[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               CRIME BILL

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the things that the health care 
debate is reflecting is the same kind of, in some cases, nonsense that 
the crime debate is generating. I think that in this town, if you say 
something often enough, repeat it often enough, people actually begin 
to believe that it might be true, if you just say it.
  What I have learned of late when the House failed by a margin of 
eight votes to pass the crime bill on a technicality; that is, they did 
not even allow a vote up and down, as they say, for or against the 
crime bill. They had a procedural vote to hide the ``no'' votes so they 
would not have to say I am against it for politics or I am against it 
because I am against assault weapons being eliminated, roughly 19 of 
them. It was a procedural vote, not unlike a cloture vote we have in 
the Senate.
  What I have heard in the last week about what is in this crime bill 
and the conference report I find truly astounding. I doubt whether 
there is anybody on the floor of the U.S. Senate--it does not mean I am 
any better, but I am stating a fact--anybody who has put as much time 
and effort into fashioning these crime bills over the last 20 years, 
the last 6 in particular, than me. I have a distinct disadvantage and 
advantage. The disadvantage is I have done nothing but this issue, it 
seems, for God knows how long it is. The advantage is I think I know as 
well as anybody what is in the bill and in great detail.
  So for my colleagues who are acting in--and I always assume my 
colleagues act in good faith, who truly believe some of the stuff that 
they have heard and said, and this is the purpose of my rising now to 
sort of set the record straight and lay out the facts. I am not sure it 
will change anybody's mind, but I just think it is important that when 
one is against something, they have the right reasons; that is, they 
know what their reasons are for being against something.
  Let us start off with pointing out what the bill is. It sets up a 
trust fund with no new tax dollars--no new tax dollars; no new tax 
dollars to fund this. You say, how could that be? We are going to spend 
$30 billion over 6 years and no new taxes.
  The real issue is whether or not we reduce the deficit by $30 billion 
or spend the money on crime prevention and crime enforcement, law 
enforcement. That is a legitimate debate. But this red herring out 
there that this is going to cost $30 billion in new taxes is simply 
wrong.
  Let me tell you how we fund the bill, again. All of you know this 
because you helped put this together. We voted this 95-4 when we voted 
it out of the Senate. The way we fund it is, we trade bureaucrats for 
cops, bureaucrats for prisons, bureaucrats for law enforcement, 
bureaucrats for drug treatment in prisons, while someone is locked up 
in prison, bureaucrats to fund the violence against women initiative.
  You say, what does that mean? What we did, what this President did 
and we codified, we said we are going to reduce the Federal work force 
by over a quarter of a million people over the next 6 years. I might 
point out, by the way, that under this President there are fewer 
Federal Government employees today than at any time since John Kennedy 
was President. It rose under every Republican and every Democrat prior 
to this. This President has actually reduced the number of people 
working for the Federal Government.
  We are going to reduce it by a quarter of a million people more. We 
cannot spend this money for crime until we fire or we do not rehire 
someone or fill a position. So what happens here is this savings, to 
use the Senate jargon, has been scored. We talk about OMB, the Office 
of Management and Budget, and we talk about the Congressional Budget 
Office, which means nothing to the voters at large. What they are is a 
bunch of bureaucrats sitting there with sharp pencils and computers and 
deciding whether or not what we say is savings or not savings or 
actually real dollars. Are they real or are they phony?
  All of the organizations have pointed out--Democrat, Republican--
everyone acknowledges that this is an actual savings that will occur by 
reducing the Federal work force, which we have already done in the last 
2 years and will continue to do. Unless we reduce the Federal work 
force, we cannot increase the police force. Unless we reduce the 
Federal work force, we cannot increase the prison space. Unless we 
reduce the Federal work force, we cannot increase the number of drug 
courts, and so on.
  So if my Republican friends want to stand up and say--which is 
totally legitimate--``Look, Joe, this bill you all put together and 
that I voted for before and I might not vote for now, this bill, 
instead--I have thought about it--instead of setting up a trust fund to 
take the savings that come from firing or reducing the Federal work 
force and put it in a trust fund to hire cops, instead of doing that, 
what I would like to do is take the savings from firing or reducing 
these Federal workers and I would like to reduce the Federal deficit 
even more'' --I might add, by the way, this is the only President who 
has reduced the Federal deficit in the last 2 years. The Federal 
deficit has actually gone down. That is, the amount of the deficit that 
was projected, it has gone down. It is less each year under this 
President than anyone had predicted and less than under the Republican 
Presidents, and it is going down.
  If they say we want it to go down even further, and we do not want 
100,000 more cops, I respect that. That is OK, you can say that, then 
go to the voters and say, ``I rather the deficit be down lower and not 
hire more cops.'' That is fair. That is honest.
  Or if you say, ``Biden, you have money in here for the operation, 
maintenance, and construction of over 105,000 new prison cells in the 
various States--not Federal prison cells--State prison cells. I do not 
want to spend the money for that, Biden. I want to go out there and 
reduce the Federal deficit over 6 years by $6.5 billion,'' well, that 
is fair. Let us debate that and let us let the people in our home 
States decide whether we should reduce the Federal deficit by another 
$6.5 billion or let us spend the money to build 105,000 new prison 
cells and maintain them.
  That is a legitimate debate. But it is an illegitimate debate to 
suggest, and it is factually not true to say, this bill that Biden and 
others cobbled together is going to raise taxes $30 billion beyond what 
we are now paying. Not true. Not true.
