[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    THE CRIME BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have been concerned about the crime 
bill, and I know that the House of Representatives is moving toward a 
solution. But there has been some misunderstanding in the country as to 
the reasons why the procedural vote on the rule for the crime bill was 
defeated in the House, in my opinion.
  There were two key sections of the crime bill, as passed by the 
Senate, that were taken out by the conference committee. The first 
involved the D'Amato amendment requiring a minimum mandatory sentence 
for committing a crime with a gun--that is, if someone committed a 
crime with a gun, but did not shoot anybody, he would receive, in 
addition to his sentence for committing the crime, a minimum 10-year 
sentence for pointing a gun at another person when committing the 
crime.
  If the criminal fired the gun while committing the crime, the D'Amato 
amendment required a minimum 20-year sentence. If a person was 
convicted a second time, the minimum mandatory sentences would be 20 
years for carrying a gun, and 30 years if it was fired. A third 
conviction would have resulted in life in prison.
  That is real gun control. There are 100 million guns in this country, 
and they are going to last 100 years at least. So you can talk all you 
want about banning a type of gun, but the problem is the person using 
the gun, not the gun itself. By having a mandatory sentence for using a 
gun to commit a crime, we attack the use of the gun, which is the real 
problem in our country. The D'Amato amendment is real gun control.
  The second area which weakened the crime bill in the conference 
committee concerns the area of notification of a community of a sexual 
predator's presence. When the crime bill passed the Senate, it 
contained a strong provision--the Gorton amendment--which required and 
allowed officials to notify the community into which a sexual predator 
is released. The community notification provision was taken out of the 
crime bill by the conferees, and it is amazing that it was taken out. 
Indeed, there is a story in my hometown newspaper in Sioux Falls, South 
Dakota, of just such a case that is occurring right now. The community 
is in an uproar.
  My point is that it should be a requirement that a community be 
notified whenever a convicted sexual predator is released into their 
midst. The community has the right to know where the sexual predator 
lives, even after he or she has done their time. I know some say this 
proposal violates the basic constitutional rights of the convicted 
predator, but I do not think it does.
  It is very important that these two portions of the crime bill be 
restored, especially the community notification provision for sexual 
predators. This is a problem across our country. Recently, there have 
been two major stories, one from California and one from New Jersey, 
where a sexual predator returned to a community and killed little girls 
living there.
  As the crime bill currently stands, only the police would be notified 
that a convicted sexual predator is about to be released into the 
community. And they cannot reveal the information. But under the 
Senate-passed bill, the Gorton amendment, the authorities would have a 
responsibility to notify the community and to make that information 
available to the news media, and so forth. I think that is a very, very 
important difference.
  I do hope these problems are worked out. I hope we pass a crime bill. 
I voted for the crime bill when it passed the Senate, and it is one of 
those bills that we are struggling with here along with the health care 
bill. I think we will pass a crime bill and the health care bill 
eventually, but it is going to require all of us working together on 
those two matters. But it is very important that we do so.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order that was previously 
entered and agreed to, the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] was to 
be recognized upon the yielding of the floor by the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Helms].
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Texas if she would 
be willing to yield me 60 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator 
from Delaware 60 seconds or up to 5 minutes if that would suffice for 
his purposes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas yields to the 
Senator from Delaware up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas very, very 
much. I think the points raised by our colleague from South Dakota a 
moment ago as to notification relative to sexual predators is a very 
important point.
  I would like to clarify something that seems to be misunderstood by 
everyone, understandably, because the House passed one version of a 
sexual predator bill, the Senate passed another version, and the 
conference report brought out a third version that is, in my view, much 
stronger.
  The bill that is cited by my friend from South Dakota that passed the 
Senate, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from the State of 
Washington, Senator Gorton, was sorely deficient in two very important 
aspects.
  One, he only required notification for a sexual predator if that 
sexual offender had been someone who committed a crime against a minor. 
So obviously if a person had gone to jail for committing a sexual 
offense against someone, brutally raping an 18-year-old girl or a 20-
year-old woman, that person would not be in the category of having to 
be put on a registry.
  Second, it was woefully deficient in that the Senator from the State 
of Washington in a legitimate attempt to protect the civil liberties of 
people insisted that before someone could be placed on such a registry, 
that is, a convicted felon, they would have to go before a board made 
up, I assume, of psychiatrists and psychologists who would have to 
determine whether or not that person was a serious sexual predator. The 
definition of predator had to be determined by this board. Only then, 
if they were determined to be a predator, not a sex offender, a 
predator, and only in that circumstance would a community have to be 
notified or the police have to be notified.
  On the House side, the provision that they had was I thought also 
deficient in that although it was broader in its coverage, it was less 
specific in who had to be notified.
  So, Mr. President, I took the liberty to make a suggestion to the 
conference, which they accepted, which was that we cover all, all sex 
offenders, regardless of what age the victim of the sex offender was 
and have a requirement that every State set up a registry whereby when 
a person, not a predator, any sexual offender, is released from jail, 
the registry in that State must be notified. That State then must have 
a criminal sanction available for any sexual offender released from 
jail after having served their time. This is not released on parole. 
This is after they served their full time. That State has to have in 
place, in addition to a registry, a requirement that there be a 
criminal sanction; that is, the predator or offender goes back to jail 
if they in any way attempt to avoid being on the registry.
  Third, we put in another requirement, and that was that the police in 
the community, which would be notified, would have absolute immunity.
  No one knows the Constitution better than the Presiding Officer who 
serves in this body. The Presiding Officer and others know we seldom 
ever give a police agency total immunity. We give them total immunity 
from civil suit if, in fact, they are notified whatever they do with 
the name.
  Last, it is assumed that that police department would, in fact, 
notify the community. I respectfully suggest there is not a police 
commissioner, a police chief in the Nation once notified that a 
predator has been released and/or a sex offender, not having been 
adjudged a predator, would not notify the community.
  But if it is the desire of my colleagues to add an affirmative 
requirement that the police department must notify the community, then 
I am more than happy to add that provision.
  But I want to set the record straight, Mr. President. What we passed 
in the conference is considerably stronger than what we passed in the 
Senate and is considerably stronger than that was passed in the House.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, will my friend yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I know our colleague from Texas is waiting.
  I commend my colleague from Delaware for his work on this matter.
  I know in my hometown area in Minnehaha County, and in Sioux Falls, 
it is a very big issue at this moment.
  I think the people of our country want a very strong community 
notification requirement. The people of our country want to be informed 
when a convicted sexual predator is released from prison and where he 
or she will be living. As far as the great concern of some for these 
people's civil rights, I do not think the public cares very much.
  I thank my colleague very much.
  Mr. BIDEN. I hope we have taken care of those.
  Again, I thank the gracious Senator from Texas for yielding the time. 
She has been waiting. I truly appreciate it.

                          ____________________