[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 123 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   THE CRIME BILL AND THE HEALTH BILL

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just advised the majority leader that we 
have a Republican conference at 10:30 a.m., at which time we will 
discuss the pending crime conference report along with health care and 
other issues that may come before the Senate.
  I guess, as is always the case, there is always some misinformation 
about what may be happening, and maybe it is because I have given too 
much information.
  But I note this morning in the New York Times, one of our great 
newspapers, just a flatout inaccuracy in one of the headlines. It says: 
``Dole Seeks Measure Without Weapons Ban, Asserting He Has Votes To 
Block Bill.'' That is just not true. We are not seeking a measure 
without a weapons ban.
  I have made two proposals to the majority leader, one I have 
discussed, and one we have discussed privately so I will not discuss it 
here.
  But this is just not an accurate representation of the debate, and we 
will have the debate. There should be a debate. But we should expect 
accuracy in reporting, notwithstanding the reporters' own views on a 
particular matter.
  I think it is fair to say that there are a number of issues in the 
crime bill that will be discussed and on which we will either work out 
some agreement or we will come to the floor hopefully early today and 
have a vote on the point of order. I think it is important that we do 
that.
  We are prepared also to vote on the majority leader's substitute on 
the health care bill, and to do that today, maybe, if we finish the 
other, or maybe tomorrow or Friday or next week.
  We want to dispel any perception out there that somehow Republicans 
are not cooperating or not moving ahead. We are prepared to move ahead. 
But we have rights, as every Member has rights, and each party has 
rights, and we intend to protect those rights.
  We will have further discussion today on the crime bill and why we 
believe it should be trimmed back in certain areas on the spending side 
and why we believe that it should have certain provisions added to the 
bill, some that passed this Senate by a vote of 2 to 1. One was 
accepted. The deportation of criminal aliens was accepted and dropped 
in conference.
  I know that is what happens. I know the way it works. Some provisions 
do not survive conference.
  But what did survive conference was voting this bill up with a lot of 
spending programs that were not envisioned by the Senate when we passed 
the bill by a vote of 94 to 4. So I guess all but four Senators are on 
record for a strong crime bill.
  I assume in the crime bill, which passed the Senate, there are 
probably some areas where we probably should have been a little more 
careful in spending taxpayers' money.
  But we are not swayed by the argument that since the House is not 
here, if we do not do this, something drastic might happen. We believe 
that the American people expect us to protect their interests, their 
interests in crime and their interests in spending their money, and we 
hope we can do that.
  If we lose, we lose. But we are prepared to make the best effort we 
can, and we are prepared to move ahead on health care before we leave, 
if there is any recess. If not, we are prepared to stay here and do 
that through the next 2 or 3 weeks and beyond, if necessary.
  So I guess the point I would make is I came to the floor just to 
correct the New York Times, and maybe just the headline is wrong, but 
it is certainly not what I presented to the majority leader. I think 
what they are suggesting is if the point of order is sustained, this 
would be what would happen. But we are trying to avoid that. Maybe we 
cannot avoid that.
  So I just suggest that. And I guess there is a list of suggested 
amendments that we put together that may not be the final list, but 
that has been portrayed now by CNN and others that this is the list of 
amendments that we are going to insist on.
  I think I indicated to the majority leader when I gave him the list 
that these were only proposed amendments and that I gave them to him 
just so he would have information of what we were thinking about and to 
have an opportunity to look those over.
  Somehow the press is now suggesting that we are insisting on each of 
these amendments and we do not have a final list. We do have a final 
list that I will shortly deliver to the distinguished majority leader.
  So we will have our own conference and we will then come back and 
debate the crime bill conference report. This may be the third day we 
are on the conference report, but it is very important. This is $30 
billion; $30 billion is a lot of money.
  We think a lot of the money could be taken out and still have a 
better crime bill. That is the point we are going to try to make. Maybe 
we will fail; maybe we ought to keep spending money and adding to the 
deficit. Many of us supported the trust fund suggested by the 
distinguished Presiding Officer, but that was at a much lower level.