  So the first important point about this crime bill--and I see the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor. This trust 
fund was something that really was his idea. I was not smart enough to 
think about it. He is the smartest guy in this outfit. Truly. I am not 
being solicitous. He is. And he is the best legislator in this outfit. 
He is the guy who thought of this. I did not think of it. I wish I 
could take the credit. I did not think of it.
  But this is not $30 billion in new taxes. This is $30 billion we are 
not going to reduce the deficit by and spend it on law enforcement. 
That is true, but it is not $30 billion in additional taxes.
  (Mr. BYRD assumed the chair)
  Mr. BIDEN. Now, the second point, in this bill over 6 years, for law 
enforcement there is $10.7 billion for local law enforcement and 
community policing. Not Federal cops. We go to the States and say we 
are going to give you x number of dollars if you do two things. No. 1, 
if you do not cut the number of local police. As the Senator from West 
Virginia, the President of the Senate, knows, we used to have a thing 
called LEAA, Law Enforcement Assistant Program, out there.
  What we found out the States did, we would send the money, and 
States, to try to make their budget look better, and counties--and I 
used to be a county official. I remember when our county tried to do 
this. If you had 100 county police officers, you would go out and you 
would fire 25 of them, take the Federal money and hire them back with 
the Federal money. Then the States and localities would go to their 
taxpayers and say: You see how responsible we are. We cut your taxes. 
Those big-spending guys down in Washington. And we still had the same 
number of police.
  We got smart to that down here. So in this bill we said, look, you 
want 1 new local cop paid for by the Federal Government, if you now 
have 100 cops at home, if you reduce it by even 1, you do not get any 
Federal money. But if you maintain--maintenance of effort--if you 
maintain the 100 cops you have, we will give you money for more cops.
  There are roughly 545,000 State and local police in all of America. 
This bill will add 100,000 additional local police. So you will have 
almost 650,000. We will increase by roughly 20 percent, a little less 
than 20 percent, the total police force in all of America that is not 
Federal.
  The reason we know that is you do not get any money if you reduce 
your police force, if you do not maintain your effort. We are making a 
promise to the people back home. We are going to put more cops on the 
street. This is called truth in legislating.
  Now, if you local folks back home do not want the money, do not ask 
for it.
  My Republican friends say, well, there are strings attached to this 
money. Strings, malarkey. Nobody has to come and ask for this money. 
But if they ask for the money, I say to the Presiding Officer, they 
have to do two things. Promise, No. 1, that they are not going to fire 
their existing police force, and, No. 2, that they take all their 
police, not just the ones we are adding for them, but all their police 
and involve them in community policing so they are not just in squad 
cars, so many more are walking around on the beat, because, guess what?
  Those of you from Houston, TX, those of you listening who are from 
cities like New York City, and all the places where they have done 
community policing, the violent crime has dropped roughly, in Houston 
by 19 percent.
  This is not rocket science, folks. There are some things we know 
about crime. We know that if there are two street corners in the same 
city, one has a cop standing on the corner and one does not have a cop, 
the chances of a crime being committed where one has a cop is less than 
the one where there is not a cop. Again, not rocket science. Cops 
prevent crime as well as arrest perpetrators of crime.
  So we are basically, I say to the Presiding Officer, getting a big 
bang for the buck. For the 100,000 cops we are providing, we are 
leveraging that to get 640,000 community police out there. Right now, 
of the 550,000 cops, there are perhaps 100,000 involved in community 
policing.
  So that is a string. That is right. If you want the money, then what 
you have to do is you have to have your police in community policing.
  Now, there is another criticism I hear from our Republican friends, 
who I might add all voted for this--all voted for this before. I do not 
know what happened between now and the time this will hurt the 
President if you vote against it. I do not know what strange thing 
happened. But they say, ``Well, wait a minute. Is it not true after 6 
years, Biden, the city or the county or the State is going to have to 
pick up the tab for this police officer?''
  That is a condition? What is every other program? Are my Republican 
friends saying we should federalize the local police force? Does any 
one of them have an amendment with which they are going to stand up 
here and say, ``I promise from this day forward we in the Federal 
Government will fund every local cop now and forever.'' Does that make 
any sense?
  What do we do in every single program? There is a program out there 
now that started last year. It is $150 million in supplemental money to 
help local communities buy additional police officers. It is only, 
roughly, a 50-50 grant. They are falling all over themselves to come 
and say, ``Please, you will pay for half a new cop for us.'' Wonderful.
  It only lasts for 3 years. This lasts for 6 years, and it is $75,000 
per cop. How are we hurting the communities by doing this?
  When I was a young student in law school, I remember a professor 
saying, ``Well, that's a red herring.'' I thought, ``What is a red 
herring?'' I thought a red herring was a fish or something. Well, these 
are not red herrings. These are things that do not have anything to do 
with the merits of the subject. These are smokescreens.
  Now, what else is in this legislation? I can see my friend from West 
Virginia is standing up, so I am going to not go through all I was 
going to go through because this really should be a health care debate, 
but there is so much out there being said, I say to the Presiding 
Officer, that is simply not true I feel I have to say something now so 
at least I can engage my Republican friends in a little truth in 
debating as we go down the road.
  What are the major arguments used against this bill?
  I ask unanimous consent that the totality of all that is in the crime 
bill conference report broken out in terms of how much is spent for 
each item be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Summary of Crime Conference Report


