[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 124 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we have just in the last half-hour taken
a procedural vote that largely speaks to how the final vote and outcome
on the crime conference will appear, a debate that has now occurred for
nearly 3\1/2\ days on the conference report to H.R. 3355.
While those who may be observing the Senate recognize that it is a
procedural vote, it is a most important vote in how the Senate will
ultimately deal with this very important issue. During the course of
that debate, a great deal has been said about all parts, all sections
and subsections of this conference report and what it may or may not do
for the American people.
Many have argued that it is the most sweeping realignment of our
criminal justice system and that it will cause America to begin a new
direction and a new path in crime control. Others have said that it is
a $30 billion-plus piece of pork; that it has become not a crime-
fighting measure but, in fact, a welfare measure to deal with
everything from midnight basketball to grants to States to do largely
what they wish with them if they meet the rather broad definition of
crime control.
When this provision left the Senate some months ago it had been
thoroughly debated, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said,
and it had been amended many, many times. It was a provision that many
of us voted for. I was one of them. I voted for it even against my
better judgment, because there was a provision in it that was very
onerous to me and to my colleague from Alaska and a good many others.
And that was a provision that actually, for the first time in our
history since 1934, banned a firearm. I voted against the ban itself,
better known as the Feinstein amendment, and the Senator from
California is with us on the floor this evening.
But I had voted for the crime bill because I thought there were some
very good provisions in it that would actually reach out and grab the
criminal and jerk them back into confinement and out of harm's way, the
harm of the free citizen. Those provisions that left the Senate are now
largely gone, and we have seen returned to us a bill that is very
different in many respects from the one that had left the Senate. But
there still remains in it a gun ban. There are those of us, like
myself, who would say that that is a direct hit against the rights of
free citizens under our Constitution. And I believe that to be very
much the case.
I have refrained from coming to the floor these last 3 days because I
wanted other issues to be part of the total debate. I wanted the
American people to hear, as they heard so clearly from our side, that
this was a massive, sweeping new spending program, largely unpaid for,
but one in which the majority thought, once again, if you just throw a
little money at the problem, somehow the problem gets a little better.
I am going to be around long enough, if I stay healthy, and I suspect
many others in this Senate will be, to watch the statistics, to watch
those numbers that represent free citizens who will be violated by
deviants of this society and robbed of their rights, or their property,
or maybe their life, over the course of the next few years. And as we
watch those statistics, I hope the American people take stock and take
count of the debate that occurred largely on the other side of this
room by the other party as they perpetrated an image that H.R. 3355 was
going to make the streets of America safer.
I wager very directly and in front of those who are here this evening
and the public that might be watching that this will not reduce crime;
that it is merely another way to drive up our deficit and to go home
offering the American people a political placebo that somehow suggests
that life will be just a little better if you trust and rely on your
politician, and the Federal Government that he or she supposedly
directs and on some occasions administers. I believe that is the
contest of the whole issue. I believe that is the important part of
some of the debate.
But for the next few minutes this evening let me talk about another
very important aspect that some have come to the floor to suggest I
really do not have a right to talk about; that somehow I am almost
sinister in my intent, if I would suggest that the second amendment of
our Constitution means that the citizen has the right to own and bear
an arm not for sporting purposes, not for hunting purposes, but in the
right of self-defense, in the right of the protection of one's self and
one's property as our Founding Fathers so clearly spelled out.
We have another colleague on the floor tonight. He probably will be
debating some. He has talked about the NRA as some evil, sinister group
who would like to suggest to society that everybody ought to own a gun
and walk the streets and use it freely and uninhibited.
Well, the NRA is an old organization, been around over 100 years, who
believes as fervently as my colleague from Ohio does in certain things.
The one thing they believe in is the right of the citizen under the
second amendment. They are not tightly organized. They are not all-
powerful. They are a grassroots organization quite typical of a lot of
organizations in this country of citizens who come together under a
common and oftentimes single interest. Are they strong? Well, they have
over 3 million members now.
I must say in all good humor to my colleague from Ohio that every
time he stands up, they get a little stronger. They are running now--
the organization itself, I am told, since President Clinton came to
town picks up about 10,000 new members a month. Why? Many of those
members do not even own a gun. But they are very fearful that this
President and some in this Congress somehow want to reach out and rob
them of their rights under the Constitution.
So they come together in organization and they give of their time and
of their resource to try to protect those rights. And they do what
every other good interest group does. They pick up their phone and they
call their Senator or their Representative, and they say, ``Please,
please, do something about House Resolution 3355 because it takes away
from me the rights that my Founding Fathers gave me under the
Constitution.''
Madam President, yesterday I went out on the lawn in front of this
Capitol building to join with a group of veterans and some 60 other
organizations as we introduce a new movement in our country to create
an organization to propose to us here in the Senate a constitutional
amendment to protect the American flag.
I heard veterans say very important things yesterday. But one of the
most significant things that was said, I think, was spoken of our
country in general, that we are a very unique country in the sense that
we are not all tall and not all short and not all black and not all
white; that we are Christians, Jews, atheists, Bhudists, Hindus and
people of many other faiths. But for some reason we came together in a
country called America. And we came together in this great country of
ours under a common set of beliefs: first of all, that we were all free
persons; second, that there were certain rights that we just simply
would not violate and that had become a collection of human rights that
had been treaded upon by other countries, monarchies, authoritarian
governments; that amongst those rights were those delineated by the
Bill of Rights and the first 10 amendments; and, of course, one of
those was the right to bear arms, again, not for sporting purposes. Our
Founding Fathers were not interested in that. That was a foregone
conclusion. But it was to create a militia of citizens well armed to
rise up when necessary and so organized in protection of themselves,
their families, their property, their community, and, if need be, their
Nation, and, as it was in the Revolutionary War, their Government or
their sense of what a government ought to be.
Is that simply historical hokum? Is that something that a Senator
ought to come to the floor today and say that our life is so suppressed
today and so maligned that we somehow have to give up our rights for
the sake of a better day somewhere and someday when they might then be
reinstated if we all become good little people again? Well, I hope that
is not what they are saying. But I have a sense that is what is being
said--that things are so bad in our country today that we have to reach
out and take rights away from free citizens for the common good.
That was not the intent of our Founding Fathers. It was to assure
that the rights of the individual were protected, oftentimes against
the common good, that these individuals' rights were so specified in
our Constitution and embodied in what we are today.
So I do believe it is a legitimate debate. I know some shun from it
and some run from it because the American people are frustrated. They
say, yes. Many say, get the guns off the streets; people are being
killed by the use of a firearm in a criminal act by an individual. And
they are frustrated and they are angered, and they should be. But what
we also understand here is sometimes we have to stand just a little bit
beyond the current or the popular idea and say that there is a bigger
and a more important issue here; that is, to protect the rights under
the Constitution of the free citizen. I firmly believe that is the crux
of a very important debate on this whole issue.
There were some who would have been willing even to accept a ban on
guns--I am not among those--but who would, if we could, have put tough
penalties into this crime bill that said that a criminal would be
punished if he or she used a gun in the commission of a crime. You
know, somehow it would seem fair, if you reach out and take something
away from the free citizen, should you not reach out and take something
away from the deviant, the criminal? We said that here in the U.S.
Senate some months ago. But when it got over to the House, somehow that
all was taken out. Somehow they still wanted to reach out and grab away
from the free citizen his or her rights. But they wanted to say to the
criminal, well, you are a bad boy or a bad girl and we are going to
pamper you and slap you around and put you in prison, but we are not
going to make it extraordinarily tough on you if you happen to use a
gun in the commission of a crime.
For the life of me--and I think the Senator from Alaska expressed it,
too--why is it that somehow the fuzzy liberal mentality says those poor
deviants are a product of society, they got misaligned in the
socialization process, and we have to reach out and cuddle them; we
cannot discipline them and say there are rules and there are lines and
you ought to stay in them for the sake of a free civil society? I am
confused.
I think the American people are very confused as to why a Senate,
Senators, and a House, the House Members, will not stand up and say to
the criminal element of this society, you are out; you no longer get to
play on the streets. But somehow, no; we will reach out, and in our
fright and in our frustration we will take away the right of the free
citizen, and we will continue to suggest that the criminal element
ought to perform better. Certainly they ought to. But we are not going
to be really all that tough on them when it comes to these very
important issues of the taking of life and the taking of property.
My guess is that someday in the not-too-distant future after the
American people have seen what is embodied in this crime bill, they are
going to say to this Congress, ``Oh, no, you don't.''
That is not what we meant at all. What we meant is for you to get
tough on criminals and stay tough on criminals and not to take away our
rights or misalign our free citizenship. I think that day will come,
and it may be sooner rather than later. But I think that is where I
understand the American people are headed.
Now, with that in mind, let me then for the next few minutes talk
about an issue that I think is extremely important and how it fits into
the whole of all of this debate. But let me say at the first instance
there were some things said in the Chamber about rights under the
Constitution and what the second amendment does or does not mean.
What I would like to do then is to move from my own words to a book
that is currently on the market and selling very well in our country.
It is a book that goes through this whole argument in a very methodical
and well documented way. It is a book called ``Guns, Crime, and
Freedom,'' a book by Wayne LaPierre. I know Wayne personally. He is the
head of the National Rifle Association. But several months ago, because
of his frustration as to the lack of understanding on the part of this
Government and this Congress, especially as it relates to what all of
this means, he set out with a group of scholars to put together a total
statement about the second amendment and the right of our free citizens
to own and bear arms. And so for the next few minutes, I would like to
read directly from that book certain quotes, and one whole chapter,
that I think are so profound in what they say and so clear in refuting
a variety of the arguments that have been placed here.
I came to the floor the other evening when the Senator from Delaware
was debating, and he turned to me and he said, ``Oh, there's that gun
nut from Idaho.''
Now, I know he meant that in good humor. I smiled and he smiled. I
did not take it in any way as a misalignment. He said, ``I bet he would
even support the right of somebody to own a bazooka.'' Now, that is how
silly this debate got. That is why I did not engage in it, because that
is foolishness in the first degree, and we all know that. And here is
why it is foolish.
Artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and other heavy ordnances--
and you have heard these kinds of things talked about here--are not
constitutionally protected.
And nobody has ever stood on this floor and attempted to argue that
they ought to be.
The second amendment does not provide that any citizen should own a
military-type device like a grenade, a bomb, a bazooka, or other
devices. But we know under the law, and we know under the Constitution,
that the right to bear arms does protect the ordinary small arms--
handguns, rifles, shotguns, yes, and even those that we now, under this
bill, call assault weapons. They are the semiautos. A Rutgers law
professor, Robert Katroll, said it this way:
It has been argued that assault weapons are far more deadly
than 18th century arms.
You have heard the debate here. You have heard of these weapons that
spray bullets and mow down children. The Senator from Alaska cleared
that one up, I hope. They are not automatic. We know that. But then
again, what the heck with truth. Let us go for image. That is, go for
the politically correct issue here. And if it brings about a little
drama, then so be it.
Interestingly enough, the old blunderbuss of the 18th century was a
far more lethal weapon than any semiauto that was ever designed because
of the volume and the impact, and if you know firearms, then you know
exactly what I am saying.
Well, those are the issues that I think are important here and that
deserve to be debated as we wrestle with all of these difficult kinds
of things that have been talked about over the last good number of
days.
I would now, for the balance of my time, like to talk about crime in
the context of the right of the free citizen to own a handgun or a
firearm in the protection of themselves. And so what I plan to do for
the next few minutes is, by reading it, put an entire chapter of Wayne
LaPierre's book in the Record. I think it is important because I think
it makes a very bold statement about what is going on in America today
outside the beltway, that we somehow seem to be sheltered and immune
from, because it is of concern to all of us. The chapter I am talking
about is called ``Arming Against Crime.''
Let me read a quote from Neal Shulman, Los Angeles Times, 1992.
Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws
that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating
strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their rights
and only the most foolish of politicians would risk the
stability of the Government by trying to use the force of the
State to disarm the people.
So for the next few minutes, the words that I am to speak are not
mine. I am quoting directly from the book of Wayne LaPierre. And I
think it is important for my colleagues to hear them, and it is
important that they be spread upon the Record of the Senate as we
debate the crime bill and as we discuss the semiauto ban that is within
the body of that crime bill. Now, I have just quoted Neal Shulman.
Writer Neal Shulman must have looked into a crystal ball to
have reached the same conclusion found in a public opinion
survey conducted by the National Law Journal in March of
1994.
That is the opening paragraph of chapter 11.
Roy Sherman, staff reporter for the National Law Journal, reported
the results in the April 18, 1994, issue of the National Law Journal,
and I quote:
It is a time of unparalleled desperation about crime.
I think that is exactly what you have heard here in the Chamber of
the Senate, a frustration as the Senate has tried to reach out to the
American people and work with them in the correction of this sense of
desperation. But he said in the poll that was taken in April:
The mood of the people is decidedly ``I will do it myself,
and don't get in my way.'' Today's citizens believe people
must take more responsibility for their own protection. They
reject Government intrusion on basic civil rights, gun
ownership, and the media's display of violence. There is a
pervasive willingness to forgive those who commit serious
crimes motivated by the preservation of children or self, yet
for the lawless who lack compelling excuses, this poll
demonstrates literally no mercy at all.
Conducted by Penn and Shulman Associates, Inc., the National Law
Journal's second comprehensive survey of public attitudes toward crime
in the past 5 years demonstrated this.
Americans made it clear they are not willing to sit back and become
victims or allow Government to tamper with their civil liberties. Here
is what some of that poll reflected:
Seventy-five percent agreed that police and the justice system cannot
protect them and said people have to take on more responsibility for
safeguarding themselves.
That is a pretty profound statement. I wonder why they would say
that. Well, anybody living in California would know what happened in
the Los Angeles riots. When the police came to law-abiding citizens and
property owners and said, ``We cannot protect you, please get out of
the way,'' many of those folks said, ``We will protect ourselves,'' and
they did because they owned a gun and they were willing to stand, as
our Founding Fathers would have expected them to, to defend their
personal property and their personal rights.
The poll also went on to say that as many as 85 percent said they
were unwilling to forfeit basic civil liberties even if it could
enhance personal safety.
That says something very loudly about our American people, that while
they view personal safety as very important, they are not about to give
up their freedoms for that personal safety.
Our majority leader said tonight that it was the responsibility of
society to assume the personal safety of all of its citizens. I think
what this poll said, or what our citizens said was: While we understand
that our Government ought to help us, we really agree with our Founding
Fathers. Our real personal safety is our responsibility, and it is the
responsibility of every citizen, and 85 percent of the American people
said so. Sixty-two percent said the need for guns is increasing. These
are free citizens who said the need for guns is increasing, and a
majority is unwilling to accept laws that restrict gun ownership
greatly.
Eighty-nine percent subscribe to the mother lion defense--we all know
what that one is--saying that they would find it compelling if a mother
tried to excuse a serious criminal by saying she was trying to protect
her children from an abusive father. Again, the right of defending.
More than 75 percent supported the three-strikes-and-you-are-out
provision. That provision is here now. And they wanted violent three-
time offenders behind bars for life. Why do they say that? Because they
know instinctively that as our country began to flush its criminals
back onto the streets, nearly 80 percent of the crimes that occur on
those streets today are perpetrated by repeat offenders. Instinctively,
Americans know if you get them off the streets there is a greater
chance that America is not going to be just a little bit safer, but
maybe just a lot safer.
Respondents were unmoved by criticisms that older criminals would be
kept behind bars at taxpayers' expense. Many of them said--or at least
the criminal officials said--that once they get older, they are simply
harmless, and the American public said: We do not care. If they are
violent then, they are more than likely violent now. Keep them off our
streets and keep them out of our neighborhoods. So that is what the
American people were talking about.
The bottom line: Americans are upset about crime and soundly reject
Government solutions which further infringe upon their rights and their
liberties.
This is not me speaking. This is not the NRA speaking. This is the
National Law Journal speaking. Clearly, people recognize that
legislative and administrative infringement upon their liberties are
designed to convenience Government--I thought that was an intriguing
word, to ``convenience'' Government--rather than to solve or curb
violent crime.
I think the American public is way out in front of us on this issue,
and they said so in this poll taken early this spring. When the public
loses faith in the ability or willingness of Government to protect it,
people rely more heavily on self-protection. This involves the purchase
of firearms and protection devices. They hire security guards, they
build walls, they install security systems.
In 1993, $65 billion was spent on private security in this country.
All Americans wanted to be protected against crime, not just those who
can afford it.
I suspect that is why the Congress has acted in the best way they
think they know how. But this document says that the American people
are not buying it.
The American Bar Association does not seem to be listening to the
American people either. In fact, these lawyers were working against
strong crime-fighting measures. They were here in February this year,
and the ABA testified before the U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice that the criminal justice
policy is inordinately tight and tilted toward law enforcement and
corrections, and they ought to be weakened. And now you want to know
why some of these tough provisions got pulled out. It is because the
ABA came and argued that they were too tough. A rather incredible
statement, I thought, perhaps self-serving, when today prison is the
sentence alternative least used throughout America. And Americans are
paying for it with their lives.
Every day in America, hundreds of people are attacked by violent
criminals who have been caught and convicted and returned to the
streets on probation or early parole. And that was why we finally
struggled to get three-strikes-and-you-are-out in this piece of
legislation. That is why it has passed several other States. The ABA
also testified against mandatory minimum sentences, and against three-
strikes-and-you-are-out. But Americans want measures such as these, and
the National Law Review survey just flat confirms it.
The Washington Citizens for Justice and the National Rifle
Association have been working hard for three-strikes-and-you-are-out on
the ballot for years. I think it is a little surprising that the Senate
of the United States tonight may adopt a measure that was originally
proposed by this ``evil'' lobby known as the National Rifle
Association, because when three-strikes-and-you-are-out came to the
ballot in California and in the State of Washington, it was the
National Rifle Association and their members who came forward with
their money and their votes and pushed it there. Why? Because they were
fearful that if we did not ultimately go after the criminal, then
politicians would go after the gun. That is exactly what happened.
Out of the desperation of the American people against the current
crime wave in America, politicians wanting to answer to the call of
Americans are saying we will take these guns off the streets in the
name of criminal justice. Yet, Americans know it will not work. That is
why groups and organizations who support the second amendment early on
went out and began to push issues like three-strikes-and-you-are-out.
In the State of Washington, it was once defeated and put back on the
ballot. The National Rifle Association got aggressively behind it. They
did so in the State of California. The measure was also included in the
crime bill that we passed in the Senate that is now in the final
passage. But, interestingly enough, the American Bar Association came
and testified against them.
Not only is the ABA at odds with public attitudes, it is out of touch
with the reality of America today. In the fall of 1963, the progun
forces tried unsuccessfully to block the release of Oregon's Russell
Oberminsky. Why would I mention Russell Oberminsky? The reason I am
tonight is because he was a multiple killer who was nearly 50 years
old. Soon after his release--and he was released because he was nearly
50 and he had repented--the folks in Oregon said it was the wrong thing
to do, but it was done.
(Ms. MIKULSKI assumed the chair.)
Mr. CRAIG. This gentleman was arrested for sodomizing a 4-year-old
little girl. Perhaps the American Bar Association will send an emissary
to that child's family to explain how criminal activities diminish
markedly the older you get.
Let me go on to quote from Wayne LaPierre's book.
In July 1990 a study by a U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 245,650 offenders
serving time in State prisons in 1986 for crimes of violence,
found that they had victimized an estimated 409,000 persons
about 97,300 victims were killed, 51 victims assaulted, and
20,400 others of violent activities. The criminals in prison
in the year 1986 alone had killed nearly 50 percent more
Americans than died in the Vietnam war.
When is America going to wake up? Or should I rephrase that --when is
this Congress going to wake up? America has awakened. That is why they
are so concerned about their safety and why they are so concerned that
political America will not address their real concern, and that is the
control of the criminal.
As we witness the carnage on the streets perpetrated by
criminals released early by parole boards, we are forced to
ask would members of parole boards make that gamble if they
knew that their lives or the lives of their loved ones
depended on that decision? Do they know what the rate of
recidivism of violent offenders is?
I have just given you some dramatic statistics. The public has the
right to ask the tough questions of the parole boards that release
violent criminals before they have served 85 percent of their sentence.
This very important chapter goes on.
But here are some more important statistics. Doug Bando
from Cato Institute was quoted in the Washington Post in 1989
as saying:
Gun control has proved to be a grievous failure, a means of
disarming honest citizens without limiting firepower
available to those who prey on law-abiding citizens,
attempting to use the legal system to punish the weapon
rather than the person misusing the weapon is similarly
doomed to fail.
We know, as Senators, when we become honest with ourselves, that that
is exactly what has happened in every State or every municipality that
has in any way ever attempted to control guns.
Antigun politicians fail to heed such warning and further
exacerbate the problem by wasting tax dollars--
And that is what we are about to do tonight.
--and precious time to pursue nonsensible gun control
measures, and all the while the toll of victims continues to
mount.
The National Law Journal survey that I have been quoting--or I should
say Wayne LaPierre has been quoting--throughout this chapter speaks so
clearly to that.
Fifty-three percent of Americans are not satisfied with President
Clinton's crime fighting measures, and yet we are saying tonight this
is what the President wants. But by recent polls 53 percent of the
Americans say this is not going to change crime in America. Fifty-two
percent of Americans are not satisfied with the job Janet Reno is doing
because they do not think she is tough enough. And 62 percent of
Americans said instead of more law enforcement there is increasing need
for firearms for personal protection.
Is not it unique that it appears the Congress is going in the
opposite direction this evening from the direction the American people
want to go?
While 62 percent overall see the need for firearms for
personal protection, 72 percent of blacks now hold that view
right along with whites. Blacks consistently have the highest
victimized rates and do not believe that gun control measures
are the solution to crime.
Let me read that again. That is worth reading. I understand that part
of the reason we are doing this tonight is to bring some kind of
control to inner-city America where many of its citizens--and many of
them black--are being victimized, and yet 73 percent of the blacks are
saying do not lock away our guns. The reason they are saying that is
because they do not believe this will work and they want to be able to
protect themselves.
I think an even stronger message about civil liberty was reflected in
that National Law Journal survey. I quote.
Despite intense concern about crime, losing basic civil
liberties will not be tolerated by the American people. Even
if doing so might enhance safety, a full 85 percent say they
are unwilling to allow police to wiretap phones without prior
court approval, and 82 percent say police should not be
allowed to randomly search without probable cause.
Here is an important part of this chapter that is worth reading and
sharing with you, because I think it shows you the frustration I have
with this President and how he treats crime in this country, but more
important, how he treats our civil liberties.
We all remember the issue of Chicago's public housing. President
Clinton acted almost alarmingly in respect to the residents' fourth
amendment privacy protection.
The Chicago Housing Authority authorized random searches of
apartments in Chicago's public housing without warrants or
probable cause in clear violation of the Constitution. In a
class action suit brought to halt the searches, U.S. District
Judge Wayne Anderson stopped the searches in February of this
year saying that random searches without probable cause are a
greater evil than the danger of criminal activity.
What did our President respond? How did he respond? He instructed
``the Justice Department staff to find a way around the
Constitution,''--
And that was his quotes, and I quote that.
A shocking directive for United States President who was
sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Is there any reason free citizens are a little worried tonight about
a President who says that ``This is the most comprehensive and valuable
crime measure ever passed by Congress, and I support it?'' I think they
have reason.
After the President responded by that kind of shocking
directive, the President soon announced his administration's
way around the Constitution, adding language to apartment
leases that required residents in public housing to waive
their rights and grant permission for random searches of
their homes.
In other words, if the Constitution will not allow those rights to be
taken away, the President would condone forcing the poor to give up
their rights or give up their house. The message of the National Law
Review survey, which condemns trampling on civil liberties, apparently
that survey did not reach the White House.
Eroding civil liberties by door-to-door searches to confiscate guns
in public housing sets a dangerous precedent, and this Senate spoke to
that. But let me talk about another one.
Carl Day, a West Point graduate and a Vietnam veteran, writing in the
Washington Times on February 2 of this year spoke for most Americans
who rejected door-to-door searches as crime-fighting tactics when he
said, and the chapter quotes:
All we have to do is tear up the Bill of Rights, shred the
Constitution, call out the National Guard, and starting with
high-crime areas if this is not perceived to be racist,
commence house-to-house searches, seizing all of the guns and
other contraband. Roving police and National Guard patrols
could set up random roadblocks, stop-and-search vehicles,
seize guns, arrest those who possess them. Citizens could be
stopped at random and frisked for weapons.
Sound like the America you would like to live in?
Well, he said: ``It certainly is not the one that I fought for,''
meaning Carl Day, West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran.
Jess McNamara, former chief of police, San Jose, CA,
although well known throughout America as a gun hater--and I
use that word because that is his word--waded into the gun
search controversy in defense of the Constitution protection
against search and seizure in the Los Angeles Times on April
17, 1994, and again I quote this chief of police's words.
President Clinton recently asked Attorney General Janet
Reno to find ways to circumvent a Federal judge's injunction
forbidding random police searches of apartments in a Federal
housing development in Chicago. Clinton should have assured
tenants that the Federal Government would do all it could to
provide whatever level of policing was needed to stop the
violence in the complex. Instead, the President pandered to
police and the public impatient with rising crime. He urged
the department to respond by prosecuting officers who
violated people's constitutional rights to assist police in
invading those constitutionally protected housing
areas. There is no need for any dilution of individual
rights that took a century to achieve.
This chief of police went on to talk about the murders, striking the
most terror in the hearts of people during this century, have not been
serial killers like Ted Bundy, they been Governments that have killed
millions of their citizens in the name of social order.
Now I want to make sure that you understand where that statement came
from. That came from a former chief of police of San Jose, CA. And he
goes on to say, ``The authors of the Bill of Rights knew the danger and
drafted a document for our protection. We should not let panic erode
that protection.''
Judging from responses to questions, specifically from the survey
that has been quoted extensively in this chapter, it is clear that the
American people are sometimes slow to realize what is really going on
or are willing to give up benefits and give others the benefit of the
doubt, but they are not--let me repeat--but they are not stupid.
The survey shows that since passage of the Brady bill, support for
the waiting period on gun legislation has dropped to nearly 58 percent,
from the high of 80 percent at the time of its passage. Indeed, support
for restricting gun sales has dropped nearly 22 percent. Reacting to
the survey's results, the National District Attorneys Association
president, William O'Malley, said the interpretation that somebody puts
on those statistics is important. ``I do not think it is vigilantism or
hostility to police or prosecutors or the courts. It is more a
recognition that the system is powerless without the support of the
community and its participation.''
And we all know that. And yet, largely, we have taken away, or are
attempting to take away, the right of the ultimate community, and that
is the individual citizen working together to protect themselves and
their property. O'Malley's interpretation of the National Law Journal
data may be skewed a bit. When he suggested a lack of public hostility
toward the criminal justice system and instead sees public recognition
for the need for community support and participation, he downplays the
message Americans are sending in the rest of the poll. People are angry
and frustrated with the criminal justice system, and they have said so.
