. We have also begun to
involve convicted graffiti writers in the painting of public
murals in their own neighborhoods.
With LPAA funds, we will develop a comprehensive series of
programs to reach socially isolated urban youths, and
redirect them towards socially and economically constructive
behavior--for themselves and their neighborhoods. We must all
remember that it is much cheaper to turn around a teenage boy
today than incarcerate a convicted felon tomorrow.
I trust that you will convey to your colleagues the
importance of the work we have begun in Providence.
Sincerely,
Vincent A. Cianci, Jr.,
Mayor of Providence.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, in brief, the letter states that Mayor
Cianci had simply been speaking about the $3 million Providence is
expected to receive under the Local Partnership Act title of this bill.
He then stated that programs like the one already successfully in place
in Providence which deals with graffiti violators in a constructive way
would be an example of the kinds of prevention and intervention
programs that could be allocated with some of these funds. It is
absurd, irresponsible, and disingenuous to say that the entire $3
million would go to this one very small program and indeed the mayor
firmly states that he has no intention of doing so.
The crime bill purposely, and I believe appropriately, has left the
discretion for the use of such funds with the local jurisdictions that
receive them for use as they see best. This is wise as I believe that
the decisions on how best to deal with crime and develop crime
prevention are almost invariably best left to local officials and
citizens. In this case, I am confident that the able and articulate
mayor of the city of Providence, Mayor Cianci, and his administration,
who have incidentally done a fine job of running and managing Rhode
Island's largest city, would use any funds received under this bill in
an appropriate and fiscally prudent manner to combat crime. And again,
should any Senator be concerned, I can tell you that he has told me
that the entire $3 million he expects Providence to receive under the
LPA will not be allocated to the graffiti program. Incidentally, this
program is not a frivolous creation of this bill. It was established
following the recommendations of a task force established by the mayor
and it is one that is strongly supported by the residents of the city
of Providence. I find it disheartening that some have seized on this
program, distorted, and misrepresented its scope and the impact that
the crime bill would have upon it an encourage my colleagues to stick
to the facts in debating the merits of the crime bill.
Regarding the larger specifics of the crime bill, I note that much of
the debate in recent days has centered on guns. Of particular concern
to members of the National Rifle Association and those elected
representatives who subscribe to their beliefs is the ban on certain
assault weapons contained in the bill. I have long supported banning
such weapons and am pleased that Congress has finally taken some
affirmative action to curb the availability of these weapons whose
primary and practically sole purpose is simply to kill people. Gun
violence is out of control in this country and we must take measures to
combat it. Should anyone doubt the prevalence of gun-related violence,
I will include for the Record a chronology from the Providence Journal
which is the latest in a monthly listing of incidents involving gun
violence in the State of Rhode Island. The long and ever-growing list
of incidents is numbing to read and further evidence that we must take
steps to address the menace of guns in our daily lives. I am pleased
that this crime bill takes the first steps toward doing so.
Regarding other provisions, I am pleased that this bill will provide
for additional police officers throughout the country and that the
concept of community policing, or the cop on the beat, is endorsed. I
am also particularly pleased that the Violence Against Women Act is
included in the bill and that we begin the effort to combat the all-
too-common phenomenon of domestic violence in America. These and many
other provisions make a serious and constructive effort to address
crime at all levels.
I must also state however that this crime bill contains much that I
do not particularly like. Most distressing to me is the drastic
increase in the crimes for which the death penalty may be applied; an
increase from the current 13 to 60. I do not believe in the death
penalty and recall that the last time someone was put to death in Rhode
Island, it was later shown that he was innocent of the crime of which
he was convicted. Consequently, capital punishment has been outlawed in
Rhode Island since 1852. I firmly believe that capital punishment does
not serve as a deterrent and that in pursuing the death penalty the
country is going down a path abandoned long ago because it is not only
uncivilized but has also been shown to be ultimately ineffective and
often administered in a discriminatory fashion.
Other issues which have troubled me in the debate over this bill
include the endorsement of the three-strikes-and-you're-out provision
in the bill and the heavy emphasis on incarceration and inflexible
punishment rather than crime prevention. The non-sensical accusations
that the prevention measures contained in this bill are merely social
pork-barelling are truly irresponsible and shortsighted. As a society
we must do more to address the root causes of crime and prevent it from
happening in the first place rather than just locking people up and
throwing away the key. Fortunately, numerous programs were preserved in
the conference report and with them, we are headed down the path of
truly dealing with crime in a constructive way.
In sum, while I may not like all that is in the bill, I support this
bill because the good outweighs the bad. Inevitably when you are
dealing with an issue as broad and as contentious as this, compromise
is necessary in order to avoid paralysis and gridlock. I commend the
President, the Judiciary Committee, and especially its chairman,
Senator Biden, for their diligent and persistent efforts. Thanks to
their dedication we finally have a bill which will truly take a
historic step in our Nation's history in the fight against crime.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that materials detailing
gun-related incidents in Rhode Island printed in the Providence Journal
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Providence Journal-Bulletin, Aug. 18, 1994]
1994: Guns in Rhode Island
Throughout 1994, the Journal-Bulletin will publish a
monthly listing of incidents involving guns. The list will be
cumulative, allowing readers to see the total number of
reported gun incidents for the year. Suicides and attempted
suicides are included only if they occurred in a public venue
and/or involved police.
Aug. 17: A man with a torn rubber glove over his face
storms into a hair salon at 99 Lambert Lind Highway, Warwick,
pulls a handgun from a paper bag, robs customers and
employees and flees in a car later found abandoned at the
Warwick Mall.
Aug. 16: Alphonzo Zeigler, 37, is shot in the back after
allegedly beating his girlfriend in front of several
witnesses. After the shooting is reported, about 3 a.m.,
Providence police find Zeigler, critically wounded, huddling
in his driveway at 84 Hamilton St. The woman is hospitalized
in serious condition. Police say witnesses told them Zeigler
hit her several times with a board, but ``when we asked them
about the shooting, they all said they didn't know anything
about that.'' No gun is found.
Aug. 15: An exchange of threats and insults between two
carloads of young people ends in a fatal shooting at Gridley
and Bismark Streets, Providence, at 4:30 a.m. Manuel Miranda,
18, of Pawtucket is shot to death and David Daluz, 19, also
of Pawtucket, is wounded when they get out of their car.
Police stop the other car minutes later and find that Jose
Gonsales, 19, of Brockton, Mass., is also wounded. Alderico
Mendes, 18, who gives addresses in Stoughton and Brockton, is
charged with murder.
Aug. 14: At 2:30 a.m., according to East Providence police,
Jon K. Andrews rings the doorbell at 67 Viola Ave., where his
ex-wife is staying, and forces his way in by pointing a
pistol at the head of the man who lives there. The resident
pushes Andrews out and he leaves, but returns just as police
arrive. After a chase, police arrest Andrews on Crescent View
Avenue near the carousel. Andrews, 30, of 121 Earl Ave., is
charged with drunk driving, assault with a dangerous weapon
and three felony gun charges, including possessing a firearm
after conviction of a violent crime. He has twice been
convicted of domestic assault.
Aug. 11: Three masked men burst into a temporary employment
agency at 920 Chalkstone Ave., Providence, about 4:45 a.m.
and rob three people at gunpoint.
Aug. 11: Leonard Walker, 34, is shot in the groin by one of
two would-be robbers, who approach him in a car as he walks
on the Route 95 overpass near his home at Dexter Manor, 100
Broad St., Providence. He tells police he was shot when he
refused to give them money.
Aug. 10: A .22-caliber handgun is among items reported
stolen in a break at Century Plating International Inc., 472
Potters Ave., Providence.
Aug. 4: Ernest E. Chandler III, 18, and a 16-year-old are
arrested in a drug raid at Chandler's apartment at 755
Atwells Ave., Providence. Along with marijuana and cocaine,
police seize a loaded pistol.
Aug. 2: A resident of Pawtucket's Woodlawn neighborhood
reports seeing four masked gunmen threaten another man behind
67 West Ave. and fire about 10 shots into the rear of the
house about 10 p.m. Police say they are trying to identify
and find the man who was threatened.
Aug. 2: Bernard H. Speaks holds his 5-month-old son hostage
at gunpoint in his home at 43 Atlantic Ave., Providence,
after a judge grants custody of the child to his estranged
wife. Speaks, 52 a state prison guard for nearly 19 years,
surrenders after more than two hours of negotiations.
Aug. 1: Jorge Ajaka, 35, of 271 Potters Ave., Providence,
allegedly threatens his ex-girlfriend with a gun at her home,
347 Potters Ave. Police arrest him at his home and seize a
shotgun and a handgun.
july
July 31: Curtis Lee, 20, is shot in the back as he walks
away after breaking up a fight between two people at
Weybosset and Clemence streets in Providence about 1:50 a.m.
July 29: Four people tell Providence police they were
robbed at gunpoint outside 123 Ohio Ave. about 3:45 a.m. by
four young men in a small gray car. Moments later police spot
a car matching the description on Prairie Avenue, stop it
after a short chase and arrest four 17-year-olds. Police find
a .38-caliber revolver under a seat.
July 29: A man wakes in his bedroom at 25 Tappan St.,
Providence, shortly after midnight to find a masked man with
a pistol on top of him, he later tells police. Another man
stands nearby with a sawed-off shotgun. After a struggle the
man with the pistol takes $600 from a night stand, goes
downstairs and takes a purse from a woman sleeping on a couch
and beer from the refrigerator. Both robbers leave by the
front door.
July 29: Luis Tavarez of 25 Massie St., Providence, is
hospitalized with an unspecified gunshot injury after a
friend reports Tavarez apparently shot himself accidentally
in a car outside his house about 5 a.m.
July 28: Kimberly M. Walsh, 23, of North Kingstown is found
shot to death in the woods off Route 403, a pistol beside her
body.
July 28: Danny Shepard, 17, and a friend are playing with a
gun about 11:30 a.m. near Eddy and Nebraska streets,
Providence, when the gun fires and a bullet grazes Shepard's
head.
July 25: A masked gunman locks a clerk, two patrons and the
owner in a cooler at the Coventry Wine and Liquor store, 600
Washington St., Coventry, about 9:20 p.m. and takes an
undisclosed amount of money from the cash register.
July 22: Cranston police investigating an alleged drug
dealer seize 23 weapons from his home at 251 Capuano Ave.,
including handguns, shotguns, rifles and crossbows. Four guns
are loaded: an AK-47 assault rifle, two snub-nosed .38-
caliber revolvers and a .45-caliber pistol with a laser gun
sight. Anthony C. Simone Jr., 40, is charged with various
drug and weapons offenses.
July 20: Someone reports shots fired at 39 Temple St.,
Providence, about 9 p.m. Police are met by a crowd of about
50 people they say ``turned riotous.'' After a brawl, police
arrest three adults and two juveniles for assault and
disorderly conduct, and seize a .25-caliber pistol and a
small amount of marijuana.
July 20: A 17-year-old boy is shot in the leg on Chad Brown
Street, Providence.
July 20: A masked man enters the Better Bake Shop at 373
Smith St., Providence, at 8:30 a.m., points a gun at an
employee and flees with an undisclosed amount of cash.
July 19: Hugo Herrarta and Jose Ruiz are robbed and
assaulted by four men, one armed with a shotgun and another
with a board, at 146 Burnett St., Providence, about midnight,
they tell police. Ruiz is treated for a head cut.
July 19: Fernando Tavares, 23, is fatally shot at 4:30 p.m.
as he sits in his car arguing with a man on a bicycle at
Parkview Avenue and O'Connor Street, Providence. He manages
to drive to a nearby store, where employees call police and
rescue workers, but dies a few hours later. A warrant is
issued charging a suspect with murder.
July 19: Harvey Monplaiser, 19, of 60 Penn St., Providence,
is charged with illegal possession of a .38-caliber pistol
and two 17-year-olds are charged with drug possession after
residents complain that youths are selling drugs in the area.
Police seize a second pistol from the basement of 60 Penn St.
July 18: Responding to a report of gunshots at 2:30 a.m.,
Newport police hear a man and a woman arguing inside 131 Sims
St. Police find five bullets in a bedroom and a disassembled
.32-caliber revolver under a mattress. Keith Antone, 29, of
223 Park Holm is charged with possession of a firearm without
a permit and possession of a firearm after being convicted of
a crime. The conviction was for domestic violence.
July 17: Two men approach Wesley Beckton, 29, and Sterling
Washington, 38, as they work on a car on Potters Avenue,
Providence. After a brief verbal exchange one of the men
pulls a shotgun loaded with birdshot from behind his back and
fires on Beckton and Washington, wounding both. They tell
police they cannot identify the assailants.
July 14: As Providence police approach an unregistered car
they stopped on Wadsworth Street, passenger Charles Abbott,
24, allegedly puts a loaded .38-caliber pistol under the
seat. He is charged with possession of a pistol without a
license.
July 17: Jesse Robbins, 23, allegedly hides a shotgun under
a car seat as Providence police disperse a crowd on Cranston
Street about 11 p.m. Robbins is charged with illegal
possession of a firearm and possession of a stolen firearm.
July 13: Mirto Troian, 67, of Hillhurst Avenue, Providence,
a former custodian for St. Bartholomew Parish, is found shot
to death about 5:45 a.m. in front of the parish school on
Laurel Hill Avenue. Police find a shotgun nearby and an
apparent suicide note in Troian's pocket that says.'' Thanks
St. Bart's for letting me breathe asbestos for 30 years.''
The current custodian says Troian, a widower, recently had a
tumor diagnosed and was very depressed. The pastor says
asbestos was cleaned up several years ago.
July 9: In an apparent dispute over a debt, two men in a
car shoot at a parked car occupied by a woman and a man, on
Ford Street, Providence, at 7:15 p.m. Bullets strike the car
and a nearby house, Police later arrest Keith Ware, 28, and
Jumanee Orry Jackson, 24, at 70 America St. and seize two
handguns.
July 7: Two men with guns and a woman with a knife rob five
people of more than $4,000 in an apartment at 11 Babcock St.,
Providence, being used as a clothing store.
July 3: Ronald Volpe, 39, is shot to death as he trims his
hedges at 39 Whipple Court, North Providence. Neighbors tell
police Volpe had been feuding with his next-door neighbor,
James A. Gallagher, about those hedges for three years.
Gallaher is charged with murder; police seize a shotgun and
several other weapons from his home.
june
June 27: Keith Singleton, 18, of 27 Goddard St.,
Providence, is arrested on a warrant charging him with
assaulting a woman with a gun on Feb. 22.
June 26: Edgar Berreondo, 29, breaks into Ana Hernandez's
apartment at 18 Joseph St., Providence, about 3 a.m. and guns
down Hernandez and Elmer Flores, 24. He then kills himself.
The day before, Berreondo attacked Hernandez when she refused
to resume their relationship, and police advised her to get a
restraining order immediately. She was so fearful that she
asked her sister to take her two children, 11 and 5, for the
night. By morning police have an arrest warrant, but it's too
later. In a suicide note to his brother, Berreondo wrote:
``I'm desperate. Ana was at fault.''
June 24: Rolando Miles, 18, is shot down on Stanwood
Street, Providence, and dies on the operating table a few
hours later. Witnesses say Miles and another, unidentified
man were arguing loudly in the middle of the street when the
other man pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot Miles.
June 24: Jose DoSantos of 16 Barnes St., Pawtucket is
arraigned on a domestic assault charge for allegedly punching
his wife, Violanta DoSantos. Mrs. DoSantos told police her
husband showed her a gun, accused her of seeing another man
and said if he saw her with him he would shoot them both.
June 24: A passenger tosses a loaded pistol out of a car
being followed by Providence police shortly after 2 a.m.
Police stop the car on Orange Street and passenger Angel
Melendez, 22, is charged with possession of a firearm.
June 22: A Providence woman tells police someone pointed a
gun at her at Prairie Avenue and Oxford Street about 1 a.m.
Police stop a car matching her description on Pavilion Avenue
and seize a loaded handgun from under the seat. Da'ud Nural-
Islam, 21 of 64 Camp St. is charged with possession of the
gun without a license.
June 21: Gunfire erupts in Providence's Washington Park
neighborhood about 8:25 p.m. as Edwin Rodriguez, 17, and
Eugenia Vasquez, 18, exchange shots in a dispute over a car,
according to police. Rodriguez, standing on his porch at 206
California Ave., is struck in the chest and critically
wounded. A 15-year-old relative then shoots Vasquez in the
face with a shotgun, later telling police he was trying to
protect Rodriguez. Vasquez, of Worcester, Mass., is charged
with assault with intent to murder and the 15-year-old is
referred to Family Court.
June 21: A woman is raped at gunpoint by a masked man who
cut through a screen to get into her apartment, on Tappan
Street, Providence, about 1:20 a.m. He then ransacks the
apartment and steals $39.
June 20: A woman is raped and two families robbed in a
house on Norwich Avenue, Providence, after three men confront
the woman's boyfriend outside their home about 9:30 p.m. and
put a gun to his head, forcing him back inside. They tie up
the woman and the couple's children, and rob them of $40. One
man rapes the woman. The other two take the boyfriend
upstairs to a neighbor's and force him to knock on the door.
When the neighbor opens the door the intruders burst in, tie
up that woman and her boyfriend, rob them of $790 and ransack
the apartment.
June 20: Vincent Lantigua of 92 Lonsdale Ave. in
Pawtucket's Woodlawn neighborhood, fires several shots at his
upstairs neighbors, with whom he has been feuding for several
weeks, according to police. (Neither neighbor is injured.)
Lantigua, 30, is charged with two counts of assault with a
dangerous weapon.
June 20: Albert Stokes, 27, is shot in the leg after two
men with whom he had been arguing on Houston Street,
Providence, return with a .32- or .38-caliber pistol.
June 19: David Scialo holds a gun to another man's head,
punches him and threatens to kill him at about 12:30 a.m.
near Canal Street and Park Row, according to Providence
police. Police find a loaded .25-caliber handgun in Scialo's
pocket. Scialo, 26, of Groton St., is charged with assault
with a dangerous weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated
and committing a crime of violence while armed.
June 16: Garrick Ashley of 29 Fairmount St., Providence, is
charged with receiving stolen goods after police find him
with a loaded handgun at 270 Pumgansett St.
June 15: Adrian Ashby of Providence is shot in the head by
an unidentified assailant while a passenger in a car on June
Street. He tells police he heard several gunshots. The driver
and another passenger take him to the hospital and tell
police they heard a single gunshot and didn't see anyone fire
a gun. Police say they refused to cooperate further.
June 15: Two women are in a car in front of 29 Hart St.,
Providence, when two men approach, flash a gun and demand
money. The women speed away, one later tells police.
June 12: Christopher Ross of Providence, is shot in the arm
during a dispute at Elmwood and Potters Avenues about 10 p.m.
June 11: A 13-year-old boy is charged with possession of a
handgun after Providence police find him on Taylor Street
about 10:10 p.m., then find a loaded 9mm gun on its backpack.
June 11: Kolawole Azerz, 19, of Providence is shot in the
thigh during a dispute at Cranston and Lester Streets about
5:30 p.m.
June 11: Providence police charge Julio Silva, 39, of 207
Camp St. with illegal possession of a firearm, a loaded .25-
caliber pistol.
June 9: Arthur DeFusco, 42, of Bristol shoots a dog in the
Crandall Road area of Tiverton while looking for his stolen
truck, and is charged with a misdemeanor court of discharging
a firearm without the permission of the land owner. DeFusco
says the dog was chasing him, and he shot in self-defense.
(The dog is treated and released to its owner.)
June 9: Four robbers confront Dennis Green of Warwick and
two of his friends at the Temple to Music in Roger Williams
Park about 6:30 p.m., and shoot Green, 30, in the forearm
``simply because he didn't have enough money,'' according to
police.
June 8: Newport police charge Steven F. Borges, 32, and
Russell J. Ney, 37, with carrying a concealed weapon after
they allegedly try to sell a handgun to patrons at the On
Deck Circle bar on Broadway.
June 8: Adriano Diaz, 70, of 62 Stanwood St. fires a
shotgun into the air about 3 a.m. He tells Providence police
he had been arguing with some men, and when one smashed his
car windows he fired a single shot. Police charge him with
discharging a firearm within a compact area.
June 5: A male acquaintance threatens a Providence women
with a gun at her home, at 596 Public St., about 11 p.m., she
later tells police.
June 4: A Providence woman tells police her boyfriend put a
gun to her head and threatened to kill her about 9 p.m. He is
not there when police arrive at her home, at 47 Lancashire
St.; they seize a clip with six rounds of .32-caliber
bullets.
may
May 31: An 11-year-old boy tells a counselor at the Camden
Avenue Elementary School in Providence that two of his
friends were having trouble with some boys in the
neighborhood, pooled their money and bought a gun. By day's
end police recover a loaded .32-caliber revolver from a 14-
year-old.
May 25: A man accosts Vincent A. Paolino, 26, on Raymond
Street, Providence, about 10 p.m., demanding money and a
telephone. When Paolino refuses, the man pulls out a gun and
fires several shots, wounding Paolino as he runs away.
May 25: A 17-year-old girl shoots herself at Exeter-West
Greenwich Junior-Senior High School with her father's handgun
about 5 p.m., in an apparent suicide attempt. She is
hospitalized with a shoulder wound.
May 25: A .38-caliber gun is reported stolen overnight,
along with money from the cash register, from Agaty's Store,
148 Sabin St. Pawtucket.
May 24: Two men fire shots down Kossuth and Putnam Streets
about 9:330 p.m. while a woman sits on her front steps at 10
Kossuth St. with her two young children, she later tells
police.