                total trust fund dollars--$30.2 billion

       Provides $30.2 billion over six years through the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Savings from the President's 
     reductions in the federal workforce, as calculated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office--and locked in by reductions in 
     the budget caps--will fund $30.2 billion in crime bill 
     initiatives as follows:


                     law enforcement--$13.2 billion

       State and local\1\--$10.7 billion, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Community Policing: $8.8 billion to put 100,000 police 
     officers on the streets in community policing programs.
       Rural law enforcement: $245 million for rural anti-crime 
     and drug efforts.
       Technical automation: $130 million for technical automation 
     grants for law enforcement agencies.
       Brady bill: $150 million for Brady bill implementation.
       Drug enforcement: $1 billion in Byrne formula grants.
       DNA: $40 million for DNA testing research and programs.
       Courts, prosecutors, and public defenders: $200 million.
       Federal--$2.6 billion, including:
       FBI: $250 million.
       DEA: $150 million.
       INS and Border Patrol: $1 billion.
       United States Attorneys: $50 million.
       Treasury Department: $578 million.
       Justice Department: $300 million.
       Federal Courts: $200 million.


                         prisons--$8.3 billion

       Grants to States: $6.5 billion to states for prisons and 
     incarceration alternatives such as boot camps to ensure that 
     additional prison cells will be available to put--and keep--
     violent offenders behind bars. 40% of monies to be set aside 
     for states that adopt truth in sentencing laws.\2\
       Alien Incarceration: $1.8 billion to states for the costs 
     of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens.


               crime prevention--$7.4 billion, including:

       Ounce of Prevention: $100 million to create an interagency 
     Ounce of Prevention Council to coordinate new and existing 
     crime prevention programs.
       Community Schools: $630 million for afterschool, weekend 
     and summer ``safe haven'' programs to provide children with 
     positive activities and alternatives to the street life of 
     crime and drugs.
       F.A.C.E.S.: $270 million to provide in-school assistance to 
     at-risk children, including education, mentoring and other 
     programs.
       YES: $550 million for the President's Youth Employment and 
     Skills crime prevention program, to provide jobs to young 
     adults in high crime areas. Conditions program involvement on 
     continued responsible behavior. Authorizes an additional $350 
     million from non-Trust Fund sources.
       Violence Against Women Act: $1.8 billion to fight violence 
     against women.
       Includes funds to increase and train police, prosecutors, 
     and judges; to encourage pro-arrest policies; for victim 
     services and advocates; battered women's shelters; rape 
     education and community prevention programs; a national 
     family violence hotline, and increased security in public 
     places.
       Provides first-ever civil rights remedy for victims of 
     felonies motivated by gender bias.
       Extends ``rape shield law'' protections to civil cases and 
     to all criminal cases to bar irrelevant inquiries into a 
     victim's sexual history.
       Requires all states to honor ``stay-away orders'' issued by 
     courts in other states.
       Requires confidentiality for the addressees of family 
     violence shelters and abused persons.
       Local Partnership Act: $1.8 billion for direct funding to 
     localities around the country for anti-crime efforts, such as 
     drug treatment, education, and jobs.
       Model Intensive Grants: $895 million for model crime 
     prevention programs targeted at high crime neighborhoods.
       Community Economic Partnership: $300 million for lines of 
     credit to community development corporations to stimulate 
     business and employment opportunities for low-income, 
     unemployed and underemployed individuals.
       Drug Treatment: $425 million for drug treatment programs 
     for state ($300) and federal ($125) prisoners. Creates a 
     treatment schedule for all drug-addicted federal prisoners. 
     Requires drug testing of federal prisoners on release.
       Anti-gang grants: $125 million for programs to give young 
     people positive alternatives to gangs (such as academic, 
     athletic, artistic after-school activities, mentoring 
     programs, scout troops, and sports leagues).
       Sports Leagues: $40 million for midnight sports leagues to 
     give at-risk youth nightly alternatives to the streets, and 
     $50 million for the U.S. Olympic Committee to develop 
     supervised sports and recreation programs in high-crime 
     areas.
       Boys and Girls Clubs: $30 million to establish clubs in low 
     income housing communities, and $10 million to encourage 
     police officers to live in those communities.
       Triad: $6 million for partnerships between senior citizen 
     groups and law enforcement to combat crimes against elderly 
     Americans.
       Police Partnerships: $20 million for partnerships between 
     law enforcement and social service agencies to fight crimes 
     against children, and for the creation of youth councils to 
     combat crime.
       Visitation centers: $30 million for supervised centers for 
     divorced or separated parents to visit their children in 
     ``safe havens'' where there is a history or risk of physical 
     or sexual abuse.


                       DRUG COURTS--$1.3 billion

       Provides $1.3 billion for drug court programs for at least 
     600,000 nonviolent offenders with substance abuse problems 
     over the next six years. Participants will be intensively 
     supervised, given drug treatment, and subjected to graduated 
     sanctions--ultimately including prison terms--for failing 
     random drug tests.\3\


                                FIREARMS

       Assault Weapons: Bans the manufacture of 19 named military-
     style assault weapons, assault weapons with specific combat 
     features, ``copy-cat'' models, and high-capacity ammunition 
     magazines (``clips'') of more than ten rounds.
       Kids and Guns: Prohibits the sale or transfer of a gun to a 
     juvenile, and possession of a gun by a juvenile.
       Domestic Abusers: Prohibits gun sales to, and possession 
     by, persons subject to family violence restraining orders.
       Gun Licensing: Strengthens federal licensing standards for 
     firearms dealers.


                        GANGS AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

       Gang Crimes: Provides new, stiff penalties for violent and 
     drug crimes committed by gangs.
       Using kids to sell drugs: Triples penalties for using 
     children to deal drugs near schools and playgrounds.
       Recruiting, encouraging kids to commit crimes: Enhances 
     penalties for all crimes using children, and for recruiting, 
     encouraging children to commit a crime.
       Drug free zones: Increases penalties for drug dealing in 
     drug free zones--near playgrounds, schoolyards, video 
     arcades, and youth centers.
       Public housing: Increases penalties for drug dealing near 
     public housing projects.
       Adult prosecution of violent juveniles: Authorizes adult 
     treatment of 13 year olds charged with the most violent of 
     crimes (murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, armed 
     robbery, rape); authorizes grants to states for bindover 
     programs for violent 16 and 17 year olds.


                             DEATH PENALTY

       Expands the federal death penalty to cover about 60 
     offenses, including terorism, murder of a law enforcement 
     officer, large-scale drug trafficking, drive-by-shootings, 
     and carjack- ers who murder.


                            OTHER PENALTIES

       Three Strikes: Mandates life imprisonment for criminals 
     convicted of three violent felonies or drug offenses.
       Miscellaneous: Increases or creates new penalties for over 
     70 criminal offenses, primarily covering violent crimes, drug 
     trafficking and gun crimes, including:
       Drive-by shootings; use of semi-automatic weapons; drug 
     use, trafficking in prison; gun, explosives possession by 
     convicts; sex offenses, assaults against children; crimes 
     against the elderly; interstate gun trafficking; aggravated 
     sexual abuse; gun smuggling; arson; hate crimes; and drunk 
     driving.


                               terrorism

       Death penalty: Creates new terrorism death penalty, and 
     extends the statute of limitations for terrorism offenses.
       Increased penalties: Increases penalties for any felony 
     involving or promoting international terrorism.
       Treaty implementation: Creates new offenses implementing 
     treaties regarding crimes against maritime platforms and in 
     international airports.
       Informants: Creates new authority for the Attorney General 
     and the State Department to bring witnesses to the United 
     States to testify in terrorist crimes.


        criminal aliens and immigration enforcement--$1 billion

       Deportation of criminal aliens: Provides a new summary 
     deportation procedure to speed deportation of aliens who have 
     been convicted of crimes.
       Increased penalties: Increases penalties for smuggling 
     aliens and for document fraud.
       Funding: Provides a total of $1 billion for new border 
     patrol agents, asylum reform, and other immigration 
     enforcement activities.


