[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. HATCH. Mr. President, we are coming down to the wire here today 
on this particular conference report. One way or the other, we are 
going to resolve it. I think we should. I think we have debated it 
enough.
  But I have been absolutely astounded to find out that last week the 
National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys--the National 
Association of Assistant United States Attorneys--who took the brave 
and unprecedented stand of opposing certain aspects of this crime bill 
are now being threatened by politicians in the Justice Department.
  (Mr. REID assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. This organization of the assistant United States 
attorneys, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 
represents the nearly 4,000 Federal prosecutors who have to prosecute 
Federal violent crimes. Nobody is on the front lines more than these 
4,000 prosecutors. They are Democrats, Republicans, independents, and 
are nonpolitical. They prosecute the Federal violent crimes, the 
Federal drug cases, and white-collar crime cases, among others. They 
have the guts, as an organization, to express their opposition to this 
conference report's mandatory minimum--I should say, to the original 
conference report's minimum repeal proposal and this conference 
mandatory minimum repeal proposal in this bill. They had the guts to 
stand up and speak out, as they should have, in helping us to know what 
to do to arrive at the appropriate posture legislatively on this bill.
  It has come to my attention that some of these prosecutors on the 
board of the association have been threatened with political reprisals. 
Worse yet, they have been reportedly threatened with criminal 
prosecution under 18 United States Code, Section 205, the Federal 
conflict of interest section. I believe that this is the correct 
section.
  How dare the political cronies of the Clinton administration abuse 
the prosecutorial powers of the Justice Department for political gain 
so they can get their way on this bill. How dare they subject their own 
prosecutors to this sort of blackmail. How dare they. I am standing 
here and I am sending a warning to this administration: I will be 
watching them regardless of what happens to this bill. If they take any 
action against these brave men and women who took a position on 
principle, not politics, and in the interest of justice, there is going 
to be a sorry day of reckoning for them if it takes every fiber of my 
being to get us there.
  When I heard that this morning, I was absolutely outraged. It shows 
the lengths to which they would go to get this--I want to be nice about 
it--so-called crime bill through both Houses of Congress. They have a 
tremendous majority in the House of Representatives, a tremendous 
majority in the Senate, and they are having some trouble getting their 
way. So they play this kind of political games and chicanery.
  There are a lot of us who are just plain sick of trying to stop this 
gravy-sucking hog called the Federal Government and its liberal friends 
from eating us alive. It is a Federal hog. And some think that the only 
issue in this bill happens to be the money issues. Those are important, 
but there are real issues, in addition to the soft language against 
crime throughout this bill.
  The amendments that we have called for would not only take the $5 
billion away from the gravy-sucking hog called the Federal Government 
in this instance. They are sucking the taxpayers dry while this 
Government gets fatter and fatter, and the people get poorer and 
poorer, and this country gets worse off. In addition to that, we want 
to tighten that present language, because it allows them to do almost 
anything they want to with the money as long as they call it 
prevention.
  I would like to say that this happens to do a lot with the pork in 
this bill. There are $11 billion in discretionary grants in this bill, 
and that has to do with pork as well. The Simpson amendment to expedite 
criminal alien deportation, it seems to me, is critical to this 
country. What are the people in California going to do if they just 
indict and convict these criminal aliens, and they get out, and because 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service is so doggone busy and 
oppressed and so underfunded, they cannot keep track of them, and they 
go right out on the street and commit more crimes? This amendment would 
solve that for California and Arizona and Texas and Florida--you name 
any of those States where they have this problem. It is one of the few 
chances to solve the immigration problem in this society, and amazingly 
the Democrats in the House took it out. We want to put it back in.
  What that means is that once a criminal alien is sentenced, the judge 
can immediately issue an order for deportation to throw that person out 
of this country the minute they have served their time, so they do not 
mess up our country anymore, so they cannot just go out and go into the 
streets and do the same thing they did before this happened. How could 
anybody be against that? Yet, my colleagues on the other side do not 
want that amendment. Why? Because they are going to lose on it. If they 
do not lose, they know darn well the American people are going to hold 
them responsible for it. I would think that our Congresspeople and 
Senators from these States would fight their guts out to have that 
amendment in this bill, which is the opportunity I would like to give 
them.
  Mandatory minimum penalties for use of a gun. How could anybody be 
against that, if you are really serious about doing something about gun 
crimes in our society? How about the mandatory minimum penalties for 
selling drugs to minors? How in the world can you be against that if we 
are serious about helping our kids and our society? I hear all this 
talk about prevention being the answer. Well, I agree. We have 266 
programs in existence right now on prevention--without this bill. Why 
can we not do something on mandatory minimum penalties for anybody who 
sells drugs to our kids? Why? Who would fight against that? Well, I 
have to tell you, the offer that the majority has sent back to us 
fights against these amendments.
  How about mandatory minimum penalties for employing minors to sell 
drugs? Who could be against that? But their offer back to us is only to 
have one vote on the pork and that is it. That does not cover all of 
the pork. That only covers $5 billion of it. It does not cover all of 
the discretionary grants in this bill and the poor language and the 
weak-on-crime language that is in this bill. We are trying to put some 
tough-on-crime language in this bill, but they do not want to vote on 
these matters. Why? Because we might win on them. There are enough 
Democrats over here who voted with us when the programs were in the 
Senate bill then before. In fact, we were instructed by the Senate--
Senator Biden and I--to keep them in the conference report. Somewhere 
along the way, although I fought very hard for them, they were taken 
out in the back rooms of the conference committee.
  Of course, I was not there in the back rooms. I was waiting for them 
to come out of the back room so I could see what we were going to have 
to eat.
  One program the conference dropped is mandatory minimums. One of our 
amendments is to restore this program. We want the tougher Senate 
mandatory minimum language in the final language.
  Furthermore, we are willing for first-time offenders, who really have 
not used guns, have not sold guns, and have not had a gun in their 
schools, and other types of injustices like that, not have mandatory 
minimum penalties apply to them. I was the author of that. I am a 
conservative, but I also see where there is some injustice for these 
first-time offenders.
  What about the Mafia drug lord whose action resulted in the death and 
killing of hundreds of thousands of our people? What about that Mafia 
drug lord? That Mafia drug lord, I might add, under the Democrat 
language of the conference report, because this may be his or her first 
conviction, is not subject to mandatory minimum penalties. Put back the 
mandatory minimum language so as to affect the Mafia drug lord.
  That is what these folks over here do not want to vote on. Why? 
Because maybe they can beat us on it, but I do not think they can, 
because they are going to lose. If they lose, this bill will become 
much tougher and, I think, would have much more support, certainly from 
our side.
  But the other aspect of that particular amendment is that the Federal 
prosecutors, these assistant U.S. attorneys from this National 
Association of United States Attorneys, had the guts to come forth 
during the House deliberations last weekend and make it clear that they 
support the Senate language rather than the House language or this 
conference report language.
  Now, there are those who are threatening them politically, 
threatening them with reprisals for having done that. That is the way 
this game has been played throughout. I hate to see it.
  I cannot understand why the left in this country wants this bill so 
badly that they are willing to even trample upon the rights of the 
Federal prosecutors in the process and do it politically. I am sure 
they did not want anybody to ever find out about this, but this 
outraged some of the prosecutors so badly they are willing to stand up 
and say, ``We are sick of it ourselves.''
  I have had more than one of them say, ``We think it is a lousy crime 
bill in its current form and it ought to be defeated.''
  We have an offer back from the Democrats, from the majority leader, 
that will allow one vote, one vote on the pork barrel aspects, as we 
have called them, the $5 billion, although, remember, there is a lot of 
other pork in this soft language. But they will allow one vote.
  The problem is that the rest of the pork will not be affected. It 
will not come out. We all know that. Then the remaining amendments, 
which would tighten this bill and make it a tough anticrime bill, at 
least more than it is, they are unwilling to face. I suspect they are 
unwilling to face it because we would win on most of them because we 
won on them before.
  Mr. President, I am really concerned. When it gets this tough, when 
prosecutors are tramped on and treated like this for political 
purposes, it ought to tell everybody in America what is happening here.
  I would like someone from the other side to tell me why these other 
amendments are so bad, why we should not tighten the prison language, 
why we should not have an amendment to deport criminal aliens? Why 
should we have to support them? Why should we have them committing 
crimes in our country? Why should we not, once they have served their 
time, get them out of our country? Do you know what that means to 
California? Do you know what that means to Arizona? Do you know what 
that means to Florida and each State in this Union, to be honest with 
you? Right now we do not have that law.
  Mandatory minimum for gun sentences--how can anybody be against it? 
But they are. How about a mandatory minimum for selling drugs to 
minors? How could anybody be against those? And mandatory minimum 
penalties for those who employ minors to sell drugs?
  I do not know how the point of order is going to go. I can say this: 
If the point of order is sustained, these will be the amendments that 
we would offer. These would be the only amendments, and we would 
deliver our side on this issue if the point of order is sustained. 
There will not be any other amendments. It will be the deal that we 
sent over there yesterday: One final cloture vote, which they know they 
will win, and final passage on the bill ultimately once the House acts 
on the concurrent resolution.
  But we will guarantee that these are the only amendments that we will 
call up, win or lose on, if we win on the point of order. If we lose, 
then it is over, and we understand that, and we will accept it. But we 
will not feel good about it.
  Let me just go through that one more time so my colleagues understand 
why I am so worked up this morning.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I listened to every single word the Senator said on 
television and here. I understand why he says he is worked up.
  Mr. HATCH. I am worked up about it.
  Mr. BIDEN. There is no need to repeat unless the Senator would like 
to repeat it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Coming from someone who never talks less than 2 hours, 
that is a very interesting comment.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague--he is such a generous man--for his 
pointing that out.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield without losing my right to the 
floor.
  First, let me just say this, that I personally enjoyed listening to 
my colleague because he is knowledgeable on this bill and I have 
respect for him. We worked hard together on many aspects of this bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me just say this: The discretionary spending in this 
bill on the prevention side happens to be $1 billion for the drug 
courts, $625 million for the model intensive grants, $245 million for 
the family and community endeavor schools, the faceless part of the 
school, $271 million for the community economic partnerships, which, of 
course, is going to allow community development corporations to spend 
this money to improve the communities. By the way, there is a lot of 
money being spent on that right now. In fact, a lot of these programs 
are very good programs.
  There is $91 million for the ounce-of-prevention grants, $50 million 
for the community-based justice grants, $24 million for community--not 
police recruitment, not the police department recruitment of their own 
police officers--but community efforts to recruit police. I wonder why 
the police department cannot do that. There is $35 million for 
delinquent and at-risk youth. Keep in mind there are 266 programs and 
more than $3 billion already being used for that. You have gang 
resistance education and training grants, the GREAT Program, $22.5 
million. That subtotal comes to $2,363,500,000.
  Now on the law enforcement side, here is where the discretionary 
grants are there. You have community policing, $6.6 billion, contained 
in very broad language, very broad language, indeed. You have prison 
grants, $710 million. Again, no real definitive direction on how to 
spend the money; it is encompassed in very broad language, which we 
would like to tighten up. It is pork as far as we are concerned if the 
language is not tightened up. But that will not be solved by the $5 
billion of pork. It will be solved by the extra amendments to tighten 
up the language.
  And there is a total of $7.3 billion just in the pork we could 
control by tightening up the language and making it go for the purpose 
all of us thought it was going for.
  There is $1.8 billion for alien incarceration, but, of course, no 
alien deportation is proffered. We are going to pay to keep them in our 
prisons, but we are not going to allow the judge to issue a deportation 
order.
  There is $150 million for Federal assistance to State courts.
  That comes to a total of $9.260 billion of just general grant money. 
And if you add that to the $2,363,500,000, you are talking about 
$11.623 billion in discretionary grants.
  Now, this, of course, is based on an analysis by the Senate Budget 
Committee. We would like to solve some of those problems. And we could 
cover, in some of these grants, an awful lot of that and make it go for 
better purposes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I inquire whether or not our Republican 
colleagues are ready to proceed to bring this matter to a conclusion in 
the following manner: I have proposed an agreement this morning, which 
my colleague from Utah has rejected. I propose, as soon as the 
distinguished Republican leader comes to the floor--which we were 
advised sometime ago would be momentarily--that I present the 
unanimous-consent request which is the language identical to that 
presented to me by the distinguished Republican leader, the change 
being in the amendment, as the Senator from Utah suggested. I 
understand that will be objected to.
  Following that, I understand Senator Domenici will be recognized to 
make the point of order. Following that, I would seek recognition to 
make the motion to waive the point of order and then the Senate, having 
debated this matter now for 4 days, I believe it appropriate to vote on 
it, to bring it to a conclusion one way or the other, vote on the point 
of order.
  If the point of order is sustained, why, then, of course, unless 
later reversed, the conference report would be defeated. If the point 
of order is not sustained, I would hope we could proceed to complete 
action on the bill.
  In either event--either that the point of order is sustained or we 
complete action on the bill--I would hope we could do it promptly. And 
it would be my intention then to have the Senate adjourn until after 
Labor Day.
  So my question is--I directed it originally to the Senator from Utah; 
I notice the distinguished Republican leader is present, so I would 
direct it to him--if we can proceed on this in the manner as suggested 
and bring this matter to a conclusion one way or the other?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for these purposes between the two 
leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yielding to whom?
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for a discussion between the two 
leaders, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I would like to work it out that the two leaders would have 
a discussion and then Senator Hatch could be recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the two leaders be 
recognized, with the floor coming back to me later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Is the Senator prepared for me to put the request?
  Might I ask, is this procedure acceptable, to put the request, it 
would be objected to, and Senator Domenici or some other Senator would 
be recognized to make the point of order, and I would be recognized to 
make the motion to waive?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is agreeable.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, as Senator Hatch has previously 
explained, the document I will now read is a proposed agreement, 
entitled ``Crime Consent Agreement,'' which was prepared by Senator 
Dole and presented to me yesterday. The terms of the agreement are 
unchanged and identical to the form in which it was presented to me; 
indeed, this is the original document itself.
  The document was accompanied by a list of 10 amendments, the first 4 
of which related to so-called spending in the bill. The change that is 
made with respect to our offer is to consolidate the first four 
amendments on the list we received into a single amendment regarding 
spending, and that would be the only amendment under this proposal 
which Senator Hatch has indicated is not acceptable.
  Therefore, Mr. President, understanding that there will be objection:

       I ask unanimous consent that the pending crime conference 
     be laid aside.
       I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed 
     to a Senate Concurrent Resolution that would correct the 
     enrollment of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3355, 
     and that it be considered under the following agreement: 
     (With all amendments limited to 1 hour, equally divided).

  The document then says, ``Read list of amendments,'' but I will 
simply send the amendment list to the desk, as I have described.

       I further ask unanimous consent that following the 
     disposition of the above mentioned amendments, if any 
     amendments are agreed to, the conference report be placed 
     back on the Calendar and it not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider that conference until the House has adopted the 
     Senate concurrent resolution, as amended, if amended.
       I further ask unanimous consent that if all the amendments 
     mentioned above are defeated or tabled, then the Senate 
     proceed to a vote on cloture on the conference report, at a 
     time to be determined by the majority leader, after 
     consultation with the Republican leader, with 2 hours equally 
     divided between the two leaders prior to the cloture vote, 
     and that if cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adoption of the conference report.
       Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if the House agrees 
     to the Senate concurrent resolution as amended, then it be in 
     order for the majority leader, after consultation with the 
     Republican leader, proceed to the crime conference report.

  I believe the word ``to'' should be inserted in there, so I insert 
the word ``to'' proceed.

       And there then be 2 hours for debate, to be followed by a 
     cloture vote on the conference report, and if cloture is 
     invoked, the Senate proceed to adoption of the conference 
     report, without any intervening action or debate.

  I send the list of amendments to the desk.
  The list of amendments follows:
  There being no objection, the list of amendments was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                           List of Amendments

       One amendment striking approximately $5 billion in ``social 
     spending'' from the conference report, as follows:
       Strike Local Partnership Act (Title III, Subtitle J).
       Strike Model Intensive Grants (Title III, Subtitle C).
       Strike:
       Local Crime Prevention Block Grants (Title III, Subtitle 
     B);
       Family and Community Endeavor Schools (Title III, Subtitle 
     D, section 30402);
       Community-Based Justice Grants (Title III, Subtitle Q);
       Urban Recreation (Title III, Subtitle O);
       At-Risk Youth (Title III, Subtitle G);
       Police Recruitment (Title III, Subtitle H).
       Strike:
       National Community Economic Partnership (Title III, 
     Subtitle K);
       Community Schools (Title III, Subtitle D. section 30401);
       Ounce of Prevention (Title III, Subtitle A);
       Family Unity Demonstration Project (Title III, Subtitle S, 
     chapter 2);
       Gang Resistance Education and Training (Title III, Subtitle 
     X);
       Drug Courts (Title V).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I was not on the floor earlier, but the Senator from Utah may have 
already made the distinction.
  We suggested 10 amendments. We get back one amendment and we are told 
this is something that ought to be acceptable. We had four amendments 
on spending. They lumped it together in one, and then the other six 
amendments that we think are fairly important, like expediting criminal 
alien deportation, mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, 
mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to minors, mandatory 
minimum penalties for employing minors to sell drugs, tightening up 
truth-in-sentencing, and making certain money is going to be spent for 
prisons.
  We believe that notwithstanding the fact that these amendments passed 
the Senate at an earlier time, over 30-some amendments, according to 
the Senator from Utah, were dropped in the conference. And further, 
with the reservation I assume that it is easier to vote to table this 
one big pork amendment than a lot of little pork amendments. That is 
probably a good strategy. Maybe that will be successful--a lot of big 
pork amendments.
  Because we had one which saves $1.62 billion, one of $235 million, 
one saves $724 million, one to save $2 billion. We were going to have 
four amendments and ask our colleagues to take a look at each of those. 
I assume the majority has concluded that if we just lump all these 
together and throw out all the amendments that nobody wants to vote 
against, then try to convince enough Republicans to join with Democrats 
to waive the point of order--the motion.
  So therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague. I do not intend to prolong this 
discussion. I merely want to say from our standpoint we regarded the 
offer as a very fair and reasonable one because we accepted the truly 
extraordinary procedure that was suggested with respect to offering 
amendments to the conference report. At least in the 6 years I have 
been majority leader I have no recollection of this procedure ever 
having been used. And, therefore, we felt that agreeing to this 
procedure was a major concession. It was something, I would say to my 
colleague, about which there is a great deal of reservation by many 
Members of the Senate because, as we all know, conference reports are 
not amendable under Senate rules and this would have done so.
  At the same time, the debate over the past several days has focused 
primarily on the spending issue and we felt that, further, by having a 
vote on the spending issue was a major concession.
  I can understand the view of my friend and colleague from their 
standpoint it was not acceptable. But we felt from our standpoint it 
was a major concession on our part, to make this proposal, and it now 
having been objected to, I suggest we proceed to the budget point of 
order and the waiver and then let us vote on the matter and dispose of 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor?
  Mr. MITCHELL. I believe we agreed the Senator from New Mexico would 
be recognized to make a point of order.
  Mr. HATCH. I thought I had the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has been yielded 
the floor by the Senator from Utah for making a point of order.
  Mr. HATCH. For that purpose, not losing my rights to the floor--but I 
formally protect it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to Budget Act section 306, I 
raise the point of order against the conference report on the basis 
that it contains matters within the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget 
Committee, and because it has not been considered by the Budget 
Committee it is subject to a point of order. I make such a point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act for the 
consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive, of course, is debatable. 
The Senator from Utah has the floor. Is the majority leader finished?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No, I just ask the Senator if he will yield for me to 
make a comment.
  Mr. HATCH. For that purpose only.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I say to my colleagues, we have debated this matter now 
for 4 days. I believe all Senators are fully aware of the issues 
involved. I hope we can vote as soon as possible. I propose we vote 
immediately and whatever the outcome, pursue the alternatives which I 
suggested, which I repeat again.
  If the point of order prevails and the motion to waive fails, in my 
view there will be no point in remaining in session and I will suggest 
that we adjourn until after Labor Day.
  If the point of order fails and the motion to waive prevails, I 
believe we should complete action on this bill as soon as possible 
thereafter, and then adjourn until after Labor Day.
  So I hope we can get on with this. The matter having been fully 
debated, let us bring it to a vote, let us decide it one way or the 
other at this time.
  I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, of course naturally we are going to bring 
this to conclusion today, one way or the other, at least as far as 
Senators going home.
  I pledge if we sustain this point of order and the other side of the 
aisle cooperates, and the President is willing, we will deliver a 
tougher crime bill to the American people. It will take a little while 
longer but Congress has plenty of time left before it adjourns this 
fall to send a tough crime bill to the President. We will increase 
spending on law enforcement, we will target prison spending on building 
and operating actual conventional prison space--that is if our 
amendments are adopted. So we would concentrate on actually building 
and operating actual conventional prison space, not alternative 
facilities to prisons or other soft-headed approaches to punishment 
which characterizes the Clinton administration's approach. We will drop 
the requirement that States must establish a liberal corrections 
policy, dictated by the Federal Government, before they can receive 
this money.
  We will distribute this money and the other funds in the bill fairly. 
We will do away with the administration's wide discretion to use the 
funding in this bill as a virtual political slush fund. We will cut 
more pork, hopefully all of it, from the bill, not just the amount we 
are talking about. We will add back tough provisions adopted in the 
Senate in November but dropped in a conference controlled by the 
liberals on the other side of the aisle in both Houses. We would add 
back into the bill tough anticrime provisions such as mandatory minimum 
penalties for gun crimes. We would add back into the bill tough 
mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to children, or employing 
them in drug crimes. We would add back the Dole-Hatch-Brown provision 
providing tough Federal penalties for violent juvenile gang offenses. 
We would add provisions like the Smith-Simpson Terrorist Alien Removal 
Act to address the threat of terrorism being imported to our streets. 
We would add provisions like the Simpson criminal alien deportation 
provision which expedites the removal of convicted aliens from our 
country after they do time, and similar other tough provisions.
  If the point of order is upheld, we will hear a series of 
counterproductive partisan blasts from the President and his allies, no 
doubt about it. I have not engaged in the inside-the-beltway exercise, 
but after the partisan rhetoric clears, if the President and his allies 
want a tough crime bill they will be able to get one from this side of 
the aisle.
  I was making my point a little earlier that we already have seven 
Federal departments sponsoring 266 programs which serve delinquent and 
at-risk youth: 31 of them in the Department of Education, 92 in the 
Department of Health and Human Services, 3 in the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 9 in the Department of the Interior, 117 in the 
Department of Justice, 8 in the Department of Labor, and 6 in the 
Department of Transportation--all for programs which serve delinquent 
and at-risk youth; 266 Federal programs. Now we want to add even more. 
Even though the source of this, of course, is the General Accounting 
Office of the United States of America, May 5, 1994--this is what they 
have said here.
  They have also said, just to make it abundantly clear, the General 
Accounting Office recently reported that there are already 7 Federal 
departments sponsoring, like I say, 266 prevention programs. The GAO 
found that there already exists ``a massive Federal effort on behalf of 
troubled youth.''
  They also say:

       Taken together, the scope and the number of multiagency 
     programs show that the Government is responsive to the needs 
     of these young people. It is apparent from the Federal 
     activities and response that the needs of delinquent youth 
     are being taken quite seriously.

  Yet, we have all kinds of money in this bill for that purpose.
  Now, in the Crime Control Fund, the trust fund proposed by the 
Democrats as a means of financing this conference report, I think it 
has been amply explained that is going to increase the deficit by $13 
billion if this bill passes in its current form. The crime control 
fund, as proposed in the Senate-passed bill, was deficit neutral. As 
proposed in the Republican alternative, deficit neutral--meaning it 
would not cost the taxpayers additional moneys. Nor would the deficit 
be increased because the crime control fund in the Senate bill provided 
for a lowering of the discretionary spending caps by an amount exactly 
equal to what is transferred into the crime fund.

