[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   A SENSE OF PURPOSE OF OUR COUNTRY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Farr). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight because I 
have pondered and given analysis to a sense of purpose of our country.
  Our Nation was dedicated to basic principles of God's will. Our 
Founders called these rights to be self-evident and forged a great 
country from the wilderness.
  Two hundred and eighteen years later the ambiance of America is 
defined by the soul of her people. While many are filled with goodness, 
there is a lack of godliness, reverence, and direction among the 
American people.
  When pillars of Christianity in a society are weakened, so are the 
fruits and blessings which flow from such a nation. The liberals mock 
George Bush for the ``vision thing,'' and they also mocked Dan Quayle 
for preaching family values. You see, they were both right, the liberal 
goal is to replace Christian principles of our Republic with humanistic 
principles in that the human being can do whatever they want so long as 
they feel good and it does not hurt others.
  We must, as a country, ameliorate our society neither by sanitizing 
her nor by living in her past, but by restructuring our Government and 
shoring up her originating foundations. These efforts will give 
direction and reignite the power of the American dream.
  It will happen from those of us who are principled and exercise the 
courage of conviction with passion. You see, we will succeed, because 
there are so few of us who compete with their whole heart.
  The reason I have made that comment is because I would like to 
discuss crime tonight. You see, all of this passion that a lot of 
people like to speak about on the crime issue really is about emotion 
into the issue.
  Having been a former prosecutor, a Federal prosecutor, for 3 years 
out of the United States attorney's office, crime is an issue I know 
something about. You see, what we should be talking about here is the 
United States Code. That is what this is, Federal jurisdiction.
  You see, there were four great landmarks in the history of the 
Federal criminal legislation. The first criminal law was enacted by the 
Crimes Act of 1790. The act defined back in 1790, among others, such 
offenses as treason; it also had forgery, bribery, and many of these 
punishments have not even been changed to today.
  Then there was a revision in 1866; another revision in 1897; and the 
most recent revision was accomplished in 1948.
  I think what we must remember is in the preface of title 18 a quote 
by Roy Fitzgerald of June 30, 1926. He said, ``The scrutiny of this 
code is invited, constructive criticism is solicited. It is the 
ambition of the Committee of the Revision of the Laws of the House of 
Representatives,'' at that time, ``was to perfect the code by 
correcting errors, eliminating an obsolete matter, restating the law 
with logical completeness, with precision, brevity, and uniformity of 
expression.''
  You see, the crime issue: We should be talking about the law. A 
successful judicial system needs a proper balance between restitution, 
retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and prevention.
  What has occurred with the crime bill that came out after conference 
report is that it is completely out of balance.

