[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

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to speak here today on the issue 
of crime and what we need to do.
  Today, President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were at the 
Justice Department and delivered remarks to law enforcement officers 
about the need to get tough on crime. I am glad they did. At a similar 
event staged before law enforcement officers in Ohio, President Clinton 
talked tough about crime saying, ``I care a lot about this problem.'' I 
believe he does.
  Alluding to his years as State attorney general and Governor, the 
President went on to say:

       I know what it means to double the prison capacity of a 
     State, and to sign laws toughening crimes, and to * * * add 
     to the stock of police officers and to deal with all the 
     problems that are facing them. I know this is a tough 
     problem. I also know it is a complicated one. It's easy to 
     demagog, easy to talk about, and quite another thing to do 
     something that will make a fundamental difference in the 
     lives of the people of this Country.

  Ironically, despite his statements about the need to enhance our 
crime-fighting efforts, President Clinton delivered to Congress a 
budget that cuts Federal prison construction by nearly 30 percent, or a 
$78 million reduction, cuts Federal law enforcement personnel, and cuts 
existing grants to State law enforcement.
  The President's budget does not reflect the rhetoric of enthusiastic 
support for crime control and the law enforcement that he has been 
espousing.
  The fiscal year 1995 budget cuts 1,523 Department of Justice law 
enforcement agency positions. According to a Justice Department budget 
summary, the Federal Bureau of Investigation loses 847 positions; the 
Drug Enforcement Agency loses 355; the Department's Criminal Division 
loses 28; the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces lose 150, 
and Federal prosecutors lose 143 positions.
  Absent the fiscal year 1995 budget cuts there are still, without 
those budget cuts, 431 fewer FBI agents and 301 fewer DEA agents today 
than there were in 1992, at the end of the 1992 Presidential campaign.
  At a time when violent crime and drug control are said to be national 
priorities, these cuts will reduce the effectiveness of Federal law 
enforcement, and the President's budget acknowledges this. The 
administration's own budget figures reveal that Federal prosecutors 
will be filing 527 fewer criminal cases in fiscal year 1995 than the 
year before. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, 
cut by over $12 million, will investigate, indict, and convict fewer 
criminals. Indeed, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann 
confirmed this in a recent article he wrote for the Washington Post on 
February 27, 1994:

       With fewer Federal investigators and fewer Federal 
     prosecutors in the years ahead, there will not be more 
     Federal law enforcement, but less * * *.

  These reductions will only add to an already lagging Federal 
anticrime effort under the Clinton administration. The Administrative 
Office of the U.S. Courts recently reported that in 1993, the number of 
criminal cases filed by Federal prosecutors decreased by over 3 
percent. This was the first decrease in 10 years. The Administrative 
Office attributes this overall decrease in criminal filings to the 
Clinton Justice Department's significant reduction in drug 
prosecutions. Drug prosecutions in 1993 decreased by 7 percent, or 902 
cases.
  Existing State and local law enforcement block grants, which police 
have been counting on, are also cut by over $400 million in order to 
fund the crime bill's proposed police hiring program. The money to pay 
for the police hiring program was supposed to come from savings earned 
through personnel cuts, not from existing law enforcement grants. 
Senator Gorton and I succeeded in amending the budget resolution to 
restore funding for this program, and that was a valuable first step.
  Ironically, when it suits the administration's purpose, they will 
defend the preservation of Federal prosecutors and law enforcement 
strength. In testifying against the balanced budget amendment, Attorney 
General Reno recently stated that preserving adequate funding for the 
FBI, DEA, and U.S. attorney's office are what ``our Nation so 
desperately needs to fight crime aggressively.'' She went on to state 
that the effect of cuts on Federal law enforcement could be 
``catastrophic.''
  At this same hearing, Attorney General Reno discussed the importance 
of adequate staffing for the Justice Department. She said:

       I try, when I travel to different districts, to visit with 
     the U.S. attorney's offices. I ask one question when I go to 
     the offices to begin a discussion: If you were Attorney 
     General of the United States, what would you do to improve 
     the operation of this office? Consistently, they said we need 
     more staff in the civil and criminal division.

  There is a substantial increase in overall funding for the Department 
of Justice. Yet, instead of spending this money on Federal criminal law 
enforcement agencies, a bulk of this money goes to fund the 
Department's assorted civil agencies or branches. For example, the 
Department plans to bring more civil suits--450 more cases--and more 
antitrust suits, and 33 new positions are created. The Department plans 
to bring more environmental and natural resource cases--nearly 900 more 
cases, given an increase of 78 positions.
  There is clearly a need for fiscal restraint. Recognizing the need to 
address the budget deficit, Attorney General Reno has expressed a 
willingness on behalf of Federal law enforcement agencies and 
prosecutors to do their part to regain control over our Nation's 
financial well-being. But, in a budget of $1.5 trillion, priorities can 
and must be met. We must ensure that the sacrifices we ask law 
enforcement to make do not impair the Government's ability to meet its 
obligations to our Nation's law-abiding citizens.
  Cutting Federal law enforcement positions, prison construction, and 
existing law enforcement grants programs is an unwise choice, 
especially in light of our Nation's crime problem. It is also 
inconsistent with the President's stated drug strategy and the bravado 
we are hearing from the administration.
  Mr. President, I have a couple of charts here that I would like to 
point to. This chart shows the Department of Justice law enforcement 
agency cuts. The President's fiscal year 1995 budget cuts 1,523 total 
positions, Justice law enforcement agency positions. According to the 
Justice Department, its own budget survey, the FBI would lose 847 
positions; the Drug Enforcement Administration would lose 355; the 
Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces will lose 150; U.S. 
attorneys will lose 143 positions; the Criminal Division will lose 28 
positions between fiscal 1994 and 1995.
  These are tremendous losses. With regard to cuts to FBI agents, the 
number of FBI agents end of the year on-board strength between 1980 and 
1994, in 1990, as you can see, there were a little less than 8,000 
positions. We gradually got them up through 1992 to a higher point, 
under Republican administrations. When Reagan took over, we were down 
here. When Bush left, it was right here. Under Republican 
administrations, the positions for the FBI reached a peak in fiscal 
year 1992 when there were 10,475 FBI agents. Beginning with the Clinton 
administration here, there currently are only 10,044 FBI agents. That 
is 431 fewer agents than there were in 1992.
  The President's budget proposes additional cuts on top of that.
  Finally, let us look at the DEA agents at the end of the year on-
board strength between 1980 and 1994. When Reagan took over we were 
here. They gradually built the DEA up to the point where the Clinton 
administration took over. As a matter of fact, here again we see 
increase in agent strength during Republican administrations. The 
number of agents increased from 1,897 back here in 1980 to 3,702 in 
1992. Under the current administration, there has been a cut in the 
number of DEA agents. Absent the fiscal year 1995 budget cuts, there 
are still 301 fewer DEA agents today than there were in 1992.
  So Mr. President, I am really concerned about it because we are 
having more and more crime in our society, more and more pressures on 
the public, more and more pressures on our citizens' right to live 
freely and without criminal influence, and yet we are cutting back on 
some of the more important areas this country has.
  Mr. President, my time is up, and I yield back any further time I 
have, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The point of no quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I will be proceeding in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

                          ____________________