  The proposed Democrat fund in this bill, in this conference report 
now, on the other hand, lowers the caps through 1998 but extends the 
crime fund through the year 2000. Almost half of the funding of this 
bill is concentrated in the last 2 years. So the American people, if 
this bill passes, if we lose on the point of order and it passes, which 
would be the case, they are being sold a bill of goods as to how much 
this is going to do against crime, because most of this funding comes 
in the last 2 years, 1999 and the year 2000.
  The reason that is so--well, there are a variety of reasons that is 
so. The discretionary caps run through 1998. Therefore, spending after 
that year without the control mechanism of the caps results in an 
increase in the deficit.
  So you are talking $13 billion in deficit spending under this bill if 
it passes today, or whenever.
  My colleagues on the other side may well argue that the crime bill is 
paid for by reductions in the Federal work force. However, the only 
real way to make sure those savings will be used for the crime bill is 
to limit the possibility that they cannot be spent elsewhere.
  The only way to do this is to lower the overall cap on discretionary 
spending by the amount that is set aside for this crime bill, and they 
are unwilling to do that. By the way, an awful lot of the spending will 
be just waste because if we lose on the point of order, we know we 
would lose on the lumped together amendments suggested by the majority 
leader and the Democrats. So that is why we are going to go ahead to a 
point of order.
  This is the wasteful spending that will be in the conference report, 
not in the Senate bill:
  Model Intensive Grant Program. They can do whatever they want to, 
$625.5 million. They can read the language of the bill and claim that 
it is more specific, but really it is so broad they can do just about 
anything with it;
  Local Partnership Act, $1.6 billion. They can do just about anything 
they want to with that;
  National community economic partnerships, $230 million. I might add, 
we are going to give money to community development corporations with 
no mention of fighting crime.
  I suppose, the argument will be, ``Well, if we can get the community 
development corporations to do some building, that will help with 
crime.'' I suspect if we spend $3 trillion this year and put that in 
this bill, we can argue that will help crime, to help against crime.
  Community based justice grants, $50 million;
  Police recruitment, not by police departments but by community 
organizations, to be established, I guess or brought together. One 
would think that the police are very capable of recruiting their 
additional officers, but we are going to put 24 million bucks of the 
taxpayers' money in there just for police recruitment purposes;
  There is $150 million for certain punishment for young offenders. My 
goodness, they knocked out the Moseley-Braun-Hatch amendment that would 
have treated youthful offenders who committed heinous crimes the same 
as adults. That would have done a lot more than spending $150 million 
to try and fund good old feel-good programs for the punishment of young 
offenders;
  There is $377 million for local crime prevention block grant programs 
--$377 million;
  There is $243 million for family and community endeavor schools, for 
that grant program. You notice how the word ``grant'' crops up all the 
time. That is money you can just go out there and spend. That is money 
that makes the administration look good. I suppose all administrations 
have been getting away with this, including Republican administrations, 
for years, and I am for stopping it now because this country is 
wallowing in debt.
  You have $36 million for assistance for delinquent and at-risk youth.
  You have $4.5 million for urban recreation and at-risk youth. That is 
after 266 programs for at-risk youth already in existence.
  I think what we have been trying to do by fighting as hard as we have 
over these last number of days is to stop this gravy-sucking hog that 
happens to be the voracious-eating Federal Government and the liberal 
community from just eating us alive in this country. That is what we 
are trying to do.
  Let me just say, we have been discussing this report for the past 
several days. During this debate, several of my colleagues have 
extolled the virtues of the social spending in this bill as vital to 
our communities, and they stress the need for these programs now.
  Well, Mr. President, I would like to point out to these Senators that 
programs like them are throughout our communities now and many of them 
have been around for quite a long while. These existing programs may 
have different names, they may be administered slightly differently 
from the way these additional, duplicable programs under this bill will 
be administered or they may even be granted to different organizations, 
but their purpose is the same as those contained in this conference 
report. In other words, under the guise we are going to have a tough 
crime bill, they have hidden all of this money to spend so they can 
spend and spend and spend and spend and spend some more.
  You wonder why I call it a gravy-sucking hog. That is what this bill 
is. And it is not just the $5 billion we have been talking about. There 
are so many different grants in here it is unbelievable.
  Mr. President, if we examine the social programs included in this 
conference report, we find that several of them overlap in their 
purpose and what they are meant to provide to our communities. Many of 
them, in fact, under the broad goal of crime prevention are actually 
youth development and services programs. Others are economic and 
community development programs. And while I agree with the broad goal 
of those programs where they have had hearings and they have had to 
justify themselves and we advanced them, I just do not think we should 
create new additional duplicative programs and pour billions of dollars 
into them when similar programs already exist. And we are not talking 
about one or two programs. We have hundreds of domestic assistance 
programs designed to promote youth, economic or community development.
  Now, I admit that not every one of these existing programs overlaps 
the new programs in this bill, but the vast majority do. This is a game 
that has been played here for 40 years, and I am trying to put an end 
to it. If we do not win on the point of order, I just have to say the 
American people have lost. I may have lost here, but the American 
people lost. So I am hoping we will sustain this point of order.
  Let us just look at one of the new social programs in the conference 
report before us, the National Community Economic Partnership Program. 
The purpose of that section of this report, of this conference report, 
is to increase private investment in distressed local communities and 
to build and expand the capacity of local institutions to better serve 
the economic needs of local residents through the provision of 
financial and technical assistance to--get this--economic development 
corporations. You do not see the word ``crime'' in there anywhere, 
although I am sure an argument can be made that anything that does good 
will help to alleviate crime.
  Therefore, my argument: Why do we not spend a trillion dollars if 
that is the way it is? This is just an authorization bill. What 
difference does it make?
  Mr. President, as I mentioned--I am going to just choose this one 
area, because there are a lot of them--as I have mentioned before, we 
already have numerous programs to foster economic and community 
development. While all of these do not involve community development 
corporations, they are still funneling money and resources into 
economic and community development projects across this country.
  Let me just cite a few examples and the obligation for fiscal year 
1994.
  Let me just talk about this Economic Development Corporation language 
of this bill and the moneys that we are going to duplicatively spend if 
this bill passes in its current form, if we do not win on the point of 
order.
  Now, I might add, all of these do not involve community development 
corporations. They are still similar, throwing money into economic 
development projects across this country.
  Let me give a few examples.
  The community facilities loans, $75 million; the intermediary 
relending program, $32.5 million; business and industrial loans, $249 
million. These are already existing programs, by the way, that we 
wonderful Members of Congress have done in our compassionate way. I 
want you to know that we are all very compassionate around here. We do 
these things for you people out there. We want you to benefit from 
these, and you do. So we are really great, are we not? By the way, we 
do not dig in our pockets any more than anybody else. We are digging 
into your pockets to pay for all of these.
  Let me just keep going through here for a few minutes.
  Community facilities loans, it is a mere $75 million. What is that in 
an almost $2 trillion economy per year?
  Intermediary relending programs, $32.5 million, again an 
inconsequential amount, is it not?
  Business and industrial loans, why, that is only $249 million. Do not 
worry about it. It does a lot of good. It does a lot of good. We are 
compassionate here.
  Rural development grants, that is only $32.35 million; economic 
development grants for public works and development facilities, $171.9 
million.
  I submit all these do do good. I submit it. We are doing this for 
you. Do not worry, our hearts are right. We are doing this all for you.
  Economic development, support for planning organizations, $26 
million. Every one of us here want to help our States. I am no 
exception. I do, too.
  Economic development technical assistance, $12.5 million; economic 
development public works impact program. I do not know how many million 
are in that. Economic development State and local, I do not know how 
many in that, but the State and local economic development planning is 
$4.5 million. That is inconsequential. We all know that.
  Special economic development and adjustment assistance program, that 
is $24.1 million--a small amount really in the overall consideration if 
you think about it. Community economic adjustment, growth management 
planning assistance, community development block grant--I might add, 
the other two I do not have the figures for but the community 
development block grant entitlement grants--I have to admit I support 
that--it is only $2.871 billion, and it does do a lot of good. In fact, 
all of these do. I would have a rough time taking any of them out, I 
have to tell you, because we want to do so much good for you.
  Cities programs, $54.36 million; community development block grants 
technical assistance, I do not know how much that is. I do not have the 
figure there. Community Development Block Grants States Program, that 
is only $1.233 billion.
  Remember, this is just one of the areas where we spend money for you 
wonderful people that we love in our States. And we do, we love you. 
And we are showing our compassion for you because we really do. And I 
have to say I do love the people in my State, and I want them to have 
everything that they can.
  All these programs help. I am not ridiculing them. They help. I may 
be ridiculing the total number. Now, that may be what I am doing here. 
For those who are wondering why I am talking about this, it may be that 
I am pointing out that we already have so many duplicative programs 
that why in the world do we need to spend billions of dollars in a 
crime bill most of which will not be paid for until 1999, the year 
2000. Why do we need to do that?
  There is good reason for these. Indian Community Development Block 
Grant Program, Indian loans, economic development. I am for those. 
Economic grants, economic development, Appalachian regional 
development, Community Development Revolving Loan Program, loans for 
small business. We all agree with that. Tennessee Valley region rural 
development community services block grant, the Community Development 
Work Study Program, Empowerment Zones Program, community services block 
grant, community services block grant. These are duplicative block 
grants by the way.
  Discretionary awards, I do not know what that means. I do not know if 
I am for that or not. Buildings and Facilities Program, schools and 
roads, grants to States schools and roads, grants to the counties. I do 
not have the monetary figure but you can figure they are in the 
millions and in some cases the billions.
  I am just talking about one area. These are the community services 
areas, just one little area. And yet--well, let us go a little further. 
Grants to counties, very low to moderate income housing loans, rural 
housing site loans, cooperative extension service, rural economic 
develop loans and grants, outdoor recreation, acquisition development 
and planning, Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program, minority 
business development centers, technical preservation services, disposal 
of Federal surplus real property for parks, recreation and historic 
monuments, business services--business services--technical assistance 
and training grants, Volunteers In Service To America, urban community 
service.
  I can go on and on. The point is that--and I am assuming that every 
one of those programs is good. We have had hearings on them. We have 
had the appropriate committees investigate them and decide that they 
are worthwhile for America, and these billions of dollars of 
duplicative programs are essential. I am willing to admit it.
  Then why are we adding billions of dollars more to this particular 
bill? Why are we doing that and at the same time cutting back on 
Senate-passed, overwhelmingly Senate-passed amendments that they just 
tossed out in conference that would really make a difference on crime?
  That is what really gets me. I could even spend more if I knew the 
crime bill really had all these tough provisions in it.
  To me that has been more important than the pork barrel parts, 
although those are important. But the reason I am talking about pork 
barrel right now is because if we lose on the point of order, we lose 
on getting the pork barrel out. My friends on the other side will say, 
``Well, you have had a chance to vote on it.'' We all know how the vote 
will turn out. Nobody does not.
  My purpose is to show that we already have programs designed to 
provide the same goals as those contained in this conference report--
hundreds, actually thousands of programs, thousands. And I am willing 
to admit that they are all well-intentioned and most all of them are 
good. Why do we have to, in a crime bill, hide billions of dollars 
more? And even if we took the full $5 billion out, what happens to all 
of the discretionary grant money if we do not allow the other 
amendments, which the majority leader's approach would not do. I 
suspect that will all be spent, if it is ever raised, if it is ever 
appropriated, it will all be spent on discretionary grants.
  Now, this is a how-to book, just one little book, on Federal domestic 
grants. Now, just look at this. That is just one of them. It is a how-
to book, how you can get these grants. It lists Federal grants which go 
to the States and to individuals.
  Look at that. We do a good job in the Federal Government. We let 
people know what we have here to give to them. I agree all these 
programs--frankly, I suppose they are all good. I know they are--I 
know, with every fiber in my being, they are all well-intentioned. I 
know that. My colleagues are very sincere in spending your money. There 
is no question about it.
  They want to do what is right for you, and they are even telling you 
how to get it. They even outlined it--if you would care to read all of 
this, that is. I admit there are a lot of people who care to read it. 
There are people who always have their hands out to the Federal 
Government. And you know, they are growing every day in this country, 
people with their hands out to the Federal Government, people who read 
this one single catalog of Federal domestic assistance every day.
  I would suggest that all of you should read it, too. Everybody in 
America ought to read this. And you will be able to get some of this 
money, too, maybe, and then we can even spend more of your money. We 
can hide it in other bills that are touted as being very, very 
important for us. And we can take away some more if you would let us. I 
mean, it is fun around here because we have almost $2 trillion--well, 
no, we have about $1.4 trillion a year to spend around here. There is 
nothing better than spending. We get credit at home for that, you know. 
That is why this crime bill has all the spending and all these 
discretionary grants which we do not even, we do not even try to knock 
out but we want to tighten the language so that they go for what has 
been represented here.
  I only waved this around because this is doggone ridiculous, I can 
hardly stand it. There are people who just love that book because that 
is the way to get more of your dollars.
  My purpose today is to show that we already have programs designed to 
provide the same goals as those contained in this conference report. We 
do not need to create new programs and pour money into them.
  Recent GAO reports show that we have over 150 job training programs--
154 to be exact, if I am correct, and I think am--and over 200 new 
programs. Mr. President, we do not need any more. We need to protect 
the taxpayers for a change. These programs already exist. And we still 
have the crime problem in this country. If the current programs--they 
are everywhere--are not working, if the current overspending of your 
tax dollars is not working, why put additional moneys in at a time when 
our country is going broke and when we cannot fix it with the 
additional money? Why do we not fix the problems we have now and not 
create a bigger maze of bureaucracy and programs which this bill tends 
to do--not ``tends'' to; does.
  (Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the purpose of this conference report is to 
fight crime, not to set up a new system of grants and programs similar 
to those we already have. The reason all 10 amendments are important, 
and the reason we have to reject the kind offer of the majority leader 
to lump all pork into one $5 billion amendment is because we know it 
would not pass. We would not take it up. We have four amendments so the 
people would have to stand up and vote. One amendment only has to be 
voted on once. It is only distasteful once to vote that amendment down. 
But if we split that into four amendments, we might have one in a few 
of them. We might have saved the taxpayers' dollars. That is one reason 
why we do not like this deal.
  Our liberal spending colleagues know that with one distasteful vote 
they can probably get away with that at home and live with it. But they 
cannot live with passing and removing some of this pork out of the bill 
through individual, single amendments. But even if that were the case, 
and it is not--but if it were the case--the more important part of our 
proposal of 10 amendments is to toughen this bill, to tighten the 
prison language so the money goes to build prisons instead of for 
everything related to prisons, which means more and more bureaucracy 
and more and more social workers. That is why Charlton Heston is saying 
two social workers for every cop on the street. He is right. He is 
absolutely right on that. We would tighten that language. We think we 
would win on that amendment.
  They do not want that amendment because the language lets them do as 
much as they want to and they can help their social worker friends.
  We also believe that it is worth the fight to go after these 
mandatory minimum sentences.
  On prison language, I will go back to that. We would tighten that 
language. We would eliminate the reverter clause. And we would 
reinforce the truth-in-sentencing provisions of this bill. That means 
that in order to get the money, the States would have to have people 
serve 85 percent of their sentences.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Not at this point. I would like to finish this one line of 
thought, although normally I would.
  We want to eliminate the correctional plan provided for in this bill. 
Again, I hate to tell you this, but the people who wrote this bill know 
that we here in the Federal Government do a lot better job of telling 
you what to do than you can do yourselves. We do. We are just better at 
it. So they in their own enlightened way have actually defined how you 
get this prison money. You meet their correctional standards. You let 
the Federal Government tell us how to run our State and local prison 
systems and, by gosh, you might have a chance of getting money. It is a 
joke. We want to tighten that language up.
  We want to ensure that the prison money will go to build brick-and-
mortar prison cells for hardened criminals because there is a revolving 
door. The States are so burdened right now with the lack of prison 
space that prisoners are walking in and out of prison almost at will. 
They go right out to their life of crime because they do not know what 
to do with them.
  We would have truth-in-sentencing for first-time offenders as well.
  We would add the Simpson amendment which would expedite criminal 
alien deportation, get rid of these illegal aliens and get them out of 
our country. Who could be against that? Why would the majority of us 
not vote on that? Why? We will never vote on that unless we sustain the 
point of order. It is that simple. We will never vote on it. We will 
not take up the prison language unless we sustain the point of order. 
We will never vote on it.
  The Gramm mandatory minimum penalties for the use of guns in crimes, 
the one thing that could do something about the proliferation of guns. 
We will never vote on that because the majority leader does not want a 
vote on it, because he knows we would win.
  He knows we would win on the criminal alien language. People are fed 
up to here.
  Where are my colleagues from the affected States who are awash in 
immigration? Where are they on this floor saying we need to vote on 
that criminal-alien deportation provision? They know we would win. They 
do not want to face that. They do not want to tighten this bill in 
these respect.
  Mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to minors--how could 
anybody not want to vote on that or automatically put it in the bill? 
How about it? I feel so strongly about that that I am almost to the 
point that I would go with the majority leader's approach if you put 
that provision in the bill. I would hate to lose all these other good 
things on tough crime. I would.
  What about mandatory minimum penalties for employing minors to sell 
drugs? Who would think anyone would be against putting that in the 
bill? But it will never have a chance if we do not sustain the point of 
order. None of these will. We will not get the pork out of the bill. Of 
course, we will not if we go with the majority leader's program. They 
would never do it. They would hold their noses and let those who are up 
for election this year vote, to the extent they can vote against it. 
But they would get the 51 votes. There is no question. They would keep 
the pork in the bill. We know it. They have to keep their side 
together. Their side spends more than we do.
  Mandatory minimum repeals--these assistant U.S. attorneys put their 
lives on the line to stand up, and then we find that this 
administration--at least attorneys in the Justice Department have--
threatened them with criminal indictments because they have spoken out 
on this bill.
  These are career attorneys. Assistant U.S. attorneys, the National 
Association of Assistant United States Attorneys comprises nearly 4,000 
prosecutors who have to prosecute Federal crimes and Federal violent 
crimes. They have been threatened with political reprisals. Worse yet, 
they have been reportedly threatened with criminal prosecution. How 
dare these people do this? We are never going to vote on these things 
if we do not sustain a point of order.
  I suggest to any who might think of voting to waive the Budget Act 
that the more important part--what I have been trying to do, even more 
important than getting the fat out of this bill, although that is 
extremely important, and I would like to do it, and we would have a 
better chance if the point of order is sustained--is all of these 
tough-on-crime provisions that they know we would pass. So they will 
not let them see the light of day because they are afraid they will 
pass.
  I want to say one last thing before I give up the floor. I notice 
that the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee is here. 
Let me say one last thing, because I want to let the American people 
know how cynical the approach is on this bill.
  The Clinton administration has promised the Nation that it will put 
100,000 new police officers on our streets to combat crime. Republicans 
believe that placing additional police on the street is a step in the 
right direction. So Republicans, in a bipartisan effort to assist the 
President in fulfilling his pledge, have been willing to provide the 
administration with the funding that is needed to do so. The hiring 
will be implemented by the crime bill's $8.85 billion cops-on-the-beat 
program. The $8.85 billion would be spread out over 6 fiscal years. Got 
that? The $8.85 billion will be spread out over 6 fiscal years.
  Unfortunately, it has become evident that the administration's plan 
on the cost estimate falls far short of the lofty goal of 100,000 
police officers. According to recent studies, if one were to include 
the cost of recruitment, salary, benefits, background checks and 
equipment, the actual cost of hiring a new police officer is 
approximately $71,000 in the first year alone. Accordingly, the total 
cost of fully funding 100,000 new State and local police officers is 
closer to $7 billion per year, not just $8.85 billion over 6 years. Or 
should I say the average of $1.47 billion a year that the conference 
report provides for.
  Yet, as recently as just this last week, the President was saying we 
are going to get you 100,000 new cops on the street. There is no way. 
It is cynical. With $8.85 billion spread over 6 years, at $1.47 billion 
a year, no way can you get 100,000 police on the street. With that 
particular level of funding, assuming all the funding is dedicated to 
police hiring, the crime bill only fully pays for the hiring of the 
retention of the 20,000 police. According to a card-carrying Democrat, 
John Diluilio, it is estimated that it takes 10 officers to put the 
equivalent of one officer on the beat around the clock.
  Accordingly, the crime bill's cops-on-the-beat program will put only 
an additional 20,000 around-the-clock officers on the street. That is 
according to this leading Democrat theorist at Brookings, who is 
constantly quoted when his expertise meets their needs, but is ignored 
in this particular case. He is not a Republican. He is a Democrat. The 
cops-on-the-beat program is intended to provide seed money for State 
and local law enforcement hiring. It only permits the Federal 
Government to pay up to 75 percent of an officer's salary. Under the 
administration's implementation strategy, the Federal share of the 
salary will be phased out over 3 years. Now get that. Under this bill, 
even if we spend the full $1.47 billion a year--and that might be 
higher--if you used every penny, it would provide up to 20,000 cops. 
Think about it. The Federal Government is only going to pay 75 percent 
of the officers' salaries.
  I just wonder about that. The States and localities--and get this--
are expected to pick up the full salary after 3 years and contribute 
other costs. It is 25 percent in the first, 50 percent in the second, 
and 75 percent in the third, and 100 percent in the fourth--including 
the new pensions, contributions and health insurance. I have had more 
than one local leader tell me: Gee, if we had the 25 percent, we would 
be doing it now. We would be spending the money on police now. But it 
is only 25 percent that they have to come up with in the first year, 
and the second year it is 50, the third year 75, and the fourth, 100 
percent.
  The cops-on-the-beat program no longer requires that grants be used 
to hire or rehire police officers and provides strong incentives for 
alternative uses of the money. So it is extremely cynical to say you 
can have 100,000 police. They have known this for the last 2 months--
really since November, as a matter of fact. It is a joke, and yet that 
is what they are selling the American people on this bill. This is a 
tragic bill because it could be so good if these 10 amendments were 
adopted. But they do not even have a chance unless the point of order 
is sustained.
  As much as 3 percent of the $8.8 billion--$260 million of this police 
money--can be spent on technical assistance grant studies and 
evaluation. Of the remaining funds, $1.2 billion can be expended in 
nonhiring grants. Furthermore, the remaining funds, which are supposed 
to be dedicated to hiring grants, could be used for paying overtime if 
the Attorney General concludes more police would be deployed by doing 
so.
  None of this is saying that the Federal Government should pick up the 
full tab for hiring 100,000 State and local police officers. Crime 
control is, and should remain, primarily a local function. The Federal 
Government should assist and not supplant the States in this effort. 
However, the Congress should be forthcoming in the facts surrounding 
this bill. We have not been. There has never been more disassembling on 
a bill than I have seen on this one. I will be happy to have it pointed 
out if we have not. This crime bill is not going to put 100,000 new 
police officers on the street. Senator Biden knows it, the President 
knows it, everybody knows it. However one chooses to analyze the crime 
bill's cops-on-the-beat program, the result is the same. It will only 
fund--if that--a small fraction of the President's promised 100,000 
police officers.
  Let me just make a comment, and I will be happy to yield the floor. 
Let me make this point one more time. The more important part of the 
10-amendment offering that we made, to me--as much as I hate the pork 
in this bill, as much as I do not see a justification for hundreds more 
duplicative programs, or should I say the dozens of programs in this 
bill that provide for duplicative programs--as much as I hate all that, 
as much as I hate to see the taxpayers ripped off one more time, and we 
all know the game here, and anybody that denies that just is not 
telling the truth in my book; as much as I hate that, the other nine 
amendments are, to me, more important, because they will make a 
difference for our kids, they will make a difference against crime, 
they will make a difference against violence in our society, and they 
will make a difference against criminal aliens all over our society. I 
am talking about criminal aliens. We have a lot of honest and decent 
aliens in our country. So this should not be construed as criticizing 
them, but just those criminal aliens that are convicted of crimes in 
our society.
  We have removed the gun battle from this. But let me say that 
something interesting happened to me. I was on C-SPAN, and I mentioned 
my father-in-law who died a couple years ago. I dearly loved him. He 
was as honest a person as I have ever met in my life. He was a 
hardworking farmer, a successful farmer on Utah and Idaho soil, which 
is very dry. A lot of the soil was used for dry farming. He really 
worked hard to earn what he owned.
  He came to me 1 day and said, ``Orrin, don't you let them take our 
guns away from us, because a little community like ours''--at that time 
it was around 500 people but I think it is now around 700 people--``the 
thing that keeps us free is they know we have guns and we are tough and 
we are not going to put up with it.'' He said that to me.
  It would keep corrupt people from coming in and taking over our 
communities, including criminal--and I want to emphasize the word 
``criminal''--motorcycle gangs. I was not particularly picking on the 
motorcyclists or the bikers. But I got a lot of calls on this from 
motorcyclists all over Utah and, frankly, all over the country who know 
I supported them through the years. And I stood up and voted against 
the DeConcini amendment, and I said I would do it again.
  They said, ``Are you talking about us?'' I want to make it very clear 
I am not talking about them.
  I promised this morning in a phone call to one of them I would say 
this on the floor. I am living up to it. I am glad I remembered it. I 
almost got through it without saying it. I would feel badly if I did 
not say it.
  I had my friend from Colorado indicate to me that bikers are not all 
bad. I know that he has a Harley-Davidson and enjoys it. So I would not 
want to offend him either.
  The fact is I want to make it clear that I will stand up for bikers. 
It is the criminal elements that I am talking about. I am talking about 
gangs in Utah. I am maybe a little upset about it because Utah has 
become such a popular place and we are getting gangs from elsewhere 
coming in there and shooting people. That is what we do not want.
  His point is true. I do not mean to make this a gunfight. That is 
over. His point was ``Do not take our guns away from us because that is 
what keeps us free.''
  I am glad I remembered that and made that particular point.
  I ask the indulgence of the Senator from Delaware. I kept my friend 
and colleague way too long, and I apologize to him.
  Mr. BIDEN. No problem.
  Mr. HATCH. I really had not intended to speak this long, although I 
have been encouraged to do so, I might add.
  Let me just ask if I could ask unanimous consent to allow our 
colleague from South Carolina, the senior Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Thurmond], who used to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
just 5 minutes to make his comments.
  I will yield the floor if he will.
  Mr. BIDEN. On the condition that I am recognized and then allow me to 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina before I say 
anything, that is fine by me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah made the unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the able chairman of the committee. I 
ask if it is agreeable to make it 7 minutes instead of 5 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Of course, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to state my support for the 
point of order that the current crime bill conference report is in 
violation of the Budget Act.
  The conference report now under consideration has fallen short as a 
true crime control plan. I supported the crime bill adopted by the 
Senate in November 1993. At that time it was my belief the Congress was 
moving to send a bill to the President that would address violent crime 
in a decisive manner.
  After the House and Senate met in conference, the price tag on the 
crime bill had ballooned over $10 billion. The Democrat-controlled 
conference tacked on a myriad of social programs which will cost the 
taxpayer billions of dollars and in my opinion do little to reduce 
violent crime.
  Upon consideration of the first conference report to the crime bill, 
the Republicans in the House and many Democrats joined together and 
said ``no'' to the excessive Federal spending in the bill. That 
conference report was defeated and the President was forced to 
negotiate with those House Members who stood up to the pork spending 
and other weakened law enforcement provisions in the bill.
  I congratulate my Republican colleagues in the House who were able to 
gain several important changes in the conference report. The White 
House and Democratic leadership were careful to negotiate only to the 
point where they would secure enough votes for passage. Once that was 
achieved, many remaining serious flaws with the conference report were 
not considered and pushed aside. Thus, the conference report was 
narrowly approved by the House and is now pending before this body.
  Mr. President, now we have an opportunity to further improve this 
bill. The action taken by the House of Representatives tells us that 
when necessary, President Clinton will negotiate on specific provisions 
within the bill. All we are asking is an opportunity to consider 
changes in the conference report to reflect a truly bipartisan crime 
bill worthy of the American people and our Nation's law enforcement.
  The Senate should take steps necessary to improve this bill. We can 
strengthen provisions to hold violent offenders accountable and we can 
cut billions in social spending from this bill without compromising our 
responsibility to address violent crime in this country. At this point, 
the Senate should uphold a point of order that the crime bill 
conference report violates the Budget Act. This is the only way that 
the crime bill can be improved. By upholding the point of order, 
modifications can be made and we can then pass a crime bill the 
American people deserve. We must cut the pork in this bill and restore 
the true crime control measure which were weakened in conference.
  I urge my colleagues to support the point of order and oppose any 
motion to waive the requirements of the Budget Act.
  Mr. President, on a related matter I want to make a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. THURMOND. Over the past few days during debate on the crime bill, 
on several occasions, a Senator on the other side of the aisle stated 
that a Republican Senator opposing this bill was being 
``disingenuous.''
  This disturbed me as we had been acting in good faith to address 
flaws in the crime bill. It struck me that his comments were in 
violation of Senate rule XIX. Senate rule XIX states, in part, that 
``No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of 
words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or 
motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.''
  Webster's dictionary defines ``disingenuous'' as lacking sincerity or 
insincere.
  My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, is it a violation of rule 
XIX for a Senator to state that another Senator is engaged in conduct 
on the Senate floor which is insincere or disingenuous?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As the Chair understands rule XIX, page 717, 
paragraph 2, the Senator is correct, and the Chair does agree with the 
Senator.
  Mr. THURMOND. Further, Mr. President, if that Senator is in violation 
of Senate rules, he may be called to order and may not proceed until 
the motion to allow that Senator to proceed is agreed to. Is that the 
case under the Senate rules?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that that is 
the remedy if it is done while the Senator in violation is speaking.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I do not believe that my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle would intentionally violate the Senate 
rules. Those of us seeking modifications to the crime bill are doing so 
in good faith. In all sincerity and with no disingenuous motive, we 
take seriously our duty to our constituents and the American people to 
legislate in a responsible manner.
  In a further show of good faith, I know of no Senator who plans to 
raise the point of order that the Senate rules were violated when our 
motives were tainted without credibility. However, I felt compelled to 
raise this issue because our views are strongly and sincerely held that 
this crime bill can be improved and it should be improved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], is 
recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the motion before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion before the Senate is the motion by 
the majority leader to waive the Budget Act.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. I am not going 
to move it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second at present.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand there are other Senators who 
wish to speak on the Republican side, and I think there are several on 
the Democratic side.
  But basically we are ready to vote.
  Mr. President, I would only make two points about what the Senator 
from Utah has said and what others have said here.
  First of all, if you have observed, this is an incredible moving 
target. Every time my Republican friends stand up and say they just 
want something done on the bill, on the conference report, to change 
it, knowing that conference reports are not amendable--the first time 
it started off, we were told by one of the leading Republicans that 
they had three amendments. A day later, it was six amendments. Then a 
day later, it got up to 13 amendments. Then it got down to 9 
amendments, broken into several parts; could have been as many as 15 
amendments, depending how you read it, never having copies of any of 
these amendments.
  And then, today, I find out that the issue is not pork. We have a new 
word in the lexicon here, that it is ``discretionary spending.''
  This is not about pork. If we took out every single penny that they 
call pork, none of which is pork, but even if we take out every single 
penny we are talking about--which we gave them a chance to do. They 
have been saying for 4 days, ``Let's vote, let's vote. We want to take 
out the pork,'' what they call ``pork.'' Fine, give them a vote on it. 
They do not want to do that.
  Now, I heard this morning that there are two new phrases that have 
crept into this last gasp on this debate to keep the crime bill from 
becoming law. One is that it is discretionary. Now discretionary is 
described as the money for the police, the money for the prisons. That 
is discretionary spending, according to them. So now they want to vote 
on discretionary spending, too.
  I hope everybody gets it clear: They are not for this bill in any 
incarnation, if I read correctly what they are saying.
  If you are against pork--and if they define everything in there that 
is not for police and not direct spending on police or prisons as pork, 
which I think they do; maybe some exception. I do not know what it is.
  And then you add another, I think he said, $13 billion or $14 billion 
in discretionary spending, that is police and prisons, and they want to 
deal with that as well. Then you have a problem here, whereas you can 
see the target moves here.
  Make it clear: This is not about pork. This is about the crime bill.
  Now, I will not suggest what motivates them. I will not suggest today 
that their motivation relates to assault weapons or their motivation 
relates to a political defeat or success. I will not assert a 
motivation.
  But I will assert a conclusion. They are against the bill, period. 
How can you be for this bill and say I am against, quote, what they 
call pork, what we call prevention?
  By the way, I might point out, every police agency is for this; every 
prosecutor is for this.
  And I might add, the other thing I heard, by the way, today was--you 
know, I get these incredible--they are really amazing; I do not know 
whether incredible violates the Senate rules--but fascinating. How 
about that--fascinating assertions that those wide eyed liberal big 
spenders are doing this.
  Usually, if my friends on the right want to talk about liberals, what 
has become sort of the mantra that they use? They say--and it turned 
out it was in the last Presidential debate about the ACLU. ``He is a 
card-carrying ACLU member.'' Is that not the usual epithet cast at 
someone?
  I am not a member, but I am proud of the ACLU. I think they are a 
first-rate organization.
  Let me point out, the ACLU is the only outfit that sent a letter that 
is against this bill. The ACLU is against this bill--card-carrying 
ACLU. I guess the usual phrase I hear from this side is 
``superliberals,'' ``whacko lefties.'' They are the kind of phrases I 
hear.
  The ACLU is against the bill.
  Now that is the letter I got--not only I, every Senator who receives 
ACLU mail--dated August 24, 1994. It says:

       We write on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union to 
     urge you to oppose the conference report on the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (H.R. 3355). While 
     the conference report contains some laudable measures, we are 
     against it.

