[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
                      CRIME BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was here on the floor prepared to move 
ahead, as were Senator Moynihan and others, on the issue of health 
care. Then I heard our good friend, the minority leader, talk about the 
crime bill conference report. Listening to him, I did not recognize the 
bill he was describing.
  Just yesterday, my Governor, a Republican, indicated that he was 
prepared to ensure matching funds for all the communities of 
Massachusetts to make sure that we would achieve the goal of adding 
100,000 more police officers nationwide. He identified many different 
points of the crime bill that were worthwhile and valuable, and seemed 
eager for those measures to be supported here in the Senate. In 
frankness, he did not express a specific view on passage of the overall 
bill. He said he had not studied the issue well enough to be able to 
make a judgment in terms of its overall features, but he indicated that 
crime was an area of great priority and he wanted us to move forward, 
and the people of Massachusetts certainly do as well.
  Second, the people of my State want action on the banning of assault 
weapons that have no purpose whatsoever for hunting, and only for 
killing individuals.
  It is interesting that, with the exception of the 10 members of the 
Black Caucus, who have a longstanding history of voting against the 
death penalty, most of the members who voted against the rule also 
supported eliminating the assault weapon ban when that separate vote 
occurred in the House. That is basically what was going on over in the 
House of Representatives.
  We listened to these protestations that have been made here earlier 
today, but these issues of public policy were resolved during earlier 
debates. We heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate when we were debating 
the funding of various prison cells--the issue was, are we going to 
have truth in sentencing? As the author of the Sentencing Reform Act, I 
believe in truth in sentencing.
  But are we going to require truth in sentencing for the States before 
they will get the funding?
  The Senator from Delaware spoke very eloquently about this issue. If 
we make it a very strict standard, many States will be unable to 
compete for the money. Many of those on the other side of the aisle 
wanted it stronger and stronger, even though most correctional and law 
enforcement officials say that will not work. So the conference report 
had a more balanced position.
  I did not hear any complaints from our Republican conferees when we 
added additional money for border control and other law enforcement 
programs involving illegal aliens. I did not hear any of the conferees 
on that side of the aisle complain about adding more than $1 billion in 
the conference report to try to assist States that are incarcerating 
illegal aliens. I did not hear those complaints as a member of that 
conference committee. I did not hear complaints when we increased 
funding for police officers.
  Mr. President, the Senate minority leader also spoke about 10,000 
individuals who are going to be released from jails. His numbers are 
wrong and he has misstated the safety valve provision, but I would 
point out that this proposal was supported by Congressmen Henry Hyde 
and Bill McCollum, leading Republicans. They know that the proposal 
will affect only a small number of nonviolent, low level drug 
offenders. And we need those prison cells for the violent rapists and 
murderers and those that are committing other crimes of violence. This 
was supported by Republicans on the conference. Now we hear other 
Republicans say they do not want that now.
  I would say finally, Mr. President, we should listen to the majority 
leader who read into the Record some of the various proposals which 
have been advocated by our Republican friends under the concept of 
prevention. Many of their programs were included in the conference 
report. It is amazing that Republicans were willing to add them to the 
proposal here in the U.S. Senate, and now these measures are being 
railed against here on the floor by other Republicans.
  I am hopeful we will get a good crime bill. I remember very well that 
we spent close to 2 days on the floor before the Senate adopted the 
Brady bill, and there was great uncertainty on that side of the aisle 
whether they were going to continue a filibuster or not filibuster. I 
think the President is going the extra mile to get a good bill. I know 
the leadership is trying to get a good measure. I thought that the 
explanations by the Senator from Delaware responded fully to these 
questions and I commend those remarks to my colleagues.

                          ____________________