[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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 3355, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
     presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between 
     law enforcement agencies and members of the community to 
     address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance 
     public safety.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken earlier about the crime bill 
before us, and I would like to do so again. I do it because I am a 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I was one of the 
conferees who has experienced some very long and difficult conferences 
on this crime bill. I have seen the debate over 6 years of trying to 
get a crime bill passed, but I have also seen the work, sometimes until 
2 and 3 o'clock in the morning on the committee of conference while we 
tried to put one together. We are now basically in the 11th hour of the 
Senate session. We are very close to the time that the Senate will 
recess for the fall elections, and we see the culmination of 6 years of 
work on the threshold of passage.
  I say that, Mr. President, because if we do not act now, how are we 
ever going to pass a crime bill? If we proceed in the manner that many 
of our Republican colleagues have suggested, then basically we are 
saying we are not going to enact a crime bill this year.
  We ought to understand that we have the opportunity and the ability 
to pass a crime bill now. Or, we can follow the delaying, 
obstructionist tactics we have seen here and pass nothing. In fact, I 
think it is fair to say that many are trying to kill this crime bill. 
It is a two-House strategy that seeks to send the issue back to the 
House where it will be delayed, where it ultimately will die. We can 
play this Ping-Pong match for the rest of the session. The Forrest Gump 
kind of Ping-Pong would be nothing compared to what we would do here, 
and the crime bill will stay in orbit between the two Houses of 
Congress and it will never come down from orbit and land on the 
President's desk for his signature. We have seen us move from what had 
been a procedural dodge to a full-fledged obstacle course in the 
efforts to obstruct and actually defeat and destroy this crime bill.
  Instead of playing procedural games, the Senate ought to stand up and 
vote. Vote for it or vote against it. But do not duck the issue 
anymore.
  Republicans have told us that they will not allow Senate action on 
this crime bill without a supermajority or without a filibuster. If 
that is the case, then we ought to just put in a cloture petition. We 
ought to then vote for cloture, even if we have to do it this weekend. 
We ought to vote for assistance to victims, to local police, to 
battered women, to abused children, to hard-pressed State correctional 
systems, to fighting drugs, and to fighting and preventing violent 
crime.
  That is what we are voting on. Let us vote for those things and not 
hide behind some procedural figleaf. If people really want to end this, 
then set up a vote; up or down on the merits, majority wins; do it 
today.
  Mr. President, I hear from people in Vermont. I hear from people all 
over the country. They say, ``Don't you folks have the courage to stand 
up and either vote for it or against it?'' If you do not like the crime 
bill, vote ``no.'' If you like it, vote ``yes.'' But do not hide behind 
this procedural flimflam, because the procedural flimflam allows every 
Senator to go back home and say, well, I liked this or I did not like 
that, but they never have to be on record.
  Now, we all speak of the courage of our convictions when we run for 
office. Let us have the courage of our convictions once we get here. 
Let us vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.''
  Look at the legislation on which we are voting. It is supported by 
every major law enforcement organization in the country--the police, 
the district attorneys, the State attorneys general, the sheriffs, 
corrections officials, and a host of mayors and Governors, both 
Republican and Democrat alike.
  I spent nearly 9 years in law enforcement myself, Mr. President. This 
is a good bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. But I have not seen many 
perfect bills in 20 years here. It is one heck of a lot better than 
what we have, and it does not deserve being put behind this figleaf of 
a procedural motion by a minority of Senators who want to kill the bill 
but do not have the courage to vote against it or a majority of votes 
to beat it on its merits.
  That is really what we have. We have a minority of this body who want 
to kill this bill, but they do not have the courage to try to defeat it 
by just voting against it in a normal vote. They want to have it both 
ways. They want to say how tough they are on crime, but even after the 
culmination of 6 years of work, they are not going to let the Senate 
vote on a crime bill. Well, that is wrong, and I think the American 
people see through it.
  Look what has happened. It is opposed by many in the Republican Party 
and by those who oppose the ban on assault weapons, and they are 
putting up procedural barriers and maneuvers so they can stop this 
bill.
  Now, if somebody does not want us to ban assault weapons, then just 
stand up and vote against this bill. But do not pretend that you are 
standing up to uphold the procedures of the Senate. Baloney.
  I heard one of my distinguished colleagues say we have to do this 
because money was added in a conference report and we could not allow 
this to go through without a vote requiring a 60-vote supermajority to 
win. That same Senator stood on the floor of the Senate 3 weeks ago and 
voted for foreign aid to a middle eastern country that was added in a 
conference report at 3 o'clock in the morning. It was never voted on by 
the House nor the Senate. But it was foreign aid to the Middle East. 
That Senator stood up and voted for it. There was no procedural motion 
there; no procedural hurdle of a 60-vote requirement. It was a huge 
amount of money. The Senator did not stand up and say, ``Well, gosh, we 
have to stand up for the procedures. We have to have a 60-vote point of 
order on this measure as it comes through.'' No. The Senator was 
perfectly willing to vote for foreign aid without setting up the 
procedural motions.
  But now we are talking about giving aid to the American people in 
their streets, and in their cities and towns where they are facing 
crime. And the same Senators are saying we have to have a procedural 
vote to stop this one.
  Why is it perfectly OK to vote without such a procedure for foreign 
aid but not for aid to the American cities and towns and to the people 
who fear crime? I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong. It makes 
you think that there has to be another reason. Could it be some 
powerful lobby is pulling the strings and calling the shots? No pun 
intended.
  We have a bill 6 years in the making. It has been considered by the 
Senate, by the House, by the House-Senate conference, passed by the 
House and now comes to rest at our door. A clear majority of Senators 
support it. We should not be maneuvering to avoid our responsibility to 
vote. If you do not want this bill, vote ``no''. If you want the bill, 
vote ``yes''. But do not vote ``maybe.'' That is what we are doing 
here. Senators are elected and paid to vote ``yes'' or ``no''. They are 
not elected and paid to vote ``maybe''. But we have a distinct number 
of Senators who want to vote ``maybe'' on this bill. That is wrong. It 
should not be done.
  We have been debating this for 6 years, and during that time many 
Republicans are saying somehow they are blocked out of this. That is 
not true. They have influenced the shape and content of this bill. I 
have been on the floor and heard this debate. I have seen Republican 
amendments accepted that are part of this bill. I have seen Republican 
amendments accepted in the Judiciary Committee that are part of this 
bill. I have seen Republican amendments accepted in the conference that 
are part of this bill. There are many aspects of the bill that 
Republicans have supported in the past--more money for police, money 
for prisons, tougher penalties, death penalties.
  As I said earlier this week, the bill bears the mark of Senator 
Biden's tireless efforts. But it also reflects the influence of many 
Republican Senators who have been working--at least until now--to do 
something about crime. It includes many of the initiatives that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for years have been arguing are 
necessary to reduce crime.
  Why can we not go forward now? We know--every one of us knows--this 
is the only crime bill that could be passed this year. After crime 
legislation was filibustered for over a year in the 102d Congress, now 
in the 103d Congress we have legislation that passed the Senate and the 
House. The House approved it in a bipartisan vote. We had one of the 
most difficult House-Senate conferences that I have served on in 20 
years. And the only step that needs to be taken for us to send it down 
to the President for his signature is for us to vote for it.
  I think it is time to vote. Vote it up or vote it down. Do not vote 
``maybe''. The bill has funding for police, prisons, tougher penalties 
for violent offenders. It is going to help both urban and rural areas. 
Eighty percent of the bill is spent on police and prisons. Only 20 
percent is spent on prevention. The funding breakdown is $13.5 billion 
for Federal, State and local law enforcement; $9.7 billion for 
corrections, $6 billion for prevention programs. It has $1.5 billion 
more in prevention money than was in the bill which 95 Senators 
supported last November. But that is because we go with 6 years and not 
5 years. And as the majority leader noted, in the years that are common 
to both bills, it actually spends less than the bill which passed 95 to 
4.
  Let us look at what the prevention programs are. Almost a third of it 
is for the Violence Against Women Act. This is legislation that people 
in my State strongly support. This is a provision that is also strongly 
supported by a number of Senators in both parties.
