[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. HATCH. Madam President, I was interested in Chairman Biden's 
comments on the floor regarding the crime bill just a little while ago. 
I felt like I had to respond because my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle say we must pass a crime bill, because it took them months to 
build their fragile coalition. There is little doubt in my mind that 
building support among social workers and liberals is a tough job, but 
the administration has never tried to build a coalition which included 
Republicans.

  Earlier in the week, I joined Bob Dole and other Senate Republican 
conferees in a letter to President Clinton which laid out the 
foundation for a compromise. But our input has been ignored by the 
administration and the other party. The administration did not lead, 
but followed the liberal wing of its party. The President and his party 
should seize this opportunity to move forward with a bipartisan bill, a 
bill which is tougher on criminals than it is on our wallets, a bill 
which moves to the right.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter Republicans sent to President 
Clinton be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. As the distinguished Senator from Virginia said, the voice 
of America is getting through. There are several key elements which a 
crime bill worthy of Senate passage should contain, and which the 
conference report omits. It is one of the reasons the rule was 
defeated.
  A crime bill worthy of the Senate's support should have at least $13 
billion in real money for the actual construction and operation of 
prisons.
  A crime bill worthy of the Senate's support should not provide for 
the early release of convicted criminals. We are talking about 10,000 
to 15,000 people being released early to just go out and do what they 
have done before.
  A crime bill worthy of the Senate's support should not squander 
billions upon billions of dollars in scarce crime-fighting resources on 
gauzy social spending schemes straight out of the failed Great Society 
of the 1960's. That is what this bill does.
  A crime bill worthy of the Senate's support should impose stiff 
mandatory minimum penalties for the use of a gun in a crime. It should 
impose stiff mandatory minimum sentences for those selling drugs to 
kids. That bill does not.
  A crime bill worthy of the Senate's support should retain the many 
tough provisions passed by the Senate and abandoned by the conference--
provisions ranging from the Moseley-Braun-Hatch amendment subjecting 
13-year-olds committing certain heinous crimes to prosecution as 
adults, to the tough Dole-Hatch-Brown Federal antigang provision.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote for early release from 
prison for as many as 10,000 to 16,000 Federal convicts. This little 
shocker has not been mentioned by the news media or by the President.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote to spend a woefully 
inadequate amount of money for the construction and operation of prison 
space. A careful examination of the conference report's provisions on 
prisons reveals that it is much better suited for sound bites by the 
President and those who favor spending as little as possible on real 
prisons than it is suited for the actual construction and operation of 
prison space.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote to waste literally 
billions of dollars in 1960's-style social spending boondoggles, rather 
than spend these precious resources on hardnosed law enforcement 
programs and more prison space. This is a cave-in by the President who 
supported this diversion of crime-fighting funds into social spending 
boondoggles. This diversion is an effort to appease liberal special-
interest groups on whom he relies for political support.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote to acquiesce in this 
administration's cynical, back-door betrayal of the American people 
concerning the death penalty. The administration has said it will 
implement by Executive order what it cannot achieve through the 
legislature, that is, the misuse of statistics to undermine, if not 
end, the use of the death penalty where it is otherwise merited.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote soft on crime.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote for deficit spending--$13 
billion in deficit spending.
  A vote for this conference report is a vote to restrict second 
amendment rights without any real impact on crime.
  One last thing, Madam President. The conference report spends an 
inadequate amount of money on prison construction and operation. Some 
of the money it purports to spend is not even funded by the crime bill.
  The other side of the aisle claims to spend $8.3 billion on prisons. 
Yet, $1.8 billion of that funding is given to the Attorney General to 
hand over to the States with total discretion to alleviate the costs 
associated with the incarceration of criminal aliens. Not one dime of 
the $1.8 billion in alien incarceration grants has to be spent on 
prison construction.
  The remaining $6.5 billion in so-called prison spending is in the 
misleadingly rugged-sounding program entitled ``Violent Offender 
Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Grants'' section. Yet, not one 
dime of this money has to be spent on prison construction or operation. 
Let me repeat that: Not one dime of that $6.5 billion prison proposal 
supported by the President must be spent on construction of prisons or 
operation of prisons.
  Rather, the money can be spent on programs, including alternative 
confinement facilities and drug treatment, intended to free up existing 
prison space--not to build new prisons. These programs will ostensibly 
free up existing prison space through early-release-type programs for 
some offenders, halfway houses for still other offenders, and similar 
alternatives to prison. In other words, all of the money can be spent 
on softheaded alternative confinement facilities and other alternatives 
to prison construction and operation.
  Indeed, this program requires State recipients to implement a 
comprehensive correctional plan. The plan must include, among other 
things, diversion programs, particularly drug diversion programs, 
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 criminals?
  In effect, in order to qualify for the prison grants, the States have 
to spend much or all of it on a costly, liberal corrections scheme. 
This is a shell game. Ironically, the so-called truth in sentencing 
Republicans had fought for was opposed by some on the other side of the 
aisle as being too costly for the States. Yet, they have little trouble 
in requiring the States to implement the Clinton administration's 
version of appropriate correctional policy--diversion programs, 
including drug diversion, treatment, and job skills programs--in order 