May 22: A woman tells police a woman she has been feuding
with pointed a gun at her at her home, 50 Hamilton St.,
Providence.
May 18: Rodney M. Perry, 23, is shot and critically wounded
outside 14 Louisa St., Providence, across the street from a
Boys & Girls Club. Police find at least six shell casings in
the street and slugs in nearby occupied houses on Oxford
Street. Perry and Khalid Mason, who brought his wounded
friend to the police station, decline to give details on what
happened.
May 17: State police raid 592 Pippin Orchard Rd., Scituate,
and Charge Bill Parham, 30, of that address with possessing
steroids with intent to deliver and possessing a gun while
possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
May 16: Warwick police charge Christopher Woods, 19, with
assault with a dangerous weapon after four youngsters say he
pointed a shotgun at them in front of his house at 127
Cavalcade Blvd. Woods tells police he was angry because
someone in the neighborhood had kicked his car but says he
held the unloaded gun by his side, and did not point it at
the youngsters.
May 15: Jose Matos, 21, of 18 Derry St., Providence, is
shot while riding in a friend's car about 2:10 a.m., he later
tells police. The friend got into an argument with another
motorist and a passenger in the other car fired at them,
striking Matos in the arm.
May 13 and 14: Agents of the attorney general's narcotics
strike force seize a pistol and a shotgun, along with drugs,
cash and a car, and arrest seven people after investigating
alleged drug dealing in and around the Veterans Memorial
housing project in Woonsocket (Seventeen more suspects are
arrested on drug charges May 16.)
May 12: A handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition are reported
stolen in a break at 57 Raymond St. Providence.
May 11: Two handguns and a watch are reported stolen in a
break at 95 Corinth St., Providence.
May 10: Paul Gonsalves, 27, is shot in the leg at a
playground on Oxford Street in Providence about 6:30 p.m. He
tells police a man he was playing basketball with fouled him,
they got into an argument and the other man went to the side
of the court where someone handed him a pistol.
May 10: A 20-year-old Providence woman is abducted at
gunpoint about 3 a.m. by a man who orders her into his car at
the Valley Street and Atwells Avenue, she later tells police.
She says he drove to the rear of the Journal-Bulletin's
Regional Circulation Center at 55 Valley St. and ordered her
from the car.
May 9: Steven Price, 22, who was shot in April after a
fistfight, is arrested trying to settle the score, according
to Providence police. After shots are reported outside the
Living Room nightclub on Rathbone Street, police charge
Price, of 268 Indiana Ave., with carrying a pistol without a
license. They say he tossed a loaded pistol into a trash
container behind the nightclub.
May 8: When a couple pull into their driveway at 166 Sixth
St., Providence, a man points a gun at the wife and robs them
of $100, they later tell police.
May 8: Providence police, responding to a report of a man
with a gun on Chapin Avenue, charge Pedro Ramirez, 22, of 105
Chapin Ave. and Edgar Azurdia, 20, of 83 Ralph St., with
possession of a gun without a license.
May 8: Vladimir Vasquez, 22, of 322 Veezie St. is charged
with possession of a firearm without a license and firing
without a license and firing in a compact area after shots
were fired at Carpenter and Courtland Streets, Providence.
May 8: Mary E. Stanford, 24, of 190 Gallup St. is charged
with assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a pistol
without a license after allegedly threatening a woman with a
gun during a fight at 10 Croyland Rd.
May 8: A charred body, later identified as that of Barry R.
Kourmpates of Warwick, is found in Beavertail State Park in
Jamestown. An autopsy shows he died of gunshot wounds.
Kourmpates, 23, had been released from the Adult Correctional
Institutions in March.
May 1: Albert Gonzales, 20, of Pawtucket is shot in the leg
in a friend's apartment on Summit Street, Central Falls.
Police issue an arrest warrant for the other man.
april
April 29: A .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun and eight
rounds of ammunition are reported stolen from an apartment at
160 Cottage St., Pawtucket.
April 29: Gerald Greene of 91 Parade St., Providence, is
shot in the chest at Bridgham and Westminster streets. He
says two men wearing hoods pulled up in a car, confronted him
and, police say, ``shot him for unknown reasons.''
April 27: Two men come looking for Steven Price, 22, after
a fistfight and find him at the Bucklin Street Playground in
Providence. One opens fire, wounding Price and a 13-year-old
boy who police say was ``minding his own business, just
playing baseball.''
April 27: Adalberto Leal, who stalked Carol A. DiResto and
threatened to kill her for months after she ended their
relationship, walks into the Warwick hair salon where she
works and guns down DiResto, 26, and owner Rocco Ruggiano Jr.
He then apparently turns the sawed-off shotgun on himself;
police find his body near DiResto's in the basement of the
salon, at 1928 Warwick Ave. Four women, including DiResto,
had obtained restraining orders against him in the past four
years. He was sentenced to probation for violating one;
police say they were unable to arrest him for violating the
order obtained by DiResto because they couldn't find him.
April 26: Authorities arrest three people in connection
with an alleged heroin ring, seizing drugs, money and two
loaded semiautomatic handguns. Alejanditio Maldonado, 22, of
13 Yale Ave., Providence, is charged with two counts each of
possessing a firearm during a crime of violence and
possession of a firearm by an alien, as well as drug counts.
April 26: Jose M. Morales, 25, is shot in the chest after
approaching two men tampering with his car, parked behind his
apartment at 127 Silver Spring St., Providence.
April 25: Troy Auger, 19, of 69 Mowry St., and Todd
Guertin, 17, of 168 Douglas Ave., Providence, tell police
three men tried to get them to get out of their car on Mowry
Street, then shot at them as they drove off. Guertin is
treated for a shoulder wound, and Auguer is hospitalized with
a neck wound.
April 23: Michael Harrop, 40, allegedly drives into his
former girlfriend's yard at 56 Maple St., West Warwick, about
1:15 a.m. and fires a shot into the air from a 357-Magnum.
Harrop, of 3 Schofield St., surrenders an hour later and is
charged with several misdemeanors.
April 22: A handgun is seized, along with $17,000 and two
vehicles, as police arrest eight suspects in an alleged
Warwick-based sports-betting operation.
April 20: A Scituate police officer spots a car with no
license plates on Route 116 and signals the driver to stop.
After a chase, Rayner J. Vasquez, 18, of Providence is
arrested on gun and other charges. Police say he was carrying
an unlicensed, loaded .25-caliber pistol.
April 19: Two men approach an attendant at a car wash at
930 Main St., in the Woodlawn neighborhood of Pawtucket bind
and rob him at gunpoint and strike him in the head with a
pistol.
April 15: Bristol Patrolman Steven P. Calenda is indicted
on two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon for
allegedly pointing his service revolver at a dispatcher on
two occasion in January.
April 14: Robert Volante, 27, of 40 Smart St., Providence,
is arrested on several gun charges after police stop his car
at Branch Avenue and Vandewater Street, in the North End.
April 12: A 16-year-old boy is charged with illegal
possession of a gun found hidden in bedsheets at 151 Reynolds
St., Providence. (Police were investigating a report that two
youths had assaulted a woman and stolen her pocketbook;
another boy found in the house was charged with the robbery.)
April 12: North Smithfield Patrolman Scott Gould is shot at
in the Union Cemetery at 1:30 a.m. as he investigates a
report that shots had been fired. Charles G. Ventry, 27, of
Woonsocket is charged with assault with intent to murder, two
counts of assault and carrying a pistol without a permit.
Police seize two .38-caliber pistols and nearly 200 rounds of
ammunition.
April 11: A teenager tells police a masked gunman and two
other men burst into 316 Ohio Ave., Providence, and stole a
watch, jewelry, three VCRs and other items.
April 10: Four people are injured and a fifth escapes with
a scrape in two drive-by shootings in Providence, about 1
a.m. on Hanover Street and just after 2 a.m. at Hoyle Square.
The victims are Hann Han, 24; Sophearak Huy, 21; Frank Franco
and Robert Hernandez, 25, all treated for gunshot wounds, and
Michael Fantasia, 24, who apparently is grazed by a bullet.
Arrested on gun charges are Prathip Prum, 22; Vireak ***.
April 8: After a car chase from Johnston into Providence
ends in a collision, two Johnston police officers corner one
of the three suspects behind 10 Whitehall St. He allegedly
advances on the officers, threatening them with a knife.
While backing up, officer John Sinotte slips, fires a shot
and falls several feet off a deck. Ronald Curt, 27, of
Providence is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon.
April 8: Roger Daniels, 20, of Newport is charged with
selling a 357-Magnum pistol to an undercover agent.
April 7: A 17-year-old girl tells Providence police a man
pointed a gun at her stomach in the Dunkin' Donuts on Allens
Avenue and robbed her of $20.
April 6: Manny Fortuna is shot on Hamilton Avenue,
Providence, by a man demanding money he says Fortuna owes
him, witnesses tell police. After Fortuna falls to the
ground, the man fires several more shots at point-blank
range, then leaves in a car driven by another man.
Hospitalized in stable condition, Fortuna, 24, of 56 Tell
St., refuses to identify his assailant.
April 6: Two stocking-masked robbers hold up LAR Imports,
at 92 Broad St., Cumberland, at gunpoint. Two customers with
infants are in the store. The robbers flee in a stolen Jeep.
April 6: Three men rob the Dexter Credit Union, in Central
Falls, at gunpoint and flee in a stolen van driven by a
fourth man. Minutes later, the van arrives at the home of one
of the suspects, 367 Woonasquatucket Ave., North Providence,
where police and FBI agents are waiting. One suspect flees,
brandishing a gun; another, still in the van, raises a gun
above the dashboard. Officers fire at least 10 shots,
wounding the three suspects in the van: Jamie Rose, 22, of 27
Robin St., Normand J. Verrill, 31, 30 Kelley St., and
Christopher Thibodeau, 36, 217 Webster Ave., all of
Providence. David M. Vial, 23, of the Woonasquatucket Avenue
address, is arrested nearby a half-hour later.
April 3: Shortly after midnight, a state police SWAT team
is sent to the home of a Foster man threatening to commit
suicide. After 2\1/2\ hours, police, the man's family and a
friend talk him out of it.
April 1: Ronald Coppola, 58, of Cranston and Peter
Scarpellino, 28, of North Providence are gunned down at
point-blank range at the Hockey Fans Social Club, 1362
Plainfield St., Cranston, in what police call an underworld
dispute over respect. Police say Antonino Cucinotta, 52, of
Johnston believed he had been slighted at the club, returned
and shot both victims in the head.
march
March 31: Patrons in Boot's Pub, 1757 Cranston St.,
Cranston, dive for cover when gunfire sprays through the
window about 9:45 p.m. Nobody is hurt. Police find a stolen
car on nearby Bolton Street, with spent shell casings in it.
March 29: Manuel Rodriguez, 27, is shot in the chest by one
man while another holds him down on the busy sidewalk outside
his apartment at 850 Broad St., Central Falls. Rodriguez is
critically wounded; police issue an arrest warrant for a man
he knows.
March 29: Two men abduct a 14-year-old girl at gunpoint
from Broad Street near McDonald's, drive to an apartment in
an area she doesn't recognize and rape her, her mother later
tells police.
March 28: Diane Blais and Stephen Natalizia of Providence
tell police they were sitting in her car at India Point about
10 p.m. when it was struck by another car. Three men got out,
one hit Natalizia with a stick and another pulled out a gun
and demanded money. The couple jumped back in their car and
drive away.
March 27: gas station attendant David A. Rao, 52, fires two
shots at a fleeing robber who put a gun to his ribs. The 8:30
p.m. incident, at the busy intersection of Newport and
Beverage Hill Avenues in Pawtucket, sets off a controversy
over whether Rao was justified in shooting. David E. Hall,
20, of 41 Lowell Ave. is charged with the robbery and,
according to police, says the gun he used was a plastic toy.
March 27: Kenneth Butler, 19, tells Providence police he
was taking on a telephone outside 343 Elmwood Ave. when two
men wearing ski masks drove up and shot him in the finger.
March 27: Providence police seize a .38-caliber revolver
from an apartment at 40 Marlboro St. frequented by runaway
youngsters.
March 24: A report that someone had fired shots from a car
on Laura Street, Providence, leads to the arrest of Peter
Duval, 25, of Westport, Mass. Police stop his car on Broad
Street and charge him with illegal possession of a gun and
marijuana.
March 23: A man is shot in the abdomen outside his home at
69 Hendricks St. Central Falls, at 10:30 p.m. Police decline
to identify him.
March 23: Sixteen-year-old Allen McCreedy of Providence is
killed instantly when a rifle being handled by his best
friend discharges. The shooting, in the basement of the 14-
year-old friend's grandparents' home at 100 Donelson St., is
accidental; police say the boy didn't know the gun was
loaded.
March 23: Fredrick Harris, 35, of 26 Lorraine St.,
Pawtucket, threatens to ``blow away'' his girl-friend and
shoot another woman with a sawed-off shotgun, according to
police. Harris, who is charged with assault, reportedly
bought the gun a week earlier.
March 22: A driver making a potato-chip delivery at Elmwood
Avenue and Wilson Street about 10 a.m. is robbed at gunpoint
of $54, he tells police.
March 22: A resident of 571 Cranston St., Providence, tells
police a man threatened him with a gun at his home about 4
p.m.
March 22: When officers arrive at 38 Royal St., Providence,
to investigate a report of domestic assault, Eric S. Jones,
27, throws a loaded .380-caliber pistol out the window,
according to police. He is charged with domestic assault and
possession of a pistol without a license.
March 21: A man points a shotgun at a clerk at the Mutual
Gas Station on Mendon Road, Cumberland, and demands money,
but is scared off and runs away without any. On July 28,
Richard Jacques, 24, of Lincoln is arrested and charged with
attempted robbery.
March 21: A distraught man leads state police on a short
chase * * * evading a roadblock, then * * * church parking
lot for more than an hour, pointing a handgun at his head.
Police eventually persuade him to give up the gun, and he is
taken to a psychiatric hospital.
March 21: After a traffic confrontation on warren Avenue,
East Providence, police arrest Lesonga D. Rankin, 29, for
threatening the other driver and his girlfriend with a gun.
They seized a loaded 9mm gun, five other guns and ammunition
from Rankin's home at 170 Warren Ave. Rankin, a state
Training School employee, is charged with assault with a
dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm while
intoxicated, and fired several days later.
March 21: Providence police seized a loaded .32-caliber
handgun from Perry Snead, 23, a motorist they stopped on
Pumgansett Street.
March 20: Providence police, responding about 2 a.m. to a
report of shots fired at an Erastus Street address in
Olneyville, find the ground and the house littered with spent
shells of various calibers. They later learn a man was taken
from there with a gunshot wound. Andrew Brown, 19, of 15
Peyton St. was hospitalized with what was described as a .40-
caliber slug to the back of the head.
March 19: The ex-boyfriend of an 18-year-old Providence
woman abducts her from her home at gunpoint and rapes her
somewhere in the city, she later tells police.
March 19: Two residents of Benefit Street, Providence,
report separate holdups at gunpoint in the neighborhood.
March 19: A woman from Methuen, Mass., tells Providence
police a man threatened her with a gun, struck her with a
baseball bat and stole $50 while she was walking on Allens
Avenue late at night.
March 18: Anthony Morehead, 27, is charged with domestic
assault after Patricia Morris, 30, of 20 Van Buren St.,
Providence, tells police he put a gun to her head and
threatened to kill her if she broke up with him.
March 18: A pizza-delivery driver tells Providence police
he was robbed at gunpoint on Puritan Street at Huntington
Avenue when he stopped to ask for directions.
March 18: A Providence man tells police a gunman stole his
jewelry, jacket and car when he stopped at a liquor store at
Elma and Broad Streets about 8:30 p.m.
March 17: Jason E. Ferrell, 23, of Providence is treated in
a hospital for a wound to his leg that he tells police he
suffered when two men confronted him outside 59 Anthony Ave.,
Pawtucket.
March 16: A shotgun is among items reported stolen in a
break at 84 Veazie St., Providence.
March 15: After a dispute in the New York System restaurant
on Smith Street, Providence, a man fires five shots into a
car. Donald Hannah of Providence and Mark Bergeron of North
Providence are treated for injuries. Sean Lewis, 18, of 1715
Chalkstone Ave. is charged with two counts of attempted
murder.
March 14: When Rafael Carvallo of Central Falls and his
fiancee arrive at McDonald's at 1481 Broad St., Providence,
they hear a disturbance and gunshots. Heading back to their
car, he feels pain in his foot and realizes he's been shot.
March 14: Shots are fired inside the Charlesgate Apartments
for the elderly in Providence during a dispute between the
sons of two tenants. Nobody is hit by bullets, but Marilyn
Siegel, 70, suffers critical head injuries of undetermined
cause. Police arrest her sons Steven and Paul Siegel and
seize a cache of guns and ammunition from Mrs. Siegel's
apartment, where her sons had been staying.
March 14: A resident of 400 Smith St., Providence, tells
police someone apparently fired a bullet through her window.
March 13: Summoned to 691 Mineral Spring Ave. about 3:45
a.m. for a reported shooting, Pawtucket police find John Buco
unconscious and bleeding from a gunshot wound, a 357-Magnum
on the floor beside him. The next day police say Buco, 33, of
116 Samuel Ave. shot himself accidentally, and he is
arraigned in his hospital bed on weapons charges.
March 12: Jazell Robinson, 22, is shot in the back outside
Club David on Westminster Street, Providence, by one of two
men who ran toward the club brandishing guns. The assailants
flee in cars.
March 12: Westerly police charge six people, including
three juveniles, after a dispute erupts in gunfire outside a
house on Winnapaug Road. (No one is injured.) Within minutes
police seize two semiautomatic handguns with obliterated
serial numbers from a Pennsylvania man; the next day, in a
raid connected with the shooting, they seize a sawed-off
shotgun, a machete and marijuana from a house at 7 Pond Rd.
March 11: When Joseph Burton of the Family Court's Bureau
of Family Support tries to serve a subpoena on the owner of a
business on DeSoto Street, Providence, the man pulls out a
gun and chases Burton and a witness away, Burton later tells
police.
March 11: An 81-year-old Pawtucket woman tells police that
when she answered a knock at her back door a man with a ski
mask pushed his way in and robbed her at gunpoint.
March 10: A 14-year-old boy tells Providence police someone
fired a gun at him and his 11-year-old friend while they were
walking through a cemetery on Douglas Avenue about 6:50 p.m.
March 9: As a Pawtucket man exits Route 95 at noon, a man
he knows drives up beside him, points a handgun at him and
drives off, he later tells police.
March 8: A Providence couple and their children are sitting
in their apartment at 912 Atwells Ave., Providence, when a
bullet whizzes up through the floor. Their downstairs
neighbor, Celso E. Teixeira, tells police he was working on
his AR-15 rifle when the weapon went off. Teixeira, 21, is
charged with firing a weapon in a compact area.
March 8: Three men kick in the door of the Bayside Credit
Union at 1144 Eddy St., Providence, and one points a gun at a
clerk, demanding money.
March 8: Marie A. Gonder, 29 and mother of three, is shot
to death in her home on Chaplin Street, Pawtucket. Police
charge her husband, Robert O. Gonder, 48, with murder.
March 7: Providence dog officer Scott Scofield says someone
fired five shots at him on Jenkins Street.
March 7: After a minor collision in the parking lot of the
Living Room, a nightclub on Rathbone Street, the driver whose
car was struck gets out and fires four shots from a 9mm
handgun through the other's windshield. Jason Odom is
hospitalized with wounds in the face and arm.
March 3: Joseph Harbough of 34 Hilarity St., Providence,
tells police that two men with guns barged into his bedroom
about 1 a.m., pistol-whipped him and robbed him.
March 1: Providence police seize a gun in a drug raid at
889-891 River Ave.
February
Feb. 28: Police break through a heavily barricaded door at
145 Oxford St., Providence, where they seize 94 bags of
cocaine and a loaded pistol. Two 18-year-olds are charged.
Feb. 28: Hector Cabevuda tells Providence police that two
men, one with a gun, robbed him as he made a call at a public
telephone on Broad Street about 8:10 p.m. About 9:30, police
stop two suspects on Prairie Avenue and seize a loaded
handgun from one, a 17-year-old. He is arrested and referred
to Family Court.
Feb. 25: Providence police and federal agents seize a
handgun during a drug raid at 183 Eastwood Ave.
Feb. 24: Two men, one with a shotgun and the other with a
handgun, enter Fidas Restaurant, 270 Valley St., Providence,
about 1:30 a.m. and demand money.
Feb. 23: After a traffic dispute in Pawtucket's Fairlawn
neighborhood, Randall S. Lisi, Jr., 19, allegedly places a
gun against Vince Lombardi's head, then lifts it slightly and
fires, missing Lombardi by inches Lombardi, 25 is struck on
the head with a bag of beer bottles as he tries to flee.
Lisi, of 280 Langdon St., Providence, and two companions are
charged with assault.
Feb. 22: An Economy Cab driver is robbed on Manton Avenue
about 1:40 a.m. by two men he picked up in Olneyville. He
tells police they threatened him with a gun.
Feb. 19: Two boys, aged 13 and 14, are arrested after a
confrontation with other youths in North Smithfield. Police
say one of the boys had a knife, the other a gun.
Feb. 17: Alain Moise, 27, a doorman at First Impressions, a
South Providence nightclub, is shot to death by a man police
say had been thrown out a half-hour earlier. The gunman then
fires into the crowd of about 50 customers, wounding Reginald
Baptiste, and flees.
