[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]


 
                    THE CRIME BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Republicans have been fighting for passage 
of a tough anticrime bill for several years. Unfortunately, the crime 
bill conference report falls far short in meeting the needs of law 
abiding Americans. It is larded with pork barrel spending. It provides 
too little money for prisons. It expands the rights of criminals. It 
permits the early release of as many as 10,000 Federal prisoners. It 
fails to prevent the administration's planned implementation of a 
racial quota which will eliminate the Federal death penalty. And it 
increases the deficit.
  Republican conferees fought for a passage of a tough bill, but the 
crime bill conference report rejects too many urgently needed, tough 
anticrime proposals. At one point, Republican Senate conferees 
succeeded in shifting $3.6 billion in social spending boondoggles to 
State and local law enforcement grants. Yet, less than 24 hours later, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle turned around and 
reversed this vote, restoring the funding for social programs and 
cutting State and local law enforcement grants by $3.6 billion.
  In my view the crime bill conference report is weighted far too 
heavily away from hard-nosed law enforcement, and toward prevention 
programs best funded out of the budgets of other departments rather 
than from scarce law enforcement funds.
  Moreover, many of these so-called prevention programs in this 
proposal are wasteful social spending boondoggles reminiscent of the 
costly, ineffective, and discredited Great Society approach to social 
welfare. Spending any taxpayer money on these programs under any 
department's budget would be a mistake. By squandering scarce resources 
on gauzy social welfare programs, we shortchange the law-abiding 
citizens of Utah and indeed of all of our States.
  For instance, the Local Partnership Act is precisely the wrong kind 
of program for the crime bill. In reality, it has nothing to do with 
fighting crime. This amorphous program would give local governments 
$1.8 billion over the next 2 years--that is prior to the 1996 
elections--to spend on three ill-defined purposes: education to prevent 
crime, substance abuse to prevent crime, and jobs programs to prevent 
crime. That is it. The tagline ``to prevent crime'' is an attempt to 
convert this Great Society Program into an anticrime proposal and 
hijack $1.8 billion in precious crimefighting resources for anything at 
all that localities will label ``education to prevent crime,'' or for 
drug treatment, or for more Government jobs programs.

  The General Accounting Office recently reported that there are 
already seven Federal departments sponsoring 266 prevention programs 
which currently serve delinquent and at-risk youth. Of these 266 
programs, 31 are run by the Department of Education, 92 by HHS, and 117 
by the Justice Department. The GAO found that there already exists ``a 
massive Federal effort on behalf of troubled youth'' which spends over 
$3 billion a year. The GAO went on to report that:

       Taken together, the scope and number of multiagency 
     programs show that the Government is responsive to the needs 
     of these young people. * * * [It] is apparent from the 
     Federal activities and response that the needs of delinquent 
     youth are being taken quite seriously. [GAO Report, Federal 
     Agency Juvenile Delinquency Development Statements, August 
     1992].