  OK, now, the day before, who do I receive a letter from? Of the last 
two letters I received, one is from the ACLU against the bill. Now, 
remember, they are saying, ``Anybody for this bill is a big spending 
liberal. It is a giveaway program, and it is a product and tool of 
liberals.'' And the superliberal organization, according to my friend 
from Utah in the past, has been the ACLU.
  The ultimate insult would be, ``You are a card-carrying ACLU 
member.'' That is even more of an insult than saying, ``You are a 
motorcycle gang guy,'' although he clarified that, I guess.
  Now, who did I get a letter from the day before, dated August 23, 
1994? From the National District Attorneys Association. Now, they are 
the group that I heard mentioned repeatedly in the last 10 years, 
representing thousands and thousands of State and local prosecutors. 
These are not the attorneys general, these are not the people who are 
up there who deal with the Federal Government, these are back home, 
local prosecutors. And we were told last time that they were against 
the habeas corpus and this and that.
  And they also portrayed them as being conservative, tough law 
enforcement people. And they are. I am sure there are a few liberals 
who are prosecutors, but, by and large, this is the group they always 
hold up and say, ``The National District Attorneys Association is not 
for the ACLU''--they are clearly not for the ACLU--``is not for this 
habeas corpus, letting people out of jail, soft on crime thing.''
  Well, here is a second letter I got from the National District 
Attorneys Association.
  It is addressed to ``Dear Senator Biden,'' and is dated August 23, 
1994. I will put both of these in the Record, by the way.
  It says:

       As the peoples prosecutors we pledge to do all within our 
     power to lead our communities in their daily struggle against 
     crime. We ask you, the Congress, to give us the means and the 
     leadership to accomplish this task by passing the Crime Bill 
     without further delay and debate.

  Signed, Robert Deschamps, a real, live, tough prosecutor.
  I ask unanimous consent that both letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                                  August 24, 1994.
       Dear Senator: We write on behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union to urge you to oppose the Conference Report 
     on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     (H.R. 3355). While the Conference Report contains some 
     laudable measures such as those which make a credible 
     commitment to addressing the root causes of crime, other 
     features in the bill such as the broad expansion of the 
     Federal death penalty and the so called ``three strikes'' 
     provision render this bill a net loss for civil liberties.
       We are particularly disappointed by the intransigent stand 
     of some in the Senate against the Racial Justice Act. This 
     opposition resulted in that measure being removed from the 
     final Conference Report. We are, however, no less 
     disappointed that so many others have apparently acquiesced 
     in their support of a bill that contains the broadest 
     expansion of the federal death penalty in our nation's 
     history without an equally broad and strong commitment to 
     assuring that the punishment is applied without regard to 
     race.
       It is more important than ever to separate the federal role 
     from that of the states' role in crime control and 
     prevention. The fundamental role of Congress in this area 
     should be to insure and guarantee civil and constitutional 
     rights in the enforcement of the criminal laws and to provide 
     resources, support and, when necessary, leadership to the 
     states as they carry out their missions. It is equally 
     important that the Congress seek out and respect the limits 
     of the Constitution.
       In our view, the Conference Report utterly fails in these 
     two important respects. It greatly overreaches by 
     federalizing criminal activity at the state level to create 
     dozens of new federal crimes. Other aspects of the Conference 
     Report blatantly ignore the clear mandates of the 
     Constitution. Nowhere is this more apparent than the 
     provision in the bill which makes death a possible punishment 
     when no murder has occurred.
       We enclose for your information a detailed analysis of the 
     original Conference Report and later modifications. We 
     believe that a fair reading of these documents should lead 
     you to the conclusion that many of the provisions described 
     should not become the law of the land. Accordingly, we urge 
     you in the strongest possible terms, to oppose the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
           Sincerely,
     Ira Glasser,
       Executive Director.
     Laura Murphy Lee,
       Director, Washington Office.
                                  ____

                                                 National District


                                        Attorneys Association,

                                  Alexandria, VA, August 23, 1994.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Biden: The House of Representatives has 
     finished its long debate on the Crime Bill and passed the 
     much needed effort to provide the means to combat this 
     national tragedy. The National District Attorneys Association 
     calls upon the Senate to emulate their colleagues and swiftly 
     end the six year wait for an effective program to address 
     crime.
       As the prosecutors for every town, city and county across 
     the nation we have worked long and hard with you, the 
     Congress of the United States, to provide the American people 
     with an initiative that both fights crime and address the 
     causes of crime. Our support has been bipartisan, with the 
     needs of our nation foremost in our efforts. The Crime Bill 
     has come too far and too much is at stake to have the Senate 
     reject it at this juncture.
       As the peoples prosecutors we pledge to do all within our 
     power to lead our communities in their daily struggle against 
     crime. We ask you, the Congress, to give us the means and the 
     leadership to accomplish this task by passing the Crime Bill 
     without further delay or debate.
           Sincerely,
                                              Robert L. Deschamps,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BIDEN. The liberal ACLU against the bill; the prosecutors for the 
bill.
  Now, I hope we kind of stop this stuff.
  We debated all this at length before. We are ready to vote, and I 
would like to ask whether or not the Republicans are ready to vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I do not think they are right now. The minority leader is 
working on this matter. I do not know where we are, to be honest with 
you.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will yield the floor in about a minute or two here for 
everyone else to seek recognition.
  But let the record show, we have been told all along we are ready to 
vote on striking all the prevention money in the bill. We are ready.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Just for a question.
  Some of us have been on the floor all morning. We have been anxious 
to be a part of this debate. But since the debate has gone on for days 
and days and days, we have just been patient, assuming we were going to 
vote. Are we about to vote or is this going to go on and on and on?
  Mr. BIDEN. As my grandfather used to say, ``God willing, and the 
creek not rising,'' I think we are getting ready to vote.
  I yield the floor. Let us vote whenever we can.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Delaware yield for a 
question?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I just wanted to ask the Senator, we are prepared--is he 
saying we are prepared to vote at any time?
  Mr. BIDEN. Right now. Right this instant.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The second question is, has the Chair been going back 
and forth between that side of the aisle and this side in choosing 
speakers?
  Mr. BIDEN. The answer is ``yes'' thus far. There have been two 
Republican speakers and one Democratic.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me just say I am prepared to vote, too. I am 
probably the only Member of the U.S. Senate who has not spoken on this, 
but I will be more than happy to go home with that distinction if we 
can get a vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will say to my friend it would be the only issue he has 
not spoken on, on the floor. But he usually enlightens us all when he 
does, so I would like to hear him speak. But I am ready to vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is entirely right. But I am willing to 
forsake that for the sake of expediency, to get this bill passed. I say 
to the distinguished chairman, if and when I get a chance to speak on 
it, I will happily stop in the middle of a sentence if the Republicans 
are prepared to vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the gravest issue 
confronting America today is the fear of crime. Crime--and especially 
crime related to illegal drug use--is running rampant in this Nation, 
and the public expects Congress to do something to curb this increasing 
wave of lawlessness and violence that threatens the very fabric of our 
free society. Many are now asking how free are we, really, if we are 
afraid to go out into the streets at night?
  The crime bill coming out of the conference committee provides for 
100,000 additional policemen, nearly $10 billion more for new prison 
construction, military-style boot camps, expanded death penalty 
provisions, ``three strikes and you're out,'' effective DNA testing, 
special drug courts, and federalization of drive-by shootings and gang 
crimes, as well as a number of other excellent features.
  At the same time, it is not by any means a perfect bill, and there 
are objectionable provisions with which I strongly disagree. I have 
consistently opposed gun control, including the Brady bill. Serious 
efforts were made to remove the gun control provisions from both the 
Senate version and the conference report, but they failed.
  The gun control provisions in this conference report deal entirely 
with the future manufacture and sale of assault weapons. There are 19 
assault weapons that are banned. I have studied the assault weapons 
issue carefully, and have come to the conclusion that it is really 
primarily an issue of symbolism. It is not really a problem for two 
reasons:
  It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find in my State of 
Alabama a hunter, sportsman, or law-abiding homeowner who uses one of 
the 19 banned assault weapons. Their rights to hunt, engage in target 
practice, or protect their families and homes will not be, for all 
practical purposes, actually affected by the ban in this conference 
report.
  At the same time, very few crimes are committed with assault weapons, 
although it is true that the crimes which are committed using these 
weapons are more sensational and therefore gain more media attention.
  Therefore, if laws are enacted to ban such assault-style weapons, 
they will have little effect, since the few hardened criminals who do 
want to use these guns will find ways to obtain them.
  So, the issue is only a symbolic one. This conference report and the 
good things it does should not be jeopardized by something that affects 
only a very small number of people and is primarily symbolic.

  Congress has tried for 6 years to pass a major comprehensive crime-
fighting measure, but each time it has failed because of certain 
provisions, including those relating to gun control. In the meantime, 
the problems of crime and drugs have continued unabated. It is now time 
to act.
  The issue comes down to whether or not we are going to pass a crime 
bill now and start a truly comprehensive effort to stop the onslaught 
of crime and drugs. In my judgment, the good features of this bill far 
outweigh its objectionable provisions. As is the case with all omnibus 
legislation, we have to weigh the good against the bad and support the 
side that tilts toward doing something substantial for the public. In 
my opinion, the good outweighs the bad by at least 5 to 1 in this 
conference report.
  The budgetary point of order that has been raised applies to a trust 
fund into which moneys will flow from previously adopted budget cuts--
primarily from a reduced Federal work force. If the point of order is 
sustained, funds from this budget-cutting approach cannot be used to 
finance this $30 billion crime bill. If the trust fund method of 
financing is not used, the funding of this crime bill or any other 
crime bill we pass will likely have to come from increased taxes or 
deficit spending. I would much prefer a crime bill to be paid for 
through budget savings instead of increased taxes or further deficit 
spending.
  For three consecutive Congresses now--since 1989--a comprehensive 
crime bill has failed to be enacted into law for various reasons. Our 
failure has always been portrayed as a victory for one political party 
or particular group and a defeat for the other.
  But the truth is, our failure to enact a crime bill will be a victory 
for criminals and a defeat for law enforcement. Law enforcement 
officials across this country--those who put their lives on the line 
every day to protect us--overwhelmingly support this legislation.
  It is time to move forward by defeating this point of order. A vote 
to sustain the point of order is a vote to kill any chances for 
enacting anticrime legislation this year. It should be defeated.
  Mr. President, I would like to have a list of the semiautomatic 
weapons which are not banned to be printed in the Record following my 
remarks. In this bill 19 assault-style weapons are specifically banned. 
To a great extent, efforts have been made to show under some type of 
interpretation that the 600 weapons listed could not be included in any 
banned group. Included in this list of 600 weapons is practically every 
rifle or semiautomatic rifle that is used by sportsmen for hunting in 
the United States. I think this approach shows our citizens they will 
be able to keep their rifles.
  The bill applies only to future manufacturing and sale.
  In just glancing over this list, I see included a Winchester model 12 
pump shotgun. It is not banned and so on down through the list over 600 
similar hunting and defense weapons are not banned.
  I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record following 
my remarks.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

Excerpt From the Congressional Record of Aug. 21, 1994--Weapons Not To 
                               Be Banned

                              ``APPENDIX A

                     Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders

Browning BAR Mark II Safari Semi-Auto Rifle

Browning BAR Mark II Safari Magnum Rifle

Browning High-Power Rifle

Heckler & Koch Model 300 Rifle

Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine

Iver Johnson 50th Anniversary M-1 Carbine

Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine

Marlin Model 45 Carbine

Remington Nylon 66 Auto-Loading Rifle

Remington Model 7400 Auto Rifle

Remington Model 7400 Rifle

Remington Model 7400 Special Purpose Auto Rifle

Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock)

Ruger Mini Thirty Rifle

                    Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide

Browning Model 81 BLR Lever-Action Rifle

Browning Model 81 Long Action BLR

Browning Model 1886 Lever-Action Carbine

Browning Model 1886 High Grade Carbine

Cimarron 1860 Henry Replica

Cimarron 1866 Winchester Replicas

Cimarron 1873 Short Rifle

Cimarron 1873 Sporting Rifle

Cimarron 1873 30" Express Rifle

Dixie Engraved 1873 Rifle

E.M.F. 1866 Yellowboy Lever Actions

E.M.F. 1860 Henry Rifle

E.M.F. Model 73 Lever-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 336CS Lever-Action Carbine

Marlin Model 30AS Lever-Action Carbine

Marlin Model 444SS Lever-Action Sporter

Marlin Model 1894S Lever-Action Carbine

Marlin Model 1894CS Carbine

Marlin Model 1894CL Classic

Marlin Model 1895SS Lever-Action Rifle

Mitchell 1858 Henry Replica

Mitchell 1866 Winchester Replica

Mitchell 1873 Winchester Replica

Navy Arms Military Henry Rifle

Navy Arms Henry Trapper

Navy Arms Iron Frame Henry

Navy Arms Henry Carbine

Navy Arms 1866 Yellowboy Rifle

Navy Arms 1873 Winchester-Style Rifle

Navy Arms 1873 Sporting Rifle

Remington 7600 Slide Action

Remington Model 7600 Special Purpose Slide Action

Rossi M92 SRC Saddle-Ring Carbine

Rossi M92 SRS Short Carbine

Savage 99C Lever-Action Rifle

Uberti Henry Rifle

Uberti 1866 Sporting Rilfe

Uberti 1873 Sporting Rifle

Winchester Model 94 Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 94 Trapper Side Eject

Winchester Model 94 Big Bore Side Eject

Winchester Model 94 Ranger Side Eject Lever- Action Rifle

Winchester Model 94 Wrangler Side Eject

                     Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action

Alpine Bolt-Action Rifle

A-Square Caesar Bolt-Action Rifle

A-Square Hannibal Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1733D Mannlicher Rifle

Barret Model 90 Bolt-Action Rifle

Beeman/HW 60J Bolt-Action Rifle

Blaser R84 Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO 537 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO ZKB 527 Fox Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO ZKK 600, 601, 602 Bolt-Action Rifles

Browning A-Bolt Rifle

Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker

Browning A-Bolt Left Hand

Browning A-Bolt Short Action

Browning Euro-Bolt Rifle

Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion

Browning A-Bolt Micro Medallion

Century Centurion 14 Sporter

Century Enfield Sporter #4

Century Swedish Sporter #38

Century Mauser 98 Sporter

Cooper Model 38 Centerfire Sporter

Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle

Dakota 76 Classic Bolt-Action Rifle

Dakota 76 Short Action Rifles

Dakota 76 Safari Bolt-Action Rifle

Dakota 416 Rigby African

E.A.A./Sabatti Rover 870 Bolt-Action Rifle

Auguste Francotte Bolt-Action Rifles

Carl Gustaf 2000 Bolt-Action Rifle

Heym Magnum Express Series Rifle

Howa Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle

Howa Realtree Camo Rifle

Interarms Mark X Viscount Bolt-Action Rifle

Interarms Mini-Mark X Rifle

Interarms Mark X Whitworth Bolt-Action Rifle

Interarms Whitworth Express Rifle

Iver Johnson Model 5100A1 Long-Range Rifle

KDF K15 American Bolt-Action Rifle

Krico Model 600 Bolt-Action Rifle

Krico Model 700 Bolt-Action Rifles

Mauser Model 66 Bolt-Action Rifle

Mauser Model 99 Bolt-Action Rifle

McMillan Signature Classic Sporter

McMillan Signature Super Varminter

McMillan Signature Alaskan

McMillan Signature Titanium Mountain Rifle

McMillan Classic Stainless Sporter

McMillan Talon Safari Rifle

McMillan Talon Sporter Rifle

Midland 1500S Survivor Rifle

Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine

Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic African Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1000 Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1100M African Magnum

Parker-Hale Model 1100 Lightweight Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Clip Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1300C Scout Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 2100 Midland Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 2700 Lightweight Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 2800 Midland Rifle

Remington Model Seven Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington Model Seven Youth Rifle

Remington Model Seven Custom KS

Remington Model Seven Custom MS Rifle

Remington 700 ADL Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 700 BDL Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 700 BDL Varmint Special

Remington 700 BDL European Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 700 Varmint Synthetic Rifle

Remington 700 BDL SS Rifle

Remington 700 Stainless Synthetic Rifle

Remington 700 MTRSS Rifle

Remington 700 BDL Left Hand

Remington 700 Camo Synthetic Rifle

Remington 700 Safari

Remington 700 Mountain Rifle

Remington 700 Custom KS Mountain Rifle

Remington 700 Classic Rifle

Ruger M77 Mark II Rifle

Ruger M77 Mark II Magnum Rifle

Ruger M77RL Ultra Light

Ruger M77 Mark II All-Weather Stainless Rifle

Ruger M77 RSI International Carbine

Ruger M77 Mark II Express Rifle

Ruger M77VT Target Rifle

Sako Hunter Rifle

Sako Fiberclass Sporter

Sako Safari Grade Bolt Action

Sako Hunter Left-Hand Rifle

Sako Classic Bolt Action

Sako Hunter LS Rifle

Sako Deluxe Lightweight

Sako Super Deluxe Sporter

Sako Mannlicher-Style Carbine

Sako Varmint Heavy Barrel

Sako TRG-S Bolt-Action Rifle

Sauer 90 Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110G Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110CY Youth/Ladies Rifle

Savage 110WLE One of One Thousand Limited Edition Rifle

Savage 110GXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110F Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110FXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110GV Varmint Rifle

Savage 112FV Varmint Rifle

Savage Model 112FVS Varmint Rifle

Savage Model 112BV Heavy Barrel Varmint Rifle

Savage 116FSS Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage Model 116FSK Kodiak Rifle

Savage 110FP Police Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher Sporter Models SL, L, M, S, S/T

Steyr-Mannlicher Luxus Model L, M, S

Steyr-Mannlicher Model M Professional Rifle

Tikka Bolt-Action Rifle

Tikka Premium Grade Rifles

Tikka Varmint/Continental Rifle

Tikka Whitetail/Battue Rifle

Ultra Light Arms Model 20 Rifle

Ultra Light Arms Model 28, Model 40 Rifles

Voere VEC 91 Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle

Voere Model 2165 Bolt-Action Rifle

Voere Model 2155, 2150 Bolt-Action Rifles

Weatherby Mark V Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle

Weatherby Lasermark V Rifle

Weatherby Mark V Crown Custom Rifles

Weatherby Mark V Sporter Rifle

Weatherby Mark V Safari Grade Custom Rifles

Weatherby Weathermark Rifle

Weatherby Weathermark Alaskan Rifle

Weatherby Classicmark No. 1 Rifle

Weatherby Weatherguard Alaskan Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard VGX Deluxe Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard Classic Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard Classic No. 1 Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard Weatherguard Rifle

Wichita Classic Rifle

Wichita Varmint Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Sporter

Winchester Model 70 Sporter WinTuff

Winchester Model 70 SM Sporter

Winchester Model 70 Stainless Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Varmint

Winchester Model 70 Synthetic Heavy Varmint Rifle

Winchester Model 70 DBM Rifle

Winchester Model 70 DBM-S Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Featherweight

Winchester Model 70 Featherweight WinTuff

Winchester Model 70 Featherweight Classic

Winchester Model 70 Lightweight Rifle

Winchester Ranger Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Super Express Magnum

Winchester Model 70 Super Grade

Winchester Model 70 Custom Sharpshooter

Winchester Model 70 Custom Sporting Sharpshooter Rifle

                     Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot

Armsport 1866 Sharps Rifle, Carbine

Brown Model One Single Shot Rifle

Browning Model 1885 Single Shot Rifle

Dakota Single Shot Rifle

Desert Industries G-90 Single Shot Rifle

Harrington & Richardson Ultra Varmint Rifle

Model 1885 High Wall Rifle

Navy Arms Rolling Block Buffalo Rifle

Navy Arms #2 Creedmoor Rifle

Navy Arms Sharps Cavalry Carbine

Navy Arms Sharps Plains Rifle

New England Firearms Handi-Rifle

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 5 Pacific

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 1.5 Hunting Rifle

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 8 Union Hill Rifle

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 4.5 Target Rifle

Remington-Style Rolling Block Carbine

Ruger No. 1B Single Shot

Ruger No. 1A Light Sporter

Ruger No. 1H Tropical Rifle

Ruger No. 1S Medium Sporter

Ruger No. 1 RSI International

Ruger No. 1V Special Varminter

C. Sharps Arms New Model 1874 Old Reliable

C. Sharps Arms New Model 1875 Rifle

C. Sharps Arms 1875 Classic Sharps

C. Sharps Arms New Model 1875 Target & Long Range

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Long Range Express

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Montana Roughrider

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Military Carbine

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Business Rifle

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Military Rifle

Sharps 1874 Old Reliable

Thompson/Center Contender Carbine

Thompson/Center Stainless Contender Carbine

Thompson/Center Contender Carbine Survival System

Thompson/Center Contender Carbine Youth Model

Thompson/Center TCR '87 Single Shot Rifle

Uberti Rolling Block Baby Carbine

               Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles

Beretta Express SSO O/U Double Rifles

Beretta Model 455 SxS Express Rifle

Chapuis RGExpress Double Rifle

Auguste Francotte Sidelock Double Rifles

Auguste Francotte Boxlock Double Rifle

Heym Model 55B O/U Double Rifle

Heym Model 55FW O/U Combo Gun

Heym Model 88b Side-by-Side Double Rifle

Kodiak Mk. IV Double Rifle

Kreighoff Teck O/U Combination Gun

Kreighoff Trumpf Drilling

Merkel Over/Under Combination Guns

Merkel Drillings

Merkel Model 160 Side-by-Side Double Rifles

Merkel Over/Under Double Rifles

Savage 24F O/U Combination Gun

Savage 24F-12T Turkey Gun

Springfield Inc. M6 Scout Rifle/Shotgun

Tikka Model 412s Combination Gun

Tikka Model 412S Double Fire

A. Zoli Rifle-Shotgun O/U Combo

                      Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders

AMT Lightning 25/22 Rifle

AMT Lightning Small-Game Hunting Rifle II

AMT Magnum Hunter Auto Rifle

Anschutz 525 Deluxe Auto

Armscor Model 20P Auto Rifle

Browning Auto-22 Rifle

Browning Auto-22 Grade VI

Krico Model 260 Auto Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 64B Auto Rifle

Marlin Model 60 Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 60ss Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 70 HC Auto

Marlin Model 990l Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 70P Papoose

Marlin Model 922 Magnum Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 995 Self-Loading Rifle

Norinco Model 22 ATD Rifle

Remington Model 522 Viper Autoloading Rifle

Remington 552BDL Speedmaster Rifle

Ruger 10/22 Autoloading Carbine (w/o folding stock)

Survival Arms AR-7 Explorer Rifle

Texas Remington Revolving Carbine

Voere Model 2115 Auto Rifle

                  Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action

Browning BL-22 Lever-Action Rifle

Marlin 39TDS Carbine

Marlin Model 39AS Golden Lever-Action Rifle

Remington 572BDL Fieldmaster Pump Rifle

Norinco EM-321 Pump Rifle

Rossi Model 62 SA Pump Rifle

Rossi Model 62 SAC Carbine

Winchester Model 9422 Lever-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 9422 Magnum Lever-Action Rifle

              Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

Anschutz Achiever Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1416D/1516D Classic Rifles

