[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]

 
                            CRIME BILL VOTE

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, yesterday's House vote on the crime bill 
should not be viewed as a defeat for President Clinton but, rather, as 
an opportunity, an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and 
draft the kind of tough, no-nonsense crime-fighting plan the American 
people deserve.
  A tough crime bill would strip out the billions and billions of 
dollars in social welfare spending. The most effective crime prevention 
measure is not the pork barrel, but the prison cell.
  A tough crime bill would increase funding for State prisons to the 
$13 billion level passed by the House last April, and condition at 
least half the funding on the adoption of truth-in-sentencing laws for 
first-time violent offenders.
  A tough crime bill would plug the so-called mandatory minimum 
``safety valve'' that could result in the early release of as many as 
10,000 convicted criminals had that bill passed.
  A tough crime bill would restore the mandatory minimum penalties for 
those who use a gun in the commission of a crime.
  A tough crime bill would mandate restitution to the victims of 
violent crime. Unbelievably, this proposal was dropped by the crime 
conferees.
  Mr. President, a tough crime bill would require that the public be 
notified of the whereabouts of violent sexual predators living in their 
communities. Congress must pass the Megan Kanka law, and must do so 
now.
  And I might add we did add that provision to the DOD appropriations 
bill last evening. I know it is not the appropriate place for it, but I 
hope the conferees will keep that amendment. It is very important.
  This is not the time for finger pointing. Playing the blame game will 
not get us anywhere. The crime bill failed yesterday, not because of 
the so-called gun issue, as President Clinton would have us believe, 
but because the American people saw the crime bill for what it really 
was: An overhyped, multibillion-dollar boondoggle that emphasized 
social theory over law enforcement.
  If President Clinton is serious about passing a tough, no-nonsense 
crime-control plan, then Republicans are prepared to work with him. But 
the President must understand that resurrecting the crime bill must be 
a bipartisan effort, which I think the President forgets far too often.
  They pass these bills, load them up with money, money, money, 
billions and billions of dollars. Then they ask for bipartisan support.
  The Republican conferees on the crime bill were totally ignored. The 
liberals on the conference committee decided to spend billions of 
dollars without even 1 minute of hearings, not 1 minute, adding up to 
$10 to $12 billion with no hearings at all.
  So the President has to understand if he talks about bipartisanship, 
it has to be bipartisanship. It has to be Republicans and Democrats 
sitting down together, not asking Republicans after the fact to support 
a terrible bill and then complain because Republicans will not do that. 
No behind-the-scenes meetings; no secret deals; no goodies--goodies 
passed out to Members who vote right; no one-party drafting sessions. 
If Republicans have real input, if our ideas are considered and 
accepted, then there is a chance, a good chance, that Congress may be 
able to pass a real crime bill later this year.
  But I want to reemphasize, the President talks a lot about 
bipartisanship. I think we all like to have a lot of bipartisanship. 
But bipartisanship does not mean letting one party put something 
together and then asking the other party to support it when they have 
had no input. That is not bipartisanship.
  If President Clinton has not gotten the message on the crime bill, he 
will probably get it on the health care bill. The American people want 
us to work together. The American people want us to think beyond the 
beltway. There are real people out there with real problems. They are 
very interested in crime legislation. They are not interested in a $10- 
to $12-billion social welfare program for midnight basketball and 
dancing lessons and self-esteem lessons, and $2 billion going back to 
local communities. We did not have 1 day of hearings, 1 minute of 
hearings on any of these provisions.
  So, Mr. President, if you are serious about fighting crime and being 
tough on crime, you are going to have a lot of allies on both sides of 
the aisle, and we look forward to working together with the Democrats 
on a bipartisan basis. Bipartisan basis--not a partisan basis but a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to commend the 
distinguished Republican leader. Year after year, day after day, hour 
after hour, he is the first to come to the Senate and the last to 
leave. And he has shown that kind of leadership which can produce the 
bipartisan direction to our legislation requested.
  Madam President, I say to the Republican leader, most respectfully, 
that what we witnessed in the House last night is a direct reaction to 
the people in this country communicating with their legislators and 
indicating to their legislators that something is basically wrong, as 
our minority leader has described. In other words, no more of this 
back-room, locked-door, single-party politics. Break it out into the 
open. Let us have a voice, and we will express it.
  That is the sort of leadership that the Senator has given this body, 
not only our Republican ranks but the entire Senate, for these many 
years.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I know the Senator from 
Arizona has been one of the key players on the right side of the issue 
on a tough crime bill.
  I want to congratulate him for his efforts in the conference. But I 
do think a lot of people say it is a stunning defeat. I think it is 
maybe a stunning opportunity. You can always turn these defeats around. 
It seems to me that, if we are included, there are a lot of experts on 
this issue on both sides of the aisle, and there are well-intentioned 
men and women. And I just suggest now maybe this may be a test case 
that may overlap into other issues. This is a good opportunity for the 
President.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I will just conclude. It is a stunning 
victory for the people of the United States.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, it is my judgment that it is a 
bipartisan bill. I think the foundation will be there.
  But in all due respect, I must say that I think the National Rifle 
Association did win a victory and the American people lost. I am 
disappointed to see that happen. I have faith in the Members of the 
House of Representatives that they are going to hear from their people, 
and there are two issues here. One is whether or not there are programs 
within that crime bill that came out of conference that some may feel 
are inappropriate toward the prevention side and what some have even 
called pork barrel. The other is the assault weapons prohibition, which 
passed both Houses.
  I think we need to make a distinction. Why did that bill go down? In 
my judgment it went down--as was clearly stated in the news media this 
morning--because the NRA was successful in pressuring Members and 
threatening them, saying that they would be defeated, if indeed, they 
voted for the rule to let that crime bill come to the floor.
  So I would just like to have another opinion inserted in the Record.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, just to conclude with a few comments in 
response to those of Senator DeConcini, when I said it was ``a stunning 
victory'' for the people, I am not here defending the NRA, or in any 
way criticizing them. They have their right to express their voice.
  But, indeed, it was the inclusion in that bill of billions and 
billions of dollars of programs that were not directly related, I say 
to my good friend, to the enforcement of crime. Many programs, while 
they may be beneficial to our country, while they may be needed, were 
not given any degree of scrutiny in this Chamber; billions of dollars 
of programs which this Chamber never spent a minute in the context of 
this crime bill addressing. That is the reason the American people 
spoke up, and through their elected representatives in the House said, 
``No. Hold it. Let us stop where we are, and send this big bill back 
through the process and let it be examined and hopefully take out much 
of that legislation which is far too costly, given the fiscal situation 
in this country today, far too costly for this Nation to spend its 
dollars on.''

                          ____________________