  Prevention programs--I know from my own time in criminal justice and 
law enforcement where, incidentally, Mr. President, I had the highest 
conviction rate of any prosecutor in our State. So I am not saying this 
from some Pollyannish view at all. I know it is one thing to get 
convicts for crimes that have been committed. But we are all a lot 
better off, victims and society alike, if you can prevent the crime 
from happening in the first place.
  You have drug treatment, drug education, antigang programs, Boys and 
Girls Clubs, mentoring programs--these things unfortunately in today's 
society are needed and can help.
  I think probably the clearest example of those who know it will help 
are the police themselves who strongly support these type of programs. 
And if a Senator feels so strongly about them that he or she thinks 
that they undermine the other police, prisons, penalties, and 
enforcement provisions, he or she can always express that view by 
voting against the bill.
  But it is not realistic to say we are going to scrap the whole thing 
and start over again. It took us 6 years and one Congress full of 
filibusters to get it this way, and now we have a de facto filibuster, 
if not a de jure one, going on. It is not fair to the victims, the 
police, and others who will benefit. To start over with this bill, as 
every Member of the Senate knows, is not going to happen and cannot 
happen.
  So I see, Mr. President, a number of Senators on the floor who wish 
to speak. I will yield the floor. Again, we have a chance to vote 
either ``yes'' or ``no''. Some Senators want us to vote ``maybe.'' That 
is not what the American people want. A vote is what the Senate 
deserves.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President, for that recognition.
  Mr. President, I want to begin by commending our Republican leader, 
Senator Dole, for his proposal late yesterday afternoon on how this 
matter can be considered.
  We can go to a vote on waving the point of order on the budget. But 
in an effort to get a fair and understandable and agreed to way to 
consider this matter, our Republican leader came up with a suggestion 
that we set the conference aside, bring up a Senate concurrent 
resolution, and that amendments be in order to that.
  The leader proposed 10 specified amendments. He went over them, he 
explained them. The ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Hatch, 
went into some more detail on those amendments. Four of those 
amendments would cut out specific amounts of pork, specific programs, 4 
of them, totaling about $5 billion; 6 of the 10 would put back some of 
the strong crime provisions that had been included in the bill when it 
passed the Senate last year that 95 of us voted for.
  Just one example in the Senate bill: It was agreed to overwhelmingly 
that there should be stiff mandatory sentences for people that hire 
juveniles to sell drugs. What a heinous crime. I mean, you have drug 
pushers going out and using children to sell drugs to affect and 
destroy the minds of our children. Everybody is for that. But somehow, 
somewhere, mysteriously, in the conference it disappeared. Who is 
opposed to strong penalties against drug pushers hiring kids to sell 
drugs to kids? Nobody is going to stand up on the floor of the Senate 
and say ``Oh. I do not want to have strong penalties on drug pushers 
using kids.'' Nobody will do that.
  That amendment would pass probably unanimously 100 to nothing. But it 
is gone. So we have 10 specified amendments, 4 knocking out pork, and 
it is going to be hard to say that these items are not pork. Clearly 
they do not help us fight crime in the real world. Six of them would 
put back strong criminal punishment provisions.
  The agreement that was offered would allow 1 hour--not a filibuster, 
but 1 hour--to debate each of these 10 amendments, and it could be 
less, equally divided. Both sides would have to say have a vote. Some 
of these, I presume, would take not that much time and perhaps would be 
taken without a vote and by agreement. At the end, there would be a 
cloture vote, but it would not be dragged out, filibustered. Just cast 
your vote. And if any of those amendments were passed--any one of the 
10--then that Senate concurrent resolution would go over to the House.
  That is one of the reasons I wanted to speak today, because there is 
concern about and misrepresentation, I think, about what the rules 
allow in the House. I wanted to talk a little about that because I 
spent 16 years in the House, 8 years as the Republican whip and 14 
years on the Rules Committee. I spent 14 years on the Rules Committee. 
So I paid a lot of attention over the years to the rules. Nobody is 
really an expert on what might happen. It always depends on what the 
leadership wants to do and, certainly, what the majority party wants to 
do. But I would like to clear up and clarify what I believe would 
happen when it went back to the House.
  Many times, when I served as the Republican whip, we would get to 
this point where the House said, ``We have taken our action; good-bye, 
Senate, good luck,'' and they left town. I always said, ``That is 
great; let us take it to the Senate. Let us vote and leave.'' They are 
smart. They voted and left, and here we are.
  But what would happen in those conditions if, in fact, the Senate 
made some alterations in the bill--generally, it was not something that 
would completely gut a bill--it would come back to the House, the House 
leaders would run their traps, usually through the whip, to make sure 
there was not an objection to various provisions, and it was accepted 
and we all went home.
  In this case, the House would be in pro forma session, I believe, 
tomorrow. But on Monday or Tuesday, they could come back into a regular 
session, run their traps, and accept this language very quickly, very 
routinely. It is done all the time.
  You might say, well, there will be an objection from one side or the 
other. I am willing to work with our colleagues on the other side to 
try to get some understanding, some clarification of what they might 
do. But if somebody objects, there is a very simple procedure. It is 
called the Rules Committee. And anybody who thinks that the leadership 
over there--the Speaker--cannot control what happens on the floor of 
the House with an iron grip has not paid any attention lately. They 
just quickly go up to the Rules Committee, and maybe they would not do 
it Monday or Tuesday, but on September 8 which, by the way, is 2 weeks 
from today, and really you are talking about 10 days from when they 
could run their traps and get it cleared. At the most, in 10 days, the 
Rules Committee would meet and they would come down to the floor of the 
House with a closed rule.
  So all of your fears can be calmed now. There will not be any 
amendment allowed by Southern Democrats or Republicans on the gun 
matter. The rule will not allow that. It will be an absolutely closed 
rule. And for those that might be concerned on the other side that 
there would be a racial statistic amendment by the Black Caucus, do not 
worry, the Rules Committee will not allow that. The Rules Committee 
would report a rule to the floor that would provide for one vote on 
this Senate concurrent resolution.
  Somebody said, ``Wait a minute; Republicans still have the option for 
a motion to recommit with instructions.'' Under this procedure, the 
conference rule would not be subject to that. The normal motion to 
recommit would not be available to the minority or to even a minority 
of the Democratic Party. No. One vote. So when people say this is going 
to be a Forrest Gump ping-pong match, it will not be. It certainly does 
not have to be. It could be, if everybody wants to keep kicking it back 
and forth. So we could send it back over there, and the House could 
say: We are not taking that. We are adding amendments. And they could 
kick it back. What is the tragedy? We are going to be back here 
September 8 or 12 anyway.
  This is an important issue. There are some provisions in this crime 
package that I am for and I would like to see passed. But I do not 
think you will see the ping-pong match of the 10 amendments that we 
have offered, 2 or 3 of them, or all of them. If all of them are 
accepted, I think you will find the House will have a procedure to have 
a vote on that and be done with it. I wanted to talk a little bit about 
that, and I want to repeat my offer to work with the handlers of the 
bill, or anybody, to talk to our colleagues on the other side, to get a 
clear understanding of what, in fact, they would do.
  Let me come back now to the Senate and some of the complaints we are 
hearing. ``Methinks you doth protest too much.'' Just give us a vote. 
Give us a vote. You know, it has been debated back and forth; yes, that 
is one of my concerns. Major provisions that we voted on in this the 
Senate last year, major provisions that deal truly with crime and 
criminals in this country, have been taken out. And any of you that 
have ever been to a conference between the House and Senate on bills 
like this--this bill or other bills --know it is quite an experience. 
If you think it is an open and fair procedure, you have not been there 
lately.
  You talk about how this issue has been debated for 6 years, and do 
not worry, the conference is open and fair. In the conference 2 years 
ago, the conferees were called on a Sunday afternoon to come back to 
the conference, called from a football game to meet on Sunday 
afternoon, and they rammed it through. What happens every 2 years--and 
seems like every election year--is the Senate passes a good crime bill; 
it gets overwhelming votes; it goes to the House, and they pass a bad, 
weak crime bill, like in this case, a crime bill that is soft on 
criminals and tough on taxpayers. They will not give it up. They think 
the way to fix crime is to have more social welfare spending. I do not 
think there has been any proof that that is the solution to crime.
  Anyway, the House has a very weak crime bill. Or as they did this 
past year, or in the past 6 months, they split it into pieces. They did 
not want to have one solid bill. They passed several pieces, and then 