Anschutz 1418D/1518D Mannlicher Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifles

Anschutz 1700 FWT Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1700D Graphite Custom Rifle

Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle

Armscor Model 14P Bolt-Action Rifle

Armscor Model 1500 Rifle

BRNO ZKM-452 Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO ZKM 452 Deluxe

Beeman/HW 60-J-ST Bolt-Action Rifle

Browning A-Bolt 22 Bolt-Action Rifle

Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion

Cabanas Phaser Rifle

Cabanas Master Bolt-Action Rifle

Cabanas Espronceda IV Bolt-Action Rifle

Cabanas Leyre Bolt-Action Rifle

Chipmunk Single Shot Rifle

Cooper Arms Model 36S Sporter Rifle

Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle

Krico Model 300 Bolt-Action Rifles

Lakefield Arms Mark II Bolt-Action Rifle

Lakefield Arms Mark I Bolt-Action Rifle

Magtech Model MT-22C Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 880 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 881 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 882 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 883 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 883SS Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 25MN Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 25N Bolt-Action Repeater

Marlin Model 15YN ``Little Buckaroo''

Mauser Model 107 Bolt-Action Rifle

Mauser Model 201 Bolt-Action Rifle

Navy Arms TU-KKW Training Rifle

Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine

Navy Arms TU-KKW Sniper Trainer

Norinco JW-27 Bolt-Action Rifle

Norinco JW-15 Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 541-T

Remington 40-XR Rimfire Custom sporter

Remington 541-T HB Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 581-S Sportsman Rifle

Ruger 77/22 Rimfire Bolt-Action Rifle

Ruger K77/22 Varmint Rifle

Ultra Light Arms Model 20 RF Bolt-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 52B Sporting Rifle

                Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire

Anschutz 64-MS Left Silhouette

Anschutz 1808D RT Super Match 54 Target

Anschutz 1827B Biathlon Rifle

Anschutz 1903D Match Rifle

Anschutz 1803D Intermediate Match

Anschutz 1911 Match Rifle

Anschutz 54.18MS REP Deluxe Silhouette Rifle

Anschutz 1913 Super Match Rifle

Anschutz 1907 Match Rifle

Anschutz 1910 Super Match II

Anschutz 54.18MS Silhouette Rifle

Anschutz Super Match 54 Target Model 2013

Anschutz Super Match 54 Target Model 2007

Beeman/Feinwerkbau 2600 Target Rifle

Cooper Arms Model TRP-1 ISU Standard Rifle

E.A.A./Weihrauch HW 60 Target Rifle

E.A.A./HW 660 Match Rifle

Finnish Lion Standard Target Rifle

Krico Model 360 S2 Biathlon Rifle

Krico Model 400 Match Rifle

Krico Model 360S Biathlon Rifle

Krico Model 500 Kricotronic Match Rifle

Krico Model 600 Sniper Rifle

Krico Model 600 Match Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 90B Target Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 91T Target Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 92S Silhouette Rifle

Marlin Model 2000 Target Rifle

Mauser Model 86-SR Specialty Rifle

McMillan M-86 Sniper Rifle

McMillan Combo M-87/M-88 50-Caliber Rifle

McMillan 300 Phoenix Long Range Rifle

McMillan M-89 Sniper Rifle

McMillan National Match Rifle

McMillan Long Range Rifle

Parker-Hale M-87 Target Rifle

Parker-Hale M-85 Sniper Rifle

Remington 40-XB Rangemaster Target Centerfire

Remington 40-XR KS Rimfire Position Rifle

Remington 40-XBBR KS

Remington 40-XC KS National Match Course Rifle

Sako TRG-21 Bolt-Action Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher Match SPG-UIT Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-I Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-III Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-IV Rifle

Tanner Standard UIT Rifle

Tanner 50 Meter Free Rifle

Tanner 300 Meter Free Rifle

Wichita Silhouette Rifle

                         Shotguns--Autoloaders

American Arms/Franchi Black Magic 48/AL

Benelli Super Black Eagle Shotgun

Benelli Super Black Eagle Slug Gun

Benelli M1 Super 90 Field Auto Shotgun

Benelli Montefeltro Super 90 20-Gauge Shotgun

Benelli Montefeltro Super 90 Shotgun

Benelli M1 Sporting Special Auto Shotgun

Benelli Black Eagle Competition Auto Shotgun

Beretta A-303 Auto Shotgun

Beretta 390 Field Auto Shotgun

Beretta 390 Super Trap, Super Skeet Shotguns

Beretta Vittoria Auto Shotgun

Beretta Model 1201F Auto Shotgun

Browning BSA 10 Auto Shotgun

Browning BSA 10 Stalker Auto Shotgun

Browning A-500R Auto Shotgun

Browning A-500G Auto Shotgun

Browning A-500G Sporting Clays

Browning Auto-5 Light 12 and 20

Browning Auto-5 Stalker

Browning Auto-5 Magnum 20

Browning Auto-5 Magnum 12

Churchill Turkey Automatic Shotgun

Cosmi Automatic Shotgun

Maverick Model 60 Auto Shotgun

Mossberg Model 5500 Shotgun

Mossberg Model 9200 Regal Semi-Auto Shotgun

Mossberg Model 9200 USST Auto Shotgun

Mossberg Model 9200 Camo Shotgun

Mossberg Model 6000 Auto Shotgun

Remington Model 1100 Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Premier Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Sporting Clays

Remington 11-87 Premier Skeet

Remington 11-87 Premier Trap

Remington 11-87 Special Purpose Magnum

Remington 11-87 SPS-T Camo Auto Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Special Purpose Deer Gun

Remington 11-87 SPS-BG-Camo Deer/Turkey Shotgun

Remington 11-87 SPS-Deer Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Special Purpose Synthetic Camo

Remington SP-10 Magnum-Camo Auto Shotgun

Remington SP-10 Magnum Auto Shotgun

Remington SP-10 Magnum Turkey Combo

Remington 1100 LT-20 Auto

Remington 1100 Special Field

Remington 1100 20-Gauge Deer Gun

Remington 1100 LT-20 Tournament Skeet

Winchester Model 1400 Semi-Auto Shotgun

                        Shotguns--Slide Actions

Browning Model 42 Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS Stalker Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS Pigeon Grade Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS pump Shotgun (Ladies and Youth Model)

Browning BPS Game Gun Turkey Special

Browning BPS Game Gun Deer Special

Ithaca Model 87 Supreme Pump Shotgun

Ithaca Model 87 Deerslayer Shotgun

Ithaca Deerslayer II Rifled Shotgun

Ithaca Model 87 Turkey Gun

Ithaca Model 87 Deluxe Pump Shotgun

Magtech Model 586-VR Pump Shotgun

Maverick Models 88, 91 Pump Shotguns

Mossberg Model 500 Sporting Pump

Mossberg Model 500 Camo Pump

Mossberg Model 500 Muzzleloader Combo

Mossberg Model 500 Trophy Slugster

Mossberg Turkey Model 500 Pump

Mossberg Model 500 Bantam Pump

Mossberg Field Grade Model 835 Pump Shotgun

Mossberg Model 835 Regal Ulti-Mag Pump

Remington 870 Wingmaster

Remington 870 Special Purpose Deer Gun

Remington 870 SPS-BG-Camo Deer/Turkey Shotgun

Remington 870 SPS-Deer Shotgun

Remington 870 Marine Magnum

Remington 870 TC Trap

Remington 870 Special Purpose Synthetic Camo

Remington 870 Wingmaster Small Gauges

Remington 870 Express Rifle Sighted Deer Gun

Remington 879 SPS Special Purpose Magnum

Remington 870 SPS-T Camo Pump Shotgun

Remington 870 Special Field

Remington 870 Express Turkey

Remington 870 High Grades

Remington 870 Express

Remington Model 870 Express Youth Gun

Winchester Model 12 Pump Shotgun

Winchester Model 42 High Grade Shotgun

Winchester Model 1300 Walnut Pump

Winchester Model 1300 Slug Hunter Deer Gun

Winchester Model 1300 Ranger Pump Gun Combo & Deer Gun

Winchester Model 1300 Turkey Gun

Winchester Model 1300 Ranger Pump Gun

                         Shotguns--Over/Unders

American Arms/Franchi Falconet 2000 O/U

American Arms Silver I O/U

American Arms Silver II Shotgun

American Arms Silver Skeet O/U

American Arms/Franchi Sporting 2000 O/U

American Arms Silver Sporting O/U

American Arms Silver Trap O/U

American Arms WS/OU 12, TS/OU 12 Shotguns

American Arms WT/OU 10 Shotgun

Armsport 2700 O/U Goose Gun

Armsport 2700 Series O/U

Armsport 2900 Tri-Barrel Shotgun

Baby Bretton Over/Under Shotgun

Beretta Model 686 Ultralight O/U

Beretta ASE 90 Competition O/U Shotgun

Beretta Over/Under Field Shotguns

Beretta Onyx Hunter Sport O/U Shotgun

Beretta Model SO5, SO6, SO9 Shotguns

Beretta Sporting Clay Shotguns

Beretta 687EL Sporting O/U

Beretta 682 Super Sporting O/U

Beretta Series 682 Competition Over/Unders

Browning Citori O/U Shotgun

Browning Superlight Citori Over/Under

Browning Lightning Sporting Clays

Browning Micro Citori Lightning

Browning Citori Plus Trap Combo

Browning Citori Plus Trap Gun

Browning Citori O/U Skeet Models

Browning Citori O/U Trap Models

Browning Special Sporting Clays

Browning Citori GTI Sporting Clays

Browning 325 Sporting Clays

Centurion Over/Under Shotgun

Chapuis Over/Under Shotgun

Connecticut Valley Classics Classic Sporter O/U

Connecticut Valley Classics Classic Field Waterfowler

Charles Daly Field Grade O/U

Charles Daly Lux Over/Under

E.A.A./Sabatti Sporting Clays Pro-Gold O/U

E.A.A/Sabatti Falcon-Mon Over/Under

Kassnar Grade I O/U Shotgun

Krieghoff K-80 Sporting Clays O/U

Krieghoff K-80 Skeet Shotgun

Krieghoff K-80 International Skeet

Krieghoff K-80 Four-Barrel Skeet Set

Krieghoff K-80/RT Shotguns

Krieghoff K-80 O/U Trap Shotgun

Laurona Silhouette 300 Sporting Clays

Laurona Silhouette 300 Trap

Laurona Super Model Over/Unders

Ljutic LM-6 Deluxe O/U Shotgun

Marocchi Conquista Over/Under Shotgun

Marocchi Avanza O/U Shotgun

Merkel Model 200E O/U Shotgun

Merkel Model 200E Skeet, Trap Over/Unders

Merkel Model 203E, 303E Over/Under Shotguns

Perazzi Mirage Special Sporting O/U

Perazzi Mirage Special Four-Gauge Skeet

Perazzi Sporting Classic O/U

Perazzi MX7 Over/Under Shotguns

Perazzi Mirage Special Skeet Over/Under

Perazzi MX8/MX8 Special Trap, Skeet

Perazzi MX8/20 Over/Under Shotgun

Perazzi MX9 Single Over/Under Shotguns

Perazzi MX12 Hunting Over/Under

Perazzi MX28, MX410 Game O/U Shotguns

Perazzi MX20 Hunting Over/Under

Piotti Boss Over/Under Shotgun

Remington Peerless Over/Under Shotgun

Ruger Red Label O/U Shotgun

Ruger Sporting Clays O/U Shotgun

San Marco 12-Ga. Wildflower Shotgun

San Marco Field Special O/U Shotgun

San Marco 10-Ga. O/U Shotgun

SKB Model 505 Deluxe Over/Under Shotgun

SKB Model 685 Over/Under Shotgun

SKB Model 885 Over/Under Trap, Skeet, Sporting Clays

Stoeger/IGA Condor I O/U Shotgun

Stoeger/IGA ERA 2000 Over/Under Shotgun

Techni-Mec Model 610 Over/Under

Tikka Model 412S Field Grade Over/Under

Weatherby Athena Grade IV O/U Shotguns

Weatherby Athena Grade V Classic Field O/U

Weatherby Orion O/U Shotguns

Weatherby II, III Classic Field O/Us

Weatherby Orion II Classic Sporting Clays O/U

Weatherby Orion II Sporting Clays O/U

Winchester Model 1001 O/U Shotgun

Winchester Model 1001 Sporting Clays O/U

Pietro Zanoletti Model 2000 Field O/U

                        Shotguns--Side by Sides

American Arms Brittany Shotgun

American Arms Gentry Double Shotgun

American Arms Derby Side-by-Side

American Arms Grulla #2 Double Shotgun

American Arms WS/SS 10

American Arms TS/SS 10 Double Shotgun

American Arms TS/SS 12 Side-by-Side

Arrieta Sidelock Double Shotguns

Armsport 1050 Series Double Shotguns

Arizaga Model 31 Double Shotgun

AYA Boxlock Shotguns

AYA Sidelock Double Shotguns

Beretta Model 452 Sidelock Shotgun

Beretta Side-by-Side Field Shotguns

Crucelegui Hermanos Model 150 Double

Chapuis Side-by-Side Shotgun

E.A.A./Sabatti Saba-Mon Double Shotgun

Charles Daly Model Dss Double

Ferlib Model F VII Double Shotgun

Auguste Francotte Boxlock Shotgun

Auguste Francotte Sidelock Shotgun

Garbi Model 100 Double

Garbi Model 101 Side-by-Side

Garbi Model 103A, B Side-by-Side

Garbi Model 200 Side-by-Side

Bill Hanus Birdgun Doubles

Hatfield Uplander Shotgun

Merkel Model 8, 47E Side-by-Side Shotguns

Merkel Model 47LSC Sporting Clays Double

Merkel Model 47S, 147S Side-by-Sides

Parker Reproductions Side-by-Side

Piotti King No. 1 Side-by-Side

Piotti Lunik Side-by-Side

Piotti King Extra Side-by-Side

Piotti Piuma Side-by-Side

Precision Sports Model 600 Series Doubles

Rizzini Boxlock Side-by-Side

Rizzini Sidelock Side-by-Side

Stoeger/IGA Uplander Side-by-Side Shotgun

Ugartechea 10-Ga. Magnum Shotgun

                 Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

Armsport Single Barrel Shotgun

Browning BT-99 Competition Trap Special

Browning BT-99 Plus Trap Gun

Browning BT-99 Plus Micro

Browning Recoilless Trap Shotgun

Browning Micro Recoilless Trap Shotgun

Desert Industries Big Twenty Shotgun

Harrington & Richardson Topper Model 098

Harrington & Richardson Topper Classic Youth Shotgun

Harrington & Richardson N.W.T.F. Turkey Mag

Harrington & Richardson Topper Deluxe Model 098

Krieghoff KS-5 Trap Gun

Krieghoff KS-5 Special

Krieghoff K-80 Single Barrel Trap Gun

Ljutic Mono Gun Single Barrel

Ljutic LTX Super Deluxe Mono Gun

Ljutic Recoilless Space Gun Shotgun

Marlin Model 55 Goose Gun Bolt Action

New England Firearms Turkey and Goose Gun

New England Firearms N.W.T.F. Shotgun

New England Firearms Tracker Slug Gun

New England Firearms Standard Pardner

New England Firearms Survival Gun

Perazzi TM1 Special Single Trap

Remington 90-T Super Single Shotgun

Snake Charmer II Shotgun

Stoeger/IGA Reuna Single Barrel Shotgun

Thompson/Center TCR '87 Hunter Shotgun.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici], is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to first talk about the point of 
order which I raised, which is before the Senate and the Senate is 
being asked to waive it. First let me say to everyone here, nobody 
should be under the impression that the minority party uses points of 
order to deny the majority party proposals, amendments, or bills that 
they desire. As a matter of fact, in the 103d Congress, points of order 
to block legislation have been used 33 times. Of that 33 times, 26 of 
those were used by the majority party to deny the minority party's 
bills, amendments, or the like. Only seven times has the minority used 
the point of order against the proposals that the majority desire. So I 
do not believe this is a partisan gimmick. This is an absolutely bona 
fide Budget Act point of order that I raise.
  Now let me tell you why. As simply as I can put it, when the bill 
left the Senate, Mr. President, many were congratulating themselves and 
saying to Senator Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
``You have come up with a good thing. You have generated a trust fund 
which can be used for things in the crime bill, and nothing else.''
  But let me tell you what else we said. We said the crime proposals 
are fully funded. We are going to pay for whatever is in the crime bill 
up to $22 billion. So we were going to pay in full $22 billion by 
taking it out of the rest of the budget of the United States, and the 
budgets for those 4 years were already in place. So you knew when you 
took this money out you were going to pay for crime, all $22 billion, 
and you were not going to affect the deficit.
  So the truth of the matter is, the bill that left here was 100 
percent financed, 100 percent deficit neutral.
  Senator Domenici urged Republicans not to raise a point of order when 
it was 100 percent financed, 100 percent certain to be budget neutral. 
It would add nothing to the deficit.
  Why is the Senator from New Mexico raising the point of order now? 
Here is how I see it: 57 percent of this crime bill's funding--57 
percent, not 100--is paid for and will not affect the deficit--57 
percent. That is not 100 percent. That means there is 43 percent 
somewhere else. Yes, Mr. President, 57 percent paid for and budget 
neutral; 43 percent not paid for and not budget neutral. So 43 percent 
of this bill, $13 billion, can indeed be added to the deficit and make 
the deficit worse.
  Frankly, as one who works on budgets--and we hear so many Senators 
talk about we have not defeated this terrible, terrible plague of 
deficit spending--and I agree--then why should we not raise a point of 
order when the new proposal crafted in a conference is only 57 percent 
paid for and deficit neutral and 43 percent in the years 1999 and 2000 
are not paid for. No matter how much you say there is a trust fund 
there, they are not paid for, nor are they budget neutral because we do 
not even have a budget for those years.
  As a matter of fact, I will say for the first time, as I studied this 
last night, it dawned on me that as this package was put together, 
there were OMB people there. There were budget people from the White 
House there, and they would like very much to take as much of that 
crime funding and move it over and take it out of the 4 years for which 
we have budgets, because if they can move it out of there, they do not 
have to pay for it within current budgets. So the more they could slip 
it out, the least impact they would have on other programs that they 
want, besides crime, and the more certain they were that they could 
live with it in the outyears because there is no budget, and you can 
add to the budget a new $6.5 billion a year, called trust fund for 
crime, just like you will add HUD next year for 1999 and 2000, whatever 
billions it is, a program when it comes to 1999 and 2000. This program 
will be $6.5 billion and we will have to fund it. And since there are 
no caps or no budget, it will increase those.
  Frankly, I am convinced of it. I made the point of order absolutely 
in good faith on straight budget grounds.
  Since the point of order lies every time the bill comes back, even 
though you waived it the first time, there is another good reason. 
Another good reason is plain and simple: That the Senate produced a 
bill which had about $3.6 billion over 5 years--3.6--for programs that 
were not directly law enforcement, State or Federal. Some call that 
pork, some call that prevention--3.6. That was a very big package. In 
fact, when this bill first came to the floor, none of that was in and 
it was kind of startling to everyone that the Senate put some 
prevention money in. But I guess we started a rage because as the 
conference occurs, the 3.6 turns into 7. It was sort of a bidding war.
  If you got some in the Senate, we get some in the House. If 
Republicans got some, Democrats get some. And from zero in the Senate 
when it reported its bill out, it went to 3.6 on the floor of the 
Senate and then to $7 billion. Let me be more specific on the 7, it is 
actually $6.9 billion, not 7. But I am using 7 versus 3.6 just to make 
the point that, indeed--indeed--that pot grew.
  That is enough to come to the floor and say, ``Look, I waived a point 
of order on a bill that I thought did this. Now it turns out it does 
that.''
  So, frankly, I think it was absolutely necessary that the Senate be 
advised and the public be advised that while there may be some very 
good things in this bill--and there are--clearly there are some things 
that are not so good and clearly there are some things that should not 
be in it. I cannot pick and choose because, obviously, the bill is 
here, it is done.
  But essentially, I believe we legitimately ought to vote on whether 
or not we should let this bill get through here with those kinds of 
budget impacts. Much talk about deficits, much talk about a new 
commission to help us solve the problems of leaving our children and 
grandchildren with a legacy and a burden on their shoulders that is 
actually taxation without representation, without any doubt.
  And so here we are in the name of a trust fund that we all like to 
say does not really count--well, whose dollars are in that trust fund 
in 1999 and 2000, I say to Senator Brown? They are dollars, they are 
tax dollars, and if they add to the deficit, it is $13 billion worth. 
That was not in the bill that left here.
  My second point, I made the one that nobody should be concerned that 
we abuse this process. Nobody should think the minority party uses this 
process, this point of order. The record is pretty clear for the 103d 
Congress that it was used over and over to deny proposals Republicans 
had. As a matter of fact, a number of them had over 50 votes, and the 
reason they fell is because you need 60 votes, just like there will 
have to be 60 votes to overrule the point of order which the Senator 
from New Mexico made. I know one that had 56 votes. I know one had 58 
votes and, nonetheless, lost; points of order raised from that side of 
the aisle, important pieces of legislation.
  My last point is, last night as I was watching a recap of late 
yesterday afternoon's agenda on the floor and I had heard so much about 
NRA, I had seen headlines around the country that this is what this was 
all about, and I heard Senator Stevens on the floor talk about the need 
for a cloture vote.
  He acknowledged that was for pro-gun people. When I saw that, it 
dawned on me that we had forgot to tell everybody something. Mr. 
President, the conference report, if we had none of this going, if we 
did not raise the point of order, we did not ask for some amendments in 
a new and different way, none of that, if we just had the conference 
report here and ready to go, those who want the vote on cloture because 
it contains guns had that right all along. Nothing new was added to 
anything.
  If Ted Stevens wanted to say, ``Well, you are going to have to muster 
enough to sustain a cloture,'' he would have said that whether we had 
all of this going that has been labeled, all being done because of the 
NRA, that would have been an issue before this body in any event, and I 
assume it will still be. Whether we win or lose this point of order, 
there will be that vote required, which was there all along.
  Now, my last point is that our leader, Senator Dole, offered a 
proposal that makes sense and that is fair, the proposal that was 
turned down when the majority leader offered him 1 amendment instead of 
10.
  Now, Mr. President, the Dole amendment, the Dole proposal for 10 
amendments, in this Senator's opinion, was very important to the 
American people and very important to this Senate.
  First, we conclude that we ought to have 10 amendments and one of 
them ought to get rid of all of the so-called pork--not Republican, not 
Democrat, not House, not Senate, all of it, $5 billion. Four amendments 
had to do with that.
  Six amendments had to do with putting back in the bill anticrime, 
antihabitual criminal, antiletting felons out on the street when they 
ought to be in prison amendment. This last one had to do with making 
sure, when you appropriate all this money for States to build prisons, 
you build prisons, because the way the bill is couched you do not have 
to use that money. You can use it for so-called alternatives.
  (Mr. KERREY assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, I think we would have had a better bill if we had 
voted those in, and I frankly believe they would have passed, which is 
the reason they probably were not offered by the majority leader in 
response to the offer of Bob Dole, the Republican leader, because I 
believe it is obvious those amendments would pass. Those are the kinds 
of amendments that the American people want in a crime bill.
  Lately, but for one television program where I watched the mayor of 
Kansas City, I understand a Democrat mayor--and I understand, if there 
is a philosophical leaning, he is a liberal Democrat mayor--I saw him 
on television saying he did not want this package because--I will 
paraphrase--to the cops on the beat it is a hoax, said he. But then the 
impression is left that all the policemen must want this.
  Well, I do not very often read constituent letters in the Chamber. It 
is becoming a very much used tool by Senators. But I would like to just 
share one. I would like to share one that I got on August 24 from a 
sergeant in the police force:

       As a sergeant with the Albuquerque Police Department, I 
     would like to voice my opposition to the crime bill. I am 
     getting tired of President Clinton and other social engineers 
     of Congress exploiting my profession to promote their social 
     agenda.
       During roll call this morning, I listened as a group of 
     officers discussed the crime bill that passed in the House of 
     Representatives. Every officer vehemently disapproved of the 
     bill because of the gun control provision.

  But also:

       Wait, America is being told that law enforcement community 
     supports this bill. True, the Fraternal Order of Police and 
     other police associations are endorsing this crime bill. 
     However, this is nothing more than [those who organize these 
     groups] attempting to increase their membership [because they 
     think they are going to get more policemen on the beat.]

  Now, this point I call to your attention very, very specifically.

       In New Mexico,

  Says this sergeant,

     the prison population, due to limited space, is about 3,500. 
     The number of criminals on probation is roughly 14,500. Thus, 
     the ``overcrowding'' of our prisons has not prevented 
     Government from ``overloading'' criminals on our streets. We 
     will never see crime control, until we have criminal control. 
     That means more police, prosecutors, and prisons.