Unless, by participation, he means people that intend to protect
themselves, he has, I think, misread a portion of the message.
The National Law Journal survey data did not need interpreting or
spin doctoring, as might have been attempted here. It is very
straightforward and it is very unambiguous. For years, Americans have
been attempting to participate in criminal justice reform, and their
message has been crystal clear--it was 5 years ago, it is today--get
tough on criminals, quit gratuitous plea bargaining, make our streets
safe by keeping criminals locked up for their full sentence, and stop
probation and parole of violent criminals.
Now that is just one simple sentence and one simple directive from
the American people--get tough on crime and get tough on the criminal.
The message has far too long fallen on deaf ears.
Citizens, and victims in particular, have been treated as mettlesome
and have been shooed away, as one would a small child under our feet.
People are saying, enough is enough. The criminal justice system has
shifted its focus from protecting the rights of the victims to
protecting the rights of the criminal.
Maybe tonight I ought to give just a little credit to this piece of
legislation. Maybe we have edged it back ever so slightly in that
direction, even though the House and the conference struck out a lot of
those get-tough-on-criminal provisions.
We have all heard of the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine is an
ancient common law doctrine with origins going back at least to Roman
law. It proclaims that one's home is a castle and hence an inhabitant
may use all manner of force, including deadly force, to protect it and
its inhabitants from attack. Further, the Constitution guarantees basic
rights to all persons, including the right to defend life and to
protect property. Citizens have a right to expect safety within their
homes or vehicles. And I think the criminal justice system has to be
refocused to recognize that it must protect victims by keeping
criminals behind bars and restoring the absolute rights of law-abiding
people to protect themselves, their families, and their property from
unlawful intruders and violent attackers without fear of prosecution or
civil action.
And yet tonight, we are saying that if you were to acquire, after
this becomes law, one of these semiautos and you used it to defend your
property and the police discovered that you had used it to defend your
property, you would be violating the law.
A person who has unlawfully entered or attempted to enter any
person's home, dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle should be
presumed to be entering or attempting to enter with the intent to
commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. Thus, any manner of
force may be employed in self-defense. That is the castle doctrine.
There should be absolutely no duty to retreat from anyplace where a
law-abiding person has a right to be.
Citizens support the castle doctrine initiative and other proposals
to correct the failure of lawmakers to address the real criminal
justice system. A citizens movement to put a three-strikes-and-you're-
out initiative on the ballot in the State of Washington, as I mention,
failed in 1992. It was not until that currently much-maligned National
Rifle Association and a Washington citizens justice group stepped up
and said, ``We will put it back on the ballot and we will use our
resources to tell the people of Washington what it is all about'' that,
on election day, 1993, it did become law. The people did not wait for
the sluggish government of the State of Washington to take back their
streets. They did it.
And that is part of the message that gets missed in all of this
debate around here. Somehow we think the citizens are only the victims,
that they do not have the right of self-defense or we are beginning to
progressively take away from them their right to defend themselves or
we are suggesting or implying, in a criminal provision like this one,
that it will be a safer world and therefore they need not worry as
much.
In Texas, the people voted an overwhelming 89 percent to deny bail to
career criminals and sex offenders and voted by 62 percent to 38
percent to put up $1 billion to increase prison capacity substantially.
They knew in their hearts what researchers have proven. States that
increase imprisonment drive down criminal activity and violent crime.
The result: A people's victory; a defeat of get-soft-on-criminal
politics.
We were tough in the Senate provision. We put up money to build the
prisons. What have we got back? Well, we have a document that says we
are going to build prisons or we can use the money for other purposes.
Not a mandate, not a direct prescription. It does not fit with three
strikes and you are out. You see, the hoax being perpetrated on the
floor of the U.S. Senate tonight is simply this. We are going to get
tough because three strikes and you are out is in here. But it does not
work if you do not build prison capacity to put them back in prison. It
just does not work. You are going to shove out all the other prisoners
to put these back in? The American people know that. The people of
Texas know that. And that is why they voted as they voted, and they
voted with their pocketbooks and they got $1 million and they built
prison capacity.
So we ban guns. We say to the criminal, we are going to be tough but
we are not going to be quite that tough. And we are given some
arbitrary language on how the money gets directed for the construction
of penal institutions. And it may or may not get used, depending on how
it gets directed or how the Attorney General wishes to hand it out. And
then we put three strikes and you are out in here? And somehow there is
a schism as to how you deal with three strikes and you are out, and you
put people away but you have no place to put them. So you shift and you
put less violent criminals on the streets? Is that what we are doing
here? Yes. In my opinion, that is what we are doing here.
On November 2, 1993, the real leadership in America, the people,
spoke to the need for criminal justice reform. Wherever there was an
anticrime platform the results showed stunning losses for criminals. In
many States the American people have voted for real solutions: Tougher
prison sentences and the abolishment of parole in Virginia and Arizona,
double prison sentences in Texas, the passage of victims' rights
amendments in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico, and
a crackdown on gang crime in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Utah.
As the Wall Street Journal editorialized in November of last year,
under the head, ``Criminal Control Beats Gun Control'':
If indeed crime is one of the deciding electoral issues of
our era, the adherence to gun control won't be deciding much
of anything until they figure out a way to talk in public and
creditably about how to control criminals.
In other words, what they are saying to you Senators who want to
control guns and you want to take free citizens' rights tonight, is
that you will not have credit--or you will not have credibility until
you have figured out a way to control the criminal. It just does not
work. Let me assure you, we will have time to calculate the statistics
to prove that this document will not work, either.
Americans are using the power of their votes to defend their very
lives. They know that each year, 60,000 criminals are convicted of
serious crimes and they never see prison. And those who do are released
after serving an average of a third of their sentence.
I know the chairman tonight said we have gotten a little tougher in
those areas. I hope, for the sake of law-abiding citizens, we have. But
as is typical, enough loopholes and enough hurdles were provided here
to never really see some of these tough criminal provisions get to the
streets of America.
We do not have a gun problem in America, Madam President. We have a
law enforcement problem. Tough laws are already on the books to remove
criminals from society, but they simply have to be used. Existing
Federal and State laws must be applied to criminals who use guns, drug
users, drug dealers, and other lawbreakers. The laws are already on the
books.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1968, it is
presently--let me repeat this--``It is presently a Federal felony
punishable by a 5-year prison term and a quarter of a million dollar
fine for a convicted felon to be in possession of an assault weapon.''
That is the law now. Why, then, are we piling on? Is it because of what
I said earlier, the need for a political placebo, the need to go home
in an election year and say, ``See what I did for you; I took away your
rights and I made you safer''? I am fearful it is. Because the 1968 law
says you cannot do it now, criminal. If you own an assault weapon, you
go to jail.
But what we have found is that our judges say ``But pass go. Go
through the front door and out the back door. And be a good little boy
or a good little girl until you commit another crime, and then we will
let you pass through again.''
This 1968 Gun Control Act covers firearms that anyone could find
possibly defined as an assault weapon. It covers guns with large
magazine capacities, pistol grips, flash suppressors; it even covers a
single shot .22 rifle. That is the law now on the books, 1968.
Why, then, do these Senators rush to the floor to ban 19 more --maybe
really 180--different models of other semiautomatic that they choose to
call assault weapons? The reason they call them assault weapons is the
cosmetics; it is the pistol grip, the flash suppressor, the magazine.
That is already in the law. Why are we piling on? Why are we taking
away citizens' rights at this moment? Oh, yes; it is the eve of an
election year. I must have forgotten. Could it be there is a bit of
politics here?
This article goes on--or this chapter goes on to say:
In addition, other prohibitions with the same or greater
penalties include the use of a firearm in any crime. Selling
of a firearm by a convicted felon, alteration of any firearm
to a fully automatic firearm, and the use of a firearm during
a drug trade.
New law? No. Old law, 1968 law. But the tragedy is, in America today,
it is unenforced law. We remember all these criminal activities should
result in long, hard jail time for criminals or drug users or drug
dealers with assault weapons or any other kind of firearm, shotgun,
rifle, pistol, revolver, single shot, machinegun. Why are they not
used? Why are we tonight having to defend the right of free citizens
when this law is already on the books?
Every victim of every violent crime in which a gun is used ought to
demand an answer to this question. And in their own very real and very
frustrated way, Americans are doing just that now. They are saying:
Give us real crime control, Mr. and Mrs. Politician; and if you do not,
we will get us a politician who will.
If Federal law enforcement agents did their job with respect to guns
and convicted violent felons, using only the 1968 act as reformed, the
gun control that we talk about tonight would not be an issue. We would
be a long way toward the solving of violent crime in America. We would
be getting the criminals off the streets and into the jail.
Welling up out of my thoughts and my comments tonight comes the
obvious question. Senator Craig, if you say these laws are already on
the books, and that is since 1968, and now we are putting them on the
books again, what is our assurance that if they did not work then, they
will work now? Guarantee us, Mr. and Mrs. Politician, that what you did
in 1968 but you did not back up from 1968, you will back up today.
America and our citizens have a right to be angered. They have a
right to ask that question. And they have the right to ask why, if in
1968 this became the law, are we now the victims of violent criminals
using guns time and time again? And most importantly, if it is the
violent criminal that uses the gun, why tonight do you choose to take
the gun away from me, the free citizen?
Think about that. Every convicted criminal in America who picks up a
gun could now be in a Federal prison. More importantly, under the 1968
act, they should be in a Federal prison. That is the law. Do you not
remember that old television show, ``That is the Law''? That is the
law, Madam President. But it is not working because it is not enforced.
And so, they pass through on their way out to commit another crime.
But other than these existing few statutes, why then are we moving to
control guns in this measure tonight? It is a hoax; it is a hoax. If
all the gun control proposals now pending before Congress, and there
are many others, are the targets of real criminals, why did 68 not
work? The answer is that gun control measures are not the targets to go
after criminals. They are the targets to go after or restrict free
citizens.
Since it is already criminal to purchase and possess even one gun if
you are a criminal, why limit the number of guns or types to honest
people? The answer: Arresting violent criminals is dangerous; arresting
nice, peaceful citizens is safe.
Forcing gun control laws on decent citizens is comparable to Congress
passing a law to eradicate cancer by forcing an elderly healthy person
to undergo chemotherapy and radiation. It might cure cancer, but it
might also kill most of us in the process.
Gun ban laws have accomplished one thing: massive civil disobedience
by peaceful, formerly law-abiding citizens. If I have heard it once in
the last year, I have heard it a hundred times from my citizens in
Idaho, and that is:
Senator, don't make me a violator of the law. Don't force
me to be a lawbreaker in my own land simply because I want
the right to own a gun, as my Founding Fathers assured me I
would have. Don't pass laws that I can't live by as a free
citizen in this country and as a law-abiding citizen.
So let me close, Madam President, because the vote has already been
taken, and while it will occur at least twice again tonight, it is very
profound what we are about to do. We are about to pass a new crime
control measure that puts billions of unpaid, foreign, uncollected
dollars out somewhere on the streets of America in the guise that
somehow the criminal will become less violent and the world will become
a safer place. And we are passing a law tonight that says to the free
citizen of our country: You will be just a little less freer tomorrow.
And will it change America distinctively tomorrow? No, it will not.
That free citizen will be a little less freer, but what that free
citizen is worried about is that the little less freedom becomes a
collective kind of thing; that it accumulates and they become a little
less freer over time; and that a generation or two from now, because it
happened so easily in this country, then we may be increasingly
restricted.
So tonight those few who drone on about gun bans, I hope, ultimately
get drowned out by angry voices of voters who are rebelling against
America's catch-and-release criminal justice system and beginning, as I
think they will, to flex their muscles at the ballot box.
Politicians should take note of what people are trying to tell them.
It has been a very loud and very audible cry for the last good many
months. America is not in control of itself, but you do not make
America a safer place by making Americans less free.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I see there are others going to speak,
and I have spoken. I want to get back to the one concept that is here,
and that is these semiautomatic weapons. As I thought about that
subject, I thought about a comment that one of our colleagues on the
floor said to me today: ``Stevens, why do you get so uptight about
guns?''
So I have decided to take just a few minutes to tell the Senate why I
am so uptight about the provisions in this bill.
I want to take you back to the twenties and the early thirties in
Indiana. That was a time of the beginning of the Great Depression, at
the end of the twenties and on into the thirties, and I lived in
Indianapolis. I was living with my grandmother and grandfather. We were
what people would call today below the minimum level of income by a
long ways. I was about 8 when a World War I vet let me use his .22
rifle and taught me to hunt just a few blocks from our house. Across
the railroad tracks, there were some places where there were rabbits.
And quite often I learned in the wintertime to go out and shoot
rabbits, and I shot them to bring them home. It was not sport, it was
for food.
By the time I got into the late thirties, I moved to California,
living with my aunt and uncle. My uncle was a World War I vet. He
worked very hard as a tool and die maker but he only got 2 weeks
vacation a year. One of those 2 weeks we spent hunting and the other of
the 2 weeks we spent with my aunt visiting a national park or
recreational-type area in California.
But the 1 week of hunting was usually up in northern California. We
drove up to an old fort, and I remember so well those days when we were
hunting then, because we used the old World War I little pup tents to
sleep in, and we had some equipment that we had put together to cook,
and we hunted in the rain or we fixed our food in the rain. It did not
matter what it was, it was a vacation, but it also was a time we were
going for food. We went after the mule tail deer of northern
California, and I learned to hunt larger game in northern California.
I did not own a rifle then. I really did not acquire a rifle that I
really owned until I moved to Fairbanks in the period following World
War II. I graduated from law school and went to Fairbanks. By that
time, I was a young attorney. I did not own a handgun, but I did buy a
bolt-action rifle. It was a hand-moved bolt action.
But I formed great friendships up there in the hunting expeditions
that I had with either shotguns or with my rifle.
Later, when I moved to Anchorage, I bought my first handgun, a .357
Magnum, and I bought a series of shotguns and rifles. As my boys came
along, I gave each one of them a gun when they were 13. Again, it would
not have been a violation of this, but it was what we call an over-and-
under--a .22 rifle on the top and single-shot 20-gauge shotgun below
it.
I can remember the days, again, when I had vacations, and they were
not often. Year by year, I would take my boys out into the little
Susitna country, going out toward Glennallen. It is going eastward from
Anchorage. We used pack horses, and a couple of friends would go along.
We would hunt one boy with one adult. We took pack horses and went into
the wild. That area is now in the national park. In 1980, Congress made
that not available to those of us who are not subsistence hunters, and
I always regretted the loss of that area because we had a very rustic
camp out there.
We took our pack horses out. We had mountains to go up and mountains
to come down. We taught our boys how to hang onto the tail of a horse
to go up a mountain and how they restrained a horse so it would not
break a leg coming down a mountain. We forded streams, and we went
hunting.
We, by that time, were after moose. I also hunted for moose in
Fairbanks, but the moose hunting trips I remember mostly were with my
boys. My first wife, my late wife, Ann, used to say that these were our
male bonding sessions, and she approved of them very much.
When you look at what we did over that period of time, first myself
as a very young boy and then with my uncle in California, through high
school and college ages, those were the times we sat together around
the campfire and talked about really what we should be as men.
What bothers me about the semiautomatic provision is that every gun I
own today is semiautomatic, with the exception of the handguns. And
even one of them is semiautomatic. Why should I not be feeling exactly
as the Senator from Idaho says so many of us feel, that this is just
the first step? We know this will not work. This will not take riot
guns from criminals. They do not get them legally anyway. They do not
use them legally.
We tried to put into law tougher provisions for the police to enforce
that would make it a serious crime to misuse guns. I spoke earlier
about the silencers in particular. I think anyone who uses a silencer
is a would-be murderer, and there ought to be appropriate treatment for
anyone that has a silencer that is not part of a law-enforcement
mechanism.
I do believe the great problem is most people do not understand us.
They do not understand us. I was brought up to believe in the right of
an individual, particularly a young boy, or a father and a son to have
guns and to be able to use them, use them lawfully. We taught our
sons--and still the NRA teaches them now--how to use weapons, how to
respect them, what our duties are if we have a gun, how we prevent
accidents.
But the real problem is I still believe we have those rights. When
this law does not work, as the ones that the Senator from Idaho has
been speaking of that are on the books do not work because they are not
enforced and cannot be enforced, what is next? The ultimate we feel,
the ultimate is some sort of restriction on our rights, some further
restrictions on our rights.
This bill defines semiautomatic weapons by listing specific weapons,
and the Senate is about ready to pass that bill that will confiscate in
effect our right to have those weapons and to use them lawfully. The
real problem about this as far as I am concerned is not what this bill
does so much as the progression it continues.
This Congress has already passed the Brady bill. Four years ago, I
suggested a system, and discussed it with the then FBI Director, of
using mechanisms similar to the credit card checks when we go into
retail stores of every person having a gun card, and we would be
required to have this card that would go into a mechanism, would
automatically check out whether we have been convicted of any crime.
The dealers selling weapons would have a similar concept. Before they
even think about selling a weapon, they would have to get information
and put it into a national registration of past crimes, particularly
those involving firearms.
We could have done that, and it could have been law by now. It would
have stopped many people who are not qualified, ought not to have guns,
from purchasing guns in the interim period. That was not accepted.
Instead, we fought and fought and fought over the Brady bill waiting
period, which again has brought nothing but a problem to people who
live in rural areas.
But the main point I am making is the progression from the Brady bill
which was fashioned in a way that is not going to prevent people who
really should not have guns from getting them. It mandated local
actions, and court after court across the country has said the States
do not have to follow that mandate. It was not funded, and it is not
practical.
But beyond that, we come to the definition of these semiautomatic
weapons, and again we are not going to take weapons from any criminal.
There is no mechanism to prevent a criminal from getting any
semiautomatic weapon.
What does it do? It defines a proposition that weapons that have that
capability of being transformed into a banned semiautomatic ought to be
banned as well. How far is that from my shotgun? How far is that from
my automatic rifle? How far is that from my automatic pistol?
I am trying to make this point, too. Are these people really serious
that that is the direction they are going? Are they going to tell me
that future generations of young fathers in this country are not going
to have that experience with their sons, that they cannot, cannot
possess semiautomatic hunting rifles?
We believe that is where they are going, and that is where I am
coming from. I know that is where they are coming from now because they
took out of this bill the provisions we put in it to make it a serious
crime to misuse a weapon, particularly to misuse a weapon by a felon.
As the Senator from Idaho says, there has been a law that they cannot
even possess a weapon. But to misuse it in connection with a crime
ought to intensify the punishment. And we ought to send out the word
very strongly that the Congress of the United States expects those laws
to be enforced and take action to make certain that they are. The
difficulty is those of us who have this kind of background, who believe
in guns, love to use guns, who have lived with guns all our lives are
now somehow chastised because we are worried about the procedure that
is being followed in order to put before the Congress a bill that is
just one more step in the progression to take guns away from us.
Now, I think our people are legitimately worried. I am legitimately
worried about the effectiveness of the second amendment with this
continued erosion of the right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, during debate on the original Senate
crime bill, I said it was one of the most important crime bills in
American history. When the Senate passed its version of the crime bill,
I complimented my colleagues for doing a great service for the American
people. I truly believed we had approved a crime bill that was--tough
on crime. I remember saying that the trust the American people had
placed in Congress had been greatly justified. I regret to say that I
cannot repeat those words here today.
The crime bill conference report which has returned from the House is
much improved over the bill rejected by the House last week. For
example, I am pleased that $3.7 billion was bundled together and is
being allocated to the States for block grant programs to combat crime.
States and local communities must be given the opportunity to use
scarce resources in targeted manners to address particular crime
situations, not as bureaucrats in Washington decide.
I am pleased that the House majority has recognized a simple fact--
even though they now possess the White House, and a majority in both
Houses of Congress, they cannot dictate terms to the minority and
expect to have their actions accepted by the American people.
Nevertheless, while the original conference report was totally
unacceptable; this new version is also out of step with what the
American people want from a crime bill.
The crime bill that came back from conference is just that; it is a
crime what Congress has done to the bill. It has now gone from a crime
bill to a criminal's bill. Much of the good that I supported in the
original bill has been dropped.
I must admit I am not an expert in criminal law or procedure. Unlike
many of my colleagues, I am not an attorney. However, before coming to
this body, I was mayor of Idaho's capital city. As Boise's chief
executive, I worked with public safety personnel. I have seen,
firsthand, the problems our officers face every day. I have ridden in
the patrol cars and walked the beat. I have never met a more committed
and honorable group of men and women. What they want from the
politicians and the policymakers is to be given the tools to do the
job--and then for us to get the heck out of the way.
It is in the State capitols and city halls of America that crime must
be fought: 96 percent of the crime in America is committed at the local
level. Only 4 percent of all crime is under the Federal jurisdiction.
Yet Congress has attempted to represent to the American people we are
providing a solution to crime in America. We cannot continue to
federalize American law enforcement. During debate on the Senate crime
bill, I introduced and had accepted by the majority a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that said that, ``local law enforcement must remain
the sole prerogative of local government under their respective
jurisdictions and authorities.'' Unfortunately that provision, an
acknowledgement of the preeminence of State and local law enforcement,
did not survive the conference report.
In my State there is a saying, ``Idaho is what America was.'' But as
we look around the country and see the threat of urban crime now
creeping into rural communities, my constituents are concerned that
instead of Idaho being what America was, Idaho will become what America
is.
If we are going to have a crime bill that is tough on crime, why has
it been stripped of the tools, and the teeth necessary to get the job
done.
This crime bill no longer includes 13 billion real dollars for States
to build new prisons. This crime bill erased tough Federal penalties
for violent juvenile gang offenses, and mandatory minimum sentencing
for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.
This crime bill eliminated mandatory minimum sentencing for selling
drugs to minors or employing minors in a drug crime. This crime bill no
longer allows for the prosecution of violent juveniles over the age of
13 as adults. And Mr. President, this crime bill prohibits deporting
criminal aliens after they have served their sentence.
In its place the new crime bill is just a collection of dressed up
social programs. In some cases they simply substitute the phrase ``for
crime prevention'' for action to prevent crime.
The new Crime bill will:
Increase the deficit by $13 billion.
The Local Partnership Act and the National Community Economic
Partnerships Act together add $1.8 billion in jobs programs, and
loosely controlled educational and substance abuse programs.
The Model Intensive Grant Program is a $625 million giveaway to 15
urban cities with virtually no controls on how the administration will
spend the money.
The Community Based Justice Program will require social workers to be
involved in criminal cases to assure that prosecutors focus on what is
good for the criminals--not the victims. Yes, and all we have to pay
for this is just $50 million.
The conferees claim that $9.8 billion is provided for prisons. But of
that amount, $1.8 billion is given to the Attorney General to hand out
to the States to help pay the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. Of
the $7.9 billion in prison grants remaining, there is no guarantee that
the money will be spent to build prisons. Furthermore, the
bill requires costly State mandates for a comprehensive correctional
plan which represents an integrated approach to the management and
operation of correctional facilities. Mr. President, apparently
Congress just does not get it. The American people do not want a feel-
good approach to prisons. They want to give police, prosecutors, and
judges the resources to jail violators and they want prisons available
to house them to serve their sentences. They do not want to hire
bureaucrats to write regulations on the meaning of a qualifying Federal
diversion, rehabilitation, or jobs programs.
I believe we should address the State's needs for prisons and provide
alternatives for young people to crime. But the GAO reported that this
country now has 266 prevention programs currently serving delinquent
and at-risk youth. Of these 266 programs, 31 are run by the Department
of Education, 92 by HHS, 117 by the Justice Department and 26-odd
programs scattered elsewhere about the executive branch. The GAO found
that we have already mounted a massive Federal effort on behalf of
troubled youth to the tune of $3 billion a year. Yet, here we go again
throwing money at the problem for the sake of saying we have
accomplished something. We have no clear idea how we will pay for the
programs we have got much less the ones we are adding. What we need is
to reassess these programs and coordinate our efforts and our dollars.
The provisions included in this crime bill repeat the same vague
social programs over and over again. What we have here is the same jobs
bill Congress killed last year rising from the grave. Jobula, the
social program vampire, sucking the blood out of our economy to feed
its fiendish lust for cash,
When we considered the Brady bill, I spoke to my concern that when we
began the process of passing gun control legislation that we would be
opening a Pandora's box of legislation limiting the rights of gun
owners. During debate of the original Senate bill, I strenuously
objected to the ban on semiautomatic firearms, and voted against the
measure three times. In the end, however, I supported the bill, as did
other of my colleagues, for the following reason: I knew we would have
additional opportunities to delete the semiautomatic weapons ban while
still producing a strong anticrime package. However, I fear that
instead of achieving a strong anticrime package we have produced a
budget-busting social programs bill which will continue the process of
reducing the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Unfortunately, the conference committee which reconciled the House
and Senate versions of the crime bill ultimately failed to produce
legislation which will have any serious impact on crime. The committee
retained the needless semiautomatic firearm ban and added millions of
dollars in pork-barrel spending to the bill. Not only will the crime
bill infringe on the rights of gun owners, it will also create several
new social programs which will increase the Federal deficit by $13
billion.
Mr. President, I appeal to my colleagues instead of the bill before
us let us pass a crime bill that will make our streets, our
neighborhoods, and our communities safe again.
It is truly a crime against the American people for congress to
masquerade a jobs bill, new social programs, and pork as a crime bill.
We have more important needs in this country than make work programs.
We need to get tough on crime, and I am sorry that the efforts we made
earlier this year to do just that have been wiped out. It is a crime.
I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Soda Springs, ID.
Senator Dirk Kempthorne,
Federal Building
Pocatello, ID.
Re: Crime Bill.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: The Clinton Crime Bill is another
blatant infringement on our Constitutional rights and
individual freedom. The Omnibus Crime Bill creates an
enormous Federal Police Force with the power to exercise
infinite control over the people. A Gestapo, under control of
one person who will not hestitate to use it to force his will
on the people. I was relieved to see it killed in the House.
Any bill that imposes gun control of any kind is un-
Constitutional. There is no doubt that gun control will have
little impact on crime as a whole. Outlaw guns so only
criminals have guns. If private ownership of guns is the
problem, why do states with no anti-gun laws have the least
crime? It is because a potential criminal cannot be sure he
is the only one with a gun.
The same as with Health Care, a Federal Crime Bill
increases the size and scope of federal control over our
everyday lives. It will do little to curtail crime, but will
give even more un-controlled power to non-elected government
officials. All agencies impose rules that are then enforced
the same as laws passed by the House and Senate. I.e., The
rules the Forest Service tried to slip in un-noticed.
Both President Clinton and her husband are pushing to gain
more individual power over every aspect of our daily lives.
They want to be the dictators over a socialistic police
state. Clinton was elected on the promise of change. The only
change we are getting is a rapidly growing federal
bureaucracy, increasing taxes and a loss of our rights, at an
execrated rate. Do not vote for any program that increases
his power and authority, he already has far too much.
