[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             THE CRIME BILL

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I wanted to speak at this time to go back 
and correct the record a little bit on the crime issue. I was very 
proud of the Senate last year--last year, I believe it was in late 
November or December--we debated at great length a true crime package. 
We had a lot of amendments that were offered--some were rejected, many 
were accepted. We voted on it, and it passed. It passed overwhelmingly. 
I voted for it, even though it had some things I did not like in it and 
even though I would have liked to have had some strong language on 
limiting the ridiculous number of appeals of sentences, improving 
habeas corpus--it still was a pretty good package.
  Included in that package was some language that I offered called the 
three-strikes-and-you're-out amendment. I offered that amendment last 
year before it was made popular by a lot of other folks. But that is 
unimportant. The important thing is to get the job done.
  Now the President goes on the stump and he refers to this thing that 
came out of conference--which is truly a very questionable bill in 
terms of fighting criminals--and one of the things he points out is it 
has the ``three strikes and you're out'' in it. Take a look at it. It 
is not the same language we passed in the Senate. The language we 
passed in the Senate was a lot tougher. What we wound up with is 
language that might affect 1 percent of the violent felons in the 
Federal system--maybe 100 felons.
  What happened in conference is they neutered the strength of the 
``three strikes and you're out.'' That is what happened to the whole 
package.
  I do not understand why the Senate conferees did not stand and fight 
for the Senate-passed bill that really was tough on criminals. It 
really did have enough money in there for prisons. It did have money in 
there for policemen on the streets. And it was not just another pork 
barrel bill.
  Then it came out of the House--in several pieces, I might add--and 
all of a sudden it got to be a social welfare package. It grew. The 
President, I think, maybe originally asked for less than $20 billion; 
the Senate passed something around $20 billion; the House passed 
something like $28 billion, and it came out of conference higher than 
any of the other bills. What it is, is $33 billion. So at every stop it 
picked up money. Yet the true crime fighting packages at every stop 
were reduced. So we took money from prisons and we put it over in so-
called prevention.
  I urge my colleagues, look at what is really in that so-called 
prevention. What are these items? Would the mayors like to have it? 
Great. Sure they would like to have it. Would the cities and towns like 
to have $40 million for midnight basketball? Sure. I think it is a 
great idea. But how much does it cost to go down to the local gym, flip 
on the lights, and here is a ball: Play ball. We are going to pay $40 
million for that? And that is just one example.
  So in the conference they reduced the amount of money for prisons. 
They increased overall money, but they reduced the amount of money for 
prisons. They increased the amount of money for so-called prevention. 
And they turned this into a bill that was more about pork than 
prisons, more about so-called prevention instead of policemen.

  It is a very different bill. And, oh, yes, the assault weapons 
language that we passed in the Senate--and, Madam President, you were 
very actively involved in that and did an excellent job--it was in 
there. A lot of us voted for it anyway.
  Remember that--a lot of people seem to forget that--we thought 
fighting crime was very important and this bill was going to do 
something. I thought in the conference they would make some 
improvements in this language; that this would not just be a gun 
control bill with a lot of pork in it; it would really fight crime. And 
it does not do any of those.
  This bill was destroyed in conference again. It happened 2 years ago 
in 1992. We had an extended debate on the floor, we thought it was a 
good bill, it went to conference, came back, and the House conferees 
prevailed. The House is much, much more liberal on this issue than the 
Senate. I believe the record shows that.
  Some of the House people voted against it because it added some 
additional death penalty sentences for certain crimes. It would have 
more death penalties, up to 60, so people voted against it because of 
that. I bet you the American people think that improved the bill. But 
you had House Members voting against the rule because it was tougher on 
allowing the death penalty.
  This argument that the President makes about parliamentary trickery, 
procedural trick. I served in the House for 16 years. Everybody over 
there--Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Westerner or 
Southerner--we have all used the rules and the procedure. The key vote 
in 1981 on the budget resolution that actually cut some spending for a 
change was a vote on the rule. That is what won the whole debate. I was 
there when it happened. We wound up having six votes on the budget, but 
after the first vote on the rule, it was all said and done; it was 
going to be passed.
  So this is nothing new. And for somebody to allege the Republicans 
did it, the Republicans cannot do anything in the House without a lot 
of Democratic votes--58; 58 Democrats, including people like Lee 
Hamilton of Indiana, not exactly your run-of-the-mill right-wing Member 
of the House, a very thoughtful guy who said, ``Look, the funding is 
very spongy.''
  The truth of the matter is, it ``ain't'' going to be paid for. 
Because of this bill at that level, it will be added to the deficit. 
You have some line items in there, little projects for various House 
Members. This is a bad bill. It ought to be sent back to conference and 
changed significantly.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate who have been conferees, I urge 
the President, let us all cool the rhetoric, let us cut the amount of 
spending in the bill, let us knock out some of the unnecessary pork 
spending that is in the bill, and let us make sure it is paid for and 
then we can have a real crime-fighting package.
  Madam President, I am sure my time is about to expire. I just wanted 
to reflect a little bit on the actual history of this legislation 
because there has been a lot of rewriting of what happened. I think we 
should work together. We should try to get a strong crime bill, but it 
ought to be closer to the Senate bill instead of the House bill, one 
that is tough on crime and not one that is just tough on the budget and 
the American taxpayers.
  I yield the floor at this time, Madam President.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield? I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Exon, have 15 
minutes following the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized for 15 minutes.

                          ____________________