  And he goes on indicating the other things he does not support.
  Now, Mr. President, there are some saying that Senator Dole in his 
proposal which was turned down, which brought us to this point of 
order, that all of this has been done to kill the crime bill. I do not 
think there is a chance in the world that this crime bill would have 
been killed if we would have voted up or down on some or all of the 
proposals that Senator Dole made.
  It seems that the Senate was asked to sit by and watch conference 
report No. 1, which failed the House, get changed and amended because 
certain House people wanted to change it and they changed it.
  Incidentally, the occupant of the chair will be interested in this. 
It was heralded that they cut $3 billion out of the bill, 10 percent, 
from 33 to 30. Guess what? The $3 billion they cut was not covered by 
the trust fund. There was not enough money in the trust fund for that. 
So they were just authorized. So that was another nice gimmick. We have 
cut $3 billion, but we did not have the money to pay for that $3 
billion anyway. I did not have a chance to say that before, but that 
happens to be the case. I remember that just looking at it. It comes to 
me as I talk here. But that is true.
  So in this Senator's opinion, since we could not, could not have a 
right, we could not get these amendments voted on, I think the next 
best thing is to adopt a point of order, not waive it. That will 
essentially put us in the position where one of two things will happen. 
A series of amendments will occur or serious negotiations will occur 
about which we will probably get back to something like letting us vote 
on the amendments in behalf of the American people that Senator Dole 
has tendered to the majority leader.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter from the sergeant on our police 
force, Darren P. White, be made a part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  Darren P. White,


                                              Albuquerque, NM,

                                                  August 23, 1994.
       Dear Senator Domenici: As a Sergeant with the Albuquerque 
     Police Department, I would like to voice my opposition to the 
     crime bill. I am getting very tired of President Clinton and 
     the other social engineers of Congress exploiting my 
     profession to promote their social agenda.
       During role call this morning, I listened as a group of 
     officers discussed the crime bill that passed in the House of 
     Representatives. Every officer vehemently disapproved of the 
     bill because of the gun control provision. Wait, America is 
     being told that the law enforcement community supports this 
     bill. True, the Fraternal Order of Police and other police 
     associations are endorsing this crime bill, however, this is 
     nothing more than organized labor selfishly attempting to 
     increase their membership roles with the so-called 100,000 
     new officers it promises.
       In New Mexico, the prison population, due to limited space, 
     is about 3500. The number of criminals on probation is 
     roughly 14,500. Thus, the ``overcrowding'' of our prisons has 
     not prevented government from ``overloading'' criminals on 
     our streets. We will never see crime control, until we have 
     criminal control. That means more police, prosecutors, and 
     prisons. Not basketball leagues or teaching convicted drug 
     dealers art and crafts. The only craft a drug dealer should 
     be taught, is art of making license plates.
       I urge you to resist this bill if it is laced with programs 
     that do nothing to fight crime.
       Thank you.
                                                           Darren.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, lastly, Mr. President, there has been so much said 
about the cops on the beat and the community policemen that I am sure 
every Senator hears a new story every day about what it will do and 
what it will not do. I got so frustrated about that, I just said to my 
best people who know how to take things out of a bill, just tell me 
once and for all, and put it in writing, what this cops on the beat 
really is all about.
  So I have, I think, an authentic, very good analysis. I am going to 
put it in the Record. I am not sure anybody will read it other than 
those who read Congressional Records. But let me just suggest that 
there was an interesting article on the front page of the New York 
Times day before yesterday about the mayor of New York and new cops. 
And it essentially says Mayor Giuliani is not going to open his 
training center for new policemen now because he is waiting, to save 
money.
  You understand what that means. That means he is saying I was going 
to hire new cops anyway, but since the Federal Government may send us 
some money, I am going to hold up.
  There is nothing in this bill that prohibits cities across this land, 
and they will, from hiring new policemen anyway because attrition 
yields new ones and most forces add new ones anyway. Nothing in this 
except some platitudes about not supplanting, but you cannot even 
interpret it, so I do not believe we have any idea whether we are 
really adding 10,000 brandnew policemen that would not otherwise be 
there or not.
  But I can tell you for sure. There is nothing like 100,000 possible; 
nothing like 100,000 possible. Somewhere between 18,000 and 25,000 is 
probable. But I can tell you that there are a number of scenarios which 
even say you will not get that many.
  Second, it sounds too many, that the Federal Government is going to 
pay for policemen--100,000 new policemen in this crime bill. But 
everybody should understand that cities pay over a 3- to 5-year period 
as much as the Government for policemen, or more. So it is kind of fair 
to say that the cities and the Federal Government are going to get some 
new policemen if it works out that way. But certainly, we are not 
paying for them because $15,000 a year will not pay for a policeman.
  Clearly, with so many other things in this bill about what you use 
this money for, I just would like everybody to have a chance to look at 
the analysis that I think led to the mayor of Kansas City saying, ``I 
do not want to have anything to do with it.'' Incidentally, his closing 
remarks were, ``I think I will be the mayor for 4 more years. I do not 
want to be here in the fourth year after the 3 years when we hire 
policemen and then I have to lay them all off because I am not going to 
have the money to pay for them because the program terminates and 
expects us to keep them on. Frankly, I do not want to be in that 
position with my police department.''


                            cops on the beat

  The Cops on the Beat Program of the crime bill is advertised as 
providing 100,000 new police officers. But if you look at the purposes 
for which the funds can be used, and the suballocations for purposes 
not directly related to hiring additional policemen, it is clear that 
far, far fewer than 100,000 full-time police officers can or will be 
hired over the next 6 years.
  First, grants can be made for three general purposes, not all of 
which would result in the hiring of new officers: Rehiring, hiring, and 
redeployment of police, including up to 20 percent for grants for 
equipment, technology, and support systems; troops to cops, in which 
funds are available to hire former members of the Armed Forces; and 
additional grant projects, which includes 10 eligible activities, only 
one of which is directly related to hiring additional police officers.
  Second, up to 3 percent of the funds appropriated for this program 
are available for technical assistance grants, or for evaluations and 
studies by the Attorney General.
  Third, funds must be made available for administration of the program 
itself; the 1995 Justice Appropriations Act allows $11,000,000 of the 
funds to be used for administration; one can assume a similar level for 
each of the next 5 years.
  Fourth, up to 15 percent of grant funds can be used for purposes 
other than those authorized under the provision allowing for the hiring 
of additional police officers. These purposes include such things as: 
Specialized training to enhance conflict resolution; police 
participation in multidisciplinary early intervention teams; developing 
new technologies for crime prevention; developing new administrative 
and management systems to facilitate the adoption of community 
policing; and purchasing additional weapons.
  None of these purposes is necessarily bad, but they have little or 
nothing to do with hiring additional police officers.
  If you add up all the exceptions and other allocations, it is 
possible that as little as $6.2 billion of the $8.8 billion will 
actually be used to pay for the hiring of new police officers.
  The authorization allows grants up to $75,000 per officer; if you 
divided $6.2 billion by $75,000 you get approximately 82,600. The 
problem is, these grants are provided for up to 5 years; therefore if 
you divided 82,600 by 5, you get roughly 16,500.
  The proponents of this program will make two arguments in this 
regard: first, the program provides for a 75-percent Federal match, 
with a declining Federal match over the 5-year period; and second, the 
$75,000 payment is the maximum Federal share.

  Both of these points are correct; however, even if you assume $50,000 
per officer as the average support for both new hires and continuing 
support for existing hires, that only provides you with 24,790.
  In addition, while the authorization contains a provision prohibiting 
the use of Federal grant funds to supplant State or local funds, we all 
know that money is fungible, and this prohibition will be very 
difficult to enforce. In the end, many local governments may not hire 
any more police officers than they originally intended.
  Finally, while the declining Federal match frees up additional funds 
to provide a match for hiring other police officers, it also increases 
the cost to local governments; that is why the Democrat mayor of Kansas 
City has already stated that he will not participate in the program.
  The bill only says in this regard that grants are reduced and 
eventually eliminated ``looking toward continuation of the increased 
hiring level using State or local sources of funding following the 
conclusion of Federal support.''
  We also need to remember that the cost of a police officer involves 
more than his or her salary: Training, equipment, police vehicles, 
insurance, pension payments, and other benefit costs must be covered.
  The point is, no one really knows how many police officers will be 
hired through this program. What is very clear, however, is that 
100,000 cannot be hired under almost any scenario; the final figure 
will be close to 20,000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minus 3                                         
                                                Appropriated    percent        Minus       Minus 15      Minus  
                     Year                            or        technical  administrative    percent    equipment
                                                 authorized   assistance                    other     allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..........................................       1,300       1,261         1,250         1,062         849.6
1996..........................................       1,850       1,794.5       1,783.5       1,516       1,212.8
1997..........................................       1,950       1,891.5       1,880.5       1,598.4     1,438.6
1998..........................................       1,700       1,649         1,638         1,392.3     1,253.1
1999..........................................       1,700       1,649         1,638         1,392.3     1,253.1
2000..........................................         268         260           249           211.7       190.5
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
  Total.......................................       8,768       8,505         8,439         7,172.7     6,197.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment. I do not 
intend to speak. But the American people want a crime bill and have 
waited 6 years for it. We have been filibustered on previous bills. The 
question obviously is we are prepared to vote. We are ready to vote 
right now.
  I respect my colleagues, obviously, who want to speak. That is their 
right. But the question is why we cannot proceed to a vote. We have had 
4 days on the bill. I think every Senator has risen previously on this 
bill at least once.
  The question before the American people is why is the U.S. Senate 
talking on? When can we vote?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I hope the Senator is directing that at me. I am still 
standing. I made the point of order. I have not had a chance to speak. 
I just spoke 20 minutes. I do not think that is an inordinate amount of 
time. It is a very serious issue. In fact many are saying why would we 
even make the point of order? I want to make the case.
  Mr. KERRY. I am personally asking. I wonder if any Senator on the 
other side can give us a sense of when we might vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will leave the floor. I will try to seek the 
Republican leader out and ask him. I thank the Senator for his 
question.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The old saying about attorneys says if the law is on your side and 
the facts are against you, you argue the law. And if the law is against 
you, and the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts. But if the 
law and facts are against you, you simply argue. We have seen a little 
bit of that.
  We have seen a strong anticrime bill leave the Senate which was fully 
paid for, as Senator Domenici pointed out, and return from conference 
with its character deeply changed. I believe it is fair to say that the 
conference committee had a dramatically different viewpoint than this 
body did and a dramatically different viewpoint than the people of this 
country. I want to be specific because I think it points to an enormous 
problem.
  When we begin to explain our democracy, we hold out that it is based 
on the concept that the people are represented by those they elect. 
Elected officials are in turn supposed to be represented by the 
conference committee when two Houses of Congress come together to 
consider legislation. Unfortunately, we have seen a conference that 
took our Senate passed crime bill and return from conference with 
something quite different.
  Let me illustrate the problem with specific examples. If you sell 
cocaine to schoolchildren in this country, the current law says you are 
going to serve at least a minimum of a year if you are convicted. You 
are going to go to prison for at least a year. That is the current 
mandatory minimum sentence.
  This body thought you ought to get tough, thought you ought to get 
tough on people who sell cocaine to our kids in school. I think we were 
right. This body passed a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison. 
I think it is called for. If you sell cocaine to the children of this 
country in school, 10 years in prison is appropriate.
  What did the conference committee do? The conference committee not 
only did not adopt the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence that this 
body adopted, the conference committee did not even leave the current 
law in place which calls for at least 1-year mandatory minimum sentence 
for selling cocaine to our kids. The conference committee even 
eliminated the 1-year mandatory minimum sentence.
  Let me repeat that. The conference not only dropped the tough 
provision that this Senate is in favor of, but they cut back the 
mandatory minimum sentence that is in existing law. The conference was 
far more liberal than this body. They were far more liberal than the 
American people.
  The conference report includes a safety valve for mandatory minimum 
sentences. This safety valve operates by allowing those who are 
convicted of drug offenses under title 21, United States Code, sections 
841, 844 and 846--which are the offenses of selling and possessing 
drugs and so on --to petition to get out of jail early. The existing 
offense of selling drugs to a minor is in a separate section, but it 
implicates the other three sections, or the criminal may simply be 
charged under them. The conference report says that if you are 
convicted of selling drugs, you may be able to get out of jail early. 
That is the very opposite of mandatory minimum sentences.
  That conference committee is a runaway conference committee. They may 
have represented themselves. But they did not represent this body and 
they did not represent the American people.
  If you employ schoolchildren, these are kids in school--incidentally, 
if somebody really thinks there should be no mandatory minimum sentence 
for somebody who sells cocaine to their kids, I hope they will come to 
the floor. I hope they will speak up so the American people know who 
they are. Current law says if you employ schoolchildren to sell drugs, 
you are going to serve at least a minimum, at least a minimum, of 1 
year in prison. The Senate thought that was not tough enough. This body 
voted to make that penalty a minimum of 10 years in prison.
  The conference committee not only eliminated the mandatory 10 years 
in prison, they eliminated the 1 year in prison that current law calls 
for. This is a runaway conference committee, far more liberal than this 
body, or the American people.
  If you sell cocaine to schoolchildren after a conviction for selling 
marijuana that resulted in a light sentence, current law says you have 
a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence. The Senate felt so strongly about 
it, we passed a provision to put the criminal away for life.
  This was a tough bill when it left the Senate. If you are convicted 
for selling school kids marijuana and get a light sentence, and then 
come back and are convicted of selling cocaine, the Senate bill says 
you are going to jail for life. What did the conference committee do? 
They dropped our provision that put the criminal away for life.
  If there is somebody here who thinks after you sell kids marijuana 
and are convicted, and then come back and sell school kids cocaine that 
you should not have significant jail time, I hope they will identify 
themselves. I think the American people want to know. The conference 
committee did not represent the people of this Senate and I do not 
believe it represents the people of this country.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point for just 10 seconds?
  Mr. BROWN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. Did the Senator know that it was tripled for the very same 
thing the Senator is talking about?
  Mr. BROWN. My understanding is the conference committee eliminated 
the mandatory minimum sentences. Is that not correct?
  Mr. BIDEN. Not the 1 year the Senator is talking about, and we did 
instead triple the maximum penalty. We also instructed the Sentencing 
Commission, which is mandatory because you have to serve your time you 
get under those, to increase the penalties for all offenses in which an 
adult uses a minor.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me be clear. The Senator is saying that the mandatory 
minimum sentence was not repealed?
  Mr. BIDEN. That is correct. It is not repealed. The Senator is 
absolutely correct. It is not repealed.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me say to the Senator that my understanding is that 
the conference committee adopted a safety valve, and it is far from 
being as strong as when it left this body. The safety valve allows 
convicted felons to challenge the sentence, and the administrative 
office of the U.S. Courts estimates that the safety valve will result 
in 900 released felons per year. That is not Hank Brown talking. That 
is the administrative office of the U.S. Courts.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, that is Hank Brown talking 
about what the courts said before they know what we did.
  Mr. BROWN. So there is no safety valve?
  Mr. BIDEN. There is a safety valve. The guidelines for selling drugs 
to kids is at least 5\1/2\ years, which they must serve under the 
guidelines. No one who sells drugs to kids would make an application 
because the guidelines are tougher than the minimum sentences, and 
because the safety value does not apply to that offense. The guidelines 
are tougher than the mandatory minimum sentences in a majority of the 
cases. That is why.
  When you are going to put in jail thousands of people next year for 
selling drugs, the administrative office of the courts points out that 
even before we make the change--what the Senator said--that it would 
apply to 900 people. One would have to ask themselves, if it would only 
apply to 900 people, that assumes that we are not getting very many 
people put in jail. The truth is that thousands of people are being 
incarcerated under the Federal drug laws, and only 900 would even be 
eligible to ask. The reason for that is the mandatory minimums are not 
as strong, in many of the cases, as the guidelines. Bottom line: Nobody 
who sells drugs to kids and goes to the Federal courts will get 
anything less than 5\1/2\ years. I yield back to the Senator.
  Mr. BROWN. I hope the Senator will help us on this, because I think 
it is a terribly important point. My understanding is that guidelines 
are not mandatory minimum sentences. The C.F. orders the S.C. to 
increase the guidelines: either the fine or the maximum sentence or 
both. In other words, there is no mandatory minimum in the conference 
report as there was in the Senate passed bill. Mandatory minimums mean 
exactly that--you have to serve the time, but I am informed that the 
guidelines do not mandate that minimum service. They allow the judge 
discretion; they do not dictate the minimum. Most importantly the 
conference report does not triple the sentence. It says the sentence 
will be increased, up to triple. There is no guarantee there will be a 
triple increase, it may only be an increased fine. Is that correct 
information?
  Mr. BIDEN. As we would say, that is a distinction without a 
difference. The guidelines require you to serve that time in jail. The 
only difference between a mandatory minimum and a guideline is that we 
do not allow the sentencing commission to set the mandatory minimum, in 
effect. We say we are not going to go to the sentencing commission, we 
are going to, right here, say this is what the sentence is, and the 
sentencing commission be damned, they can have nothing to do with it.
  But once the sentencing commission sets a time for a sentence for a 
commission of a crime, if the person is convicted under that particular 
provision of the law, the judge has virtually no discretion, up or 
down. So let me be explicit. We could pass here a mandatory minimum 
sentence of 5 years for someone walking sideways across this body, and 
the sentencing commission could set a 10-year sentence for that. If, in 
fact, the person was sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, they 
would get more time in jail than they would if they were sentenced 
under the mandatory minimum the Congress set. The only difference 
between a mandatory minimum and a mandatory guidelines is we, the 
Congress, in one case say if somebody violates the law by selling drugs 
to kids, what do you think should happen; and the sentencing 
commission, and whatever they think should happen, that becomes the 
sentence. In the other case, we say we are not even going to ask the 
sentencing commission what the penalty should be. We are telling them 
it should be a minimum of 5 years.
  The irony is that the sentencing commission has been tougher than the 
U.S. Congress and President Bush, and President Clinton, and President 
Reagan. They have set down sentences that--because there is no parole 
under the Federal system, because of that, they must serve the time 
that the sentencing guidelines say. They have a book like this book, 
and a judge has to open the book and say, all right, John Doe has been 
convicted of violating section such and such, say, selling drugs to 
minors. Under the guidelines, I must put that person in jail for x 
amount of years, 10 years, or 9, or 2, or 7. What discretion do I, 
``Judge Biden,'' have as a Federal judge? I can say, you know, there 
are mitigating circumstances here, so instead of putting him in jail 10 
years, I am putting him in for 8 years and 6 months; or there are 
extenuating or aggravating circumstances, and I can put him in jail now 
for 11 years, 6 months. That is the totality of the discretion.
  So I point out to the Senator--and I will yield back because others 
want to speak--there are a total of 18,287 drug defendants. Only 3.4 
percent, or 620 of them, would be affected by the so-called safety 
valve.
  I yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I want to express my concern with the safety valve in the 
conference report because it provides a way for criminals to get out of 
jail early. The administrative offices of the U.S. Courts estimates 
that the safety valve will result the release of 900 convicted drug 
felons per year. That is my concern: by moving away from mandatory 
minimum sentencing toward sentencing guidelines and that safety valve, 
criminals won't do the time.
  When you have a conference committee that has a dramatically 
different view than the body it represents on legislation, it is quite 
likely to come back radically different, unless they are willing to 
follow the will of the body. This Member believes this is precisely 
what happened. That is why a bill that had tough mandatory minimum 
sentences when it left this body came back with weaker sentencing and a 
provision to allow 900 convicted felons out of jail early. That is why 
a bill that was 100 percent paid for when it left the Senate came back 
43 percent unpaid for.
  That is why it was important to amend the conference report, as we 
have suggested, or develop a separate vehicle to be sent back to the 
House to accomplish that amendment. Members will vote their conscience. 
Ultimately, the question we have to ask ourselves is: Have we respected 
the process and the wishes of the people of our States? My answer is 
that we have not.
  This fight is not about guns, as has been pictured in the press. I am 
one who felt that the ban on semiautomatics was reasonable and I voted 
that way. But I do not think it is reasonable to add $13 billion to the 
deficit. I do not think it is reasonable to gut some of the strong 
anticrime provisions. I do not think it is reasonable for a conference 
committee to ignore the wishes of the body it is sent to represent. It 
is not reasonable to represent this as a fight over guns.
  The American people want strong, tough laws. That is what Congress 
ought to deliver. They want an end to the pork barrel spending, and 
that is what Congress ought to deliver. My hope is that this body will 
respect the point of order, that it will move to open the bill to 
amendment, and that we will allow the will of this body to be reflected 
in statute, not the will of a small, unrepresentative minority.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have some remarks I wish to make on the 
matter before us. However, I had heard that there may be some desire 
for a vote very, very soon.
  In my usual accommodating fashion, I will simply inquire of the 
managers of the bill and I will withhold my remarks if a vote is 
imminent. If a vote is not imminent, then I would like to proceed with 
my remarks.
  I inquire of the managers of the bill if I withhold my remarks, will 
we then be in position to vote now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, neither manager of the bill is on the floor 
at the moment. It is difficult to answer the Senator's question. But I 
assure him we could get to a vote sooner if he did not make a speech.
  Mr. EXON. I simply say, Mr. President, in order to accommodate all, 
if during my remarks the managers decide it is time to go to a vote on 
the bill, if they would so advise the Senator from Nebraska, I would 
forthwith withhold further comments until after the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I say to the Senator, there will be other Senators on the 
other side who are sitting here waiting to make speeches. So I suspect 
it will be a while before they will allow us to take a vote even though 
we are ready to vote now.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EXON. I yield for a question.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me say in response to the Senator, I am not here to 
speak on the point of order. I am simply sitting here listening. I do 
not know if anyone is now waiting on this side. It is not this side now 
holding up the vote. There is no one here now that I know of.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, in answer to that, is the Senator ready to 
vote? We are ready to vote now.
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not control the time on this side.
  Mr. FORD. There is no time limit.
  Mr. CRAIG. I wanted the Senator to understand I am not here to debate 
the point of order.
  Mr. FORD. If there are no other speeches, then we are prepared to 
vote. We are ready to go. I do not see anybody on the Senator's side 
who is ready to make a speech, and the Senator from Nebraska has agreed 
not to speak so I think the Chair could put the question if the Senator 
is not here to make a speech or delay us.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Could we vote, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If there is no further debate----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, without mental reservation or hesitation, I 
again have the audacity to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate without 
multicolored charts, graphs, or other visual aids. I know it is unique 
and I acknowledge it is old-fashioned, but I will try again to make my 
point and express my view with words. Please bear with me, as naked as 
I might appear without an easel or a chart. I do not intend to shock 
the Senate or violate its decorum.
  The Senate is being challenged again to try and ferret out right from 
wrong or at least the appearance of right or wrong. Facts oftentimes 
are drowned out by rhetoric and partisan bickering. I hasten to add 
that there is plenty of room for reasonable difference of opinion, 
which is what intelligent debate in reaching a majority decision is all 
about. Now we find ourselves on the crime bill, but regardless of the 
subject I suggest the same principles apply.
  What we say and what we do here, in reaching the final vote stage, is 
very important and often sets precedence for what we do or do not do in 
the future.
  I am discouraged by the road we are seemingly following on a whole 
series of issues and procedures that in my view are contributing to a 
decay--to a decay, I emphasize--in what we all want to do. Reasonable 
rule of law and lawmaking oftentimes is interrupted.
  First, on the matter before us, a point of order is being proposed 
against the conference report on the crime bill.
  The clear technical point of order confronting us requires a 60-vote 
majority to overcome. It is also clear, and I believe all would agree, 
that we are being asked to take this action now despite the fact that 
all knew and understood that we refused to take the identical action 
several times previously, thereby directly or at least indirectly 
concluding such a point of order was not necessary.
  Let me agree with all of that and simply say that I hope we can keep 
on course.
  Let me digress for a few minutes to alert the Senate to a serious 
flaw I discovered in reviewing this as it adversely affects our 
legitimate proceedings. I cite the systematic erosion of the legitimate 
lawmaking processes with the wholesale granting of nearly unlimited 
power to the Senate-House conference committees. We are careening down 
a course, perhaps unwittingly, but careening just as surely. Such 
procedures are at the expense of and usurp the paramount authority of 
the House and Senate. The two bodies' floor debate and actions that 
preceded the floor debate, such as the hours and days of hearings by 
the appropriate committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction, are being 
subverted. The conference committees are alarmingly becoming a creature 
unto themselves. We are increasingly short-cutting the established 
procedures, including the all important rollcall votes, to the point 
where we might just as well eliminate all previous consideration, let 
the conference committees originate all legislation and present their 
findings to the House and Senate for confirmation and upon passage let 
the Congress be done with it.

  What brings me to this seemingly facetious conclusion? Just take a 
look at this conference report before us. The House authorized $28.4 
billion in spending for the crime bill. The Senate authorized $24.2 
billion. If normal and reasonable procedures were followed, the joint 
House-Senate conference would meet to meld together the two bills and 
come up with an acceptable compromise between the different amounts 
approved in the two bodies. Likewise, it would be assumed that language 
differences would be compromised and resolved within the meaning and 
intent of the laws passed separately by the House and Senate. In this 
case, it would appear that the funding levels could not be lower than 
$24.2 billion in the Senate bill or higher than $28.4 billion in the 
House bill.
  Guess what? The conference committee had originally brought forth a 
bill totaling $33 billion, nearly $5 billion more than authorized by 
either the House or Senate. Who gave the authority to the conference 
committee, clearly designed to compromise within the boundaries of 
legislation passed by the two bodies, to plow new ground by exceeding 
the maximum allowed spending total by $5 billion? After initial 
rejection by the House, it was fortunately reduced by $3 billion to $30 
billion.
  Please let all understand that I am not criticizing just this 
conference committee or any of its able members and certainly not the 
two primary Senate negotiators, Senator Biden or Senator Hatch. As much 
as anything else, they are victims of the system which has developed. 
It is undoubtedly true that given the strong feelings and opinions that 
surround the crime bill, they might not have been able to come to an 
agreement without raising the ante. But I still maintain that such 
action clearly violates what has been assumed as standard procedures 
under the rules.

  Unfortunately, it has become commonplace by conference committees to 
originate initiatives not embraced by either body in their extensive 
lawmaking duties. This conference committee, like others, including 
possibly ones that I have been a party to, did their thing and took 
license from what has been going on since 1985 with Gramm-Rudman. It is 
this drift or avalanche to doing what comes naturally in violation, at 
a minimum, of what is reasonable for expected of us operating in a two-
house democracy that concerns me very much.
  I must concede Mr. President, that my suspicion of conference 
committees stems from a famous Nebraska predecessor of mine in the 
Senate, George Norris. George Norris served Nebraska with distinction 
in both the House and later in the Senate. He was, and still is, 
recognized as a legend in political leadership and parliamentary know-
how and possessed a seasoned patience and determination to represent 
Nebraskans and Americans. Although I met him personally only once when 
I was young and he was old, I have always admired him greatly. One of 
the reasons I have always admired my colleague Senator Robert Byrd is 
that the Senior Senator from West Virginia resembles, in my view, as 
much as any public servant I have ever known, the character, integrity, 
demeanor, and talent of George Norris. I say that to my colleagues only 
to demonstrate how genuine George Norris was and how we should learn or 
relearn one of his prominent warnings; Beware of the Senate-House 
conference committees.
  George Norris, while he was serving Nebraska here in Washington, is 
given credit for being the father of the Nebraska one-house, 
nonpartisan, legislature. Some in derision have called it the Nebraska 
one-horse legislature. It is not perfect, as no one thinks is the case 
with some elements of all our democratic forms of government. As 
Governor of Nebraska I was known to take on the legislature sometimes 
not in the kindest of terms. However, we are not here to discuss the 
over-all merit or lack thereof of the Nebraska unique legislative 
system. Nevertheless, one shining success of the one-house legislature 
is that it does not have, and does not need, conference committees. 
That was a fundamental ingredient often cited by George Norris in 
creating the concept of the Nebraska system. I quote what he said in 
this regard:

       The greatest evil of a two-house legislature is its 
     institution of the conference committee. When a bill passes 
     one house and is amended by the other, however slightly, it 
     then must go to a conference committee, the source of 
     numerous errors and frauds. And in this conference committee 
     the jokers are placed in otherwise good laws. There the 
     bosses and the special interests and the monopolies get in 
     their secret work behind the scenes. There the elimination of 
     a sentence or a paragraph, or even a word, may change the 
     meaning of an entire law.* * * both branches must take or 
     reject it entirely * * * as a matter of practice, it has 
     developed frequently that, through the conference committee, 
     the politicians have the checks, and the special interest the 
     balances.

  The potential evils of the conference committees therefore have not 
been of just recent vintage. Unless bridled they could cause even more 
difficulties. The course we are on, as demonstrated vividly in this 
instance again, should be corrected.