Feb. 16: Responding to a report of drug sales in a common
hallway at 91 W. Clifford St., Providence police arrest Noel
Osborne, 22, of 152 Tell St. at gunpoint as he accosts an
occupant with a loaded handgun.
Feb. 16: Two men in ski masks, one with a handgun, rob the
Woodlawn Credit Union on Main Street in Pawtucket. It is the
fifth armed robbery at an area credit union in three months.
Feb. 15-16: Federal agents and local police in Newport,
Providence and Philadelphia arrest two dozen people, seizing
drugs and more than 20 assault rifles, sawed-off shotguns and
handguns. They say they have broken up a ``major violent
crime ring'' and identify two suspects in a 1993 shooting
death.
Feb. 15: Hassan Brown, 22, of 24 Trask St., Providence, is
charged with firing a gun in his apartment. Police,
investigating a report of shots fired, find Hassan and two
friends in the apartment and a handgun and two shell casings
on the floor.
Feb. 15: John Murray, owner of Michael Gerard Jewelers,
Main Street, West Warwick, shoots and wounds a robber who put
a gun to his head and threatened to kill him. Police charge
the alleged robber, Danny L. Loaiza, 19, with five felony
counts.
Feb. 10: A Providence woman reports that two masked males
came through the back hallway of her home on Detroit Avenue,
showed handguns and robbed her of cash and jewelry.
Feb. 9: A 17-year-old boy flags down police on Smith Hill
and says two boys tried to rob him; one hit him in the head
with a gun, leaving a two-inch gash. Police arrest two boys,
ages 13 and 17, on Smith Street.
Feb. 9: A Providence man tells police a man who had been
feuding with his brother drove by and fired two shots at
them.
Feb. 8: Raymond L. Martin, 48, of 326 Plain St.,
Providence, is arrested after allegedly shooting at a
neighbor, Valerie Robinson, during an argument. The shot
missed Robinson, but grazed the skull of Rita Hopper,
Robinson's niece.
Feb. 7: Johnston police say David Howe, 28, one of two
arrested after a drug deal staged by undercover officers, is
shot in the shoulder when Detective Melvin Steppo's drawn gun
accidentally discharges during a struggle.
Feb. 3: Providence police officer Steven M. Shaw, 27, is
shot to death at pointblank range by a robbery suspect inside
110 Benedict St., in the West End. Other police officers
return fire and kill Corey Fields, 24, hiding in a closet.
Feb. 1: A tip leads Providence police to the bodies of an
unidentified man, shot in the face, and a woman, shot several
times in the torso, in adjacent houses on Burnside Street.
The woman was later identified as Rosa Jimenez, 23.
january
Jan. 24: Anabol Garcia, 34, of Pawtucket is shot in the leg
near 110 Benedict St. in Providence's West End.
Jan. 24: An argument between partners of an employment
agency on Broadway in Providence erupts in gunfire when Hua
Thack allegedly fires several handgun rounds into Huy Ly,
leaving him in serious condition.
Jan. 24: A man with a nylon stocking over his face robs the
Sunoco station at 1620 Post Rd., Warwick, at gunpoint.
Jan. 24: Several men wearing masks, one carrying a handgun,
force their way into 109 Sumter St. in South Providence in
the early morning, tie up the occupant and rob him.
Jan. 23: Two hooded men, one carrying a handgun, rob five
people at 3:30 p.m. at Garcia Auto Sales on Pine Street,
Pawtucket.
Jan. 22: Two men, one with a handgun, approach a Central
Falls woman outside her house at midnight. Ordered back
inside, the woman is raped, her husband pistol-whipped.
Jan. 21: After a six-hour standoff at 36 Winthrop St., West
Warwick, the police SWAT team arrests Wayne J. Champlin, 39,
who threatened to kill himself. Five weeks earlier, Champlin
shot himself in the neck with a shotgun.
Jan. 20: A Pawtucket woman is robbed by three hooded men,
two brandishing handguns, who invade her Prospect Heights
apartment at night. Her young children and a niece scream,
the phone rings and the men flee.
Jan. 18: Two youths,one with a silver gun, order a North
Providence man out of his car outside 55 Hope St.,
Providence., they drive off with the car, picking up another
boy and a girl. Police later arrest all four, and link two to
the Warwick carjacking.
Jan. 18: At 2 p.m., two gunmen rob the Dexter Credit Union
at 934 Dexter St., Central Falls.
Jan. 17: A Warwick woman's car is stolen from her by three
youths at the Rhode Island Mall. One points a silver pistol
at her.
Jan. 16: Christopher A. D'Angelo, 35, of 178 Old County
Rd., Smithfield, is charged with assault for allegedly
pistol-whipping a man police said he had picked up in
Providence, thinking he was a woman.
Jan. 15: Three men approach a Charlestown man as he sits in
the passenger seat of a car parked at 51 Pine St. in downtown
Providence at 4:20 p.m. Once brandishes a handgun, they order
him out and steal the car.
Jan. 14: A youth shoots and wounds a woman on a street in
Chad Brown housing project in Providence.
Jan. 13: James B. McKinney, 36, of providence allegedly
points a gun at a desk clerk of the Comfort Inn in Pawtucket
and demands money. He runs. Police chase him and exchange
shots. No one is hit. He is later arrested.
Jan. 6: A robber, believed to be a woman, holds up the
Quick Mart store at 164 Park Ave., Cranston, brandishing a
semiautomatic handgun.
Jan. 6: A man with a gun robs the Fleet National Bank in
downtown Providence about 9 a.m. He flees in a car. Police
shoot several times. David Posman, 37, is later arrested in
Seekonk, Mass.
Jan. 5: A 16-year-old student at Providence's Mount
Pleasant High School points a handgun at the neck of another
student in a school hallway and threatens to kill him.
Jan. 3: Three men, one brandishing a handgun, rob the
Midland Farms convenience store, 136 Spring St., Pawtucket,
about 10 a.m.
Jan. 2: Derrick Barnes, 24, of 25 Nicholas Brown Yard,
Providence, is shot to death as he sits in a car on Camp
Street in Providence's Mount Hope neighborhood. Adrian
Hazard, 17, and Derick Hazard, 23, are charged with murder.
Jan. 1: Gail Brown of North Kingstown is shot in the hand
at a New Year's Eve party in Warwick's Conimicut section.
Police say she grabbed a handgun her husband, Joseph Brown,
was pointing at someone else.
A mounting toll
Killed by guns....................................................\1\34
Wounded by guns......................................................55
Reported rapes\2\.....................................................5
Reported robberies and attempted robberies\2\........................54
\1\Includes 15 suicides.
\2\Involving guns.
Sources: 1994 Journal-Bulletin reports, R.I. Medical Examiner's Office.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I wanted to just make a record on what was
presented earlier to the distinguished majority leader, Senator
Mitchell, on behalf of the Republican conference by the Republican
leader.
I ask unanimous consent that the proposal be printed in the Record in
full.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
crime consent agreement
I ask unanimous consent that the pending crime conference
report be laid aside.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed
to S. Con. Res. that would correct the enrollment of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3355, and that it be
considered under the following agreement: (with all
amendments listed limited to 1 hour, equally divided)
proposed republican amendments--august 24, 1994
Four amendments striking approximately $5 billion in
``social spending'' from the conference report (excluding
funding under the Violence Against Women Act).
Tigthen prison language: elimination of reverter clause,
thereby ensuring that funds remain allotted for truth-in-
sentencing; elimination of ``correctional plan'' language
that unnecessarily burdens state prison administrators;
ensure that prison funding will go to build ``brick-and-
mortar'' prison cells, not just prison ``alternatives'';
truth-in-sentencing for first-time violent offenders.
Simpson amendment expediting criminal alien deportation.
Gramm mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes.
Mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to minors.
Mandatory minimum penalties for employing minors to sell
drugs.
Drop mandatory minimum repeal. Substitute Senate-passed
proposal with a requirement that federal prosecutors have a
role in the decision to deviate from the mandatory minimum.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the
above mentioned amendments, if any amendments are agreed to, the
conference report be placed back on the calendar and it not be in order
in the Senate to consider that conference until the House has adopted
the Senate concurrent resolution as amended, if amended.
I further ask unanimous consent that if all of the amendments
mentioned above are defeated or tabled, then the Senate proceed to a
vote on cloture on the conference report, at a time to be determined by
the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader,
with 2 hours equally divided between the two leaders prior to the
cloture vote, and that if cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed to an
immediate vote on adoption of the conference report.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if the House agrees to the
Senate concurrent resolution as amended, then it be in order for the
majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, proceed
to the crime conference report, and there then be 2 hours for debate to
be followed by a cloture vote on the conference report, and if cloture
is invoked, the Senate proceed to adoption of the conference report,
without an intervening action or debate.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, let me just explain what the proposal was.
In effect, we would lay aside the conference report. We would call up
a Senate concurrent resolution, which would accompany the conference
report, and then it would be considered under a agreement of 10
amendments, an hour on each amendment, equally divided. Then, if any of
the amendments are agreed to, the conference report goes back on the
calendar, the concurrent resolution goes to the House, and then the
House can either amend it or accept it or do whatever.
If all the amendments are tabled or defeated, then the Senate would
proceed to vote on cloture on the conference report, at a time
determined by the two leaders.
Then finally, if the House agrees to the concurrent resolution, as
amended, after consultation with the Republican leader and the majority
leader, the Senate proceed to the crime conference report, and there be
2 hours debate, to be followed by a cloture vote on the conference
report. And if cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed to adopt the
conference report without any intervening action or debate.
Let me say, just in very quick summary, what this agreement does and
what it does not do. I have heard so many different stories, some
related by CNN and others that I did not think were quite accurate. The
New York Times subheadline was totally inaccurate.
We are taking all the pork out of this. Democrats say what we put in
was pork; we said what you put in was pork. Let us just take it all
out. As far as the American taxpayers are concerned, that will save
them about $5 billion.
We leave in the money for domestic violence, because we have had
hearings on that and I think we can justify the $1.62 billion or
whatever it is for child abuse, spousal violence, and a lot of other
programs in that $1.6 billion.
We also would leave in, I think, about $400 million for drug
treatment in Federal and State prisons, because that is prevention. No
question about it. Nearly every one of the other programs, which add up
to about $5 billion in the House bill or the Senate bill, many without
any hearings and many without any justification and many were in fact
social programs, will be taken out.
The Local Partnership Act was taken out of the stimulus package,
which was defeated last year, $1.8 billion. It had nothing to do with
crime and was just stuck in the crime bill on the House side by
liberals on the conference.
So that is the first point.
There were 10 amendments, 4 amendments dealing with spending; 4
amendments. And then there will be an amendment to eliminate the
reverter clause, to be ensured funds remain allotted for truth in
sentencing. Because we are concerned about this bill, many of us
thought if you committed a violent crime--underscore violent--you would
do your time, or 85 percent of your time. Now it has been changed. Oh,
you get to commit the second violent crime before you serve your time,
so you get a discount for the first violent crime.
We eliminate a lot of other things in the prison part that Senator
Hatch may want to address. He is more of an expert on this than I am.
We also try to ensure that the prison funding will go to build brick
and mortar: Prison cells, not just prison alternatives.
Then, as I said, we have the truth-in-sentencing for first-time
violent offenders. Then we had an amendment adopted in here, offered by
the distinguished minority whip, Senator Simpson, on criminal aliens,
deportation of criminal aliens. It was accepted: Unanimous consent.
Nobody was opposed to it. It was dropped in conference. We would like
to offer that amendment.
An amendment by the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] with reference to
mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes. He spoke to that. He can
speak to that again. The Senator from Alaska is also interested in that
and has been for some time.
Mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to minors--what is
wrong with that? Is anybody here going to vote against that? We hope
not. There ought to be a mandatory sentence for selling drugs to
minors.
Mandatory minimum penalties for employing minors to sell drugs--just
as reprehensible. There ought to be mandatory penalties. Again, these
amendments passed overwhelmingly, with a big margin, and for some
reason some were rejected in the conference.
Then we dropped the mandatory minimum repeal and substituted a
Senate-passed proposal with the requirement that Federal prosecutors
have a role in the decision to deviate from the mandatory minimum
because that is something that had been suggested, I guess by the U.S.
Attorneys Association. I will yield to Senator Hatch to clarify
anything I might have messed up.
Mr. HATCH. These are President Clinton's own prosecutors that we are
satisfying here.
Mr. DOLE. It was their request?
Mr. HATCH. That is right.
Mr. DOLE. The thing you did not find in there was any amendments on
guns. So there is no guns and no pork. It is pretty clear cut.
We want to join all those who want a crime bill--want a crime bill.
Not a spending bill but a crime bill. It is still $25 billion, still $3
billion more than it was when it left the House--even though you added
one more year. Still, it is a very massive effort. Recall that Senate
bill passed by a vote of 94 to 4. Only four Senators, I think two on
each side of the aisle, voted against that bill.
So there is no question about where people stand on this legislation.
It is a question where they stand after it was loaded up and became a
spending bill; it became a social welfare bill instead of a crime bill.
I hope if the majority leader will be able to accept what we think is a
reasonable proposal--I must say we have had about 3\1/2\ hours of
conference. I understand the majority leader has a conference tomorrow
morning at 9:30. But we believe this is a fair proposal.
Some are objecting and saying this has to go back to the House. The
concurrent resolution, if there are any amendments adopted, have to go
back to the House. That is true. So what? It goes back to the House.
They act on it. If they accept it then we pass the conference report in
the Senate. That can be done in a matter of days. That is my
understanding. I would have to check with the Parliamentarian on the
House side. Most of these matters can be cleared by Democrats and
Republicans in the House and would not take a great deal of time.
So, just to keep the record straight, make it clear, we are cutting
out all spending--call it whatever you want. The Senator from Delaware
said is it pork or is it chicken or is it fish? Whatever it is, it is
out except for domestic violence and drug prevention, Federal and State
prisons. We believe it is a step in the right direction.
Keep in mind there are already 260-some programs, Federal programs
now. It is not that we are taking the last little program away. We
spend about $25 billion already on many of these programs----
Mr. HATCH. On job training alone.
Mr. DOLE. On job training alone; and there are another hundred
programs dealing with many other areas. So just so the Record will
reflect what we did propose to the distinguished majority leader, I
hope I have explained it correctly. But it is a $5 billion reduction in
spending: $5 billion. It is a lot of money. We are prepared to
surrender any amendments--I think on this side it is about $600 million
added. But so what? Take it out. Go back and have some hearings, see if
you can justify it. If that is the case, maybe it will belong on a bill
next year.
I have nothing further to say.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a few questions, just for
clarification purposes?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. What happens if the majority leader rejects this offer?
Mr. DOLE. If the majority leader rejects this, as I have told the
majority leader, then we would make a point of order against the
conference report. It is subject to point of order under, I think,
section 306 of the Budget Act. Then there would be a motion to waive,
and if it is waived there would be debate on the conference report.
Then it will be voted upon after a cloture vote. If it is not waived,
then the bill is open to amendment; the conference report disappears.
Mr. HATCH. Could I ask another question? For 2 days I have seen
people on this floor savaging Republicans because they seem to think
this is all a gun fight. They seem to think this is all over assault
weapons.
When the Republican leader says assault weapons are out, what he
means is that, if I am interpreting the Senator correctly, is that we
are not even considering the assault weapon ban as in the bill? It is
in the bill?
Mr. DOLE. That is correct.
Mr. HATCH. That means nobody is going to raise an issue about it?
Mr. DOLE. I think in the list of amendments we had yesterday, which
were only proposed Republican amendments, somebody singled out
amendment 11 or 12 which says ``strike gun ban.''
Mr. HATCH. That is right.
Mr. DOLE. That is no longer in here.
Mr. HATCH. So there would not be a motion to strike the gun ban.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DOLE. There would not be a motion to strike it.
Mr. HATCH. So the guns would not be an issue? It is a nonissue?
Mr. DOLE. I think it is a nonissue. Some have tried to make it such,
because--for reasons best known to them, but it is not an issue now. It
is not in here.
Mr. HATCH. Exactly what I have been saying for 2 days while we have
been getting savaged by the other side. There is only one reason they
have done that and that is because it is the only issue they have left.
Mr. DOLE. There are a number of issues. I must say--somebody said why
do you want to have a cloture vote? I will tell you, if we do not knock
out some of the spending, there are a lot of people who will not vote
for cloture. If we cannot take out the $5 billion, why should you vote
for cloture? You may not adopt some of the enforcement provisions. If
we cannot, why should we vote for cloture? Maybe some will say I cannot
vote for cloture with a gun ban, but that is going to be just part of
the mix. There will be a whole number of reasons why some may or may
not vote for cloture, and a vote for cloture means we shut off debate.
We are prepared to move as quickly as we can and if we do not have the
votes, if we make the point of order and do not have the votes, then we
will debate the motion to waive.
Mr. HATCH. Just one last question, Mr. Leader, and that is this. Is
it not true that the Simpson amendment expediting criminal alien
deportation--in other words when an alien is convicted and sentenced
the judge can issue a deportation order right on the spot, so the
minute that alien serves his or her term they are gone? They are out of
our country and out of our hair and not able to commit any crimes in
our land; that the mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, that the
mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to minors, that the
mandatory minimum penalties for employing minors to sell drugs, and
that the tougher mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, were all in the
Senate crime bill and all passed overwhelmingly?
Mr. DOLE. As far as I recall. I would have to doublecheck but we did
have the votes down there. I think each passed by rather substantial
votes in every case. Maybe one was 58 to 42, I think on the minimum
sentence for use of guns.
Mr. HATCH. Quite substantially they passed.
Mr. DOLE. Substantially.
Mr. HATCH. And they were in the original Senate bill?
Mr. DOLE. Right.
Mr. HATCH. So the conference report is considerably different from
the original Senate bill?
Mr. DOLE. Right.
Mr. HATCH. And it lacks all this stuff on crime provisions that we
all passed here and had motions to instruct to keep in, in conference?
Mr. DOLE. Let me just conclude by saying that the majority leader
made a proposal which we looked at, and it, in effect, said sometime
later next month we will bring up a bill and you can offer all these
amendments on that bill. Then we will send that to the House.
The House might take it up or might not take it up. If they took it
up there is no assurance it would pass. Now I understand there may be a
further proposal: In addition we will guarantee the House will take it
up. What does that guarantee? We do not have any leverage. The only
leverage we have now is the conference report, and I have to believe if
the shoe were on the other foot and we were trying to say just send it
over to the House, we will get them to take it up, they would not buy
that.
Mr. HATCH. That is right.
Mr. DOLE. We would not buy that.
So I hope--we have tried to make it clean, tried to make it simple:
No guns, no pork, 10 amendments. We are ready to go. If we cannot get
that agreement let us have the point of order, win or lose. Let us have
the point of order. Let us let the American people know, win or lose,
that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy around here and
that some people think the way you solve the crime problem is spending
billions of dollars you do not need to spend, and others of us feel
there are other ways to deal with crime and that is with tough
mandatory penalties.
If you sell drugs to minors it ought to be mandatory. If you engage
minors to sell drugs it ought to be mandatory. We are ready to vote on
those amendments. I think it would be hard to resist, and I think there
would be a lot of bipartisanship in not only the debate but in the
vote.
Mr. HATCH. If I can ask one last question, one of the arguments is
that we are asking the House to vote on this again.
But it seems to me that is precisely what they are asking us to do;
is it not?
Mr. DOLE. True, they want us to let the conference report go --the
Democrats. They say, let the conference report go, let the President
sign the bill, and then we will send the bill over.
Mr. HATCH. Is it not true that the House cut a deal with the
President, Leon Panetta, and the House leadership over there, and all
we are asking is some of these provisions that we fought hard for on
the floor and I fought hard for and Senator Biden fought hard for that
all of us passed with pretty substantial votes, be given consideration
by the House and put back in?
Mr. DOLE. Let me also include, after the list of the proposed
amendments which I delivered to the majority leader and also a copy of
the agreement--it has already been included in the Record--let me also
add an editorial from the Wichita Eagle which says the best thing to do
with the crime bill is not to pass it because of the spending--because
of the spending. And I do believe the American people, despite the spin
put on by the other side, are beginning to understand there is a lot of
spending in this bill--a lot of spending in this bill.
The Wichita Eagle is not known to be a conservative newspaper in my
State, but they have taken a look at it and they decided there is too
much spending. We have not justified it.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print that editorial in
the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wichita Eagle, Aug, 24, 1994]
Die, Crime Bill--Crime-Fighting Is a Local Responsibility
The most appealing aspect of the $30.2-billion crime bill
passed by the House Sunday is that the money to pay for it
would come from a 270,000-job reduction in the federal
government. The money to pay for all the anti-crime programs
created in the bill wouldn't go onto the $4 trillion-and-
growing national debt.
A better course for the House, though, would have been to
adopt a resolution acknowledging that, yes, Americans are
worried about crime and exhorting state and local officials
to do something about it--while at the same time eliminating
the 270,000 jobs. The savings could have been applied to
deficit-reduction. The national debt is a greater threat to
Americans' security than crime could ever be.
Besides, there's little reason to expect that the programs
in the crime bill will make one whit of difference in the
crime rate: not the federal death penalty for 50 new crimes,
not the extra 100,000 police officers, not generous new
subsidies for prison-building by the states, not the ban on
certain kinds of semiautomatic assault rifles, not the three-
strikes-you're-out provision for federal crimes, not even the
crime-prevention programs that survived congressional cost-
cutters' knives.
The real hope for reducing the crime rate lies in
neighborhood action against the social forces that turn
children to crime. Government has a role in attacking those
forces, but the impetus has to come from citizens themselves.
