[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. BIDEN. Madam President, my distinguished colleague from Virginia, 
prior to bringing up this bill or once this bill was brought up, 
referenced the defeat of the crime bill yesterday by the House 
Republicans and the Democrats, who voted with the NRA, and as did the 
distinguished Republican leader earlier today. Many have spoken to the 
crime bill.
  I will be necessarily brief this morning. I would like to point out 
one thing, and I have the utmost respect for my friend from Virginia. 
He said this morning that the House got a message from the American 
people. I think the real message from the American people is going to 
come this weekend. But we will see who is correct on that.
  The House did receive two messages yesterday prior to the vote. The 
first message was from the chairman of the Republican National 
Committee, who sent a message to the Republicans letting them know if 
they voted for a rule, which meant voted for this crime bill, they 
would have their water cut off.
  To prove the point that I am not making it up, they later sent out a 
letter retracting that letter saying, ``No, we really do not mean that. 
You can vote the way you want to vote on this.''
  But the point is one message was received very clear from the RNC: Do 
not vote for this crime bill. This crime bill gives a victory to 
Clinton.
  Now this is me saying, not the NRC, my translation: A victory to 
Clinton hurts us, notwithstanding the fact it helps the American 
people.
  There was a second message sent, a message that has been sent with 
resounding clarity for the last 6 years, preventing the American 
people--and I always wonder about all of us, including me, when I quote 
``speak for the American people.'' I do not speak for the American 
people, but I use that phrase sometimes, but I know I do not speak for 
the American people. I speak for Joe Biden, and I speak with as much 
honesty as all of us do, and sometimes occasionally clarity, as to what 
I think the American people want. Everyone's view is equally informed, 
maybe more informed than mine, as to what the American people want.
  But I think the American people want a crime bill. I think the 
American people want assault weapons off our streets. I think the 
American people want 100,000 more police officers. I think the American 
people want the Federal Government to give States moneys to build 
prisons so no hardened criminal is let out, as they say, before his 
time. I think the American people want us to have drug treatment for 
people in prisons so we do not release them addicted to drugs. We are 
doing no favor for them. I think that.
  But something I know--I do not think this--I know what I am about to 
say. For 6 years, I, along with others, but my responsibility as 
chairman of the committee, have drafted and attempted to pass a strong 
crime bill, and for 6 years I have underestimated every year the power 
of the NRA. I must acknowledge that. I do not like admitting that. I 
flat out got it wrong. For 6 years, the NRA, in conjunction with our 
Republican colleagues and a few of our Democratic friends, have blocked 
the passage of tough crime legislation.
  Now we hear a lot about midnight basketball and dancing in prison. 
That is a bunch of malarkey.
  But, beyond that, we also hear about the American taxpayers cannot 
afford to pay it.
  Unlike our Republican friends--some of our Republican friends--I have 
a very good memory. When we passed this legislation in the Senate for 
$22.3 billion worth of spending, what we did, with the help of the 
leadership of the Republican party in the person of Senator Gramm and 
the leadership of the Democratic Party in the person of Senator Byrd, 
we decided we were not going to spend new tax dollars to pay for any of 
this, and we set up a trust fund.
  We said, we are going to make a trade. We are going to fire 
bureaucrats and hire cops. We are going to fire bureaucrats and hire 
prosecutors. We are going to fire bureaucrats and hire judges. We are 
going to fire bureaucrats and build more prisons. We are going to fire 
bureaucrats and we are going to make sure we put kids in jail who are 
violent offenders.
  So there is no new money to fund this crime bill. This President has 
reduced the Federal work force to a lower lever than any time since 
President Kennedy was President of the United States of America. So 
there is no new money.
  Now, what would be honest, if they want to say it, is, instead of 
spending the money on crime prevention, they would rather spend the 
money on reducing the deficit. That is an argument I am willing to have 
with them. Let the people decide that. Do you want more cops on the 
street? Do you want more prisons to keep people in jail? Do you want 
more judges? Do you want more prosecutors? Or do you want to reduce the 
deficit more?
  And, I might add, this President is the only President who has 
reduced the deficit.