                             crime victims

       Right of allocution: Allows victims of violent and sex 
     crimes to speak at the sentencing of their assailants.
       Mandatory restitution: Requires sex offenders and child 
     molesters to pay restitution to their victims.
       Protection of Victims fund: Prohibits diversion of victims' 
     funds to other federal programs.


                                 fraud

       Telemarketing fraud: Enhances penalties for telemarketing 
     frauds targeted at senior citizens and multiple victims.
       Computer fraud: Revises and expands computer crime 
     offenses.
       Insurance fraud: Creates a new federal offense of major 
     fraud by insurance companies against their policyholders.
       Credit card fraud: Revises and expands credit card fraud 
     offenses.


                               footnotes

     1Police Corps: Also authorizes $400 million from the 
     general Treasury for college scholarships for students who 
     agree to serve as police offers, and for scholarships for in-
     service officers.
     2An additional $2.2 billion is authorized for prison and 
     boot camps grants from the general Treasury (non-trust fund 
     sources).
     3The combination of prevention and drug court monies 
     brings the total trust fund dollars for prevention and 
     rehabilitation to $8.7 billion.

  Mr. BIDEN. Let me just point out some of the recent criticisms that I 
have heard on television or on this floor from my Republican friends. 
One is that the crime conference report funds social welfare programs 
that have nothing to do with fighting crime. You have all heard that 
one, right. You heard that on the TV, read the paper lately. The crime 
prevention programs in the crime conference report are all, I might 
add, supported by law enforcement organizations. I ask unanimous 
consent that all the law enforcement organizations that have endorsed 
this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Support for the Crime Bill


                             police groups

       Fraternal Order of Police [FOP].
       National Association of Police Organizations [NAPO].
       International Brotherhood of Police Officers [IBPO].
       National Sheriffs' Association [NSA].
       International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP].
       National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
     [NOBLE].
       National Trooper's Coalition.
       Major Cities Chiefs.
       International Union of Police Associations [IUPA].
       Police Foundation.
       Police Executive Research Forum [PERF].
       Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association [FLEOA].


                           prosecutor groups

       National District Attorneys Association.
       National Association of Attorneys General.


                         what police are saying

       ``. . . the FOP strongly believes that the crime bill will 
     benefit the citizens of this nation and provide a strong 
     safety mechanism for our officers doing the tough job on the 
     streets . . . The Fraternal Order of Police believes that 
     this Crime Bill has a balance of enforcement, prosecution/
     courts, prisons, and prevention, which will make a real 
     difference in the incidence of crime over the next five 
     years.''--Fraternal Order of Police.
       ``. . . NAPO strongly supports the crime bill conference 
     report . . . As law enforcement officers, it is our job to 
     fight crime and now we are finally being given the help we so 
     desperately need. We cannot win the war on crime unless we 
     are given the additional resources contained in the 
     conference report.''--National Association of Police 
     Organizations.
       ``The IBPO's strongly supports and endorses the Crime Bill 
     Conference Report . . . The IBPO has long advocated 
     comprehensive efforts to address violent crime where it 
     occurs: at the state and local level. This crime bill 
     represents historic achievements to accomplish this goal . . 
     . The crime bill is an appropriate balance of police, 
     punishment and prevention . . . critical to a long term cure 
     . . . The Crime Bill Conference Report is the most 
     comprehensive legislation Congress has ever proposed to 
     combat violent crime . . . We urge you to take action 
     now.''--International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
       ``We need to do everything possible to stop the rising 
     crime, especially in rural America where sheriffs have the 
     vast majority of the responsibility. We support swift passage 
     of the Conference Report . . . and hope that Congress will 
     see to it that law enforcement and our entire criminal 
     justice system gets the help it so desperately needs.''--
     National Sheriffs' Association.
       ``We strongly support the bills' provisions and desire to 
     have it passed as expeditiously as possible.''--International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police.
       ``. . . we are convinced that the comprehensive legislation 
     . . . Is a monumental milestone in assistance to local 
     jurisdictions in reducing crime . . . we at NOBLE are fully 
     supporting the passage of the crime bill. . . .''--National 
     Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
       ``. . . we believe that the compromise crime bill 
     legislation just sent forward by the conference committee is 
     necessary and we urge all members of the House and Senate to 
     support it and the President to sign it.''--National Troopers 
     Coalition.
       ``We urge you to pass the crime bill * * * the legislation 
     contains initiatives of great help to federal, state, and 
     local police in their quest for safer streets.''--Major 
     Cities Chiefs.
       ``* * * the passage of this bill would be a landmark in 
     balancing broad social interests while addressing the real 
     day to day needs of street level law enforcement officers * * 
     * with its immediate passage, the officers on the street will 
     move forward knowing they now have the support they have 
     needed for so long.''--International Union of Police 
     Associations.
       ``The failure of this bill to pass would represent a 
     terrible blow to citizens who are besieged by crime and 
     violence.''--Police Foundation.
       ``PERF believes that this Crime bill is a balanced and 
     reasonable response to the crime PERF members face in cities 
     across the country. We urge every member of Congress to 
     support police by voting for passage of the crime bill as 
     outlined in the conference report.''--Police Executive 
     Research Forum.
       ``It [the Crime Bill Conference Report] is the most 
     comprehensive piece of anti-crime legislation in the history 
     of this country * * * FLEOA urges you and your colleagues for 
     the quick passage of this very important piece of 
     legislation. It is important to note that laws alone don't 
     make people safe, law enforcement officers with adequate 
     resources do!''--Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association.


                           PROSECUTOR GROUPS

       ``The National District Attorneys Association 
     wholeheartedly supports the efforts of you [letter addressed 
     to Senator Biden], and your colleagues, in structuring a 
     Crime Bill that promises to make significant inroads in our 
     national fight against crime * * * we believe that the final 
     effort provides a balance of programs that hold the potential 
     for making a vast difference for our nation in reducing the 
     crime rate. We would urge that the Crime Bill be enacted.''--
     National District Attorneys Association.
       ``* * * we are pleased to add our endorsement of your 
     efforts and pledge the support of the Association in 
     implementing the provisions of this bill.''--National 
     Association of Attorneys General.