  I inquired of the Parliamentarian how we got into the present 
situation. It seems that it was ordained by Gramm-Rudman in 1985. 
Apparently it evolved because the Senate, without fully appreciating 
what it was doing, created a precedent by overruling the Chair and 
eroding the rules which previously placed reasonable restrictions on 
conference committees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
letter to the Parliamentarian and his reply in this regard be printed 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. Is it time to consider reversing course? We cannot do it 
immediately or thoughtlessly. It will take time. We do not want to jump 
from the frying pan into the fire. I suspect that back in the Norris 
days some reforms were approved. We need to do it again.
  But let me return to the matter at hand. In my view we need a crime 
bill. However, I am not convinced that some warning and reservations 
should not be stated clearly about some of the over-selling of this 
measure. I intend to support this bill because of the crime wave 
gripping America. I think it is not a cure-all and it might not be the 
bill I would write if I were decreed to be the sole author.
  But all must realize that there are 535 Members of the Congress and 
we can't all have our own way. I have listened to this debate in great 
detail and have some reservations on some parts of this bill. In that 
context I am not different than many of my colleagues on either side of 
the aisle. The hard-working and extremely talented chairman of the 
committee, Senator Biden, does not like some portions of the bill. He 
is not alone. There are, or could be, many reasons to vote against this 
bill. But to do so would be to say we are not going to do anything on 
the overriding crime situation.

  With that statement, though, let me take issue with some of the 
statements made by proponents that I think need to be corrected. There 
are too many overstatements and it should be understood that this 
measure is a long way from a cure-all on crime, but rather a step in 
the right direction.
  The President, in his letter of August 22, 1994, tends to 
overemphasize what we should expect from the passage of this bill. 
Terms like ``the toughest, smartest crime bill in our Nation's 
history'' may be accurate on their face, but caution should be 
exercised in not bringing on unrealistic expectations. The President's 
phrase ``will shut the revolving door on violent criminals'' should 
have inserted the word ``some'' before violent. The President should 
have said, ``we will shut the revolving door on some violent 
criminals.'' This measure should be understood to primarily address 
Federal court convictions under Federal law, a distinct minority of the 
arrests and convictions for violent crimes, including rape and murder.
  The three-strikes-and-you're-out provision would not be applicable 
unless at least one of such crimes broke Federal law. The majority of 
such convictions would not come under the three-strike option that has 
been well-received by our aggrieved citizens. State laws would have to 
be changed accordingly to make it applicable in all cases. ``Federal 
death penalties for the most heinous of crimes, such as killing a law 
enforcement officer,'' is too expansive since, again, it would apply 
only to cases of Federal officials or nonfederal officers who were in 
the act of assisting a Federal officer. The killing of a local 
policeman or sheriff not involving a Federal statute would not be 
covered. However, there are many other important considerations that 
the President mentioned in his letter that are effective and salutary, 
including 100,000 more police officers on the streets and the almost $8 
billion for more prison construction.

  My point is that the spending of approximately $5 billion a year, as 
much as that might sound, is only a small step in the right direction 
to meet the crime debacle facing America. It's only one-third of 1 
percent of our total budget of over $1\1/2\ trillion. That's only the 
equivalent of a couple of bombers or a couple of submarines. There is 
much more to be done.
  With some reservations about some of the money that is being 
authorized, and given the conclusion that we have an obligation to do 
something other than wring our hands in Washington, I intend to support 
the crime bill.
  The Republican effort to change this bill again and head it back down 
the road of no return and near certain defeat, after nearly unanimously 
voting for it previously in its current not-so-different form, is 
politically motivated nonsense.
  They may have the 41 votes necessary to block passage on a procedural 
vote. If that is so, they will have effectively killed the crime bill, 
notwithstanding their protestations of not being politically motivated.
  I am still very concerned about the breakdown of supposed 
restrictions being abandoned in House-Senate conference committees. I 
hope that this event will spur some constructive corrective action on a 
bipartisan basis to undo what I feel the Senate unknowingly did in the 
passage of Gramm-Rudman. I have always thought that measure was a 
bummer budget-wise, but didn't fully realize what a bomb it also was in 
destroying the usual check and balance procedures. Long live the 
unfettered tether of the conference committee. George Norris would not 
like it. And neither do it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from the President 
of August 22, 1994, that I referenced in my remarks, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, August 22, 1994.
     Hon. J. James Exon,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: This week, the Senate has a historic chance to 
     move us beyond old labels and partisan divisions by passing 
     the toughest, smartest Crime Bill in our nation's history.
       I want to congratulate members of Congress in both houses 
     and both parties who have reached across party lines and 
     worked in good faith to produce this Crime Bill. This isn't a 
     Democratic Crime Bill or a Republican Crime Bill--it's an 
     American Crime Bill, and it will make a difference in every 
     town, every city, and every state in our country.
       The Crime Bill produced by House and Senate conferees and 
     passed yesterday by Democrats and Republicans in the House 
     achieves all the same objectives as the bipartisan Crime Bill 
     which the Senate passed last November by a vote of 95 to 4.
       Many of the central provisions of this Crime Bill were 
     included in the Senate bill:
       Nearly $9 billion to put 100,000 new police officers on our 
     streets in community policing;
       An additional $4.6 billion for federal, state and local law 
     enforcement (a 25% increase above the Senate bill);
       $9.9 billion for prisons (a 30% increase above the Senate 
     bill), coupled with tough truth-in-sentencing requirements 
     that will shut the revolving door on violent criminals;
       Life imprisonment for repeat violent offenders by making 
     three-strikes-and-you're-out the law of the land;
       Federal death penalties for the most heinous of crimes, 
     such as killing a law enforcement officer;
       A ban on handgun ownership for juveniles;
       Registration and community notification to warn 
     unsuspecting families of sexual predators in their midst;
       A ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons, with specific 
     protection for more than 650 other weapons; and
       Innovative crime prevention programs, such as the Community 
     Schools program sponsored by Senators Danforth, Bradley, and 
     Dodd, and the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by 
     Senators Biden, Hatch, and Dole.
       One of the most important elements of this Crime Bill is 
     the creation of a Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, which 
     ensures that every crime-fighting program in the bill will be 
     paid for by reducing the federal bureaucracy by more than 
     270,000 positions over the next six years. The idea for the 
     Trust Fund came from Senators Byrd, Mitchell, Biden, Gramm, 
     Hatch, and Dole, and the Senate approved it by a vote of 94 
     to 4. The Trust Fund will ensure that the entire Crime Bill 
     will be fully paid for, not with new taxes, but by reducing 
     the federal bureaucracy to its lowest level in over 30 years.
       The Senate led the way in passing these important anti-
     crime proposals last November, and I urge you to take up this 
     Crime Bill in the same bipartisan spirit that marked that 
     debate. The American people have waited six years for the 
     comprehensive Crime Bill. It's time to put politics aside and 
     finish the job. After all the hard work that has gone into 
     this effort by members of both parties acting in good faith, 
     we owe it to the law-abiding citizens of this country to pass 
     this Crime Bill without delay.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1994.
     Mr. Alan Frumin,
     Senate Parliamentarian U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Frumin: It is clear that the House-Senate 
     conference on the Crime Bill has authorized more funds than 
     either the House or Senate included in their respective 
     versions of this legislation. Is this fact a violation of the 
     rules? It not, why not?
       Is it true under present rules that it is not against the 
     rules of either the House or Senate that a Conference 
     Committee can report legislation above the total dollars 
     authorized by either House and can include any other 
     substantive language not included by either House?
       Are there any restrictions whatsoever on House-Senate 
     conferees? Are they required to live within the amounts and 
     intent of the legislation which passed either or both Houses? 
     Can House-Senate conferees act as an independent body and 
     include provisions which were never considered by either 
     House during enactment?
       I have been advised by some sources that the Gramm-Rudman 
     law set a precedent which has increased the power of 
     conferees to go beyond what either House passed. Is this 
     correct?
       Since your reply will be important to my vote on the Crime 
     Bill Conference Report, I would appreciate an immediate 
     reply.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Jim Exon,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1994.
     Hon. J. James Exon,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Exon: Thank you for your letter dated August 
     23, 1994, regarding Senate rules and precedents concerning 
     the authority of House and Senate conferees as it pertains to 
     the conference report on H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control 
     and Prevention Act of 1994.
       Rule 28, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     provides:
       ``2. Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not 
     committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from 
     the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is 
     inserted in the report, or if a matter which was agreed to by 
     both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may 
     be made against the report, and if the point of order is 
     sustained, the report is rejected or shall be recommitted to 
     the committee of conference if the House of representatives 
     has not already acted thereon.''
       The Senate and House go to conference in one of two ways--
     either with a bill passed by the first House and amended by 
     only one amendment of the other House, or with a bill passed 
     by the first House and amended by the second House with more 
     than one amendment. Prior to 1985, the standard used to 
     interpret Rule 28, paragraph 2, depended on which of these 
     situations applied. If there was only one amendment in 
     conference, the standard was quite permissive, and conferees 
     could agree to any provision ``not entirely irrelevant to the 
     subject matter,'' contained in either the Senate or House 
     versions of the bill. However, if the Senate and House 
     conferees had more than one amendment committed to them, 
     the standard was quite restrictive, with conferees limited 
     to resolve the differences between the Senate and House 
     provisions.
       On June 6, 1932, the Chair declined to sustain a point of 
     order against a conference report on the grounds that the 
     conferees had exceeded their authority, since the matter at 
     issue was ``not entirely irrelevant'' to provisions sent to 
     conference by either the Senate or House. Again, on August 
     19, 1982, the Chair declined to sustain a point of order 
     against a conference report on H.R. 4961, the Tax 
     Reconciliation bill, applying the ``not entirely irrelevant'' 
     standard.
       In your letter you refer to a precedent that occurred 
     during consideration of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced 
     budget amendment that had the effect of expanding the 
     authority of conferees in the Senate. On December 11, 1985, 
     the Senate was considering the conference report on H.J. Res. 
     372, a bill to extend the public debt which also contained 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings). The joint resolution had gone to 
     conference with a series of amendments. A point of order was 
     raised against the report on the grounds that it contained 
     subject matter relating to the balanced budget amendment that 
     was not committed to the conferees by either House. The 
     Presiding Officer applied the restrictive standard used when 
     conferees had a series of amendments committed to conference, 
     and sustained the point of order. However, this ruling was 
     appealed and the Chair overturned by a vote of the Senate. 
     This vote of the Senate had the effect of applying the 
     permissive standard to all conference reports.
       As a result of these precedents, in all cases the Senate 
     applies the permissive standard with regard to what conferees 
     may include in their report. In the Senate conferees may 
     include matter in the conference report provided that it is 
     not entirely irrelevant to the matter sent to conference by 
     either house. In the instant case, the two houses went to 
     conference to reconcile differences between the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3355. Both 
     amendments were omnibus crime bills drafted as substitutes 
     for each other. Consequently, it is likely that the 
     conference report would meet the rather permissive standard 
     that has been enunciated and equally unlikely that it would 
     violate Rule 28, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate.
       I hope this information is useful. Please contact me if I 
     can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Alan S. Frumin,
                                                  Parliamentarian.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I agree with so much of what my 
colleague from Nebraska has just stated because I, too, am very 
concerned about how we got to where we are. I have been in a 
legislature before and I have served in the U.S. Senate for the last 
year. I always thought the rules were that you pass a bill in the 
Senate, you pass a bill in the House, and you have a conference to 
resolve the differences between the two. As my colleague from Nebraska 
has so ably pointed out, this is not a conference committee report that 
resolves the differences between two bills. It is a different bill. It 
is a new bill and, therefore, I think we should be able to amend it.
  I am going to ask my colleagues to sustain the point of order so we 
can the amend this bill. I think Republicans have shown they want a 
crime bill because the vote that sent this crime bill to the House was 
95 to 4. That was an overwhelming support for a crime bill. So I think 
the sincerity is there. But to ask us now to take a wholly new bill and 
pass it without amendments I think is unreasonable. I think we will get 
a crime bill if we sustain the point of order and we put more of the 
crime fighting back in and we take the deficit spending out.
  I once heard a colleague of mine in the State legislature refer to a 
bill--he said, ``We labored mightily and we produced a mouse that has 
turned into a rat.''
  I supported the Senate bill because the good did outweigh the bad. 
But it did not have habeas corpus reform. I think the most important 
amendment we could make from the Federal Government to the front lines 
of local law enforcement is habeas corpus reform to stop the endless 
appeals from death row. We also could help by reforming the 
exclusionary rule to give our law enforcement officers the ability to 
do their jobs, to allow them to put people in prison when they have 
committed a crime and keep them there. That would be real crime 
fighting, something the Federal Government can do to help our local 
officials.
  Our Senate bill did not have those two things but I would have liked 
to have had them. But I voted for the bill anyway because it did have 
good measures in it. It had truth in sentencing. Half of the prison 
building would have required truth in sentencing--85 percent of a 
sentence would have had to be served for a State to be able to use the 
new Federal prisons. The bill we have before us today has some 
hopefulness that a State will have a bigger percentage of the term 
served. But it does not really specify. In fact, most of the prison 
building money does not even have to be used for prison building. One 
of the amendments that the Republicans wanted to put on this bill was 
real prison building, bricks and mortar, with truth in sentencing 
required so we would know the prisons that we build would house the 
criminals and allow us to get them off the streets instead of pushing 
them out on the streets because we have overcrowded jails. That is 
happening in my State right now. We have 50 people walking the streets 
of Texas who were once on death row because they have been pushed out 
because of overcrowded prisons.
  Mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes were in the Senate 
bill--for selling drugs to children or having children sell drugs to 
children. We all know that is what the drug kingpins do. They do not go 
out there and sell drugs to children themselves, they get children to 
do it. And we would have had mandatory minimum sentences for those drug 
kingpins in the first bill we passed, but it is not in this one. We 
would have mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit crimes 
with firearms. Make it tougher on people if they commit a crime with a 
firearm. That is better than taking away second amendment rights. Let 
us make a person pay a price for using a gun. That might have some 
teeth in it. But this bill does not do that.
  We passed a bill last year that was $22 billion, paid for--no deficit 
spending. It was a balanced bill. It had violence against women 
controls, more sentences, spending for that. This bill has violence 
against women, too, but it also has billions more than the Senate bill 
or the House bill, just as Senator Exon said. It was a $22 billion bill 
when it left the Senate, it was $27 billion when it left the House, it 
was $33 billion when it came out of the conference committee. That is 
not a resolution of differences, it is a new bill.
  The House went in and made some changes, they cut 10 percent, $3 
billion. The President and everybody else praised those House Members 
for cutting that bill back and said they had improved it. But now we 
would like to amend the bill, cut it back more and we are accused of 
being obstructionists. Mr. President, $1.62 billion was put in that 
bill in the conference committee that was not in either House. In fact 
it not only was not in either House it was basically a bill that was 
turned down by the Senate last year.
  So I think we should sustain this point of order because this is not 
a conference committee report. It is a new bill, and I think we should 
be able to amend this bill if there is sincerity on both sides of the 
aisle about wanting a crime bill that is a real crime bill.
  If we vote for this bill that creates a $13 billion deficit, that has 
social spending that may be good in another context, but, in fact, is 
not crime fighting, we are not meeting our responsibilities to the 
American people. We are not meeting our responsibilities to the 
hardworking taxpayers of this country who expect us to protect them 
from more deficit spending.
  All of the programs in this bill are good programs. Standing on their 
own, every one of them will do some good. But the question is, how much 
more can people pay for? How many times are we going to go beyond the 
deficit and particularly on an unamendable bill that we cannot amend, 
that we are not able to come in and say let us prioritize the social 
spending, let us make it more balanced. We want the spending for the 
violence against women because it is long overdue and it will help stop 
the violence against women in this country.
  But what about the arts and crafts classes in this bill? What about 
the dancing classes in this bill? They are good programs. But they are 
not crime-fighting programs. Let us have a chance to amend them.
  We need to meet our responsibilities to the taxpayers of this country 
and to the victims of crime in this country, because we can pass a real 
crime bill, Mr. President. We can pass a bill that will do something to 
help those law enforcement officers on the front lines. We can help the 
cities that have so much crime, and they do need help, and we can do it 
by meeting our responsibilities to the taxpayers of this country at the 
same time. And, Mr. President, this bill does not meet that 
responsibility.
  I hope that my colleagues will vote to sustain this point of order so 
that we can amend this bill. We have proven our sincerity on the crime 
bill. Ninety-five of us voted for it last year. It was a different bill 
than we have before us today. We should not be required to accept this 
bill without amendments. It is not a conference that resolves the 
differences between two bills, Mr. President. It is a new bill.
  Let us open it up, let us amend it, and we will pass a crime bill 
from this body.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator give me an opportunity? Since the ranking 
manager of the bill is on the floor, do you know how many more speakers 
you will have? We are just speaking because you are. We are ready to 
vote. I wonder if you have any more speakers.
  Mr. HATCH. My understanding is there will be some other speakers. I 
do not at this present time know who they are.
  Mr. FORD. Can you give us some idea?
  Mr. HATCH. I wish I could, but I just do not know.
  Mr. FORD. You do not know how many of yours are going to speak?
  Mr. HATCH. I do not know.
  Mr. FORD. Are you ready to vote?
  Mr. HATCH. I have been ready to vote since early this morning.
  Mr. FORD. Can you help us on your side to reduce the speeches so we 
might get to a vote?
  Mr. HATCH. We are working on that.
  Mr. FORD. I suggest that, and I yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am sorry, my 
colleague wants to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. President. Before the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee leaves the Chamber, I missed part of the 
conversation. Did the Senator say there are other speakers on the other 
side?
  Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, there are, but I do not know who they 
are. They have not informed me, other than there are some who want to 
speak.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator can tell us whether or not we 
are going to vote today on this.
  Mr. HATCH. My personal belief is, and if I have anything to say about 
it, we will.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That we will?
  Mr. HATCH. That we intend to; at least I do.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me restate what virtually every 
speaker on this side said. I am prepared to stop in midsentence if 
somebody says they are ready to vote. I hope that we can get to a vote 
here shortly.
  As I say, I think I may be the only Member of the U.S. Senate who has 
not spoken on this, and I am not just busting to speak now, if we can 
get to a vote, knowing full well that no minds are going to be changed 
at this point anyway.
  But as long as we are just caressing the sound of our voices--I love 
the sound of mine, too, I will go ahead and speak, but first I would 
like to yield for something or other to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much your yielding without 
your losing the right to the floor.
  I just want to take a few moments to thank my colleague and friend 
from Texas for her kind remarks about the statement I made about the 
conference report. I hope that, if nothing else, this process will 
alert the Senate to the big, big mistake we made that I referenced back 
in 1985 when we passed Gramm-Rudman and I inserted in the Record so the 
Senator from Texas and others can read what the Parliamentarian says we 
have to do.
  Having said that, I will simply say, I only took this particular time 
to enter that into the Record and alert the Senator to it because 
previously I did not have the knowledge of what got us into the 
situation we are in now.
  I will simply say that I do not agree that this latest--not the first 
nor the last--overstepping of the conference committee by their action 
should stop us in our tracks and should be the reason not to move ahead 
with putting this bill into law.
  I will simply say to my friend from Texas, I think those who want to 
get 41 votes to block this maybe do not fully realize, but I warn you 
once again that if you do that, knowingly or unknowingly, you are 
killing any reasonable chance for a crime bill to be passed, and with 
the warts on the bill, with the warts that are caused by what we seem 
to have general agreement on with regard to overstepping of the bounds 
of the conference committee, it seems to me that we should point out 
that this was not the first and will not be the last until we change 
it. Therefore, I do not think that is a valid reason for not voting to 
go ahead with the crime bill now.
  One last point, and I thank my friend from Arkansas. There has been 
considerable talk here about the violation of the authorized amounts in 
both the House and the Senate bill, and I think that is wrong. But I 
would say to the Senator from Texas and the Senate what the senior 
Senator from West Virginia told us yesterday. This is only an 
authorization bill and does not appropriate or allow anything to be 
spent. I think when this measure is taken up next year, as the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee said yesterday, that would be the time 
when we can whittle, if we want, the amount authorized, because the 
Appropriations Committee, on which the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas serves and knows so well, is the only group that can 
appropriate even one dime, let alone $30 billion, for this bill.
  We will, therefore, have ample opportunity, if indeed we are 
concerned about the level of spending, to readdress that at the proper 
time in the appropriations bill.
  I thank my friend from Texas for her remarks. I thank my friend from 
Arkansas for yielding for these remarks.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for just a 1-minute rebuttal? 
Not rebuttal actually, because I do not disagree with my colleague.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I really just came to the floor to direct traffic 
anyway. Next is the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for a 
question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas. I want to say that I, too, am ready to vote. 
When the leaders have decided everyone has spoken, I hope we can do 
that expeditiously. But in the meantime, I would just like to say to my 
distinguished colleague from Nebraska, I do not disagree with him in 
that I understand this is an authorization. I do not see why allowing 
amendments of this bill that has so many changes in it would be a 
problem, because I really do sincerely believe that we can make 
progress.
  But I do think that his point is very important, and it is a 
bipartisan point, that conference committees should really resolve the 
differences between two bills because when you vote on a bill, you 
assume that there is going to be some parameter around the bill that 
you pass unless it is drastically different from a measure that is 
passed by the House.
  But to have a whole new bill come back in an unamendable form, I 
think, is a problem for people who did not like the changes. Obviously, 
if you like the changes, that is a different viewpoint.
  I think as Members of the Senate, we can all probably stand together, 
and perhaps this will be a beginning of a look at conference 
committees. And perhaps we can come more closely to the bills that are 
passed from here, or at least resolving the differences without making 
new additions that were not passed by either House.

  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator, the traffic cop, yield----
  Mr. BUMPERS. Of course.
  Mr. BIDEN. Without losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Of course.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank our traffic police officer today, 
and if this bill passes, there will be 100,000 more of you before it is 
over.
  Mr. President, I wish to make it real clear it has nothing to do with 
the leaders. My friend from Texas said ``when the leaders are ready to 
vote.'' The Democratic leader is ready to vote this very instant. The 
Democratic whip is ready to vote this instant. All in the Democratic 
leadership, including the manager of the bill, who is not a Democratic 
leader, are ready to vote right now. The only one not ready to vote--
and there may be very good reasons for it--is the Republican leader. 
But we are ready to vote right now.
  I thank my friend from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, along the lines of the last thing that 
the Senator from Texas said, I wish to just start off by saying that 
when I came to the Senate almost 20 years ago, there was, on 
legislation such as this where the country was demanding a remedy and 
where the country's interest and its sense of direction were really at 
stake, a strong bipartisan spirit in this body. I can remember that on 
the most controversial issues we never failed to get 15 Republican 
votes.
  Mr. President, regretfully, there has been a sea change in the 
partisanship, the stridency in this body. There has been a sea change 
in people's personal attitudes toward each other. It is a living 
tragedy. We have poll after poll to show that only 15 percent of the 
people have confidence in Congress to prove what a tragedy it is.
  When I first came to the Senate, I used to view all of this from 
afar. I had my heroes: such as Wayne Morse, Phil Hart, Arthur 
Vandenberg, and John Connally. I could go on with all of those Senators 
who were famous in those days. I remember Senator Vandenberg, the 
father of foreign policy bipartisanship in the Senate. What a great 
debt this country, at that time at least, owed Senator Vandenberg.
  Today Bill Clinton issues a Haitian policy, he issues a Cuban policy, 
a Bosnian policy, and within 5 minutes of the announcement of those 
policies, speaker after speaker comes to the floor of the Senate 
saying, ``This is an outrage.''
  I sometimes mention my brother. He is very dear to me. He called the 
other day and he said, ``That Haitian policy of the President is 
terrible; it stinks to high heaven.'' And I said, ``Well, what is your 
Haitian policy?'' And the phone went dead.
  All I am saying is that the country's interest is served when people 
come here vowing to their constituents that they believe public service 
is a noble calling. I think we have lost sight of so much of that. I 
came here believing that public service is the highest calling. It is 
the reason I jumped into a field of eight to run for Governor. My 
father had convinced me that if I did not run for political office and 
choose public service as a career, I had opted for something less than 
what I should choose.
  He used to quote Sir Walter Scott's words to his son.
  On his death bed, he admonished his son to ``be good, be honest, 
because when you come to lie here, nothing else matters.''
  I have never until recently even questioned my choice of professions. 
And the reason I did not is because I, like you and every parent, love 
my children above all else. Anything you can do to preserve this great 
Nation and our democracy and give it a sense of noble direction that 
guarantees them a better life, yes, that is the highest calling of 
which I can think.
  Now, here we have a crime bill, and like virtually every bill I have 
voted on since I have been in the Senate, it does not totally please 
me. If I were crafting a bill, it would be quite different. I did not 
craft it, although I tried to help mold it once it was crafted. But 
here we are addressing a crime bill which purports to address what 25 
percent of the people in this Nation say is the No. 1 problem--violent 
crime. We debated it and debated it in November of 1993, and it passed 
out of the Senate 95 to 4.
  Two of the four Senators voting against were Republicans, Senators 
Durenberger and Hatfield. Every other Republican voted ``Yea.'' And 
what were they voting on? Well, one thing they voted on was $4.3 
billion worth of ``pork,'' which they now say is awful. We even had 
``ee-yi-ee-yi-oh'' sung by the Senator from New York this morning, with 
a pig on a chart in the background, saying this bill is full of 
``pork.''
  Why was it not pork in November of 1993 when everybody voted ``aye,'' 
but now it is? It is so transparent, the answer is in the question. 
While the bill now has $6.1 billion in crime prevention programs, $4.3 
billion of that was in the bill when it left here. Everybody thought 
that was just hunky-dory last year.
  I am one who does not apologize for the social programs I vote for 
and I do not apologize for the crime prevention programs I vote for 
because this country is in dire need of these programs.
  Incidentally, as I watched this debate this week I could not help but 
think a great crime prevention program for high school kids would be, 
instead of leaving school and ``hanging out,'' make them watch C-SPAN. 
I can hear the thunder of eyelids closing right now. They would at 
least sleep through the time they would otherwise be ``hanging out'' 
and getting into trouble.
  But did you know where more crime is bred than anyplace else in the 
country? After school where children otherwise would go home to an 
empty home--an empty house--oftentimes it is not a home.
  So there is a program in the bill that says we will give the school 
districts some money to start programs to keep these children after 
school, what you call intervention, to try to prevent what would 
otherwise be a life of crime. That is pork? Our Lord and Savior would 
be in favor of that. He was.
  I look through all of those programs that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle call ``pork.'' I remember when I was trying to kill 
the space station because I felt that $10 billion over 5 years could be 
better spent elsewhere, such as on student loans and college grants for 
our children to go to school.
  When I was elected Governor--my good colleague, Senator Pryor is on 
the floor and he will remember this well--the prisons of Arkansas were 
under the control of the Federal courts. The whole system had been 
declared unconstitutional. That is what I inherited as Governor. The 
Senator remembers it well. People talk about how much it cost to keep 
an inmate. It was not costing us anything. We had 23,000 acres of 
farmland, and whatever we took in off the farmland is what it cost to 
run the prisons. And the inmates, so-called trustees, were the security 
guards at the prisons.
  So I knew I was going to have to get deeply immersed in our prison 
system because I was insulted and embarrassed that our prison system 
actually was being controlled by the Federal courts. But I had never 
been in a prison before. I dreaded going down there. Yet I knew the 
press was expecting me to go at the first opportunity. So I finally 
went. I did not sleep for 3 nights afterwards.
  I had been hearing legislators talk about Holiday Inn treatment at 
the prisons. I wish you could have seen the Holiday Inn treatment that 
these inmates were getting. It was the most barbaric place I have ever 
been in my life. I got to where I could go without so much equivocation 
and so on, so much reservation and trepidation, but it was always very 
trying.
  For the people who think prison is a great place today just go visit 
the nearest one to you and see how you would like to be cooped up in 
it.
  As I walked down the corridors of the prison, those poor inmates 
would hang on the bars because they knew the Governor had the right and 
the authority to sign their names and turn them loose any time he 
chose. The Governor is an authority figure in the prisons.
  So I would visit with these inmates. Mr. President, in all the time 
that I visited prisons in my State, I talked to just one college 
graduate. That prison at that time housed 1,700 inmates. Today we have 
over 4,000 inmates. There was one college graduate. And I used to 
inquire about what they did before they got in trouble. I very rarely 
talked with anyone that was not essentially a drifter, never had a job, 
had nobody that cared much whether he had a job or not.
  My point is this: My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say 
they do not like these so-called social programs. However, what if we 
were to rephrase it. ``Do you like crime prevention?'' Oh, sure. But if 
you call it pork or a social program, then it takes on a stigma that 
makes it almost unacceptable for anybody to favor.
  The bane of this Nation is unbelievable; the violence, the 
incivility. And yet I promise you that building prisons, locking them 
up and throwing the key away, is a very, very partial answer.
  The answer lies in making certain that children have someplace to go 
after school, making certain they have something to do at night such as 
the midnight basketball program in North Little Rock, which is a 
fabulous success. Oh, that is ``pork,'' they argue.
  Mr. President, yesterday morning as I drove in, I was listening to 
National Public Radio. There was a story about the Pepsi-Cola company, 
in one of the counties adjoining the District of Columbia. The sales 
manager and one of the interns that Pepsi-Cola had hired for a 6-week 
stint in that plant were interviewed. Interestingly, 100 people work 
there and it is African-American owned. They started a summer program 
for young African-American males, preferably the 17- or 18-year-old 
variety.
  They had this one young intern whom they had chosen. He was so elated 
about this job he had for a short period of time and is now going on to 
college. But I can tell you his self-esteem has soared under that 
program. And after all, self esteem is what it is all about.
  One woman called in, and said, ``I have brought this to your 
attention before, and I am insulted that this is only for young 
African-American males. How about African-American females?'' At first 
blush I thought that was a very good question. So the sales manager 
said, ``The biggest problem we have in this country is the plight of 
young African-American males. Those are the people who, by the 
millions, we are not salvaging. An inordinate amount of crime is being 
committed by them, and we are sticking by our guns and trying to 
provide opportunities for them. It is not a big deal, and Pepsico is 
doing this on their own; it does not cost the Federal Government a 
penny. But I can tell you that they are salvaging young men who 
otherwise might end up in prison. This is what my colleagues call 
social programs, or pork.