to qualify for the prison grants.
  To make matters worse, the conference report supporters suggest that 
the bill conditions as much as 40 percent of the so-called prison grant 
funding on State implementation of truth in sentencing. Yet, State 
adoption of a determinate sentencing scheme under their proposal will 
only apply to second-time violent offenders. Furthermore, these grants 
are subject to the same condition I mentioned earlier--the State must 
implement a liberal corrections scheme.
  Moreover, for whatever reason, the other side of the aisle is intent 
on giving the administration broad discretion to distribute the crime 
bill money how and where they see fit. Although the other side of the 
aisle eventually inserted a formula, 15 percent of this prison money is 
turned over to the Attorney General of the United States to do with as 
she pleases. As well, if the Department chooses to delay allocation of 
formula funds long enough, the unallocated funds are turned over to the 
Attorney General's discretionary fund.
  The reason criminals serve less than 40 percent of their sentences is 
not because we have failed to spend precious prison dollars on drug 
diversion and job skills programs. Our Nation's prisons do not have 
revolving doors--where murderers are sentenced to 15 years but serve 
less than 7, and rapists are sentenced to 8 years but serve less than 
3--because we have failed to spend an adequate amount of our prison 
dollars on drug and sex offender treatment programs, and post-release 
assistance. Our Nation's criminal justice system lacks credibility 
because we have failed to provide an adequate deterrent to crime and 
enough places to lock up hardened criminals and throw the key away.
  We desperately need an emergency buildup of prison space. A Senate 
Republican amendment to put $13 billion into actual construction and 
operation of prisons was rejected in conference.
  Madam President, let us get real on this bill. The reason the rule 
was defeated is that it is a bad bill. We have to fight against it.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, August 10, 1994.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Congress has an historic opportunity to 
     pass anticrime legislation that can make a real difference in 
     the lives of all Americans.
       While the crime conference report now pending before 
     Congress contains a number of worthy provisions, it is 
     unfortunately deficient in several critical areas: It 
     provides too few resources for state prison construction and 
     operation. It fails to promote a real truth-in-sentencing 
     plan for America so that violent criminals are kept behind 
     bars where they belong. It permits the early release of as 
     many as 10,000 federal prisoners as a result of a mandatory 
     minimum ``repeal'' provision. And it needlessly increases the 
     federal budget deficit.
       The conference report also devotes billions and billions of 
     dollars to more than 25 separate ``prevention'' programs. The 
     American people are not fooled by this multi-billion dollar 
     boondoggle: It is an obvious attempt to placate the most 
     liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which otherwise would 
     not support a bill that establishes an enforceable federal 
     death penalty.
       Not only is this pork-barrel spending wasteful, it is also 
     unnecessary, a duplication of existing federal programs. The 
     General Accounting Office, for example, recently reported 
     that there are already seven federal agencies sponsoring 266 
     prevention programs for delinquent and at-risk youth. The 
     annual price-tag for these programs is $3 billion. GAO also 
     estimates that the federal government currently runs 154 
     separate and overlapping federal employment and training 
     programs at an annual cost of nearly $25 billion. The bottom 
     line is that more pork will not mean more crime prevention.
       Mr. President, we want to pass a crime bill, and we want to 
     do so on a bipartisan basis. That's why we urge you to call 
     upon the Senate and House Democratic Leadership to reconvene 
     the conference immediately so that the following improvements 
     to the conference report can be made:
       Strip the pork-barrel provisions and divert a significant 
     portion of the savings to the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     Grant Program. The Byrne program is designed to assist 
     state and local law enforcement, the very people who are 
     on the front-lines in the war against crime. This is where 
     the resources are needed most.
       Increase funding for state prisons to the $13.5 billion 
     level passed by the House and make it available only for 
     prison construction and operation. Condition at least half of 
     this funding on the adoption of truth-in-sentencing laws for 
     first-time violent offenders.
       Narrow the so-called mandatory minimum ``safety valve'' 
     that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts estimates 
     could result in the early release of as many as 10,000 
     federal prisoners.
       Prohibit the use of statistical tests and racial quotas in 
     the enforcement of our nation's death penalty laws.
       Restore the mandatory minimum penalties for those who use a 
     gun in the commission of a crime or sell drugs to children.
       Restore the provision ensuring the admissibility of 
     evidence of similar crimes in sex offenses cases. This 
     provision was adopted on a bipartisan basis by both Houses of 
     Congress.
       Restore the provision requiring mandatory restitution to 
     the victim crime.
       Restore the deficit-neutral trust fund.
       Republicans would prefer making additional improvements to 
     the conference report. However, if the changes we have listed 
     above are adopted, we are prepared to support the conference 
     report as a compromise measure. If the changes are not 
     adopted, we will have no choice but to oppose a bloated, 
     soft-on-crime conference report that we believe would not be 
     in the best interests of the American people.
       We would also like to take this opportunity to urge you not 
     to resurrect the so-called Racial Justice Act through an 
     executive order or other Presidential directive. The American 
     people will rightfully view such a directive as nothing more 
     than a back-door attempt to abolish the federal death 
     penalty.
       Mr. President, thank you for your attention to this 
     request. We look forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
     Orrin G. Hatch,
     Strom Thurmond,
     Chuck Grassley,
     Arlen Specter.

  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, [Mr. Gramm] is 
recognized.

                          ____________________