[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]

 
              SUPPORT OF THE CRIME BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, over the past week, since the House of 
Representatives turned its back on an American public which supports 
the crime bill, I have watched and listened with amazement as opponents 
of the bill have decried it as ``pork-ridden'' and ``soft'' on crime. 
Often, I find myself wondering if they are talking about the same bill 
that I helped pass out of conference. Unfortunately, we are now mired 
in a political game where reality is obscured by rhetoric and 
partisanship.
  I recently saw a television commercial which claimed that this bill 
will release 10,000 criminals onto the streets of America. It makes a 
great sound bite, but the reality is that under the safety valve 
provision, which Republicans Henry Hyde and Bill McCollum supported in 
conference, the Bureau of Prisons estimates that only ``100 to 400 
inmates who were sentenced under the guidelines would be eligible for 
immediate release from Federal custody.'' Furthermore, these nonviolent 
drug offenders were convicted between 1989 and 1990 and have already 
served at least 4 years in prison. So, some may wonder how one side 
could claim only 400 will be affected, while the other claims 10,000. 
Well, who would you rather believe, the Bureau of Prisons or the 
special interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association, who 
sponsored this particular ad?
  But this is only one example of the misinformation which is currently 
clouding the debate on the crime bill.
  During my tenure in this body, I have supported law enforcement. I 
will take a back seat to no one and understand law enforcement as well 
as anyone here. And I am not here to support a pork barrel bill that 
would allegedly fight crime, but in reality does nothing but hand out 
money and has no real effect on crime. My purpose today is to attempt 
to add a little perspective to this debate and to show my colleagues 
who oppose it why they are out of step with the American people. When 
the facts are on the table, there is no legitimate reason to vote 
against this bill.
  The hallmark of the bill is making food on President Clinton's 
promise to put 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America. 
This bill will do that, but what does that mean to you and me or to 
mainstream America?
  These officers will engage in community policing which is more than 
just driving through your neighborhood every couple of hours. Community 
policing will build a bond between law enforcement and the law-abiding 
citizens of this Nation. The police will be visible in the community, 
walking the beat, developing relationships with citizens and 
businesses. For my State of Arizona, it means that Arizona is 
guaranteed funding sufficient to hire 500 officers at $75,000 per 
officer. That is 500 officers guaranteed. Furthermore, discretionary 
authority exists which will allow Arizona to potentially add an 
additional 1,000 officers. Arizona could put as many as 1,500 new 
officers on the street under this bill. People should not be too quick 
to discount this program. If this Nation is truly going to get crime 
under control, we must restore a strong sense of community to the 
cities and towns throughout this Nation. This program will help do just 
that.
  It would be impossible for this Congress to pass a comprehensive 
crime package without addressing the issue of assault weapons and the 
violence they generate everyday on the streets of this Nation. Despite 
the fact that the assault weapons ban has, in this Congress, passed 
both the House and the Senate and the American people overwhelmingly 
support it, those who oppose this bill want it watered down.
  The opposition to this bill is not about pork. It is guns. The 
National Rifle Association and other second-amendment organizations do 
not want any restrictions at all on these violent weapons.
  The measure, which bans 19 assault weapons and copycat models, does 
not eliminate the right of honest, law-abiding citizens to purchase 
guns for protection, hunting, or recreational activities. It is a 
limited ban, affecting only those weapons designed for mass 
destruction. These weapons were very carefully selected after tracking 
weapons that are used in violent crimes in America. How many 
innocent people have to die before the will of the people is allowed to 
prevail? Those who continue to argue about this provision should muster 
the courage to put the American people ahead of the special interests 
and support this ban.

  This legislation will also result in tougher penalties for violent 
offenders. The three-strikes-and-you're-out provision will take violent 
predator criminals off the streets and keep them in prison where they 
belong. The bill provides stiff penalties for violent and drug-related 
crimes committed by gangs. It triples the penalty for criminals who use 
children to deal drugs near schools and playgrounds. It includes 
penalties for over 70 criminal offenses, dealing mostly with violent 
crimes, drug trafficking, and gun-related offenses, including drive-by 
shootings, aggravated sexual abuse, gun smuggling, and crimes against 
the elderly.
  This hardly sounds soft on crime to me. But for those who are 
unconvinced, there is more. This bill provides over $13 billion for 
State law enforcement. I have already discussed the nearly $9 billion 
for cops on the beat, but the bill provides an additional $245 million 
for rural law enforcement. The citizens of Arizona can attest to the 
fact that crime does not just occur in the cities. It is in the rural 
communities as well.
  Beyond the enormous contribution to the States, this bill provides 
$2.6 billion to enhance Federal law enforcement, including $1 billion 
dollars to INS and the Border Patrol, which will be essential to 
solving many of the problems which currently plague this Nation's 
borders, including Arizona's southern border. In addition, the FBI, 
DEA, Treasury Department, and Department of Justice receive over a 
billion dollars so they can confront crime on the Federal level and do 
more about it.