                              {time}  2210

  The crime bill that was defeated here on a procedural vote for the 
rule, the message sent was to send that bill back to conference to 
correct it, because this body voiced the will of the American people to 
say that the bill that was submitted for us was an obscene injustice of 
public responsibility.
  You see, the responsibility that we have as Members is to come forth 
with political morality. Political morality is whatever bill that you 
bring forth, whether it is on welfare reform, on crime, whether it is 
on the space station, whether it is on many different appropriations, 
we need to begin paying for what we do. When we have approaching a $5 
trillion national debt, which is moving forward at a clip of $870 
million a day, that is what this deficit is costing us, money that 
could go to infrastructure of this country, to improvements in 
education, advanced technologies.
  No, we have to pay it on the Nation's debt and our budget deficit. 
That is what this is causing to us. We cannot ignore it. We cannot 
stick our head in the sand and say we can continue on.
  We must exercise political morality.
  For many, many years, you see, there was not a cry among America for 
a balanced budget amendment, there was not a cry for a line-item veto. 
Only recently has there been the lack of responsibility.
  That act of public responsibility is also involved in the crime bill 
because when there is not enough funding to go around, we must exercise 
public responsibility to spend dollars wisely, prudently, effectively, 
focused so that they are effective programs; not to just on the crime 
issue, to spend money as if it is a starburst without realizing what 
impact those funds are being made, if any.
  The message I received from the State of Indiana has been very clear, 
it is to stop the revolving door on violent crime and to, yes, place 
more police on the streets. You see, the people in Indiana are very 
pragmatic. They exercise good common sense. They say we realize that 7 
percent of the violent criminals in our society are committing between 
two-thirds to 70 percent of the violent crimes, yet only serving 37 
percent of their terms.
  So what they are asking for is a tough crime bill with true truth-in-
sentencing provisions. Now I understand that the President likes to get 
out there and say there are truth-in-sentencing provisions in the bill; 
but, you know, they are tremendously watered down and weakened. The 
President knows that. But he knows that the American people want to 
stop the revolving door on crime. So he throws out the terminology at 
the same time while he knows that States can access prison funding 
without even having to access--excuse me--having to activate truth-in-
sentencing provisions.
  You know, since the House defeated the rule, the President did try to 
seize, Mr. Speaker, the initiative with numerous attacks upon the GOP. 
And the NRA. Of course, he has forgotten about 58 Democrats who also 
opposed him on that rule.
  I, on Friday, after hearing the majority leader state that he would 
place the crime bill back on the docket, I immediately wrote a letter 
to the Speaker of the House, saying, ``Let's move forward in a 
bipartisan fashion.'' I was one of 38 of the Republicans who voted for 
the crime bill that came out of the House. I very much would like to 
vote on a crime bill. But the crime bill that came out of the 
conference report is not a report of a bill for which I can support. I 
asked them to meet in a bipartisan fashion to send this bill back to 
the conference, so that, yes, the will of the American people can be 
served.
  My fears are that rather than negotiate with individuals such as 
myself, who has not been contacted by the White House, is that they 
would rather try to find eight individuals, take them to the back rooms 
and negotiate back there, either by using the Mutt-and-Jeff routines 
offering enticements and deals or outright punishment, threats, verbal 
coercion.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will exercise courage of conviction 
that I spoke in my opening because I see the trust deficit that is real 
between the American people and this Congress is there because they see 
a Member of Congress being nonresponsive to the will of the American 
people.
  I also have mentioned what it felt like to be back at home at 
Monticello, IN, sitting on the couch with my son, to then see President 
Clinton on TV on the nightly news asking the American people from the 
pulpit of a church to pray for Members of Congress who voted against 
his crime bill.
  I must say, Mr. President, that that was a tremendous statement to 
make from someone that, yes advocates the present statements of 
Christian bigotry that is occurring out there, not only you yourself, 
but also members of your Cabinet, talking about the unreligious 
Christian right.
  Let me move to the President's comments that have been conclusively 
stated that the bill contains the ``three-strikes-you're-out,'' 100,000 
cops on the beat, prison funding and, as I said earlier, truth-in-
sentencing provisions. You see, those are things which appeal to the 
American people. Clinton has not given the details about the plan in 
any of his statements. He has only repeated that what defeated the bill 
was a, I quote, ``procedural trick.'' He has not explained how the bill 
was so drastically weakened in the conference. And I wonder why.
  If the bill was so wonderful, why does he not let the American people 
in on the big spending secret?
  You see, many of us are upset. We are upset because the crime bill 
got away from its original intent. Many of you are upset because, yes, 
we want to build more prisons; but what happened to that House version 
of the bill was that there was a decrease in funding of prisons by 50 
percent.
  Now, someone on the other side of the aisle would say, ``No, Steve, 
it is not 50 percent. There is $10.5 billion in the funding of 
prisons.'' But, you know, folks, it is less $1.8 billion for the 
housing of illegal aliens and $2.2 billion of that is non-trust-fund 
spending, which is a nonappropriated fund. You may as well call it 
funny money.

  Attached to the prison funding were the truth-in-sentencing 
provisions. Yes, that is a Federal enticement to say to the States, 
``Let's stop the revolving door.'' But as I said earlier, now they 
cannot access the funds without having to enact truth-in-sentencing 
provisions.
  One of the funding mechanisms of this bill I would like to discuss is 
that there is no true, accurate funding mechanism of the crime bill. 
The crime bill is to be funded with a trust account.
  You see, there is no requirement that Federal spending actually meet 
all the crime bill funding commitments. You see, what that does is set 
the stage for possible nonbudgeted supplemental appropriations.
  Next I would like to discuss retroactive applicability of the waivers 
of minimum mandatory sentences for first-time drug felons. Yes, you 
have heard many talk on the House floor about the possibility of that 
impact, of the release of up to 10,000 drug felons.
  Now, it is difficult to say what the exact number is going to be. But 
what we do know is the impact of that measure. The impact of the 
measure is very real.
  According to the preliminary estimates developed by the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons, somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 Federal prisoners 
could meet the eligibility requirements, as stated in the bill, section 
201. A sentence reduction hearing would likely be required to reduce a 
prisoner's sentence each costing the judiciary about $2,500 per case. 
If 5,000 or 10,000 hearings were conducted, the cost to the judiciary 
could be between $10.5 million and $25 million, which would likely be 
incurred in the first 2 or 3 years of the enactment of the provision.

