[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             VIOLENT CRIME

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, when the people of Washington State 
voted overwhelmingly to enact the Nation's first ``Three Strikes You're 
Out'' law, we sent a clear and unmistakable message across the 
country--we have had it with violent crime. In meetings with people in 
communities across the State, that message continues to ring loud and 
clear.
  Back in the Nation's Capitol, Members of Congress are putting 
together the final version of the crime bill and I am concerned that it 
will not be the crime prevention bill Washingtonians have asked for. In 
fact, this exercise may result in what seems to be business as usual 
for this administration: wasteful spending served with skillful, but 
misleading rhetoric, saying one thing and doing another.
  Looking at the administration and Congress' various positions on 
crime is reminiscent of a police officer appearing on the scene of a 
crime with plenty of eye-witnesses where everyone has a different 
story. That officer needs to investigate the whole scene of the crime 
to find the answers.
  For instance, one witness will say that the administration is 
fighting for 100,000 new police officers. It appears the administration 
does indeed want to make our communities safer. Ask another witness, 
however, and you discover that only larger cities that can afford the 
temporary matching grants will be eligible for these funds which will 
have a marginal impact anyway. Ask yet another witness and he will tell 
you that while the President asked for $9.0 billion for 100,000 rookie 
cops, he recommended in his budget the elimination of $385 million for 
the Edward Byrne Formula grants that fund multijurisdictional narcotics 
task forces.
  These task forces are the frontline for many communities and consist 
of experienced local law enforcement officers working with and sharing 
information with state and Federal law enforcement people. Had this 
Senator's amendment to the budget resolution to restore funding for the 
Byrne grants not passed, we would find ourselves in the ludicrous 
situation the President desired of supporting a crime bill to hire 
rookie cops for 3 years while firing experienced drug fighters. There 
is no question that these task forces could use a small portion of this 
$9.0 billion for their shoestring operations, but instead that taxpayer 
money will be dedicated to the what will amount to four or five 
additional police officers for major city police departments.
  Another witness may even see things differently, as well. She may 
notice that while we are proposing to increase the number of Federal 
crimes in the crime bill and spending $9.0 billion for rookies, we are 
decreasing the manpower and resources of Federal agencies necessary to 
carry out these new laws. Not only did the Vice President recommend 
that the Drug Enforcement Agency be combined with the FBI, the 
administration's budget projections show thousands of cutbacks at 
Federal law enforcement agencies.
  An investigator may get confusing and contrasting stories on the 
death penalty as well. One witness may observe that in earlier versions 
of the Senate crime bill, the Senate expanded the number of crimes by 
which the Federal death sentence could be imposed, but made changes in 
Federal habeas corpus laws to make actual imposition next to 
impossible. Fortunately, the Senate recently agreed to address habeas 
corpus reform separately, and I welcome that debate.
  Another witness may have seen that in the House-passed crime bill, an 
apparently neutral and noncontroversial provision was included to 
prohibit implementation of the death penalty based on race. Yet another 
witness may have noticed that the language of Title IX of the House 
bill would have radically altered our criminal justice systems and make 
the death penalty unworkable.
  An investigator would have trouble distinguishing the crime 
prevention programs in the crime bills from government waste as well. 
One witness would point to Rural Law Enforcement Grants, and crimes 
against elderly prevention grants and notice solid crime prevention 
efforts. Another witness may question whether the $3.0 million that is 
included for Missing Alzheimer's Patients Alerts, $40 million for 
prison family unity demonstration projects, $20 million for 
Tuberculosis Treatment and Prevention in Prison really are crime 
prevention efforts or just opportunities to authorize new social 
welfare programs.
  The crime bills in Congress are as confusing as a crime scene. If we 
are to distinguish the facts from fiction, we must be willing to 
scrutinize and distinguish those efforts which are truly going to 
benefit communities, from those that will waste taxpayers money and 
perhaps even result in less protection.
  Here is where I draw the line.
  First and foremost, I will not vote for a crime bill that will gut 
the death penalty. We cannot enact a law which would allow death row 
inmates, like Charles Campbell who has avoided justice for more than 12 
years, to escape justice by providing them with even more avenues for 
endless delays. The American people will not tolerate changes in 
Federal habeas corpus law to allow convicted murderers more protection 
than we provide their victims.