they merged it and took it to conference. And then in conference, it 
really goes to the dogs. Strong crime-fighting provisions are taken 
out, pork is added, and when it comes back, it is a whole different 
animal.
  So that is why we are saying it has been substantially altered. The 
allegation is made that ``You just do not want a crime bill.'' Baloney. 
I will tell you, that is not true. Yes, this is about gun control--
approximately 180 of them--but it is also about unnecessary spending, 
$13 billion of which will be added to the deficit. It is pork, any way 
you want to describe it. And it is about toughening up the penalty on 
criminals in this country. That is what it is all about.
  Last year, when the Senate passed this bill, it was not 100 percent 
perfect. There were provisions in there I did not like, provisions I 
had voted not to have in there, provisions I had voted to knock out. I 
did not think that the funding was really very legitimate then, but it 
was spongy, it was marginal--maybe the funding could have been found 
for that. Now the years have been changed but, in fact, by changing the 
years, it makes it even worse and the spending has been increased.
  But when the bill passed the Senate, I voted for it. If we improve 
this bill and add these 10 amendments, I think you will find that this 
legislation will pass overwhelmingly. It will not be unanimous, or 95-
4, but it will be a pretty substantial vote, I am sure of that.
  As to the majority leader's proposal, his counter yesterday--and I 
understand maybe there is another counter on the table--he said just 
give us a vote on the crime conference report; we will send it on down 
to the President, and we will have a bill-signing ceremony and you 
guys, if you do want to offer your amendments, we will play games with 
you and, of course, it will not amount to anything. Nobody will be 
looking, nobody will care, and the bill will go nowhere.
  Great. We just want to have debates and offer amendments on the floor 
for our health. No, we want legitimate amendments to be offered and to 
be available for the Members to consider in this conference report.
  So when it is suggested that we move the conference report and then 
we will have these amendments offered on a separate bill, that is not a 
legitimate offer. Nobody is going to buy that--not even the press. They 
bought a lot of this stuff that has been put out about 100,000 cops on 
the street. Anybody who knows this bill knows that is not true. That is 
not about to happen. Most cities are going to look at it and say, gee 
whiz, I am not even going to participate in that.
  So let me just emphasize again, this is about pork. It is about the 
Government trying to provide funds for social programs through the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, through the Department of 
Health and Human Services, grants that are determined by the Attorney 
General or the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or HHS based 
on a formula that is extremely questionable.
  So, yes, this is about spending, that we do not need to spend that 
money, and it is not going to help us fight crime. Some of the 
preventive spending is fine. I realize that we have to fight the 
immediate problem of crime with tough criminal penalties and with more 
prison facilities. But we have to look to the long-term future, what 
can we do to help move young people away from a life of crime.
  I am prepared to think about that and work on that as long as we make 
sure that the programs we have are directed specifically in fighting 
crime. Many of these programs that are included are not in that 
category.
  But the thing that offends me the most is the strong crime provisions 
in many instances have been eliminated or reduced in their 
effectiveness. I cannot understand my colleagues who say, boy, we need 
gun control, we need to take 178 or 180 guns away from the American 
people, the law-abiding citizens, but we do not want to toughen up the 
penalties on criminals who commit their crimes using a handgun. That is 
unacceptable.
  There is a breakdown in communication somehow. Do you mean it is OK 
for a criminal to commit a crime using a gun, that we do not want 
tougher penalties on him so the criminal gets to use guns but the law-
abiding citizen has his taken away? I do not understand the 
juxtaposition there. I would imagine every Senator would vote to 
toughen up the penalties on criminals who commit crimes using a gun. 
That was taken out mysteriously. It just disappeared.
  So we are asking for an opportunity to vote, too. When the majority 
leader says let us just vote, that is our response--let us just vote. 
Let us vote on these amendments. Let us see what happens. Perhaps the 
Democrats will vote in lockstep, with one notable, courageous 
exception, hopefully more, but at least one will stand up and say, ``I 
am not buying this garbage; I am not buying this pork; I am not buying 
this soft on criminal stuff''--at least one. But maybe the rest of them 
will vote in lockstep against every one of these amendments.
  If you defeat them all, we will concede the vote. We will go ahead 
and go to final passage. There will be no further effort to block it. 
But we are going to go down with our colors flying on this one. If you 
think that we have the hottest horseshoe in this case, I think you are 
mistaken.
  The American people have figured this out. This is just another 
giveaway program, another lard-invested Federal program for programs 
that are not really going to help prevent crime or fight crime, and the 
tough criminal provisions, many of them taken out. In fact, the things 
that the American people really want to change in fighting crime are 
not even in this bill--no habeas corpus reform; no limits on the 
endless appeals of convicted felons, convicted violent felons, who have 
been sentenced to death. No, that is not in there, not even in there. 
And good faith arrests and seizing of evidence by police, that is not 
in there. Local law enforcement people who do a great job, they work 
hard, they arrest and charge a criminal, they get evidence, and the 
evidence and the criminal are both released on technicalities. ``Oh, 
you didn't say exactly the right magic words under the exclusionary 
rule.'' No, that is not in there. The things we really ought to be 
doing in fighting crimes are not here, but the big spending programs 
are here.
  So, I just ask again, Mr. President, we get a process we can agree 
to. I do believe our leaders are negotiating in good faith, and there 
are offers and counteroffers. I assume we are going to come to some 
sort of agreement here where we will be able to get votes on amendments 
and then move to final passage. We could do it today. We certainly 
could do it up or down by noon tomorrow.
  We are not interested in endlessly filibustering this issue. We are 
not trying to take this deal, this thing, whole hog or not, at all. We 
are not going to do that.
  Also, when the allegations are made, oh, it is the minority that is 
blocking this; it takes a supermajority to allow us to vote, we all 
know what the rules are here. It is different when you are on the other 
side of the issue. When it came to product liability, you know a 
filibuster was fine. When the majority leader, Senator Mitchell, back 
in the late eighties was blocking capital gains by using this same 41-
vote procedure, or the requirement that it took 60 to stop the debate, 
it was OK then.
  This is not a subversion of the rules. This is the way the rules 
operate. This is the way the U.S. Senate operates. If you have 60 votes 
to waive the point of order, let us get it on. If you do not have it--
and I do not believe you do--then let us come to an agreement on some 
amendments we can offer. Let us have our vote. Let us have our final 
passage.
  The House will accept our judgment, and there will not be a way that 
it can be pulled apart in the House. And I will be glad to work with 
one and all to make sure that we can make that arrangement.
  Then we can all say we passed a better crime bill, one that had a lot 
of the pork taken out, although probably not all of it, and one that, 
yes, does have strong penalties on the criminals. Then we can all go 
home and say we were bipartisan, our leaders worked together, we did 
the right thing for America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. 
Lott], yields the floor.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid].
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor and received 
a couple phone calls from some of my friends in Nevada. I had been 
talking there about night hoops, night basketball, and in the process 
of making the speech referred to George Allen, the famous football 
coach for the Washington Redskins and other professional football 
teams. However, I misspoke and referred to him as a basketball coach.
  The record should be clear that I know that George Allen was a 
football coach, one of the greatest, that George Allen was famous also 
for saying that the best defense is a good offense.
  My apologies to my friends in Nevada for their thinking I had a lack 
of knowledge of the athletic world.
  Now, Mr. President, I have heard my friend from Mississippi, who I 
served with in the other body, a person I have the greatest respect 
for, talk about the crime bill, and there are certain things that I 
agree that he stated.
  But, of course, what I do not agree with is the fact that we all know 
that the Senators on the other side of the aisle are attempting to kill 
the crime bill, and I say to my friend from Mississippi and the other 
Members of the other party that this bill is not a perfect bill, but it 
is a real good bill, the best we ever had in recent times in dealing 
with crime.
  For many reasons, I agree with those who support the crime bill. For 
example, there are law enforcement agencies and officers all over the 
State of Nevada that support the crime bill as there are national 
police groups like the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers, the National Sheriffs Association, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives, and four more pages.
  I agree with them. This is good legislation.