                              {time}  2220

  So, you know when the President gets out, and he talks about this 
being a tough crime bill, I do not think the people have in mind the 
releasing of so many Federal prisoners back into the circulation of 
society, and you know it is not just the individual that decided to 
experiment with marijuana for the first time. This also could be the 
moles, those individuals who are running drugs, and in Indiana that 
impact is real because they are running drugs up from the South, 
whether it is from the gulf, or from Miami, up I-75, and cut across I-
69, or up I-65 to Chicago or to Detroit, and it is real, and to think 
we would take those drug felons and place them back on to the street is 
not my idea of a tough crime bill. When the American people say they 
want a tough crime bill, I believe they have in their image, in their 
mind, something of the Terminator, but what we have is something that 
looks more like Mr. Whipple squeezin' the Charmin.
  Part of the bill which has also upset many is the social side. They 
call it the prevention. Yes, it is heavy in the prevention side, and we 
do need a balance with prevention. But what we do not need is the out 
of balance. You see, earlier when I had mentioned that we need a system 
that balances between prevention, restitution, retribution, 
rehabilitation, and deterrence, the American people have stood up and 
said, ``Enough is enough. For 25-plus years we have had tremendous 
focus on the rehabilitative side, poured money into the prevention 
side, and what has the spending of $5 trillion of social programs since 
1965 done for this society? It has escalated violent crimes by almost 
500 percent.''
  It is almost like what happened to individual and personal 
responsibility. Yes, some of the prevention side of the spending is 
good. I think that the statements by many about the midnight basketball 
and a lot of those provisions are silly, and the American people view 
them as being silly. I think what upsets a lot of us here is the 
placing of $1.8 billion of the Local Partnership Act of the failed 
stimulus package in a crime bill. It has no place in this crime bill.
  You see, earlier when I opened up, when I talked about title 18 and 
the law, it is because we should be talking about a focus in on the 
deterrence, the retribution, the law, and then seek the balance on the 
preventive side. Now I think the message of the American people has 
been very clear, and their clear message is:

  What happened to deterrence?
  What happened to retribution?
  What happened to victims' rights?
  We have had enough about the civil rights of criminals. Let us stop 
coddling the criminal with hug-a-thug type programs. Enough is enough.
  You see, I stand here and view this through the dimension of a 
Federal prosecutor, and I say, ``Will this crime bill, if I were still 
in the U.S. attorney's office, would this bill help? Would it help me? 
Would it help members of the community to have the streets, and the 
schools, and the parks, and the communities safer?'' I could not look 
at an individual back in Indiana in the face and in their eyes and 
state with the passion and my conviction and say it will.
  Let me mention about the funding of 100,000 police because I know 
many like to talk about the 100,000 police. I know what many have 
already talked about, that it really does not fund the 100,000 police 
on the street that the President and many others claim.
  I think the American people would like to see more police. I know 
that there are communities that are strapped in the high tax, high 
crime areas that have high unemployment. I know that they are reaching 
out.
  Sure, we would love to have better efficiencies of their local 
government. I do not want the Federal Government to be a bailout for 
the inefficiencies of the local communities. But on this issue of the 
100,000 cops on the beat you almost have to say, ``What's the catch?''
  You see, I view this provision as an entrapment of police funds. The 
simple examination of title one of section 1003 of the conference 
report on page H-7376 of the Congressional Record shows there is now a 
way that this bill could possibly fund police for our streets. You see, 
the bill provides $8.8 billion to be doled out at the discretion of the 
Attorney General for both new police--now think of that, at the 
discretion of the Attorney General. You see, there are some of us that 
believe that not only these cops on the beat, but other preventative 
programs should be handed out in block grants, not to be spent at the 
discretion of the Attorney General, or at HUD, or at other Federal 
governmental agencies.
  You see, my fear is that politics will permeate on the issue. Just go 
to Massachusetts, for example, and go ask two Republican Congressmen in 
Massachusetts by the name of Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen. Ask them 
what happened to the Federal grants for more police in the State of 
Massachusetts. You see, the money went to other Congressional districts 
who are Democrat Congressmen in Massachusetts, and no money went to the 
two Republican districts in the State of Massachusetts.
  Now, I have not analyzed where the funds have gone in other States, 
but that bothers me a whole lot because what that tells me is that 
politics are permeating the issue of where moneys will be doled out.
  So you say, ``Steve, just allow the discretion of this $8 billion-
plus to be held in the hands of the capricious hands of the President's 
Cabinet.'' I think not. We have had enough of federalism, federalism, 
the Federal Government, moving into the States and local communities as 
if this body has all the answers. I disagree.
  You know, I noticed earlier one of my colleagues commented that the 
leader of the sheriffs' association here in the United States is a 
Democrat sheriff from a county in South Carolina who said he is not 
going to access this. He is not going to access it because the 
application process will be too bureaucratic and that he cannot, their 
county cannot, afford the expense.
  You see, I was on the phone today also with a president of a county 
council in Marshall County, IN, by the name of John Zentz. He is 
president of the county council, and he said, ``Steve, we cannot afford 
this program.'' You see, they understand at the local community that it 
is an entrapment. In order for them to access these funds they must put 
up 25 percent of the costs of that new police officer, and then they 
are going to have to pay for, they, the counties, will have to pay for, 
the benefit package, health care and health care insurance, any kind of 
life insurance, their retirement programs. They will pick up the 
expense. So, they fund 25 percent. They are going to have to pay for 
the equipment if they are going to have to go out and buy new squad 
cars. The local communities are going to have to pick that up. The 
Federal Government will kick in the 75 percent. But the kicker is at 
the end of the 5 years the local communities have to pay it all.
  Now at the end of 5 years what magically happens? Vesting. Vest. You 
see, that police officer has vested.

                              {time}  2230

  He becomes a permanent employee. It is a hidden tax increase to the 
local communities, who cannot afford it, and they know it. That is why 
I received a call from the president of the county council, to say 
Steve, I do not agree with that carrot-and-stick approach.
  What I am hopeful for is that this body will move forward in a 
bipartisan fashion to address the crime issue. I think if they listen 
to the will of the American people, and I am very careful not to judge 
America by what happens in my district. Sometimes we get caught in 
that. I have to remember about the concerns of my colleagues that come 
from big cities. I recognize that this body at times, the Nation's 
agenda gets driven by the concerns of the big urban centers.
  I am keenly aware of that, because I come from the rural areas. The 
rural areas are individuals who are very pragmatic, who are steeped in 
traditions and have great reverence. They have known what it is like to 
do more with less. They are not the ones with their hands out, looking 
for a handout, when they have poorly run their own local governments. 
So that is why earlier I said the Federal Government should not be the 
bailout. I recognize that as we discuss the issue of crime, we must 
remain responsible, exercise public responsibility, and public 
political morality.
  What I hear from my district has been very clear on the issue thus 
far. The Fifth District of Indiana, the calls into my district are 16 
to 1 against the President's crime bill. When I did a survey of my 
district, I asked a few questions, and this is how they responded.
  Over 5,300 responses, from July 1 to July 31 of this year, to the 
question do you feel that crime control legislation should include 
truth-in-sentencing guidelines which require criminals to serve at 
least 80 percent of their sentences? 4,858, 92 percent, said yes, we 
want truth-in-sentencing provisions. So you see, when I want to stand 
up here on the House floor for truth-in-sentencing provisions to stop 
the revolving door, it is not stating just what I want. It is the will 
of the people that I represent in the Fifth Congressional District of 
Indiana.
  On the issue of do you support the notion that gun control is crime 
control? 4,416, 84 percent of the 5,300 responses said no, they do not 
buy into that notion.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk that it is the NRA that is stopping 
the crime bill. The NRA has played a part, but that is not the sole 
cause. You see, the crime bill got far away from its original intent. I 
voted against Brady. I voted against the assault weapons ban. I am a 
strong supporter of the second amendment.
  But, you know, I recognize that what we must go after is the criminal 
intent. You see, if I hold a knife in my right hand, and I hold a 
weapon, a gun which they seek to ban in my left hand, can you tell me 
which is the assault weapon and which is the defensive weapon? No.
  You see, what defines them is the criminal's intent. If I choose the 
knife in my right hand to either maim, disfigure, wound, or kill, and I 
come at you, and you choose the weapon that they seek to ban, the knife 
is the assault weapon based only on my intent, and the defensive weapon 
is the gun.
  So the real assault weapon is the thug, is the criminal. That is what 
defines the assault weapon.
  So I get a little upset when I hear the ``assault weapons ban.'' Does 
that mean we are going to ban anything that is used? Are we going to 
ban feet? Are we going to ban hands? Are we going to ban an ink pen, if 
somebody uses an ink pen and stabs it into someone's heart? All of 
those are assault weapons. Tire irons, screwdrivers, ice picks. There 
are many things that could be classified as an assault weapon.