  This bill is not soft on crime. It is a bill which is committed to 
providing law enforcement with the resources they need to fight the war 
on crime. The men and women of American law enforcement are second to 
none in their commitment to the people of this country. Each day they 
go to the streets to make them safer for all of us. They repeatedly put 
themselves in harm's way. They deserve our respect and our commitment 
to helping them complete their difficult task. This bill does that. If 
you do not think we should support law enforcement, then you should 
vote against the bill. This is a pro-law-enforcement bill.
  Throughout my career, I have supported law enforcement. I have also 
supported prevention. We know they go hand in hand.
  Having said that, I want to take exception to those Members who, all 
of a sudden, are labeling every single prevention measure in this bill 
as ``pork.'' It is unconscionable to do so, and again the facts bear me 
out. More than $7 out of every $10 in the crime conference report goes 
to police, prisons, and law enforcement.
  This bill provides over $6 billion in grant money to build prisons 
and boot camps. Furthermore, money is available to those States who 
make the commitment to ``truth in sentencing'' standards which require 
criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. The American 
people have a right to believe that criminals will serve their 
sentences, and this bill makes it a reality. An additional $1.8 billion 
will go to the States to reimburse them for incarceration of 
undocumented criminal aliens. This will be a tremendous benefit to my 
home State of Arizona as well as other States facing this enormous 
burden.
  I have long advocated tougher penalties and building more prisons, 
but no one in this body should be fooled into believing that we can 
simply embark on a policy where all we do is build prisons. It simply 
will not work. It may make for great speeches in a touch election year, 
but it cannot be the only principle guiding our battle with crime. Even 
law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, 
the National District Attorneys Association, and the International 
Brotherhood of Police, support the prevention programs in this bill. Do 
the opponents of this bill suggest that the police and DA's are soft on 
crime?
  These law-and-order groups cite prevention as being essential to 
developing a long-term strategy for crime.
  I commend Chairman Biden and others who fought so hard to get these 
programs in the bill. They are important.
  Let us look closely at the alleged pork. There is $1.8 billion for 
the Violence Against Women Act, so that women can live free of the fear 
of assault and domestic violence; who does not want to vote for that? 
If that was put on the floor here today, I daresay it would get 75 or 
maybe the entire 100 percent support of the Senate.
  There is $630 million so schools can provide children with an after 
school, weekend and summer safe haven programs to keep them off the 
streets and out of gangs; $1.3 billion goes to establishing drug courts 
which will expose an additional 600,000 nonviolent drug offenders to 
court-supervised drug treatment programs. What do these drug programs 
do? Now drug offenders either go to jail or they are back on the street 
on parole or probation. These courts require you to do certain things. 
First, you have to stay in school; second, if you have a job you have 
to keep your job; if you do not have a job, you have to go to job 
training and; third, if you fail to do any of those things you go to 
jail. That is known as a diversion program. It works, and it is an 
important program and the police of this country support it and this 
body has supported it in the past.
  There are many more programs aimed at keeping youth out of trouble. 
One that is put down all the time is midnight basketball. It is said 
this does not work. Opponents ridicule the program and say the youth 
should, ``Pick up a book instead of a basketball.'' We know kids do not 
want to go to school all the time. We know that when they are out of 
school they hang out in the neighborhoods and we know that often breeds 
trouble. So midnight basketball gives them something to do. And they do 
not just play basketball. They get counseling, they have to be in 
school, they have to be responsible or they cannot be in the league. 
Those who break the law must bear personal responsibility for their 
actions and this bill holds them accountable. But for those millions of 
youths who have not broken the law, but have very few constructive 
influences on their lives, many of these programs will provide them 
with the means to ensure that they never cross that line and end up in 
the criminal justice system.
  One such program which I am very familiar with is the GREAT Program, 
the Gang Resistance Education And Training Program. It is a structured, 
school-based program implemented in areas where gang activity exists or 
is emerging. The program focuses on students in the seventh and 
eighthth grade. It teaches them to set goals, and to develop self-
esteem, and self-respect. There is a law enforcement officer in the 
classroom teaching this. The law enforcement officer is put through 
training in these important areas. The program started in Phoenix, AZ. 
It has reached over 100,000 at risk youths and is a very popular and 
successful program. I am pleased to see it included in the conference 
report.
  There are many other prevention programs in this bill. I do not know 
if they all will be a success, but to me they are good programs. 
President Clinton has challenged us to address the issue of crime. 
Senator Biden and Representative Brooks, the chairmen of the committees 
in the House and Senate that ushered this bill through conference, 
deserve our thanks. And they have brought us a bill that meets the 
President's challenge.
  It is a bill that I think is worthwhile and I hope we can pass the 
bill once the House gets through with their shenanigans, and I hope we 
will not have any obstruction in this body.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Bureau 
of Prisons regarding the number of people eligible for release under 
the safety valve program that I mentioned earlier, as well as a letter 
to the Attorney General, Janet Reno, lending support for this safety 
valve, which was signed by seven of the House conferees to this bill, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                    Federal Bureau of Prisons,