  So I look forward to working with the majority leader to see if there 
is any way to resolve this. If not, we are prepared to have the votes, 
win or lose. And then we will have the debate about the bill and what 
happens after that.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of 
funding in the bill, the amounts of money spent, and the reason for the 
changes, because the suggestion has repeatedly been made that the 
Senate passed a reasonable or a modest bill in terms of funding and the 
conference report has come back much larger.
  The fact is, Mr. President, that the Senate passed a bill that 
covered the 5 fiscal years from 1994 through 1998. In the conference 
report that came back to the Senate, since we have nearly completed 
fiscal year 1994, the conference report covers 6 fiscal years beginning 
with 1995 and extending through the year 2000.
  In the years which are common to both bills, the amount of spending 
is actually less in the conference report than it was in the bill which 
passed the Senate. The only reason there is an increase in the total is 
that the bill covers 2 fiscal years in the future which were not 
included in the original Senate bill.
  So it is not correct for anyone to believe that there has been a 
substantial increase in funding over the Senate-passed bill. Because 
the fact is, I repeat, in the years 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, which 
are the years that are common to both the Senate-passed bill and the 
conference report, the amount of money being spent under the conference 
report is actually less than was in the Senate bill. And the Senate 
bill was approved by a vote of 95 to 4, with almost every single 
Senator, Democrat and Republican, voting for it, save four Senators. 
And so no one should be under any mistaken impression that somehow 
these funds have been ratcheted up during the years covered by the 
bill.
  The increase is attributable entirely in the aggregate to the fact 
that the bill is extended for a longer period of time. If we had kept 
the bill running only through 1998, as originally passed in the Senate, 
the amounts of money would be substantially less.
  So I hope all Senators and the American people are not confused by 
the rhetoric from our colleagues about big spending and more spending. 
In terms of annual rates in the years covered by the bill, the 
conference report is less than what they have already voted for 
overwhelmingly.
  Second, everyone should understand that the point of order to be made 
by our Republican colleagues against the bill has nothing to do with 
the amount of money involved. It has nothing to do with the amount of 
money involved. The point of order is directed at a provision in the 
bill which reduces the spending caps on discretionary spending by the 
Federal Government and was placed in the bill to ensure that the funds 
involved will be used exclusively for fighting crime and not for other 
purposes.
  When the distinguished Presiding Officer, with his usual skill, 
proposed such a mechanism, it was praised by the very Republican 
Senators who are now making a point of order against that provision in 
the bill. Indeed, if one goes back and reads the record of debates at 
the time, as I have done in the last few days, several of the 
Republican Senators engaged in a competition to suggest that it was 
really their idea, not the idea of the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
so as to claim credit for the concept. And it is that very concept 
which is now the subject of the point of order by our colleagues 
attacking that provision in this bill as a way of defeating the bill.
  And so the issue ought to be clear on those two points, Mr. 
President--really three points.
  First, the amounts of money in the bill are larger because the bill 
covers a longer period of time. Instead of 1994 through 1998, it is now 
1995 through the year 2000. In those years common to both the Senate 
bill and the conference report, the amount of money is less per year.
  Second, the point of order, which is going to be made against the 
bill by our Republican colleagues has nothing do with the amount of 
money in the bill. It does not make any difference whether the amounts 
were larger or smaller or by how much, the point of order did not 
address the amount of money in the bill.
  The point of order addressed the provision in the bill which was 
placed there to ensure that the money would be used only for fighting 
crime and not for other purposes. And the very Senators now attacking 
this bill through this point of order against that provision lavishly 
praised that provision when it was proposed and voted for it on several 
occasions.
  So no one should be misled or under any misimpression as to what is 
involved in this challenge to the bill.
  Mr. President, I hope we can work this out in a way that permits the 
Senate to vote on the bill. That is all we want to do. We are not 
asking our colleagues to vote for the bill. If they want to vote 
against it, that is their perfect right. But we are asking that we be 
permitted to vote. I think it is a modest request. I think it is a 
simple request. I think it is a reasonable request. Let us have a vote 
on the bill. If it passes, I think it will be good for the American 
people. If it fails, the American people will be disappointed, but the 
Senate will have expressed its will on the subject, as is appropriate 
and as I think the American people understandably desire.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say on this subject later, but I 
did want to clarify those few points.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] 
is recognized for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________