  So I do not give in to the renaming. You see, there is that notion of 
gun control is crime control, and I do not question the sincerity of 
the Members of this body that believe that, because they believe it 
with all their sincerity. President Clinton believes that will all his 
sincerity.
  But that which really gets me is to have in this crime bill gun 
control. And at the same time this conference stripped out the Senate 
provisions to get tough on criminals who use a weapon, a gun, in the 
commission of a crime.
  On the floor of the Senate, Phil Gramm offered an amendment requiring 
10 years in prison without parole for possessing a firearm during the 
commission of a violent crime or drug felony, 20 years imprisonment 
without parole for discharging a firearm during the commission of a 
violent crime or drug felony, life imprisonment without parole for 
murder, and the death penalty in aggravated cases.
  You see, this was stripped in conference. Now, think of that 
disconnect. They want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, but, 
at the same time, let us not punish criminals who use a gun or 
discharge it or kill someone in the commission of a crime. Let us not 
increase that.
  Now, you see, the President is not saying that. He is not out there 
saying that, because if the American people knew that, they would be 
tremendously upset.
  So that is why I am here tonight. I am here tonight to get the 
American people to understand there are many of us in this body who are 
upset that the crime bill was weakened.
  Now, I understand what happens here. That in order to get a crime 
bill through this House, it is an incredible juggling act. It is a 
juggling act because you have Members who do not believe in the death 
penalty. You have Members who only want to do the social side or the 
preventive side. You have got those who really believe in the coddling 
of the criminal. You have got those who say well, that is really not a 
mugger, that is just a socially disadvantaged person who is reaching 
out for help. So he is not really a mugger. Allow him to complete his 
transaction so he can get back to a midnight basketball game.
  Come on. The American people have seen through this crime bill. They 
do in fact want a tough crime bill. And being one of the 38 Republicans 
who voted for the crime bill, I want a tough crime bill. But I cannot 
support a crime bill that does not move back to conference and move in 
a bipartisan fashion. I cannot do it, and go back to Indiana and look 
at Hoosiers in the face and say ``good deed.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following newspaper 
article.

         [From the New York Times News Service, Aug. 17, 1994]

         A Vote Against Crime Bill Is a Lesson in New Politics

                          (By R.W. Apple, Jr.)