Regardless of when it happened, Whitewater is a very
important issue. It is more important and has implications
more far reaching than watergate even could. To anyone who
has been paying attention, the Clinton's are involved in a
massive cover-up, which could even involve murder. Were they
ordinary citizens, there is no doubt they would be charged
and held without bail. Please keep pushing for an
investigation into the whole affair. If you really want to do
something about crime, that is a good place to start.
Thank you,
Jared P. Lowe.
____
Blackfoot, ID, August 24, 1994.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: I am writing to express serious
concerns in regard to passage of the Omnibus Crime Bill. As
an American citizen and veteran I ask that you consider my
opinion, and also that you do your duty to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States of America. My primary
concern is the gun ban and the greater constitutional issue
that surrounds it. I believe that there are elements within
our society and without, internationalists and social
engineers, who openly and defiantly vow to disarm the
American people. Allow me to inject something here that
illustrates my point. I watched Senator Diane Feinstein
respond to the question ``does your assault rifle ban violate
the second amendment to the Constitution?'' Her response was
``SO WHAT!'' I am alarmed with the ease that someone sworn by
oath to defend and support our Constitution, can show such
utter contempt for it. There are millions of Americans who
are sickened by such arrogance. Why wasn't this woman
censured? This is a law that will surely not prevent the
criminal element from obtaining banned guns, any moor than
drug laws keep people from getting drugs. It is an
unconstitutional INFRINGEMENT upon law abiding Americans. Why
should our government act as though it fears its citizens
armed? Crime has been used to scare the American people into
accepting something most politicians know, will do precious
little to solve our problems, but buys votes for them, at too
great a cost.
When Charles Manson was 12 years old he killed his first
man, he used a knife. During the next few years he killed 29
others by most accounts, all with knives. According to
prosecuting attorney Bugliosi Manson boasted to prison
officials after begging them to not let him go, ``I'll commit
a crime so bad you have to lock me up and never let me go.''
John Wayne Gasey killed 40 he used the knife. James Wood used
a knife to rape, molest, terrorize and murder 15 people we
know of. My point is simple, gun bans will not solve the
crime problem. Americans have had guns for over 200 years,
why are they now the scapegoat? Idaho has one of the highest
guns per capita of any state, yes we have crime but not to
the extent some of those promoting gun control would lead us
to believe we should have. The Federal Prisons Board and the
FBI claim 90% of the crimes are committed by 10% of the
criminals. If the crime bill is to do anything lasting and
meaningful it needs to address the problem of overcrowding,
plea-bargaining and lenient judges, the problem does not
appear to me to be one of apprehension or a lack of
sufficient laws, but rather one of detention. Why turn these
menaces to society loose because we don't have room for them
in the prison system or enough money to keep them locked up.
What good is three strikes if we don't have the money or the
room?
One more interesting and very important statistic we never
seem to hear about is that although in 1993 13,000 murders
were committed in the U.S. in that same year it is estimated
that approximately 300,000 murders, robberies, rapes and
other assaults were prevented by someone with a gun. To
disarm the American people leaving only law enforcement,
Federal Para-Military Agencies, etc. and the military with
guns sounds like a Police State to me. Our Founding Fathers
wisely foresaw this danger and we seem to be oblivious to it.
Recognizing the natural tendencies of those in power to
dominate and control others, a system of checks and balances
was devised to keep the real power in the people, one
manifestation of this was the recognization that the God
given right to defend oneselves and ones property should
always be the primary responsibility of the individual. This
right is not granted by the 2nd amendment; it is simply
reiterated and reaffirmed by it, and wisely so. Again the
intent was to guarantee and protect the ability of the people
to defend themselves from tyranny, foreign and domestic.
Those willing to give up this right and in-trust their
liberties to a ruling elite, the United Nations, Nato or some
other New World Order entity made up of non-constitutional,
non-elected, non-Americans are in my opinion flirting with
slavery.
Please, Mr. Kempthorne, I implore you to utilize the full
force of your office and calling to do everything humanly and
legally possible to kill this flawed and dangerous
legislation. I hope that Mr. Gramm, Mr. Wallop, and
particularly Mr. Dole and others will lend their full support
to defeat this bill. Regardless of their actions I must ask
you again because you are my Senator: I am trusting in you to
do the right thing no matter what. If necessary, please
filibuster this bill.
Thank you,
Charles Kotter.
____
My name is Ray L. Johnson. I am a retired Chief of Police.
I belong to The National Assn. of Retired Chiefs of Police. I
am writing this letter to voice my concerns about the (crime
bill) that is now being considered in the Senate. Myself and
several other retired Chiefs that I have talked with, believe
that this bill does nothing to curb crime. It will do nothing
for all the small rural cities and towns where 95% of the
police work is done. It will fund about 20,000, not 100,000
new police to work in some police departments in big cities,
for about two years at most. Then they will be left with the
responsibility of funding those officers and in all
probability they won't have the funds. The money that is to
be spent for new prisons, will be for Federal prisons, not
for State run institutions. And does nothing for the over
crowding in the state institutions, as the states will be
charged about three times what it would cost them to house a
prisoner in state institution, as versed to what the cost
would be to house the same prisoner in a federal institution.
The ban on assault type weapons, and the almost six thousand
per cent tax on various types of ammunition. All this will do
is stop law-abiding people from owning certain types of
weapons. ``It will not'' stop any criminal from getting, or
using these types of weapons in crimes. They will steal them,
or smuggle them in from other countries, or make them. As for
the ammunition tax. Criminals don't care how big a tax you
put on ammunition, why, because they will ``steel'' what they
need. We don't need 30 more do nothing social programs to add
to the approximately 240 do nothing programs we have that
don't work. If you want to stop crime? First you reform the
juvenile justice system. Kids learn at very early age that
the juvenile justice system is a joke. Instead of having kids
play ping pong, shuffle board, and have social awareness
class. Have the centers run like mini boot camps, give them
some discipline, selfasteam, and some direction. Next you
make it a capital offense for any crime committed with a gun,
also for the sale or possession of (1) ounce or more of any
class one substance. Instead allowing endless appeals they
would get one, and that would be a review. Any death sentence
would be carried out within 30 days of the sentencing. Make
all sentences fixed without parole. And run the prison like
boot camps. Take out all the T.V.s, all the basketball
courts. Stop building country clubs and build prison. Give
the military the job of stopping illegal smuggling and
immigration. Thus allowing for more cops on the streets. This
may not stop crime but it will do more than midnight basket
ball will.
Sincerely,
Ray L. Johnson.
____
Idaho Falls, ID, August 18, 1994.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: I am writing to you to express my
opposition on some pending legislation. I urge you to vote
against the so-called ``Crime Bill''. My major objections
concerns bans on so-called ``assault weapons'' which includes
high capacity magazines, etc. but I also feel other
provisions of this legislation are also ill-advised,
including federalization of many crimes formerly under the
jurisdiction of state and local municipalities. Based on
relatively recent US Marshall/FBI/BATF showing in such
incidents as the Randy Weaver case in northern Idaho and the
Branch Davidian fiasco in Waco, Texas, I do not feel that the
country needs any more such ``federal law enforcement''
incidents. (I do believe and hope that these were unusual
incidents atypical of these agencies, but they did occur in
the recent past.) I am skeptical of ``3 strikes and you're
out'' legislation which may be passed without further thought
to modifying current prison construction requirements to
control costs. Here in Bonneville County, a referendum was
recently defeated for an $8 million bond for a new county
jail facility mainly because the amount seemed exorbitant and
the cost would have to be borne by the taxpayers. I have
similar reservations about the funding for the ``100,000 new
police'' clauses of the crime bill.
It would appear to me that a better way to combat crime is
for the people to regain control of the judicial system in
this country.
I also urge honest consideration of the real costs for
proposed ``national health care'' legislation pending. I have
not read enough specifics in the newspaper to be aware of
many details concerning a proposed health care reform but
previous projections concerning costs given by the President
seem ridiculously optimistic to me, and it must be remembered
that the costs will be passed on to the business or taxpayers
in one way or another. I don't say that some of the proposals
have no merit, but I do urge that costs for such ``reform''
be forecast as accurately as possible prior to any vote by
the Congress.
Thank you for considering my opinion in these matters.
Very truly yours.
Dale A. Jolly.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, in January of this year, I went to
Mogadishu as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I went to a ship
off the shore of Bosnia. On each of those occasions, I met with
military personnel, with the young sailors and marines and the
soldiers. I just allowed them to ask me any question they wished.
Without exception, those young military soldiers said to me, ``Don't
let them take our guns away.'' I said, ``Well, what do you mean?''
They said, ``We mean when we're back home as citizens with our
families and our friends, don't let them take our guns from us.'' And I
said, ``Why is that a concern of yours?'' And they said, ``Because we
are well aware of the history of those nations that did not have the
right to keep and bear arms; that we're in that business to protect
nations like that, that can't protect themselves.''
And they said, ``We took an oath to protect this Constitution.'' They
said, ``And you took an oath to protect the Constitution. And included
in there is the second amendment rights. So, Senator, please, remember
the oath and don't let them take our guns from us.''
Any one of us here, if we met those individuals, would be so proud of
them because of their service to the Nation and because of what they
were saying. They believe it with all their heart.
I can tell you that in the State of Idaho we have a fierce belief in
the Constitution of the United States, and I can say that Idahoans
would defend that Constitution with our lives if necessary.
Included in that Constitution, of course, are the second amendment
rights, the right to keep and bear arms. Now, there has been much said
about these assault weapons. Why in the world would you need them for
hunting? Why in the world would you need these assault weapons?
In Idaho, there is a great deal of hunting that takes place, a number
of great gun collections in the State of Idaho. But do Idahoans, when
they are hunting, empty a clip into an animal that they are hunting?
Of course not. When they are hunting for the sake of food, that would
be ridiculous because of the destruction it would cause. You do not do
that if you are a hunter. You do not do that if you are a sportsman.
You do not do that if you are a marksman because you have much greater
respect for that weapon than that.
People say, ``But the only way to stop this crime, the only way to
stop people from using guns which murder people, is you have to ban
guns.'' That is what this is about, is to totally ban guns.
So what examples can we look to? What about this city of Washington,
DC? You should know that Washington, DC has the toughest, or one of the
toughest, gun control laws of any city in the country, right here in
Washington, DC, since 1977. And handguns are prohibited. You can have a
rifle, but it has to be registered. Yet, Washington, DC has one of the
highest murder rates of any city in the country. Yet, it has the
toughest gun control law on the books. It has been there for years.
Between 1980 and 1993, 4,200 homicides were committed in the District
of Columbia. Of those 4,200 homicides, which is an appalling figure, 4
were committed with the use of a rifle. It is allowed in the District
of Columbia to have a rifle as long as it is registered. Yes.
Other forms were used in bringing about these homicides--fists,
clubs, et cetera, but those handguns that were used in these homicides,
guess what? They are illegal. It is against the law to have a handgun
in Washington, DC. Yet, they use those to commit a murder.
Where is the logic? Can you tell me that banning those handguns would
stop those murders from happening? No. You cannot because that is not
the fact. The fact is that gun control legislation does not work.
So then I have to conclude, as do many Idahoans, that you do not need
gun control. You need crime control. That is what we are trying to
craft in this crime bill. So can you tell me the logic then of when we
had language in that bill that said if you use a handgun, if you use a
gun in the commission of a crime, there are going to be mandatory
minimum sentences that are going to be tough--why were they stricken?
Why is that language now out? We have the ban in place, but the law
that was going to be tough on the use of those guns, if you use them in
a crime, are out. It does not make sense.
Madam President, I submit that we are undermining our second
amendment rights with this action in this crime bill, with this ban
that is in place. And I have to say to all of the country that this
will not be the last assault on our second amendment rights. This will
be a continuing effort that will be made ultimately to ban guns in
America.
There is another right that I want to mention; that is, the right of
local law enforcement. That is the prerogative of local government. You
do not want that to be nationalized. It should be handled at the local
level.
Well, I offered an amendment that just clarified that. The amendment
said--and it was made part of the managers' report, it was accepted by
this body--it just said that when we provide these funds that will now
put what was to be 100,000 police officers on the street--but it is now
closer to 20,000--that when we provide the Federal dollars to do that,
that is not to become the federalization, or the first steps toward the
federalization, of law enforcement. It also made the strong suggestion
that we ought to leave the money at home in the first place, because if
a mayor or city council or county commissioners need to have more
police officers at home, if the money is left there in the first place,
they can use it best rather than to have it go through the Federal
Government as the middleman because that is expensive.
As you know, in this formula, the first year that you utilize this,
if you do acquire some of these Federal funds, the local community has
to pay 25 percent. The next year they have to pay 50 percent. The third
year they have to pay 75 percent, and the next year 100 percent, until
you have the 6 years that has been acquired. The communities do not
have those funds.
I would suggest that it will not surprise me that in a couple of
years when the cities now say we do not have the funds, that we are
about ready to lose these police officers, the Federal Government will
say, we have an idea. We will just provide you the money. We will just
crank up that old printing press. But of course, you will have to
comply with some more of our Federal regulations. These are the steps
for the federalization of local law enforcement.
I say this, Madam President, because we need to point out that
language which was added, an amendment that I had submitted that was
accepted, is gone. It has been stripped out of this bill. It is not
there. I do not understand that. I do not understand it.
We have seen different press conferences where victims have been
asked to come forward to talk about their situation. I have met some of
the parents of those children that were murdered. Some people would try
to suggest that if you are not totally in favor of everything in this
crime bill, you are insensitive. Do not tell me I am insensitive. When
I see those parents, I cannot help but think about the loss of those
children, and I cannot help but think about the loss of the future for
those children.
I think about Geraldene Underwood, that little girl from Idaho who
was murdered by a fellow that has been in and out of prison, because it
is a revolving door. Yet we do not want the tough language that says we
are going to keep you there, and, if we have to, we are going to build
prisons to keep you there.
So please do not tell me I am insensitive, because I do want a crime
bill. But I want a tough crime bill.
This crime bill, as has been pointed out, has taken 6 years to get to
this point. And it is no wonder because this seems to be how Congress
operates. It takes 6 years. It takes years to do anything because you
fill it with pork and just strip it of any meaningful language. And
then you try, through rhetoric, to say that this is the answer. This is
the tough bill.
Well, this is a tough bill. This bill will be tough on the taxpayers
of America. This bill will be tough on those that believe with all
their might in our second amendment rights, and this will be tough to
explain a few years from now when we realize it did not work.
That is why, Madam President, I am prepared and will vote against
this bill, because this is not the answer. Much of the answer,
unfortunately, was stripped from the bill, and in its place were put
dollar signs. It is very unfortunate.
Thank you Madam President.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, I supported the motion to waive the
Budget Act and I would like to state my reasons for doing so.
First, in many ways I believe that this legislation represents a
victory, not a defeat, for principles that have been set forth by
Members of my own party. It does provide funds for prisons and for law
enforcement. In many ways, the administration and the majority party in
Congress have adopted provisions and principles that have been
expressed by Republicans for a long period of time. My own view is that
in such circumstances Members of my party should claim victory, not
defeat.
But I believe that it is very unlikely that any crime bill that can
be passed by Congress is going to end up curing the problem of crime. I
really do not believe that there is any legislation, however tough,
that is going to end the crime problem in America.
I am all for hiring more policemen. I am all for building prisons. I
am all for having tough law enforcement and tough laws. And insofar as
this legislation provided for that, I think that is fine. But law
enforcement itself is not going to make for a lawful society. I wish
that it would. I wish that we in government could just snap our fingers
and everything would be fine.
We could have prisons that are doubled in size every decade, and we
are not going to have a safe society in America. We can have policemen
on every corner, and we are not going to have a safe society in
America, because much of the problem that we have in this country is
with young people. Most people who are in our prisons are under the age
of 21. It is amazing. But you call up prison officials and ask the
median age of inmates, and the median age will be 21, 22 years old.
Crime oftentimes--most of the time--is the business of young men. And
I wish it were the case that young men were going to modify their
behavior because they were afraid of the policemen. But I do not think
that the basic problem is a law enforcement problem. I think the basic
problem is the fundamental breakdown of values in the society, and a
breakdown of the family. How is a policeman going to supplant an absent
father? If parents do not care what happens to their kids, how is any
prison space going to take care of that? If children are released out
of school at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, if they have gone to school in
the first place, and there are no parents at home, if there is no
father to control a son, law enforcement is not going to do the job, no
matter how good law enforcement is.
So I support good law enforcement, but I believe that the problem is
more deeply rooted in our society than a lack of good law enforcement.
I think it is lack of families. I think it is a breakdown of basic
institutions in our society. I think it is a weakening of the role of
the church. And I think it is kids that are just allowed to run loose.
So what I liked most in this legislation was the prevention. What I
liked most in this legislation was that which was so casually labeled
pork. I am not saying that all the spending in this legislation was
great. It was not, I am sure. However, there is at least a recognition
that we have to pay attention to kids. The parents are not going to do
it, and I do not know any way of making parents do it. Let us try to
figure out some sort of semi-adequate surrogate for families. That was
the community school provision in this legislation, to keep schools
open, to keep school buildings open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I
think that is a great idea, because in some of our communities,
especially the inner cities, there are precious few resources in those
communities outside of the school building. And in some of our
communities--I am thinking, for example, of Kansas City, MO, which has
been under a court order--the school buildings are just terrific. Why
not use them?
A lot of people have taken the floor and belittled midnight
basketball. What is wrong with basketball for kids? Why should kids not
be using the gyms in school buildings? Why shut the schools down at 3
o'clock and send the kids out on the streets? So I thought that the
prevention aspect of this legislation was important--not to say that it
was perfect. I am sure any time you try anything, even prevention
programs, some of them are going to be successes and some are going to
be failures. But I think that the emphasis on prevention was correct in
this legislation.
Another reason I supported it was exactly what has been attacked by
the previous few speakers, and that is the assault weapons ban. Again,
I do not believe that passing the law is going to make everything
right. I know that. I know that we are not going to pass a law and
suddenly recapture every gun that is loose in society. Of course, we
are not going to do that. But I think the time has come for a degree of
seriousness in this country. The wheels have come off. What do I mean
by the wheels coming off? I mean an 11-year-old boy in St. Louis, MO,
who carries an assault weapon on a school bus.
So I think we should ban assault weapons. I think it is the right
thing to do.
(Mr. FEINGOLD assumed the chair.)
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I want to talk about politics, because a
number of people in the media have asked me how did I feel about my
vote; how did I feel about being one of a handful of Republicans; how
have I felt about this last week. The answer is: Lousy, just terrible.
Why is that? Because the Senate is a club, in a way, and we all know
each other. We talk to each other; we get along with each other; we
break bread together on a daily basis. The people who serve with us in
the Senate over a period of years become our friends. And those of us
who are in politics have a sense of loyalty and belief in our political
parties, and it is a serious matter.
For 26 years, I have been in elected politics. I never thought it
would be that long when I got into it. I have been a Republican, and I
am proud to be a Republican. So how do I feel about voting against my
leader? Lousy. How do I feel about voting against a majority of my own
party? Lousy. I do not enjoy that. But I thought that this bill was
right.
I also believe that the issue as it was presented by many of my
colleagues in my party was just not right, because they said that this
is a matter of defining the fundamental difference between a Republican
and a Democrat.
Mr. President, that is not this issue. Surely, it is not this issue.
Surely, the fundamental issue that defines the difference between a
Republican and a Democrat cannot be this crime bill. There are plenty
of issues that define the difference between us on this side of the
aisle and President Clinton.
It is as easy as falling off a log. We do not have to strain for
points of difference. President Clinton found them for us last year
with his economic program. We believed it was more taxes and more
spending. We thought that it was fundamentally bad economics. That
brought all Republicans together. We had no problem in uniting against
his tax program and against his stimulus package, no problem at all.
Do we have a difference within our party on health care? Yes. We have
several bills that have been offered by Republicans, but they are not
that far apart, and they are certainly a long way from the Clinton
health care program. We do not have the heavy Government hand, the
massive approach to health care, the extremism.
President Clinton has made it easy for us to define ourselves. I did
not think that was going to be the case. He was supposed to be the
centrist President to run as a centrist. Some centrist. He has found
the left. That is fine, but that helps us define ourselves as a
political party.
There is national defense and all kinds of things. But a crime bill,
this a crime bill? Not in the mind of this Senator.
I do not think, Mr. President, that the business of trying to define
the differences between Republicans and Democrats or between
Republicans in the Senate and the Democratic President means that on
each and every issue we have to take to the trenches. It is simple to
define the defining issues, but that does not mean that everything has
to be trench warfare. It does not mean that we have to fight
everything, that we have to defeat everything, that we have to go to
battle on every single cause. I do not think so.
So, no, I did not enjoy it, believe me. This has been a tough week
for this Senator. I will be glad when the weekend comes. I am going to
go fishing.
But it does not have anything to do with the difference between
Republicans and Democrats, at least in my mind. I think that we have to
try to figure out some ways to function as a country and find some sort
of bipartisan consensus on something or other. I mean, it just is not
true that the whole fate of America depends on slugging it out day to
day in partisan warfare between Republicans and Democrats on each and
every issue. That is an exaggeration. It is not each and every issue.
It just seems that way.
One of the great things I have experienced in this so-called
mainstream coalition effort on health care is that for weeks Democrats
and Republicans who have occupied somewhere on the center of the
political spectrum have met together virtually every day usually for
hours every day in a spirit of collegiality to seek the common ground
on one of the most complex issues, maybe the most complex issue ever to
face our Government, and that is health care. There are opportunities
to work together. I think we should seek them.
It certainly was not my idea, when I entered into public life 26
years ago, that everything, everything, had to be a knock-down, drag-
out fight.
So one of the thoughts that was in my mind was if there is some area
where it resonates with me I should try to be someone who at least
sought some common points across the aisle.
The bill that is before us is not perfect. It is a compromise. That
is the legislative process. And that is the reason I think we are here
to legislate. This compromise happens to have a number of Republican
ideas in it, and I think the bill should be passed.
The point of order on the budget would have resulted, I think, in the
death of yet another crime bill, and I could not support that.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I voted to waive the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I might, in opening, say to the Senator
from Missouri that the comments made by the President of the United
States after the initial defeat of the crime bill rule in the House of
Representatives and indeed the statements made by the majority leader
on the floor of the Senate today hardly encompassed anything in terms
of collegiality or bipartisanship. So I might just state that for the
Record.
I would like to start, Mr. President, by first of all acknowledging
that the votes are cast here. The die has been cast. No one is going to
change any votes. We are now going to vote to bring cloture to this
issue and resolve it once and for all. The crime bill will be passed.
There is not any question about that. That decision was made when the
point of order was not sustained about an hour or so ago. I regret that
very much.
I do not know what the American people think as they watch the debate
here among us. They hear it is a tough crime bill. It is a weak crime
bill. It is pork. It is not pork. Senators of excellent reputation say
exactly the opposite. Someone must surely be wrong.
So I do not know what the American people think, frankly, of how we
conduct our business, although I think I can get a pretty good idea
based on the letters, correspondence, and polls that I have seen. I
think they are frustrated with us, with good reason. I think they are
angry with us, with good reason, because we cannot seem, it seems to
me, to at least stand up here on principle often enough to make
anything happen. We are always looking for some way to adjust and
compromise and wheel and deal, to take something that was once good and
weaken it in the name of bipartisanship or something else.
If it is good, I do not care which party it is or how many people are
involved or who they are. If it is good, let us pass it. If it is not
good, then bipartisanship or collegiality is irrelevant. We should
stand for principle and let the chips fall where they may.
That is what it is all about. That is what it was all about with our
Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution when they set up this
Republic. I have said before on the floor of this Senate there were
one-third of the people who fought the Revolutionary War. There were
one-third of the people that stayed with the king, and one-third of the
people that played on both sides to try to get the best deal they
could.
It is the same today. It has not changed a bit. It is exactly how it
was 215 years ago.
But the situation stands now that we have not sustained this point of
order; therefore, we now are not going to have the opportunity to amend
this crime bill, and when I say ``amend this crime bill'' I am
basically taking some liberty because all we are trying to do is get
some of the provisions back in this crime bill that we passed several
weeks ago on the floor of the Senate.
We passed it, and it was a tough crime bill when it passed. But
despite all the rhetoric and all of the things you have been hearing
for the last 3.5 days, I tell you ``Folks, it hain't as tough as it was
when it left here--no way.'' And not only that, it is weaker, very much
weaker than it was when it left here.
Now, I heard all these statements about how it is not weaker and it
is stronger and tougher, and all that. I hear some of my colleagues
say, ``But we are now going to send to the President a crime bill that
is what everybody wants.'' They wanted a crime bill, good or bad. We
have to give the President a crime bill. That is what he wants. Never
mind the fact that it raises the national debt, that it does a lot of
social welfare spending and it has nothing to do with crime. Never mind
the fact that it weakened many of the provisions that we tried to put
in the law as it left the Senate. Never mind all that. But we have to
have a crime bill. It does not matter whether it helps the police or
whether the police want it. It does not matter whether it helps the
American people. But the Senate has to pass a crime bill. The House has
to pass a crime bill. It has to go to the President. He has to sign it.
So that happened. That is what is going to happen very shortly. And
the President will get his wish and he will get his bill and he will
sign it.
Take a look at in the next 3 or 4 years and just see how much crime
goes down in America as a result of this monumental piece of
legislation which we have now passed.
I have heard all the rhetoric. Let me just give you a few facts.
When we sent this crime bill out of the Senate, it had a provision in
there to deny benefits to illegal aliens--illegal aliens getting
benefits from the taxpayers of America. It was dropped. It is out. That
is a fact.
Benefits to criminals--this tough crime bill--dropped. We are going
to have benefits now. Benefits for criminals stay. We tried to take it
out. Back. This tough crime bill has that in there.
Handguns in schools. We had a provision in our bill which dealt with
that matter in a very straightforward and tough way that would make it
pretty sure that students would have to think twice before they brought
a handgun to school. Dropped. It is out. This tough crime bill that you
have been hearing about on the other side and that has been praised.
Dropped.
I ask the American people how they feel about that. Would you like to
have a provision that stops a kid from bringing a handgun to school;
especially since I have three kids in school? Dropped. It is gone.
How about prisoners working? We had a provision in our bill that said
they ought to work. It was dropped. It is out. This tough crime bill
took it out. That is a real tough. Oh, the people of the United States
of America would be opposed to any of those provisions I just
mentioned, not to mention three or four others that are weakening
provisions in this crime bill. Every one of them--I am not going to
read them all, but some are there.
Death penalty for drug kingpins. Weakened. Anybody opposed to that?
The people in the Senate are. They wanted it in this crime bill. They
wanted to weaken it.