  Mr. BIDEN. I might add, every law enforcement and prosecutorial 
organization I am aware of, Mr. President, supports this legislation.
  But let us talk about many of these programs they are calling 
prevention programs and pork.
  The violence against women bill, $1.8 billion, for the first time 
making a concerted effort to deal with domestic violence and violence 
against women by strangers in this Nation. It is outrageous what is 
happening to American women, outrageous in terms of being the victims 
of violence. With bipartisan support, that Violence Against Women Act, 
although I wrote the bill, is supported by not only Senator Boxer on 
this side as a major cosponsor but also by Senators Hatch and Dole on 
that side; the legislation was voted for by almost everybody in this 
Chamber, Democrat and Republican.
  You know that Virginia Slims commercial, ``You've come a long way, 
baby.'' That is the good news, ``You've come a long way, baby.'' The 
bad news is, we have come a long way. More women now walk out of their 
offices at midnight, working for major law firms, newspapers, and 
corporations. They get raped in parking lots, and they get mugged at 
bus stops.
  One of the things we found out--again not rocket science--is if you 
put intense lighting, just lights, shed light on places like that, 
crime drops. So we put millions of dollars in here for States to be 
able to put lighting in high crime areas where women are victimized. 
Big deal. It is a prevention program. I challenge my Republican friends 
to stand up and introduce an amendment to take it out.
  Another one, community schools: $900 million; $125 million, antigang 
grants, a Hatch amendment and a Dole amendment; $425 million for drug 
treatment in prisons endorsed by William Bennett, former drug czar, now 
keeper of the principles of all Americans. The list goes on.
  By the way, midnight basketball, my friends like to talk about 
midnight basketball. Do you know where we got the idea? It was one of 
those ``thousand points of light'' that President Bush shone upon all 
of us. It was a Bush idea. And it shone with such brightness that it 
was hard to resist. Guess what else? It is not midnight basketball to 
just go play basketball.
  How many of you in the Chamber have helped the communities to try to 
raise money for Boys Clubs, Girls Clubs, the YMCA to try to take kids 
off the streets? Why do we close down schools at 5 o'clock in the 
afternoon? Why do we need to build new gymnasiums? Tell me. Why? The 
reason why is we close down the schools.
  So communities have had some pretty good ideas. They found that when 
they keep the schools open bring in social workers and keep the school 
open until midnight, and take kids off the street. Guess what? You do 
not have to build a new building. Guess what? Crime rates drop among 
juveniles. Big deal. Is not that a touchy feeling social program?
  I hear my colleagues talking about the return of the Johnsonian era. 
What are they talking about? Which Johnson? This century or last? What 
are they talking about?
  By the way, guess what, Mr. President? These kids, in order to get 
into many midnight basketball programs, have to be in school. They have 
to have their grades up. Guess what? They do it. Guess what? In cities 
with midnight basketball, those kids are in the gyms instead of out on 
the streets doing drugs and committing crimes. So $40 million for 
midnight basketball was a good, solid Republican idea. Now it is a bad 
idea.
  By the way, there are people in this room, people listening to this, 
who want to know how we hang them. We have a whole list of ``hang him 
high.'' We have $21 billion of ``hang him high'' stuff in here; $21 
billion dollars for cops, law enforcement, and prisons.
  Let us talk about a few other facts versus fiction. This is a good 
one. By the way, I was handed a little card that was like a monopoly 
card where you play monopoly. It says ``Get out of jail free,'' and 
they have a fat little guy in tails who looks like he is fleeing the 
jail. I have to give my Republican friends credit. They are very good. 
I have been here only 22 years. I marvel at how much better they are 
than we are. One of them handed me a little yellow card. I wish I had 
it in my wallet. I gave it to the conductor on the train on the way 
down. It is a little yellow card with a guy getting out of jail free.
  It has release--what is it, 10,000?--10,000 drug felons. That is what 
this crime bill will do. Oh, man. When I heard that, I thought how 
could I be for that? I wrote it. How can I be for that? I am letting 
out 10,000 of those people. Then you look at what is in the bill. I 
went back and read it. Maybe I missed something here.
  Let us talk about what it is. Let us talk about who sponsored it. 
Henry Hyde, that liberal Republican from the House side, and Mr. 
McCollum of Florida, that other liberal Republican from the House side, 
along with Democrats as well, came up with a thing called a safety 
valve. Over here in the Senate, Senators Thurmond and Simpson also came 
up with a safety valve with Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and Simon.
  That is what we are referring to hear about this 10,000 people who 
get out of jail. The safety valve passed in the House says that, if you 
have been sentenced to jail on a flat sentence, a minimum mandatory 
sentence, or a drug offense, that you have an opportunity to petition 
to determine whether or not you could have that flat sentence looked 
at, reduced, even though it was a flat sentence. I was not for it. Some 
of my Republican friends were for it, not all; the lead Republicans, on 
the conference in the House; some of my Republican friends and some 
Democrats. Let us talk about what it does.
  No one gets out of jail under this narrow so-called safety valve 
which applies only to nonviolent drug offenders; it permits them to ask 
to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, not be set free. Most 
offenders will not have to be resentenced because the new sentence they 
receive under the sentencing guidelines would be longer than the 
sentence for which they were sent. The Bureau of Prisons estimates that 
if this were law, 100 to a maximum of 400 nonviolent drug offenders 
would be eligible for release under this provision. That is the truth 
of the matter and what this bill says.
  But, yet, when I heard on television my friend saying--I will not 
mention his name--``I cannot be for this bill. There are going to be 
released 10,000 violent drug offenders,'' I thought, Oh, my God. Maybe 
Al D'Amato was right. We slip things into these bills that we do not 
know. It is simply not true.
  Another one that is sort of the currency now--a few more of these, 
and then I will sit down. I will be doing a lot more of this over the 
next week or so. It will not be as informative as the Presiding 
Officer's speeches on the history of the Senate. But it will have the 
same intent--to educate.
