[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            RETENTION OF TOUGH PROVISIONS OF THE CRIME BILL

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, despite President Clinton's rhetorical 
support for congressional passage of a strong anticrime bill, the 
prevailing view inside the beltway is that weakening changes will be 
made to the Senate-passed bill to soften liberal opposition. This $22.8 
billion measure still awaits action in the House of Representatives 
and, following House action, the measure will be sent to a conference 
committee. What remains to be seen is how many of the tough provisions 
in the Senate bill will survive the conference with the other body.
  Representatives from more than 20 organizations, including civil 
rights and criminal defense organizations, have reportedly begun weekly 
meetings to develop strategies for winning major changes in the Senate 
crime bill. These groups took heart in the fact that President Clinton 
did not explicitly endorse the Senate crime bill or most of its 
measures. According to the Washington director of the American Civil 
Liberties Union, ``There's enough wiggle room to give everybody the 
political capital they need.'' Congressional Quarterly, January 29, 
1994. This is the sort of political wiggling and compromising law 
abiding Americans can ill afford.
  The ACLU has declared the Senate's 95 to 4 passage of the crime bill 
``a shocking demonstration of excess in a politically charged 
atmosphere.'' The ACLU has examined the bill and, in a recent 
memorandum, has targeted more than 25 significant proposals for 
elimination or significant revision citing ``major civil liberties 
concerns.''
  These measures include the organization's longstanding target--the 
death penalty. As well, several other popularly supported criminal 
justice reforms, such as enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for 
violent offenders and increased victims rights proposals have been 
targeted.
  The proposals which the ACLU disapproves of are as follows:
  First, a comprehensive Federal death penalty for heinous crimes 
including terrorism, espionage, and large scale drug trafficking;
  Second, prosecution of violent teenagers as adults;
  Third, federalizing serious gang offenses;
  Fourth, the Republican version of the three-time-loser bill. 
Ironically, following the ACLU's issuance of its memo, the 
administration has proposed its own version of a three-time-loser law 
which is substantially narrower than the versions passed by the Senate;
  Fifth, increased mandatory minimum sentencing for violent offenders;
  Sixth, enhanced maximum penalties for numerous offenses including 
drug dealing in prison and drug dealing near schools;
  Seventh, a funding mechanism to insure that the $22.8 billion 
promised in the bill is actually delivered. They would do away with 
that as well.
  Eighth, a proposal for the expedited removal of alien terrorists;
  Ninth, expedited deportation of criminal aliens;
  Tenth, requiring State and local government to cooperate with INS 
officials in immigration cases;
  Eleventh, a prohibition on payment of nonhealth related Federal 
benefits to illegal aliens;
  Twelfth, criminalizing the direct support of terrorist activities;
  Thirteenth, grants to States for pre-trial drug testing;
  Fourteenth, postconviction drug testing of Federal offenders;
  Fifteenth, grants to States for bootcamps;
  Sixteenth, a requirement that court clerks report cash bail postings 
in excess of $10,000;
  Seventeenth, a voluntary motor vehicle theft prevention program;
  Eighteenth, changes to the rules of evidence to make evidence of 
similar crimes admissible in sex offense cases;
  Nineteenth, judicial restrictions on the scope and availability of 
prison caps;
  Twentieth, violence against women proposals including mandatory 
restitution to victims of sexual assault and HIV testing of defendants 
in sex offense cases.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why they are against all of 
these things. But that is the Biden-Hatch bill, and we think it is long 
overdue.
  Twenty-first, a prohibition against the improper disclosure of 
information obtained through a wiretap;
  Twenty-second, a measure which insures that victims of crime will 
have the right to address the court prior to sentencing;
  Twenty-third, prohibitions against the obstruction or interference 
with a lawful hunt on Federal land;
  Twenty-fourth, a study requiring the Attorney General to study the 
ways in which antiloitering laws can be used to fight crime without 
violating one's constitutional rights and to prepare a model 
antiloitering statute; and
  Twenty-fifth, a prohibition against prisoners receiving low-income, 
higher education grants.
  As Congress moves closer to final passage of the crime bill, members 
must resolve whether they will come down on the side of strong law 
enforcement and victims or on the side of the ACLU. It will be 
interesting to see what transpires.
  We need President Clinton to speak out specifically in favor of the 
tough provisions in the Senate's crime bill.
  I can see maybe differences over one or two of them, but not 25.
  Without his leadership, I fear these provisions will come under 
attack in the other body and in Congress.

                          ____________________