                        Anti-Abortion Advocates

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the reason I stand on the floor today is as 
a result of concern I have, which was highlighted by a network news 
interview this morning between two antiabortion advocates. One of the 
advocates called for the use of lethal force against those who 
disagreed with his view on abortion.
  As a result of that, Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of 
violence in the abortion debate. And I think it is timely during the 
debate on the crime bill, because there have been a number of 
unnecessary deaths--murders--because people disagree with the political 
views of others.
  I rise to speak on the use of certain tactics by those involved in 
the abortion debate. Specifically, I repeat, Mr. President, I am 
talking about tactics which promote or call for the use of lethal force 
against those who oppose their views.
  What concerns me today is the tactics used by extremist groups 
associated with the recent massacre that took place in Florida. So 
today I am going to introduce a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
condemning these tactics.
  Why is a resolution of the U.S. Senate necessary, Mr. President? It 
is necessary because, in spite of the murders, there are still letters 
being circulated, faxes being sent, speeches being given on this very 
unreligious advocacy.
  I have here in my possession a letter written to, ``Dear Fellow Pro-
lifer.'' I am only going to read parts of it.
  ``Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ!''
  What a terrible way to start a letter that deals with death and 
murder.

       The purpose of this letter is simple and straightforward. 
     It is to inform you of the ministry of the pro-life 
     organization ``Defensive Action'' and to, hopefully, get you 
     involved * * *.
       Five days after the killing of the abortionist in 
     Pensacola, David Gunn, I appeared on the Phil Donahue show to 
     declare that Gunn's killing was biblically justifiable.

  He goes on to say:

       I spend a considerable amount of time in conference with 
     pro-life leaders, pastors, scholars and others in seeking to 
     promote this vital biblical truth.

  Almost makes you sick to your stomach, Mr. President, to hear these 
words.

       I have also been on numerous radio talk shows and had 
     several local newspaper articles written on me and the 
     principles I am proclaiming. Defensive Action has also faxed 
     hundreds of press releases proclaiming the justice of Shelly 
     Shannon's defense of the unborn in Wichita, Kansas.

  He goes on to say, and of course this had to be someplace in a 
communication like this:

       If you can send a gift to help offset some of the expenses 
     we have and will incur in proclaiming this truth, we would 
     greatly appreciate it.

  There has to be a call for money.

       If you are interested in making a monthly contribution so 
     we can continue to promote these truths, we would also 
     greatly appreciate that. Either way, please pray for this 
     ministry and those incarcerated for using force * * *. Any 
     contributions should be made out to Defensive Action. Thank 
     you.