  The crime bill, we are told by my Republican friends, does not allow 
communities to be notified when a sex offender is released from prison. 
I heard that, too. I turned to Cynthia Hogan, chief of staff, and a 
very bright lawyer, and I said, ``Cynthia, did we have this in my bill? 
Did that not happen to get in the bill? What happened here?'' They said 
it just factually, that it was not in there. She said, ``No. It is in 
the bill. It is in the conference report.''
  Let me tell you what is in the conference report. It requires the 
State to create registries of sex offenders; requires law enforcement 
to keep track of those offenders' whereabouts after the release from 
prison; and the provision explicitly permits law enforcement to give 
notice to the community to serve law enforcement purposes and to give 
the police immunity from releasing that information.
  When my friends found out it was not in the bill--maybe those 
criticizing were not sure it was, in fairness to them--and we pointed 
out it was in the bill, they said, ``Oh, we want it changed.'' I said, 
``What change do you want?'' They said, ``We want to make it 
mandatory''--we make it mandatory that there be a registry, that the 
police be informed; when the sex offender, after having served time, 
moves from one community to another, the scarlet letter follows them, 
and the next community is informed; we make all that mandatory. I said, 
``What do you want mandatory?'' They want it mandatory that the police 
notify the community. I said, ``They can do that now.'' They said, 
``No, we want it explicit, something in law saying they must.'' I said, 
``What do you want to do, take out television ads, hand out fliers?'' 
What is the indicia you are going to put in there to demonstrate that 
they did not? I said, ``Do you have language? I will take it.'' And 
they still go around saying that sexual predators, having served their 
time, are not required to be part of a registry, and now and forever, 
every community where they move will be notified.
  By the way, it sounds pretty draconian from a civil libertarians 
viewpoint, Mr. President, and the reason is that the only place where 
the evidence seems to indicate that we are totally incapable of 
rehabilitating is in the area of sex offenders, repeat sex offenders. 
So the fact that they have served a prison sentence, I am told--and I 
do not consider myself an expert here--I think I know a fair amount 
about the criminal justice system, but I do not pretend to have all the 
information on this point. But I am told by the experts that these 
people are the toughest to rehabilitate. So it makes sense to notify 
communities that sexual offenders, having served their time, are in the 
community.
  My Republican friends keep running around saying--by the way, a 
tragic thing happened in our neighboring State of New Jersey. A young 
girl was murdered, allegedly by a released sex offender who moved into 
the community across the street, a neighbor, and the family or the 
neighborhood never knew that a sex offender was living in that house. 
It created an uproar, as it should. But we already took care of it in 
this bill that the Republicans are preventing us from being able to 
pass. They keep saying, ``It is not in there.'' It is.
  Another fact--and we will go through three more and I will yield the 
floor and come back another time. The two other things we most often 
hear is the crime conference report will fund only 22,000 police 
officers, not 100,000 new cops. That is the refrain I hear. Where they 
come up with 22,000, I do not know. Let me tell you what the facts are. 
The crime bill does provide for 100,000 new cops. It provides $8.8 
billion in a trust fund for that. It provides $7.5 billion--$75,000 per 
cop over a 6-year period totaling 100,000 cops; the $1.3 billion that 
is remaining is for implementing and administering community policing, 
which is new to most communities and costs money. They need help doing 
it.
  The program requires that the State match this commitment in Federal 
dollars over a 6-year period. But under the fiscal year 1994 budget, 
$150 million in police supplemental money, having exactly the same 
matching requirements for cities and States, and your cities and your 
States, I say to the Presiding Officer--Delaware, California, Florida, 
Texas--fell all over themselves to try to participate in this $150 
million program, which the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee funded for the fiscal year 1994 budget. And we are funding 
$8.8 billion over the next 6 years. What is different? Mayors and local 
officials today strongly support this program because they know it is 
real help for putting cops on the street.
  The last point I will mention for the time being is that we are 
beginning to hear a slow rumble that I am counting on--and I say this 
seriously--when the debate takes place, that the debate will be led by 
the President pro tempore on this point, which is that we are hearing 
now, as if it is a new notion, that a point of order will lie to the 
conference report when it comes over here, as if we did something in 
the conference that generated a ``point of order.''
  Well, as people on this floor know, the violent crime reduction trust 
fund is, and always has been, subject to a budget point of order 
objection, because it is within the jurisdiction of the Budget 
Committee, but did not go through the Budget Committee before being 
offered on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  Let me be crystal clear. When the trust fund was offered as an 
amendment on the floor of the Senate last November, sponsored by 
Senators Byrd, Mitchell, Hatch, Gramm, Dole, Domenici, Biden, and 
others, this same point of order was in order then, as it is now. And 
the reason it was in order then, as it is now, is that this trust fund 
notion did not go through the Budget Committee. Indeed, since that 
time, my Republican friends--at that time, my Republican friends 
ardently insisted time and time again, as we moved toward conference, 
and they even passed a resolution instructing the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, yours truly, to insist in the conference that we 
keep the trust fund. Is that not strange? They said: Biden, we do not 
want you jimmying around over there, doing what those House guys do. 
The House guys did not have a trust fund. They did not have this in a 
trust fund. This was not real money. We insisted on it.
  So the Senate and my Republican colleagues insisted that I go to 
conference and keep the trust fund. I was all for keeping the trust 
fund. Like I said, it was not my idea. I wish I could have claimed 
credit for having thought of it. This is the best thing we have done on 
crime, in my view. So I kept it in the conference. The House yielded to 
the Senate. Now I am being told by my Republican friends that they are 
going to insist on a point of order. Translated for the listeners, that 