If extra public money is needed to create local or state
anti-crime programs, it should be raised from local or state
tax bases. Creating such programs at the federal level is
less effective, because Washington can't possibly hope to
envision and write programs that work equally well in Boston,
Spokane, Wash., and Wichita.
The matter now rests before the Senate, where Republicans
object to it because of its cost. Good. This thing may
collapse yet. If it does, the American people will be just as
safe as they are now.
Mr. DOLE. So we will await the conference tomorrow, and I assume at
that time there will be another meeting between this Senator and the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his comments.
I regret that I was not present during all of his remarks and,
therefore, am not able to respond to all of them.
I would like to make a few comments on the proposal that has been
made and reiterate what I told the distinguished Republican leader,
that we will have a conference of our colleagues tomorrow and review
the proposal and respond and make what I hope will be an appropriate
and acceptable response.
I would like to offer a couple of observations about it, though,
particularly as it relates to some of the central concerns on our side.
The Senate recently voted on banning assault weapons, and the vote
was 56 to ban assault weapons, 43 not to ban them. It was a decisive
vote. It seems clear to all concerned that if the Senate were to vote
again on an effort to strike out of the crime bill the assault weapons
ban, that effort would fail.
In the House, the vote on the assault weapons ban was much closer,
216-214 with three Members absent and not voting.
Under the existing circumstance, the House does not have the
opportunity to amend the crime bill to strike out the assault weapons
ban. The Senate does. But the likelihood of striking out the assault
weapons ban in the Senate is very small, but it is somewhat greater in
the House.
The proposal that the distinguished Republican leader has given us
does not include an effort to strike out the assault weapons ban in the
Senate where it would almost certainly fail, but it would create a new
opportunity to do so in the House where that opportunity does not now
exist and where the chances for succeeding in striking out the assault
weapons ban would be much higher; in effect, exchanging an existing
right in the Senate which has almost no chance of approval for the
creation of a new right in the House which does not now exist and where
the chances for succeeding are somewhat higher.
So I understand and respect that if someone wants to strike out the
assault weapons ban from the crime bill, this proposal makes sense. It
is a very carefully thought out proposal in that regard because it
gives up the right in the body where the right now exists but where it
cannot succeed and creates a new right in the body where the right does
not now exist and where it could succeed.
That is one of the factors that we will have to take into account in
evaluating the proposal.
Second, under the proposal, no action could occur on the crime bill--
none whatsoever--if one or more of the proposed amendments were
adopted. If they were adopted as part of the resolution, it would then
go to the House of Representatives where it would presumably be fully
amendable, and not only could an amendment be offered to strike out the
assault weapons ban, but any other amendments could be offered, and no
one knows what the result of that would be.
The proposal is not clear on what would occur at that point if the
House adopted a concurrent resolution different from that which had
previously been approved in the Senate. At least I do not understand
what would occur, and we hope to get that clarified.
Now, finally, the proposal is that we vote on a list of 10 amendments
which are presented as necessary to correct what is wrong in the crime
bill, and yet even if all 10 were adopted to correct what is wrong in
the crime bill, a filibuster would still occur and we would have to
file cloture and get 60 votes to defeat the filibuster. Well, the
question is, if these amendments will correct what is wrong in the
crime bill, then why would we need to get 60 votes at the end? Have I
misread--
Mr. STEVENS. Will the leader yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. Have I misread the proposal in that regard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. That proposed agreement indicates that a cloture vote
would take place for certain at a time to be agreed upon, as I
understand it. There could be no filibuster. You control that, Mr.
Leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Mr. President, the purpose of a filibuster is to
force a 60-vote requirement in a situation which otherwise would only
require 51 votes.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
Mr. STEVENS. That is guns. That is guns. We want a chance to see who
is violating the second amendment, but we are willing to do it whenever
you are ready.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator because I think he has made my
point very effectively.
Mr. BROWN. Will the distinguished majority leader yield for a
question on guns?
Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I respectfully suggest to you, as one on
this side of the aisle who voted for the ban on assault weapons, that
there is no filibuster here. To suggest that there is a filibuster is a
disservice to the Members on this side and to the proposal that was
sent to the majority leader.
The fact is this proposal does not guarantee the House of
Representatives will get to vote--even one vote--on assault weapons. I
know the distinguished leader is aware that amendments that come to the
floor in the House are governed through the Rules Committee. It is
obviously a much stricter set of rules than we have in the Senate, but
to suggest that the Speaker's Rules Committee would permit a vote on
assault weapons is something I do not believe would happen.
Second, I would point out that for one who has fought this battle
through on this side of the aisle, I think it is very significant that
the proposal that has been brought to you is a measure which does not
involve a specific amendment to delete the gun ban and, more
specifically, clearly does not mandate a vote in the House.
Third, I think it puts the legislation in a form where the ban that
has been passed in this Chamber and in the House Chamber will become
part of the law, no matter what we do in the form of amendments.
Last, as one who thinks that a ban ought to take place, I believe
that allowing the votes in the Senate and a ratification in the House
on the questions of pork and the questions of being soft on crime will
be the best way to put this bill into the shape it must be in to become
law.
To the contrary, it is my belief that by refusing this proposal, that
by refusing further votes on important crime control amendments, it
will do more harm toward eventually passing a ban on assault weapons
than any other course of action we might take.
I thank the distinguished leader for yielding that time.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator. If I could just respond briefly to
the last comment, I have proposed that the Senate debate and vote on
those provisions. Of course, it already has. Every provision there has
been debated and voted on in the House, Senate, and I think in the
conference, although I was not a member of the conference. And I
proposed that. I am agreeable to that. In fact, I will agree to do that
whenever the distinguished Republican leader would like, that we bring
them up and vote on them.
My concern is that the crime bill not be held hostage to those
provisions. That is the only area where we disagree. My concern is that
if we do it in the manner suggested, the crime bill will never become
law, whereas if the concern is that we take up and debate and vote on
these provisions I am agreeable to that. I am agreeable to doing that
right away. And then that debate and those votes would occur. The
problem is--and this is an appropriate concern the distinguished
Republican leader has expressed--there is no guarantee what will happen
in the House. But that same argument applies to the concurrent
resolution. We have no guarantee what will happen in the House.
Mr. BROWN. I appreciate that. I might simply add one comment on that.
For Republicans to have that concern about a House dominated by the
Democratic Party is one thing. For the Democratic leader to have that
concern about the House actions, which is dominated by his own party
and by a Rules Committee that, the last I counted, was 2 to 1, plus 1
Democrat, strikes me as a wholly different concern.
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I understand and appreciate that. And I have
offered as majority leader allowing for a process in the Senate like
the Rules Committee.
Would the distinguished Republican leader like me to yield?
Mr. DOLE. Yes. I have been advised that under the House germaneness
rule, the gun amendment would not be in order under the rules over
there. I will double check it. As I understand the germaneness rule in
the House, you could not offer a gun amendment. So that argument goes
out the window. And I must say that if I were in the majority leader's
position, I would probably say, well, why do we not just bring up a
separate bill and you would have all these amendments; you can do it
tonight and maybe--and we will even get the House to consider it. We
will even go as far as saying they will consider it.
We have already made one of those arrangements on the Brady bill. I
do not say the majority leader acts in bad faith. In fact, I guess I
would bring up the Brady bill sometime soon. And I even talked to the
Speaker.
But I really believe that what we are talking about can be
accomplished very quickly, in a matter of days the President could sign
the conference report. And we think this can be done. We have already
cleared it on the Republican side in the House. The minority party has
no objections, said they would not stand in the way of this being
cleared even while they may not be in session. Now, they may have to
move from pro forma to another type session. That can be done. But
there would be no--not every House Member would come back, and
according to Mr. Gingrich there would be no objection to clearing what
we propose if in fact some of the amendments were adopted in the Senate
concurrent resolution.
So we are not talking about a big delay or taking up a lot of time.
But just to say that we will bring up a separate bill and you put your
amendments on there and we go ahead and sign the conference report and
maybe the House will even agree to consider it, in my view, I do not
really believe that is something that we could sell on this side of the
aisle.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if I might just respond on the
question of the Brady bill, right here on page 2 of the calendar is the
unanimous-consent agreement on the Brady bill that was entered into on
November 24, 1993. And that provision provides that any time the
Republican leader wants I will bring up the Brady bill amendments. The
decision not to bring up those amendments was the decision made by our
distinguished colleague, the Republican leader.
The House has not got anything to do with this because unless and
until the Senator advises me that he wants this brought up--and I am
prepared to do so whenever he asks to do it--there is nothing for the
House to do because we have not acted upon it.
So I do not believe that is in any way analogous. If the Republican
leader wants me to bring up those amendments, I will do so, and I have
told him that, any time he wants. We made that agreement and that
commitment. So that is a different situation from the one which we are
now describing.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, I will certainly yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Republican leader wish to be
recognized?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have the floor, but I will yield to the distinguished
Republican leader.
Mr. DOLE. It also occurs to me the House could have done the very
same thing that we are proposing. They could have sent us a House
Concurrent Resolution, whatever, and asked us to do something. I mean
they had the same right except they went back into sort of a loose
rules or conference committee and added some more amendments to the
conference committee as they were agreed to by the bipartisan group
there.
So this is not anything that is unique, it has never been done
before. It is done, maybe not frequently, but there is certainly a lot
of precedent for it.
I have not given up yet on the Brady bill. We are still going to have
several weeks here, and I am trying to think what I wish to put on it
but no good thoughts have come to mind.
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I just await my friend and colleague.
Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished majority leader yield for just one
moment?
Mr. MITCHELL. For a question or statement?
Let me finish my statement. Then I will yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. It is a question but a little statement building up to it,
so the Senator understands the question.
Mr. MITCHELL. If I could finish my own statement, then I will yield
the floor. Then the Senator can say anything he wants. I think that is
fair to all concerned. Everybody has a chance to do it.
I want to just address the subject of spending which has been much
discussed here and was just mentioned by the distinguished Republican
leader.
The first point to be made is that the bill which passed the Senate
by a vote of 95 to 4 and which I believe was supported by all but two
Republican Senators and two Democratic Senators covered 5 fiscal
years--from 1994 through 1998, inclusive. The conference report, that
is, the measure now before the Senate, covers 6 fiscal years, 1995
through the year 2000. So everyone should understand that it is for a
different period of time and a longer period of time. The first bill,
1994 through 1998, the second bill 1995 through the year 2000. In the
years which are common to both bills, that is, the 4 fiscal years 1995
through 1998, the amounts of money to be laid out in each year are less
in the bill now before the Senate than the bill that was voted by the
Senate by a vote of 95 to 4. The spending is actually less in each
year.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. Let me finish my statement if I might.
The increase is a result of the two extra years that were added, 1999
and 2000 after dropping off the first year, and since the first year
was only part of a fiscal year the amounts were very small. That is the
first point.
That is to say, the amounts in the years common to the Senate bill
that passed 95 to 4 last fall and the bill now before the Senate are
less each year in the bill now before the Senate than they were in the
bill that passed.
Now, the second point to be made is that the Republican crime bill
here in the Senate was for $28.24 billion over 5 years. The Democrats'
proposal is $30.2 billion over 6 years.
Now, this document has been put out by our Republican colleagues.
This is the Republican alternative crime bill conference report dated
June 30, 1994. And I will read the first two sentences.
The Republican proposal is a deficit neutral $28.24 billion
5-year plan.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point? That is important
because that is at that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. If I could just finish reading the sentence.
Mr. HATCH. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader does not yield.
Mr. MITCHELL. Let me read the two sentences, if I might, and then I
will yield for the question.
Again I am reading. This is from the Republican description of the
two bills. It is the Republican alternative crime bill. I am advised by
my colleague that this was released by the Senator from Utah at a press
conference. So the document says, if I could just read the first two
sentences:
The Republican proposal is a deficit neutral $28.24 billion
5-year plan. The Democrat anticipated proposal is a $30.2
billion 6-year plan (full funding takes until the year 2000)
which proposes $13 billion in deficit spending.
On the level of spending, the level----
Mr. HATCH. I think at this point----
Mr. MITCHELL. Of $28 billion over 5 years is more money per year than
$30 billion over 6 years, which, I think we do not agree on much, but I
think we can agree on that.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader does not yield.
Mr. HATCH. I am entitled to ask a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor. He does not
yield.
Mr. HATCH. He said he would yield for a question.
Mr. MITCHELL. I yield for a question.
Mr. HATCH. Let Senators at least ask questions. You can refuse to
answer them.
Mr. MITCHELL. I just said I will yield for a question.
Mr. HATCH. We agree that is what that bill was, 90 percent of it was
for law enforcement. It was filed pursuant to a $33 billion conference
report. It is a considerably different bill from this one, and it would
do something against crime far better, far tougher than the current
conference report. Plus it is deficit neutral. The distinguished
majority leader admitted that this $30 billion conference report today
has a $13 billion deficit.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, just a moment----
Mr. HATCH. That is just what you said.
Mr. MITCHELL. I read from a quotation of your document. That is not a
position of mine.
Mr. HATCH. I do not know anyone who disputes it.
Mr. BIDEN. I do. If the Senator will yield for a question, if you
wish to find someone who will dispute, it is I.
Mr. HATCH. Is yours deficit neutral--$30 billion?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
Mr. HATCH. Show me how, when, and why.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. MITCHELL. I do not think that actually was a question. But I have
no objection to the Senator making it.
I would like to finish my statement, and let other Senators have the
floor. I think everybody will have a chance to speak. I do not want to
try to monopolize the debate. I merely want to make one further point
about the point of order.
The point of order has nothing to do with the amount of money in the
bill. So while a lot of the discussion has intermingled the two and
created among many people the impression that the point of order is
being made because of the amount of spending in the bill, it should be
clear that there is no such relationship. There is no relationship
whatsoever.
The point of order is based upon the fact that the crime bill
includes a provision which reduces the spending caps now in place on
discretionary spending by the Federal Government so as to ensure that
the money goes to the crime bill and is not spent for other purposes.
It is not the amount of money that triggers the point of order. It is
the existence of a provision which reduces the caps, a measure which is
within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee but which was not
reported by the Budget Committee. The point of order seeks to strike
down the crime bill because this provision is in it.
The point I want to make is that the provision which is being
attacked by the point of order was approved knowingly by the full
Senate on several occasions. And many of the Senators now proposing and
saying they are going to vote for the point of order praised this
provision when it was first proposed, lavishly praised it. And, in
fact, there was a kind of competition for credit as to whose idea it
was in the first place.
So no Member of the Senate and no member of the public should be
confused on that point.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. If I could just finish the sentence----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. MITCHELL. The point of order relates to the existence of that
provision, and that provision was in the bill which passed the Senate
the first time. The Senate was fully aware of it. I acknowledge that
not raising it on the bill does not preclude anyone from raising it
now. The point of order remains in existence to be exercised as
Senators choose. But the point is that it was praised as a means for
dealing with this issue. And I believe that it is significant in this
debate as we debate and prepare to vote, if we do, on the point of
order, which does, of course, require 60 votes to overcome.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I am going to yield the floor and let
anybody else who wishes to seek the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the manager of the bill,
the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I promise my colleagues I will be only 30
seconds. I ask the majority leader, since I do not know all of the
details--I am not sure what the counterproposal of the Republican Party
has been here-- but is it not true that if, in fact, we accept at this
moment every single thing the Republican compromise offered, we would
still be in violation of the Budget Act?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. Thank you.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will recognize the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
I know that the distinguished majority leader has to leave the floor.
But, hopefully, he will be here long enough so that I can at least say,
as one who was for the trust fund and urged Members not to support a
point of order, I feel that the American people should know that we
have changed things substantially since I was for it. Let me tell you
how.
First of all, there is nobody that can deny that being for a bill and
saying ``do not waive the point of order'' does not commit a Senator to
that position under any circumstances. You can change anything, and
because he was for waiving it once does not mean that he ought to be
for waiving it all the time.
So I might tell you two things that are very different and that the
public ought to know are very different.
No. 1, there is $3 billion more in so-called pork. That is enough to
say, ``OK, I do not support this approach anymore.'' I want to use the
point of order to deny a bill that I used to be for and, therefore, I
was for denying the point of order, but now is different by $3 billion.
Second, it is now 6 years, 2 additional years. So that we will not
confuse 5 versus 6, there are 2 brand new years of trust fund in it. I
might say to the majority leader I have checked this as carefully as I
can. I submit that the $13 billion provided in those 2 years are
considerably different than the money that was in the trust fund in the
4 years.
In fact, I can tell the people of this country that I have no doubt
that $13 billion will add to the deficit. And if anybody wants to go
through this with a fine-tooth comb, I will convince you that we are
left with the total attitude to set the budgets in 1999 and 2000. How
do we know we are saving this $6 billion when we have not set that
budget yet? When we voted for it the first time, the budget for America
had a dollar number on it for each of those 4 years.
You knew precisely that you were not adding to the deficit, because
you lowered the amount allowed to be spent by $22 billion. Now there is
$13 billion in new spending, and I am prepared to say that will add to
the deficit. I believe it. I have no confidence that the Congress will
literally reduce the deficit sufficiently to account for that. I think
they will increase the budget sufficiently to add that in.
So, in summary, this is a totally different trust fund. It is not
paid for. Nobody can say to the American people that the second 2 years
are budgetarily neutral. I do not believe it. And everybody says the
Senator from New Mexico knew so much about this that he talked us all
into the trust fund. I have heard five Democrats say it. ``Well,
Senator Domenici, the budget expert, said let us do this.''
I am telling you that if I was an expert then, I am an expert now. I
do not think I was then, nor am I now. But I can tell you right now
that the $13 billion, which is almost half the total bill, is going to
cause deficit spending, because there is no way you can guarantee the
American public that that trust fund comes out of a reduced budget
rather than an increased budget.
Frankly, that is how I see it. And that does not mean that I was for
something once and I changed my mind. Of course, I have the right to
change my mind because it is a different bill in the ways I have
described, and I think it is clearly understandable.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I want to make one point, and I accept
the Senator's statement. I said in my statement that obviously not
offering a point of order to the bill does not mean that one is bound
not to offer it to the conference report. I expressly acknowledged that
in my comments.
I make the following point: First, it should be clear that these
amounts may be appropriated. That is what it says in the measure. These
are amounts that may be appropriated from the trust fund. So just as no
one can guarantee what the Senator warned against, so he cannot
guarantee that will add to the deficit.
Second, with respect to the caps, the caps are only in existence for
4 of the first 6 years. So since there is no mechanism, since there is
no cap in existence, there is no mechanism for imposing or altering the
caps in the fifth or sixth years.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct. In fact, I say to him that one
of the reasons I was for the trust fund was because it only went for
the 4 years for which we had caps. That absolutely assured us of the
savings. If you went 1 year beyond it, I would have been against the
trust fund because we would not be assured of the savings.
Let me make one last point. My good friend, the majority leader, said
if you look at the 4 years, there is less spending in 4 years, and
there is more spending in the next 2--as if spending is not spending.
The truth of the matter is that there is more spending on prevention,
or pork, in this bill by $3 billion. There is $3 billion more--not in
the first 4 years, but in the 6 years.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I will just conclude by saying that my
understanding is that the trust fund language in the crime bill
specifies that the $13 billion in reductions to fill the trust fund in
the years 1998 to the year 2000 will be made from comparable amounts
for budgetary purposes. That is to say, none of us now knows how many
discretionary dollars the Federal Government will have to spend in
those 2 years. But whatever the total is, it will be reduced by $6.5
billion in each of those 2 years.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think it was very interesting, as we
listened to the proposal of the distinguished minority leader, that
among the 13 amendments listed--and he read through each of the
amendments--none of them pertained to the question of this point of
order.
Here we are for several days struggling over a point of order. We
have had Senators rise on the floor and talk about the spending and the
deficit the point of order is supposed to address. Yet, strangely
enough, not one of the proposed Republican amendments to the crime bill
pertains to the caps, establishes some sense of savings, or touches on
the budget issue in any way. It is not discussed.
What the Senator from Alaska said in a moment of candor on the floor
of the Senate in answer to the majority leader was, ``That is the
guns,'' and that, in effect, negated what the minority leader himself
had said, ``This is not about guns.'' This whole situation is about
guns. Because, as the distinguished majority leader pointed out, no one
can guarantee, once we amend this bill in any fashion, what the House
will do. There is a greater likelihood the House will produce an
amendment to strip the gun ban from the bill, and in effect, that is
why opponents of the gun ban have raised this point of order. They know
that they can use this technical point to initiate an amendment process
that will let their forces in the house kill the weapons ban.
So for the American people who are listening now and trying to figure
out what this is all about, what is really happening here, a little bit
of history may help.
In recent history, in a whole bunch of speeches on the Senate floor,
Republicans have talked about how this is not a tough crime bill and
how they want to take this bill back and make it tough. Yesterday, when
I was on a television show with the Senator from Texas, he blurted out
and said, ``Everybody in America knows the Democrats are not tough on
crime. Republicans have always been tough on crime and, by gosh, we
want to get a tough crime bill.''
What this is all about is not just guns, but the perception that our
friends on the other side of the aisle are fighting for, and that is a
perception that they want to try to sell the American people that they
are somehow bigger, better, braver, tougher, more willing to
incarcerate, more willing to fry, than are Democrats. That is the
fight. This is a squabble. This is a squabble that is even in disregard
to the political process that we normally undergo around here.
When you pass a bill in the Senate and you pass a bill in the House
and it goes to the conference committee, we both appoint conferees and
we are represented in the negotiations.
We had people there, and they had people there. Senators were there,
Congressmen were there, and they sat down and reached an agreement. It
went to the House, and the House passed it. It even went to the House
in an extraordinary open negotiation session, which the distinguished
chairman and manager of this effort attended, along with Senate
Republicans. An agreement was reached, and it went to the floor. Now it
comes back to us and it is not amendable under the normal rules of the
Senate.