We did all we could do on this side. All we wanted to do, why we
wanted this point of order, was to be able to amend this bill to put
those provisions back in. That is all we wanted. We did not need to
have it passed, necessarily. We wanted to have the opportunity to have
this passed, to vote to put these provisions back, because these
provisions were in the bill and they were passed by a majority in this
body. That is all we were asking. We were denied the opportunity to do
it.
Death penalty for the attempted assassination of the President of the
United States. We had it in the bill. Dropped. Dropped. Out.
I could go on and on and on.
The Dole-Hatch provision on gangs. Dropped. Serious juvenile drug
offenses; armed career criminals. Dropped. Additional prosecutors for
gang prosecution. Dropped. Gone. Tough crime bill, is it not? Terrorist
Alien Removal Act. Dropped. Gone. Out. Material support for terrorism.
Weakened. Enhanced penalties for terrorism. Dropped. Prisons, truth-in-
sentencing incentives grants. Weakened. Prison construction operation.
Dropped. The primary purpose of the grants, prison construction
operation, that is what we had. Dropped.
On and on and on. I am not going to read them all.
So when you hear that we passed a tough crime bill, it is not true.
Period. We had a tough crime bill. We passed it and we sent it to the
House. They weakened it and they weakened it further in the conference
and they sent it back here and here is what we have.
And all we wanted to do--and Senator Dole fought hard, very hard, for
the past several days and weeks simply to give us that opportunity, and
he was denied it. That is a fact. And Senator Dole deserves a lot of
credit, a lot of credit, for what he attempted to do. He should have
succeeded. He would have, had it not been for a few votes that were
changed.
But we all are accountable for our actions. The American people know
where the votes were. They know what is in this bill. And they know
what was in it before it left the Senate. They know. They know.
As Senator Dole said today in his remarks--you could just feel his
frustration, and I do not blame him--maybe what we need around here are
a few more Republican Senators. And I will tell you, I do not normally
make partisan remarks on the floor of the Senate, but I will tell that
statement is absolutely right. Do you want to change America? Do you
want to get a tough crime bill? Let us get a few more Republican
Senators here, or at least folks on the other side of the aisle who
want to get tough on crime.
It has taken us 6 years to get this weak bill, because the folks on
the other side did not want a tough bill for the past 6 years. That is
why we have not had a tough bill and that is why we do not have one
now. That is a fact.
There has been a lot of talk about the pork in this bill. I heard
Senator Bumpers on the floor today talking about midnight basketball
and how important it is to Little Rock. My response to my colleague is:
I think that is wonderful. I hope the people in Little Rock will set up
25 basketball leagues and maybe some football and soccer, maybe
handball, I could care less. But pay for it yourselves. Do not ask the
taxpayers of America who want a tough crime bill to pay for midnight
basketball in Little Rock or anyplace else. It is not right. They do
not want that. They want those tough provisions that I just outlined
here that were weakened. That is what they wanted; $625 million for a
model intensive grant program; $1.6 billion for the Local Partnership
Act.
Senator Danforth just said a few moments ago on the floor that he was
against the stimulus package, and he stayed with us on the stimulus
package. The point is, the $1.6 billion for the Local Partnership Act
is right out of the stimulus package; right smack out of it. There is
nothing new here.
When we were talking about it in those days, it was a stimulus
package. That is what the Local Partnership Act was supposed to be.
This Local Partnership Act was born in 1992 when Congressman John
Conyers of Detroit, MI, introduced a bill to spend $5.4 billion on
local governments in 1992 and 1993. The bill was dressed up and slimmed
down and later reduced to about $3 billion. And in both bills,
congressional findings concluded that the United States was in a
recession. It said, in the midst of a recession, they need these local
services.
Well, we are not in a recession now, most people would say, so now we
are going to call it crime prevention. It is not a stimulus; it is not
economic any more. Now it is crime. The same thing. It is the same
language; exactly the same.
So, now the only difference is the stimulus package wears a badge. It
is a cop now. It is a policeman now. It is crime now.
It is the same language, same money, same locations, same recipients,
just wears a badge and carries a baton. Same old stimulus and same old
formula--the U.S. Congress taking your money as if we are taking it out
of the air and sending it down to some district someplace, some
locality, telling them what to do, how to spend it, so they can spend
it on midnight basketball or something else.
They claim that is tough on crime. That is a crime, just to call it
tough on crime, as the Wall Street Journal said.
Mr. President, this bill is absolutely loaded with pork.
Now, everybody that has taken the floor in defense of this, they say,
``Oh, these are worthwhile programs. They are so wonderful.''
Many of them are. As I said, I would like to see the midnight
basketball programs happen and if the local people want to pay for it,
good. But should the United States Congress do it in its tough crime
bill? Not hardly.
There is so much pork in this bill that it defies even talking about
it. It has been outlined a thousand times on the floor of the Senate,
and I am not going to go through it again.
But we know that we have increased this bill. We have put money in
here in the name of crime prevention. And it is a huge amount of money.
It is in the billions of dollars and everybody knows it, and it is not
crime prevention.
We are talking about prison construction. We had $13 billion in the
Senate bill. That is what passed. In this bill, we have $7.9 and
everybody thinks that is pretty nice. We have $7.9 billion to build
prisons. Yes, we do. But do you know what, there is a loophole in it.
They do not have to build prisons. They can build prisons but they do
not have to build prisons.
Here is what is going to happen. They are going to probably rent some
apartments, maybe some buildings somewhere, and try to figure out how
they can get a prisoner out of jail for a weekend pass or work release
or something, some way they can get him out so he does not have to
serve in prison. He will be in the apartment. They can do that under
this bill and call it prison, as long as he is still a prisoner. They
can do that.
There are all kinds of alternatives to free up prison space. Anything
they can do to free up space, that is what it says. It does not say
they have to build prisons. It says they have to free up prison space.
OK, we can do it that way. We can house them in a halfway house. There
are all kinds of provisions here. We can have a number of halfway
houses built with the $6.9 billion to deal with drugs and other
problems. They are not necessarily prisons. We will see how many
prisons are built out of the $6.9 billion and we will see where they
are built. It will be interesting to see where they are built, too.
There are a couple of other things I want to talk about. One that was
very close to me was one on alien terrorists. Senator Simpson had a
provision that passed this Senate overwhelmingly, and it was dropped in
this conference. It was dropped from this bill. It provided for the
expedited deportation of nonresident criminal aliens convicted of
violent felonies upon completion of their prison sentence.
If you had a violent felon who is an alien who commits a crime and
serves his time, the Simpson amendment would have said: Let us get him
out of here; send him back home; we do not want to spend another nickel
on him. That is what it would have done. It would allow the Federal
judges to enter these deportation orders at the time of sentencing, so
once the sentence is served the criminal is out, gone. What happened?
They dropped it. We ought to protect these people, right? That is a
good, tough crime bill, to protect somebody who is trying to blow up a
building in the United States, or commits murder of a U.S. citizen,
somebody who is an alien. But for goodness sake, let us not deport him
after he completes his prison term. Let us try to keep him here a
little longer. Maybe he can beat the system, get out, still be an
illegal alien, and commit another crime so we can lock him up again and
pay for him again. We wanted an amendment to put that language back in
there so we can deport him. It is gone; we cannot do it.
I had one, as well, on alien terrorists, an amendment that passed the
Senate overwhelmingly. It may have been unanimously, I am not certain,
but I know it was overwhelmingly. This amendment would have created a
new procedure under which the Justice Department could use classified
information related to national security to secure the deportation of
terrorist aliens. Under current law, such classified material cannot be
used--believe it or not--cannot be used to establish the deportability
of such terrorists. You cannot use it. So if you know somebody is a
terrorist, if you know somebody has the capability of committing a
crime like the World Trade Center explosion in New York--you know they
are going to do it, you know they have the capability to do it--they
have not done it yet. The FBI has the information. So they come and
say: Let us deport him. ``No, we cannot do that. We have to wait until
they blow up the building. After they blow up the building, after we
try them, after they serve their time, and after they fool around with
the judge a little bit and see if they can beat the system, then we can
deport them.''
My amendment called for the establishment of a new court comprised of
sitting Federal judges to be designated by the Chief Justice, and this
special court was modeled on the special court created by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. This amendment would have relied on the
existing statutory definition of a terrorist. It was based on
comprehensive legislation that was formulated in the Reagan years, and
into the Bush administration as well, in the wake of that World Trade
Center bombing, which was committed by terrorist aliens.
I believe this amendment represented a particularly urgent and
necessary revision of the law. And so did the Senate, overwhelmingly.
That language is taken out. Gone. Taken out. Tough crime bill.
So when I hear all this talk about how tough the crime bill is, it
does not do much for this Senator.
There is another one, mandatory restitution to victims of violent
crimes. The Senate bill provided for mandatory restitution in Federal
court to victims of violent crime. There is not much in here for
victims. We have a lot in here to help those poor people who had such
difficult childhoods and have all these social problems, who committed
these crimes. We are going to give them a lot of help. But there is not
too much for the victims.
The conference report, although providing for mandatory restitution
to women victims and victims of child molestation, fails to include the
broader victims' rights reform that Senator Nickles was trying to
accomplish. It did strengthen some of it, but not enough. So all we
wanted, again, was the opportunity to vote; just to offer an amendment
to put back what the Senate wanted in in the first place. No, we cannot
do it.
You are going to hear and you have heard about this alleged deal here
that was offered by the majority side, saying we could have our
amendments. The amendments dealt with only budgetary matters. They did
not deal with the crime-fighting amendments. Why not? Because they knew
that they would pass, because they passed when they left the Senate.
They passed in the Senate before, and they knew they would pass again
and they did not want it. The liberals in this body did not want it to
pass and they knew when they voted for it, when it left the Senate,
that it would not pass. They knew it would be taken out in conference
or in the House. They knew it all along, and the game plan all along
was to do exactly what they did, and they won by two votes on the floor
of the Senate today. They won. Two votes.
You think your vote does not count? Two votes would have changed it,
and we would have had the opportunity to amend. And those amendments
would have passed, every one I mentioned would have passed and would
have become law, and the President would have signed the bill. They
knew it. That is why the fight was so bitter. It was so bitter on this
point of order.
Mr. President, I could go on and on on this. I am not going to. The
100,000 cops issue, which is not 100,000 cops. Everybody knows it. The
local communities are picking up at least 80,000, in essence 80,000 of
those police officers, by picking up a larger percentage of the costs
than we are being told. It is not 100,000 policemen, at least not paid
for by the Federal Government.
I do not know why we do not listen to the people who are out there
who work in law enforcement. What do they say about it? What do they
say will work? The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which is the
Nation's largest coalition of law enforcement, crime victims, and
concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer--here is what they
say. Here is what they wanted in this bill.
Increase the prison inmate capacity. We did not do it. No
guarantees--we might. If those Good Samaritans out there who are going
to watch these moneys and see where they go--if they decide, whoever
they are, to build these prisons, we will get about 6.9 billion
dollars' worth of prisons built. But that is not going to happen. We
are going to see halfway houses; we will see little rooms where people
can be housed so they do not have to go back to jail and serve in those
horrible places. That is what they wanted.
Increase the prison capacity. Do you know what they said? Hire the
requisite personnel to operate them. Eliminate the luxuries inside so
life in prison is a heck of a lot less attractive than it is now. That
is what they said. We did not listen to them.
There is a second point they make. Ban from prisons all weight
lifting equipment, martial arts, boxing, and hand-to-hand fighting
training used to disarm and kill 20 to 25 percent of all police
officers killed in the line of duty. Replace that with calisthenics and
reading and writing and basic arithmetic: Job skills. We did not do
that.
Federal legislation they would like to see: To provide for the
authorization for qualified police officers to carry their sidearm
throughout the United States, which will increase police presence by
over 600,000 officers. They did not do that.
More prosecutors and judges for localities with case backlogs and
reduction of plea bargaining in violent crime, truth in sentencing,
exclusionary rule reform to provide good-faith exceptions. We did not
do that.
Habeas corpus reform to stop endless appeals in capital punishment
cases. We did not do that. This is a tough crime bill though, is it
not?
There were dozens of law enforcement organizations and agencies
opposing this crime bill from all over America.
The Wall Street Journal, as I said, had an editorial a short time ago
that said ``This bill is a crime.'' I do not think you can say it much
better than that, because it is. It is a crime. This bill is going to
take billions of dollars from the taxpayers of America and send them
back into communities, spending the money on things that are not
anticrime that we ought not to be spending Federal dollars on.
It is not tightening up the tough provisions that we want and the
American people want--habeas corpus, exclusionary rule, truth in
sentencing, mandates for people who commit crimes with guns, on and on
and on. We are not doing it.
So it is a crime. The Wall Street Journal is absolutely right. The
FBI chief--and I think it has already been said on the floor in
previous debate--he himself criticized this bill. He criticized it, and
he was reined in, it says, in the Washington Times.
He suggested to a newspaper interviewer that mayors and police
officers across the country do not like the bill, and then he was
``reined in'' by the Clinton administration. I bet he was reined in for
speaking out. He is only the No. 1 law enforcement person, with the
exception of the Attorney General, in the country. So I suppose he
should be reined in if he says he does not like the bill that his
President is pushing.
He said,
From a Federal law enforcement point of view, the one great
concern I had is for the funding for the 100,000 police
officers which comes from downsizing the Federal Government
and specifically the FBI and the DEA.
That is what the point is on all of this money for police officers.
We are going to downsize the Federal Government and provide these
police officers. Who is going to get downsized? You can bet it will not
be the bureaucrats in HUD. You can bet on that. It is going to probably
be FBI people.
So he has spoken out.
Mr. President, I want to conclude on another item that was in the
bill that really is the purpose of my rising today, which is the issue
of gun control and the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
basically ignore the second amendment to the Constitution. And we are
ignoring the second amendment to the Constitution. Not only are we
ignoring it, we are stepping on it.
I have heard a lot of debate in the last 3 or 4 days about what the
Founding Fathers meant about the second amendment. You all know what
the second amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.
Shall not be infringed. That is all it says. I do not know where we
get in there that certain types of guns can be banned, waiting periods,
all of these things. Where does that come from? How do you get that out
of the second amendment?
I can guarantee you that some of our liberal colleagues who have
ranted and raved against the second amendment all these years, if it
was the first amendment, oh, boy, we would sure be hearing a different
tune then.
I have heard all the interpretations of what the Founding Fathers
meant. I have heard plenty of it from especially those who supported
the Feinstein amendment on the banning of so-called assault weapons.
Let me quote you what the Founding Fathers said. No exaggeration, no
focus on my words, their words, period.
Thomas Jefferson:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
So do not anybody try to tell me what he meant. Maybe somebody else's
interpretation of what he meant. You heard what he said.
How about John Adams?
Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion * * * in private self-defense.
That is pretty clear. It does not talk anything about hunting or
sport. He is talking about self-defense. That is what the second
amendment is there for.
James Madison, fairly well known, helped write the Constitution:
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed
which Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation * * * [where] the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms.
James Madison.
Thomas Payne:
* * * arms discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property * * * Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law
abiding] citizens deprived of the use of them.
Anything in there about gun control or registration or waiting
periods or banning any particular type of weapon? Not that I can find.
Jefferson again:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms * * * disarm only
those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crimes * * * Such laws make things worse for the assaulted
and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson.
Richard Henry Lee:
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves * * * and include all men capable of bearing arms
* * * To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body
of the people always possess arms and be taught alike * * *
how to use them.
Sam Adams:
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the
people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms.
Finally, George Mason:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people * *
* To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to
enslave them * * *
They are all pretty clear to me. I am hearing the most unbelievably
wild interpretations of what these men meant. You can tell what they
meant because the second amendment is as clear and as concise as any
amendment or any language in the Constitution of the United States.
There is no doubt about what they meant.
And it is absolutely incredible to me that anybody could believe that
banning anything is going to stop the criminal from getting it. We have
the toughest gun control law in the world in this city, and when you
get home tonight and turn on your radio or pick up the newspaper in the
morning, there will be a couple more people murdered with a gun. It
happens every day here. You all know that.
So what is the point? Where is this working? Where is the proof here?
You are going to deny the private citizen the liberty that he has under
this Constitution: The right to keep and bear arms. I hear all this
stuff about we cannot use semiautomatic weapons for hunting. I do not
want anybody to use a semiautomatic to kill somebody. Who in the world
would want that? And very few people do.
So for that, one-half of 1 percent or less, we are going to deny
everybody, all the honest law-abiding citizens.
In the Police Magazine in June 1994, there was an editorial written
by Dan Burger, who is the editor. I want to quote from that:
The violent crime problem goes beyond guns. It is deep
rooted in our culture. Numerous indicators in our society
demonstrate that violence has become an acceptable, even
fashionable way, to resolve conflict and solve problems.
Innovative methods to address the problem of violent crime
need to be pursued. The arguments about gun control need to
be separated from crime control so that it becomes clear that
it will take more than gun control to effect change.
Continuing:
This country does not need to abolish guns in order to
control crime. Keeping track of firearms through better
registration records may benefit investigations of gun-
related crime, but stiffer penalties for gun-related crime
will carry the message that solving problems with a gun is
unacceptable behavior.
This issue is the kind of issue that sounds wonderful on the surface.
A majority of the American people probably think it is a good idea. But
it is a false issue. It is not the issue. You are not going to deny
somebody the opportunity to get one of those weapons if he or she
wishes to use it in the commission of a violent crime.
You cannot trample on the Constitution for the sake of .008 percent
of the population who will do something that despicable. We should make
certain that that individual never, ever walks the streets of society
again.
But we do not have the provisions that are tough enough to do that in
this bill. They can get out. They can get out. And they will. And they
do. And they commit crimes over and over and over again.
But we have to talk about how difficult their childhood was or what
social problems they have, or maybe their parents did not treat them
right. That is all we hear.
Put them away. That is what the American people want. I support the
death penalty, if they are convicted. But even if you do not, if you
want to, leave it to the option of the jury, to give them life, and
mean life, not 15 years good behavior, with a color TV and a college
education and law books.
I am sorry; you sacrifice your right to ever walk the streets of
society again when you commit a crime like that.
So what do we do? Instead of doing that so they cannot walk the
streets of society again, we go after the innocent, law-abiding
citizens who want to have a gun for target practice or even just to sit
on the mantel. We have to go after them because they might--because
they have one--do it.
It is a typical example of the feel-good, false, phony issue that
will not resolve the problems, the same reason it has not resolved them
here in Washington, DC, the same reason that, unfortunately, people
will be killed, probably this evening, unfortunately, with a gun in a
city that bans them.
I read in the paper the other day that a Member of our body, who
claims to own one of these weapons, happens to live in Washington, DC.
Very interesting.
There was a survey done again in Police Magazine. I do not know how
scientific it was, but it was simply a message to their readers. These
are police officers. They asked the police officers to respond. Do you
support any assault weapons bill that would ban importation and U.S.
manufacture of specific semiautomatic assault weapons? Eighty-five
percent of the police officers responded and said No.
Does gun ownership by citizens increase public safety? Eighty-five
percent said Yes.
Does gun ownership by citizens decrease public safety? Ninety percent
said No.
Does gun ownership by citizens negatively affect your job? Ninety
percent said No.
Should training or certification of gun owners be required by law?
And it was essentially 50-50.
Well, the issue of gun control is again on the forefront. It is in
this bill. We were accused as Republicans of wanting to stop the bill
only because that was in there, which is not true. Part of it, not
true. Many Senators, I am sure, felt that way, including myself. I
wanted the language out. However, there were many who wanted the
opportunity to vote on other things--to vote on the pork, to vote on
toughening the provisions of crime.
I wish that just once this Senate and the Congress could pass a tough
crime bill that puts the mandates on the violent criminal, on the
commission of Federal crimes, and establishes the guidelines for those
who commit crimes that are not Federal crimes to put these people away.
Three strikes and you are out. I go for one strike and you are out. You
commit a violent crime like this, you are gone. You do not get a second
chance.
How many times, if you are in a grocery store, do you let the person
who is your cashier steal money from you? Once? If you give them a
second chance, you are probably crazy. You are not going to give them a
third chance.
We do it all the time. All the time. Michael Jordan's father, repeat
offender. You name them, violent crime after violent crime. Very seldom
is it the case where it is the first time. It is the repeat offenders,
over and over and over again. And we have not dealt with it in this
bill. I do not care what anybody tells you. Read it. We have not done
it. It is not tough enough. Put them away. That is what the American
people want you to do. And we did not do it. We did not even have the
opportunity to strengthen it. That is all we wanted to do.
Mr. President, I think I have made my point, but I would just
conclude by saying I think, to be very candid, the American people have
been cheated by the actions of this Congress on this bill. It is going
to be passed. It is going to be signed with a lot of fanfare. The
President is going to have a big ceremony. He will be passing out pens
and you should all go to sleep when he signs the bill--you will hear
the press conference. You will all go to sleep and you will say, Gosh,
all the crime is now going to be eliminated in this country. It is just
going to drop down like a thermometer mercury when it drops from 80
degrees to 50 degrees in an hour. It is just going to shoot right down,
right?
Are you kidding? Come on. It is not going to happen. This is a pork
bill. We have spent billions and billions, trillions since the Great
Society on exactly this kind of stuff, and what have we got for it?
More crime. More drugs. More problems. More inner city problems.
Dumping money at problems like this does not work. Having the Federal
Government dictate does not work.
Senator Danforth mentioned it a little while ago. We are always
looking for somebody else to cast blame--it is the family; it is the
break up of the family; if a kid gets in trouble, it is not his fault.
I guess I have to have--if those doggone guys down there in the Federal
Government would just give us midnight basketball, my kid would not
have gotten into drugs.
When are we going to assume our responsibility as citizens? I will
tell you something. I travel around my State a lot and I meet a lot of
people. We all do in our job. But I will tell you, some of the things
that this Congress is doing to the American people--we threw tea into
Boston Harbor 200 years ago for a lot less, a lot less. The American
people are getting fed up with it. I am getting fed up with it. I hope
that 3, 4, 5 years from now, when there are those out here saying what
a wonderful deal this crime bill was, when we see that the crime does
go up, not down, we see these problems are still there, we will get
serious. And I hope it will be long before 5 years, hopefully next
year, when we get serious and pass a real tough crime bill.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the vote today left us too short of
victory in an effort to win the right to offer amendments to this
conference report. That was a very close vote. Many of us worked very
hard to put together the needed votes to win that right. But we lost.
I must say that our leader on this side of the aisle, Senator Dole,
exerted a tremendous amount of leadership to try to get the number of
votes that were required under our rules to offer a series of
amendments to cut out $5 billion of pork barrel spending that will add
to the deficit, to toughen up some of the sentencing and the punishment
provisions that are aimed at the violent criminals in our society that
would do more to punish those who use guns in the commission of violent
crimes, and to strengthen the provisions that would ensure that local
jurisdictions would have more money to build prisons. But there will be
other opportunities to work on those issues later.
I am reminded of something President Lincoln said, I think it was in
his second inaugural address following the defeat of the South in the
Civil War, that there should be malice toward none and charity for all.
I feel that tonight toward all in the Senate, whether on our side of
the aisle or the other side of the aisle, on this issue that came down
to such a close vote today. There is no doubt that this problem is
going to continue to be a serious problem.
Over the last 30 years, we have seen a dramatic increase in criminal
activity in our country but particularly in the commission of violent
crimes. Over the last 30 years, the crime rate has gone up 200 percent
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. At the same time, the
rate of violent crime, which the bureau classifies as murder--forcible
rape, robbery and aggravated assault--increased 377 percent. This
indicates that the rate for violent crime has increased at almost twice
that for the overall crime rate. While all crime has doubled over the
last 3 decades, violent crime has almost quadrupled. The American
people are demanding that these violent criminals be locked up. But
this conference report fails to do what needs to be done, and I plan to
vote against cloture on the conference report. We should kill this bill
and start over, in my opinion.
Last month George Will said in a July 14 article that appeared in the
Washington Post, and I am going to quote:
This bill may not be the worst legislation Congress has
ever cobbled together from trendy intellectual fads and
traditional pork, but it is so bad that sensible Senators and
Representatives will vote against it for the right reasons,
which include respect for federalism--and for the public's
intelligence.
Some of the bill's problems, which were described in the article by
George Will as ``touchy-feely'' solutions to crime include funding for
recreation; creation of new Federal task forces and councils; and arts,
crafts, and dance programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post
article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the American people are looking to their
local and State law enforcement officials to protect them from this
growing wave of crime and violence. They expect the Federal Government
to help with resources and financing to support those in local law
enforcement who are on the front lines at the street level--not by
creating and funding a new bunch of Federal social programs.
I had the pleasure, Mr. President, last April--as a matter of fact,
it was on April 4--of traveling around in the city of Jackson and in
Hinds County with the local sheriff, Malcolm McMillan, and talking with
him about the problems that are encountered by his office on a day-to-
day basis dealing with the criminal element in central Mississippi.
He told me a number of things which helped me to better understand
what life is like in the real world of crime and law enforcement. One
thing he said that I remember was that public enemy number one in
Jackson, MS, is crack cocaine. I challenge you to find anything in this
conference report that does anything effective about that problem that
is public enemy number one. And it is no different in that place than
any other city or town in America.
We have to do more about what is really wrong and what is really
happening out there and why we have such a wave of violent crime
throughout America.
He also pointed out that what they need is jail space. We hear a lot
about new prisons, and that is in this bill. That is important. But he
is talking about space to lock somebody up who is a threat at that
moment to the people in that town, and there is a shortage of jail
space. That may be addressed to some extent with the matching funds
here. But if you look at those programs in this conference report, they
fall far short of what is needed, a small contribution toward the cost
of hiring some policemen for some cities and some States. And I
challenge you to conclude that this is going to have much of a benefit
throughout the country.
Most Americans understand that the violent street crime is committed
by a small percentage of the criminal population on a repeat basis.
They also understand that more police power, more prison space, more
jail space, and tougher sentencing--not arts, crafts, basketball
programs, and a new Federal bureaucracy to manage it--are what is
really needed to get the criminals off the streets and into jail where
they belong.
Under the guise of fighting crime, this legislation creates a whole
new panoply of Federal programs which will bring with them new Federal
guidelines, rules, and regulations, and a bigger Federal deficit. This
is not the kind of crime fighting assistance that America wants or
needs.
Mr. President, the citizens of my State have not asked Congress to
attack violent crime by creating more Federal social programs, nor do
they see the need for more street crimes to be classified as Federal
crimes to be prosecuted by the Department of Justice in Washington in
an already crowded Federal judiciary. But like many of its recent
predecessors, this crime bill takes that approach. It further expands
Federal jurisdiction over criminal matters that properly are the
responsibility of State and local governments.
The effects of this trend were discussed by the Chief Justice of the
United States, who recently said:
The continuation of the past decade's trend toward large-
scale federalization of the criminal law has the enormous
potential of changing the character of the Federal judiciary.
His comments were included in a recent publication of the Federal
Judicial Center entitled, ``On the Federalization of the Administration
of Civil and Criminal Justice.'' That was published by the Federal
Judicial Center in 1994.