means 60 votes are required before we can move forward.
  Well, that is good politics, but it is not totally consistent with 
what Barry Goldwater used to say when he served here: ``In your heart, 
you know I am right.'' Remember that phrase? In their hearts, they know 
they are wrong. In their hearts they know. They asked me to keep the 
trust fund in, and in their hearts they know the trust fund is a good 
idea, and in their political soul, they are going to ask for a point of 
order requiring me to get 60 votes. Funny thing, we do not have 60 
Democrats. So it is going to be hard.
  But let us be honest. Why are we hearing about the point of order 
now? This is pure partisan politics, pure game playing by those who 
would rather see and score political points than give the American 
people help in fighting crime.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, who are here to discuss health 
care, for their indulgence. But there is no other time in the midst of 
this public debate that is going on to set the record straight. I stand 
ready to debate any one of my colleagues, not because I am any smarter, 
better, or any less or more informed, but because I know what I said 
here to be correct. I stand ready to debate them on any of the points 
raised here, and I challenge them to suggest to me why what I said here 
is not true. It is possible that I could have made a mistake, but I 
have spent 6 years on this.
  The criticisms being made to the bill by my Republican friends are 
simply not real. The real criticisms of the bill that are occasionally 
made are that this bans assault weapons, military style assault 
weapons, less than 20 in number. There are Senators like my friends 
from Idaho, two Senators from Idaho, who feel very strongly that it is 
unconstitutional to do that.
  I respect their point of view. I respect that. I disagree with it.
  I teach the second amendment in law school in the course I teach. I 
believe the second amendment is real. You cannot ban all weapons. We 
are not trying to do all that. If you acknowledge that you can ban any 
weapon, then you already acknowledge it is not absolute.
  For example, I wonder how many people think someone with enough money 
can buy an F-15 loaded with ordnance, or someone should be able to buy 
a theater nuclear weapon, or someone should be able to buy a hydrogen 
bomb? Obviously, it is crazy. People should not be able to buy those 
things. The second amendment says they have a right to bear arms. They 
are arms.
  If you say you cannot ban those, why is it so outrageous to say 
something that has no utility other than to kill a person should be 
able to be banned? But there are some who believe it is 
unconstitutional. I respect them for that.
  So, that is a legitimate argument against this bill. But you should 
have the courage to stand up and tell the American people: I am against 
this bill because I do not want to ban assault weapons, even though I 
know it means 100,000 cops down the drain, 105,000 prison cells down 
the drain, 600,000 people now walking the street won't go into intense 
supervision. I think all that should go down the drain; 30,000 violent 
offenders in the States last year who were convicted but never served a 
day behind bars because there are no prison cells. They should continue 
to walk the street because the principle on the second amendment is 
important to me.
  I respect you for that if that is your view. Say it. Do not say this 
releases 10,000 drug offenders. Do not say this is $30 billion in new 
taxes. Do not say that this is pork. Do not say that there are not 
100,000 cops.
  By the way, I have less respect for--but I have been around long 
enough to have a serious appreciation for--a party that says, hey, 
look, our way back is to make sure we decimate this fellow in the White 
House. I understand that. I am a big boy. I have been around awhile. I 
am getting to be an old guy. I am 51 now. I have been here since I was 
29. It took a while to learn. I learned. It is called hardball 
politics. A lot of people play hardball politics, Democrats and 
Republicans. I do not suggest they do not have a right to play hardball 
politics.
  How many times have you heard the Republicans say and Democratic 
friends echo if the President loses the crime bill health care is in 
trouble? If the President loses the crime bill, he is in deep trouble.
  That is stating the obvious. He is. If you want this crime bill to go 
down, because it is going to bring the President down, thereby 
enhancing the chances a Republican President will be elected, thereby 
from your standpoint the country will be in better hands and, 
therefore, what you are doing is for the good of the country, that is 
OK. I understand that argument. But make it straight up. Make it. Make 
it. Do not do what the Republican national chairman did so it was 
reported in the press--contact Republicans in the House and say that if 
you vote for this, you are going to be in real trouble--I am 
paraphrasing--you are not a loyal party person.
  Now they say that was not done. Why was there a requirement on the 
part of the House leadership to hold up a letter coming from the 
Republican national chairman saying, ``By the way, you can vote for 
this bill if you want"? Is that not an unusual thing? Who was it? I 
would yield to the Presiding Officer except he cannot respond. He would 
know. Which one of Shakespeare's characters said ``He doth protest too 
much?'' I think the national committee chairman doth protest too much 
when he has to write a letter shown on the floor of the House saying: 
``It is OK. You can vote for this Democratic crime bill and we will not 
do anything to you.''
  He doth protest too much. I am not even sure I got the quote right. 
But I got the principle right. I got the facts right. And I got my 
Republican colleagues right in the political crosshairs. I understand 
that.
  Say it. Sing it. Be proud of your party discipline. But do not tell 
me you are letting out 10,000 drug felons to maraud the community. Do 
not tell me we are raising $30 billion in new taxes.
  This bill went down in the House last time because of the RNC and the 
NRA. Forty-eight Democrats voted against the bill because of guns. I 
respect their view. I think they are dead wrong. I respect their view.
  Anyway, I think it is time for a little bit of truth in legislating. 
We want to debate the facts of this legislation. I stand ready to do 
that. Hopefully, I will be up for the task. I know my blood is up for 
that task. I know I have never been as frustrated, I must say with 
anything in my whole life. This is a bill that every police agency that 
I am aware of, Republican and Democratic alike, is for this bill. It is 
the toughest crime bill we ever drafted. It has serious, serious 
efforts in there to deal with violent offenders, and it has a serious 
and rational effort to deal with prevention programs that work.


