[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      HOUSE AND SENATE CRIME BILLS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I expect that conferees will begin to 
meet soon to reconcile the House and Senate crime bills. In the past, 
the Senate has passed good and tough anticrime legislation, only to 
discover that what emerges from conference is weak and unworthy of the 
previous support we have given the bill. As a conferee this year, I do 
want to set straight my objections to various provisions in the House 
bill that I hope will not appear in the conference report.
  The Racial Justice Act is at the top of that list. The Racial Justice 
Act will prevent the death penalty from being imposed without the 
imposition of racial quotas. The American Criminal Justice System is 
based on individual punishment. By contrast, the Racial Justice Act is 
premised on group rights and statistics. It is also premised on false 
notions about the way the death penalty is administered by our courts. 
We all support principles of nondiscrimination in applying the death 
penalty. The Racial Justice Act has nothing to do with those concerns. 
Instead, it is a way to abolish the death penalty in practice. The 
Racial Justice Act would do permanent damage to the Criminal Justice 
System. If it appears in any form in the conference report, I will 
oppose that conference report.
  The House crime bill also added $10 billion in so-called crime 
prevention money. What it really did was fund all the social programs 
that have been on some people's wish lists for a decade. Spending money 
on infrastructure will not prevent crime. Nor will spending money on 
public works, lighting, self-esteem, and public transportation prevent 
crime. What passed the House is not the tough anticrime legislation the 
American people want and deserve. Spending money on these failed feel-
good programs will not be tough and will not be smart.
  There is nothing we can do to prevent crime more than building 
prisons to keep violent criminals off the street and to fund additional 
police.
  If the crime conference report spends billions of dollars on pork 
barrel projects that have nothing to do with crime, I will not support 
the conference report. We have tried these kinds of programs before, 
going back to the Great Society days. These programs say it is 
society's fault that there is crime, not putting blame on the shoulders 
of the individual in America and making individuals responsible for 
their own actions.
  We have been following the root cause theory since the 1960's, and we 
have had disastrous results from that philosophy. Crime rates rose as 
we stopped building prisons. They have stabilized as we have built more 
prisons. Unless the thugs are first removed from the crime-infested 
areas, social spending of the type contained in the House bill will be 
wasted.
  We must do more to support law enforcement, and we must stop spending 
enormous sums on all sorts of projects that have nothing to do with 
controlling crime. The American people will be watching the actions of 
the conference committee, and they will be expecting a tough product 
from that conference.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. 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. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________