  Second, the Crime Bill must include my Sexually Violent Predators 
Amendment. My amendment, based on Washington State's law, would set up 
a national registration and tracking system for sexually violent 
predators. It would let communities know when a sexually violent 
predator has been released in their communities. I think communities 
deserve to know when they should take extra precautions. It is the very 
least we can do.
  Third, the Federal ``Three Strikes You're Out'' provision must be 
included--and it cannot be watered down. Despite the fact that this 
applies to a small percentage of violent offenders, it is a powerful 
message to criminals that nationwide--enough is enough.
  Fourth, the Crime Bill must include ``Truth in Sentencing'' 
incentives to reward States that are tough on crime--like our own. 
Those States which enact laws and take action to require violent 
offenders to serve their full sentence deserve priority assistance from 
the Federal Government for additional prison space.
  Finally, and most importantly, I want a Crime Bill that works for 
Washington State. Just a few weeks ago, I hosted the Western Washington 
Crime Summit with the City of Tacoma and Pierce County at the 
University of Puget Sound. Community leaders from across the State told 
me that they need the tools to fight against crime at the local level. 
I agree. There is no greater deterrent to crime than a watchful 
neighbor and a community mobilized to protect itself. Whatever crime 
bill we pass must help, not hinder neighbors from taking back their 
streets.
  The Federal Government is limited in a number of serious ways to 
fight crime at the local level. Perhaps the best indication of this 
limitation is the response I recently received from the U.S. Attorney 
General to a report I sent her with recommendations from the Washington 
Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police. Last July, this Senator 
included report language in the Senate Appropriations bill for the 
Department of Justice directing the Attorney General to study the 
violent crime, criminal alien, and drug trafficking problems in the 
Yakima Valley. In December, I held a meeting with law enforcement 
officers from across Washington State in Yakima to compile 
recommendations which I forwarded to the Department of Justice in hopes 
that it would assist them in their obligation to the Senate. The 
report, entitled Secure America 2000, was a comprehensive collection of 
ideas straight from those on the frontline. Instead of studying the 
report and responding with recommendations of her own to Congress, the 
Attorney General's office sent a delayed and totally incomplete 
response.
  To ignore the efforts of so many law enforcement officers who are 
asking for assistance in their work is unacceptable and disturbing. 
This Senator and the crime-fighting people of the Yakima Valley will 
not tolerate arrogant bureaucratic obstinacy to our efforts. While 
disappointing, we intend to keep reminding the Attorney General of the 
need to fight violent crime, criminal aliens and drug trafficking in 
the Yakima Valley, and make the recommendations of Secure America 2000 
law.
  If nothing else. It reminds us that we can fight crime better at home 
than through Federal bureaucracies in Washington, DC. That is precisely 
why this crime bill must empower communities rather than bureaucracies. 
It is not good enough to say that these programs are intended to 
prevent crime--they must focused on actual crime prevention.
  For instance, the city of Seattle is among the 20 demonstration sites 
for Operation Weed and Seed--a comprehensive effort to combine law 
enforcement with social services that targets rough neighborhoods 
across the Nation. Such a program which is dedicated to actual crime 
reduction and community mobilization should be expanded but is no where 
to be found in these crime bills.
  Safe Streets in Tacoma has succeeded in taking back some of the 
meanest streets in Washington State. There is not, however, anything in 
these measures which helps them directly do their jobs. Federal crime 
legislation must reward communities that have mobilized against crime 
and assist them in their heroic efforts. That is the overwhelming 
message I heard at the Western Washington Crime Summit in Tacoma.
  Some criticize my approach as too tough. Some in the media even blame 
themselves for sensationalizing and overreporting our crime problems. 
Well--I say it is about time we took a zero-tolerance approach to 
violent behavior and ignoring it as many have done in the past is 
simply a disservice to victims of violent crime and ourselves.
  Violent crime has taken too much from too many, and we need a tough 
Crime Bill that makes things better and not worse. I will be fighting 
to make sure that the final version of the Crime Bill answers the 
concerns of Washingtonians. Washington State has taken the lead. Now 
Congress must follow through with an honest, cost-effective and tough 
crime bill for America.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Exon). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________