The article is written by William Schwarzer and Russell Wheeler. I
will not ask that the entire article be printed in the Record. But I
call attention to it because it very persuasively argues that we are
going down the wrong track by continually expanding the
responsibilities of the Federal law enforcement and judiciary system at
a time when State courts have the primary responsibility, State law
enforcement and local law enforcement officials have the primary day-
to-day responsibility of apprehending the criminals, bringing them to
justice, and seeing that the laws are enforced and that the streets are
safe.
Just by making a State crime a Federal crime does not solve our crime
problem. The center's report notes that the September 1991 meeting of
the Judicial Conference of the United States reaffirmed a long-standing
position that Federal prosecutions should be limited to charges that
cannot or should not be prosecuted in State courts.
Federalization is not a recent concern, but it is now out of control.
Congress cannot solve the crime problem by making State crimes Federal
crimes.
The trend in federalization has been accompanied by a rise in the
overall volume of criminal filings and appeals in the Federal courts.
According to the Federal Judicial Center, from 1980 to 1992, annual
criminal case filings per sitting judge increased from 58 to 84 cases,
as did the proportion of complex and burdensome drug and fraud cases.
Mr. President, we all recognize that the Constitution gives to
Congress the power to determine what should and should not be subject
to Federal, civil, and criminal jurisdiction. However, we ought also
recognize that this power should be exercised with an awareness of its
consequences for law enforcement and the administration of justice. It
would serve the public interest if we consider more carefully the views
of the Constitution's framers that criminal law and its enforcement in
our society is primarily a State responsibility, rather than a Federal
responsibility.
While the authority to pay part of the costs to help hire more
policemen will help in some areas, it will not be a major benefit
across the country.
The expensive package of Federal social programs in this bill will
have little, if any, real effect on violent crime.
The American people recognize these programs for what they are--an
ineffective response that offers little in the way of real solutions to
the problem.
Mr. President, I conclude by saying let us put this conference report
in the wastebasket where it belongs, and elect some new Congressmen and
Senators in November who will be committed to striking out on a new
course, taking a different approach and solving the problems that we
really have, and not creating a huge $30-plus billion spending bill and
claiming that it is going to solve the problem, which it really is not.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, July 14, 1994]
Touchy-Feely Crime Bill
Have a care, criminals. Congress's crime bill contains
severities such as these:
Regarding ``midnight sports leagues,'' which have done
nicely without federal supervision, the government shall make
grants to leagues in which ``not less than 50 percent of the
players'' are ``residents of federally assisted low-income
housing'' and which serve neighborhoods or communities whose
populations have ``not less than two percent'' of various
characteristics, such as ``a high incidence of persons
infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.''
There shall be an ``interagency Task Force to be known as
the Ounce of Prevention Council,'' chaired by the attorney
general and including the secretaries of housing and urban
development, health and human services, labor, agriculture
and interior and the drug czar. It shall spend millions on
this and that, including arts, crafts and dance programs.
There shall be ``partnerships'' between law enforcement
agencies and groups providing ``child and family services.''
The partnerships' many functions shall include training
police ``regarding behavior, psychology, family systems, and
community culture and attitudes'' that are ``relevant to
dealing with'' children who are or might become violent.
The attorney general shall make grants to organizations
dealing with ``delinquent and at-risk youth'' through
programs designed to do many things, including ``increase the
self-esteem'' of such youth. Drug dealers may be led into new
lines of work by grants funding ``mediation and other
conflict resolution methods, treatment, counseling,
educational and recreational programs that create
alternatives to criminal activity.''
And so the crime bill goes, through hundreds of pages and
billions of dollars--more than $30 billion over six years.
This bill is probably not the worst legislation Congress has
ever cobbled together from trendy intellectual fads and
traditional pork. But it is so bad that some sensible
representatives and senators will vote against it for the
right reasons, which include respect for federalism--and for
the public's intelligence.
Stephen Moore and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think
tank, says that a year after a Republican filibuster stopped
the president's $16 billion ``stimulus'' package, the crime
bill is ``the largest urban cash program to come through
Congress since Richard Nixon invented revenue sharing.'' But
of course it is not just urban cash.
Legislators representing rural areas could not allow such a
gravy train to roll through the country-side without strewing
cash along the way. Hence there is ``Title XXV--Rural
Crime.'' And Washington accepts a new challenge: ``Subtitle
B--Drug-Free Truck Stops and Safety Rest Areas.''
This crime bill is a bipartisan boondoggle because of the
cachet that currently accrues to any legislation with an
``anti-crime'' label. But the bill sprays money most
promiscuously at Democratic constituencies, the so-called (by
themselves) ``caring professions''--social workers,
psychologists and others who do the work of therapeutic
government.
To help with the grandstanding about ``toughness,'' the
bill creates scores of new federal death penalty crimes. But
it also still contains (as this is written) the ``Racial
Justice Act'' which is designed to end capital punishment. It
would do so by allowing appeals based on statistical showings
of racial disparities in capital punishment, appeals that
would put immobilizing sand in the gears of the government's
prosecutorial machinery.
The ``Violence Against Women Act'' genuflects at every
altar in the feminist church. For example, it funds ``gender
sensitivity'' training for judges. And the federal government
is going to matriculate: It is off to college to conduct a
``campus sexual assault study,'' a monument to the feminist
fiction that in a world infested with predatory males, women
students risk life and limb just walking from dorms to
libraries, not to mention the terrors of dating.
The current faith is that the sovereign remedy for what
ails the nation is yet another crime bill that further
federalizes what properly is a state and local
responsibility--keeping people safe. So it is no wonder that
few politicians pause to wonder about the wisdom of piling
federal punishments on acts already heavily punished by state
laws.
This accelerating trend contributes to the collapse of
self-government as communities slough of responsibilities,
even for hiring police and building prisons, onto a distant
federal government. And the suggestion that the federal
government can produce safe streets accelerates the
evaporation of the federal government's prestige because the
result will mock the expectations so improvidently raised.
Supposedly ``ambitious'' bills like the crime bill actually
are acts of legislative laziness, a slothful refusal to think
and discriminate concerning federal responsibilities and
competencies. The crowning irony is that the crime bill will
increase contempt for law--and lawmakers.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Thank you Mr. President. It will not take long for me to
summarize my remarks on the events of the day.
I want to associate myself with my friend from Mississippi. I can
remember about 3 years ago or 4 years ago when I first came to this
body. There was a big debate on this particular piece of legislation,
on a crime bill.
Then the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Rudman, came into the
cloakroom. He said: You know, I just read an interesting article that
says 95 percent of the drug busts in America are done by local police
or local sheriffs. And here we are trying to put into a crime bill a
whole bunch of money for interdiction in the gulf, and for ATF and for
DEA and FBI. Why do we not take some of that money out of there and
send it to local police forces, whether it be city, county, or State,
for that matter, to their board of crime control and let those folks
make the decision on how they want to spend their money to deal with
this very, very serious situation? Well, that sounds like a pretty good
idea to me. Extra uniform policemen, maybe a new car, maybe some
communication equipment. I come out of county government. I know what
we do with their money. We buy cars, radios and re-equip our people who
are on the front line of crime, and that is our police officers, the
people on the beat. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
We offered that as an amendment, and do you know what? We got beat
right down party line. We see some people sitting around here sort of
smiling tonight, but never ceases to amaze me--the new folks on the
beat, especially on the scene--the liberal mind, the confidence it puts
in big bloated central Government, located on the banks of the Potomac
in this 13 square miles of logic-free environment to deal with the
problems in Billings, MT. It never ceases to amaze me the confidence
they have in that. It is unreal. I see why folks scratched their way
over these mountains to the West of us to go on the other side so they
can go down the Ohio River; and once they got to the Midwest, I can see
why they kept right on going, because probably we can say it is a
mindset.
Thirty cents of every dollar we appropriate in these programs that
was passed here today, and our welfare programs, get to the people we
want to help. So why would the Government bureaucracy not lobby this
hard to pass this bill? This is full employment for a bureaucrat. That
is what it is. It is to set somebody up and tell them to go down there
for $8 or $9 an hour. You can go down and watch them play basketball at
midnight. Two kids might show up. But the bureaucrat is going to get
paid, and it is going to be your tax dollars. That is who will pay it.
That is instead of YMCA's and Boys and Girls Clubs and volunteers that
come out of the community. You know what these people are telling us?
We want our communities back. Get these people out of our communities,
and we can take our communities back. That is what they are telling us.
This bill does not do it.
Just think about that. Only 30 cents out of every $1 we appropriate
gets to the people we want to help. Since 1965, we have spent $5
trillion. That is the amount of the national debt or will be pretty
darned quick--$5 trillion on crime prevention programs. You all heard
what my friend from Mississippi said, how the crime rate continues to
go. It does not start here, folks; it starts in the neighborhoods. That
is where it starts.
This bill just does not do it. When it left here, it was paid for.
But basically that was kind of a funny situation. But I think it is a
good idea, if they follow through on it, and that was a trust fund to
pay for it, without raising taxes when it left here. When it came back,
only 57 percent of this bill is paid for. The rest of it goes on your
national debt and deficit spending.
Let us talk about the guns end of it. I do not like gun control
either. I will tell you this: Some of the guns that you have in your
house right now that you think you are very comfortable with, under
this language you might not think you are so comfortable. They may be
illegal. The old M-l I carried in the U.S. Marine Corps--there are a
lot of them in the private sector--could be classified as an assault
weapon. No. one, it is a military type and, No. 2, it is a
semiautomatic. Which definition are we going to use whenever we start
talking about the kind of firearm you have in your house?
I can remember when they got to talking about revolvers, and I owned
one of those. I went home to see if I could find it. That is No. 1. I
found it, but I could not find the cylinder because we store the
cylinder somewhere else other than in the revolver. I found it the
other day, though. If somebody invaded my house, I will probably have
to beat the guy to death with it, because I could never get it in a
position to use it.
That is not the point here. The forefathers--as quoted from my friend
from New Hampshire a while ago, I think when they wrote the
Constitution, I do not think they really knew what they wanted. But
they knew what they did not want. All of these people were born out of
feudal systems, so to speak. Private land ownership was important to
them, and personal rights, property rights. And the ability to defend
oneself. You know what? If you look at all of the countries of the
world that have had gun control, do we not learn anything from history?
Let us say that even history that I remember as young as I am--I am 60,
and that is young; it sounds younger every day--do we not learn
anything from history? Every country or society or nation who has had
strict gun control has been run over how many times by the tyranny of
war and a tyrannical government. Do we not learn anything?
Folks say it cannot happen today. Folks, you are dead wrong, it can
happen today. It can happen today. And we will get to a point in this
society when, sad to say--and I hope I am gone--but I think our
children may see some very tough times ahead.
The liberal mind is a wonderful thing. When they start talking about
we can be cute and politically correct and go to our parties where the
Grey Poupon set is and think we have done something for America, do not
try to sell that to the people in my State of Montana. Do not try to
sell that to the people of very many States around here. I heard the
statement the other day even on health care when they said, ``We are
going to have health care reform whether the American people want it or
not.'' Whenever this body or anybody elected at any level of
government, whether a county commissioner or a State representative,
Governor, Senator, or a President, thinks that they are smarter and
wiser and make better decisions than the people, then we are in big,
big political trouble. I do not think they are asking us to take care
of them.
The provision of the ban on assault weapons is so broad and so
unclear that this is a wonderful field of dreams for lawyers. And they
will do very well under this language.
I am not real sure the way it is written whether it would stand
constitutional scrutiny or whether it would even stand scrutiny under
its definition.
So I will vote against cloture and I will vote against this bill. And
I will go home, and I will tell my police chiefs that I was not
successful or we were not successful in stopping this thing because I
do not have one police chief, not one sheriff, not one county
commissioner that says they want this bill.
There was talk about 100,000 cops. I stood over there and listened to
that today, the 100,000 cops. And there is no more truth in it than you
could fly to the moon in a bucket. I doubt if you could get 20,000. It
is on a cost share basis, 75-25 the first year, 50-50 the second year,
and 25-75 the third year, and then after that you are on your own. The
folks in Texas are going to have to pick up that bill after that.
And then I can see maybe the League of Cities and Towns coming in,
and they will say: ``Well, we ran out of money after the third year. We
need a little help here.'' And then next year on appropriations I can
hear it all now. Here they come. Let us fund these programs, and there
is no money in the well. We have already gone to the well too many
times.
So, just for the firearms, and because this bill is a terrible hoax
on the American people, on the people who really want a strong crime
bill--we built a new jail in Yellowstone County when I was elected
commissioner, and we just finished it during my term there. I know what
we need in detention facilities and how we handle our youth. I know it
is important. But nothing in this bill guarantees that there will be
one brick laid or one steel door built to hold hardened criminals and
keep them away from society, whom they are bent on harming.
So, put it altogether. My vote is ``no.'' I wish it would have been
different this afternoon where we could have offered some amendments
and made it stronger and made it more like when it left here. I
supported it then, but I cannot now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I speak to the Senate this evening with an
overwhelming sense of disappointment, disappointment because after
years of work on behalf of the great majority of the Members of the
Senate we came so close and have fallen so far by reason of the failure
of this present bill to meet the requirements of the Budget Act.
We were given an opportunity earlier today to cast a vote which would
have permitted Members of this body to remove from this bill some 5
billion dollars' worth of social programs that can properly, in the
context of these debates, be called pork and at the same time restore
to the bill six significant antiviolence law enforcement amendments
which had been adopted either unanimously or by large affirmative votes
by the Members of the Senate during our extended debate last year.
The Members of the Senate by a narrow margin refused to avail
themselves of that opportunity, preferring to deal with a murky whole
rather than to separate it into its constituent parts, allow votes on
the weakest and most questionable portions of the bill, and then go
forward with what could have been at least a significant contribution
to the fight against crime and violence in the United States of
America.
Having failed to avail ourselves of that opportunity, however, we are
now faced with a bill which will submit to the people of the United
States a bill, a large bill, a bill for some $30 billion in spending, a
bill submitted to the American people by a Congress which, combined
with the actions of its predecessors, is responsible for budget
deficits well up into twelve digits for as far in the future as we can
possibly see.
But perhaps worse than the raw number, $30 billion, is the fact that
it is not directed primarily at the fight against violent crime. Much
of it goes to social programs which are the first cousins, perhaps the
siblings, of a wide range of hundreds of social programs, spending on
which has increased over the course of the last 20 years at a rate
remarkably parallel to the rate by which violent crime has increased in
the United States.
It would, of course, have been inappropriate to say that that social
spending was the cause of the rise in the crime rate, but it certainly
accompanied it and has not in the past succeeded in reducing it, nor
will the similar social spending in this bill.
So the bill spends too much on programs unrelated to our crime rate,
but even that which is related to law enforcement is misspent. The
terribly false promise of 100,000 new police officers when the money in
this bill will pay barely 20 percent of the cost of such new officers
has resulted in rejection from cities from one coast to another saying
that if we had all that free money, that 80 percent to spend on new
police officers, we already would have done so. We cannot responsibly
take a short, declining 3-year subsidy when it will take us that long
to train an effective police officer. So much of that money will be
either unspent or spent for nonpolice purposes.
Another large chunk of the criminal justice spending is for new
incarceration facilities defined so broadly that much of it will not be
spent on such facilities and all of it that will be, will be subject to
minute controls by the Federal Government, by the Department of
Justice, over the way in which our State prisons are operated, the
rules under which they are operated, the benefits to inmates which must
be provided, in a fashion which I suspect will cause many States simply
to reject that so-called gift of Federal money.
At the same time that this measure spends or sets its spending
priorities in a mistaken fashion, it omits a wide range of true
anticrime measures which were agreed to by the Senate during the course
of its debate last year.
What explanation is there, Mr. President, for the failure to include
a better, more efficient and quicker system for causing the deportation
of criminal illegal aliens immediately upon their release from prison?
What explanation there is for that omission has never been made, to the
knowledge of this Senator, in this body or the other body because it
could not be made. But our vote this afternoon prevents us from voting
on that as a separate issue.
Tougher penalties for gun crimes, tougher penalties for crimes
relating to drugs and minors is omitted from this bill, though voted
for by the Senate, strengthening provisions which cannot be restored by
reason of this afternoon's vote and others as well.
A balance which may have had too much spending when it left the
Senate but at least had strong law enforcement provisions has now moved
overwhelmingly the other way, far too much misdirected spending and far
too little in the way of law enforcement itself.
In addition, of course, there are omissions which were omissions at
the time of our debate last fall: no reform of the habeas corpus system
of endless appeals of criminal convictions, the type of appeals that
caused most capital punishment sentences to be dragged out over 8, 10,
or 12 years.
I think, in summary, that it may well properly be said that this bill
does as much for convicted criminals as it does to them, and far more
than it does for the victims and potential victims of those violent
criminals.
Far better, Mr. President, that we should defeat this bill and start
all over again, in spite of the amount of work that we have done on it,
than we congratulate ourselves on the passage of a flawed and
ineffective proposal, thus slowing down our own and the President's
resolve and dedication to doing it right.
So, Mr. President, to return to my first remark, I must vote against
invoking cloture. I must vote against this bill. I do so with sorrow
and disappointment. I do so because of a magnificent opportunity--a
magnificent opportunity--lost.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
various news clippings pertaining to this subject and a letter to me
from the Washington State Council of Police Officers.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington State
Council of Police Officers,
Olympia, WA, August 25, 1994.
Hon Slade Gorton,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Slade: The Washington State Council of Police
Officers, representing approximately 92 percent of all line
officers in the state of Washington, would like Congress to
pass a crime bill that can make a difference. We believe,
however, that the current proposal before the United States
Senate should be improved before final passage and support
your efforts to re-open the measure.
As law enforcement officers and taxpayers we would like to
see less wasteful spending and tougher provisions against
violent criminals. Specifically, we believe you should strip
some of the social welfare spending that was added in the
House of Representatives and restore the truth in sentencing
and expedited deportation of criminal aliens measures that
were in the original Senate crime bill. While we fully
support effective crime prevention programs, this bill is
full of suspicious spending items that may lead to more open-
ended spending with no real impact on fighting crime.
As you know, our organization believes that the bill has
many positive elements, but on balance, the present proposal
has too many negatives to gain our support. We hope that the
Senate will work to improve this measure and not pass
symbolic election year legislation designed for the
newspapers, not the streets. Please stand up to political
pressure to pass ``any'' crime bill.
With a little more work and effort, Congress can create a
bill that will make a difference, a bill that will get
violent criminals off our streets, and a bill that can help
make the people of this state feel safer.
That's our goal, and that's our job. That should be
Congress' goal as well.
Please do whatever you can do to improve this crime bill.
Thanks again for listening to those on the front line.
Sincere Regards,
James C. Mattheis. President,
Washington State Council of Police Officers.
____
[From the Seattle Times, Aug. 11, 1994]
How the Crime Bill Became a Fiscal Felony
The crime bill has something for everyone--100,000 new
cops, new prisons, prevention programs, drug courts, assault-
weapon ban. Never mind the budget deficit. The White House
and Congress are driven by a more urgent reality: Americans
are frightened and angry about crime, and there is an
election coming up.
Sen. Slade Gorton is right. A well-intended response to a
serious national problem has been turned into a $33 billion
budget-buster. Responsible lawmakers should stiffen up and
vote ``no.''
That vote may be politically risky. Voters are demanding
that their government do something about crime. Alas, the
nation can't agree on a strategy. Some want more police and
prisons and a federal three-strikes-you're-out law. Others
urge tougher gun controls, early intervention and prevention
programs.
Some parts of the bill make sense, especially banning
assault weapons. There is no reason to keep manufacturing or
importing guns whose only purpose is to kill people. And it's
certainly time to begin experimenting with programs that
attempt to prevent kids from becoming gangsters.
But how do we do that? And at what cost?
The 100,000 cops are a costly illusion. Spread across the
country, they hardly will be noticed--particularly by the
crooks. Big-city mayors like Seattle's Norm Rice are
reluctant to hire more police officers without knowing how
they will keep them on the job when the federal money runs
out in just four years.
New schools are a far better investment than new prisons.
Yet the bill allocates $10.5 billion for prisons while a
piddling $400 million school-construction bill is mired in
the congressional logjam.
Most lawmakers now agree that you can't end poverty by
throwing money at the problem. But the same legislators are
now being asked to shovel $33 billion at crime, with little
or no promise of making a dent.
Defeat this bill, use the savings to reduce the deficit,
and get back to the drawing boards. Take a separate vote on
assault weapons; this is not a costly item. Help states that
can't afford to build needed prisons on their own. And invest
carefully in innovative crime-prevention programs that are
either proven or warrant a controlled test. Done this way,
Clinton and the Congress can make a difference at a fraction
of the cost.
____
[From the Seattle Times, Aug. 23, 1994]
Senate Can Improve on Flawed Crime Bill
The crime bill that passed the House is a $30 billion
reminder that Americans are determined to combat crime on
their streets, but are nowhere close to a national consensus
as to what will work.
The resulting legislation contains some much-needed
reforms, particularly the long-overdue ban on military-style
assault weapons. But the price is billions of dollars in new
spending, approved with an eye toward electoral safety, not
safe streets.
It's up to the Senate to trim away some of the
ornamentation and politics and provide a sharper, strategic
focus. The original bill was deeply flawed--to expensive and
weighted toward federalizing more crimes and building more
prisons. There was too little targeting of community policing
and other longer-range strategies that each community can
customize to its particular needs. That bill failed, sending
the White House into a tizzy.
The new version--the result of a genuine bipartisan
coalition--drew 46 Republican votes, about the margin of
victory. But it still spends too much on prisons and grossly
exaggerates the number of new police officers to be put on
the streets. The real number is probably closer to 40,000,
not the much-touted 100,000.
Beefing up urban police is important, but federal funds are
largely wasted if they can't be targeted at those cities most
in need. The process of compromise diminishes the targeting.
Washington State presents eloquent testimony to the failure
of prisons as a crime-fighting strategy. This state has
cracked down on criminals, imposing quicker and longer
sentences and building prisons to house them. But who feels
safer on the streets?
The lack of a clear anti-crime policy reflects the simple
fact that political leaders are no more certain than their
constituents on how to curb violent crime.''
There is enough smart thinking left in this bill to give
the Senate something to work with. Senators, most of whom do
not face re-election, should trim down the spending on new
lock-ups, and make more crime-prevention money available to
local and state officials who can tailor programs to the
particular needs of their communities.
Keep the weapons ban, an important step toward getting the
most-deadly firepower off the streets and the one public-
safety measure that is more effective when done by the
federal government than city-by-city or state-by-state. But
beware of federalizing serious crimes that can best be
deterred by local government.
If the House can agree on a mediocre crime bill, certainly
a sedate Senate can agree on a smarter one.
____
Pork Plus
(By Ted M. Natt)
President Clinton loves to surround himself with police
officers and then stage one of his made-for-television events
where he thumps hard for the toughest crime bill ever enacted
by Congress.
Well the crime bill that is wired to pass the Congress is
so larded with pork and welfare programs dreamed up by goofy
liberals that it waddles. The bill has $33 billion in
spending in it.
Remember this is supposed to be a crime bill.
So why is there $1.8 billion for local governments to
augment existing federal programs such as aid to the
homeless, education to prevent crime, jobs programs to
prevent crime, and substance abuse treatment to prevent
crime? Those sound more like social welfare programs.
Why is there $895 million for ``Model intensive grants''
for 15 high crime areas chosen by the attorney general for
programs that ``provide meaningful and lasting alternatives
to crime''--whatever that means?
Why is there $40 million to run midnight basketball and
other sports leagues? You know what you need to qualify for
federally sponsored hoop leagues? Half the players must live
in public housing. And communities getting the grants must
have two of the following characteristics, high crime rates,
high drug use, high dropout rates, high pregnancy rates, high
rates of HIV infection or high unemployment.
Why is $50 million for youth violence prevention to design
programs that should include ``alternatives to school
suspension * * * and other innovative projects''?
What is the $279 million for something called Family and
Community Endeavor Schools? Its stated purpose is ``to
improve academic and social development by instituting a
collaborative structure that trains and coordinates efforts
of (public school) teachers, administrators, social workers,
guidance counselors * * *.'' What the dickens does that mean?
Why is 75 percent of the money for hiring new police
officers to be spent completely at the discretion of the
Clinton administration? The Justice Department knows where
more police officers are needed better than local communities
do? Since when? It looks more like pork to be doled out by
the president's minions.
One of the best ideas in the bill is a Police Corps. It
would trade college education scholarships for four years of
police work. While the idea is authorized, not a dime of the
$25 million earmarked for it is appropriated. It is an
unfulfilled promise.
This crime bill runs to 1,400 pages. It is eight inches
thick. Can you see 535 congressmen and senators reading all
of it before they vote on it? No Democrats can't wait to vote
for it because it has $9 billion in social program spending
in it.
They want to be able to go home and tell the voters they
struck a blow for cracking down on criminals. They will point
to the ``three strikes, you're out'' life sentence provisions
(which apply to 1 percent of all crimes).
They won't point to the Hope in Youth program that provides
$20 million to fund ``advisory organizations in low income
communities . . . (to do) strategic planning and evaluate
service programs.'' Now there is a real crime-busting
endeavor for sure.
NO ID CARD
One solution proposed for the flood of illegal immigrants
in the United States is to issue each U.S. citizen an
employment registry card that would be presented to
prospective employers.
People with cards could be safely hired. Those without them
could not.
The idea sounds an awful lot like a national ID card that
would be linked to a huge computer database containing lots
of personal information and allowing the government to track
each working citizen's whereabouts.
No thank you. America does not need or want national ID
cards.
Besides, illegal immigrants would find ways to buy phony ID
cards, just as they are able to purchase phony Social
Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service ``green
cards'' today.
In a country of 255 million people, somewhere around 2
million are illegal immigrants. If the way to identify those
illegal immigrants is to impose a national ID system on the
other 99 percent of the population, then you have the tail
wagging the dog.
____
[From the Valley Daily News, Aug. 25, 1994]
Crime Bill Maintains `Pork' Tendencies
A side from the rhetoric and the power brokering
surrounding the federal crime bill, there remains an overly
fat package of pork that needs considerable trimming.
The bill that is now before the Senate and that passed the
House 235-195 on Sunday continues the Democrats' penchant for
repetitious social programs, too much federal interference in
local law enforcement, and too little emphasis on tough
crime-fighting.
Senate Republicans should continue to rail against the
bill's social service excesses and fight for tough provisions
that will get criminals off the streets.
The bill would authorize $13.45 billion for law
enforcement, including an $8.8 billion contribution to a
program with the goal of putting 100,000 more police on the
streets; $9.85 billion for prisons and $6.9 billion for crime
prevention, including drug courts. The balance is nearly 45
percent for law enforcement, almost 33 percent for prisons
and 23 percent for crime prevention and drug courts.