  Now there are other publications. I have only read one. Here is 
another one, part of a petition, and they are floating around the 
country.

       We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all 
     godly action necessary. . . including the use of force. We 
     proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life 
     of a born child is legitimate * * * We assert that--

  And it goes on to state the killing was justified and then, sadly, 
Mr. President, people have signed this indicating that they are a part 
of religious organizations.
  These tactics, as I have indicated, Mr. President, include the 
solicitation of signatures on petitions that expressly support and 
justify the use of murderous violence against those who oppose their 
views.
  The individuals and groups behind these letters and petitions are 
violent extremists and their actions ought to be condemned by this 
body. That is what the resolution I am going to introduce later today 
will do.
  What I find most odious and most shameful about these tactics is that 
they are often employed by groups claiming to be organized religions 
carrying out God's will.
  Poignantly, the most eloquent statement renouncing this came recently 
from Cardinal O'Connor of New York when he said: ``If someone has an 
urge to kill an abortionist''--now this is a Catholic Cardinal 
speaking--``If someone has an urge to kill an abortionist, let him kill 
me instead. That is as clearly as I can renounce such madness.''
  End of quote by Cardinal O'Connor. Cardinal O'Connor's statement, Mr. 
President, is what I think religion is all about and what it should be, 
not death to those with whom we disagree.
  All of us are familiar with the heated nature of the abortion debate. 
There is no doubt that this debate elicits some of the strongest 
emotions that we feel as human beings. However, Mr. President, it is 
imperative that the discussion be maintained on the playing field of 
reasonable debate and peaceable dialog. And there is no doubt that 
these inflammatory tactics drive this debate far beyond this forum.
  I do not believe that the U.S. Senate can remain silent and allow 
extremist forces to fan the flames of hatred and violence. I believe 
that the great 18th century Irish writer, Oliver Goldsmith, said it 
best in his only novel, ``The Vicar of Wakefield'': ``Silence gives 
consent.'' It is incumbent upon the U.S. Senate to make it unmistakably 
clear that such tactics are shameful and are to be condemned by all 
reasonable men and women. Without quick condemnation of these 
outrageous tactics, I believe that violence will continue.
  Mr. President, passionate and vigorous debates on abortion is 
healthy. These debates represent a participatory and functioning 
democracy at work. I personally do not always relish these debates. 
However, I think it is important that I not shy away from the debate 
here this day. I believe that my pro-life opinion is well known. And 
while others may disagree with the views that I hold, I hope they 
respect the fact that these are convictions that I have. However, I 
also believe just as deeply that this gives me the authority to stand 
and condemn the tactics now being employed by extremist elements of the 
pro-life movement.
  This debate regarding abortion will continue, as it should. However, 
it should be conducted and controlled by parties that have respect for 
the common dignity of all men and women, all mankind. We must continue 
listening and dialoging and debating. And we must be vigilant in 
condemning tactics--as I am today, and I ask my colleagues to join with 
me--tactics that steer us away from what I believe our country and our 
democracy is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair
  Mr. President, in just 2 weeks, my two kids--like millions of kids 
across this country--will enter their freshman and senior years of high 
school.
  I remember well, Mr. President, when I entered my senior year of high 
school. My concerns in those days were my family, my future, and my 
friends.
  My kids have those same concerns. But they also have others.
  When I went to school, I remember at the beginning of the school year 
seeing on car bumpers and on billboards the school safety campaign 
slogan: ``School's Open, Drive Carefully.''
  Well, at the beginning of the 1994-95 school year, that slogan seems 
almost quaint.
  This year's slogan is much more complicated and much more 
threatening. It should be something like: ``School's Open, walk 
carefully, look at your classmates carefully, pick your sneakers 
carefully, wear certain colors carefully, consider working in a postal 
facility or a San Francisco law firm carefully, ride on the Long Island 
Railroad carefully, play on certain California school yards--like 
Stockton's--carefully, consider eating in fast food restaurants 
carefully, and, most importantly, today, watch the Senate of the United 
States very carefully. Through a procedural sleight of hand, a minority 
of this body wants to eliminate the assault weapons ban in this bill.

  In 1967, when I entered my senior year of high school, one of the 
most popular songs of the day was Simon and Garfunkel's: ``Sounds of 
Silence.''
  For America's children in 1994, the ``Sounds of Silence'' has been 
replaced by the sounds of sirens. The sounds of ambulances filled with 
critically wounded kids, victims of drive-by shootings, racing to 
emergency wards, where our doctors and nurses train for combat duty.
  If you are a kid in America today, fear of guns is part of your life. 
It is no protection to be a Senator's son or a policewoman's daughter.
  You fear guns. You have seen guns. You have known violence. Kids your 
age--and younger--have been killed in school, outside of school, near 
school, at school dances, at schoolmates' parties. You name it; it has 
happened.
  In my hometown of Seattle, there is a group of mothers who have 
formed a group called MAVIA, Mothers Against Violence In America. Yes, 
even in America's most livable and most beautiful city, violence has 
reached an intolerable level.
  I have been a Seattle mother for 18 years. As you can imagine, we are 
not the sit-back and take-it type. Over those 18 years, I have fought 
for pre-school programs.
  I have baked cakes and conducted book sales so that kids in my 
community would have greater in-school and after-school resources.
  I have worked as a school board member and president and as a State 
legislator to provide greater opportunities for all of Washington's 
children.
  And in 1994, look at the progress we as a society have made: Our moms 
today are not organizing Mothers Clubs to provide scholarship money, 
expanded libraries or new computer equipment for our kids as they 
should be.
  Mothers in Seattle have organized for something much more basic: 
their children's personal safety from guns and violence.
  And we in this body, the world's greatest deliberative body, can help 
them: we can get the assault weapon ban enacted and this crime bill 
passed.
  I know there are things in the crime bill conference report with 
which all Senators can find fault. There are features of this bill that 
I do not favor.
  I have spoken on this floor many times of my dealing with gang youth 
throughout my State. These are kids who have no sense of belonging 
other than to the very gangs, which terrorize our communities.
  For those kids, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of prison.
  What kids today do not understand is why we, the adults in the U.S. 
Senate, do not act. In Tacoma, young girls told me they joined gangs 
because they feel adults do not care about them.
  If we do not act on this bill, there will be an outcry in this 
country the likes of which we have not heard since the time of the 
Vietnam war.