But our friends on the other side are taking advantage of a
technicality in order to try, if they can, to open up the gun issue.
And if somehow they cannot succeed in that, their game is to try to
sell the American people on the notion that they are bigger, better,
tougher, stronger, and braver on the subject of crime.
In the meantime, Mr. President, the law sits here unpassed. In the
meantime, none of the 100,000 police this bill promises are on their
way to the streets of this country.
In the meantime, prosecutors and others in the system are struggling.
Let us put this in its proper perspective, if we may.
Back in the 1960's, the crime rate began to rise. By 1964, crime was
an issue in the Presidential elections. So in 1968, enough support had
grown up in the country that Congress was able to pass a program called
the LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. That program
allocated about $7.5 billion over 12 years, expiring in 1980, right at
the time when President Reagan came to office.
This program called LEAA, I will tell you as a former prosecutor, is
all that stood between those trying to make the system work and
implosion.
In 1974, I came into a district attorney's office that had 12,000
backlogged cases. We had people come into the courthouse, and they
would say: ``This is my sixth visit to the courthouse. The police are
never here. The witness cannot be found. You cannot get justice in the
system. It does not work.''
So we provided some resources, resources that we were able to fund
thanks to the LEAA. Resources, Mr. President. Resources that the other
side of the aisle leaps to call pork. Whatever they do not like,
whenever they want to somehow appeal to the lowest common denominator,
they just call a program pork. They find the word that the American
people hate that they can quickly attach to something, giving it a
pejorative, make it pork. Even if it is a good program, even when it is
a program they have sponsored themselves, or voted for, or even fought
to put into the bill, they nevertheless turn around and just call it
pork today because it serves a political goal of trying to say they are
bigger, braver, tougher, stronger on crime. That is what this fight is
about, and it is embarrassing.
Now, I will say to you, Mr. President, back in those days when we got
that LEAA, the LEAA made all the difference in the world. If you did
not have a clerk in a courtroom you could not get documents up from the
clerk's office. If you did not have a stenographer, you could not have
a court record. If you did not have a police officer to go talk to
someone, you did not have a case.
Thanks to the LEAA we were able all across the country--backwoods
district attorney offices, major attorney general offices--we were able
to enter the modern century in an effort to make a criminal justice
system work. I emphasize the word ``system.''
Now, Mr. President, it is the LEAA that shows why our friends on the
other side of the aisle are particularly sensitive about what is going
on here today. Because when President Reagan came to Washington in 1980
they killed the LEAA. They killed it, and Republicans ended Federal
assistance to the States for crime. Please remember that. A Republican
initiative ended the then I think some $1 billion that the Federal
Government was giving to the local communities to help solve the
problem of crime, and you can measure beginning in 1980--Mr. President,
I challenge anybody here to go do it--how police departments in most of
the communities in this country began to shrink. The number of cops
began to go down.
Back in the late 1960's and the 1970's, we had 3.5 police officers
for every violent crime in America. Today we have 4.6 violent crimes
for every police officer, and I will say to you, Mr. President that
this trend began, was established, and accelerated during the 12 years
that a Republican was in the White House.
Now, what did we have for crime bills during all of those Republican
years? Don't think that the answer to this question doesn't impact on
what is happening here today. During the 12 years from 1980 until 1992
when a Republican sat in the White House, never once did the
Republicans propose a crime bill that provided money for building State
prisons. We have not had such initiative until 1994, today. Never did
they make a commitment to put more cops on the beat. We have not had
that until today. They never had a comprehensive bill that covered both
deterrence and prevention, an approach to affect both ends of the
pipeline--where crime starts and where it ends--until today.
They always approached crime bills in a little piecemeal fashion
where they would address one aspect of crime, put a few cops out; the
next year they would deal with a couple of laws; the next year maybe
there would be a little bit of assistance for this or that.
For 12 years, when there was a Republican in the White House, there
was practically nothing that happened in terms of crime. The 1982 bill
provided for a $16.5 million expenditure over 3 years. That was the
crime bill of 1982, when the Republicans controlled the Senate and they
had Ronald Reagan in the White House, that was the best they could do.
Some $16.5 million--these people who are here today to try to tell you
they are bigger, braver, tougher, and better on crime--when they had
the Senate control and the White House, the best they could do to fight
crime was to allocate $16.5 million over 3 years. And the ultimate
irony is that they didn't even pass that. President Reagan vetoed their
little bill. Why? Because it created a centralized drug office at the
Cabinet level, which Reagan thought was an overreaction. And what did
they do next? Here we go. They didn't even touch on the drug issue for
4 years, and they didn't do anything but.
The 1984 crime bill costs were just nominal. They barely put any
money into the effort. In fact, all they did was change a few laws.
That was about it--no prison, no police, no prevention.
In 1986, we had a bill--I was here in the Senate at that point and
took part in an effort to try to create a drug response, and the bill
was purely an anti-drug measure. The bill spent $1.7 billion, but
didn't do anything for cops, prisons, or prevention. There was nothing
in the bill to help the system.
In 1988, the bill was the small sum of $2.7 billion which again went
into the unsuccessful war on drugs, and then in 1990 the bill provided
about $1.4 billion over 5 years. It had about $300 million for young
offenders. It had some alternatives to incarceration. And the rest--
most of it--was for drugs.
In 1991--this is very important--in 1991 we had a bill that would
have allocated $3.6 billion for prisons and law enforcement, but
interestingly enough, not unlike today, the Republicans filibustered
that bill. Why did they filibuster that bill that would have produced
the most resources in congressional history toward the fighting of
crime? They killed it because they objected to the Brady bill, which
had to do with reasonable gun control.
So because of their opposition to guns, and their filibuster, they
killed the crime bill of 1991, that would have had some money in it for
alternative prisons, for substance abuse, and so forth. So they put
guns ahead of any of the other priorities of the system.
So, in summary, Mr. President, there is no way to compare the bill we
have with us today to any bill that was introduced during the
Republican administrations. Today's bill is dramatically more
comprehensive, overwhelmingly tougher, and represents a marked advance
in this country's approach to crime.
And the reason that our colleagues are so sensitive to what has
happened in the last months is that a Democratic President and Congress
are finally responding for the first time in 30 years with a major
comprehensive bill to try to deal with crime.
Many Senators on this side of the aisle objected, I might add, to
major portions of what went into the bill, but they understood we had
to compromise. We had people who objected to the amount of money for
prisons. We had people who objected to certain mandatory sentences. We
had people who objected to the idea of putting more cops on the street.
We had Senators who objected to the expansion of the death penalty. We
had different concepts of objection.
But all of us overcame our objections because of this notion of
compromise. In order to pass a bill, in order to do something about
crime, we were all going to have to give up something.
Now we come back at the last hour and those who were part of the
compromise are moving away from the compromise just to get their way.
And to get their way, no matter how reckless it is, they will label
whatever they want as pork in the hope that the American people will
pick up the cry and somehow support what they are doing.
Mr. President, I think people ought to just stop and look at this
bill. It is fascinating to me that this bill that they say is not tough
is supported by every major law enforcement organization in the
country. The National District Attorneys Association wants this bill.
They do not think it is weak, as our Republican colleagues seem to.
Every single local police entity wants this bill. The National
Association of Attorneys General wants this bill. All of our Nation's
police organizations want the bill. Let me read some of the
organizations' names.
The Fraternal Order of Police wants this bill. The National
Association of Police Organizations wants this bill. The International
Brotherhood of Police Officers wants this bill. The National Sheriffs
Association wants this bill. The International Union of Police
Associations wants this bill. The National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives, the National Troopers Coalition, the Police
Foundation, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
Ask the National Conference of Republican Mayors if they want this
bill, and they will tell you resoundingly that they want this bill.
How is it that a bill that is wanted by every single one of the front
line people in the fight for crime is somehow being second-guessed at
this point by many people who have never been on the frontline of law
enforcement in their lives?
Ask the major cities' chiefs, the National League of Cities, the
National Association of Counties. And there are many, many other
entities representing the interests of this country in law enforcement
who want this bill.
Mr. President, I keep hearing people say, ``Well, wait a minute. We
want tough stuff. We just don't want the pork. And you folks let this
bill go over to the conference and there they took things out.''
Mr. President, I just suggest we put that to the test for a moment.
I ask people to measure what was taken out in the conference versus
what was put in and then say this is not a tough bill. Yes, the
conferees took out a few of the D'Amato-Gramm gun provisions which
federalized crimes that do not need to be federalized because they are
already a crime at the State level. These crimes already get
prosecuted. They do not represent a problem the Federal Government
needs to address.
Several criminal youth gang offenses were struck out. They were very
minor provisions. There were a few provisions taken out on public
corruption. The Senate had two ``three strikes and you're out''
provisions. They strengthened one. Those who say the conferees took it
out are wrong. The conferees really strengthened it. The conference
came back with a three-strikes-and-you're-out provision.
And, yes, some mandatory minimums for drug crimes were taken out.
I heard the distinguished minority leader saying, ``Who could be
opposed to a mandatory sentence for somebody selling drugs to a
minor?''
Well, what happens if it is the minor's best friend who is also a
minor who sells the drugs? Or what happens if it is somebody who is 20
years old, a college friend who has never been in trouble, who happened
to be at a party, and who sold some drugs to another minor? Are we
going to put that person in jail for 10 years? I mean, that is the
problem; if we are going to reduce all of this to simplistic
sloganeering, we create enormous injustices in the process.
We have people today in jail under mandatory sentencing provisions
for drug use who have been there for 4 years or 5 years, who are so
barely culpable it is sad, who are taking up a cell that should instead
house a rapist, an assaulter, a burglar, an armed robber, or a murderer
who is not in jail because there are not enough cells. Jails all across
America are so full that judges are given a list on a weekly basis and
are told to let people out in order to make room for the next group of
people coming in.
Part of the reason for this overcrowding is that we have a lot of
people in prison for first-time, nonviolent minimal offenses. But they
get swept under this broad-brush concept.
Mr. President, that is what was taken out of the bill. So when they
say, ``This bill changed; this bill was weakened; this bill was plumped
up with pork,'' let us test this, too.
What really happened in conference?
Well, $1.3 billion more was added for law enforcement in the
conference; $1.3 billion more than the Senate bill that all but two
Republicans voted for previously.
And $3.2 billion more was put in the bill for prisons--$3.2 billion
more than the bill that all but two of the Republicans voted for
previously.
This is what was put in the conference. This is a bill that was
supposedly weakened. The conferees injected $4.5 billion more for
prisons and law enforcement. The bill also got a $1.8 billion increase
for the incarceration of illegal aliens. It got a $1 billion increase
for the Byrne grants, which everybody supports. It got $1.2 billion for
increase funding for the Border Patrol. It got $307 million in
increased funding for Treasury Department enforcement. It got $50
million in increased funding for the DEA; $10 million in increased
funding for DNA testing; and $24 million in increased funding for
police recruitment.
Mr. President, that is a tougher bill. That is an addition of
billions of dollars in order to make this bill even tougher on crime.
That was part of the compromise.
And now our friends on the other side want to renege on the
compromise and go back on it in order to gain the political advantage
of trying to claim that they are somehow tougher on this bill.
And what I have told you is just financial. Let me show what this
bill does in penalties.
With this bill, we add 60 new death penalties. That is the largest
expansion of the Federal death penalty in the history of the U.S.
Congress. And there are people on the other side of the aisle who are
opposed to the death penalty, who nevertheless voted for this bill,
despite opposition because they understand we need these cops, we need
these prisons, and we need this money.
It also adds over 70 new penalties or penalty increases. It has the
three-strikes-and-you're-out penalty; mandatory life for defendants
convicted of three serious felonies. That is tougher, Mr. President.
The conference authorized adult prosecution of 13-year-olds for
serious, violent crimes, which I happen to think raises some enormous
problems in the criminal justice system. But people like myself
swallowed hard. That is a lot tougher--some would say draconian. But it
is in there and it is going to be part of this law if our friends would
let the Senate vote on the bill.
The conference added a tougher new penalty to crack down on gangs,
and adds up to 10 years for a Federal drug and violent crime committed
by a gang member. That is a lot tougher than it was before.
It enhanced the penalty for all crimes where a defendant uses a child
or encourages a child to commit a crime. That is a lot tougher than it
was before.
And that is only the beginning, Mr. President.
The bill increases the penalties for drive-by shootings, for using a
semiautomatic gun during a Federal drug crime or violent crime, for
stealing guns and explosives, for interstate gun trafficking, for
aggravated sexual abuse, for sex offenses and assaults against
children.
It increases penalties on every single one of those.
It increases the penalty for using kids to sell drugs in a drug-free
zone. It increases the penalties on use of drug dealing near a public
housing project. It increases penalties on drug dealing near schools
and playgrounds. It increases penalties on drug trafficking when you
are in prison. It increases penalties on drug smuggling into prison.
And yet we keep hearing our friends come to the floor and say how
this bill weakens, how it is not tough on crime.
Mr. President, there is not a criminologist in America worth his or
her salt who would not say that this is the toughest crime bill and
most comprehensive crime bill ever put forward in the U.S. Congress.
But our friends are here to spend several days getting the message out
to America--the phony message--that somehow one party is tougher on
crime than the other party.
Mr. President, this really is not a party issue. There is not a
Democrat or Republican policy on crime. There really is not. I do not
think there is a Senator who is soft on crime. I would not waste my
time trying to argue that there is a Senator soft on crime. There are
different attitudes about what works. There are different sets of
priorities about how to deal with crime. And it is precisely those
different sets of priorities that brought us to the point of
compromise, where some of those people who hated the death penalty,
some of those people who hated all of this prison money got some of the
money to put into prevention because they think it is smart to reduce
the level of crime in ways that are known to work.
Now, some of our friends do not want to do that. Well, some of our
friends on this side do not want to spend the money the conference
introduced. The point is we are supposed to act like adults in the
Senate and come to agreement, and that means compromise.
And that is exactly what took place in the course of the conference
and what has brought us here. Our friends know, under the normal
procedures, were it not for this technicality that they will assert--
maybe--they would not have the ability to propose amendments. They
would not be allowed to. They would have to vote to either kill this
bill or vote to pass it. And do you know what? It would pass. It would
pass, if there were really a vote. And Republicans would vote for it,
pork and all. Everyone in the Senate knows it, and everyone in the
country ought to know that.
I would like Americans who are listening to this debate to stop for a
moment and analyze what the Republicans are calling pork. Call an
office, read about it, think about it. Because what we have is a
situation where programs that have long been accepted as working and
preventing crime are suddenly being labeled ``pork.''
We have innovative programs that make a difference in the lives of
kids that they are being called pork. And if we reduce this debate to a
debate where people are allowed to just label something and walk away
and everybody in the country believes it because somebody threw out the
label, then we are really depriving ourselves of options for the
future.
I ask my colleagues, who has walked into a Boys Club and Girls Club--
I wonder who has done that recently--and seen and measured what is
happening in that Boys Club or Girls Club? And who has considered what
is happening to the children in these clubs versus the ones who are not
able to get in because there is not enough room?
I was in Brockton, MA, recently. Only 10 percent of the kids in
Brockton have access to a Boys Club and Girls Club. So what happens to
the other 90 percent who do not get the choice of some shop or
woodworking or dance or basketball or any of the other options? What
happens to them? They wander around the street. They fall in with a bad
lot of people. Everybody knows the pressures parents are under in
America today. Everybody knows how many people are growing up in
single-parent families or without parents altogether. Everybody
understands the culture of violence on television that is used as a
babysitter in countless homes in America.
So what happens to these kids who do not get the other options? Here
we have a whole host of programs that make a difference in their lives.
I have heard about countless programs in recent months talking with
these kids. I have heard from them firsthand the difference it has made
to be with a group of peers, all of whom have had a moment of trouble,
some of whom are on drugs, some of whom have had five brushes with the
court and who are at that brink of either going over the end or making
it, pulling back. Those kids will tell you of the value of the programs
that force them to accept some discipline, that give them some peer
reinforcement, that give them a sense of self-esteem and value and
perhaps a sense that something out there might work for them in the
future. That is what these programs are. And they are being called
pork.
There are examples of success in programs that show why this is
valuable. It may be boring to some, but we better understand the
difference between pork and programs that save kids' lives and rebuild
communities. That is what this debate is about.
A 1992 evaluation by Columbia University and the American Health
Foundation found that public housing projects with Boys Clubs and Girls
Clubs had 13 percent fewer juvenile crimes, 22 percent less drug
activity, and 25 percent less crack presence.
Do you know what that means to the crime system of this country? A 25
percent reduction in people on crack? Mr. President, 13 percent fewer
visits to the juvenile courts? You know what? These programs save
money. If those kids are not going into the court system and they are
not going into diversion programs, you do not need as many police. You
do not need as many prisons, ultimately. You begin to build your
society from the bottom up, where people have a stake in the community,
not a sense of alienation and cynicism and loss.
Look at Community Schools in Houston, TX. This program tries to keep
their at-risk kids in school instead of simply putting them out on the
street. Professionals set up shops in the schools. This is what our
friends come to the floor and call welfare programs, because welfare is
a pejorative in American politics. Label it welfare. Put the word
liberal in there and, by God, you have a real socko slogan going for
you. Call it liberal welfare and everybody can hate it, even if it is a
good program. That is what we have come to. That is all it takes.
Here is a program called Police Athletic Team in Birmingham, AL. The
Birmingham Police Department sponsors softball, basketball, baseball,
and golf teams for kids. Imagine that, a police department sponsoring
sports programs for kids. We have had people come to the floor and
derisively dismiss midnight basketball and arts programs. We are not
going to spend money to do these things, we say.
Yet in program after program in America, where we have spent money on
this sort of thing, you see kids with 80 percent success rate of not
going back into the court system; 60 percent success rate going into
employment. They learn something about themselves.
How is it we can all achieve this lofty position of U.S. Senator and
mouth the platitudes we mouth, about family, about values, community,
and then strip away from people the very ability to build family and
values and community? How do we do that and go back and look at people
with a straight face?
I am not telling you every single dollar in here will produce a
return, but you cannot tell me every single dollar spent on a prison is
absolutely going to yield a return. We have seen case after case of
people coming out of prison after 15 years, 10 years, whatever, and
they will tell you if they had had an opportunity to go straight, they
never would have gone into prison in the first place, if somebody had
just reached out to them, if somebody had just cared, if somebody had
made a difference in their lives.
It is so easy just to come in, in this current mood we are in in
America, and call it goo-gooism or do-goodism or whatever. But it
works. Why have the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts and Cub
Scouts and Brownies worked for years? Why do church entities work? Why
do people take their kids to Sunday school or to study the Koran or the
Torah or whatever? They do it because there are values transmitted in
that process. Because kids learn something.
But so many of the kids in America today are not learning anything
except how to hate each other. They are learning how to do violence.
They are learning how to not even communicate or be able to talk.
The other day I was in Lynn, MA with about 15 kids at risk. They are
in one of these employment programs that have been labeled ``pork.''
And I talked with every one of those kids. I might say, in the years
since the 1970's when I was a prosecutor, I have never seen kids as
negative, as alienated, as angry, and as incapable of articulating
anything as these kids that I met with. I asked them, ``What do you do
after you get out of this program? What time do you get out?''
``2, 2:30.''
``Where do you go?''
``We hang.'' That was the answer. ``We hang.''
All you have to do is talk to kids today and find out what hanging
means, in terms of some of these communities, and you know what is
happening where these programs do not exist.
That is our fault, not theirs. That is our fault, not theirs, because
we are unwilling to make the investments that provide them with some
alternatives. And I will tell you something, you are not going to
rebuild family in America for people who do not have a family, who have
no sense of what a family is or means. Where does it come from? Are
they just going to walk out on the street and one day, lo and behold,
they understand what family means and what relationships mean?
It does not happen that way, does it? We are creating a whole lot of
antisocial people, sociopaths--whatever you want to call them--because
they do not know how to communicate with each other, let alone with
their parents or their family, if they have one. And many of them do
not have one.
So I am sick and tired of hearing people come to the floor of the
Senate and just throw this credible, big smear tactic on programs, call
them pork and ``that's it, folks.'' I am not going to defend every
dollar in this bill. There is not anybody who can defend every dollar
in any bill in the Senate or in the Congress. But there is a compromise
process here, Mr. President. People accept things that they do not like
in the larger interests of this country. That is why we had people vote
for this bill who hated certain aspects of it, and that is why, I might
add, our friends in the conference committee swallowed and took what
they had to take because they knew they would not get a bill to the
floor of the House otherwise, and they knew they ultimately would not
get a crime bill.
I tell you, this is a moment of truth for the United States of
America. This is gridlock, and we look silly, we look sick to the
American people. They are sitting back there in the last days of
vacation, getting kids ready to go back to school and they are
wondering, ``What is going on down there in Washington? These guys are
squabbling about some point of order. We have people being killed in
drive-by shootings and they have been fighting for 6 years on this
crime bill. People are spending money all over the place trying to
influence elections and the concerns of the American people are
forgotten and trampled on in the process.''
It is a disgrace, and everybody in this country knows that. We can
posture and we can pontificate and we can beat our chests, but the
American people understand what is really going on.
This bill is a tough bill. This is the first bill I have seen in the
10 years I have been here that comprehensively tries to deal with
crime. I say again and again and again to my colleagues, with all due
respect, this is a downpayment. And if you do not pay for some of these
programs you want to call pork today, you will pay for these programs
in the future when you build the next round of prisons and ask for the
next group of cops to go out in the street because you have mayhem and
chaos that is the end product of the antisocial behavior that we are
breeding in this country.