However, there are so many Catch 22s in these programs,
many local jurisdictions say they will be wary of
participating. For example, while the bill authorizes 100,000
new police officers, it only funds about 20,000. Cash-
strapped cities and counties would have to cough up the
matching grants and many will be reluctant to do so.
There are so many federal strings attached to the bill's
crime-fighting components, the state's law enforcement
associations of officers, and police chiefs and sheriffs have
come out against it.
The bill adds numerous social service programs that
duplicate many of the 266 federal programs already on the
books that aid at-risk youth, at a cost of nearly $25
billion.
The bill also federalizes numerous crimes that have been
and should continue under the purview of local law
enforcement. While the bill's funding of prisons was
increased from $8.3 billion to $9.7 billion in conference
committee, the conference weakened the truth-in-sentencing
provisions that would have guaranteed prisoners serve at
least 85 percent of their sentences.
It still expands the federal death penalty to about 60 new
offenses, a move that would further clog the federal courts.
Senate Republicans should stick to their guns by demanding
a shift of emphasis from social services to anti-crime
provisions, and less emphasis on federalizing local crime, in
exchange for their support. As written, the bill doesn't
deserve to pass.
____
Same Crime Bill, New Demagoguery
Some members of Congress are inclined to hold off on health
care reform until the current paroxysm of election-year
hyperbole has run its course. Any chance they might do the
same for the crime bill?
This $30 billion behemoth has now gotten so tangled up in
pre-election posturing and the president's political fortunes
that its actual merits have taken a back seat to silly
rhetorical excess.
To such rock-ribbed conservatives as Sen. Phil Gramm, every
penny in the bill spent on pre-emptive social intervention
instead of law enforcement is now ``pork''--despite the fact
that he and like-minded Republicans voted for a variety of
crime-prevention provisions in earlier versions of the
measure.
Democratic leaders, anxious to chalk up a win for their
beleaguered president, are laying it on just as thick. Sen.
Joe Biden's paean to the bill is a case in point: ``As much
as anything I have ever voted on, passage of this legislation
will make a difference in the lives of the American people,''
he said Monday, after the bill cleared the House and landed
in his chamber.
``Fewer people will be murdered. Fewer people will be
victims. Fewer women will be senselessly beaten. Fewer people
criminals.'' To hear Biden talk, the peaceable kingdom is
only a floor vote and a presidential signature away.
Yet the bill in question is still what it's always been. A
Christmas tree festooned with shiny, hollow, crowd-pleasing
nostrums, some hung by conservatives, others by liberals.
Despite the minor redecorating it got in the House, it still
makes a grand show of federalizing a long list of felonies
that traditionally have been handled in state courts.
It still expands the federal death penalty to nearly 60 new
offenses--a move that threatens to overwhelm the federal
judiciary. It would still try to micromanage community crime-
fighting strategies, imposing absurdly detailed restrictions
on billions of federal dollars disbursed to state and local
governments.
Not that the states couldn't use some help from Washington,
D.C. A well-crafted crime bill, stripped of hero provisions
and grandstanding mandates, would indeed be something to brag
about. But that would require Republicans and Democrats to
agree that the safety of America's streets is far too serious
an issue to exploit for partisan advantage. Don't hold your
breath.
____
[From the Federal Way News, Aug. 23, 1994]
Take, Kreidler Cross Swords Again Over Revised Crime Bill
(By Christy True)
Congressman Mike Kreidler (D-9th) hailed the passage of a
newer, slimmer crime bill Sunday night as a ``hugh victory
for the American people in the fight against crime.''
Republican Randy Tate, who is challenging Kreidler for his
seat in Congress, said the bill still has too much ``social
spending'' at the expense of law enforcement.
``The best prevention is requiring criminals to actually
serve time for crimes they commit.'' Tate said ``The lack of
respect for the law is the primary root cause of our crime
problem.''
The bill, a $30 billion package of police officers, prisons
and prevention measures, passed the House 235-195. House
Democratic leaders succeeded in winning over more Republican
votes after $3 billion worth of the prevention measures were
cut.
Last week, a $33 billion crime bill was defeated in a
procedural vote before it reached the House floor. Critics
said the bill had too many expensive prevention measures.
The revised bill, now headed for another battle in the
Senate, passed despite the inclusion of a ban on many types
of semi-automatic assault weapons, a controversial provision
that caused the gun rights lobby to work hard to defeat it.
Kreidler appeared especially pleased that the assault
weapon ban survived.
``Today, the House of Representatives stood up for the
American people and against the powerful gun lobby that
opposes any sensible restrictions on deadly assault
weapons,'' he said in a press release.
Tate said he would have opposed the ban on assault weapons
because gun restrictions do nothing to curb crime.
``The criminals are going to break the gun laws anyway. We
need laws that are more strict for those who misuse them,''
he said.
Kreidler also defended the 23 percent of the bill's funding
that remained for prevention programs.
``All the talk about too much prevention and pork is just a
smokescreen for the real reason some people oppose this
bill--people on both sides of the aisle. And that's the gun
lobby,'' his statement and said. ``I don't thing rape
prevention battered women's shelters, counselors for abused
women and children, and more prosecutors and police to go
after sex offenders constitute `pork'.''
Tate doesn't have a problem with programs to help battered
women and other victims, he said, but they don't belong in a
crime bill. Some of the programs also duplicate services
already available, he said.
____
[From the Seattle Times, Aug. 23, 1994]
Bill Won't Do Much to Solve Problems of Crime, Experts say
(By Angie Cannon)
Washington.--For all that Congress and the president are
going through to get a crime bill passed, you would almost
think it was going to make a big difference in the country's
crime problem.
But as the Senate wrestles with the bill this week after
House approval over the weekend, experts on crime and
prevention say there is more politics than problem-solving in
what lawmakers are doing.
``Hiring more cops to solve the crime problem is like
hiring more ambulance drivers to cure cancer,'' said Robert
Kahle, co-director of the Urban Safety Program at Wayne State
University in Detroit. ``It's after the fact.''
Expanding from two to 60 the number of federal crimes
punishable by death ``is largely irrelevant to street crime
in American cities'' said James Q. Wilson, a UCLA management
and public-policy professor who has written several books on
crime.
And banning assault weapons ``could have an effect on these
episode occasions when a gunman goes on a shooting spree on a
commuter train,'' said Marvin Wolfgang a criminology expert
at the University of Pennsylvania.
James Fyfe, a criminal-justice professor at Temple
University in Philadelphia, said the bottom line is: ``I
don't think anything the federal government can do will make
the streets safer in the short term.''
Still, the crime rhetoric continued yesterday as debate
began in the Senate, where Judiciary Committee Chairman
Joseph Biden, D-Del, said the $30 billion crime bill was just
``one step away'' from President Clinton's desk.
republican strategy
Republicans, however, were maneuvering to make that a tough
step. Sen. Phil Gramm R-Texas, who opposes the assault-
weapons ban said he planned to use a Senate procedure that
would require the bill's supporters to muster 60 votes.
If he succeeds, that would spell the demise of the package
that passed the House on Sunday, 235-195, with the help of 46
Republicans, giving Clinton a much-needed political victory.
Clinton launched a full-court press for another victory by
lobbying senators yesterday afternoon, just as he and other
top aides did with House members all weekend.
But as the political maneuvering continued, some experts
questioned an important aspect of the six-year crime bill--
and a key campaign promise of Clinton's spending $8.8 billion
to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets.
``The emphasis on more law-enforcement officers in many
ways is misdirected,'' Kahle said.
The presence of extra police officers might reduce the fear
of crime, ``but to think we will have fewer aggravated
assaults is a leap of faith,'' Kahle said. ``Whether it will
reduce this amount of crime is questionable.''
Crime experts also say they fear that cities will get stuck
picking up the tab for the additional police officers once
the federal grants run out.
Wilson said the 100,000 officers are to be phased in over
five or six years, with half going to cities with less than
100,000 people. ``That's politics, but it's not where the
crime problem is,'' he said. ``Many cities, like Los Angeles
and Detroit, need the officers very much, but we shouldn't
expect it to make a big difference. The police component is
much less than advertised.''
semiautomatic weapons
Another big feature of the crime bill is the banning of 19
types of semiautomatic weapons, but some experts say that
won't have much effect on the crime rate either.
Although they applaud banning assault weapons as a step in
the right direction, experts point out that very few people
are killed annually by them. Instead, most homicides are
committed by handguns, experts say.
Experts also criticize the expansion of the federal death
penalty to cover nearly 60 crimes, including fatal drive-by
shootings, carjacking deaths and major drug trafficking, even
when the defendant is not directly linked to any specific
death.
``It's so silly,'' said Fyfe. ``Most crimes are state
crimes. All the federal government can do is legislate for
federal offenses. It is absolutely smoke and mirrors.''
Joe McNamara, the former police chief in San Jose, Calif.,
and Kansas City, said the death-penalty provisions is ``the
most disastrous'' part of the crime bill because it will
overburden an already clogged federal judiciary.
``It's pure political demagoguery,'' said McNamara, a
research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
``This is the final nail in the coffin of the federal
courts.''
`a few hundred prisoners'
Experts say the three-strikes-and-you're-out provision also
amounts to little. That should require life in prison for
three-time felons whose last conviction was for violent or
drug-related federal crime. But experts say that will affect
``at most, a few hundred prisoners.''
Crime experts are most optimistic about a portion of the
bill that some Republicans have resisted the most--the $6.9
billion in so-called ``pork.'' That money would provide
grants for recreation, education and other programs to steer
young people away from crime. It also would create special
courts to provide treatment and monitoring of first-time non-
violent drug offenders.
``There are some respectable and decent things in there
dealing with prevention, and an effort to pay attention to
things like domestic violence,'' said Wolfgang.
But as Wolfgang and others conclude, in essence the crime
bill ``is a symbolic gesture of Congress, trying to say to
the American people that they are concerned about crime.''
____
[From the Journal American, Aug. 24, 1994]
View Crime Bill With Skepticism
City officials are right to be concerned about the amount
of help available in the federal crime bill now under review
in the U.S. Senate. Don't look for any help in the future.
While the federal legislation would provide money for more
cops on the beat, it comes in the form of matching grants.
That means cities must put up some of the cost. Worse, the
federal portion runs out in five years leaving local
taxpayers with the full bill for salaries and benefits
forever, or lay the officers off.
As Bellevue city manager Phil Kushlan rightly noted, the
federal proposal is not a panacea.''
As Kushlan and others have sadly learned, partnerships with
the federal government often fall short of expectations. The
result often falls on the head, and pocketbooks, of local
taxpayers. With a program such as police, the pressure would
be to keep them on and slash other city services.
If the program becomes law, city officials could and should
investigate the particulars. But any investigation must
project the pluses and minuses now--and five years into the
future.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to pick up on the last phrase
of my distinguished colleague from Washington, because I had that in my
notes.
We have lost a magnificent opportunity, an opportunity that the
American public wanted; an opportunity that the American public called
every switchboard in this Senate for the last week and pleaded that we
seize this opportunity, Mr. President.
The House voted against this bill and then tried to do some repair
work. They eliminated $3 billion. Why could this Chamber not have
likewise eliminated $3 billion? That is the problem I have with this
bill, and regrettably that is the reason, coupled with its weak
provisions on law enforcement, that I will cast a vote against this
bill.
There is a silence in this Chamber tonight, for the battle in the
Congress this year is over. The battle is over in the Congress, Mr.
President, but the battle is not over on the streets of the USA. In the
cities, small towns, and rural areas, the battle rages on.
What we have to ask ourselves is: Is this piece of legislation going
to help? Regrettably, Mr. President, having missed the opportunity to
strengthen those provisions, the very provisions that this Chamber
voted on with strong majorities and put in the bill that we sent
forward last fall in November--those are the provisions that I and
others wish to restore now--we have missed an opportunity. And whether
there are parts of this bill which are worthwhile, indeed there are,
particularly those portions relating to the Violence Against Women Act,
which I strongly support. I strongly support helping the States to
build prisons. There are features in this bill that I strongly support.
Let us hope that there is some help from this bill. But it is a
question mark as to how much.
The two things that trouble America most today--putting aside
momentarily the street crime--the two things that concern this country
are the increased deficit, and unfunded mandates.
This bill, in a sense, contains an unfunded mandate. We offer in this
bill to help put additional police on the streets. Mind you, those are
not Federal police officers. Those will be police officers hired by the
sheriff's department, hired by the cities. We simply offer to pay a
part of their salary in each year. That part coming from this bill,
assuming there will be sufficient funds in the trust fund--and that
indeed is a question mark--those funds drop off. And if those police
officers are to stay, there is an unfunded mandate on that small
community, on that sheriff's department, on that city, that has to be
picked up through property taxes and local taxes.
We have talked about the additional police. But the paycheck is not
following. That is an unfunded mandate.
Unfunded mandates and increased deficit spending are two of the major
problems facing this country today. This bill could add as much as $12
billion or $13 billion over its life to the national deficit. We have
to answer for that problem.
That is why I feel, while the battle is over today, I predict it will
be back, perhaps as early as next year, perhaps as early next year
after there has been a trial period for this bill to work or not work.
You will receive the calls from those mayors today saying, ``Oh, please
vote for it,'' they will be calling next year: ``Where is the money? We
are broke. Should I hire the 10, the 20 police officers that are
offered by this bill and then have to fire them in a year or 2 because
the funds are inadequate? I cannot raise taxes locally anymore. I
simply do not have the money, Mr. Congress.''
Yes, we will be back. Only time will tell.
Mr. President, I have had the privilege--and I say it has been a
privilege--to work very closely with leader Dole, the distinguished
Republican leader from Kansas, the minority whip Mr. Simpson, the
ranking minority member, Mr. Hatch, and many others that have worked
actively, worked to try and let the U.S. Senate have a voice in this
legislation. That was a challenge. It was a reasonable task. Under the
leadership of Senator Dole, we fought a hard battle.
We have a letter. I had a hand in working up the concept of that
letter, along with others. Forty Senators signed it and leader Dole
made the 41st. We stood as brothers and sisters. For 2 days, for 2
days, leader Dole tried to negotiate what I believe was a very
reasonable concept: Let us remove amounts of social spending, perhaps
as much as the House removed, the $3 billion-plus, and let us
strengthen certain provisions, just those primarily that were voted on
by this Chamber last November. We had already decided that issue.
But the offer was rejected and today we fell short of the mark of the
necessary votes to let the U.S. Senate leave its imprint on this piece
of legislation.
I had the opportunity to consult with those--I say consult--visit,
talk through that period of time with the Senator from Rhode Island,
the Senator from Missouri, the Senator from Kansas, and others. They
are people of integrity, people of courage, people of conviction. They
voted their consciences, and each of us from time to time in this
Chamber must vote our conscience.
I am hopeful that we have not misled the American public with this
piece of legislation; portrayed it as something that is going to come
and help, to a great extent, their States, cities, small towns, and
urban areas. I hope we have not misled them.
But we have fought the good fight on this side. Never once did this
Senator try to participate in any dilatory tactics. Never once did this
Senator support the Republican leader with the idea that we are trying
to just delay the bill or to kill the bill. That was the most specious
of all arguments: Kill the bill.
If the House could invoke some changes in the bill, $3 billion, why
could the Senate not do likewise? And the hue and cry, ``Well, it has
to go back to the House.'' Of course, it has to go back to the House.
And who controls the House? The Democratic Party. Not just by a narrow
margin but by a very large margin. The leadership of the House could
have taken this bill and accepted it, convinced the colleagues to
accept that bill, and then it would become law. It would have become
law with the action of both Chambers of the U.S. Congress, as laid down
by our Founding Fathers, in two Chambers. Not a unicameral legislature,
but two Chambers--for a very specific purpose. Unfortunately the U.S.
Senate was barred from fulfilling its role in our legislative process.
Momentarily, there will be a vote on cloture. I am going to vote for
cloture even though I am dissatisfied with this bill, and even though I
will vote against this bill, because it is clear that we have exhausted
every single opportunity left to work our will as a U.S. Senate and I
have followed that credo in my Senate career that when you have fought
the battle and the battle is over, let the Senate go on with its
business. But I shall, with a very heavy heart and a very sad heart,
cast a vote against this bill because I think we have failed to seize
an opportunity, failed to have lived up to our responsibility as a
body, and we have failed, as of now, to represent our constituents and,
indeed, the American people.
Mr. President, crime remains the No. 1 national issue in the United
States today. The Senate in its bill, took action to assist the States
with some of the problems confronting their local cities and towns.
But the problem confronting the Senate today is that the legislation
before us is not the tough law enforcement bill which was adopted by
the Senate in November of 1993.
The legislation now before us has been crafted to meet the wants of
many organizations but not the needs of our citizens, or in plain
words, the bill is loaded with programs which do not have a direct
relationship to fighting crime. I have received over 3,500 telephone
calls this week to my office from my constituents. The majority of the
callers voiced their opposition to this bill.
Mr. President, our cities and towns need the legal tools and
personnel to prosecute effectively and to make sentences tougher so
convicted criminals cannot avoid serving their sentences.
The legislation before the Senate today is structured more around
creating new social programs as opposed to establishing and enforcing
new penalties for acts of violence. People need consequences for their
acts and to be held accountable for their crimes.
Mr. President, I cannot support legislation which grew in cost at
each step of the legislative process. First, the bill passed the Senate
at a cost of $22 billion. The House of Representatives considered their
own version of the bill at a cost of $28 billion. Then the conference
committee of the House and Senate added spending to reach an incredible
figure of $33 billion. No wonder the House of Representatives properly
rejected the bill. A bipartisan group of Representatives made a very
modest trimming of $3 billion in social programs spending, but failed
to restore tough provisions on crime.
The bill was then sent to the U.S. Senate. The Republican Senators
made a stand for 2 days to try and further reduce the social programs
and toughen the provisions.
Forty Republican Senators then signed a letter, which was my idea, to
their Republican leader, Senator Bob Dole. The letter expressed a
unified position in order the achieve changes in the bill. For 2 days
leader Dole tried hard to negotiate constructive changes in this bill.
When the time came to vote, the Republicans were not able to attain the
votes necessary to make and changes to the crime bill. I believe the
Senate missed an opportunity to strengthen this bill.
Mr. President, this legislation as crafted will increase the deficit
of this country by another $13 billion if all the programs are fully
funded in the legislation.
This brings me to a second vital point concerning the funding of this
legislation.
Mr. President, a trust fund was created by the Senate to fund this
legislation when the Senate passed its version of the bill. The violent
crime reduction trust fund was created to fund the provisions
originally passed by the Senate and not all the provisions which are
contained in the new conference report pending before the Senate.
The bill passed by the Senate was to be funded for the years 1995,
1996, 1997, and 1998. The bill provided for $22 billion dollars to fund
the programs in the legislation. The trust fund was established for 4
years. The new conference report has been expanded to cover 6 years at
a cost of $30 billion.
Mr. President, I do not believe this trust fund will ever contain the
full funding necessary to provide the resources needed by the numerous
programs in the legislation. This legislation could well mislead the
States, cities, and towns for the funding may never come.
Mr. President, the Senate should not create more unfunded mandates to
the States. If Federal dollars are going to be directed at law
enforcement. I support efforts to reduce the cost of this legislation
by another $3 to $5 billion dollars. A few of the programs I would like
to see eliminated are the Local Partnership Act and the Model Intensive
Grants Program.
Mr. President, I support tougher crime legislation than the
legislation which is pending before the Senate. I would support the
inclusion in the conference report a number of amendments which where
originally in the Senate bill but removed during the conference on the
legislation.
Mr. President, a tougher crime bill should include stronger truth-in-
sentencing provisions, funding for the building of more prisons,
tougher mandatory minimum sentences for adults who use firearms during
the commission of a violent crime, and tougher sentences for adults who
are convicted for selling drugs to minors or using minors to sell
illegal drugs.
Mr. President, these are some of the tough provisions which are
missing from the bill before the Senate today. My constituents support
a crime bill which contains provisions to combat the rising crime rate
and not a bill which will spend more money on numerous social programs.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to
this crime bill. I hope to sound a small warning to the U.S. Senate
about the price that it will pay for this kind of legislation.
I am leaving the Senate at the end of this year and I am reminded
that I seem to be leaving at about the same point that I came in. This
bill that we vote on today represents the business as usual approach to
policymaking that got me elected to this body --to try to make a
difference 16 years ago. It is the approach to policymaking that made
Washington the butt of a national joke about Members of Congress
running around the country throwing money at problems, then moving on
to the next place, leaving the money and the problems behind.
While we were at it, we competed with one another to spend the money
in our own State so that at election time we can show that we brought
home the bacon.
In the early years of my time in the Senate, we followed this course
on a wide variety of issues. In 1982, we started down this road on
anticrime legislation. In 1982, we did an anticrime bill. In 1986, we
did a crime bill that spent $1.7 billion. It was an election year. I
remember it well. We lost control of the Senate and the Democrats took
over.
Two years later, another election year, we did $2.8 billion, but
crime kept going on up.
So in 1990, we threw a lot more money at the problem: $8 billion in
1990, another election year. But still, crime went up.
In 1992, we had another election and we had another crime bill. That
one was killed by a filibuster, and guess what happened--crime went
down. The fact of the matter is we have crime on a slight--and I
emphasize slight--downhill trend. Maybe we ought to quit passing crime
bills right here and now.
But of course we did not and we will not. Along we came in 1993 and
1994 with the granddaddy of all crime bills. The Senate passed $22
billion and the House passed $27 billion, and the conference committee
got together and they compromised at $33 billion. We just could not get
enough of the anticrime enthusiasm of an election year.
Earlier this month we ran into a little bump in the road. The House
of Representatives inadvertently failed to pass the rule and the
American public started to pay attention to what was the crime bill.
And the more they found out about it, the madder they got. The phones
started ringing off the hook. As if this way of doing business was not
maddening enough, the American people also woke up to the fact we were
spending money we do not have. Let us face it, even if we were really
buying crime protection, which we are not, we are not paying for it. We
are buying it with our children's money and their children's money.
Early in my time in the Senate, I had occasion to visit the State of
Texas to make a speech. I asked people what is a good joke to tell in
Texas, and I was told: Ask them why there were so many heroes at the
Alamo. The answer was because there was no back door.
The reality is--and I remember using this as an analogy--the
difference between the Congress and the Alamo is there is a back door.
And every even-numbered year, a third of the Senate and all of the
House troops out the back door, goes home, and tells everybody how
great they are and how great they could be if it were not for all the
folks back at the Alamo.
Either that story has been told long enough or people have seen
enough, but I have to tell you they are not going to stand it any
longer. In the 1970's, about the time I was elected, Jimmy Carter took
the Nation's mood for a national malaise, he called it. But what it
really was, in a phrase made popular in a movie of that time, was a lot
of American people leaning out of the windows of their homes, breaking
their pencils, and screaming, ``I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to
take it anymore.''
That mood is back with us today. The feelings of the 1970's and the
1980's have now turned into the cynicism. We see it in low voter
turnout, decreasing respect to the point of no respect for the Nation's
institutions and leaders, popular candidacies by sloganeering
politicians taking advantage of the public's dismay but falling right
back into ``business as usual'' when they get to Congress. It is
eroding our ability to self-govern and increasing the problems it
purports to solve.
I have opposed this bill from the start. I was one of only four
Senators who voted against it the first time through. So at the risk of
saying I told you so, I just want to reiterate why this bill is not a
crime bill. And it is not in the best interests of the United States of
America.
We have heard a lot of talk here about the pork in this bill. The
Republicans want to take out $5 billion, calling it pork. The Democrats
defended that pork as good pork. Everyone seems to agree the other $25
billion is lean meat, not fat.
Mr. President, the American people have caught on to the fact that it
is all pork, all $30 billion of it. And we all know it. All you have to
do is pick up your telephone back in your office. I do not mean just
the 2,000 people who have gotten through to me this week to tell me to
oppose this bill. I can tell it by the calls I get in support of this
bill. The mayors all over the country, chiefs of police, county
commissioners--they have been calling for a week. They are not calling
me to tell me we need a weapons ban or we need stiffer sentences or we
need new Federal crimes. No, what they want is the money.
They want the grants, the pilot programs, the prison construction,
the subsidized police force. They are working on ``business as usual,''
just as we are. And they know that when the pork is being sliced in
Washington, you have to make yourself heard to ensure you get your
slab, so they call and call again. The city and county officials did
not tell me they had planned to hire more police anyway but could not
afford it. They did not tell me they could not afford to build any more
prisons. I do not think they even know whether they can put the money
to good use. They just know that they can get some money, and to them
any money is better than no money, so they call. And call again.
With all due respect to my colleagues in the Senate, I do not believe
we are making an informed decision about how many police officers we
need in this country, about how many prisons we need, or how best to
prevent crime in our cities. I still do not know if there are 20,000
cops in this bill or 100,000. I have heard debate back and forth.
But, frankly, I am not sure it makes any difference. Whatever the
number is, I know it was arrived at in a wholly arbitrary way. It is
not related in any way to the need. Do we really think 20,000 is
enough? Is 100,000 too many? What if it was 200,000? Would it be twice?
Would we be twice as safe?
It is all pork. It is all bringing home the bacon, and it has nothing
to do with crime prevention. We will spread the arbitrary number of
cops all over the country and the cities will be there to take the
money regardless of the need, because to them, it is business as usual
as well.
Well, Mr. President, thanks to this way of doing business, we are $4
trillion in debt in this country. It was $800 billion when I got here.
It is $4 trillion today, and the debt is going up, not down. This bill
piles $30 billion more on top of that mountain of debt. We are already
paying $300 billion a year on interest, and that, too, is going up, not
down. That mountain of debt was built over the years by those of us in
Washington who make every problem a Federal problem and every solution
the infusion of Federal money.
Mr. President, crime will not abate after we pass this bill. It never
has as a result of a Federal crime bill, and there is no reason to
think this barrel of pork is any different. The American people, if
they believe the promises of the promoters of this bill, will be
further frustrated and turned off by this Government. And future
generations will be further weighed down with the cost of our folly. I
have not even touched on my objections to the death penalties in this
bill, to the load we are putting on an already overburdened Federal
court system, or the waste of time and money in the Justice Department
pursuing ever more Federal criminal behavior.
Mr. President, this bill is a waste of money through and through. It
was a waste last November when 95 of my colleagues supported it. It is
a bigger waste today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daschle). The Senator from Alaska Mr.
[Murkowski], is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the President a good
evening.
Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the conference report
and will be voting against it.
I think as we reflect on what has happened here in the last several
days as we have debated the crime bill, we should recognize the
realistic differences between us. There are philosophical differences,
Mr. President.
I think it is fair to say on our side, for the most part, we are
committed to a philosophy of bringing about control of criminal
activity through tough sentencing, new prisons, mandatory jail
sentences, ensuring that someone who contemplates committing a crime
knows in advance what is before him or her.
