[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

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was encouraged by last night's White House 
meeting involving Republican whip Newt Gingrich and a delegation of 
House Republicans. Perhaps this is a signal that President Clinton now 
finally understands that last Thursday's vote was not a procedural 
trick or a politically inspired attempt to hurt his presidency, but 
rather a vote to improve the crime bill to make it stronger, tougher, 
better.
  This is not rocket science. If the President is serious about passing 
a tough, no-nonsense crimefighting plan for America, here are some of 
the improvements he should support:
  First, increase prison funding to the House level of $13.5 billion; 
tighten the language so that prison funds will definitely be used to 
build new prison cells, rather than half-way houses and other prison 
alternatives; and require truth-in-sentencing for first-time violent 
offenders.
  Second, cut at least half of the spending on social programs, 
including the Local Partnership Act, the Model Cities Intensive Grant 
Program, and the so-called Yes Grant Program. When the crime bill left 
the Senate last November, it had a price tag of $22 billion. But, now, 
9 months later, the conference report authorizes a staggering $33 
billion, a 50-percent increase. Obviously, somewhere along the way, the 
crime bill was hijacked by the big-dollar social spenders.
  Third, plug the so-called safety valve provision, which could result 
in the early release of 10,000 convicted drug offenders--a get-out-of-
jail-free card brought to you by the U.S. Congress.
  Fourth, no cuts for the FBI or the Drug Enforcement Agency. No crime 
bill should cut staffing at our Nation's top law enforcement agencies.
  Fifth, restore some of the tough provisions adopted last April by the 
House, including Congresswoman Molinari's proposal on similar-offense 
evidence in sexual assault cases, and the Megan Kanka law, requiring 
State law enforcement agencies to notify the public when violent sexual 
predators are living in their communities.
  Sixth, restore some of the tough provisions adopted by the Senate, 
including mandatory minimums for those who use a gun in the commission 
of a crime; mandatory restitution for crime victims; and Senator 
Simpson's provision requiring the swift deportation of criminal aliens.

  And finally, Mr. President, give the States and localities more 
flexibility over how to use the funding for more cops. I have heard 
from many police chiefs, including Chief Fred Thomas of Washington, DC, 
who have indicated that what is needed most is not more police officers 
but better technology. We should provide that flexibility.
  The ball is now in President Clinton's court. He can adopt a one-
party strategy, trying to muscle his way up to 218 votes. Or he can 
continue to do what he started last night.
  The President is wise to reach out to Republicans, but political 
lipservice will not do it alone. The President must publicly support 
real, meaningful, tough-on-crime improvements to the conference report, 
so that we can pass a bipartisan bill not with 218 votes but with 435 
votes, if necessary, in the House and all the votes in the Senate.
  If, however, the President wants to tinker around the edges, making 
small adjustments here and there to win over 8 or 9 or 10 votes, then 
he will be making a big mistake. In the end, that may be a successful 
strategy for the House, but you can bet it will not be a winner here in 
the Senate.
  I think many in the Senate are going to wonder how it ballooned from 
$22 to $33 billion and what happened to a lot of the tough enforcement 
provisions that had broad bipartisan support. Keep in mind, this bill 
passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 4 or 94 to 5. We had a lot of 
tough provisions in it, and suddenly they have all disappeared, or many 
disappeared. I think the American people will support a good crime 
bill. But keep in mind, also, that this only applies to Federal crimes. 
Many people see crime bill, they immediately believe it is going to 
have a big impact on their States and localities. I do not believe that 
is the case.

                          ____________________