  So, Madam President, we talk about truth in sentencing--we put that 
in the crime bill, by the way, truth in sentencing--let us have a 
little truth in debate here.
  There were two messages received loud and clear by the House of 
Representatives yesterday--one message from the NRC and the other 
message from the NRA. I compliment them on their muscle, I dispute them 
on their judgment, and I resent them for their refusing to allow us to 
even vote up or down on this bill.
  I thank my colleagues for yielding me time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 
8 minutes to proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before the distinguished chairman leaves 
the floor, I stand by my statement that the vote in the House yesterday 
was a victory for the American people and it was a vote that was in 
reaction to their anger for a variety of reasons.
  The distinguished chairman may point his finger at the NRA. I am not 
here to defend the NRA. He may point his finger at the leadership of 
the Republicans. They speak for themselves. But let him also address 
the fact that 58 Democrats of his party in the House of Representatives 
voted--voted, Mr. Chairman--with the majority.
  I urge my distinguished friend to just make a check, as I have, of 
the switchboard of the U.S. Senate; indeed, the switchboard of the 
Congress as a whole. It has been jammed with calls all this past 
weekend and all this week of American people seeking to reach their 
representatives and express their views--not just the NRA, not just 
Republicans, but Americans from every walk of life.
  I would like to think that that vote yesterday was in reaction to 
those calls. It puts this bill in the proper posture. It exposed the 
fact that that bill left this Chamber at the level of $22 billion and 
emanated from the conference in excess of $30 billion.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, because he was a 
principal in that conference, if, at this time, he is willing to tell 
this body exactly how you went from $22 billion that your fellow 
colleagues authorized, and allowed this pork to be stuffed in there 
like so much sausage and then dumped on the House.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would be delighted to answer the question.
  Madam President, first of all, it is real basic. And I will be brief, 
because I know the Senator does not want me to take all the time.
  I dispute the notion that this is pork.
  But let me tell you how we got that number. We passed over here a 
requirement that the American people and the localities get 100,000 
cops. The House had passed their bill at $29 billion and they only had 
50,000 police officers in their bill, No. 1.
  No. 2, we did not have as much money in for prisons as the House had 
for prisons. We had $6.5 billion. The House had $13.5 billion for 
prisons.
  So just taking those two items, cops and prisons, and making sure we 
went to the Senate number, we had to add to the bill to get to 100,000 
cops and to get $8.3 billion for prisons, which my Republican friends 
say they wanted.
  By whatever calculation, they have a minimum of additional $3.6 
billion and a maximum of $7.6 billion, because the total cost for 
100,000 police officers is $8.8 billion.
  So to go to the Senate level, we had to add it to the House level or 
add the prisons to our level. So, right off the bat, just to get more 
cops and more prison money, which everyone said they wanted, there was 
another $3 billion to $4 billion that got added.
  In addition to that, we then added, at the request of our Republican 
friends--the House did not have any money in there for what Senator 
Domenici and I very badly wanted--money for Federal law enforcement. So 
we added nearly $1 billion for the FBI, for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, and for other police agencies, including the ATF and 
the police organizations in the Department of the Treasury.
  We did accept about $3 billion additional money for programs that 
were prevention programs. In return, the House accepted the additional 
money for police officers and additional money for Federal law 
enforcement officers, and we accepted additional money for prisons.
  If you add up those broad numbers, that is how you get to the over 
$30 billion mark.
  And how do we pay for it? We paid for it by making sure that the 
sixth year of savings, which has been scored by OMB, acknowledged by 
the Budget Committee, acknowledged by the Republican and Democratic 
leadership as real dollars, we took those moneys, an additional $8 
billion, I think the number was, for the sixth year of savings, which 
would come from firing bureaucrats or reducing the number of Federal 
workers to pay for those additional costs.


                 new dollars in crime conference report

  Madam President, since the time we passed the Senate bill, a bill 
that garnered the votes of 95 Senators it will tell you exactly what 
was added:
  We added $1.8 billion for prisons. When the Biden crime bill passed 
the Senate back last November, there was $6.5 billion for new prisons. 
In the conference report, there is now $8.3 billion for prisons.
