[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]

 
      THE NEED TO RETAIN THE ANTI-GANG PROVISION OF THE CRIME BILL

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today's Washington Post contains an 
editorial critical of the Senate passed Dole-Hatch antigang amendment 
writing that it:

       Would cause a major restructuring of criminal law 
     enforcement that is unnecessary and for which the federal 
     system is not prepared.

  Mr. President, I believe our gang amendment is necessary and if 
federal law enforcement is not prepared, as the Post opines, the 
responsibility for this current erosion of Federal law enforcement 
rests with the Clinton administration.
  Our antigang amendment responds to the epidemic of gang violence 
which is gripping our Nation's urban and rural areas. Our Nation's 
heartland is witnessing an unprecedented growth in gang violence--a 
scourge known all too well to cities like Los Angeles and New York 
City.
  The antigang amendment makes it a Federal offense to engage in gang-
related crime and subjects gang members to tough mandatory minimum 
penalties. I can think of no area where there is a greater Federal 
interest than in assisting the States in the prosecution and 
incarceration of violent offenders. This is especially true given that 
much of the drugs and firearms used by gangs in States like Utah cross 
State lines.
  The administration recognizes the need for a Federal role in this 
area. Only 2 days ago, the administration announced that it would be 
mounting a major Federal antigang initiative which would target our 
Nation's most violent gangs. According to a Justice Department memo, 
reported in the March 1, 1994 edition of the Post, ``Now when a gang 
member is caught, law enforcement officials will decide whether he 
should be prosecuted in Federal court.''
  The first responsibility of Government is to ensure the safety of the 
public. I submit that the Federal Government's role in ensuring our 
safety must be measured by more than just grant dollars. The Federal 
Government, as a result of the Controlled Substance Act, has 
jurisdiction over virtually all drug trafficking, manufacturing, and 
distribution offenses. Yet, most drug cases are still prosecuted at the 
State and local level. This is because the Federal law enforcement 
agencies have worked in a coordinated manner with local officials so 
that the U.S. resources can be used most effectively. This is precisely 
what we intend to see happen with our amendment.
  The Post also argues that there is not enough Federal prison space 
and that the FBI doesn't have the manpower to take up these cases. It 
is true that the administration's policies and budget priorities 
diminishes our Federal law enforcement presence. But Congress cannot 
let the administration's inadequate commitment to Federal law 
enforcement dictate the scope and strength of its anticrime proposals.
  It should be noted that President Clinton's proposed fiscal year 1995 
budget cuts the Bureau of Prisons construction and operation budget by 
over $78 million, a cut of nearly 30 percent. The President's budget 
also cuts 1,523 Department of Justice law enforcement agency positions. 
The FBI will lose 847 positions, the Drug Enforcement Agency will lose 
355, the Department's Criminal Division will lose 28, the Organized 
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces will lose 150, and Federal 
prosecutors will lose 143 positions. Absent these cuts, there are 
already 431 fewer FBI agents and 301 fewer DEA agents today than there 
were in 1992. Not a single new agent has been hired by either the FBI 
or the DEA since 1992; none, according to the President's budget, will 
be hired until at least 1996.
  If the President truly wants to provide the States the assistance 
they need in fighting gang violence, both financial support and 
jurisdictional support, then he should voice his support the Dole-
Hatch-Brown antigang amendment to the crime bill. So too should he 
reassess these dangerous cuts to law enforcement.

                          ____________________