[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 CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I am sure that there are a lot of 
Americans who were stunned when the House defeated the crime bill. 
After all, we know that 85 percent of the American people believe that 
our bleeding Nation needs to do something to deal with violent crime. 
And yet, there it was, real as life on television yesterday. A 
bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans soundly defeated this 
bill, and then we had the specter of the President blaming Democrats 
and Republicans for thwarting the will of the American people.
  Sort of in the words of Paul Harvey, let me try to tell you the rest 
of the story.
  What happened here is that an agenda was brought into the crime 
debate that never was part of that debate.
  You see, the President has continued to talk tough on crime, but the 
policy of his administration has never lived up to that rhetoric. A 
perfect example is the worst provision of this bill. The President came 
in to office and at a joint session of Congress --the first one he 
spoke to--he called for getting tough on crime. He then cut prison 
construction, the FBI, the DEA, and the INS. And the Attorney General 
started a drive to overturn mandatory minimum sentencing for drug 
felons.
  Now what the House did in the conference committee is adopt a 
provision that overturns mandatory minimum sentencing for drug felons, 
a provision that we are now told by officials in the Bureau of Prisons 
could let as many as 10,000 drug felons who today are in the Federal 
penitentiary, back out on the streets.
  I am sure the American people are asking a question: How can we be 
passing a crime bill which is aimed at grabbing violent criminals by 
the throat, and yet at the same time that crime bill has a provision 
that could give early release to as many as 10,000 drug felons, who 
have been out selling drugs to our children?
  The reason is: That was the President's agenda, but it was not an 
agenda that he ever told the American people about.
  The second big problem with this crime bill is that it is full of 
pork. From the bill we passed in the Senate, it has added $8 billion of 
spending programs that basically give money out to different 
institutions with the idea that they can spend that money however they 
want to spend it, if they can in any way claim that it might induce 
someone not to commit a crime. That is why we have funding for midnight 
basketball in this bill.
  Madam President, the crime bill was rejected not because people are 
against grabbing violent criminals by the throat, but because it has $8 
billion of raw, rotten pork in it.
  At the same time these two provisions were being added, our provision 
of 10 years in prison without parole for selling drugs to a minor was 
dropped. Our provision providing 10 years in prison without parole for 
possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or a drug 
felony was dropped.
  In short, what we have seen is piracy against the crime bill. The 
get-tough provisions were taken out of the bill and pork was put into 
it. And in an extraordinary provision, as many as 10,000 drug felons 
who are in the Federal penitentiary for trying to sell drugs to our 
children could be let back out on the street.
  Now, if the crime bill passes in the House, it is going to come to 
the Senate. There is a budget point of order against it, and I am going 
to raise that point of order, and the Senate is going to have to have 
60 votes in order to pass this bill. I do not believe we have the 60 
votes. The bill will be up for amendment at that point, and I and 
others are going to move to take the pork out, take the get-out-of-
jail-free provision out, and put the get-tough provisions back in.
  With those changes made, the bill will pass, and then the President 
can give America a real crime bill.
  But this debate is not about crime. The get-tough-on-criminal 
provisions were taken out of the bill. This debate is about $8 billion 
of the worst kind of pork that anybody has ever seen, and this debate 
is about a provision which the President has fostered, the President 
has promoted in secret, which could let as many as 10,000 drug felons 
back out on the streets.
  It has been the President's goal and the Attorney General's goal 
since the day they took office to overturn minimum mandatory sentencing 
for people who sell drugs to our children. They could not get it 
adopted in the Senate, but they got it in conference, and it will 
become the law of the land if this bill becomes law.
  I pledge to you it is not going to become the law of the land. That 
provision is coming out of this bill. If the President will simply help 
us take the pork out, take the get-out-of-jail-free provision out, and 
put the get-tough provisions back in, we can all celebrate the passage 
of a tough, great, crime bill. We can all stand up together and tell 
the American people that we did a good job for them.
  But you cannot, with a straight face, tell people we did a good job 
with $8 billion of pork and with a provision that could let as many as 
10,000 people out of prison who are in prison today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted 
to proceed for about 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I say respectfully to the Senator, 
the Senator from Virginia is not here, and he had indicated he was 
putting the Senate on notice that he was not going to interrupt this 
bill. We are trying to get one amendment finished here. So I will have 
to suggest the absence of a quorum until the Senator comes here and see 
if we can negotiate something with the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me suggest this as a compromise. Rather than waste the 
Senate's time putting in the quorum, I will speak. When he comes here I 
will stop the minute he comes here and find out what he wants to do.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Massachusetts be permitted to speak in morning business 
until the Senator from----
  Mr. KERRY. Oh, the Senator is here now.
  Madam President, I ask the Senator from Virginia if I could just 
proceed for approximately 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to accommodate our distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts. The problem is that the leadership on 
this bill has informed the Senate that we have one additional amendment 
requiring no more than 30 minutes of debate, and that the Senate could 
anticipate then three consecutive rollcall votes, subject to the 
concurrence of the majority leader and the Republican leader. Those 
votes will be the normal of a 15-minute vote, followed by two, in 
sequence, of 10 minutes each.
  If the Senator can assure us that he will take no longer than 5 
minutes, I will not regard this as a major invasion of the scheduling. 
But I will have to indicate at this point in time that this Senator 
will make further objection to any interruptions of the bill for 
consideration of other matters.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my friend from Virginia and I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

                          ____________________