[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
House for 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I 
would just like to make one comment. That is this, Mr. Speaker. We take 
it on the chin all the time, and I do not understand why the liberals 
cannot at least once in a while show a little tolerance.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the Members of 
the House that I think it would be advisable if we do not go forward 
with the remaining business on the schedule today, and return to it 
tomorrow.
  I also would like to tell Members that a little later today we hope 
to be able to give a more definitive judgment on what will go on beyond 
tomorrow. We are not prepared at this moment to do that, but we will do 
that as quickly as we can a little bit later this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be, perhaps, wise to go forward 
with more business this afternoon.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, all I wanted to say earlier was, this is one of several 
very serious national issues we are trying to deal with. We often have 
disagreements of a variety of kinds here. We would hope that we could 
go back to conference, as that is what this vote signals, and that we 
could work together and produce a bill on which we could vote for a 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we sent a letter that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Michel and Mr. Hyde, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, and I signed indicating what we would 
be willing to talk about and things we can work out together. I do not 
think the House should leave tonight with the feeling that this is at a 
dead end. I hope we can pick this up tomorrow and work in conference 
and produce something together.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the letter just referred to, 
addressed to the President of the United States, dated August 9, 1994:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Contrary to the assertions of some in 
     your Administration, the crime conference report is not 
     stalled because of the assault weapons provision, but instead 
     due to the more than $9 billion in new social welfare 
     spending. We are writing to offer our assistance in moving a 
     real crime bill that will get more police on the street and 
     more violent criminals in prison now.
       Mr. President, you have been quoted in the press as touting 
     this bill as the largest crime bill in history. But bigger 
     doesn't necessarily mean better. In a matter of days or even 
     hours, the law enforcement provisions of the crime bill could 
     be beefed up and the social welfare spending dramatically 
     trimmed down to produce a product that will crack down on 
     violent crime, but not bust the budget.
       Specifically, we are willing to work with you and 
     congressional Democrats to revise the crime bill in the 
     following ways:
       Restore the new State prison funding to the $13.5 billion 
     passed by the House, allocated under the terms of the so-
     called Chapman formula currently in the bill,
       Restore the so-called Gekas provisions passed by the House 
     to strengthen the death penalty procedures,
       Follow the overwhelming view of the House shown by its 
     motion to instruct conferees and restore the Dole-Molinari-
     Kyl provision on the admissibility of evidence of similar 
     crimes in sex offenses,
       Remove the hiring quotas and other bureaucratic conditions 
     on receiving grants to hire police,
       Remove the more than $9 billion in social welfare spending 
     and replace it with the Senate's full funding for the Byrne 
     grant program to ensure that the money we spend in this bill 
     is truly directed at crime prevention.
       Many Republicans have other concerns about this bill, but 
     we believe that if you and congressional Democrats strengthen 
     the crime bill along the lines suggested above, you would 
     have overwhelming Republican support--and overwhelming 
     support in Congress as a whole--for this truly tough, anti-
     crime legislation.
       Because we realize that there are some in your party who 
     feel strongly about the new social spending provisions, 
     Republicans would be willing to support a rule allowing for 
     the consideration of a social welfare spending package as a 
     separate bill after we have passed the consensus crime bill 
     outlined above. That means Congress would have an opportunity 
     to both pass a tough anti-crime bill that puts more police on 
     the street and more violent criminals in prison, and consider 
     a package of new social welfare spending. This approach would 
     avoid the gridlock that has developed within your party as a 
     result of the current strategy of tying these issues together 
     in one bill assuming that Members will hold their nose and 
     vote for anything that has police and prison funding.
       The American people are demanding action now on a tough 
     anti-crime bill. We look forward to working with you to draft 
     such a bill this week so that we can move immediately to 
     consideration of a bill that commands overwhelming bipartisan 
     support.
           Sincerely,
     Bob H. Michel,
       Republican Leader.
     Dick Armey,
       Conference Chairman.
     Newt Gingrich,
       Republican Whip.
     Henry Hyde,
       Policy Committee Chairman.
     Bill McCollum,
       Conference Vice Chairman.

  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], 
the minority leader.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, if we are to have no further business today, 
and there is this consultation that will take place here that will give 
us some indication of the schedule for tomorrow or next week, would we 
have a notice, then, to the majority and minority rooms to get out a 
whip notice of how that will work?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. As soon as we can do this 
consultation, we will be in consultation with the minority. Then we can 
make a joint statement available through the cloakrooms.
  Mr. MICHEL. I thank the gentleman.

                          ____________________