That is the road we are on, Mr. President. That is the road we are
on. And I do not care how much we pontificate, this bill has more money
and stronger provisions for law enforcement than we have ever seen.
I ask people who listen to this debate and people who write about
this debate and people who want to think about this debate, look at the
facts. Make your judgment about what is reality here. As Senator
Mitchell pointed out, what came back from the conference is less
expensive than the Republicans proposed in their bill, if you factor in
the extra year this bill would cover. So, indeed, it is a bigger
package, but not because it costs more, because it covers more time.
And finally, do not forget that the money in this bill is subject to
appropriation. That means we control it. If we do not want to spend it,
it will not be spent in those outyears. So my friends are protected.
They are truly protected. And I guarantee, when all is said and done,
if somehow the Republicans win and force a change and something is
somehow passed, I guarantee you it will not make a difference except
negatively in the ability of this country to try to fight crime.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the remarks of the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. As usual, he is very
eloquent, and I have to say that he is knowledgeable about much of the
bill. But there is a difference in philosophy between these two sides.
When he talks about, we have to help Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, I
think that is true. But the Federal Government does not have any role
there as far as I am concerned. They have been getting along fine for
almost a century now without help from the Federal Government and all
the strings that come from it. That is true of midnight basketball on a
voluntary point-of-light program by President Bush. It has been working
well all over the country, voluntarily, without Federal strings or
Federal money, for that matter.
I do not want to take any more time, because the distinguished
Senator from Iowa has been waiting for 2 hours to speak. But let me
just make this one last point.
I believe in some of these prevention programs, too, that the
distinguished Senator has been talking about. They are all over the
Federal Government. There are some 266 of them already funded by the
taxpayers. I just want to make this point.
The General Accounting Office recently reported that there are
already 7 Federal departments sponsoring 266 of these prevention
programs which currently--now these are the ones that currently serve
just delinquent at-risk youth. There are many hundreds of other
programs for others who are not delinquent at-risk youth. So I am only
talking about 266 of them that the taxpayers are called upon to pay
for. Of these 266 programs, 31 are run by the Department of Education,
92 are run by the Department of Health and Human Services and 117 are
run by the Justice Department. And we are currently funding them, many
of the programs the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, my
friend, has mentioned.
The GAO found that there already exists, ``a massive Federal effort
on behalf of troubled youth.''
I support that, by the way, which spends over $3 billion a year. The
GAO went on to report that, quote again from the GAO, the General
Accounting Office--which, by the way, has not been controlled by
Republicans for a long time and I question has ever been controlled by
Republicans. The GAO says this:
Taken together, the scope and number of multiagency
programs show that the Government is responsive to the needs
of these young people.
Let me read that again:
Taken together, the scope and number of multiagency
programs show that the Government is responsive to the needs
of these young people. It is apparent from the Federal
activities and response that the needs of delinquent youth
are being taken quite seriously.
That is the GAO report, a Federal agency, Juvenile Delinquency
Development Statements of August 1992 and, if anything, we are spending
more money today on these programs than we spent then, because this has
been updated recently.
I cannot say that I disagree with my good friend from Massachusetts
who, I know, knows a lot about these areas, and I commend him for it.
We fought side by side on some of the same provisions in this bill. But
do not tell me we have to spend another $5 billion on top of what is
already being done which the GAO says is more than adequate.
I guess you can spend $100 billion and you would probably be better
off in this country, if you had it to spend. There comes a point when
we have to say, when it is adequate, why do we not use this money for
real anticrime activity, which is what the bill that the majority
leader seemed to be criticizing and maybe my friend was--I hope not--
the Republican response when the bill was up to $33 billion, it was 90
percent law-enforcement oriented.
I will be glad to spend more money on law enforcement orientation. As
a matter of fact, I will just be honest with you, I would give $15
million to Lamar University if I could save that $5 billion. I would
have done that over in the House.
One last point. Yes, I was over in the House this last weekend, and I
worked very hard to try and help my colleagues over there on various
points, but I certainly was not rubber stamping or approving what they
did. I was just there to be of help, to be their friend and be there if
they needed me. They asked me to come, and I was happy to be there, and
I want to say I commend them for what they did.
Others feel differently on the Republican side. They feel like they
should have taken a harder stance, whatever. But these were young
people over there who literally were negotiating for the first time
with the White House and the leadership of the House of
Representatives, the Democratic leadership, I say.
I was in essence a U.N. peace observer, really. And I have had people
all day on this floor trying to say I approved everything they did. The
heck I did. As a matter of fact, the whole battle here is to try to
restore to this crime bill those provisions that all of us
overwhelmingly voted for here, to try to stop the House from stiffing
the Senate on the tough anticrime provisions and to not stiff us
anymore with their boondoggle provisions.
We have more than made a case that this bill is filled with matters
that we really do not even have much of an idea as to what they are
going to do other than just throw money out there to do good with it.
Golly, I think it is time for our taxpayers to quit having to do that,
quit having to pay for stuff like that.
Let me tell you something. Back to my original point. I really
believe the Boy and Girl Scouts of America have done a great job
without Federal help, and I think they will continue to do so. And if
we would do a lot more without Federal help, this country would be a
lot better and a lot better off.
The problem is we have people here in this body and the other body
who think nothing can be done right without Federal dollars. I have to
tell you, I think more is done wrong with Federal dollars than is done
right.
Now, maybe I am out of step. Maybe I just represent a point of view
in this country that really is a minority, and people just do not want
to listen to it anymore. But I do not believe it. I do not believe that
for 1 minute. I know what the people out there think. I think they are
sick and tired of us in the interest of doing good--and there is good
intention here; I am not finding any fault here--but in the interest of
trying to do good with their money, continuing to spend us into
bankruptcy.
I think people are sick of it. Even liberal people out there are
calling me; they are sick of it. One of the leading mayors of
California called me yesterday and said we do not want the crime bill.
The obligations that come from it far outweigh the benefits to us here
in California. When you really look at the facts and you look at the
fine print, it is not worth it to us.
I think we can straighten it out with the amendments that we would
like to get adopted, and I personally believe most all of us, if not
all of us, will vote for them.
How can you not vote for an amendment to do mandatory sentences for
people who sell drugs to kids? Or people who employ minors in the sale
of drugs? Or people who use them? I could go on and on.
I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa has been waiting for 2
hours, and I yield the floor. I hope he can get the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could ask my friend from Iowa just for
a quick response to the Senator. I know he has the floor and I would
simply ask----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator can do it in less than 2 minutes, the
answer is yes.
Mr. KERRY. I will do it in less than 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I appreciate this colloquy, and I thank the Senator from
Iowa.
When the Senator uses this concept--and this is part of what is,
frankly, either misleading or distorting in this process--he quotes an
outdated report, No. 1. He talks about $4.2 billion that was spread out
over the years 1988, 1989 and 1990. But most importantly, many of the
programs listed are completely unrelated to delinquency prevention.
Some of the projects are listed twice.
Only $460 million went for programs targeted to delinquent, at-risk
youth. And $2.9 billion of the $4.2 billion he talks about went to job
training and vocational programs, not even targeted to delinquent, at-
risk youths. Nearly $300 million went into drug-free schools which was
all children, again not targeted. So I can run through this.
I ask unanimous consent to put the entire breakdown of this program
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary--``266 Prevention Programs'' Misleading
Programs totaled only $4.2 billion--over three fiscal
years.
Many of the programs listed are completely unrelated to
delinquency prevention.
Some of the projects are listed twice.
Only $460 million went for programs that targeted
delinquent and at-risk youth.
$2.9 of the $4.2 billion went for job training and
vocational programs. It was not targeted at delinquents or
at-risk youths.
Nearly $300 million went into drug-free schools, which is
for drug education for all children--also not targeted.
123 of the programs received $500,000 or less.
53 of the programs received $100,000 or less.
Many of the listed programs, including DARE, have enjoyed
wide, bipartisan support.
____
Breakdown of ``266 Prevention Programs''
program type
Total programs aimed at delinquency: 194
108 of 194 programs: research projects or small-scale
demonstration programs
47 programs: training and technical assistance
Just 39 programs: on-going service programs targeted at
juvenile delinquents and at-risk youth.
program funding levels
53 of 194 programs funded at less than $100,000.
123 of 194 programs funded at less than $500,000.
Nearly two-thirds of total $760 million is in four
programs, one of which is drug-free schools.
____
Responses to Republicans on ``266 Prevention Programs''
For months now, Senators on the other side of the aisle
have been saying that we don't need to do any more to steer
our children away from gangs and drugs, that we don't need to
provide them with safe havens from the streets, that we are
already doing enough.
For months, they have been saying there are already 266
Federal programs aimed at juvenile delinquency, and that the
prevention programs in what is now the crime bill conference
report are more of the same, more of what they call ``social
spending boondoggles.''
But let us take a closer look at the 266 programs that my
Republican colleagues keep criticizing, over and over, and
see what they are talking about, see where they have gone
wrong.
According to the GAO report, the outdated report where the
Republicans are getting their information, the Federal
Government was spending about $4.2 billion on programs for
delinquent and at-risk youths.
The first point is, this $4.2 billion was not the funding
for just one year. It includes funding for programs and
grants that were awarded in 1988, 1989 and 1990. There are
even a few thrown in there from 1985 and 1987. So it's not as
if each year the Federal Government was spending $4.2
billion.
But let us go ahead and look at that $4.2 billion anyway,
that $4.2 that was spent mostly over the course of three
years.
$2.1 billion--fully half of the total amount--goes to the
Job Training Partnership Act. Now I'm sure I do not have to
remind anybody that the JTPA is a program that was championed
by both Senator Kennedy and by the former Vice President, Dan
Quayle.
Another $850 million paid for vocational education
programs. That's makes a total of $2.9 billion on job
training and vocational programs.
So we actually had a far smaller amount--just $760
million--that was targeted specifically at preventing
violence and drug abuse amount our young people.
Of that $760 million, nearly two-thirds event into just
four programs.
$300 million went to the drug-free schools and communities
program. As my colleagues know, I have long fought to
increase these funds devoted to anti-drug education and
prevention in our schools--the dollars are only sufficient to
provide comprehensive anti-drug lessons to about one-half of
all America's schoolchildren.
Three other programs took up big chunks of that $760
million, leaving just $278 million to support 190 different
delinquency programs.
So the vast majority of all of these programs the
Republicans have been criticizing are mostly tiny projects or
separate grants.
123 of the programs were funded at $500,000 or less.
And 53 of those cost $100,000 or less.
So only a total of 71 programs, including the big four,
were funded at more than a half million dollars. That's
nationwide.
108 of those 194 programs are actually research projects,
studies of what works and doesn't work, and demonstrations,
small-scale tests that each cover no more than a handful of
sites across the entire country. These aren't really even
separate ``programs''--they're really separate, individual
``grants.''
47 of the grants the Republicans are criticizing are
training and technical assistance grants, also small-scale
projects that don't involve direct services to kids.
That leaves 39 of the 194 delinquency prevention grants and
programs that were on-going programs that delivered services
to at-risk youths or to those caught up in the juvenile
justice system.
Just 39 programs--out of the entire 266 the Republicans
refer to--actually were full-scale efforts to deliver
services to at-risk kids. And most of these are done on a
local, limited basis as well.
So the impression given when we hear that there are more
than 260 Federal prevention programs is that we have
sufficient programs operating everywhere they are needed--in
all of the cities and towns across the country--and serving
every child we can help. In other words, that the Government
is already doing as much as it can, and as much as it should,
to stop kids from turning to gangs, crime, and drugs.
But as we've just seen, many of the programs on the list
are--or were--limited to one city or a handful of locations,
for a limited period of time, or were research projects and
technical assistance grants. Others were targeted at special
populations, such as Indian tribes and native Hawaiians.
Even the Weed and Seed Program, which is not on this list
of 266 because it came about after the list was compiled, is
thought of as a nationwide program but it actually operates
in just 21 cities. This joint prosecution-prevention program
was started by President Bush and Attorney General Barr. I
support it. It would make the 267th program on the list. Does
that mean the Republicans are now against Weed and Seed too?
Let me also point out that this ``266 programs'' figure is
still more misleading because it includes programs that
really have nothing whatsoever to do with providing at-risk
kids a safe haven, or an alternative to crime and drugs. They
may be worthwhile programs--or not. That is not the debate
here. The point is that some of the 266 are not programs for
at-risk or delinquent children at all.
Some examples:
The Law School Clinical Experience Program, which, as the
name of it suggests, helps law schools fund clinical programs
for their law students.
Cognitive analysis of drunk driving teenagers, a research
project that was conducted in the late 1980's.
Massachusetts 1987 Safe Roads Act/Traffic Safety Program,
another research project that is finished.
So these programs and projects, and others, were included
in this count, but they really don't belong.
Also, in the list the Republicans are using, some of the
programs are listed twice. The ``Gang Community Reclamation
Project'' in Los Angeles is listed under both the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department; the
``Cities in Schools'' program is listed under both HHS and
Labor.
So when you boil it all down, there was less than $760
million--the more accurate figure is about $565 million--that
was targeted at services for delinquents and at-risk youths.
When you look at the figures, I think it becomes painfully
obvious that we are not doing nearly enough.
And let us also look at the specifics of these few programs
and grants that are supported with these few dollars. We keep
hearing that they are ``social spending boondoggles.'' Well,
let's take a closer look.
$1 million supported the Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(DARE) regional training centers, to train State and local
law enforcement officers to become DARE instructors in
schools. I thought DARE enjoyed wide, bipartisan support. Is
that no longer the case?
$1.6 million was allotted to juvenile boot camp programs at
three demonstration sites.
About $250,000 went into a comprehensive program of drug
testing for juveniles who are arrested.
$100,000 paid for an attempt to raise the voices of victims
and witnesses in the juvenile justice system, to get them
more involved in and informed about the court process.
Now every one of those programs has consistently received,
or would receive, bipartisan support in the Congress.
So the Republicans want to beat up on this bill for
``wasting'' more money on social programs. Well I think the
facts speak for themselves.
We have kids committing crimes we couldn't even imagine
just a few decades ago, and unless we pass this bill, we will
continue to provide these at-risk children with precious
little help and precious little hope of staying out of
serious trouble.
Mr. KERRY. But the truth is the GAO report says we are taking it
seriously, but it does not say we are doing enough. It does not say we
are doing enough. And when only 10 percent of kids in a community are
getting the boys and girls clubs, we have all the evidence we need that
we are not doing enough. It is very simple.
Now, I never said we should be giving assistance to the Boy Scouts of
America. I used them as an example of the kind of fabric building we
need to engage in. You can go all over this country and find effort
after effort that is desperately in need of this kind of assistance.
So, yes, there is a difference, Mr. President. I guarantee my friends
on the other side of aisle--guarantee it, guarantee it--if you do not
spend this money now, you will spend it more expensively for substance
abuse, drug abuse, alcohol, human abuse, violence against women, and
you will pick it up in your hospitals, and in your prisons, and in your
insurance policies, and in your communities.
So it is that simple.
I thank my friend from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. If I could, without losing my right to the floor, I
would like to do a favor to the Senator from Georgia. He asked me if I
would give him time to make a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa yields to the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend from Iowa. I know he has been waiting
here a long, long time.
Mr. President, as we continue to debate this bill, crime and the
violence which surrounds it continues to threaten Americans all across
our Nation. We are, again, confronted with calls for effective and
immediate solutions to a crime problem that has gone far beyond
anything that most Americans would have imagined just 20 years ago.
For example, the subculture of crime and violence has now reached far
beyond hardened, streetwise criminals. It now routinely attracts
growing numbers of America's youth, our children. The news stories have
become shockingly commonplace: youngsters murdering youngsters over
sneakers or a leather jacket; indiscriminate killings in our schools;
youth gangs protecting territory and seeking respect by unbridled
violence and murder; and teenagers who dream only of the power of a
bullet and who are utterly blind to the sanctity of human life.
Last year, 2,680 children under the age of 18 were arrested for
murder; 4,882 children were arrested for forcible rape; 38,192 children
were arrested for robbery; and 58,383 children were arrested for
aggravated assault. It is little wonder that, in the minds of many,
many Americans, crime is the single most important issue facing our
Nation.
Those statistics depict the gravity of only one aspect of the overall
problem: to wit, juvenile crime. I raise it to emphasize not only the
overwhelmingly serious nature of the crime threat but also the urgency
that surrounds our efforts to mobilize a strong and effective anticrime
effort.
In that context, we have before us, again, and after much debate and
much revision, a comprehensive package of anticrime legislation. I
recognize and appreciate the many long hours that went into the very
difficult negotiations on this legislation and I commend Senator Biden
and my other colleagues who have been deeply involved in that process.
By all accounts, those negotiations have produced a revised
conference report that is, by necessity, a compromise. The bill is, by
no means, perfect and will not immediately cure the crime problem. It
has, in my view, strong points as well as weak ones.
Some of this bill's weaknesses result from the process that has
generated this bill, as well as the many anticrime and antidrug bills
that we have considered before. It has become fairly predictable that
every 2 years Congress will be debating a crime bill of some sort--it
is a safe guess that, in another 2 years as the next election looms on
the horizon, we will be doing this all over again. In an election-year
rush to enact tough anticrime measures, I am concerned that Congress
may be creating quick fixes that may sound good but, too often raise
unrealistic expectations in the public's mind.
I recognize that this bill does provide our law enforcement and crime
prevention systems with much needed financial resources, which is a
positive step. It also has some worthwhile and valuable substantive
provisions. However, I think we need to recognize that many of the real
substantive changes in Federal law which law enforcement truly needed
have already been accomplished in past anticrime and antidrug bills. I
am concerned that we have reached the point where we are simply piling
on new Federal offenses and doubling and, in this bill, even tripling,
penalties to without nay reasonable expectation that this will have a
significant impact on the crime problem. I am concern that this bill
provides for a large expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction and, in
many cases, unnecessarily duplicates existing efforts and programs. I
have voted for some of these expansions myself, but I think it is time
for a thoughtful reconsideration of where we are going with the
expansion of Federal jurisdiction.
For example, will the 60 plus new Federal death penalty provisions be
utilized to any significant degree when many of those offenses are
already covered under existing States statutes? Is it possible that by
creating Federal jurisdiction in areas traditionally left to the
States, we may be opening the door for more confusion, miscommunication
and turf battles among law enforcement agencies? Finally, does doubling
or tripling an already heavy penalty have a significant deterrent
impact on a potential offender?
In short, I think it is time for the Congress, the executive branch,
and our citizens to take a serious look at what really works in the
anticrime effort. We owe it to the American public to be honest about
what impact they can realistically expect from this crime bill and
future crime bills.
In my view, however, this bill's pluses outweigh the minuses--the
resources it authorizes will be a big help to our overburdened and
underfunded crime fighters. On balance, I believe that it will help
strengthen anticrime efforts without impermissibly treading on the
legitimate rights of our law-abiding citizens. As such, I intend to
vote in favor of the revised crime conference report.
Let me just point out some of the provisions of this bill, which
speak to nearly every aspect of the war against crime:
Provides $10.8 billion in needed resources to State and local law
enforcement, including:
The sum of $8.8 billion for community policing; $245 million for
rural anticrime efforts; $130 million for technical automation grants
to law enforcement; $200 million for courts, prosecutors, and public
defenders; and $1 billion for programs of intensive judicial
supervision of nonviolent offenders with substance abuse problems.
Provides $2.6 billion to Federal law enforcement, including:
The sum of $245 million for the FBI; $150 million for the DEA; $50
million for the U.S. attorneys; $550 million for the Treasury
Department; $199 million for the Justice Department; and $200 million
for the Federal courts.
Provides $9.7 billion for prison systems, including:
The sum of $7.9 billion for State prisons and incarceration
alternatives such as boot camps, 50 percent of which is reserved for
violent offender incarceration; $1.8 billion to reimburse States and
localities for the cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens;
and prohibits the awarding of Federal Pell grants to State or Federal
prisoners.
Provides $6.1 billion for crime prevention, including:
An interagency Ounce of Prevention Council to administer $90 million
in grants for summer and after school recreation and education;
mentoring and tutoring by adult role models; employability and job
placement programs; and prevention and treatment for substance and
child abuse as well as adolescent pregnancies; $626 million for the
model intensive grant program for comprehensive prevention programs in
15 high crime areas; $1.6 billion to combat and prevent violence
against women, including training for police, prosecutors and judges;
increased victim's services; battered women shelters; rape education
and community prevention programs; a national family violence hotline;
and increased security in public places; $1.6 billion to local
governments for anticrime efforts relating to drug treatment, education
and jobs; and provides funding for substance abuse treatment programs
in State and Federal prisons.
Enacts provisions designed to help prevent the use of firearms in
violent crimes, including:
For a period of 10 years, outlaws the manufacture, possession, and
transfer of 19 specified semiautomatic assault type weapons or a
replica thereof unless they were owned prior to enactment of this law;
for a period of 10 years, outlaws large capacity--over 10 rounds--
ammunition feeding devices unless they were owned prior to enactment of
this law; provides that during this 10-year period, the Attorney
General will study and report on the effects, if any, of this ban on
reducing violent and drug trafficking crime; prohibits gun sales to
persons subject to family violence restraining orders; and prohibits
the sale or the transfer of handguns or handgun ammunition to a minor.