          a few examples of crime prevention programs at work

  Boys and Girls Clubs:
  A 1992 evaluation by Columbia University and the American Health 
Foundation found that public housing projects with clubs experienced 13 
percent fewer juvenile crimes; 22 percent less drug activity, and 25 
percent less crack presence than projects without clubs.
  Communities in Schools Houston, TX--this program aims to keep at-risk 
kids in school--as opposed to out on the streets committing crimes. 
Professionals set up shop in the schools and provide one-on-one 
counseling, mentoring, tutoring, job training and crisis intervention.
  An independent evaluation reported that approximately 90 percent of 
the kids served by the program are still in school at the end of the 
school year. In contrast, one-third of students entering high school 
statewide fail to graduate.
  Police athletic teams [PAT], Birmingham, AL--the Birmingham Police 
Department sponsors softball, basketball, baseball and golf teams for 
kids from disadvantaged neighborhoods. The catch: The kids must study 
for at least an hour every night (the program supplies tutors) and must 
maintain a C average in order to play.
  The Police Department reports that juvenile crime has dropped 30 
percent in neighborhoods served by the program.
  Southwest Key Day Treatment Program, Austin, TX--southwest Key 
caseworkers provide round-the-clock tracking of kids who have had a 
brush with the law, and who are out on probation or parole. The program 
counsels the kids and their parents, and also requires the kids to 
attend daily work-related, social skills and recreation sessions.
  The Texas Youth Commission reports that the kids who complete the 
program have a 65 percent lower re-arrest rate than kids released from 
institutions directly into standard parole services.
  Project First Class Male, Fort Lauderdale, FL--in this program, 
counselors meet with at-risk young boys at school and in their homes 
with an eye toward promoting sexual abstinence and reducing teen 
pregnancies.
  An independent evaluation reports an 85 percent success rate in 
preventing new pregnancies.
  The Phoenix House, New York, NY--Phoenix House provides live-in high 
schools for juvenile drug abusers. In addition to traditional 
curricula, the program helps kids kick their habits and develop self-
esteem, discipline, and personal responsibility.
  Phoenix House reports that 85 percent of its graduates remain drug 
and crime free for the 3 to 5 years that the program charts their 
progress.
  The Juvenile Diversion Program, Pueblo, CO--this program for 
nonviolent first time offenders requires kids to sign a behavioral 
contract and become involved with a nonprofit agency; the kids are also 
tutored, counseled, and required to pay restitution to their victims.
  The program reports that 83 percent of its graduates are not re-
arrested in the 2 years the program follows them.
  ``STARS''--Success Through Academic and Recreational Support, Fort 
Myers, FL--STARS, which has received accolades from Republican Senator 
Connie Mack, provides at-risk kids with positive, adult-guided tutorial 
and recreational programs.
  The Fort Myers chief of police reports that, in the last 3 years, the 
program has led to a 27 percent reduction in juvenile arrests and a 
dramatic reduction in repeat-offender arrests.
  Specialized Treatment Services, Mercer, PA--this program targets 
delinquent kids with mental health problems for intensive counseling 
and academic services.
  The program reports that more than 80 percent of the kids who 
complete the program do not get into serious trouble during the 5 years 
that they are tracked upon release.
  Mr. President, I used to have a schoolteacher and a grandmother who 
used to use the following phrase when she looked at me. I remember back 
when I was a kid in the fifties Boys Town was a big deal. You know, 
``He ain't heavy, Father. He's my brother.''
  Coming from a large Catholic family that was a big deal thought. It 
was one of the things my grandfather Finnigan talked about, so on and 
so forth. I am proud of that. That is not belittling. I was very proud.
  I never forget, in addition, one of the other phrases that Father 
Flannigan has. ``There is no such thing as a bad boy.'' I am not so 
sure he is right about that. But I am prepared to accept that.
  One of the things my grandmother said seems to be proven true by all 
the studies we have done and all the hearings we had. She used the 
phrase that is used probably in 50 different ways by 50 different 
cultures and a million different people. She always used to say: 
``Joey, an idle mind is the Devil's workshop.'' An idle mind is the 
Devil's workshop. Sounds kind of corny, does it not, Mr. President?
  Like I said this is not rocket science. These are kids who are about 
to enter the drug stream and the crime stream, and one of the few 
things that stands between them and entering those drug and crime 
streams is an opportunity to be diverted--not converted--diverted from 
the idle mind that lets them sit in the projects up against the school 
brick walls on those hot summer days and decide whether or not to take 
that crack vial and try it or go into a basketball gymnasium or go into 
a system where they have people from the community, Big Brothers and 
Big Sisters, who are tutoring kids. That makes a difference.
  Nothing in here is new under the Sun. And $3.7 billion dollars of the 
prevention programs my Republican friends now call pork they supported 
on this floor, and many of them are Republican initiatives, like 
Senator Dole's initiative.
  I am going to read Senator Dole's quote from his legislation. He is 
the one talking about all this pork. It is one sentence, if I can find 
it quickly here. It is a $100 million juvenile drug trafficking and 
gang prevention program which I had in the bill, which he amended and 
wanted to make his legislation, which we did. Let me tell you what it 
says. It says:
  This is Senator Dole-sponsored legislation that was originally the 
bill that he amended. He said, $100 million to

       * * * develop and provide parenting classes for parents of 
     at-risk youth.

  Not a bad idea; pretty good idea.

       * * * to develop and provide training in methods of 
     nonviolent dispute resolution to junior high school and high 
     school age children.
       * * * to establish sports mentoring and coaching programs 
     in which athletes serve as role models to juveniles. To teach 
     that athletics provides a positive alternative to drug and 
     gang involvement

  That is Robert Dole, the man who stands here and belittles midnight 
basketball, and what does he call it? Tap dancing in prison. Where that 
came from, I do not know.
  If for midnight basketball you were required to be in school, where 
you are required to maintain a C average, where you are required to be 
in a study hall, et cetera, if that is some flaky program, what is this 
thing? What is this thing that he voted for, put his name on, that all 
those folks over there voted for?
  It went from here to there--they are wonderful alchemists, I would 
say to my friend from West Virginia. It went from a substantive 
program--as it made its way up that aisle, it got halfway down that 
corridor on the way over to the House of Representatives and it got 
midway and fell into a conference and it became pork. How did that 
happen?
  I think it got politically barbecued as it made its way out this 
door. So I will not use the phrase, ``what is one man's pork is another 
man's politics''--paraphrasing, ``What is one man's meat is another 
man's poison.'' But it seems to me that there is a little alchemy 20th-
century style going on here.
  It is politics. So far it is very successful politics. So far 
obstructionist politics works better than constructionist politics. But 
it is politics. Just so the American people know what it is, that is 
all I care. If they conclude that team is right, that is what they want 
to do--well, that is what democracy is about. I will be back here next 
year. I am here for at least another 2 years, God willing and the creek 
not rising and my health maintained. I will come back at it again. But 
it is outrageous to suggest that this bill should go down for some of 
the reasons that are suggested by my Republican friends.
  I thank my friend from West Virginia for his indulgence, allowing me 
to enter in the middle of this health care debate. But it seems to me, 
the same kind of shenanigans are going on on the health care debate 
that are going on on this crime debate, and, as I said, a little truth 
in legislating and debating might be useful.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________