[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  THE VIOLENT CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994--MESSAGE FROM THE 
                                 HOUSE

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the message.


                       conrad motion to instruct

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to explain the reasons I will 
be voting against the motion to instruct the crime bill conferees with 
respect to the truth in sentencing provisions in the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill requires States to change their sentencing policies 
to match the Federal system in order to qualify to send State prisoners 
to 10 regional prisons.
  I understand and appreciate the motivation of my distinguished 
colleagues who have put forward this motion, Senators Conrad and Mack. 
The concern is that violent criminals in State prisons are only serving 
a small portion of their sentences.
  Let me be clear: Violent criminals should not be set free to prey on 
our communities. But I believe the approach in the Senate bill is the 
wrong way to address this problem.
  First, I have a fundamental belief that people on the local level are 
better equipped than politicians in Washington to craft crime policy. 
The proponents of this motion claim that the public is demanding that 
criminals serve stiffer sentences. If that is true, then citizens 
should take their case to State legislatures, which tend to be even 
more responsive to pressures from their constituents. Indeed, we have 
seen that happening this year in States across the country.
  Second, the reason many States have released criminals long before 
their sentences have been served is the problem of prison overcrowding. 
It seems counterproductive to tell States that we will not offer them 
relief from prison overcrowding until they increase incarceration.
  In addition, the increasing incarceration of nonviolent offenders 
because of mandatory minimum sentences has forced many States to 
release more serious offenders. In Minnesota, we have been more 
successful than other States in the area of prison overcrowding because 
we reserve prison space for the most violent offenders and use 
alternative punishment for offenders who are not a threat to the 
community.
  State criminal justice officials are nearly unanimous in opposing the 
Senate provision that is the subject of this motion.
  Recently, I received a letter from Commissioner Frank Wood of the 
Minnesota Department of Corrections which outlines these concerns. I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                              Minnesota Department


                                               of Corrections,

                                        St. Paul, MN, May 6, 1994.
     Hon. Dave Durenberger,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: As the U.S. Senate and House 
     crime bills move to conference committee, I would like to 
     express my concerns regarding provisions of the bills 
     relating to construction of regional prisons and state grants 
     for prison expansion. These provisions have serious 
     implications that could dramatically impact state budgets.
       The most serious concerns are the requirements in the 
     Senate bill that must be met to place prisoners in regional 
     prisons funded in the legislation. Requiring qualifying 
     states to eliminate parole or make changes to ensure 
     offenders serve 85 percent of their sentences, and mandating 
     laws that are at least as strict as the federal guidelines 
     for certain crimes, will seriously impact state prison 
     crowding. Prison systems already over their capacities would 
     become more crowded, far outstripping any benefits realized 
     from the use of new regional prisons.
       The House bill also contains a state grant program that 
     includes similar damaging qualifications. States must 
     demonstrate from one year to the next that they are 
     increasing the percentage of convicted violent offenders 
     sentenced to prison, and that they are increasing the average 
     prison time served by those offenders through mechanisms such 
     as mandatory sentences and three-time loser laws.
       Increasingly harsh policies such as those contained in 
     these requirements frequently result in a distorted use of 
     criminal justice resources and unnecessarily increase costs 
     with no appreciable corresponding impact on crime or fear of 
     crime. Many states have traveled down this misguided path, 
     and the results have been disastrous. Huge amounts have been 
     committed to the after-the-fact reaction (prisons), leaving 
     little or no revenues to fund preventative initiatives which 
     would reduce violence, crime and fear in our cities.
       However, as an alternative to the Senate bill regional 
     prisons language, the House bill contains another much more 
     flexible provision. It authorizes the Attorney General to 
     make grants to states and multistate compacts to develop, 
     expand, modify or improve correctional facilities and 
     programs to ensure that space is available for violent, 
     repeat offenders. This proposal for a state grant program 
     more appropriately and strategically addresses state needs 
     for federal assistance to address prison overcrowding. It 
     mandates that states ensure violent offenders serve a 
     substantial portion of the sentences imposed.
       I respectfully urge you to contact members of the 
     conference committee and convey to them these concerns. There 
     are serious adverse consequences of requiring states to 
     change their sentencing structure and policies, particularly 
     when these changes result in additional state spending far 
     beyond the financial benefits of the crime bill. Thank you 
     for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank W. Wood,
                                                     Commissioner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion offered by 
the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] to instruct the conferees on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses with respect to the bill H.R. 
3355. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] are necessarily 
absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Domenici] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 22, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.