  When I was first in the State legislature, I was in the minority and 
I realized that I had to reach across the aisle to get any of my bills 
passed. And so I did.
  I applaud the other body for working together in a bipartisan fashion 
to put together this crime bill conference report. I particularly 
applaud those Members like Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, who put 
partisan concerns aside and worked to fashion a bill that the House 
could pass, that we could pass, and that the President could sign.
  Further, I express my admiration for the Mayors of the Nation's two 
largest cities, Mayor Giuliani and Mayor Riordan, for their commitment 
to make the streets of our country, in New York, in Los Angeles, and in 
Seattle and Spokane safe for our kids once again.
  And I ask the question, which my kids ask me: Is there no Mike Castle 
or Rudy Giuliani in the U.S. Senate?
  Is there not one or two or three of the minority members of this 
Chamber who will put people above partisanship and our children above 
their personal and political ambitions and help us finally vote out the 
assault weapon ban?
  We have been told over and over and over again by some minority 
members that this is not about guns. Senator Hatch has said almost 
verbatim: ``We're not touching the gun ban.''
  But the truth emerged in yesterday's debate. When the majority leader 
was questioning the minority as to why we needed a cloture vote--60 
votes--to pass this bill, the senior Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], 
in his usual blunt and forthright and truthful manner, said this is 
about guns.
  His reply to the majority leader question was: ``That is guns. That 
is guns. We want a chance to see who is violating the second amendment, 
but we are willing to do it whenever you are ready.''
  I say to my colleagues who say this is not about guns: Your argument 
is dead.
  I know there are brave and good people on the other side of the aisle 
in this Chamber. I know--and all of America knows--that there were 10 
brave Republican Members of this body who voted for the assault weapons 
ban. You know who you are. We know who you are.
  Please join us today to get something done to make our kids feel 
safe. To let our kids be kids again.
  Today too many kids look at us and say we adults do not care about 
them.
  As a Seattle mother, who knows from experience, nothing would be 
better than telling they are wrong. I want them to know we do care. Let 
us show them we care about them first and foremost.
  Many Members of this body are counting the days until we leave town. 
I, like many other parents in this Nation, am counting the days until 
my children start school again. They are fewer and fewer.
  I implore my colleagues to pass this bill with the assault weapons 
ban intact today, so that when that first day of school gets here, I 
can send my kids off knowing we have taken a step in making their world 
a safer place.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Washington yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I will.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I first want to thank the Senator from 
Washington for her kind comment concerning my statement yesterday.
  But what is so strange about the cloture process? We had 43 votes 
against the Feinstein amendment. From my point of view, I, and those of 
us who represent the people who believe this is the first step toward 
taking away all guns, indicated we would want to have some comments 
about that provision of this bill prior to final passage.
  We do not want to filibuster. We have already indicated we will enter 
into a time agreement to limit the amount of comments we make and have 
a cloture vote. That is we are ready to have a cloture vote. We are not 
asking for anyone's consent.
  What is the difference between that and the time I stood here on the 
floor and listened to Senator Metzenbaum for 2 days? We had to have the 
Vice President in the seat of the President of the Senate to table 
hundreds of amendments, one by one by one. We are not filibustering 
like that. As I said yesterday, all we want is a record vote to show 
who supports the second amendment. That is the only way we can get that 
vote, on a cloture motion.
  Why is it that somehow or other, when one of us does this on this 
side, it is some cause celebre for the other side? Why does the Senator 
not even mention the fact that we have indicated we will cut short the 
procedure to prove we are not filibustering? We have said we will agree 
to 1 hour on each side before the vote on the cloture motion. We know 
the cloture motion will be laid down the minute we start talking. That 
has been done before. We are not filibustering.
  If there is some way to--you want to approach it another way--we 
wanted to offer an amendment to delete the Feinstein amendment. The 
Senator from Maine, the distinguished majority leader, said, no, no, 
no. He came out and waved that around, every one waved that around for 
3 hours.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, point of order, is a question being 
asked?
  Mr. STEVENS. This is a question. This is a question. I oppose the 
Senator's entering into this.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Point of order, is a question being asked, Mr. 
President?
  Mr. STEVENS. I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am asking the Senator from Washington, why is this a 
cause celebre when we are merely exercising the right of every Senator 
of the United States?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the question from 
the Senator from Alaska because, again, I think it proves the point. I 
have no objection to the request for a cloture vote.
  What I have objected to is that I have heard over and over again that 
this, the 60 votes, has nothing to do with the guns, has nothing to do 
with the assault weapon ban. I think the Senator from Alaska has 
pointed out quite directly that there are Members who do object and 
they are going to require a cloture motion vote because of the assault 
weapon ban that is in the bill.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Just for a question. I thank the Chair.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have been here for quite a while now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized by the 
Chair. Mr. D'Amato.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I do not intend to 
take too much time but I do intend to point out something. I am tired 
of hearing what my objection is to passing the bill as it is, based 
upon other people's assumptions that it relates to assault weapons and 
other weapons. That is not the fact. That is absolutely not the case. I 
read editorials--I do not know where these editorial writers in the 
Daily News get their information, that I am opposed to this bill carte 
blanche.
  I am opposed to certain provisions, and I think we can improve this 
bill. I think, for example, some of the sentencing provisions, some of 
the provisions as relates to seeing to it that when people use guns, 
they go to jail and they are not just let back out on the street.
  The sexual predator provisions that were tightened up by the House as 
a result of Congresswoman Molinari, they assailed it, they chopped her 
up, they went after her because she said ``no'', and she was right to 
say ``no'', and she got some improvements in the House bill. And we 
still can do better.
  This bill started out as a crime bill. We had tough provisions. We 
had provisions that said if somebody used a gun in the commission of a 
crime, automatic, 10 years; shoot the gun, 20 years; kill someone, 
death penalty--dropped out in conference--out.
  Let me tell you what we have in here. We have a pig in a poke--pig in 
a poke. My mama said, ``Don't buy a pig in a poke.''
  I will tell you, some of the leadership on the other side want to get 
partisan. I think they are partisan. I think the President, all he 
wants to do is yell about guns and a hundred thousand mythical police--
mythical. There will never be 100,000 new police added as a result of 
this bill, and I have not seen one newspaper yet take it up and say, 
let us look at the facts, let us look at numbers. It does not work out 
that way. Impossible.
  If every community put up their 25 percent match, if every community 
did--and they will not and they cannot, and most mayors tell you they 
will not do it--you cannot get over 30,000. You are not going to get 
20,000, and I am not suggesting to you that 20,000 is not better than 
none. But do not deceive the people to get up with impunity and say, 
``There's going to be 100,000 more police.'' People want more police. 
They want to feel safe. It is just an extraordinary deviation from the 
truth. Some people are strangers to the truth. It is built into their 
character, in their nature. We see it, when you can get on TV and say 
100,000 more police. There is not a scintilla of truth. Where are the 
great editorial writers? Do they talk about that? No. No.
  This bill is loaded with pork and fat, and so let me say something 
right here. We have done some good things and we have gone into the 
social area, but we have been tough on crime. Violence against women, 
$1.8 billion. It has some social ramifications but important. It is a 
crime. When you batter women, we are going to go after you. Should be.
  But let me give you one example. I think it is the second biggest 
piece of lard in here--the Local Partnership Act. Nobody knows what it 
is. Is it based on statistics? No. $1.6 billion. My mama told me, 
``Alfonse, don't buy a pig in a poke.'' That is what we are doing. Here 
it is. Old piggy and he is at the trough--at the trough--billions of 
dollars worth of pork, billions, billions. And we used here this little 
piggy went to market, had a little thing about that.
  Man, this piggy is down there. He is eating, and that is your money, 
taxpayer money, and they have a right to know if it is really being 
spent to fight crime because they are willing to build prisons, they 
are willing to help local law enforcement, they are willing to go after 
the gangs, and they are willing to crack down on domestic violence.
  Boy, he is getting big, and let me tell you something, billions of 
dollars. We should not be talking about it; we should be limited to one 
amendment--one amendment. Because we try to trim, somehow it is wrong.
  Who can tell me about the Local Partnership Act and what it does? I 
can tell you a little bit about it--$1.6 billion that was stuck in in 
the House. It started as an economic stimulus package from the 
Congressman from Detroit, Congressman Conyers. They trimmed it down.
  Let me tell you, in awarding money--by the way, it is $1.6 billion. 
That is a lot of money. Let us use it to fight crime. Let us use it to 
build prisons. Let us use it to hire some of the police that we have 
not provided enough money for. Not to oink, oink and pig it up back in 
the local municipalities.
  Let me tell you something, this bill has no relationship whatsoever 
to crime. The formulas are based on population and not crime rates. It 
is based upon other statistics--local contributions, local taxes, so 
that, for example, the city of Dallas, which has a higher crime rate 
than that of Detroit, gets $1 for $13 that go to Detroit. Let me ask 
you, is that a crime-fighting package, LPA? Do we really want to say we 
should not even have amendments, should not be allowed to offer them 
here, somehow that is un-American?
  Do the editorial writers of the daily news really think that we 
should not even examine $1.6 billion--this is only one little aspect of 
the oink, oink. Maybe they think and maybe their mother never read them 
the rhyme, ``Little Piggy Goes to Market,'' you know, comes back with 
whatever. I say and the American people say, we ought to pack up this 
little piggy and send him right back home without that money, cut that 
$1.6 billion--cut it. It should not be there.
  That reminds me of another famous riddle, a little rhyme, and I will 
conclude with it. I think it makes the point. It goes like this:

     President Clinton had a bill, e-i-e-i-o,
     And in that bill was lots of pork, e-i-e-i-o.
     New pork here, old pork there, here a pork, there a pork, 
           everywhere a pork pork,
     The President's bill cost much too much,
     And it must be chopped.
     With a chop chop here and a chop chop there,
     Chop that pork off everywhere,
     Then we'll have a bill that's fair, e-i-e-i-o.

  [Applause.]
  Mr. President, I thank you and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we have been witness to lots of interesting things on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate, the last one, the display of the 
barnyard. It is a barnyard all right, but it is not the big pig we are 
looking at. It is other stuff and if it looks like it, feels like it 
and it smells like it, we know what it is.
  Mr. President, the Senate has a big decision before it today. We will 
permit politics and gridlock and pictures of Porky the Pig to delay 
enactment of the crime bill, or we are going to pass this legislation 
without wasting any more of our time, the public's time or the public's 
money.
  There is nothing more important to any one of us than the personal 
safety of our families, of our kids, of our wives, our husbands, our 
parents, our brothers, and our sisters. One does not have to have a 
crystal ball in front of them to sense the primary concern of the 
people in this country. I have walked the beat with policemen in New 
Jersey. I talked to people about their fear of crime in their stores 
and in their living rooms.
  Safety is the most basic responsibility of a Government to its 
citizens. The minority of Senators--the minority of Senators--in this 
body who are blocking this legislation ought to listen to the American 
people. They ought to meet with the people who are shot at, some 
families who lost members on the Long Island Railroad by a maniac with 
a gun, assault-type weapon, rapid-fire weapon.
  The Senator in the chair, the distinguished colleague from Arizona, 
and I all served in the military. I carried a carbine. I was supposed 
to kill the enemy, but I could not get as many shots off with my 
carbine as some of these guys can with one of these rapid-fire assault 
weapons.
  So they ought to listen to the families who lost kids in school where 
they should have been learning instead of dying. That is what they 
ought to do. Let them tell the pork stories to those kids, those 
nursery rhymes.
  Let us put the police on the street where they belong. They ought to 
hear the families who are afraid to let their children play outdoors or 
walk to school. They have to hear the families who are worried about 
their personal security, the elderly who triple lock their doors at 
night, look around, make sure there is nobody there, all kind of 
devices to alert somebody. Look what has happened with the burglar 
alarm business, security business in our country. We are turning into a 
fortress because we will not stop the criminals dead in their tracks.
  They ought to talk to people who worry about their security when they 
go to work, go out to shop or just go for a drive. They ought to listen 
to America's brave police officers who struggle to protect the public 
from criminals who are often better armed than they, the police, are.
  Mr. President, contrary to others who do the arithmetic differently, 
the bill says, and the bill will, put 100,000 new police in America's 
neighborhoods and on their streets.
  Yes, it is going to require some matching funds from the communities. 
That is the way it ought to be. The average cost of putting a patrol 
person out there is about $24,000, and if you divide it into the rough 
$8 billion, you get 100,000--you get more.
  In my State of New Jersey, it means 2,800 more officers walking the 
beat, making the streets safer, and making it more dangerous for the 
criminals. It will put felons behind bars where they belong with a 
``three strikes and you're stuck inside" provision, funding for new 
prisons, and incentives for States to stop letting prisoners out early.
  In my State of New Jersey and across the country, criminals serve on 
the average just half of their original sentence. As a matter of fact, 
it is in the low 40 percent. When a criminal gets a light sentence, it 
is often not the judge's fault. There is simply no room in our State 
prisons or our county prisons or our city jails for more inmates. This 
bill provides the funding we need to make sure that criminals can be 
locked away until they no longer pose a threat to the safety of our 
society.
  Mr. President, this bill, thank goodness, will ban 19 types of 
assault weapons--guns that were manufactured originally for the 
battlefields, not the neighborhood or not the street corners. It will 
limit gun possession by juveniles, making playgrounds and schools safer 
for America's children and freeing parents from the daily anxiety of 
whether their children will be able to come home from school alive and 
safe.
  It will enable law enforcement officials to alert the community when 
a sexual predator is in town so that parents can better protect their 
children from the type of tragedy that befell two families in New 
Jersey not too long ago--a 7-year-old child raped and murdered by a 
sexual predator with a reputation and a record for sexual offenses. Had 
the neighborhood known about this guy, just perhaps, just perhaps, 
Megan Kanka would be alive today. But we ought to make sure that the 
Megan Kankas of the future have an extra chance of surviving rather 
than permitting these sexual deviants to wander the neighborhoods.
  It will allow evidence of a defendant's prior sex offenses to be 
admitted in Federal trials so that repeat offenders will be punished 
with the stiff sentences they deserve.
  It includes a special section to protect women from sexual and 
domestic violence, including funding for emergency shelters so that 
women who are threatened by an abusive husband can escape with their 
children to a safe haven.
  Mr. President, last week I visited a coalition center for women who 
have been battered and sexually abused. Rape is among the least 
reported crimes. There is a reason for it--because if they report it, 
they are liable to pay for it with their lives because they cannot 
escape their environment. There are children often involved and there 
is no other place to go. We have to be able to help, Mr. President, by 
having that $1.6 billion available for the Violence Against Women Act.
  The bill contains prevention programs that will give children and 
young adults a safe alternative to the dangerous world of drugs and 
guns and crime.
  With all of these provisions to fight crime and to make life safer 
for American families, why, Mr. President, are some in this Chamber 
trying to kill this bill? A television comedian remarked last week that 
he could not understand how an anticrime bill could face defeat in the 
House of Representatives. This was before they passed it out. He asked 