  We added $1 billion to the Byrne Drug Enforcement Grant Program--$1 
billion new dollars that will go to State and local police officers on 
the frontlines of the fight against drugs.
  We added $50 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the 
DEA. There was $100 million, now there is $150 million for new DEA 
agents and new investigations of drug traffickers.
  We added $170 million for law enforcement operations in the Treasury 
Department, for efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
to track down illegal arms dealers and major criminal gangs. There was 
$380 million in the Senate bill for Treasury law enforcement. The 
conference report has $550 million.
  We added $1 billion, $1 billion for criminal alien and immigration 
enforcement, money for new Border Patrol agents and other enforcement 
activities to cut down on illegal immigration and to speed up the 
deportation of illegal aliens who have committed crimes in this 
country.
  I might also point out that we have in the conference report more 
than twice what the House bill had for State and local law enforcement. 
The conference report spends $13.1 billion for State, local, and 
Federal criminal justice--the House-passed bill had only $5.5 billion.
  To maintain the same balance we had in the Senate bill, the same 
comprehensive attack, the conference report also added new money for 
prevention activities, so that we don't simply keep building prisons 
and producing enough criminals to put them in--the conference report 
contains $3.8 billion in new spending for a whole host of programs that 
will provide the children of this country who must grow up in 
neighborhoods that are virtual combat zones, where there are no movie 
theaters, no bowling alleys, no miniature golf courses--where there is 
nowhere to go and nothing to do but hang out on the corner--that will 
provide these kids with a safe haven. Programs that will provide them 
with a range of activities they can participate in that are supervised 
by responsible adults, not by the thugs out on the corner.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to make certain my remarks 
reflected that it was $23 billion passed by the Senate and $33 billion 
out of conference.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first, what is the time allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia controls 2 minutes 
10 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me just 10 seconds to clarify?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to yield momentarily to the 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. BIDEN. Just 10 seconds to make a point.
  The Senator is correct about something he said earlier.
  Fifty-eight Democrats did vote with all but 11 Republicans against 
the bill. But those 58 Democrats said that the reason they were voting 
against the bill is because of the assault weapons ban.
  So I am not contradicting myself when I point out it was the NRC and 
NRA. There are Democrats in the Senate and the House who feel very 
strongly about the NRA position on banning assault weapons. He is 
correct, though, 58 Democrats did vote on those grounds.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am glad I did bring that to the 
attention of the chairman, my distinguished colleague. But it would 
have been helpful early on if he had included that to give a more 
balanced perspective to his statement. But I stand absolutely rigid in 
my view that the American people, the wide spectrum of the American 
people, at their own initiative, not just because of the NRA--and the 
NRA has a perfect right to express its views, as does any other 
organizations--but at their own initiative they came forward and the 
House reflected their collective judgment.
  I yield such time as I have left to the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I just say to my friend from Virginia, 
very quickly, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
just said 58 of his Democratic colleagues in the House were puppets of 
the NRA. I would say to the Senator from Delaware, maybe they had 
strong feelings about the constitutionality of the issue. So there are 
58 individuals who voted their consciences, certainly in their opinion.
  The fact is, with the explanation the Senator from Delaware just gave 
as the reason why we got the $33 billion, they wanted more so we gave 
them more; we wanted more and so they gave more; they wanted more so we 
gave them more--and therefore we got to $33 billion.
  The fact is the American people know there are hundreds of millions 
and billions of dollars in pure giveaway social programs there, many of 
which have never been tried, never been tested. But we are going to 
pump these billions of dollars of their taxpayers' dollars into what 
they want, instead of crime enforcement, at the same time releasing 
between 10,000 and 16,000 drug dealers and drug pushers from prison.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona to yield me 30 seconds.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Delaware a 
minute.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am sure the Senator from Delaware did not mean to 
suggest I used the world ``puppet.'' It is his word, ``puppet.'' I like 
his vocabulary. It is colorful. But I said very bluntly that 58 
Democrats straightforwardly acknowledged they were opposed to the 
assault weapons provision and voted the NRA position. I did not say 
they were puppets. I say they believe that. I said, ``I said they 
believe that.'' Although I am always interested in the Senator's 
characterization of what he thinks someone said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________