                                YEAS--74

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--22

     Biden
     Boren
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Levin
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Domenici
     Kennedy
     Robb
     Shelby
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.


                   gramm motion to instruct conferees

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I will oppose 
the motion to instruct the crime bill conferees offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm.
  The consensus in the judiciary community is that mandatory minimum 
sentences are terrible policy. But that has not stopped Congress from 
putting over 100 mandatory minimums on the books.
  Some mandatory minimums are focused on violent crime, but others 
cover first time nonviolent offenses. The result is that we have 
swelled our prison population with people who aren't a threat to the 
community and who would probably do better in an alternative to 
incarceration.
  The Senate crime bill contains a provision which would allow a 
departure from mandatory minimums for a narrow class of first time 
nonviolent offenders. The House bill contains a broader safety-valve 
provision. I prefer the House approach, and that is one of the reasons 
I will not support this motion.
  Mandatory minimum sentences have not succeeded in reducing crime, and 
in many cases have reduced the prospects for rehabilitation. Increasing 
incarceration has done little more than create more hardened criminals 
at the taxpayer's expense.
  Few people have more experience dealing with criminals than judges. 
But mandatory minimums take away the ability of judges to do their 
job--to make the punishment fit the crime. They do not allow judges to 
take factors into account like the offender's age, role in the offense, 
or prospects for rehabilitation.
  That should offend our sense of justice, and that is why I will 
oppose this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. May we have order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the vote just completed was held under a 
regular 15-minute time limitation. I ask unanimous consent that the 
succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion offered by 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] to instruct the conferees on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses with respect to the bill, H.R. 
3365.
  The yeas and nays have been order. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daschle). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boren
     Bradley
     Chafee
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     Shelby
       
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I voted against the Gramm motion to 
instruct the crime bill conferees for one reason--because it included 
an instruction to conferees to support Senator D'Amato's provision 
federalizing gun crimes. While I support the other parts of this 
amendment--the crime trust fund, tough mandatory minimums, and cracking 
down on those who sell drugs to minors, I cannot support the 
federalization of gun crimes. We cannot get caught up in such a frenzy 
that we deal with every aspect of the crime problem by removing State 
authority and responsibility and shifting it to the Federal Government. 
We simply do not have the resources to deal with the extraordinary 
flood of 900,000 new cases that would be shifted to the Federal courts 
if this provision were to become law.


               Vote on Biden Motion to Instruct Conferees

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] to instruct the 
conferees on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses with respect to 
the bill, H.R. 3355.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--4

     Hatfield
     Helms
     Nickles
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
       
     Shelby
  So the motion was agreed to.


                  d'amato motion to instruct conferees

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to explain the reasons I will 
be voting against the motion to instruct the crime bill conferees 
regarding the federalization of gun crimes.
  The Senate bill would create concurrent Federal jurisdiction over any 
crime committed with a firearm, and would authorize the death penalty 
when a death results.
  First, I make no secret of the fact that I am an opponent of the 
death penalty. I oppose it for philosophical reasons; I believe it 
perpetuates the cycle of violence and I believe it is unbecoming for a 
civilized nation. I also oppose capital punishment for practical 
reasons; there is no evidence that it deters violent crime, and it 
actually costs our criminal justice system more to execute a person 
than it does to incarcerate a person for life.
  Second, I am disturbed by the way the Senate frantically moved to 
federalize crimes on this bill. Last year, my good friend Judge Paul 
Magnuson, a distinguished Federal judge, pointed out to me that of the 
33 jury trials he had tried that year, only 2 were civil cases. And he 
believes his caseload is an exception because many judges have probably 
handled no civil cases.
  As we load up the Federal courts with more and more criminal matters, 
we are approaching the point where we do not have a civil judiciary in 
this country. We have hundreds of State court judges in Minnesota and 
only five Federal judges. Our Federal criminal justice system simply 
does not have the resources to handle the caseload that could result 
from the Senate bill.
  State criminal justice systems are much better equipped to handle the 
problem of crime than the Federal system. That is why I will oppose 
this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] to instruct the conferees on 
the disagreeing vote of the two Houses with respect to the bill H.R. 
3355. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent 
because of illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     Shelby
       
  So, the motion was agreed to.


                        gramm motion to instruct

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support three provisions of the Gramm 
motion: the provision supporting the establishment of a Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund; the provision supporting allowing suspension of a 
mandatory minimum sentence only in those cases where the individual is 
truly a first-time, nonviolent offender; and the provision supporting 
the Senate amendment which provides mandatory minimum terms of 
imprisonment for adults who sell illegal drugs to a minor or who use a 
minor in drug trafficking. All of these provisions were also in the 
crime bill which I support.
  I will vote against the Gramm motion, however, because of its fourth 
provision, which provides for a death penalty. As you know, Mr. 
President, I have long opposed the death penalty for a number of 
reasons, including its inability to correct for mistakes made in the 
judicial process.
  On a previous motion, the Conrad-Mack motion, the debate ignored the 
fact that the Senate language displaces a three-strikes-and-your-out 
incentive in the House language for serious violent felonies. The 
displacement of that provision is surely worthy of greater 
consideration before our conferees are instructed to displace it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints 
Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Hatch, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Grassley conferees on the 
part of the Senate.

                          ____________________