I think our friends on the other side look at the criminal activity
with the idea of how can we bring about corrections through social
reform. In other words, what more can government do? What kind of
programs can be initiated to address the criminal element?
Both have merit, Mr. President. And time will tell whether the
correct course of action prevailed here, as we recognize that, indeed,
those who support corrections by social programs have prevailed in this
body.
I find it rather curious to reflect on the action in the House where,
through a bipartisan effort, with a number of Republicans, they were
able to bring about some positive changes in the crime bill. That was
worthwhile. We attempted to do that as a minority in the Senate.
Unfortunately, that opportunity did not avail itself.
There has been a great deal of conversation here about funding. It is
rather interesting to reflect very briefly that when this bill left the
Senate, it was about a $22 billion bill. It went over to the House and
increased to $27 billion, then up to $33 billion, then came back at $31
billion.
That in itself is significant. We have debated the issue of whether
the pork is in reality another way of bringing about reform through
responsible social programs or whether it is unnecessary. But in any
event, it is something that we should reflect on and my good friend
from New Mexico commented on it at some length yesterday in explaining
the unfunded difference of about $13 billion.
So I challenge my colleagues on the other side who say this is
fiscally responsible. We are expending $13 billion and simply adding it
to the deficit of this country. We are already spending some 14 to 15
percent of our total budget on interest on our accumulated debt. This
is going to add to that, Mr. President, and that is irresponsible. It
is irresponsible of every Member who supports that funding without
identifying a source other than adding to the deficit.
I want to commend the Democrats and the leadership. They stuck
together. We got beat. We lost six Republicans. It is going to be very
hard for this Senator from Alaska to go back and explain to his
constituents why we did not stick together, but I respect the rights of
each individual. However, I am disappointed because to me, had we
prevailed, we would have had a better crime bill. We had something very
positive to contribute.
But perhaps the explanation is that we are on different wavelengths.
Perhaps those who saw fit to leave the Republican fold were motivated
by the philosophical difference that they perhaps do not support strong
criminal penalties but rather reform through social programs. That is
an honest difference of opinion and, perhaps that is the best
explanation the Senator from Alaska is going to have to offer to his
constituents.
However, Mr. President, as a lifelong Alaskan and one who has been
raised to respect guns, as I respect all dangerous things of any type,
whether it be knives or individuals or animals that occasionally come
looking for not just politicians but constituents of mine.
As a young boy, I was given a gun by my father, a .22. It was not a
semiautomatic. I learned to shoot. Prior to that, I had a BB gun. I
recall one day the BB gun got a little out of control. I was perhaps
winging something, and it hit the corner of a plate-glass window of a
house across the street.
That evening, it was drawn to my attention that perhaps that was my
BB gun that had clipped that plate-glass window. My father confronted
me, and I acknowledged that might have been the case but I rather
doubted it. He suggested we take a walk, and he invited me to bring my
BB gun with me. We walked down to the dock, looked at the water and he
said, ``Now you know where to put that BB gun,'' and with great
reluctance, I was obliged to throw that BB gun in the bay.
The point is, I was fortunate enough to have someone who cared to
advise me on how to handle guns properly. Clearly, if that advice is
lacking with many Members in this body and their own personal
relationships with their children, that is a situation that is a
personal one and I respect it. Obviously, we know what happens to guns
that are in the hands of irresponsible people.
But, Mr. President, in my State, guns are very much a part of our
lifestyle. I am going to be returning to Alaska tomorrow, I hope, and
on the first of September, I am going to take my boys out. We are going
to duck hunt. Our season opens the first of September. We have about a
6-week season, then it freezes up and the ducks fly south. They fly a
little faster in Alaska because they have not flown so far yet. They
are hatched up there. But in any event, we are going to take our
shotguns out and, hopefully, get a few ducks. For years before I joined
this body and for some years after, I would go sheep hunting with my
boys and my daughter, Dall sheep hunting. It is a very, very
extraordinary experience--a tough climb 8,000 or 9,000 feet up on top
of the mountains. You can only take a full-curl ram. That is a mature,
male sheep, at least 7 years old or older.
I tell you, you get to know your sons pretty well when you go through
that type of experience. I recognize everybody cannot have that type of
experience; they are not fortunate enough. But the point is we use
those guns in a responsible manner, and when we see criminals using
guns, we are as frustrated as any other person.
The reality is, what do we do about it? Well, there has been an awful
lot of conversation and alarm associated with the assault weapons
issue. Unfortunately, very few Members of this body understand what an
assault weapon is. They are of the opinion that if we take this action,
we are going to do something positive about criminals--stop
irresponsible people having assault weapons.
I refer to an article in the Wall Street Journal of August 25, which
I ask be printed in the Record.
It is entitled, ``What Is an Assault Weapon?'' It is very
interesting, and I would encourage my colleagues to reflect on it,
because there is a presumption out there among the public that we are
talking about automatic weapons.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
What Is an Assault Weapon?
The World's Greatest Deliberative Body has tied itself in
knots over the crime bill. The bill's opponents worry about
the $33 billion costs, but its defenders say that's all a
smoke screen for the National Rifle Association. The most
important business of the Republic, they say, is banning
assault weapons. So it might be fair to ask, what's an
``assault weapon,'' anyway?
Now, the weapons in question are not machine guns;
automatic weapons have been illegal in this country since
1934. Rather, they are semi-automatics, capable of firing
shots as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. But most
modern rifles are semi-automatics, and no one yet admits a
desire to confiscate hunting rifles. So someone has to decide
which semi-automatics are dreaded assault weapons. They tell
by looking at the weapon; an assault weapon is in the eye of
the beholder.
If you think we jest, we refer you to Senator Dianne
Feinstein, the WGDB's leading expert on aesthetics and
semantics. The Feinstein amendment, passed by the Senate last
November and now part of the pending legislation, spelled out
which weapons to ban. She and her aides riffled through their
picture albums, picked out 19 weapons they especially didn't
like and banned them by name.
One is the Colt AR-15, pictured here along with the Ruger
Mini-14, which would remain legal. The two are both semi-
automatics firing the same 5.56 mm ammunition. In the hands
of a criminal, they could each do the same damage; no more,
no less. The difference between the two? The AR-15 looks more
menacing because it has a plastic stocks and a pistol grip;
that's it.
After listing the 19 aesthetic offenders, the Feinstein
brain trust apparently cross-tabulated its critical judgments
to draw up a checklist of five aesthetic markets; a folding
stock, too large a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash
suppressor and a grenade launcher. Two strikes's and it's an
assault weapon, the WGDB decided; either a grenade launcher
or a bayonet mount is OK, but not both.
Now, we'd agree that ordinary citizens don't have much need
for bayonet mounts, but on the other hand, do you know anyone
who was mugged with a grenade launcher? Statistics from
around the country suggest that few criminals are deranged or
dimwitted enough to call attention to themselves by lugging
around military looking paraphernalia.
So-called assault weapons are used in only a tiny, tiny
fraction of the violent crimes. In 1990, Florida's Commission
on Assault Weapons reported that over the previous three-year
period, assault weapons were used in 0.14% of violent crimes.
In New York City, police confiscated 16,378 firearms in 1988,
only 80 of which could be called assault weapons. Even a
liberal such as Richard Cohen pointed out in a recent
Washington Post column that according to the 1992 Uniform
Crime Report. ``more people were beaten to death that year
(1,114) than were killed by rifles of any kind (698).''
But perhaps the best commentary came from Joseph Constance,
deputy chief of police in Trenton, New Jersey. He told the
Senate Judiciary Committee last August: ``since police
started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons
are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in
New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to
confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront
an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the
streets.''
The real question is why the Senate wants to tie itself
into knots over so frivolous an issue. Both sides of the gun-
control debate see an assault-weapons ban as the first step
toward confiscating all firearms, we suppose, and that in
turn evokes the ultimate liberal-conservative division over
whether the root cause of crime is original sin. This remains
in the realm of symbolism, and perhaps the WGDB wants to
spend its August evenings striking postures. but in
protecting the public from crime, it could scarcely be
clearer, the assault-weapons ban would fire a blank.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Now, a machine-gun is an automatic weapon. But
automatic weapons have been banned in this country by law since 1934.
Rather, what we are talking about are semiautomatic weapons. That is a
weapon that is capable of firing shots just as fast as you can pull the
trigger, as opposed to a fully automatic where you pull the trigger and
it continues to fire.
So what is an ``assault weapon''?
Well, as I said, they are semiautomatic weapons capable of firing
shots as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. But most modern
rifles are semiautomatic and no one yet admits to a desire to
confiscate hunting rifles or shotguns, many of which are automatic.
I own an automatic shotgun. I own a pump shotgun. There is a
difference. The difference is you have to operate the receiver on one
and the other is gas operated, that is, semiautomatic.
Now, we can reflect on what happened to distinguish assault weapons
from other semiautomatics. It happened in this body through the efforts
of the Senator from California who identified in her amendment what
would be considered an assault weapon. And it is really in the eyes of
the beholder. The editorial I have shows it in pictures. One weapon
shown is the Colt AR-15, And beneath it is a picture of a Ruger Mini
14.
Now, only one would remain legal. However, the two are both
semiautomatics firing the same 5-millimeter ammunition. In the hands of
a criminal, they could each do the same thing--no more, no less. The
difference between the two is the AR looks more menacing--it really
does--because it has a plastic stock and a pistol grip. That is the
difference. That is all. One is classified as an assault weapon and the
other is not.
So after listing some 19 esthetic offenders, the Senator from
California cross-tabulated somehow and came up with a checklist of five
esthetic markers to classify what an assault weapon is. It has a
folding stock; it has a pistol grip, neither of which have been known
to harm anybody. It has a bayonet mount, and it has a flash suppressor.
Now, I do not know anyone who is mugged with a grenade launcher. It
is rather interesting to look at some of the statistics. So-called
assault weapons, we are told, are only used in a tiny fraction of
violent crimes. In 1990, Florida's Commission on Assault Weapons
reported that over the previous 3-year period, assault weapons were
used in four-tenths of 1 percent of violent crimes in New York City--
four-tenths of 1 percent.
Now, consider the action that we have taken in this body. It is
interesting to note that in Trenton, NJ, one Joseph Constance, deputy
chief of police, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last August:
Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that
assault weapons are or were used in an underwhelming twenty-
six one-hundredths of 1 percent of crimes in New Jersey.
He went on to further say that:
This means that my officers in New Jersey are more likely
to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to
confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed
killer on the street.
Now, this is reality, Mr. President. This is the terrible problem we
have taken on in this crime bill. What we have not done is to ban those
criminals that have weapons. What I fear and I want to alert my Alaskan
constituents to, is that this is the first step. The assault weapons
ban is not going to have a measurable--a measurable--effect on criminal
activity. The next effort we are going to see in this body is to ban
all semiautomatic weapons, hunting rifles, shotguns. We all thought we
were protected by the Constitution, but we are not protected by the
mania to do something about crime.
Now, I know how the people in my State feel about the right to bear
arms, the right to have their guns and use them in a responsible
manner. As long as I am in the Senate, and as long as I am on my two
feet, I am going to support the guarantees under the Constitution.
But I warn those responsible gun owners in my State and throughout
the United States to beware of what has happened here today under the
guise of an assault weapons ban. We are making steps that will threaten
sports gun owners, responsible hunters, those who use guns in target
practice, the sport-based sporting goods stores, manufacturers, and the
National Rifle Association.
We are going to have to maintain a greater vigilance. We are going to
have to reflect on the debate that has occurred on this floor in the
last several days because those Members of this body who feel we are
going to initiate corrective action through social reform are going to
have an opportunity to prove their case, to some extent, if they can
and if most of the money is not used for administrative purposes. We
will see how successful social reform programs are going to be to
combat crime as opposed to more prisons, harsher penalties, and
mandatory sentencing.
I would hope that the public out there would reflect on the
amendments that were offered under the Republican proposal. We wanted
to strike some $1.62 billion from the Local Partnership Act and apply
it to the Edward Byrne Memorial Law Enforcement Program, a very
worthwhile program. But the Partnership Act was a social program.
We want to be tough on crime. Our friends on the other side said no,
we want the Model Cities Intensive Grant program at $625 million. We
said no, we want to be tough on crime.
We wanted an amendment which will allow us to deport criminal aliens.
We did not get it. The Republicans lost on that one.
We wanted mandatory minimum for gun crimes, mandatory minimums so
criminals using guns in crimes would know what was going to happen to
them for using guns associated with selling drugs, or crimes involving
minors. We wanted mandatory minimum reforms.
We wanted a tough crime bill. And our philosophy on the Republican
side is you do it by passing harsh legislation that discourages
criminal activity. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the opinion of the
Senator from Alaska, is that the other side prevailed, and said no, we
are going to achieve the same objective but we are going to do it
through social programs.
I hope that every one will reflect back on these days because one of
us is wrong, very wrong, Mr. President.
Finally, let me again warn responsible owners of guns that a major
step backward has been taken today on the right to bear arms. I would
hope that those on the other side would reflect on the real difference
between what they classify as an assault weapon, which has a horrifying
name, and a legitimate semiautomatic shotgun, which I am going to be
carrying in my hand on September 1.
Assault Rifle Provisions
Despite the pressure on Congress to act on gun violence, and the
media's loud support, the semiautomatic ban is just not good policy
from any number of aspects.
It's also clear that supporters don't see this as a compromise to end
debate. They will simply pursue more controls.
The conference report bans 19 types of semiauto rifles, handguns and
shotguns by name, and all ``look-alikes''--reaching totals in the
hundreds. It also bans all magazines over 10 rounds. It excludes from
banning now or in the future only about 660 specific firearms out of
all those manufactured, including rifles, carbines, muzzleloaders,
shotguns, semiauto pistols and revolvers.
The list of exempted firearms is supposed to be, in the author's
words, ``every single rifle and shotgun--other than those being
banned--that has been on the market this year.'' Despite the claim, it
is no such thing. It fails to mention such popular--even some
historic--firearms as the M1 Garand, and many others.
The magazine ban would prohibit even some factory issue magazines for
a number of the firearms that are supposedly permitted under the bill,
such as the Ruger mini-14 and many pistols.
Semi-autos are not a big part of the violence problem. A good
indicator that assault rifle use is low is the fact that they comprise
a very small share of all firearms seizures. The highest occurrences
are 3.9 percent in Oakland, CA; 3.6 percent in Florida; 3 percent in
Los Angeles and Washington, DC; and 2 percent or less in other major
areas. And let me stress that these figures--low though they are--
represent all seizures of so-called assault rifles including many that
may never have been used in a violent crime.
It is hard to believe that assault rifles are the so-called weapon of
choice when they are so rarely seized. Either the police are doing an
atrociously bad job, or we have not been told the truth about
semiautomatics.
The reality is that there is no statistically valid evidence of a
trend toward semiautomatic rifles. Here are the facts behind the
``weapon of choice'' argument:
Murders are far more likely to be committed with knives than with any
sort of rifle.
Murders are far more likely to be committed with handguns than with
any sort of rifle.
Murders are far more likely to be committed with blunt instruments
than with any sort of rifle.
Murders are far more likely to be committed with bare hands and feet
than with any sort of rifle.
The fact is, rifles--of any type--are used in only a small percentage
of murders--less than 4 percent of the murders from 1987 through 1992,
with that number decreasing each year since 1989. The number of murders
committed with so-called assault rifles is far lower--probably around 1
percent.
This will have no significant effect on criminal access to firearms.
The best available data--from BATF itself--indicates that only 7
percent of the firearms--all types, not just semiautos--used in crimes
are obtained legally. Because this figure includes all revolvers,
shotguns, lever and bolt action rifles, small-bore firearms, and so
forth, and all firearms used in domestic quarrels, bar disputes, and so
forth--where the weapon is likely to have been purchased legally--it's
clear that career criminals, gangbangers and the like actually use
legally purchased semiautomatics--or any other legally purchased
firearm for only a small portion of their crimes.
We have heard many claims by the proponents of this legislation to
the effect that it is supported by police around the country. Indeed,
there have been supporting statements made by some police officials.
But let's look again. That support is not anywhere near as universal as
the proponents want us to believe. The National Association of Chiefs
of Police [NACOP] has 11,000 members and feels very much otherwise. In
fact, NACOP recently surveyed some 18,000 chiefs of police and 3,000
sheriffs throughout the country.
With an astounding return of over 15 percent of the mail-out
surveys--far over the national average of such surveys--NACOP found the
following sentiments being held by police chiefs and sheriffs: 88.7
percent do not believe a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will help
reduce crime; 97.4 percent believe criminals will still be able to
obtain illegal weapons, even with a ban; and 90.4 percent believe law-
abiding citizens should be able to purchase any rifle, pistol, or
shotgun he or she chooses for self-protection or recreation.
A similar survey was conducted in June 1993 by the Southern States
Police Benevolent Association, which has approximately 11,000 members,
who were polled by an independent, objective outside research firm. Of
those officers surveyed, over 70 percent have been police officers for
more than 5 years, and nearly two-thirds serve in urban areas where the
threat of assault weapons is presumably highest.
Some 65.3 percent thought stricter gun control would be the least
effective of several options to reduce crime.
And 96.4 percent strongly supported firearms ownership for self-
protection.
hunting issue
Despite claims to the contrary, many people do use semiautos for
legitimate hunting. Many Alaskans have contacted me to say they have
purchased semiautomatic AK-type firearms especially for that purpose--
not because of the rapid fire capacity, although that can help prevent
the escape of wounded animals, but because they are ideal firearms for
hunting or personal protection in rugged physical conditions. Their
legendary reliability and ability to keep operating after being rained
on, snowed on, dropped in salt water, and generally banged around makes
them the weapon of choice--not for criminals--but for people whose
firearms can mean the difference between eating and not eating that
winter.
second amendment issue
The judicial history of gun control is mixed, even when looking only
at Federal actions and not court opinions on actions by States or other
jurisdictions. One persistent issue is whether the second amendment
bars States from adopting laws that are more narrow, or is solely
applicable to Federal actions.
At the Federal level, a key question is whether it only prohibits
laws that would impede the formation of State militias, which today
have been supplanted by the National Guard, or is an individual right
to keep and bear arms for broader purposes.
In arguing that gun control is not unconstitutional, the case most
often cited as controlling by gun control advocates is United States
versus Miller (1939), the only time this century in which the Supreme
Court heard a directly applicable second amendment case. Miller's
conviction--for possession of a prohibited sawed-off shotgun outlawed,
along with machine guns, during the ``gangster'' era--was upheld.
However, the Miller case is very weak for the gun control lobby.
Because Miller himself was unable to appear, and no briefs were filed
nor arguments made on his behalf, the Court heard only one side of the
case. Even then, when the Court went against Miller, it only said it
lacked proof that his shotgun was a type of weapon that had military
value--had it been, Miller would have won.
In essence, although the Court upheld Miller's conviction, its
opinion in addressing only whether the shotgun was a military weapon,
tacitly recognized that the second amendment is an individual right to
keep and bear arms, regardless of actual membership in a militia. The
only proviso the Court made was to make it clear that the second
amendment applies to weapons having military potential or use.
In looking at what the Founding Fathers intended for the second
amendment, the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in 1982 drew on the historical writings of the founders and
their correspondents. It concluded that the framers purpose was to
establish an individual right that would serve to prevent the
Government from exercising control by means of a standing army. In
their mind, the prospect that a Government-backed army would be used
against citizens who disagreed with the Government was what we might
today call a ``clear and present danger.''
They wanted citizens to be able to form their own armed militia
organizations, absent any Government interference, for the express
purpose of defending themselves against the Government. In addition,
they drew from early English common law to explicitly recognize the
right of an individual to arm himself for protection against outlaws.
When the Bill of Rights was presented, the Senate passed it in 1 day,
but first it soundly rejected an amendment that would have limited the
second amendment to carrying firearms ``for the common defense.'' That
action shows clearly that the Senate also regarded the second amendment
to be an individual right.
Many argue that the second amendment is now outdated--that the intent
of the Founding Fathers should be ignored by today's Congress, because
they could not possibly have foreseen the development of today's
society. That is the purest hogwash. Such an argument demeans those who
make it and insults those who hear it. We, who are sworn to uphold the
Constitution, cannot pick and choose the parts we want to honor and the
parts we want to ignore.
This country has grown to greatness thorough many fortunate
circumstances and through the hard work and faith of its residents. But
most of all it has grown to greatness because the U.S. Constitution
gave it firm footing. The rights of freedom of speech, of the press, of
religion and of peaceful assembly formed the base for the growth of a
healthy, diverse society, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
But the Founding Fathers also knew full well that all those rights are
delicate ones--easily pushed aside by a Government that becomes
unbalanced. It is precisely for that reason that they included the
second amendment.
Arguing that the second amendment is outdated does not makes it so.
But more to the point is this: Even if that were true, it is still the
law of the land. If it is outdated, then let those who believe that--
work to have it changed. But in the meantime, this Congress should
not--and legal it cannot--simply decide to usurp powers of decision
that are reserved to all the people
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in the last day and a half I have not come
over to speak on this bill. I have tried to avoid identifying myself
with the Senate's chaotic indecision. But given that we are now coming
to the end of the debate, I want to make a few points, then summarize
my position on the crime bill, and then let others speak.
First of all, I checked with my office a minute ago and I have had a
number of calls from Texas about Senator Durenberger's comments about a
back door at the Alamo. In Texas we are pretty sensitive about the
Alamo. I want to be sure we straighten those comments out.
First of all, there were a lot of back doors at the Alamo. In fact
James Bonham--since our great Senator from South Carolina, Strom
Thurmond, is here on the floor--I note that he, in Aiken, and James
Bonham, in Edgefield, were both born in South Carolina. James Bonham
rode out the back door at the Alamo through the Mexican lines to find
help. And when he could not get anybody to come back to the Alamo with
him, he rode back through the Mexican lines into the Alamo to certain
death.
So there was a back door at the Alamo. But there were people at the
Alamo who were committed to what they were doing. They were committed
to Texas being free. And they started there a fight that ultimately
made Texas free, brought 11 States into the Union, made America a world
power, and changed the course of history.
Mr. President, there are a lot of emotions one can express on a day
like today. I guess everybody hates to lose. I hate it I guess as much
as most. It must be a little bit like dying, and even in death I am
hoping for a reprieve. But I particularly hated losing today. First, as
I said, I do not like losing. Second, I had no doubt in my mind and my
heart that we were right.
It is a very interesting thing how debates evolve in the Senate.
Often you end up with two straw men that both sides create as to what
the battle is about. Obviously, to some degree that was the case here.
But in my mind what it was all about, and I think that it was
demonstrated what it was all about, is that we had a golden opportunity
to pass a good crime bill. This crime bill ended up being hijacked. It
ended up being hijacked and became something that it did not start out
being, and became something that the American people I think have come
to understand. They are unhappy about it, and more than unhappy, they
are frustrated about it.
First of all, the legislation became something that too often almost
every bill becomes that passes the Congress, it became the purveyor of
pork. It became a bill where all kinds of things were added to it to
spend money, to create political constituencies, to win over votes. We
had a long debate on this whole question of pork.
I just simply would like to say that when we have big deficits, when
the average American family with two little children is sending $1 out
of every $4 that family earns to Washington, DC, I hated to see $5
billion spent basically on social programs. Some may have been good.
Some may have been bad. But basically they did not have anything to do
with the crime bill.
I would just like to note that the mayor of Providence, RI is unhappy
with me and has written me sort of a nasty letter. I am not going to
read it. But I would just like to say that the other day on the floor
of the Senate I quoted from the New York Times of August 16, what I
thought was the award-winning proposal as to how to use the money from
this bill.
The mayor of Providence, at least according to the New York Times,
hoped to use the $3 million he was going to receive from the Local
Partnership Act, which is part of this crime bill, to retrain graffiti
violators to be artists. He has subsequently written me a letter--and
Senator Pell has given a speech pointing that out--that this was not
his only idea. He had lots of other good ideas. I am sorry we do not
now know about them. But my guess is we will after all this money is
spent.
So I am disappointed that we did not get the pork out. I am
disappointed that our real anticrime provisions ended up being dropped.
We have all gone through them--10 years in prison without parole for
using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime or drug felony; 20
years for discharging it; life imprisonment for killing somebody; the
death penalty in aggravated cases.
I cannot for the life of me understand how we are about to pass a
bill that bans guns, and yet we are not willing to do anything about
the people who use those guns to kill people.
I hear all this talk about new Democrats. But I would have to say
that when they get behind closed doors in conference committees, and
when the real decisions are made, these new Democrats turn out to be
the old-fashioned Democrats who blame society and not the criminal, for
crime.
The sad reality is that we know gun control does not work. The
District of Columbia has an outright ban on handguns and assault
rifles, and you must register a shotgun. But the District of Columbia
with the strongest gun ban in America is, per capita, the murder
capital of the world. Why? Because they ban guns, but they do not do
much about capital crime. They have crime without punishment. It is
really an extension of what we have in America.
We wanted to have an opportunity to vote, to impose sanctions,
mandatory minimum sentencing against violent criminals that use guns.
We were not allowed to do that. We wanted 10 years in prison without
parole for selling drugs to a child or for using children in drug
felonies. We wanted to remove the Clinton provision in this bill which
overturns mandatory minimum sentencing for drug felons, and which in
its original form would have let 10,000 drug felons currently in the
Federal penitentiary back out on the streets.
Thanks to Republicans in the House and their courage and their
leadership, they got rid of the retroactive part of that provision. But
when this bill becomes law, mandatory minimum sentencing for drug
thugs, which is the law of the land today, will not be the law of the
land because judges will then be able to decide whether to impose those
sentences.
I want drug thugs to know that if they sell drugs to children, they
are going to prison for 10 years, and they are going to serve every day
of the 10 years no matter who their daddy is or how they think society
has done them wrong. But my view is not going to prevail today.
What would I like to do on the crime bill? Well, I hope we have a
Republican majority in the next Congress and, if we do, here is what I
would like to do. I would like to go back and overturn this bill and
seize as much of this pork money as is not spent. I would like to start
building prisons, but I would like to stop building them like Holiday
Inns. I would like to put people in jail to work. I do not know why in
this country the working people have to pay to keep criminals in jail,
but the criminals in jail, by and large, do not work. If we have a
space problem, let us put prisoners in tents. Let us declare a national
crime emergency, giving us the ability to go out and string up barbed
wire around unused military bases.
Republicans do not claim we have the answer to every part of the
crime problem, but we have the answer to one part. We do not have to
get up every morning, open up our newspaper and read about some violent
predator criminal who has been convicted five or six times of terrible
crimes, and who is back out on the street, and who has killed
somebody's child. We can fix that problem, and if we are given the
opportunity to fix it, we are going to fix it.
The news tomorrow obviously will be that the President has won. But
the real news ought to be that a great opportunity has been lost. We
are going to spend $30 billion, and I admit it, you cannot spend $30
billion without helping somebody. It is impossible. You cannot spend
$30 billion without doing some good for somebody. But anybody who looks
at this bill is going to know that we are not going to do 30 billion
dollars' worth of good for the people who do the work and pay the taxes
and pull the wagon in America.
