[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 37 (Monday, April 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           CRIME LEGISLATION

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, later this week, the House of 
Representatives will finally begin deliberations on anticrime 
legislation. As the House begins its work, the American people should 
ask themselves some important questions.
  Will the House pass a bill that devotes sufficient resources to 
incarceration? Last year, the Senate adopted legislation that earmarked 
$6.5 billion for various forms of incarceration, including $3 billion 
to build and operate 10 new regional prisons for the most violent 
offenders. Will the House match this effort, recognizing that a violent 
criminal kept behind bars will not terrorize a single law-abiding 
citizen?
  Will the House follow the Senate's lead and take steps to slam shut 
the revolving prison door by promoting truth-in-sentencing. When it 
comes to violent criminals, a 15-year sentence should mean just that--
15 years. Not 5 years or 10 years. But the full sentence--no exceptions 
and no parole.
  Will the House pass a bill that stops the endless appeals that clog 
the court system and do so much to erode public confidence in our 
system of justice? Or will the House make these appeals easier, 
allowing criminals to escape justice by taking advantage of yet more 
loopholes and more technicalities?
  Will the House bill recognize that youthful offenders who commit a 
violent crime have forsaken their innocence and must be held 
accountable for their actions--as adults?
  And perhaps most fundamentally, will the House pass a bill that 
properly views society as the victim of criminals, and not the other 
way around?
  Today, President Clinton is out promoting the administration's crime 
bill, even though the administration has not drafted a crime bill, 
relying instead on Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate and 
House to do the legislative heavy lifting.
  If the President really wants to make a difference in the crime 
debate this week, he would today--publicly and unequivocally--endorse 
the proposed House Republican amendment earmarking $10 billion for new 
prison construction and operation. Under this amendment, only those 
States that adopt the truth-in-sentencing and three-strikes-and-you're-
out reforms would be eligible for the new prison money. Needless to 
say, this is one tough-on-crime proposal that lives up to its billing, 
and the President should get behind it.

  Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the 
administration's actions do not always match its tough rhetoric.
  The President talks tough about locking up violent offenders. Yet the 
administration's 1995 budget actually slashes funding for Federal 
prison construction by 29 percent.
  The President talks tough about helping law enforcement. Yet the 
administration's 1995 budget reduces law enforcement block grants by a 
staggering $500 million and eliminates more than 1,000 permanent 
positions in the FBI the DEA, the Justice Department's Criminal 
Division, and the U.S. attorney's offices.
  The President says that he wants to stiffen criminal penalties and 
supports three-strikes-and-you're-out. Yet his Attorney General has 
told Federal prosecutors they may ignore charging defendants with 
crimes carrying mandatory minimum sentences if, in their subjective 
view, these sentences would be unreasonable. This directive reverses 
the guidelines established by Attorney General Thornburgh, which 
required prosecutors to charge defendants with the most serious and 
readily provable offense.
  So, the American people should ask the President: Does he mean three-
strikes-and-you're-out? or three strikes-and-maybe-perhaps-you're-out--
and only if the Justice Department lawyers think that life imprisonment 
is a reasonable sentence?
  And let us look at the administration's so-called war on drugs. The 
President talks tough, yet funding for the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy is slashed by 94 percent, the Department of Justice 
cites phony constitutional concerns when opposing the death penalty for 
vicious drug kingpins, funding for drug interdiction is severely 
reduced, and the U.S. Surgeon General tours the country promoting the 
misguided idea of legalizing the very thing we are trying to 
stigmatize--the use of illegal drugs, particularly by our young people.
  Mr. President, the sad truth is that no community is safe in America 
today. And, unfortunately, no crime bill can guarantee security for the 
American people. While the Senate-passed crime bill is a small step in 
the war against crime, it is nonetheless a step in the right 
direction. And it passed this body by a vote of 94 to 4; totally 
bipartisan, as I hope it will be in the House. I do not think the House 
should do any less. The American people do not want gimmicks.

  In fact, I met yesterday morning with an outstanding leader in my 
State, Bill Koch, who has undertaken an effort to help the Governor 
there, a Democrat Governor and Republican legislators. Everybody in 
Kansas is concerned about crime. They are doing a lot of focus groups, 
and a lot of surveys now to see what we can do in our small State to 
deal with some of the real problems that affect children, that affect 
senior citizens, that affect people of all ages.
  I think one thing that certainly is clear is that we have to focus 
sometimes on the victims of crime, and not all the social engineers who 
want to continue to focus and excuse those who commit violent offenses.
  The American people do not want gimmicks. They do not want false 
promises. But they do deserve the toughest crime bill possible, one 
that matches the tough rhetoric emanating from both sides of the aisle 
here in Congress, and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I certainly hope that our colleagues on the House side are up to the 
challenge. I know it is going to be a difficult week for them this week 
and next week, because they are going to be on crime legislation.
  I do hope--and I say it without any criticism--that they take a look 
at what happened on the Senate side. Nearly every amendment was adopted 
with bipartisan support. And again, the final bill itself passed by a 
vote of 94 to 4.
  This Senator is not suggesting that there are not a few excesses in 
the Senate bill. Certainly, changes can be made in the conference 
report.
  At least we can say that we have done it in the right way and in a 
bipartisan way, and that it is one that will actually make a difference 
in the lives of the American people.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________