                                  Washington, DC, August 15, 1994.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Bureau of Prisons has attempted to 
     estimate the number of inmates who would be eligible for 
     immediate release from Federal custody as a result of the 
     pending Crime Bill provision that would allow a safety valve 
     for low level offenders who received a mandatory minimum 
     sentence for a drug offense and who would meet statutory 
     exclusion criteria.
       We used May 1994 U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) data 
     showing the number of defendants who were sentenced in fiscal 
     years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 and who met criteria 
     which approximate those in the draft Conference Report for 
     the safety valve provision. The criteria included in the USSC 
     assessment covered defendants who were convicted under a 
     mandatory minimum statute, received a Criminal History 
     Category 1, received an acceptance of responsibility 
     adjustment, had no aggravating role in the offense, had no 
     dangerous weapon during the offense, and had no death or 
     serious injury result from the offense.
       If the safety valve provision of the Crime Bill is enacted 
     in a retroactive fashion, we estimate that 100 to 400 inmates 
     who were sentenced under the Guidelines would be eligible for 
     immediate release from Federal custody. The reason there are 
     so few Guideline sentenced inmates who would retroactively 
     qualify for the safety valve is that to be eligible now, 
     offenders would have been convicted in earlier years, 1989, 
     1990. The safety valve requires that defendants be 
     resentenced under the sentencing guidelines, which in most 
     cases will require the offender to have served four years or 
     more. Only offenders convicted in earlier years--1989 and 
     1990--would have served that amount of time.
       Of course, it will take considerable time for motions to be 
     filed and considered by the courts, hearings to be held and 
     new sentences to be imposed. Therefore, the impact of the 
     safety valve on this population will take effect over several 
     months at a minimum.
       Please keep in mind that the numbers provided here are only 
     estimates, which depend upon not only the accuracy of USSC or 
     Bureau of Prisons data in approximating safety valve criteria 
     but also the eventual determination by The Courts of the 
     appropriate Guidelines sentence.
       I hope this information is useful in your conference 
     committee deliberations.
           Sincerely,