So I am disappointed about losing today, but I am also disappointed
about missing a golden opportunity to grab violent criminals by the
throat, to throw them in prison, and to keep them there. But this is an
opportunity that is not lost forever, and if people are unhappy about
this bill, they have an opportunity to do something about it in
November.
The interesting thing is, I am amazed at how the American people have
discovered that this is not a good bill. I am very pleased, on both
health care and crime, that the American people understand what is
happening here in Washington, DC. And I do not believe that passing
this crime bill is going to be the great bonanza, politically, that
some people think it will be.
I suspect that many Americans are going to see it as another cruel
hoax, where our money is wasted and where the problem is not dealt
with.
Finally, there is one piece of good news today, and that is that the
Clinton health care plan is dead. The Clinton plan is dead, Clinton-
Mitchell 1 is dead, Clinton-Mitchell 2 is dead, Clinton-Mitchell 3 is
dead, and Clinton-Chafee is dead. And all those plans are dead because
the American people understand that they are bad bills that would let
the Government run health care in America.
I believe the President has lost because he underestimated the
ability of the American people to understand that with all of his
wonderful talk, the reality is that under his plan, they lost control
over their health care.
So the good news today is that while $30 billion is going to be spent
inefficiently, and America is not going to get its money's worth, we
have taken a gigantic step today by adjourning without passing the
Clinton health care bill, and I believe people will have an opportunity
in November to cast a vote on that health care plan.
So I believe that today we have given people a clear choice. We had a
chance to vote on get-tough provisions, and we cast a vote, and we know
now where 39 of our colleagues stood, and we know where the rest stood.
It is up to the American people to look at those votes and decide
whether or not they reflect their will. In 35 States in the Union,
people have an opportunity this November to say whether they agree or
disagree on the crime bill and on health care by how they vote at the
polls for the Senate. So if you are unhappy about how your Government
is running, you have an opportunity to do something about it. I want to
urge people to take that opportunity.
I am very proud of the Republican leader today. He did a great job.
It was very disappointing for him. In any other city in the world, when
adults sign a letter saying they are going to do something, you expect
them to do it. But this is Washington, DC, and that was yesterday.
In any case, I believe that a good fight was fought. I believe that
those on our side of the aisle were right. I believe the American
people will discover that we were right and, hopefully, they will give
us an opportunity to do right by giving us a majority in the November
elections.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have spoken against this bill, and I
shall not take but a few minutes now. I want to say that this bill will
result in some good, but it is not worth the price we are paying. I am
opposed to this bill mainly for two reasons. One is the excessive
Federal spending. There is almost $7 billion in pork for Federal social
programs which should be cut. Already, billions are being spent in this
area by the Federal Government. There is no evidence that additional
handout programs will reduce violent crime.
We have a debt in this country now of over $4 trillion. Why should we
spend over $30 billion here when it is not necessary? I just heard the
distinguished Senator from Texas speak, and he brought out some good
points.
I want to say this: We ought to try to reduce this deficit and not go
spending more of the American taxpayers' money unless it is absolutely
necessary, and it is not absolutely necessary here in this crime bill.
The other reason I am opposed to this bill is the multiplications
which should have been made are quite a number. We should have included
in this bill a number of things. I will just give a few examples.
One is mandatory sentences for selling drugs to minors or using
minors in drug crime. That is a very important matter. It should be
included in this bill.
Another is mandatory restitution to victims of violent crime. When
people commit violent crimes on victims the victims should be allowed
to collect restitution.
Another is tough Federal penalties for street gang crimes. We should
have included that in the bill. We have to have these tough penalties
for these street gang crimes. These gang crimes are very bad in many
places.
Now the prosecution of juveniles 13 and up as adults for Federal
crimes of violence with a firearm should have been included. Now if
juveniles have a firearm and commit a violent crime, they should be
tried as adults. And that was left out of this bill. It is a very
important matter that should have been included.
Another is the deportation of criminal aliens upon completion of
their sentence in the United States. When aliens come here and commit a
crime and they suffer for it, we should deport them, not allow them to
stay here. We should have put that in this bill.
Mr. President, there are so many things that should have been
included in this bill that are not. For those two reasons mainly I am
going to oppose it.
There is another thing I want to mention, too. Have we forgotten what
federalism is? What is federalism. In other words, the Federal
Government has certain powers under the Constitution and all the other
powers not mentioned and delegated to the Federal are reserved to the
States. That is federalism. And I do not know of any authority here for
the Federal Government to go down and provide policemen in a city. That
is the responsibility of each city to do that. That is not a
responsibility of the Federal Government. And it is just such spending
as this that caused us to create this tremendous deficit that we have
today of over $4 trillion.
Another thing I would mention is this: Now if we establish this
system here that we go and provide policemen for the cities of the
Nation, there will be a demand to do more in other ways, and this could
be the entering wedge for a national police system in this country, if
this thing goes far enough, and I am concerned for us to enter into
such a program as this that could be the beginning of a program which
the American people do not want.
I think we have to realize this, too, that we have to let the people
know that society is not responsible for the crimes. Every individual
is responsible for the crime he commits. I am just amazed at the crimes
that have increased here. The last figures I have from the FBI are
this: A violent crime every 22 seconds, a murder every 22 minutes, a
forceable rape every 5 minutes, armed robbery ever 47 seconds, and
aggravated assault every 28 seconds.
This bill will not remedy that. In my judgment, we should have
focused on crime, crime, crime, and not put all this social money in
here to be spent and cost the American taxpayers this large sum.
Mr. President, for that reason, I am going to oppose this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the hour is late.
Mr. President, I simply say that we made this great effort today. I
was on the conference committee. I watched it operate. I watched the
fine work of Senator Hatch. It was an extraordinary experience. We see
the result. Now we are at this final juncture of a cloture vote, and it
comes down to the issue of the guns, assault weapons.
I will vote against cloture. I will do that for a variety of reasons.
But in essence, I will cast this vote because our efforts to enact a
good, tough, crime bill, have failed.
We have been thwarted in our efforts to eliminate $5 billion in
social spending from the conference report.
My amendment to expedite deportation proceedings against nonpermanent
resident aliens who have committed certain violent felonies upon
completion of their prison sentence was passed unanimously by the
Senate. It was stripped unceremoniously by the conference committee. It
is a tough law and order provision. But it isn't in this final product.
Today our efforts to reinsert this legislation into this bill were
rejected. That is another reason I will vote against cloture.
Similarly, our efforts to improve this legislation with other
modifications which passed the Senate overwhelmingly were ``stiffed''
by the Democrat majority.
We Republicans wanted to reinsert the provisions for mandatory
minimum sentences for selling drugs to children. Likewise, we wanted to
reinsert mandatory minimum sentences for using children to sell drugs.
They are called ``mules'' by the drug dealers. We wanted to toughen up
the prison provisions and ensure that real money was sent to the States
with minimal Federal strings attached. We wanted to reinsert provisions
to build real prison cells, not prison ``alternatives''.
This conference report prohibits law-abiding citizens from owning
certain guns and, at the same time, our efforts to even get a vote on
an amendment to enhance penalties for gun-related crimes were
suffocated by the Democrat majority.
Criminals who use guns will be treated no worse for their offenses
after this legislation becomes law. But, the Democrat majority is now
telling gun owners who do not commit crimes that their previous law-
abiding behavior will now be a violation of the law.
Law-abiding ownership of certain guns is prohibited. But the Democrat
majority has refused to allow us to increase punishment for the illegal
use of firearms.
I do not understand that logic.
I have seen polls that indicate that 77 percent of the American
people want to ban these guns. I can assure you that such polls do not
reflect the views of the people of the State of Wyoming, because they
believe the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed, and there can be no greater
infringement than an outright ban. I do not know what it could be. If
there is such a support to limit a constitutionally protected right,
then it would seem that the proponents might try a constitutional
amendment next time.
I submit that they do not follow such a legislative route because the
statistics showing such so-called ``Great support are highly inflated.
The Congress, this administration, and the Democrat Party are ``tap
dancing'' on the Constitution.
That, Mr. President, is another great tragedy of this legislation.
Our efforts to increase penalties for violent criminals and to focus
more of the funding in this bill on building prisons have been
unsuccessful. Most of my Republican colleagues and some stalwart
Democrats want to be tougher on violent criminals.
Instead, this legislation would adopt a policy that will treat law-
abiding citizens ``like'' criminals.
Let me just conclude by saying that I voted against the gun ban
amendment when it came before the Senate. I continue to strenuously
oppose it. But with the exception of this gun ban, the Senate bill had
every potential of being an improvement in current criminal law.
We voted on it. It passed here 95 to 4. I thought it merited my
support then. However, only the worst of the Senate passed bill
survived the conference process.
But we were stiffed on tougher penalties for violent criminals and
for drug-related crimes. We were stiffed on eliminating $5 billion in
social spending. We were stiffed on getting criminal aliens deported
more quickly. We were stiffed in our efforts to maintain the
constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens under the
second amendment.
But we are now faced with something called reality. The sad fact is
that those of us who do not support gun control measures do not have
the votes to defeat this conference report.
The perception is that this is a tough crime bill. It is not. But
that perception has shaped this debate. We can stand here for weeks and
debate the defects of this legislation. That would not be fair. Or we
could spend until Saturday. That would not be fair. Unfortunately the
result of this vote tally will not change. It is quite well
preordained.
There is a huge gap between what this bill really is and what the
proponents say it is. Unfortunately, the true extent of that gap will
only be revealed in the future to the American people over the next
weeks and before November 8.
Our priorities are more prisons, tougher penalties, more police, less
social spending. The bill, as the Senator from Texas says, has been
successfully hijacked by those who still take the view that the
criminal is also a victim of society and that the law-abiding citizens
must suffer and have their constitutional rights trampled on, all
because of the heinous and illegal acts of some violent criminals.
It has been a very difficult day for me dealing with lovely friends,
urging, cajoling. It is not a pleasant experience and it has been a
very disappointing result. We did our best. We shall lay ourselves
down, bleed a little, then bind our wounds, and rise to fight again
with renewed numbers on November 8, restored and refreshed and ready
for the fray.
Thank you.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I believe we are down to the last three
speakers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the last speakers be
myself for 5 minutes, the distinguished minority leader 5 minutes, and
the distinguished majority leader for 5 minutes or less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just have a few words to say about this
in the end.
There are three reasons why I will vote against cloture and against
the conference report.
First is the pork-barrel expenditures which we consider to be 1960's
type social spending. I have more than adequately described that, and I
do not see how anybody in America would not be concerned about it.
Second is the lack of the tough anti-crime amendments that we know
would have passed had we been given an opportunity. Had he won on the
point of order we would have won those amendments here on the floor and
they would have strengthened this bill considerably. I have talked more
than adequately about that.
Number three, my colleague from Delaware has argued that the assault
weapons ban legislation is only a few pages long. In fact, as I
understand it, he took that particular part of the bill and just ripped
it right out of the bill. That is the assault ban legislation. He did
that the other day.
Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is only 25 pages
long. The second amendment to the Constitution is only one sentence
ensure. It says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.
``The right of the people.''
Now this is one of the enumerated rights in the Constitution. We have
spasms around here about unenumerated rights that the Supreme Court has
conjured out of penumbras that we uphold every day of our lives, some
of the people here.
And here is an enumerated right and we are trashing it by a simple
statute.
Should we just tear it out of the Constitution because that one
sentence does not agree with us? I submit that if we keep passing these
gun bans, we might as well.
The assault weapons ban has 20 specific firearms that are banned.
But, according to the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 179 firearms
are covered or will be covered by this bill. Of course, that is the
list as of now.
I remember the days when the ATF took after decent law-abiding
citizens until we passed the McClure-Volkmer bill--and I was the leader
on the floor to do that--to protect our American citizens, law-abiding
citizens, from an overregulatory, overconfiscatory Government agency
situation. And now we are going back to the same system, only worse.
What are they going to ban next?
Keep in mind, there were 650 weapons that were exempted by this bill.
Count on it, my fellow citizens, they will be back next year.
So we intend to the change the nature of the Senate in this election
and we are going to be back next year and we are going to see if we can
change this. That is why McClure-Volkmer was passed.
I feel very deeply about the second amendment. I feel very grieved
that we are treating it in this shabby fashion. But that is the way it
is around here, and that is the way this bill has been.
Mr. President, the various staff members of both the minority and the
majority staffs should be complimented for their work on this bill. We
have had dedicated, loyal, hardworking decent staff members. I will not
name them by name, but I ask unanimous consent that this list be
printed in the Record to pay appropriate tribute to each and every one
of them.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Senator Hatch's Staff
Mark Disler, Mike Kenncoy, Larry Block, Sharon Prost, and
Manus Cooney.
Senator Thurmond's Staff
Thad Strom.
Senator Grassley's Staff
Fred Ansell.
Senator Simpson's Staff
Cordice Strom and Warren Shaeffer.
Senator Dole's Staff
Dennis Shea, Elizabeth Green, and Sheila Burke.
Senator Biden's Staff
Cynthia Hogan, Demetra Lambros, Chris Putala, Tracy
Doherty, Ankur Goel, Andrew Pepler, Adam Gelb, Lisa Monaco,
and Nelson Cunningham.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have never seen better staffers on either
side do a better job in any legislation before this body, and I want to
personally compliment them.
Mr. President, I made a definite mistake.
I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent agreement we
agreed to a few minutes ago provide an additional 5 minutes for our
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, to be
followed by Senator Dole's 5 minutes and then to be followed by Senator
Mitchell's 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I do not know that we need to take all of
the time.
I would just like to say, I have listened to the debate on this
portion of the legislation. It started off on a matter that is of
legitimate concern to a number of Americans, and that is: Is what is in
this legislation relative to assault weapons either a violation of the
second amendment or is it the proverbial camel's nose under the tent?
Is there an agenda that is hidden beyond what is in this legislation
banning assault weapons and not allowing the manufacture of new weapons
that have grenade launchers on them or bayonet hooks on them? Is this
beyond that? What is it?
A number of people feel very, very strong about those issues and I
respect their point of view.
But then I heard the debate sort of go back to this idea that, if you
listen to the debate, you would think this bill was designed to enhance
the standing of junkies out in the street, to free felons from our
jails, and to make sure that we just, under the cover of night, steal
the taxpayers' money and spend it on politically worthwhile social
contributions in our communities to endear ourselves to the local
mayors or the citizenry.
The fact of the matter is that--I will just say it again and I guess
we will maybe even say it after this--this whole notion of whether or
not it is a tough bill, we, in fact, have very stiff penalties in here
for people who molest and/or people who sell drugs to children.
We have significant penalties in here to deal with providing women
with some genuine protection, particularly women who are battered and
abused by their spouses, their loved ones, those with whom they are
familiar.
We have significant legislation in here relative to making sure that
30,000 violent criminals who were convicted last year but never saw a
day in jail because there was no prison space, that they serve their
time in jail.
I heard my friend from Texas say he wants to be able to put these
prisoners in jail, and if there is not enough room in jail, string out
barbed wire and put them in tents.
Well, that is what we call boot camps, Mr. President. That is in
here. They were against boot camps. Early this morning, I heard my
friend from Utah talk about these alternatives to prisons are bad
ideas. I heard my friend from Texas talk about we ought to be able to
string up barbed wire and put folks in tents. Under this bill, we can
string up barbed wire, we can build Quonset huts, and we can put them
in boot camps. We can do that.
So, hopefully, what is going to happen is, after this bill passes--
God willing, if there are 60 votes to invoke cloture and the President
signs it and this bill becomes law--hopefully, what will happen is a
little bit like what happened when we passed other legislation.
I heard that if we had passed the President's economic plan a year
ago, the sky would fall, unemployment would skyrocket, the budget
deficit would escalate, we would have this awful thing that would
happen to the economy. There would be apocalypse now.
In fact, it has gone the opposite way. I do not have anybody calling
me now. But yet, at the time we voted on it, my phone was ringing and
people were saying, ``Boy, isn't this awful? What are you going to do
about it?''
Now, the deficit has come down compared to what they thought it was
going to be. Now we have more employment, now the economy is moving.
The same people with those dire predictions, the same people, by and
large, who are talking about this bill, are no longer talking about the
economic plan.
I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that within 6 months after we
pass this bill, you will see this is as advertised--a very tough,
straightforward bill that the cops want, the prosecutors want, and the
people need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Under the unanimous consent agreement, the Republican leader is now
recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have all had a lot of
conversation in here. It has been a tough day. Again, I congratulate
the winners and also thank my many friends on this side of the aisle
because I think we have changed the debate.
When the people wake up tomorrow morning it is going to be sticker
shock. I do not care what you call it, you can argue about whether it
is 4 years or 6 years or budget point of order or whatever it is. The
American people know we are spending a lot of money. So we will mark
this date down, we will come back in a couple of years and we will see
what happened to the crime rate and we will see what happened to all
these prevention programs.
The American people are going to be focused. They are going to be
focused in about 2 months on this bill. It is not going to take 2
years. They are going to be focused. We are going to focus the American
people on all the ludicrous, ridiculous items in this bill.
So, we have had a good debate this week. We have not debated as long
as people on the other side of the aisle, even though they get up and
say we are stalling. I think the record will show we have had about 35
percent of the time. But it has been a good debate because it has given
the American people the opportunity to understand precisely what we are
talking about. We had some ideas. I would say to the Republicans in the
House, they supported their leadership and they gave a number of
Republicans a chance to change the bill. We could not get that support
on this side. That is the way it goes sometimes.
But that is the last vote. We always look to the next vote. We had 10
good amendments. We could have cut $5 billion out of this package and
still had a $25 billion bill, much of it good. I do not quarrel with
the Senator from Delaware on every issue. In fact, we worked together
on domestic violence. We did not touch domestic violence, did not take
one dime out of the domestic violence program.
But we will have some examples. They will look good on a 30-second
spot, because we want the American people to know we are just throwing
away a big pile of their money and they are going to know it all across
America--east coast, west coast, Midwest. This is another example.
Somebody said tonight on Nightline it is going to be, ``What's wrong
in Washington?'' As I said earlier, this is the example of what is
wrong. We do not listen to the people. The American people are against
crime. They do not think the solution is just spend all the money we
have in the Treasury and borrow money and run up a $13 billion deficit
for a lot of things that are not going to make any difference--$1.6
billion for the local partnership program that has nothing to do with
crime, was taken out of the stimulus package which we defeated last
year, and a lot of other billions of dollars in my view that really are
not going to make any great difference.
As I said, Mr. President, when the American people wake up tomorrow
morning, they are going to suffer an acute case of sticker-shock, for
later tonight, the Senate will, no doubt, pass a $30 billion pork-
barrel juggernaut masquerading as a crime bill.
There is $1.6 billion for something called the Local Partnership Act,
which was first introduced in 1992, not as a crime-fighting measure,
but as a way to funnel Federal money into the cities. It is a retread
of last year's defeated stimulus package. And guess what? There has not
been a single hearing on this program. Not one. And I suspect there are
not even five Members of the Senate who could tell me what this program
is actually designed to do.
There is $1 billion for a so-called drug court proposal that funds
health care, education, housing placement, child care, anything, in
other words, but crime control. And again, no hearings.
There is $625 million for the model intensive grant program, which is
designed to address such pressing crime problems as the deterioration
or lack of public facilities, public transportation, and street
lighting.
There is $243 million for something called the family and endeavor
schools program, which provides grants for sports, arts and crafts,
social activities, and you guessed it: dance programs.
There is $270 million for the National Community Economic
Partnerships, a program administered by the Department of Health
and Human Services to assist local community groups in order to improve
the quality of life. That is right: improve the quality of life. There
is not even the pretense of trying to link the spending to fighting
crime. And we are talking about $270 million of the American people's
money.
The list continues: There is $150 million to develop alternative
methods of punishment for youthful offenders. These alternatives
include such get-tough measures as after care, education, projects that
provide family counseling, other support programs, and get this:
innovative projects, whatever that may mean.
There is the ounce of prevention program which is really a $90
million pound of pure, unadulterated pork.
There is $50 million for something called the community-based justice
program. This multimillion dollar boondoggle adopts the criminal-as-
the-victim-of-society approach, requiring prosecutors to, and I quote;
``focus on the offender, not simply the specific offense, and impose
individualized sanctions such as: conflict resolution, treatment,
counseling, and recreation programs.
There is a $5 million urban recreation program, designed to improve
recreation facilities in our cities.
And, of course, there is still midnight basketball.
Even the pork-meisters have gotten their hands on the money allegedly
earmarked for prisons. If you read the fine print, you will see there
is no guarantee that a single dime--not one dime--will be used to build
a single brick-and-mortar prison cell. All of the prison money can be
spent on boot camps, halfway houses, and other prison alternatives.
Now, that is what I call a tough crime bill.
And let us not oversell the so-called 100,000 cops on the streets
proposal. If you read the fine print, you will see that the States and
cities will be picking up most of the police-hiring tab. In fact, one
expert--Princeton professor, John Diiulio, a registered Democrat and a
gun-control advocate--estimates that the crime bill fully funds only
20,000 cops, and only 2,000 around-the-clock police officers.
So, Mr. President, who is kidding whom? The American people are not
dumb. They know when they are being sold a crime bill of goods.
The bottom line is that the crime bill is too much pork and too
little punch. Too much hype and too little tough-on-crime substance.
This $30 billion pork package should be defeated, it is not in the
best interests of the American people. And it is not the tough crime-
fighting plan the American people so very much need and so very much
deserve.
I hope, as we look over these alternatives--millions here, $150
million here, $170 million here, innovative projects, other support
projects--all these different things sound good. No doubt some will do
some good. If you spend enough money you will probably do some good.
Maybe if we had a $100-billion crime bill we would do a little more
good, or if we had a $200-billion crime bill we would do a little more
good.
They have one provision here that says the prosecutors are supposed
to ``focus on the offender, not simply the specific offense, and impose
individualized sanctions such as conflict resolution, treatment
counseling, and recreation programs.''
That is going to be a big crime preventer. I can already see that
working all across America. There is not much in here about the
victims. Forget about the victims: We could not have restitution, the
amendment by Senator Nickles. That is too bad, to ask the criminal to
make restitution to some victim's family. Do not do that, that might be
offensive to somebody who committed a violent crime.
We said, on the violent crime, you are not going to have to serve
your time if you only commit one violent crime. It is only if you
commit two violent crimes. That is going to be a best seller, too, when
the American people understand how we softened that one up.
The Senator from New Hampshire went through a whole list tonight
where we dropped it or weakened it or threw it away or whatever.
I have heard all this conversation about 100,000 policemen. I am not
an expert, maybe there are going to be 100,000--if you count them five
times apiece. But I listened to some expert from New Jersey from
Princeton, John Diiulio, a Democrat, on C-SPAN when I was doing a
little treadmill. I do not go too fast so I get to listen a lot. He
said the most you could get would be 20,000. But the President is going
to say we are going to get 100,000, the Senator from Delaware, he says
100,000, so it must be 100,000. We will see what happens a year from
now.
I recited yesterday the mayor of Kansas City, MO, who I think in mid-
July calculated the cost and said, ``We do not want this program.'' He
changed his mind yesterday and came back to Washington, DC, and began
to understand the merits of it after he talked to a few people.
But he said it right the first time. You are going to pay 25 percent
the first year, 50 percent the second year, 75 percent the third year,
and all of it after that. Many cities cannot afford that.
So, Mr. President, I know my time has expired but I hope we would
focus, when we vote on this cloture vote. There is still a chance to
save a lot of money in this bill by not invoking cloture. There is
still a chance to help the American taxpayer and help the American
victims and help those who want a real crime bill. We are going to have
that vote in about 5 minutes, and I hope we may prevail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
live quorum required under rule XXII; that a cloture vote occur
immediately following my remarks; and that if cloture is invoked the
Senate vote without any intervening action or debate on adoption of the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, tonight's vote
marks the end of a 6-year effort--6 years. It is important that the
American people understand that this has been a 6-year effort in
evaluating the repeated claim that there was no opportunity to amend
this bill. That claim is without foundation.
When this bill was before the Senate just a few months ago, it was
debated for 11 days and 102 amendments were considered and disposed of.
Before that, in two previous Congresses, the crime bill was in the
Senate and debated for days and days and days, and many, many other
amendments were considered and disposed of. So we have been debating a
crime bill for 6 years. We have had endless discussion on the Senate
floor. We have considered hundreds and hundreds of amendments. Any
suggestion to the contrary is simply erroneous.
We have been debating it long enough. We have been trying to amend it
long enough. We have been delaying it long enough. Now, finally it is
time to act.
Mr. President, I want to make clear, in an effort to accommodate our
colleagues, we went the extra mile to try to permit a vote to occur on
what they said was their principal concern and that is the level of
spending. Although conference reports are not amendable in the Senate,
we agreed to an extraordinary procedure, not utilized in the time that
I have been majority leader, to permit a vote on cutting $5 billion
from the spending provisions of the bill. That was not agreeable to our
Republican colleagues.
Prior to that I offered to take up every one of their amendments and
any other amendments that they wanted in a separate bill at any time
they wanted, have each one of them voted on and debated on. That was
not accepted.
So, Mr. President, I think it is clear that we now are at a point
where we can finally act on this bill and any action to the contrary,
of not invoking cloture, will simply contribute to further delay and
place in jeopardy ever passing this bill.
Let me repeat what I said earlier. Despite the claims about money,
money is not the problem in this bill. It never has been. The Senate
passed a crime bill just a few months ago by a vote of 95-to-4; 42 out
of 44 Republican Senators voted for that bill. It covered 5 fiscal
years, from 1994 through 1998. The bill before us covers 6 fiscal
years, 1995 through the year 2000. In the 4 years that are common to
the two bills, the amount of money in this bill each year is less than
the amount of money in the bill that was passed a few months ago. And
42 out of 44 Republicans voted for that bill. There was not a word
about money then. There was not a word about pork then. There was not a
word about social spending then. Mr. President, 42 out of 44
Republicans voted for a bill that included more spending in each of the
years that are common to the bill that was passed then and the bill
that is now before the Senate. The fact of the matter is it is not, was
not, the issue involved in this debate.
Now we are told here that we should listen to the people. Seventy-
seven percent of the American people favor an assault weapons ban, the
very thing that for 6 years has been the driving force in opposition to
this bill, right to this very moment. Seventy-seven percent of the
American people favor a ban on assault weapons, and yet for 6 years we
have had a determined effort to deny the will of the American people on
that issue.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote to invoke cloture and
to bring this 6-year effort to an end. Six years is long enough to
consider any bill. Dozens and dozens of days is long enough to debate
any bill. Hundreds and hundreds of amendments are amendments enough on
any bill. There must be at some point final action, and this is the
point.
I urge all Senators to vote to invoke cloture which, in plain
English, means stop talking and vote.
____________________