  Despite the findings of the GAO, the proposed conference report 
throws more money at State and local government under a prevention 
label, in very general terms, while failing to acknowledge our ongoing 
efforts. Listening to the supporters of these provisions, one would 
assume the Federal Government has done nothing in the area of crime 
prevention.
  Another example of where this crime bill wastes precious resources is 
the Youth Employment and Skills Crime Prevention Program. This proposed 
program would provide the Secretary of Labor with an additional $900 
million in grant authority for job training, apprenticeships and job 
experience targeted at youth in high-crime, high-unemployment areas. 
According to the GAO, in the current fiscal year, there are 154 
separate, overlapping Federal employment and training programs, which 
are run by 14 separate executive departments and independent agencies. 
Within these departments and agencies, 50 different offices are 
responsible for these programs. The total cost? In fiscal year 1994, 
nearly $25 billion was budgeted for these programs. Notwithstanding our 
current Federal effort, the conference report throws another $895 
million at an already extensive jobs training system.
  The Model Intensive Grant Program is one more example of a crime bill 
conference report spending measure which has little to do with fighting 
crime and much more to do with providing Federal tax dollars to favored 
social spending programs. This program gives the administration nearly 
total discretion to spend $895 million in grants to 15 chronic high-
crime areas. The administration will select these 15 cities and begin 
distributing this money all prior to the 1996 elections. Do you think 
there might be a reason for this? Of course there is. The conference 
report allows this program's money to be spent on youth programs, 
deterioration or lack of public facilities, inadequate public services 
such as public transportation, drug treatment, and employment services.
  Yet another program is called the Community-Based Justice Grants 
Program. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have the 
public believe that the up to $150 million that this program spends is 
aid to prosecutors. In reality, this program would spend precious crime 
fighting resources on exhuming the failed criminal justice policies of 
the 1960's and 1970's. These grants would require social workers' 
involvement in the prosecution of criminal cases. Participating 
prosecutors would be required to ``focus on the offender, not simply 
the specific offense, and impose individualized sanctions [such as] 
conflict resolution, treatment, counselling and recreation programs.'' 
These sanctions would be imposed not just on nonviolent offenders, but 
also on individuals up to 22 years of age ``who have committed crimes 
of violence, weapons offenses, drug distribution, hate crimes and civil 
rights violations * * *.''
  Instead of punishing these young thugs, the Community-Based Justice 
Grants Program will only encourage their disrespect and disregard for 
civilized society by teaching them that committing violent crimes has 
no real consequences. I cannot think of a more inappropriate lesson to 
be sending our young people. Violent criminals, whatever their age, 
need to be treated as such. Instead of coddling violent youths, this 
money should be used for assistance to State and local criminal justice 
systems to help implement the true, tough crime control measures the 
American people are demanding.
  Even the Democrat's prison grants proposal is wasteful. The 
conference report spends nearly $4 billion of its $6.5 billion in so-
called prison grants on liberal spending programs. The so-called 
violent offender incarceration grants require State recipients to 
implement ``a comprehensive correctional plan.'' The plan must include 
``drug diversion programs'' and ``appropriate professional training for 
corrections officers in dealing with violent offenders, prisoner 
rehabilitation and treatment programs, prisoner work activities, and 
job skills programs.'' What do any of these things have to do with 
locking up violent offenders? In truth, the bill requires that the 
grant recipients not only spend their prison grant dollars on open-
ended, liberal spending programs, it also requires the States to 
implement this liberal corrections scheme in order to receive any 
prison grant funding.
  Over 2 long days, Senate Republican conferees offered numerous 
amendments to the proposed conference report in an effort to toughen 
the bill and eliminate this wasteful spending. I personally offered 19 
amendments, most of which were taken from provisions contained in the 
Senate-passed crime bill. Of these, nine were accepted in whole or in 
part by the Senate conferees. All but two were rejected by the House 
conferees, and both of these were watered down. So, of 19 amendments 
only 2 were accepted, and they were watered down.
  Let me list for my colleagues some of the tough, smart crime control 
amendments offered during conference by Republican Senate conferees 
which were rejected or severely weakened by the other side of the 
aisle.
  Many of these were passed overwhelmingly by the Senate when we first 
considered this bill. Indeed, six of the provisions I will list were 
the subject of motions to instruct Senate conferees which required the 
Senate to insist on their inclusion in the conference report. Among the 
provisions not included in the conference report were the following:
  An effective, fully funded prison provision to provide $13 billion in 
grants to the States for prison construction, including tough 
incentives for truth in sentencing--rejected.
  A fair formula for distributing prison grants, to ensure each State 
gets its fair share--rejected.
  Tough Federal penalties for violent juvenile gang offenses, the Dole-
Hatch-Brown language--rejected.
  The Moseley-Braun provision to prosecute violent juveniles 13 and 
older as adults in appropriate cases--rejected.
  Tough Federal mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm in the 
commission of a crime, the D'Amato provision--rejected.
  Mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors or employing 
minors in a drug crime, the Gramm provision--rejected.
  Fully restricting so-called drug-court treatment programs to non-
violent, first-time offenders--rejected.
  They are going to use the money for some violent offenders. It is 
just money down the drain.
  HIV testing of accused rapists, the Hatch provision--rejected.
  Amending the rules of evidence to allow evidence of prior offenses of 
rape and child abuse in prosecutions for those offenses in appropriate 
cases, the Dole provision--rejected.
  Requiring mandatory restitution to victims of violent crime, the 
Nickles provision--rejected.
  Subjecting those convicted of attempting to kill the President to the 
death penalty when he or she comes close to succeeding--rejected.
  Ensuring the swift removal of alien terrorists without disclosing 
national security secrets in the deportation process, the Smith-Simpson 
provision--rejected.
  Ensuring that criminal aliens are swiftly deported after they have 
served their sentences, the Simpson provision--rejected.
  Stemming the tide of frivolous prisoner law suits through reform of 
the laws governing exhaustion of administrative remedies to prisoner 
grievances--weakened.
  The Equal Justice Act, which would prohibit racial discrimination and 
the inappropriate use of statistics in death penalty cases, and the 
resultant death penalty quotas--rejected.
  An honest, fully funded trust fund that pays for the crime bill 
without increasing the deficit--rejected.
  Mr. President, in the coming days, Senators will need to reconcile 
whether they are willing to support a bill which diverts billions of 
dollars of crime fighting resources to special interest spending 
programs, which is insufficiently tough on criminals, and which drops 
so many urgently needed crime fighting measures. Each of my colleagues 
should take a good hard look at this conference report. I encourage 
them to do so. This is a very, very important issue.

                          ____________________