                                             Kathleen M. Hawk,

                                                         Director.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1994.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of 
         Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: One important issue we face as 
     conferees on the crime bill is the so-called ``safety valve'' 
     to certain mandatory minimum sentencing laws. We strongly 
     favor the House version of the safety valve, including the 
     provision ensuring its retroactive application to prisoners 
     already serving their sentences.
       We have heard that the Department also favors the House 
     version, except that it may be undecided with regard to the 
     retroactivity provision. We are writing to urge you in the 
     strongest terms to support the House version in its entirety.
       We have heard and reject arguments that it sets a bad 
     precedent for the Congress to make retroactive changes in 
     sentencing policy. To the contrary, prior Congressional 
     action serves as ample precedent for the safety valve's 
     retroactive application. For example, in 1974 Congress passed 
     P.L. 93-481, which amended the Comprehensive Drug Abuse 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and which made certain 
     changes in parole retroactively applicable to those serving 
     mandatory minimum sentences. The report of the House 
     Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce specifically 
     stated that ``the interests of criminal justice will best be 
     served if the rehabilitative aspects of the 1970 Act 
     encompass all convicted narcotics offenders, regardless of 
     the date on which they were sentenced.''
       We have also heard statements from some Department 
     officials that the prisoners eligible for retroactive 
     application of the safety valve number somewhere between 
     16,000 to 20,000. These figures are clearly inflated and 
     incorrect. The Sentencing Commission estimates that, if the 
     Commission does not change its current guidelines, 
     retroactive application would definitely affect no more than 
     1600 prisoners, with another 3400 possibly affected. Even if 
     the Commission does amend its guidelines by a two-
     level reduction in offense levels, only 5000 prisoners 
     would definitely be affected, and another 2050 would 
     possibly be affected.
       Finally, of course, retroactive sentence modification is 
     not automatic; prisoners definitely or possibly affected will 
     not necessarily be granted such a modification. Modification 
     is permitted only in two circumstances. First, the prisoner 
     must demonstrate to the court that he or she meets the bill's 
     criteria for prospective application as well as the specific 
     additional requirement of good behavior while in prison. 
     Second, the court must further determine that modification of 
     the prisoner's sentence is appropriate. The Sentencing 
     Commission is of course authorized to issue any statements it 
     deems necessary to help the courts implement this section.
       We strongly believe that the same principles that applied 
     in 1974 apply today. Fairness, and the interests of the 
     criminal justice system generally, dictate that those 
     currently serving mandatory minimum sentences who would meet 
     the narrow criteria set forth in the safety valve be 
     considered for resentencing under the safety valve 
     provisions. Moreover, the same policy considerations that 
     underly the safety valve's prospective application--to ensure 
     that our limited and costly prison space is not taken up by 
     low-level non-violent drug offenders with no significant 
     criminal history who do not belong there--apply with equal 
     force to similarly situated individuals already in prison.
       We urge you to support the House safety valve provision in 
     its entirely, including its retroactive application.
           Sincerely,
     Don Edwards,
     John Conyers,
     Mike Synar,
     Charles E. Schumer,
     Henry Hyde,
     Bill McCollum,
     William J. Hughes.

                the effects of the crime bill in arizona

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, much of the talk about the crime bill 
centers on what it will do for the Nation. It will hire us 100,000 
police officers and supply billions of dollars for courts and prisons 
and programs to steer young people away from crime.
  However, Mr. President, I think we obscure our point in waxing 
eloquent about what the Nation gets from the crime bill. Granted, 
Americans are worried about crime--there is no question about that. But 
Americans do not care if some city clear across the country has a few 
more cops. Americans want more police officers in their State, their 
city, protecting their neighborhood from the criminal element.
  Thus, I want to take a moment and spell out for the State of 
Arizona--which I proudly represent--what, exactly, this crime bill will 
bring home.
  It guarantees Arizona the funds for hiring at least 500 additional 
police officers. But it does not stop there.
  There would be an additional $6.5 billion in discretionary funds 
available for the implementation of community policing programs. This 
money would be available to States on a discretionary basis and could 
result in Arizona adding an additional 1,000 officers beyond the 
already guaranteed 500.
  But what, exactly, does that mean for our State?
  It means that instead of becoming involved when someone has already 
been robbed or attacked or raped, our police officers would practice 
``community policing,'' building a bond between the law enforcement and 
the law abiding citizens of a community. They would be visible in our 
communities, walking the beat, developing relationships with the 
citizens and businesses. Special training will help them to become an 
even more integral part of our neighborhoods, our daily lives, in 
essence becoming partners with us in combating and preventing crime.
  The crime bill would give Arizona access to another $44 million in 
grants to build prisons. That includes boot-camp prisons designed to 
correct--through military-style boot-camp discipline--the behavior of 
young people who have strayed onto a criminal path, but who still could 
be convinced to lead a productive, law-abiding life.
  There would be yet another estimated $30 million made available to 
Arizona if it meets the truth in sentencing requirement that violent 
offenders serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
  This crime bill would give Arizona law enforcement agencies and 
courts access to funding for drug court programs, where drug abuse 
treatment is supported through drug testing and certain punishment for 
nonviolent drug offenders currently on probation.
  Federal money would be available to Arizona for criminal record 
systems, communications equipment and DNA testing to positively link 
criminals to their crimes.
  And last, but certainly not least, Arizona would get $6.4 million for 
drug and crime enforcement in rural areas. Considering that Arizona is 
largely a rural State, these funds are crucial--large cities are not 
the only ones with drug and crime problems.
  Mr. President, by pointing out what Arizona would get from this crime 
bill, my intention is to separate one tree from the forest, so to 
speak, and show what the crime bill means when it hits home. It gets 
confusing to look at the whole crime bill package and determine what it 
means for you; when you look at the whole forest, it is hard to make 
out just one tree. But I think when the people of Arizona know how 
crime affects them and when they know how this crime bill will directly 
benefit Arizona--their cities and their lives--they will understand why 
it is important to support it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] is 
recognized for not to exceed 5 minutes.

                          ____________________