Expands the applicability of the Federal death penalty to over 60
Federal offenses, including:
Large-scale drug trafficking committed as part of a continuing
criminal enterprise, even where no death occurred; carjacking, where
death results, in cases where the car which was object of the
carjacking had been transported, shipped or received in interstate
commerce and the carjacker was in possession of a firearm; alien
smuggling, where death results; espionage and treason; murder for hire,
if the scheme involves travel in interstate commerce or the use of the
mails or other facilities of interstate commerce; terrorism, which
involves the killing of a U.S. national while such national is outside
of the United States; drive-by shootings, where death results, if the
shooting is done in furtherance of, or to escape detection of, a major
drug offense; sexual abuse, where death results, if the abuse is
committed in a special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, or in a Federal prison; retaliatory murder of witnesses
and informants with respect to Federal offenses; murder of Federal
grand or petit jurors or Federal court officials in order to obstruct
justice; and violating a person's federally protected rights based on
race, religion, or national origin, where death results.
Increases or creates new penalties for numerous Federal criminal
offenses, for example:
Mandatory life imprisonment upon the third conviction for violent
crime or major drug offenses; increases, by up to 10 years, penalties
for certain drug or violent offenses if committed by a repeat offender
who is involved in a criminal street gang; requires persons convicted
of sexually violent offenses to register a current address with the
appropriate law enforcement agency and allows for the release of that
information where necessary to protect the public; increases or creates
Federal penalties for such crimes as drive-by shooting; use of semi-
automatic weapons in violent or drug crimes; aggravated sexual abuse;
drunk driving where a child is present; interstate gun and drug
trafficking; theft of firearms or explosives from interstate shipments;
smuggling aliens; and use of children to distribute drugs near schools
and playgrounds; authorizes adult treatment of juveniles--age 13 and
older--charged with murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, armed
robbery, rape and a variety of other crimes if the juvenile possessed a
firearm during the offense; and enhances penalties for telemarketing
frauds targeting senior citizens, expands Federal credit card offenses,
and creates a new Federal offense of insurance fraud.
In sum, Mr. President, there are many good points to the anticrime
package now before us. While I believe we all agree that crime is a
very real and very grave threat to Americans, I think we also all
recognize that there are many honest disagreements on how to best
address that critical problem. The package before us is, in my view, a
good-faith effort to reconcile those differences where possible and
make a positive contribution to our efforts against crime. On balance,
I believe that the provisions of this bill will add many needed tools
and resources to those of our citizens who are fighting crime on the
front lines, whether in law enforcement efforts, in our prison systems,
or in crime prevention programs.
As far as my State of Georgia is concerned, the bill will provide,
among other things, an estimated $225 million over the next 6 years for
community policing; approximately $102 million for prison grants,
including military-style boot camps; $2.9 million for drug and crime
enforcement in Georgia's rural areas; and $36 million in direct grants
to local governments for education, drug treatment and jobs programs.
Mr. President, I would like to raise an important point relating to
funding this bill. I have been very concerned to hear both the
President and many of my colleagues, proponents and opponents alike, of
the crime bill say this legislation will be fully funded from a trust
fund generated by savings made through Federal civilian personnel
reductions, including reductions to Department of Defense personnel.
Federal civilian employment is to be cut by 250,000 people between 1993
and 1999. DOD has already submitted budget plans to cut 138,000
civilian personnel in this timeframe. But savings from these multiyear
personnel reductions in DOD were needed to comply with the
administration's overall spending targets for defense through fiscal
year 1999. DOD has, in effect, already utilized these savings to meet
the declining defense number set forth in the administration budget. I
do not know whether this is the case with other departments, but it
could be.
I have been concerned, then, that the crime bill appears to count on
savings from DOD personnel reduction that have already been taken to
meet the Bottom-Up Review budget targets. If that is the case, the
crime bill clearly could lead to additional cuts in the Defense budget
below the levels the President has advocated this year as necessary to
support the Bottom-Up Review. In the alternative, it could mean cutting
nondefense discretionary accounts to offset the defense savings not
available due to double counting.
Mr. President, I wrote to the President on August 23 to ask him to
clarify the situation. Chief of Staff Leon Panetta responded in a
letter to me today. To summarize Leon Panetta's response, he has
indicated that he does not intend that the outyears DOD budgets be
reduced in order to fund the crime bill's trust fund, and he does not
intend to require additional cuts in DOD civilian manpower in order to
generate funds for that trust fund. Mr. Panetta states:
First, let me assure you that enactment of the crime bill
will not require a reduction in the requested funding levels
for the Department of Defense contained in the President's
budget for FY 95-99. Consequently, the Department will not be
assigned a lower budget target as a result of enactment of
this bill. Furthermore, there are no plans to assign funding
responsibility to the Department of Defense for any of the
new programs, projects or activities established by the crime
bill, or for existing anti-crime activities now assigned to
other Departments.
The crime bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury
to make specified annual transfers into the new trust fund.
The budget the President submitted to the Congress in
February included FY 95-99 funding for the activities in the
crime bill at budget levels consistent with those in the
bill. Thus, the President's budget has already set aside the
resources to cover the activities in the crime bill.
The Administration has not changed its estimate of civilian
personnel reductions in the Department of Defense. The
Department could propose additional personnel reductions to
offset higher priority requirements that might develop.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print these
letters in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2)
I am grateful to the Chief of Staff on behalf of the President for
his reassurance to all of us who are already concerned about the
adequacy of the planned funding levels for national defense.
Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the revised crime
conference report.
However, I think it should be clear to everyone that, for all its
good intentions, this bill will not trigger an end to the crime problem
in this country. Make no mistake about it--neither this bill nor any
other legislative solution is going to erase the very fundamental
problems that lie at the root of America's crime epidemic. Laws cannot
reverse the disintegration of family and values that this country is
witnessing; laws cannot dictate culture and lifestyle; laws cannot
control or shape influence of violent television; and, finally, laws
cannot create loving and supportive parents and role models for
America's children. Those are tasks which must be undertaken by the
American people, in our homes, in our schools, in our churches, and in
our communities. While I am hopeful that this bill will help in the war
against crime, we need to all realize that it is not, by any means, a
substitute for a kind of individual and community effort that is needed
to truly impact this Nation's crime problem.
Mr. President, to summarize Leon Panetta's response, he has indicated
that he does not intend that the outlays, the outyear DOD budget
outlays be reduced in order to fund the crime bill's trust fund. He
does not intend and the administration does not intend to require
additional cuts to DOD civilian manpower in order to generate funds for
the trust fund. I will not go into all of his letter because my friend
has already been kind enough with the time. I am going to put the
complete letter in the Record.
Mr. President, I still believe that this whole area of setting up a
trust fund needs to be approached very carefully, particularly if there
is any possibility of double accounting, but at least this letter makes
it clear that the Department of Defense is not going to be hit harder
by the administration in terms of this crime bill being taken out of
defense.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Exhibit 1
The White House,
Washington, DC, August 24, 1994.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter and
our conversation on Tuesday concerning the crime bill and its
relationship to the budget of the Department of Defense.
First, let me assure you that enactment of the crime bill
will not require a reduction in the requested funding levels
for the Department of Defense contained in the President's
budget for FY 95-99. Consequently, the Department will not be
assigned a lower budget target as a result of enactment of
this bill. Furthermore, there are no plans to assign funding
responsibility to the Department of Defense for any of the
new programs, projects or activities established by the crime
bill, or for existing anti-crime activities now assigned to
other Departments.
The crime bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury
to make specified annual transfers into the new trust fund.
The budget the President submitted to the Congress in
February included FY 95-99 funding for the activities in the
crime bill at budget levels consistent with those in the
bill. Thus, the President's budget has already set aside the
resources to cover the activities in the crime bill.
The Administration has not changed its estimate of civilian
personnel reductions in the Department of Defense. The
Department could propose additional personnel reductions to
offset higher priority requirements that might develop.
I appreciate this opportunity to clarify these issues.
Sincerely,
Leon E. Panetta,
Chief of Staff.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, August 23, 1994.
The President of the United States,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As we discussed this morning on the
telephone, I hope to be able to support the conference report
on the crime bill both on procedural and substantive votes.
However, I remain concerned about its financing, and its
relationship to and impact on defense spending. I am seeking
your clarification on this issue and the answers to a number
of important questions.
As I understand it, the crime bill is to be funded from a
trust fund with savings generated by civilian personnel
reductions, including reductions to Department of Defense
personnel. Federal civilian employment is to be cut by
250,000 people between 1993 and 1999. DoD has already
submitted budget plans to cut 138,000 civilian personnel in
this time frame. But savings from these multi-year personnel
reductions in DoD were needed to comply with your
Administration's overall spending targets for defense through
FY 1999. DoD has, in effect, already utilized these savings
to meet the declining defense number set forth in the
Administration budget. I do not know whether this is the case
with other departments, but it could be.
I am concerned, then, that the crime bill appears to count
on savings from DoD personnel reductions that have already
been taken to meet the Bottom Up Review budget targets. If
that is the case, the crime bill clearly could lead to
additional cuts in the Defense budget below the levels you
advocated this year as necessary to support the Bottom Up
Review. In the alternative, it could mean cutting non-defense
discretionary accounts to offset the defense savings not
available due to ``double counting''. In order to explain to
my colleagues in the Senate the relationship of funding for
the crime bill to the defense budget, I need to receive
answers to the following questions as soon as possible:
Will enactment of the crime bill lower the funding
available to the Department of Defense below the level
contained in the Fiscal Year 1995-99 President's budget for
budget function 050?
Will the Department of Defense be assigned any lower budget
target, or be assigned a funding ``bogie'', in order to make
funds available for the crime bill?
Will DoD be assigned funding responsibilities for any of
the new programs, projects or activities established by the
crime bill? In other words, will DoD be asked to finance or
to undertake any of these anti-crime activities without a
corresponding increase to the total DoD budget?
Will DoD be assigned funding responsibilities for any
ongoing anti-crime activities of other departments or
agencies of the executive branch so that those funds might be
freed up to fund the new activities authorized by the crime
bill?
If the crime bill is supposed to be financed solely by
savings through separation of civilian personnel, how will
those funds be generated if the personnel cuts duplicate the
savings assumed by DoD in the bottom Up Review?
Does the Administration assume further savings from further
reductions to DoD civilian personnel beyond those already
planned? If so, what reductions are assumed, in which fiscal
years are they assumed to occur, and what is the cumulative
savings assumed through FY 1999?
Will DoD be precluded from using savings from additional
civilian personnel cuts, if any, to offset shortfalls in
other areas such as inflation?
Since I am getting questions from my colleagues, I would
appreciate your answers to these questions prior to the time
the Senate starts voting on the crime bill. I would
appreciate an opportunity to discuss them with you if that
would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Sam Nunn.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
conference report on the crime bill, a bill that will assure that
criminals will pay their debt to society, by serving out most of their
sentences; a bill that will put more police officers on the streets; a
bill that will attack the crime problem on more than one flank.
I have a unique perspective, from being on every side of the law, so
to speak, as a youngster headed for trouble, as a sheriff's deputy and
prison counselor, and now as a legislator.
I realize it is important to get violent offenders off the street. I
have never believed that we can solve the crime problem simply by
locking everybody up. We cannot allow ourselves to ignore the other
side of the equation. When you know that it costs an average of $30,000
to keep an offender in prison, it is common sense to direct at least
some resources into keeping our young people out of trouble and out of
jail.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep using the word
``pork'' and the phrase ``social welfare'' when attacking this crime
bill. Mr. President, let us not forget that our young people, in
particular, need to have alternatives to drugs and gangs. We need
employment and job training programs, after-school activities and the
like. I agree with President Clinton that if we teach kids to say
``no'' to drugs, that we also must have some programs and activities
that they can say ``yes'' to.
I have followed a number of such programs in the State of Colorado,
and all across the country and would like to highlight today their
successes.
Some examples are the Kids, Cops and Cameras Program, a partnership
between the Denver Police Department and the Denver Housing Authority
that put cameras in the hands of 100 7 to 13 year olds so they could
record their views of the world. Citizen resource officer Steve
Rickard, who started the program says, and I quote:
We're trying to give kids a positive image of the police.
They see police as arresting people all of the time and
sometimes look at us as enemies.
According to Melanie Maes, education coordinator, Denver Housing
Authority:
Most are good kids. They just need a little push. They have
had such a hard life and the more good they see in life, the
more it will keep them going.
Mr. President, does that sound like a pork barrel or social welfare
program? No, it is an alternative that works to instill trust between
kids and cops.
Look no further than these headlines:
Rocky Mountain News, August 3, 1994, ``Denver Arrests Fewer
Kids, Credit Goes to Police Impact Teams.'' Federally funded
weed and seed storefronts and programs launched by
communities that include jobs and recreation, giving teens
alternatives to hanging out and getting into trouble.
Rocky Mountain News, August 9, 1994, ``Interns hope to work
on, Summer Crime-Fighting Programs seek Federal Funds to
Extend for a Year''. Those funds went to hire young interns
to help run programs aimed at fighting violence, assisting
crime victims, keeping kids off the streets and helping
neighborhoods.
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, July 25, 1994, ``Carson
Soldiers Give Kids a Chance With Project Ivy Program'' they
have been teaching children how to combat the temptations of
inner-city life.
Greeley Tribune, March 2 1994, ``Grant Funds, Teen
Parenting Programs.'' Joyce Jennings, Program Director of the
Colorado Children's Trust Fund said: ``Parenting is probably
the hardest job you can ever have in your life, but we don't
train people for it. If we want to have a good future for
families we need to put money into it.''
Mr. President, I do not condone teen pregnancy, but, we cannot ignore
that it exists. I think we must assist those who become parents at an
early age, and hopefully they will teach the future generations not to
perpetuate the cycle of teen parenthood.
Mr. President, I believe prevention and education programs like these
belong in the crime bill and will save us money in the long run. Like
all bills that come before Congress, the crime bill is a compromise and
no one gets everything he or she wants. It is not wise for people to
say that they are interested in fighting crime and then pick apart the
bill that would do just that.
It is time that a balance is struck between ``lock 'em up'' and
helping those who sincerely want to avoid the pitfalls of a life of
crime to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we had about 41 minutes of time that the
junior Senator from Massachusetts used to present a case, and we had
about 10 minutes of exchange between that distinguished Senator and the
other distinguished Senator, the Republican manager of the bill, Mr.
Hatch.
I suppose, for the most part, I do not agree with much of what the
Senator from Massachusetts said, but I am going to take exception to
but one point that he made. It was his statement about the fact that at
the very last hour--those are his words--Republicans, or people opposed
to the conference report come up with amendments and points of order to
make.
Let us reflect upon doing something in this body or this Congress at
the very last hour.
That is an institutional problem we have because it seems like things
get done when you get toward recess time or adjournment time.
But the fact of the matter is we passed a bill last November by a
very wide margin, 95 to 4. The House passed a bill this spring. It was
months before we went to conference. The conference started the third
week in June. We met 1 day in that conference. Then the conference did
not meet again until the last week in July. So there were 4 or 5 weeks
between the time the House passed the bill and the conference met, and
we met 1 day just to make opening statements, not to do any arguing.
Then it was 4 or 5 weeks in adjournment while, quite frankly, the
Democratic Party was trying to figure out among themselves and between
themselves and the White House what to do on certain controversial
aspects of this bill. Then the conference did meet. Once we started to
meet, there were very intense hours of meeting and long hours of
meeting.
But if any of the colleagues on the other side want to speak about
Republicans coming forth at the last minute with some objection to the
conference report and want to offer amendments and points of order,
there is a great deal in the way this process works that makes it very
difficult not to do things at the last minute, when there is a lot of
time wasted, just simply wasted, good time wasted, getting from point A
to point B. That is on top of the fact that you know during the months
of February, March and April we do not meet in session here very often
on Mondays and Fridays. There is just a lot of wasted time in this
body. Is it any wonder then that we do not get around to doing things
until the last minute?
There could be a large amount of institutional changes made in the
way this Congress works. Run it in a more businesslike manner. Then
things would not have to be done at the last minute as they are so
often done.
I did not come to the floor just to take exception to a small part of
what my colleague and friend from Massachusetts said. I came here
because I want to make some comments on where we are and why we are
where we are, and some advice for the President.
Mr. President, the lesson learned from the recent House vote on the
crime bill is exactly what the President called it. And I do not find
any fault with what the President said. I only repeat the President
because I think the President is right.
I think, if he were consistent in his approach to legislating and
cooperating with Republicans and cooperating with the Congress, we
would get more done and get more done very much more quickly.
He stated the principle that ``bipartisan consensus produces the best
legislation.'' Those were essentially the President's own words.
I wish my colleagues of that original conference committee had the
advantages of the President's wisdom when we met in that original
conference I already referred to, the last week in July and the first
week in August. I would say these things especially to the conferees on
the House side and especially to the Democrat Members of the House
conference. Had they sought a bipartisan consensus at that time, we
could have had a very solid bill. And we could have saved our President
an unnecessary and embarrassing defeat that he had when the first
conference committee report came up there in the House.
We now find ourselves where we should have been a month ago. I know
my colleagues on the House side made their contribution to a better
crime bill last week. My Republican colleagues on this side of the
Capitol seek to do that now, and that is why we have made an offer to
the distinguished majority leader.
The House of Representatives improved the bill between the first
conference, when it was defeated on the floor of the House on a
procedural matter, and the bill that finally passed the House. It was
somewhat improved. But in the light of day following those long night
negotiations, we on this side of the Capitol see that their efforts
have not gone far enough. It appears that last weekend's negotiations
were conducted as a bullfight rather than as a pork fight. My
colleagues know that in the bullfight, after the bull is killed, a
skillful matador is awarded the bull's tail and the bull's ears. Last
week's negotiations cut off the tail and the ears. But that is all. The
pork remains.
The crime conference report before us is not paid for. All the money
that would be expended in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 would be deficit
spending. The Senate bill, unlike the conference report, was paid for.
It was a tougher bill, and it had a lot less pork and a lot less
wasteful social spending.
The same point of order laid against the earlier bill as against this
bill. But this bill is different. It is not as tough on the criminal
elements of society. It is still laden with that pork, and, most
importantly, it is not paid for. And that is the difference between
raising a point of order now and not raising a point of order last
November when this bill passed the Senate 95 to 4.
I appreciate the efforts of the House Republicans who responded to
some of the very serious problems in that original conference report,
and that was one of the reasons that I did not sign the conference
report. This time Democrats in the House and the administration at
least had to attempt to truly engage in a bipartisan approach.
We have heard that the conference report is not more expensive than
the Senate bill because the spending is spread out over a longer period
of time on a smaller annualized basis. This is a very strange argument.
If the bill provided for $1 trillion to be paid over the next 100
years, would that not be a much more expensive bill? Would it be a
cheaper bill if it spent $10 billion in 1 year? Well, of course. The
Senate bill had a $22 billion price tag when it passed here and it was
paid for. This bill is $30 billion with a deficit increase of $13
billion, and the distinguished ranking Republican member of the Budget
Committee has spoken more forcefully about that this very evening than
any of the rest of us can.
The number of years that the bill would be in effect is relevant only
in that the budget caps were not extended to pay for those additional
years. No matter how long you stretch it out, this bill is still a
budget buster.
I commend my Republican colleagues in the House for improving the
bill in various respects, including the retroactivity in mandatory
minimum sentencing, on the HIV testing matter, and on the evidence of
prior crimes in sexual assault and child molestation cases, and of
course, some cuts in the prevention programs.
While this is a better conference report than before, it is still not
worthy of support because the fact that it is not paid for is of
highest consideration. And that fact should be a very high
consideration. The YES Program was eliminated, and $900 million in
prevention programs were cut across the board. And funding for a
certain project in the House chairman's district was eliminated. That
last one is strictly pork. Nonetheless, the conference report still
lists almost $7 billion in social programs, and that does not include
money that, while labeled as community-based prosecutors, or prisons,
for instance, still is very much social pork barrel spending.
Except for the YES Program, the same objectionable programs remain,
just at a slightly reduced figure. The local partnership act vaguely
authorizes $1.6 billion for education, supposedly to prevent crime;
also for substance abuse programs, supposedly to prevent crime; and a
jobs program, supposedly to prevent crime. This is pouring money into a
bottomless bucket, as these are the same failed programs.
These programs masquerading as anticrime initiatives are really a way
to let the Departments of Labor and Education and HHS, and even some
others, ride on the coattails of a crime bill.
When Vice President Gore's own Reinventing Government Program reports
criticize the Federal Government's existing job programs as
duplicative, as uncoordinated, and as overlapping, we should not want
to create more of these programs. The Vice President should not want to
create more of these programs because they detract from his very
worthwhile efforts on reinventing Government, getting more bang for the
taxpayers' dollars, improving coordination of programs, and eliminating
some programs, plus eliminating a lot of Government employees. These
efforts in this bill are compounding the problems for the Vice
President and his whole effort toward reinventing Government. It makes
no sense to me to create more tried and failed social programs and then
force our grandchildren to pay for them.
The conference report also contains $243 million for a family and
community endeavor school grant program. How does this program spend
the American people's tax dollars on preventing crime? Well, it does it
through social activities, arts and crafts, and dance programs. The
money is supposed to be used to train and coordinate social workers and
guidance counselors. But, Mr. President, it seems to me that the most
effective way to prevent crime--apart from incarcerating the most
dangerous repeat criminals who terrorize our streets and
neighborhoods--is to instill basic values and a sense of right and
wrong. But about the only thing the money in this program cannot be
used for is religious instruction. To put it another way, the money can
be spent to give children condoms, but not to teach them the Ten
Commandments.
The bill is still not tough enough on crime and tough enough on
people who commit those crimes. Although 50 percent of the prison money
is said to be conditioned on truth in sentencing, that really is not
the case, because of the reverter clause. And one of the amendments we
Republicans hope to offer is to eliminate that reverter clause and,
consequently, make the truth in sentencing program a real tough
program. Under this conference report, the prison money for enacting
truth in sentencing would still be made available whether or not States
get tough and reduce parole.