the question, half in jest, but what a message: Did the criminals have 
such great lobbyists, he asked? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Mr. 
President, the answer is yes.
  I do not suggest for a moment that anybody in this body wants to 
defend criminals, but by the action that they are taking, by their 
unwillingness to put this bill into place and get more cops out there, 
get the prisons built, get those assault weapons off the street, they 
are aiding and abetting, again I say without intention, but that is the 
net result.
  Criminals do not have to come to town. They do not have to come to 
Washington because, deliberately or otherwise, they have one of the 
best funded, most powerful organizations in town fighting their cause 
for them, an organization that is willing to scuttle a comprehensive 
crime fighting package in order to pursue their own extremist, narrow, 
special-interest agenda, an organization that bought television time 
and ran distorted ads attacking the prevention provisions of the crime 
bill without even mentioning the real reason they oppose this 
comprehensive crime fighting package, an organization whose chief 
lobbyist was quoted a couple days ago saying they ``want to screw the 
bill up, and anything that screws the bill up,'' so they said, ``is 
fine with them.''
  Mr. President, how much longer will we allow the tainted money of the 
National Rifle Association to drown out the cries of the American gun 
victims and their families?
  When will Congress recognize the NRA lobbyists for what they are?
  [Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend, please. Galleries 
are precluded from responding to Senators' statements. Will the 
Sergeant at Arms please restore order in the gallery.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the admonition is right, even if they 
agree with me. We thank them.
  Mr. President, how much longer will we allow the National Rifle 
Association the privilege of determining what legislative action 
happens in this body?
  When will the Congress recognize the NRA lobbyists for what they 
are--a core of committed ideologues who shut their eyes and ears to the 
fact that 15,000 Americans were killed by firearms in 1992? The NRA 
repeatedly says, ``Guns don't kill people; people kill people.'' Of 
course, it needs a person to pull the trigger. But you cannot pull the 
trigger if you do not have a gun in your hand. So that is true, but it 
is also inaccurate and insulting.
  Sweden has people; great Britain has people; Japan has people. But in 
1990, Mr. President, handguns killed just 13 people in Sweden, 22 
people in Great Britain, and 87 people in Japan. I remind everybody the 
United States, in the United States we lost 10,500 people in 1990. And 
I will repeat it for the Record, just to make it clear. We lost 10,500 
of our citizens to guns in 1990; in Japan, 87 people--they are about 
two-thirds our size--22 people in Great Britain, and 13 people in 
Sweden. Why? They have people who are angry, people who are 
maladjusted. What they do not have is the gun to pull the trigger.
  The problem is not that we have too many people in America. We just 
have too darn many guns. You have not ever heard of a drive-by-stabbing 
or seen any headlines about aggrieved employees going back to their 
office where they were detected committing multiple murders with 
baseball bats. Or have you not heard stories about a child who gets a 
gun from the father's drawer and commits suicide in a desperate moment? 
That child is not a criminal, but that child took her life. We have 
seen it too many times in the State of New Jersey and across this 
country. The bottom line is, Mr. President, fewer guns mean fewer 
deaths.
  The NRA opposed the Brady bill. They even opposed a tax on the black 
talon, ammunition so diabolical that its manufacturer voluntarily took 
it off the market. But the NRA objected to that tax.
  Mr. President, anybody--anybody--can wait 5 days to get a gun permit. 
A sportsman can wait. A sportsman does not need a black talon to hit a 
target or kill a deer. And there is no sport that requires the use of 
an assault weapon. Let us be honest.
  Let us be honest. There may be a lot of sportsmen who belong to the 
NRA. But leadership of the NRA is sporting within innocent American 
lives. No one is trying to take away their guns or eliminate the second 
amendment. But we are trying to save lives and have more order in our 
society. We do not want to lose our kids to random shootings. We do not 
want our families assaulted by someone bent on criminal activity. We 
want to save lives. We want better controls in the sale and use of 
lethal weapons.
  Mr. President, 14 children are killed by gunfire each day in the 
United States; 14 American children whose lives might be saved by 
tougher gun laws.
  Every hour in America 360 guns roll off the assembly line. We are not 
trying to stop the line. But we are trying to prevent criminals from 
getting their hands on assault weapons. We are trying to protect the 
police who protect us. We are trying to hear the truth rather than the 
fabrications of the NRA.
  Seventy percent of the American people support an assault weapon ban. 
The least we ought to do is listen to 70 percent of the people and not 
be misguided by dishonest special interest threats.
  Mr. President, it is embarrassing in the U.S. Senate these days to 
disgrace itself with these obstructionist tactics. When the crime bill 
passed last year, 95 Senators voted to approve it. Now, suddenly my 
friends in the Republican Party have abandoned the bill. I hate to be 
cynical, but it seems to me that their concerns are more about the 
bill's effect on political fortunes than its effect on the safety of 
the American people.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to deny the 
American people a reasonable crime bill for partisan reasons.
  We are holding this bill hostage in Washington. Worse than that, we 
are holding families across this country hostage in their homes.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will pass the crime bill without 
further delay so that we get the cops on the streets, criminals in 
jail, and assault weapons and guns out of our neighborhoods.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I see my distinguished colleague from Utah on the floor, and also my 
friend, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, who has been patiently 
waiting for a long period of time as well.
  Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say that those of us who 
did not have the pleasure of witnessing the singing of the Senator from 
New York, although it was not illuminating, it was certainly 
entertaining. And perhaps a little entertainment might be in order at 
this seemingly more partisan and bitter period of this session of the 
Senate.
  I would urge my colleague from New York to perhaps take some singing 
lessons, however, before he entertains us again.

                          ____________________