  I am a believer in social programs. I am a believer that because God 
gave me certain talents and, above all, devoted parents, that I owe 
more; it is just that simple.
  In 1936 my father grabbed my brother and me to go see Franklin 
Roosevelt who was coming to Booneville, AR, which was 15 miles from my 
home. We got in our 1935 Dodge and drove 15 miles over a gravel road 
because my father wanted his sons to see a President. And so when we 
get there, the train pulls in. There were 3,500 people in this little 
town. Two men, one standing on each side of Franklin Roosevelt, helped 
him to the back of the train. They were obviously holding him up. I 
tugged on my father's sleeve and I said, ``Dad, what is wrong with 
him?'' He said, ``I will tell you later.'' So on the way home, he said, 
``I want to tell you boys something. President Roosevelt had polio, and 
he cannot walk and he cannot stand up.'' You will not believe this but 
a lot of people in America did not even know that because the press did 
not take pictures of him in a wheelchair. They never allowed anybody to 
take pictures of the braces on his legs. My father said, ``If 
Roosevelt, carrying 12 pounds of steel on his legs, can be elected 
President, you boys have good minds and good bodies, so there is no 
reason why you cannot be President.'' I thought he was nominating me 
for the position. It obviously made an indelible impression on me, or I 
would not be telling you about it today. However, I believe as Franklin 
Roosevelt believed, that social programs have a role in our lives. I 
was lucky, because I chose my parents well. Everybody is not so 
fortunate. But our colleagues on the other side object to that. 
President Roosevelt brought us sewer systems, running water, paved 
streets, rural electricity, and on and on.
  Mr. President, there are two conclusions from this debate which are 
inescapable. The opposition to this bill is an anti-Clinton approach, 
and it is secondly, designed to salvage the National Rifle 
Association's position, and that is an argument that is unassailable. 
The people in the House defeated this bill the first time because the 
National Rifle Association threatened them with their political lives. 
And why? Because the bill banned 19 military type assault weapons.
  Another personal story: My father was a quail hunter, and I started 
quail hunting with him when I was 12 years old. We used shotguns. 
Rifles and handguns were absolutely prohibited. He made a great 
distinction between rifles and shotguns. I had never fired a rifle in 
my life, and when I went into the Marine Corps at the ripe old age of 
18, I went out to the Camp Matthews rifle range for 3 weeks, learning 
how to shoot an M-l rifle. I set a record that was not broken on that 
rifle range for 6 months. I had never fired a rifle before in my life, 
and I set a record. I had no more than fired that high score until I 
was sorry, because this colonel came up to me and said, ``Son, we are 
going to make a sniper out of you.'' Snipers usually last about 10 
minutes. I had no interest whatever in being a sniper--a good red-
blooded American, I just did not want to see any of it. I do not know 
how I dodged that, but in the process they took me and showed me what 
is called a BAR, Browning automatic rifle. It weighed 35 pounds, and 
you carry it on your back. It was the most awesome thing I had ever 
seen. It was not a machine gun but a lot more than an M-l rifle.
  Mr. President, that BAR would still outweigh any of these 19 assault 
weapons that we ban in this bill. But, I can tell you that when it 
comes to firepower, that BAR was one of the Marine Corps' major 
weapons, and these assault weapons we are trying to ban fire more 
rounds at a faster rate.
  So we have two things at work here: People who do not want President 
Clinton to be able to say this is a great victory for the American 
people and those who want to encourage the right of any lunatic to walk 
in and buy the most powerful weapon he has the money to pay for.
  Finally, Mr. President, a point has been made and made and made. As 
Mo Udall used to say, ``Everything has been said, but everybody has not 
said it.'' Not one dime of money can be spent by passing this bill. 
This is an authorization bill. Senator Hollings chairs the subcommittee 
in the Senate, and that subcommittee will appropriate the money for 
virtually everything in this bill.
  So to my friends on the other side, let me just say you are going to 
get bite after bite after bite out of this apple. This is not the end 
of it. You will get a chance to try to cut every one of these programs, 
from prison construction to the number of police on the streets, to the 
battered women program.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me just plead with my colleagues to 
agree with me that this is not a perfect bill, but to also agree with 
me that this country is going to continue to deteriorate and 
degenerate, and crime is going to destroy it if we do not wake up and 
do something dramatic.
  This bill is not going to stop the crime rate, but it is a 
beginning--as I said earlier--until we find programs that provide all 
Americans with economic well-being, provide all Americans with an 
education so they can distinguish between the kinds of lives they ought 
to be living and the kind they live with nobody intervening for them, 
and make it a bipartisan effort. The American people deserve no less.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to make 
a brief statement.
  I have chosen not to debate at length on this particular matter. I 
think some of the characterizations have been overblown, certainly on 
benefits that will flow from this legislation, and perhaps even those 
who oppose it in terms of its detriment.
  I must say I have listened with some dismay at some of the charges 
being leveled by those on the other side of the aisle to Members over 
here, and it takes a good deal of patience and restraint in order not 
to respond in kind.
  But I would like to talk for a moment about another issue. The other 
issue deals with a group of assistant U.S. attorneys. There is an 
organization called the National Association of Assistant United States 
Attorneys. A matter has come to my attention which I think is quite 
disturbing, and it ought to be disturbing to every Member in this 
Chamber.
  I am told that Senator Hatch had released a statement concerning this 
organization in the past day or two. I would like to comment just 
briefly about it.
  A group of young assistant U.S. attorneys complained about a certain 
provision in the crime bill. They wrote a letter--I believe Senator 
Biden received a similar letter as Senator Hatch--dated August 17. Let 
me just read one paragraph. I will insert the full letter in the 
Record. But it says:

       The present crime bill contains a provision which not only 
     severely negates the benefits of ``mandatory minimums'' for a 
     certain class of offenders, but also permits the filing of 
     10,000 to 20,000 frivolous lawsuits which would cause 
     prosecutors to spend their time in needless litigation 
     instead of investigating and prosecuting criminals. The 
     present provision would dilute prosecutors' ability to 
     determine if a drug dealer has ``substantially'' cooperated. 
     In effect, our leverage to get to the suppliers would be 
     eliminated for certain type of drug traffickers. We cannot 
     stand idly by and allow this very effective tool to be taken 
     from us and the citizens we are sworn to protect.

  The letter goes on to say considerably more, but that is the 
gravamen, that is the center of this particular letter.
  These young assistant U.S. attorneys feel that their ability to go 
after drug traffickers will be harmed by the provision in the crime 
bill that is retroactivity.
  They tried to bring this to the attention of the Justice Department.
  During the first week in August, a Mr. Jay Apperson, who is an 
assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
Alexandria Division, Larry Leiser, who is president of the association, 
and Brian Flood, who is an employee of the association went to speak 
with the Justice Department. They met with Carol Dibattista, who is 
director of the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys Office at the 
Department of Justice, also with a woman who is legal counsel for the 
Executive Office, Andy Foist, who is a special assistant to the 
Attorney General and David Margolis, assistant deputy Attorney General.
  I must say that something that was said at that meeting is profoundly 
disturbing to me.
  As they walked into that meeting they were told that they were in 
violation of title 18, section 205, the Criminal Code, just by being 
there. Then they said: ``We are not interested in prosecuting anyone. 
In other words, we just want you to know you are in violation of the 
criminal laws of the United States by virtue of the fact that you are 
assistant U.S. attorneys'' coming in to raise a legitimate complaint 
about a provision in this legislation.
  I find that astonishing, that even the implication, the hint, that 
somehow these young assistant U.S. attorneys, who are on the front 
lines fighting the drug dealers, are going to be accused of violating 
the criminal statutes.
  As soon as that express or implied threat was made, Jay Apperson left 
the room. He did not want any part of it at that point. And the 
person--I am told at least--who was allowed to speak was a Mr. Brian 
Flood, who is not an assistant U.S. attorney.
  Following this meeting, a number of conference calls were held. The 
Attorney General, Members of the Senate, were addressing the board of 
that association, and the board decided notwithstanding the arguments 
of Members of the Senate and the Attorney General, that they were going 
to issue a public statement that they were opposed, not to the bill, 
but to one section of the bill which they felt undermined their ability 
to deal effectively with drug dealers. So they voted to go public.
  Then they issued a letter to both Senator Biden--he can correct me on 
this, if I am wrong--or at least to Senator Hatch. Then complaints 
started flooding into this association, and some of it is hearsay so I 
need not go into it now. I think it requires further investigation. But 
in any event, the board said: ``No, we are not going to retract our 
statement, our public statement. We believe this particular provision 
is adverse to the Nation's interest.''
  On August 19, following a number of phone calls coming from Capitol 
Hill to that association, a letter was sent by Don Edwards, chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights; John Conyers, 
chairman of the Committee on Government Operations; and Bill Hughes, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial 
Administration. They wrote to the Attorney General and I will read 
that. I will take a few moments.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: We have recently learned of an 
     organization called the National Association of Assistant 
     United States Attorneys (NAAUSA). This organization has been 
     lobbying Congress on the crime bill, and has been advocating 
     policy positions that are inconsistent with those taken by 
     the Department of Justice.
       We are strong defenders of a citizen's right to lobby 
     Congress, both individually and as a member of an 
     association. However, we believe that the actions of NAAUSA 
     are causing great confusion, because those with whom they 
     communicate may well believe that they represent the 
     positions of the Department
       In addition, as you well know, we are in the midst of 
     extremely delicate negotiations on the crime bill, and NAAUSA 
     is advocating reopening issues that have not been in dispute 
     in our efforts to produce a final bill.
       We would appreciate your looking into this matter, and 
     letting us know your findings.

  Here we have three very senior Members of the House writing to the 
Attorney General to conduct an investigation or inquiry into this 
matter, and for her to let those Members know about her findings.
  I hope the Attorney General will do much more than that. I hope the 
Attorney General will look into her own department to find out whether 
or not, when prosecutors for the Justice Department walk in requesting 
a meeting and are told they are in violation of the criminal laws of 
the United States, and that while the Department is not interested in 
prosecuting these young U.S. attorneys they at least ought to know they 
are violating the criminal law--I find that outrageous. I find that to 
be intimidation. I think that is a threat, at the very least an implied 
one.
  I think the whole series of actions following that meeting were 
designed to shut this organization up along with these young assistant 
U.S. attorneys on the front lines.
  I think the Attorney General has to do a lot of investigation in this 
to find out whether or not there has been an attempt to shut off the 
voices of those who have to prosecute the drug dealers, and whether or 
not it is public policy of this administration, or private policy, to 
muzzle these young attorneys who are charged with prosecuting the 
criminals who are violating our laws, saying you are in violation for 
walking through here, for trying to lobby the Justice Department. You 
work for the Justice Department, but you are in violation of the 
criminal laws for disagreeing with our official policy.
  How outrageous. That is a scandal in itself. We had enough 
allegations about interference in trying to shut certain officials up 
who may have adverse information. Here are people trying to do their 
job. They feel this particular provision undermined their ability to 
get criminal convictions of those higher up the chain, and if they 
could not negotiate with these mandatory minimum sentences hanging over 
the heads of these individuals, they would be deprived of a very 
important tool.
  So they came to the Attorney General's office saying we object to 
this provision, and they also contacted Senator Biden and Senator 
Hatch.
  I think it is within their constitutional freedoms to do so. Their 
liberties are protected by this. I think it is within their 
constitutional right. I think it is their moral obligation.
  And for anyone associated with the Attorney General's office, or 
indeed even the U.S. Senate to suggest that they may be in violation of 
the law by raising this objection in a private meeting--they had not 
gone public at this point, in a private meeting--to even hint saying, 
``We have got title 18 here.''
  I will submit it for the Record. I would like the Justice Department 
to show me where the members of the Justice Department who come and 
express an opinion in opposition to a certain provision in pending 
legislation, is somehow in violation of the criminal laws of the United 
States.
  I would like to have the Justice Department brief me today, tomorrow, 
next week, and I would like to have the Attorney General conduct her 
investigation into this organization's activities and tell me what law 
was violated.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these materials 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                     Assistant U.S. Attorneys,

                                  Alexandria, VA, August 17, 1994.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: The National Association of Assistant 
     United States Attorneys has as its members front-line 
     litigators. Our members represent the United States in all 
     civil and criminal matters. We are our nation's lawyers. Most 
     of our member are prosecutors who work very closely with 
     federal and local law enforcement agents.
       In 1987, Congress enacted the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines, which, in part, had stiff but appropriate 
     sentencing provisions, incorporating mandatory minimum 
     sentences for certain drug traffickers. Those mandatory 
     minimums have given our prosecutors the ability to get drug 
     dealers to cooperate by forcing them to work with us in 
     giving up their source(s) of supply or face years of 
     incarceration. When their cooperation is deemed to be 
     ``substantial'' by a committee of Assistant United States 
     Attorneys (or, in some cases, the United States Attorney), 
     their sentences may be reduced by a federal Judge. In fiscal 
     1993, almost one-fifth of convicted defendants benefited by 
     having their sentences reduced because they cooperated with 
     law enforcement authorities. The results of that cooperation 
     led to the arrest and conviction of numerous drug suppliers 
     and their sources.
       The present Crime Bill contains a provision which not only 
     severely negates the benefits of ``mandatory minimums'' for a 
     certain class of offenders, but also would permit the filing 
     of 10,000 to 20,000 frivolous law-suits which would cause 
     prosecutors to spend their time in needless litigation 
     instead of investigating and prosecuting criminals. The 
     present provision would dilute prosecutors' ability to 
     determine if a drug dealer has ``substantially'' cooperated. 
     In effect, our leverage to get to the suppliers would be 
     eliminated for certain types of drug traffickers. We cannot 
     stand idly by and allow this very effective tool to be taken 
     from us and the citizens we are sworn to protect.
       The bill's present language is intended to address low-
     level drug traffickers who are so minimally involved that 
     they cannot have their sentences reduced because they truly 
     cannot provide information or cooperation which would be 
     deemed to be ``substantial''. In some instances under 
     mandatory minimums (and the Department of Justice's 
     requirement that prosecutors had to charge the most serious 
     provable crime), some injustices occurred. We believe that 
     should be corrected. However, Attorney General Reno fixed 
     this problem some time ago by no longer requiring Assistant 
     United States Attorneys to charge the most serious readily 
     provable offenses if that would result in a miscarriage of 
     justice. In addition, our Association proposed minor 
     revisions to the present bill which would codify the intent 
     to appropriately treat first time low level drug traffickers. 
     We are not opposed to these goals and objectives. We are, 
     however, very much opposed to the way the present bill 
     achieves them.
       We believe that prosecutors are in the best position to 
     determine if an individual has cooperated substantially or 
     truly has nothing to offer and therefore meets the other 
     criteria to receive a reduced sentence in accordance with 
     this bill's present language. We have proposed, therefore, 
     that in order to qualify for ``safety valve'' relief, the 
     current language be amended as follows:
       (f)(5) is hereby amended by striking the current language 
     and inserting:
       (f)(5) the government certifies that the defendant has 
     timely and truthfully provided to the government all 
     information and evidence the defendant has concerning the 
     offense or offenses that were part of the same course of 
     conduct or of a common scheme or plan.
       We urge the Committee to make the change we have proposed.
           Sincerely,
                                         Lawrence J. Leiser, AUSA,
                                                President, NAAUSA.
                                  ____


 National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys Policy Brief


                           mandatory minimums

       The National Association of Assistant United States 
     Attorneys represents frontline federal prosecutors, including 
     criminal narcotics prosecutors and designated Organized Crime 
     Drug Enforcement Task Force prosecutors, charged with 
     enforcing the federal narcotics laws. We are encouraged that 
     ``The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Reform Act of 1994'', H.R. 
     3979, as amended, and adopted by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee, recognizes the importance of 
     limiting relief from provisions of existing mandatory minimum 
     sentences to those defendants who have made every effort to 
     provide assistance to the government.
       The proposed amendment to Section 3553 of Title 18, United 
     States Code, to create a relief mechanism from application of 
     mandatory minimum sentences in certain cases, includes the 
     criteria as set forth in paragraph (5) that the defendant has 
     provided to the government all information the defendant has 
     concerning the offense or other criminal conduct related to 
     the offense.
       While we are encouraged by the obvious recognition that any 
     relaxation from mandatory minimum application should be 
     limited to those who provide information to the government, 
     we suggest that the existing language is problematic in its 
     application. The first difficulty arises as to who is in a 
     position to determine whether a defendant has provided the 
     government all information. Only the government is able to 
     make that determination, by comparing the information 
     provided with other evidence of the case. The current 
     language would conceivably allow the defendant to self-
     servingly state ``that's all I know,'' without the government 
     being in a position to test that assertion by debriefings, 
     polygraph results, etc. In order to assist in this process, 
     the defendant should be required to provide any evidence he 
     can, in addition to information.
       Similarly, we are concerned that this relief mechanism not 
     be available to a defendant who has provided information 
     which is not truthful, or to a defendant who in providing 
     certain truthful information, nevertheless, also lies about 
     other aspects or details so as to mislead investigators or 
     obstruct the investigation.
       It also should be required that the information be timely. 
     Under the current language, a defendant who goes to trial and 
     is convicted, would presumably be able to stand up at 
     sentencing, tell the government what it has already proved, 
     and avoid the mandatory minimums under this escape provision.
       Accordingly, we seek amended language which would require 
     that the defendant must provide timely information, truthful 
     information, other evidence, and that the determination as to 
     whether a defendant has provided all this be by certification 
     by the government. Otherwise the sentencing court will be 
     inundated by litigation calling upon it to make 
     determinations it is not equipped to make.
       This is the natural complement to the existing 
     ``Substantial Assistance'' reduction mechanism currently 
     embodied under Section 3553(e) of Title 18 United State Code. 
     This provision has been responsibly applied by federal 
     prosecutors throughout the country.
       It reflects the recognition that the government is in the 
     best position to make such a determination, and provides the 
     incentive to the low-level defendant to work with the 
     government in working up the ladder to identify and target 
     higher-up drug traffickers. The current amendment properly 
     recognizes that there are simply those who are not able to 
     provide ``substantial assistance'' but who nevertheless have 
     done everything they can to assist.
       Simply put, society has a right to ask that a defendant 
     provide all that he knows. If what he knows constitutes 
     ``substantial assistance'' he will have already earned 
     relief. (18 U.S.C. 3553 (e)). If it does not, and he meets 
     the other requirements of the currently proposed legislation, 
     then justice dictates that he receive a lesser sentence.
       The amended language which we have suggested (attached) 
     will assure that defendants continue to have an incentive to 
     cooperate with the United States by providing all truthful 
     information in a timely manner, while allowing those who, 
     through no fault of their own, are simply not in a position 
     to provide ``substantial assistance,'' an opportunity to 
     receive a sentence below current mandatory minimums.
       (f)(5) is hereby amended by striking
       ``(5) no later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the 
     defendant has provided to the Government all information the 
     defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were 
     part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or 
     plan. The fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful 
     other information to provide shall not preclude or require a 
     determination by the court that the defendant has complied 
     with this requirement.''

     and inserting
       ``(5) the government certifies that the defendant has 
     timely and truthfully provided to the government all 
     information, and evidence the defendant has concerning the 
     offense or offenses that were part of the same course of 
     conduct or of a common scheme or plan.''
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, August 19, 1994.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of 
         Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: We have recently learned of an 
     organization called the National Association of Assistant 
     United States Attorneys (NAAUSA). This organization has been 
     lobbying Congress on the crime bill, and has been advocating 
     policy positions that are inconsistent with those taken by 
     the Department of Justice.
       We are strong defenders of a citizen's right to lobby 
     Congress, both individually and as a member of an 
     association. However, we believe that the actions of NAAUSA 
     are causing great confusion, because those with whom they 
     communicate may well believe that they represent the 
     positions of the Department.
       In addition, as you well know, we are in the midst of 
     extremely delicate negotiations on the crime bill, and NAAUSA 
     is advocating reopening issues that have not been in dispute 
     in our efforts to produce a final bill.
       We would appreciate your looking into this matter, and 
     letting us know your findings.
           Sincerely,
     Don Edwards,
                                         Chairman, Subcommittee on
                                  Civil and Constitutional Rights.
     John Conyers, Jr.,
                                            Chairman, Committee on
                                            Government Operations.
     William J. Hughes,
                            Chairman, Subcommittee on Intellectual
                             Property and Judicial Administration.
                                  ____


          [From the United States Code, title 18, section 205]

  Sec. 205 Activites of Officers and Employees in Claims Against and 
                 Other Matters Affecting the Government

       (a) Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United 
     States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of 
     the Government or in any agency of the United States, other 
     than in the proper discharge of his official duties--
       (1) acts as agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim 
     against the United States, or receives any gratuity, or any 
     share of or interest in any such claim, in consideration of 
     assistance in the prosecution of such claim; or
       (2) acts as agent or attorney for anyone before any 
     department, agency, court, court-martial, officer, or civil, 
     military, or naval commission in connection with any covered 
     matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct 
     and substantial interest;
     shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of 
     this title.
       (b) Whoever, being an officer or employee of the District 
     of Columbia or an officer or employee of the Office of the 
     United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
     otherwise than in the proper discharge of official duties--
       (1) acts as agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim 
     against the District of Columbia, or receives any gratuity, 
     or any share of or interest in any such claim in 
     consideration of assistance in the prosecution of such claim; 
     or
       (2) acts as agent or attorney for anyone before any 
     department, agency, court, officer or commission in 
     connection with any covered matter in which the District of 
     Columbia is a party or has a direct and substantial interest;
     shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of 
     this title.
       (c) A special Government employee shall subject to 
     subsection (a) and (b) only in relation to a covered matter 
     involving a specific party or parties--
       (1) in which he has at any time participated personally and 
     substantially as a Government employee or special Government 
     employee through decision, approval, disapproval, 
     recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or 
     otherwise; or
       (2) which is pending in the department or agency of the 
     Government in which he is serving.
     Paragraph (2) shall not apply in the case of special 
     Government employee who has served in such department or 
     agency no more than sixty days during the immediately 
     preceding period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive 
     days.
       (d) Nothing in subsection (a) or (b) prevents an office or 
     employee, if not inconsistent with the faithful performance 
     of his duties, from acting without compensation as agent or 
     attorney for, or otherwise representing, any person who is 
     the subject of disciplinary, loyalty, or other personnel 
     administration proceeding in connection with those 
     proceedings.
       (e) Nothing in subsection (a) or (b) prevents an officer or 
     employee, including a special Government employee, from 
     acting, with or without compensation, as agent or attorney 
     for, or otherwise representing, his parents, spouse, child, 
     or any person for whom, or for any estate for which, he is 
     serving as guardian, executor, administrator, trustee, or 
     other personal fiduciary except--
       (1) in those matters in which he has participated 
     personally and substantially as a Government employee or 
     special Government employee through decision, approval, 
     disapproval, recommendation, the rending of advice, 
     investigation, or otherwise, or
       (2) in those matters which are the subject of his official 
     responsibility,
     subject to approval by the Government official responsible 
     for appointment to his position.
       (f) Nothing in subsection (a) or (b) prevents a special 
     Government employee from acting as agent or attorney for 
     another person in the performance of work under a grant by, 
     or a contract with or for the benefit of, the United States 
     if the head of the department or agency concerned with the 
     grant or contract certifies in writing that the national 
     interest so requires and publishes such certification in the 
     Federal Register.
       (g) Nothing in this section prevents an officer or employee 
     from giving testimony under oath or from making statements 
     require to be made under penalty for perjury or contempt.
       (h) For the purpose of this section, the term ``covered 
     matter'' means any judicial or other proceeding, application, 
     request for a ruling or other determination, contact, claim, 
     controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or 
     other particular matter.
       (As amended Pub. L. 101-194, Title IV, Sec. 404, Nov. 30, 
     1989, 103 Stat. 1750; Pub. L. 101-280, Sec. 5(c), May 4, 
     1990, 104 Stat. 159).


                     federal sentencing guidelines

       See Sec. 2C1.3.


                      code of federal regulations

       Departmental proceedings, representation before Department 
     of Agriculture, see 7 CFR 1.26.
       Officers and employees of U.S., claims and matters 
     affecting governmental activities of--
       Disqualification of government officers and employees in 
     representation before Board, see 14 CFR 300.11.
       Practice of special government employees permitted before 
     Board, see 14 CFR 300.12.
       Persons who may practice before Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
     and Firearms, see 31 CFR 8.2.