       Washington.--Rep. Lee L. Hamilton carries the look and the 
     sound of small-town America with him. He uses the phrase 
     ``visit with'' to mean ``talk to,'' he still wears his hair 
     cut short and he has the same soft Hoosier manner that once 
     made Herb Shriner a popular humorist.
       But Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, has spent 30 years on 
     the Potomac, and he is now a major player on Capitol Hill as 
     chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He is 
     invited to the bigtime parties in Georgetown and at the White 
     House (he was there for dinner recently with the Emperor and 
     Empress of Japan). He regularly gets approval ratings in the 
     70s and 80s from most liberal groups and ratings in the 30s 
     from most conservative organizations.
       Hamilton is admired for his intellect. President Clinton, 
     it is said, considered him last year for secretary of state 
     and has thought of him, along with Walter F. Mondale, as a 
     candidate to succeed Warren Christopher in that position. In 
     short, he is someone the Democratic establishment considers 
     one of its own.
       So perhaps the most surprising element of last week's 
     surprising defeat of the crime bill on a procedural motion 
     was Lee Hamilton's ``no'' vote. It is understandable only in 
     terms of the two worlds he inhabits and which one exerts the 
     stronger influence in today's politics.
       ``It doesn't give me any joy to cast a vote against 
     President Clinton or any other president, for that matter,'' 
     he said Tuesday. ``Would I like to see him get a victory when 
     he obviously needs one? Yes. Do I make that my first or my 
     second priority? No.
       The basic nature of American politics has changed. I don't 
     get elected because of what Bill Clinton thinks or what the 
     House leadership thinks. The electorate makes up its own 
     mind. That inevitably means that presidents have a lot less 
     clout with Congress than they used to have. All presidents, I 
     mean.
       It's also true, of course, that when a president is riding 
     high his influence goes up, and when a president is in the 
     dumps, the way Clinton is, his influence declines.''
       Hamilton lives in Nashville, Brown County, Indiana 
     (population 873) and represents most of southeastern Indiana, 
     an 18-county region whose biggest town is Jeffersonville, 
     across the Ohio River from Louisville, Ky.
       People there tend to be conservative Democrats; many trace 
     their roots back to the ``Butternut'' Democrats from the 
     South who settled in the area. And they are much more 
     suspicious of government spending and gun control and social 
     engineering than people in Washington or, for that matter, 
     Indianapolis.
       ``They elect Lee Hamilton,'' an old friend said, ``because 
     they know that deep down, there's a wide streak of Scottish 
     conservatism in there.''
       Hamilton certainly sounded conservative as he discussed his 
     vote in an interview Tuesday morning. He said he liked some 
     things in the bill, such as the provisions for more police 
     officers and more prisons, but he argued that Congress ``can 
     do better'' and that if it did not, no bill was preferable to 
     one he considered deeply flawed.
       How? Well, the congressman said, he found the financing of 
     the new programs ``very shaky,'' in fact ``largely phony,'' 
     because they would be paid for by savings within the federal 
     bureaucracy that would never be made.
       There was ``a lot of stuff that doesn't belong in a crime 
     bill,'' he added, like $300 million for economic development, 
     and ``another job training program, when we already have 
     about 20 and the vice president has been running around 
     saying we need to consolidate them.''
       But he spoke with special emphasis about the ban on assault 
     weapons, which he voted against when it first passed the 
     House, although he had voted in favor of the Brady law, which 
     requires a five-day waiting period before handguns can be 
     purchased.
       Such laws are far more popular in cities, he conceded, than 
     in the small towns and rural communities he represents; ``in 
     Indianapolis a gun is a threat, but in DuBois or Spencer 
     County it's a security device.''
       ``This is an exceedingly divisive issue,'' Hamilton said, 
     ``but no one has shown me any evidence that a ban would cut 
     the crime rate.''
       He pictured his vote as a matter of principle, but at the 
     White House, it was seen as a cave-in to political pressure. 
     Asked why Hamilton had voted as he did, a senior adviser to 
     Clinton answered.
       ``Guns. That's all it is.''
       In fact, Hamilton appears to be under no great pressure 
     from anyone. Despite widespread talk of stripping him of his 
     chairmanship as a disciplinary measure, something that would 
     have been almost automatic 20 or 30 years ago, he said he had 
     received no threats from House colleagues and no calls from 
     the White House since the vote. (Beforehand, he was called by 
     Vice President Al Gore, whom he told that he had already 
     publicly pledged to vote ``no.'')
       His hold on his district appears solid. He took 69 percent 
     of the vote in 1992 and 70 in 1994, and his opponent this 
     year, State Senator Jean Leising, is given little chance.
       There has been no burst of editorial comment on his vote, 
     and John Gilkey, managing editor of The Evening News in 
     Jeffersonville, said that even the assault-gun ban ``is not 
     really an overwhelming concern to people here,'' The main 
     complaints have come from local police chiefs. Dean marble, 
     the chief in Clerk County, said he was ``really 
     disappointed'' because additional officers were ``desperately 
     needed in the country'' and money was not available.

                          ____________________