This means that States will not have as strong an incentive as they
should have to enact tough sentencing. Criminals on parole commit a
disproportionate number of offenses. This bill will not help to solve
that problem the way that the Senate bill did, that same bill that
passed 95-4 last year. But, in fact, the money is conditioned on its
use for social programs for prisoners, such as drug diversion and job
skills. Moreover, the prison money is allocated in part on the basis of
the Attorney General's discretion, which means that spending the money
will be made on a determination of where will it do the most good for
Democratic candidates prior to election.
When the police grants were doled out recently--and that is under
another bill--40 percent went to a handful of States that are rich in
electoral votes. I am sure that my State of Iowa will not receive its
fair share of this money.
The conference report still fails to enact tough measures that were
in the Senate bill. The mandatory minimums for using a gun in the
commission of a crime were eliminated, as were mandatory minimums for
using minors in drug crimes, or selling drugs to those minors.
The conference report even rejected the ability to deport aliens who
commit crimes once they have served their sentences. Think about that.
First of all, an illegal alien comes to this country. He is here
illegally. He commits a crime. Our taxpayers pay to put him in our
prisons to keep the dangerous person off the streets. He serves his
time. And the conferees who gutted the Senate bill do not even want to
make it easy to deport that person out of this country.
The conferees think that it is necessary to have another hearing in
this process for this alien, delaying and possibly thwarting the
ability of our Government to deport aliens who commit crimes.
I have named a few areas in which I would support efforts to change
the bill on the floor. Let me mention another. The conferees showed
that they favor the rights of prisoners over the rights of all other
litigants, and they did this by accepting only a very small part of my
amendment, which was meant to cut down on the number of prisoner
lawsuits that can be filed.
These lawsuits are the least meritorious of any civil cases in the
Federal courts, and they make up a large portion of the civil docket.
Instead of judges being made to devote as much time as they should to
important criminal cases, civil rights, important environmental issues,
and all the other issues Federal judges must decide, they spend too
much time on prisoner lawsuits over--do not laugh at this because this
is a real case--denying prisoners chunky peanut butter. The prisoner
argued that this denial was violating his constitutional rights against
cruel and unusual punishment.
Any tough crime bill--if the word ``tough'' means anything--will
allow our Federal prosecutors and our courts to spend more time on
putting prisoners behind bars and less time on deciding whether
prisoners have a constitutional right to attend prison chapel in the
nude.
(Mr. CONRAD assumed the chair.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, these are real cases.
While citizens are afraid to leave their homes, our Federal courts
are wasting their time on cases like these. Changing the rules
governing these suits should be the subject of any floor amendment.
Mr. President, we should be very careful before deciding that the
deficit should be increased. The House negotiators made improvement, I
must admit, but billions remain in this bill for pork-barrel social
spending. Even the programs in this bill that are worthwhile bear a
very heavy burden of showing that Federal tax dollars should be spent
on them.
Not every good program should be a Federal program. Many of the
programs in this bill are far from good. The conference report is still
not tough enough. There is still room for improvement.
I have indicated some of the areas that we need to improve, and I
remind my colleagues that had we a chance in the normal legislative
process to make our views heard we would not be on the floor now having
to suggest these needed changes. Basically, the House conferees in that
first conference, left the Republicans out, went behind closed doors
and gutted the strong anticrime provisions in the bill that passed the
Senate last November, 95 to 4, and they also added more money for
social pork-barrel spending.
What the American people are seeing from the other side, I think, is
politics at its craftiest. Machiavelli 400 or 500 years ago could have
learned much from the Democrats maneuvering on this crime bill.
It is the stuff from which cynicism about our Government grows. There
is a great deal of cynicism at the grassroots, and this process, and
particularly the maneuverings of the majority party, does not enhance
the situation and respect for this process. The Democrats seem to have
a patent on holier-than-thou politics. During the last 24 hours on this
floor, we have heard wailing about how badly this bill is needed, how
America wants this bill, how a minority, meaning the Republicans, is
thwarting the will of the majority.
Now, Mr. President, all these arguments are missing the point. The
fact that Republicans are here on this floor trying to improve this
bill is a problem of the Democrats own making. It is a result of a
strategy that they have used to ignore Republicans in conference. They
deal with Republicans only after they get in trouble, like last week.
The Democrats decided to sit down and deal with Republicans but only at
the last moment.
Now, why should the other side consult with Republicans? After all,
the other side, the Democrats, control the Government. They control
both the White House and both Houses of Congress, this body 56 to 44.
Well, there are two reasons. The first is that they cannot even get a
consensus on major bills for this Nation from within their own party.
That is because solutions coming from the White House and the
Democratic leadership in Congress are antiquated approaches to solving
America's problems. They are hangovers from the 1960's. They are still
trying to pass Great Society solutions to the 1990's America. And this
crime bill is a perfect example.
Now that antiquated approach to solve our country's problems is why
they have to pursue a single vote or a one-vote strategy. Great Society
solutions no longer elicit consensus from the America people because
after three decades of trial and error we have had too many errors. So
the Democrats use their muscle as a majority party to squeak these
dinosaurs through the Congress by a single vote or maybe as few as two
votes.
Mr. President, Americans need to know this. That is why we are where
we are on this crime bill. We are not stopping something that America
wants and needs. We are trying to stop a hangover from the Great
Society era. What we are trying to do is to stop a dinosaur. It is a
bit less of a dinosaur than it was last week, and that is thanks to 42
Republicans in the House, but it is still quacking like a dinosaur. It
is loaded with pork and it is loaded with social spending.
We tried that approach. Mr. President, we have tried that approach
for three decades. And guess what? It did not work. America is still up
to its keister in social spending, and it is up to its keister in good
intentions. But do you know what? Crime is still getting worse. These
approaches just do not work.
Well, we have gone through this before. We got the same thing in the
tax-ridden budgets that the majority party and the White House put
together over the last 2 years, the same old tax and spend, another
hangover from the Great Society.
Republicans said cut spending first, and we were echoing what the
vast majority of Americans were saying. Instead, what did the Democrats
cry? They cried ``foul.'' And they cried ``gridlock.'' And they forced
tax and spending programs right down the public's throats. They tried
the same approach on this crime bill, and it blew up in their faces 2
weeks ago in the House.
They stripped the conference report of tough law enforcement measures
and replaced them with more pork and more of those Great Society
programs.
It went down in flames in the House. And what did it take, Mr.
President? It took 42 Republicans over there on the other side of the
Hill to rescue our President from a very embarrassing defeat.
It went down in flames because 58 moderate Democrats thought it was a
lousy bill and 42 Republicans worked to improve that bill so it could
pass.
And, of course, Republicans are trying to do the very same thing on a
health care bill, but they cannot even come close on that bill. The
Democrats cannot come close on putting a bill together even on a one-
vote strategy. They want to pass a major overhaul of the health care
system by one vote just before an election. It is another Great Society
solution. Let the Federal Government take over our health care system,
but 65 percent of the American people are now pleading with us to hold
off until next year. Why? Because they are fearful that we are going to
mess up the health care system that Americans already have.
On that issue, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller,
has told our entire country that we will get health care reform
regardless of what the American people want.
Are we going to force health care reform down the throats of the
American people?
So back to this issue. Are we going to force this dinosaur of a crime
bill down the throats of the American people?
There is a second reason why the other side, meaning the majority
party, the Democrat party, ought to consult with Republicans once in a
while on this bill, as well as other major bills. The answer came just
last week from the President himself. After moderate Republicans
provided him the margin of victory for this crime conference report, he
said--
This is the way Washington ought to work, and I hope it
will work this way in the future.
A quotation from President Clinton and one that I agree with.
The President said this crime bill is now better because of a
contribution by House Republicans. The President said bipartisan
legislation is the best legislation. I will bet the American people
will buy that one. This was just last week.
Now in this body, the President and his party are going right back to
a bullying strategy. They are telling Republicans to get out of the
way, get out of the process. We are being told we got all the help that
we needed last week from some moderate Republicans in the House. They
are telling us, ``Thank you very much.''
Mr. President, this is the very same strategy that blew up in their
faces 2 weeks ago in the other body the first time that this crime bill
was defeated on a procedural motion. And do you know what, Mr.
President? It can blow up in their faces again, unless there is a good
faith effort to compromise and add more anticrime provisions to this
bill and to reduce or get out the pork barrel spending.
That bill in the other body failed because it was not tough enough on
crime to satisfy the American people. It has been somewhat improved on
the House side, but it still does not meet the public's expectations.
If you do not believe me, I ask my colleagues to listen to their
constituents who are calling in telling us what we ought to do on this
bill.
Mr. President, a bipartisan contribution by Senators on this side of
the aisle could help make this a very solid bill that would meet our
public's expectations. Right now, it is still a Great Society bill. It
is not an anticrime bill, it is an antiquated bill.
What is wrong with working toward consensus, instead of having it
bullied through with holier than thou platitudes and admonitions?
There are two issues at stake here. One is the process issue, the
other is a substance issue. On the process issue, I would say,
ironically, this strategy by the majority party is itself causing
gridlock. By the Democrats failing to seek consensus, by failing to
allow Republicans to participate to improve this legislation, they have
put us where we are today. We are protecting our constitutional rights.
I think the other side only has themselves to blame. And, of course,
who is going to suffer? It is our public.
What we are seeing here--that is, what is behind all of the rhetoric
coming from the other side--would make Machiavelli green with envy.
The President calls for bipartisan consensus, not as a principle or a
practical matter. Rather, he calls for a bipartisan consensus when it
suits the President's needs. Right now, as far as us Senate Republicans
are concerned, it must not suit his needs. So we are seeing a classic
bait and switch maneuver. First, they will try the bullying tactic.
They will say the crime bill is under assault. They will round up the
usual arguments. Then, if that does not work, we will let the bill go
down and we will blame it on the Republicans. That is what the other
side is threatening.
But, Mr. President, does anyone believe that the President, faced
with no bill versus a better bill, would not choose a better bill? He
will choose the better bill.
This is basically the same choice the President faced last week. And
what did the President do last week? He chose a better bill. And where
did he get that better bill? He got it with the contribution of House
Republicans.
I say we should call the other side's bluff. We should take our case
to the American people. If the President is truly sincere about
preaching for bipartisanship--and this is something that we Republicans
seek--then we can do what it takes right now to pass an effective bill
that meets the country's needs; not after the election, but do it right
now.
But there is also out there a substance issue. The issue is how we
can best fight crime. The Republicans lean heavily toward tough law
enforcement. That is what the American people want. They want to fight
crime with toughness.
The Democrats lean heavily toward crime prevention--keep the
criminals occupied; keep the criminal element diverted and somehow the
criminal element will commit less crime. History shows otherwise, that
tough measures dealing with criminals are more effective.
Nonetheless, in my view, and in the view of many of my Republican
colleagues, there are merits to their approach. But the question is how
much?
When this bill left the Senate, there was a proper balance between
crime fighting and crime prevention. Through consensus that balance was
struck in this body in the first instance, or the bill would not have
been approved by this body 95 to 4. But the balanced bill that passed
this body 94 to 5 was stripped in conference when liberal Democrats
ignored Republicans and they ended up using again the bullying
strategy. They cut the toughness from the bill and they beefed up--or
rather, should I say, porked up--the prevention.
Now, I have to admit that part of that balance was restored last week
with the help of Republicans. So I think what my colleagues on this
side want is to have the same opportunity that Republicans had on the
other side of the Hill to restore a bit more balance between toughness
and prevention, to improve this bill and to give America an effective
crime bill.
Had we not been ignored in conference--remember this--had we not been
ignored in conference, we would not be here today having to improve
this crime bill in the Senate all over again.
The public wants Congress to address the major problems facing the
country with a bipartisan consensus--major issues like the Federal
budget deficit, like welfare reform, like the downsizing of the
Government. We are finding that out also on the issue of health care
reform. And if we let ourselves listen, we will find it out on this
crime bill. The bullying tactics of the majority run counter to what
the public wants from its Congress. You do not reach consensus by
bullying the minority.
Does this seem to be a very complicated formula? Well, it is not. But
for some reason the Democrats just do not get it.
It is too bad that this debate has been marked by questions of
political motives from the other side. Should we not keep this issue
out of the gutter? Have they no shame? It seems the upcoming election
is getting in the way of a reasonable consensus, and in the way of
mutual respect.
When former President Bush finally got the message that the people
were disappointed in him, he responded with the now-famous line,
``Message: I care.'' In my view, with the results of a number of major
elections over the last 2 years and with the recent polling on party
preferences, the Democrats need to be developing a similar message. And
it would likely have to be something like this. ``Message: I get it.''
Mr. President, my colleagues on the other side need to start
listening to the American people and to stop listening to those of
their leaders who want to ram antiquated programs down the throats of
the American public. I have just one simple message to the majority of
this body: Stop squealing and start dealing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have been listening for the last 2
days to debate on this bill and clearly people feel very strongly on
both sides. One issue is that we are trying to delay this bill or kill
this bill because we would like to amend it.
I do not understand this argument because I have seen the process. I
saw that the House took the bill up, they debated it, they amended it,
they went through the rules processes, and they basically changed the
bill from the conference committee report. Now it comes to the Senate
and we are talking about changing this bill through amendment and we
are being accused of being obstructionist.
Let us look at the bill and see if it is reasonable we should change
the bill. The bill left the Senate with some very important features.
First and foremost, the bill was paid for--$22 billion, allocated
mostly for crime fighting. It was very strong in that area and it was
paid for. It went to the House and it turned into a $27 billion bill--
not totally paid for. It went to conference and turned into a $33
billion bill.
So we have now a bill that was passed by the Senate by an
overwhelming vote, that has been increased by $11 billion. It is not
the same bill. It is not even a resolving of the difference between the
two Houses. That is what the conference committee is supposed to do,
resolve the differences between the Houses. But we have a $22-billion
bill that starts, it becomes $27 in the House, $33 in conference, and
in fact billions were put in the conference committee report that did
not pass either House.
That is not resolving the differences between the two Houses in a
conference committee. That is creating a new bill which now, for some
reason, it seems that we are supposed to say is unamendable, that we
should have no more say in a totally different bill.
Mr. President, $1.62 billion was added in the conference committee
report that had actually been turned down by this Senate last year. I
do not think we are outside of our prerogatives--and even, indeed, our
responsibilities--to say this is not the bill that we passed. It is not
even close. It is not a resolving of the differences between the two
Houses. And, in fact, it is not really a crime bill anymore.
But we would like to try to make it into a crime bill. We would like
to bring it back, try to bring it closer to at least the differences
between the two Houses--but closer to the Senate bill. I thought the
Senate bill was a pretty good bill. I thought the good outweighed the
bad. It did not have some of the things I would like to see in it. I
think Congress could make its greatest contribution if we would take up
habeas corpus reform, if we would deal with the exclusionary rule, and
give our law enforcement officers the tools they need to convict
criminals and put them behind bars.
That was not in the Senate bill. But if we have a chance to make this
bill stronger in the future, I would like to see us do what the
Congress can really do to make a difference in crime. Because we all
know that the front line for fighting crime is our local governments.
We know that--State and local governments. But I think the Federal
Government can give help there, and I would like to be constructive in
that regard.
But what we have before us is a bill filled with social spending. In
fact, it is over $5 billion in new spending on social programs--30 new
social welfare programs in addition to the more than 600 of those
programs that are already on the books.
Since 1965, welfare spending increased in real terms by 800 percent,
while the number of major felonies is roughly three times the rate it
was in the 1960's. So we have increased our social spending and it
really has not made a dent. In fact it has not even helped bring down
the crime rate. The crime rate continues to soar.
So I would like to talk about the proposed Republican amendments, if
the agreement that our Republican leader has offered to the
distinguished majority leader comes about. I would like to talk about
the amendments because I think they are a step in the right direction.
I do not really think they are enough. There are some things I would
like to have seen in there, including second amendment rights--but that
is not here. But we do have some very constructive amendments.
One of the things that has bothered me the most about the conference
committee report is prison funding. We kept hearing about the prison
funding, the $7.9 billion in prison funding, when in fact almost all of
that funding could be for other than real prisons. It could be in boot
camps or drug detention centers or halfway houses--good programs, but
they are not prisons.
Under the amendments we would offer tomorrow, we would go back to the
concept of the original Senate bill. It would be more for prisons, but
it would be real prisons. It would be for building prisons as the
people of America would have a right to expect when we say prison
building. And at least 50 percent, approximately $3.9 billion, would
have truth-in-sentencing requirements to use the prisons. The
requirement that 85 percent of a sentence is served.
Right now, you can serve 10 months on a 10-year sentence, or 20
months on a 10-year sentence, and get out. That is not keeping
criminals behind bars. What kind of punishment is that? What does that
do to let people know they have to pay a price if they commit a crime?
So, over 50 percent of the prison funding would rely on truth-in-
sentencing for the use of those prisons. I think that is a major step
in the right direction. The other 50 percent at least would be for
prison building. So that would be a major step, if the Republican
amendments are offered tomorrow.
Senator Simpson had an amendment that was accepted overwhelmingly in
the Senate, to expedite criminal alien deportations. Right now, after a
criminal alien serves a sentence, they have to go through a pretty
arduous process--it is another layer--to be deported. This would give
the judge the right to immediately say, upon service of the sentence,
that criminal alien would be deported, out of our country. It expedites
the deportation out of our country. That would be brought back and put
into the bill--or at least offered as an amendment.
And mandatory minimum sentences, that was another area where I
thought we had some real teeth in the bill: Mandatory minimum sentences
for gun crimes, people who commit crimes with a firearm; mandatory
minimum sentences for selling drugs to children; mandatory minimum
sentences for people who employ minors to sell drugs. That is one of
the things that makes it so difficult, is these drug kingpins get kids
to sell drugs to kids, and this would give mandatory minimum sentences
to those kingpins.
And it would give mandatory minimum sentences for first-time
offenders, if they are violent offenders.
All of that would be replaced if we are able to offer the amendments
and if the amendments are adopted.
So I think, Mr. President, that we can make some constructive changes
in this bill, and I think we have the right to do that as Members of
the U.S. Senate when you see a bill that comes back that is not a
sincere resolution of the differences between the two Houses.
In fact, I think we would be irresponsible not to try to make this a
crime bill rather than a social bill or a social program bill. Some of
the areas of this bill are good programs. There are arts and crafts,
dancing lessons--they are good projects, I am sure, but they are not
crime prevention. They are not going to help us build prisons. They are
not going to put police on the streets.
In fact, I wish we could beef up the police on the streets and give
more help to our local governments in that area. I do not think it is
really fair to say that this bill puts 100,000 police on the streets,
because 75 to 80 percent of the funding has to be done at the local
level, and the mayors that I have talked to, many of them say, ``We
can't afford that, so we're not even going to try. We need police
officers, but we don't have the 75 percent.'' So they are not going to
make the applications.
I do support the police on the street, I support the prison building,
and I would like to make this a crime bill if we possibly can.
So I hope that the majority side allows us to try to make this a
better bill, because I think we can make a contribution and, most of
all, Mr. President, I think we can keep faith with the American people
if we can turn this into the crime bill at least in part--at least I
think it will let the American people know that we have tried to do a
little better.
So I hope we can do better. I hope we can propose our amendments. I
hope they can be accepted. And I hope we can at least try to get
criminals behind bars where they belong, and I hope we can have truth
in sentencing. I hope we can get criminal aliens out of our country.
I hope that we can spend the money on fighting crime, and most of
all, Mr. President, I hope we can pay for it. I hope that we can look
the American people in the eye and say, ``This is not going to go
against the deficit,'' because when it all comes down to it, we do have
a responsibility to the hardworking taxpayers of this country to say
that we are not going to add $13 billion to the deficit in a bill that
we are calling a crime bill which, in fact, has many social programs
that might not meet the priority test and, in fact, many of them have
not met the priority test of this body already. They have been stuck
into a bill because it is called a crime bill, and that is just not
enough to really meet and pass the smell test.
I think the American people understand what is going on here. I think
they are educated, and I think they would like for us to put some
honesty and integrity back into this system.
So I urge my colleagues to work with us to try to make this a better
bill and at least to pay for it so that we will not add to the deficit.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have not made a statement on the crime
bill on the floor and will not tonight. But somehow or another, I just
have had a hard time accepting that we do not want to have a well-
rounded crime bill as it relates to communities.
The distinguished Senator from Texas said the communities are going
to pay 80 percent of police officers. I do not believe that is quite
right. I am going to look it up. I think it is 50-50. We always have
the locals and the States pick up some of it. It is not all free.
So I do not believe the locals pick up 80 percent of police officers
on the beat, but I will check that and be sure I am accurate. But we
talk about building more prisons, 125,000 more cells to put violent
criminals in. I think that is a pretty good bill. I believe we are
going to reach the 100,000 new police officers on the street. That is
important. But I somehow want something in this bill to prevent kids
from getting into trouble and prevent us from having to build
additional prisons in the years to come.
So I hope that every community has a society. Some like the arts,
some like art museums. We have nature museums. We have nature walks. We
have jogging tracks. We have Little League baseball parks. We have--I
forget now what league they call it, but small boys and girls playing
football. We have parks for them, and try to have a rounded community
that fits all aspects of the individuals that are in the community.
I do not look at all this as pork. That is a good name. I grew up on
the farm. I understand oink, oink.
So we will get into that a little later. I agree that you can get up
here and say all these things are not good and you can have slogans,
graffiti artists become artists.
____________________