                        law review commentaries

       Public service by public servants. Lisa G. Lerman, 19 
     Hofstra L. Rev. 1141 (1991).
       Section 205's restriction on pro bono representation by 
     federal attorneys. Carolyn Elefant, 37 Fed.B.News & J. 407 
     (1990).


                           notes of decisions

     Agency personnel exchanges  12
     Assistance of counsel  9
     Class actions  14
     Prosecutor and defender exchange programs    11
     Represenation of relatives  10
     Union activities  13
                                  ____


                              2. Generally

       Strict common-law notion of ``agency'' does not necessarily 
     exhaust meaning of prohibition of this section against 
     officers and employees of United States acting as agent for 
     another in matter affecting United States. U.S. v. Sweig, 
     D.C.N.Y. 1970, 316 F.Supp. 1148.

                3. Officers or employees within section

       This section which prohibits federal employees from 
     appearing as agent or attorney on behalf of anyone in a 
     proceeding to which the United States is a party bars federal 
     employees enrolled in part-time legal studies from entering 
     an appearance under court rule on behalf of indigent criminal 
     appellants entitled to assignment of counsel, despite 
     contention that role of a law student so appearing is neither 
     that of an attorney nor that of an agent for appellant and 
     that such appearance would not frustrate the legislative 
     intent of this section. U.S. v. Bailey, 1974, 498 F.2d 677, 
     162 U.S. App. D.C. 135.
       Veterans Administration's decision not to accept bid of 
     contractor which had been preselected by Small Business 
     Administration and which was only company negotiating with VA 
     for construction of VA facility was not arbitrary or 
     capricious, and contractor was not entitled to recover its 
     bid preparation and negotiating costs; decision not to award 
     contract was based on appearance of conflict of interest 
     caused by contractor's representation during negotiation 
     process by VA employee, in violation of executive order, VA 
     regulations, and statute prohibiting government employee from 
     acting as agent for anyone in connection with matter in which 
     Government is party or has direct and substantial interest. 
     Refine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 1987, 12 Cl.Ct. 56.

                         Prosecution of claims

       One who was still employee of Federal Trade Commission 
     could not accept any compensation for his legal services in 
     prosecuting class action in which it was alleged that 
     Commission discriminated on account of race in failing to 
     award promotions. Bachman v. Pertschuk, D.C.D.C. 1977, 437 
     F.Supp. 973.
       A government attorney owning a corporation involved in a 
     quiet title action with the United States government and 
     having a financial interest in the action is not involved in 
     any real or apparent conflict of interest with his duties and 
     * * *

                           *   *   *   *   *


                  Sec. 216. Penalties and Injunctions

       (a) The punishment for an offense under section 203, 204, 
     205, 207, 208, or 209 of this title is the following:
       (1) Whoever engages in the conduct constituting the offense 
     shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined in 
     the amount set forth in this title, or both.
       (2) Whoever willfully engages in the conduct constituting 
     the offense shall be imprisoned for not more than five years 
     or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both.
       (b) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the 
     appropriate United States district court against any person 
     who engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 
     203, 204, 205, 207, 208, or 209 of this title and, upon proof 
     of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such 
     person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation 
     which the person received or offered for the prohibited 
     conduct, whichever amount is greater. The imposition of a 
     civil penalty under this subsection does not preclude any 
     other criminal or civil statutory, common law, or 
     administrative remedy, which is available by law to the 
     United States or any other person.
       (c) If the Attorney General has reason to believe that a 
     person is engaging in conduct constituting an offense under 
     section 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, or 209 of this title, the 
     Attorney General may petition an appropriate United States 
     district court for an order prohibiting that person from 
     engaging in such conduct. The court may issue an order 
     prohibiting that person from engaging in such conduct if the 
     court finds that the conduct constitutes such an offense. The 
     filing of a petition under this section does not preclude any 
     other remedy which is available by law to the United States 
     or any other person.
       (Added Pub. L. 101-194, title IV, Sec. 407(a), Nov. 30, 
     1989, 103 Stat. 1753; Pub. L. 101-280, Sec. 5(f), May 4, 
     1990, 104 Stat. 159.)

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to have the Attorney General 
conduct an investigation, conduct an investigation into her own 
department to find out if this is going on; and if this is going on, 
report back not only to the House Members who wrote this letter, report 
back to Senator Biden, to Senator Hatch or to me, or to any other 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell us whether this is 
the kind of tactic that ought to be employed in trying to insure the 
passage of legislation the department supports.
  Mr. President, I will not take any more time. I see other Members are 
gathering and would like a vote on this measure.
  Let me just indicate for the record that I think the Republicans 
ought to have an opportunity to vote on the 10 measures that were 
offered by Senator Dole, because we feel that the bill that left the 
Senate was substantially weakened and that spending was significantly 
increased. We ought to at least have an opportunity to vote on that.
  The majority has come back with a counterproposal, which I do not 
think measures up to an equitable solution to this. So I intend to vote 
to sustain the point of order, not waive it.
  But let me say once again for the Members, I have sat here and at 
home and watched some of the charges being made by Members on the other 
side who talked about, ``Where is your character?'' and ``Have you no 
shame?''
  I think it is pretty outrageous conduct, frankly. I debated whether 
to take the floor to start responding in kind, in terms of the kind of 
statements being made on the other side. My better judgment tells me 
not to.
  I think there are elements in this bill which are worthwhile in 
passing. I think, overall, there are measures we can support. But I 
must say that I find it offensive that Republicans here are being 
treated even less generously than those in the House. And, having 
served for 6 years in the House many years ago, I can tell you it is 
not a pleasant place to be. The majority treats the minority there with 
absolute and utter contempt. They allow them little, if any, role in 
the House of Representatives. They steamroll over them every time on 
every issue.
  And I must say that the practice is starting to gain momentum even 
here. It is getting more partisan here, getting more political here, 
because the rights of the minority are not being given fair 
consideration.
  So if we are going to start down this path, and we did so a short 
time ago, when the leader starts offering amendments and filling up 
trees and the rest do not get their opportunity to vote on our 
amendments, that poisons the well. There are a lot of those of us on 
this side who try to work with the majority. When we are not able at 
least to have a reasonable voice, an opportunity to shape legislation, 
then I think it is going to harden the lines on this side.
  I hope it does not happen. I hope it does not happen. There is a lot 
of legislation to go. We have a major health care bill that some of us 
are trying to work on on a bipartisan basis and hopefully we will be 
constructive and perhaps even successful.
  In any event, Mr. President, I want to just conclude my remarks by 
saying, I feel that Republicans made a reasonable offer to have an 
opportunity to vote on a series of amendments that would strike some of 
the funding that would increase the penalties for those who want truth 
in sentencing--and I believe we ought to have truth in sentencing. A 
first-time offender for a felony should be required to serve 85 percent 
of his sentence. If you are using minors to engage in the drug trade or 
you are selling to minors, you ought to go to prison. If you are 
committing a crime with a firearm, you ought to go to prison. If you 
are an alien who has committed a crime and you finished up your 
sentence, you ought to be deported without further delay.
  And if the retroactive portion of this legislation was depriving the 
front-line U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys, from prosecuting 
cases, they ought to be heard and not muzzled and not threatened 
overtly or implicitly that they are somehow in violation of the 
criminal laws of this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


       the crime bill: good for the nation, good for south dakota

  Mr. DASCHLE. It has been 9 months since 95 Senators, liberal 
Democrats and conservative Republicans alike, joined together to pass a 
comprehensive crime bill. Our cooperative effort was fueled by a common 
belief that reducing crime and violence must be one of our most 
important national priorities. And I think we all still share that 
belief.
  Crime is a problem that affects every single community in America. It 
affects wealthy neighborhoods as well as low-income housing projects, 
rural areas as well the inner cities. It is a widespread national 
problem which cannot be tackled overnight.
  Nor is it a problem which can be solved by this legislation alone. 
However, this crime bill would make significant progress toward a safer 
society by beefing up law enforcement nationwide, building new prisons, 
increasing the penalties for criminal behavior, and providing the 
children of our country with alternatives to drugs and violence.
  This legislation would provide $30.2 billion over 6 years for 
national crime anticrime efforts. Although the price tag seems steep, 
it's important to note that every dollar provided by the bill would 
come from cutting civilian employment with the Federal Government.
  That's right--this bill will enhance our crime fighting capabilities 
and pay for it by getting rid of more than 250,000 bureaucrats, not by 
increasing spending.
  The centerpiece of the crime bill is the cops on the beat program, 
which would allow State and local governments to put an additional 
100,000 police officers on the streets in communities nationwide. This 
would increase the number of State and local law enforcement officers 
in this country by 20 percent.
  For my home State of South Dakota, this bill means a guarantee of at 
least $44 million to hire more than 500 additional police officers. 
Common sense tells us that where there is an increased law enforcement 
presence in a community, there will be better crime prevention and 
apprehension of criminals in that community.
  It's well known that many States are faced with overcrowded prisons 
and are forced to release violent criminals after they have served only 
about one-half of their sentences. Again, common sense tells us that we 
cannot hope to reduce crime if we don't shut this revolving door and 
keep violent criminals in prison where they belong.
  This crime bill would provide $7.9 billion to States to cover the 
costs associated with the construction of new prisons, ensuring 
additional space for violent criminals. States can also free up prison 
cells for violent offenders by using these funds to establish military-
style boot camps for those convicted of non-violent crimes. These boot 
camps have shown promise in test cases and are a prudent use of scarce 
crime-fighting resources. In fact, the cost of housing an inmate at 
bootcamp is one-third what it would be for incarceration in a 
traditional prison facility.
  Of these funds, South Dakota can expect approximately $13 million to 
build and operate prisons and boot camps. And if my State adheres to 
the truth in sentencing guidelines contained in the bill, guidelines 
which require violent criminals to serve a greater percentage of their 
sentences, an additional $13 million is possible.
  Strengthening criminal penalties must go hand in hand with expanding 
prison capacity. Criminal offenders must know that when they break the 
law, there is a prison cell with their name on it and that they will be 
in that cell for a longer period of time.
  The most well-known sentencing provision in the crime bill is the 
three-strikes-and-you're-out law. For individuals convicted of a third 
violent felony, this provision will require that Federal judges hand 
down mandatory life sentences. This says to criminals that if you 
persist in pursuing a life of violence, we will insist that you spend 
your life in jail.
  For my home State, perhaps one of the most important aspects of this 
bill is the special rural crime initiatives. According to the FBI's 
most recent report, crime in rural areas is rising faster than in any 
other area in the country. A look at some of the report's statistics 
illustrates this disturbing trend.
  For example, violent assaults in rural areas have increased 30 times 
faster than in the Nation's 25 largest cities. Rapes in rural areas 
rose more than 9 percent, while at the same time dropping almost 4 
percent in urban areas. And arrests for drug violations rose by 23 
percent in rural areas during 1992.
  The crime bill recognizes that what may work to fight crime in large 
cities will not necessarily be successful in rural areas. To address 
the unique challenges presented by rising crime in rural America, the 
bill would allot $245 million in assistance to State and local law 
enforcement. Of this amount, South Dakota is expected to receive 
approximately $6.5 million.
  Additionally, the bill would create drug enforcement task forces in 
each Federal judicial district in rural America. These task forces 
would team Federal agents and prosecutors with State and local law 
enforcement to fully investigate and prosecute drug trafficking cases. 
In this way, the expertise of the Federal Government in fighting 
illegal drugs would be shared with rural police officers and sheriffs 
who have relatively little experience in dealing with such problems.

  The crime bill does not stop there when it comes to illegal drugs. 
Instead, it recognizes the proven success of the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Formula Grant Program by providing $1 billion for anti-drug efforts in 
each of the 50 States. In fact, when the President proposed the 
termination of this program in his fiscal year 1995 budget proposal, 
more than 90 Senators voted to retain funding for this effective 
program.
  In fiscal year 1995, my home State will receive $2.1 million to help 
support 17 anti-drug projects, ranging from drug task forces to 
addiction treatment for juveniles. Because many of these programs would 
be undercut without Federal support, the Byrne Grant Program is 
enthusiastically supported by South Dakota's attorney general and 
various law enforcement officials across the State.
  And again, the crime bill does not stop there when it comes to 
illegal drugs. The bill includes $383 million for treating the drug 
addictions of prison inmates across the country. This is wise use of 
crime-fighting funds for two reasons. First, it has been shown that 
treating the drug addictions of prisoners cuts recidivism rates in 
half. Without a drug habit to support, these individuals are less apt 
to return to a life of crime upon their release.
  Second, for every dollar spent on drug treatment for criminal 
offenders, we save $3 through reducing crime and reducing other costs 
associated with drug addictions. It's not often that you can find a 
proposal which is good for society and saves money.
  And finally, Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of 
spending on crime prevention programs.
  A number of Republican Senators have denounced this bill as too 
expensive and filled with wasteful social spending. In reality, more 
than 3 of every 4 dollars authorized by the bill will be used to hire 
more law enforcement officers and build more prisons. This certainly 
doesn't sound to me like a bill laden with pork.
  It's time to move beyond the rhetoric and to talk in frank terms 
about what will really help this Nation to overcome its crime problems. 
I believe we must start by recognizing that we cannot end crime as we 
know it simply by shutting away today's criminals. It is just as 
important for us to prevent the Nation's children from becoming the 
criminals of tomorrow.
  Far too many children, in rural and urban areas alike, do not have 
alternatives to drugs and violence. They do not have afterschool 
programs and sports leagues. They do not have positive role models in 
their lives. They do not have anything to keep them off the streets and 
out of trouble.

  Our children are this Nation's future. We owe them the chance to lead 
fulfilling lives as law-abiding citizens.
  The crime bill will provide local governments the opportunity to 
apply for crime prevention block grants. Because cities and towns know 
best what resources are already available for their children and what 
needs currently go unmet, they will decide how these funds are to be 
spent. For example, localities can establish boys and girls clubs in 
low-income areas, fund nighttime sports leagues in high-crime areas and 
programs designed to give young people an alternative to joining a 
gang.
  I suspect the reason that the crime prevention initiatives in the 
bill have been so roundly denounced is because my Republican colleagues 
feel that they will get political mileage out of it. That may be a 
time-honored tradition of our political system. But it is simply wrong 
to play politics with measures which will have a very real and positive 
effect on the lives of young Americans.
  For 6 years, the Congress has worked on developing a comprehensive 
response to the problems of crime and violence in our society. This 
measure before the Senate represents the culmination of that effort. It 
has been thoroughly debated and is supported by a majority of the 
Congress and by the President.
  This bill has been endorsed by the major law enforcement, 
prosecutorial and State and local governmental organizations in this 
country. Supporters include the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Sheriffs Organization, the International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers, the National Troopers Organization, the National District 
Attorneys Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, 
the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, 
and the National Association of Counties.
  In short, Mr. President, the Congress has devoted considerable time 
and effort to fashioning a crime bill which will come down hard on 
criminals and improve the lives of law-abiding citizens. The American 
people have waited long enough for this bill. I hope they will not have 
to wait much longer.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have spoken previously in support of 
the crime bill, but today I want to talk specifically about the 
Violence Against Women Act included in the bill.
  One of the most compelling reasons to pass this crime legislation is 
that it contains the Violence Against Women Act--a needed set of the 
measures to reduce such violence and help the large numbers of women 
who are victimized by it.
  These reforms are urgently needed. Domestic violence is the most 
common cause of traumatic injury to women in the United States. 
Nationwide, a woman is attacked and beaten every 18 seconds. In 
Massachusetts last year, 29 women were murdered in crimes of domestic 
violence, an average of one every 12 days. Fifteen more have lost their 
lives to family violence so far this year.
  The Violence Against Women Act offers the comprehensive approach that 
has long been needed to address this worsening problem.
  I commend Senator Biden for the effective work he has done in 
preparing these provisions and guiding them through the legislative 
process. He has done a masterful job.
  To reduce domestic violence, the bill provides funds to train and 
educate police, prosecutors and judges so that violence within the 
family will be taken seriously and treated as the crime that it is. It 
creates Federal penalties for crossing State lines to commit spouse 
abuse. It requires all States to enforce antistalking orders.
  To make streets safer for all women, the bill provides funds to 
assist law enforcement. It increases rape prevention education. It 
provides grants to prevent crime in public transportation and 
recreational areas. It encourages women to prosecute their attackers by 
extending ``rape shield'' protections to bar irrelevant inquiries into 
a victim's sexual history. And it creates a civil rights cause of 
action or victims of gender-motivated crimes of violence.
  In addition, the bill contains urgently needed funds to help victims 
of violence. It supports counselors and shelters for battered women. It 
includes a provision I sponsored to restore the national toll-free 
domestic violence hotline, which went out of business 2 years ago for 
lack of funds.
  The national hotline is a lifeline for many women. It averaged over 
180 calls a day--65,000 calls a year--in the 5 years it was in 
operation. The majority of callers were women who had been beaten and 
believed they were in imminent danger. When they called the hotline, 
they were directed to resources available in their own communities--
shelters, counselors, legal aid, and other forms of assistance.
  The Violence Against Women Act also includes a provisions that 
Senator Hatch and I sponsored to protect the confidentiality of 
counseling programs for rape victims. Courts in some States, including 
Massachusetts, have recently ordered rap crisis centers to disclose 
their counseling records to defendants in criminal cases.
  The consequences are potentially disastrous. Rape counseling programs 
are of enormous help in enabling women to cope with the trauma of 
sexual assault and to recover from its debilitating effects. But these 
programs can only work if the victims participating in them can be sure 
that their counseling sessions will remain completely confidential. If 
there is no guarantee of privacy, women will not seek the counseling 
they need to help them recover.
  The YWCA in Springfield, MA, runs a very successful rape counseling 
program, as do many YWCA's around the country. Recently, a State court 
ordered the YWCA to turn over its counseling files to a defendant in a 
rape case. To protect the victim's privacy, the YWCA initially resisted 
the court order. But as the penalties mounted for contempt of court, it 
was forced to comply.
  As a result, a number of women have cancelled their participation in 
that counseling program, and in similar programs in other parts of 
Massachusetts. That result is tragic and unacceptable.
  The provision in the Violence Against Women Act that Senator Hatch 
and I sponsored encourages States to enact legislation giving the 
maximum possible protection to the confidentiality of these records, 
without violating the constitutional rights of the defendant. Clearly, 
we need to do more to protect the rights of the victims of sexual 
assault, by preserving the confidentiality of their treatment for the 
trauma they have suffered. This measure is a major step forward.
  No woman who fears crime on the street or violence in her home will 
have this or any of the other benefits of the Violence Against Women 
Act if passage of the crime bill is blocked. I urge the Senate to 
reject the point of order and to approve the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, needless to say, I will vote against the 
conference report on the crime bill. The Democrats stuffed it with 
pork--about 7 billion dollars' worth, moreover. This bill spends $7 
billion on welfare type programs having nothing to do with fighting 
crime. Welfare programs don't stop crime--if they did, then there would 
not be a tidal wave of crime engulfing most American cities.
  However, I am pleased that the conference report on the crime bill 
includes the Helms-Gramm-Graham amendment, section 20409, regarding 
prison overcrowding and the eighth amendment. This amendment will 
prevent Federal courts from arbitrarily using prison crowding as the 
basis for imposing prison caps that force States to release early 
thousands of violent criminals.
  Mr. President, I spoke at length about this amendment on November 10, 
1993, but I want to take a few minutes to summarize the provisions of 
this amendment. First of all, this amendment had strong bipartisan 
support in both Chambers--it passed the Senate by a 68 to 31 vote and 
an identical provision was included in the House bill.
  This amendment is necessary because in deciding if prison crowding 
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, some Federal courts presently 
look at how the conditions affect the entire prison population, instead 
of the effect the conditions have on the specific inmate.
  This broad-brush judicial approach often leads courts to put a cap on 
the prison population, which limits the number of inmates allowed in 
the prison. Frequently, a consent decree is agreed upon by both sides 
before the case goes to trial. As a result, States are thus forced to 
grant criminals and pretrial detainees early releases from prison. 
These criminals pose a serious threat to public safety because they 
often go back to their old habits of robbing and killing people. In my 
statement back in November, I highlighted a few of the horror stories.
  Mr. President, prison caps should be a remedy of absolute last 
resort. This amendment requires courts to evaluate claims of cruel and 
unusual punishment based on how prison conditions affect individual 
inmates, not the effect on the entire prison population.
  The standard set forth in this amendment is intended to apply to 
State correctional facilities as well as local detention facilities, 
which often have mixed populations of sentenced and pretrial detainees. 
For example, the Philadelphia prison system, which is under a consent 
decree, has facilities that contain both types of prisoners.
  Furthermore, this legislation is intended to ensure that a Federal 
court will first make a finding that the prison conditions are, in 
fact, unconstitutional before it approves a consent decree establishing 
a population cap.
  Finally, this legislation applies to existing consent decrees, 
including those where the decrees where entered before a finding of a 
constitutional violation. State and local governments can make an 
immediate request for a review of the consent decree--State or local 
governments do not have to wait 2 years to file such a request. A court 
must modify or terminate the consent decree unless the prisoners can 
establish that the continued enforcement of the cap is necessary to 
prevent a constitutional violation. This just makes sense, if the 
prison conditions no longer violate constitutional rights, then a 
prison cap is no longer appropriate.
  Mr. President, I ask the distinguished ranking Republican on the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, if my interpretation of this amendment 
is accurate.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I agree with the explanation of the 
amendment that the Senator from North Carolina has laid out for the 
Senate.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the able Senator knows, the 
Congressional Research Service concluded that ``Congress' power under 
the 14th amendment and its power over the Federal courts generally do 
enable it to act in the manner prescribed * * *.''--Memorandum of April 
20, 1993. I ask the Senator if careful consideration was given to the 
constitutional issues surrounding this issue.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we did consider the constitutional issues 
here and we concluded that the approach taken in this amendment is 
constitutional.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, to listen to the debate on this budget 
point of order by some Members, one would think that the idea of a 
crime trust fund was unanimously supported in the Senate on previous 
occasions.
  This is not true. When the Senate considered this idea on November 4 
of last year, there was a Republican voice of dissent regarding this 
idea. I voted against it then, and will do so again. I would ask 
unanimous consent to have my statement from November 4 included in the 
Record following my remarks.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. HATFIELD. If my colleagues have had a change of heart regarding 
this issue, I commend them. To me, opposition to waiving this point of 
order has nothing to do with holding up the crime bill. This is not an 
issue of guns--I voted for the ban on military-type weapons--nor is it 
about trying to delete the misguided death penalties that I oppose in 
this bill--we lost that fight.
  The issue here is taking $30 billion of taxpayer dollars and ignoring 
the normal budget process in order to create a trust fund. We have some 
trust funds, such as the highway trust fund, that are dedicated to a 
specific purpose and independently funded with ongoing revenue sources. 
But, we have never seen a creature like the one created in this bill.
  There is no crime tax or fee to fund this trust fund after 5 years. 
What will happen to these programs then? When I spoke in November, I 
mentioned some of the other daunting issues that might deserve special 
trust fund treatment: housing, child nutrition--many of the needs we 
meet in discretionary spending.
  I support many of the programs offered in this bill. The programs 
that are worthy can compete within the normal appropriations process 
for funding. Programs that are not a priority may not receive funding. 
This is what we do every day on the Appropriations Committee; it is the 
crux of the constitutional duty of Congress to make these tough 
decisions.
  If these are worthy programs, let the President request the money for 
them annually, and let Congress decide annually if they are working. It 
is our job to make these determinations. We should not simply put the 
whole spending process on automatic pilot.
  I will vote to sustain a point of order, not because of assault 
weapons, not because of so-called pork spending, but because the trust 
fund violates the Budget Act, and is the wrong approach to take on this 
issue.

                               Exhibit 1

       Mr. Hatfield addressed the Chair.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Massachusetts.
       Under the previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
     to be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the 
     Senator from California.
       Mr. Hatfield. I did not understand that.
       Mr. Kerry. Madam President, I have been in process of 
     ceding here. I want to tie up the floor a while. I will yield 
     to our colleague if he did not have a long statement.
       Mr. Hatfield. I have 5 minutes.
       Mr. Kerry. I am happy to yield to the Senator for 5 minutes 
     because I will be longer than that.
       If I could have the understanding, Madam President, that 
     the floor would revert to me I would appreciate it, and I so 
     ask unanimous consent.
       The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
       The Senator from Oregon.
       Mr. Hatfield. Madam President, I thank the Senator from 
     Massachusetts. I must confess I did not understand we were 
     under a time agreement at this time.
       The Presiding Officer. There is no time agreement. That was 
     the previous order agreed upon before the Senator from 
     California started to speak.
       Mr. Hatfield. I would be happy to defer back to the Senator 
     from Massachusetts to await my turn to have the floor, but I 
     only want 5 minutes.
       Mr. Kerry. Madam President, as I said I am happy to let my 
     colleague go for 5 minutes unless he feels he wants to wait.
       Mr. Hatfield. I appreciate it.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 1101

       Mr. Hatfield. Madam President, I just want to speak briefly 
     to the proposition of a trust fund being proposed as a way to 
     fund the crime bill.
       Madam President, I cannot be too emphatic to say that I 
     oppose creating new trust funds outside of the normal budget 
     process unless such funds are funded by non-Federal sources 
     or some independent sources.
       As important an issue as crime prevention is, and I applaud 
     the committee for its efforts not only this year but in years 
     before, I believe that crime prevention programs can compete 
     successfully with other discretionary programs in the normal 
     budget and appropriations process.
       We can get up here on the floor, in my view, and we can 
     argue for a trust fund for funding child nutrition--setting 
     aside discretionary funds within our budget for this worthy 
     purpose. We could argue for a trust fund for Border Patrol 
     needs or for mass transit or for assisted housing or for tax 
     collection or any other vital Federal function. We have many 
     vital Federal needs.
       If we create enough special trust funds we can put our 
     entire appropriations process on automatic pilot, pack up and 
     go home.
       I do not believe we should do that. We have many tough 
     decisions to make in the appropriations process, but we 
     should not shirk from them just because they are tough 
     decisions.
       Let us consider the funding requirements for violent crime 
     and all the needs for its reduction, along with all other 
     demands for Federal discretionary dollars and not create a 
     special trust fund which would fall outside the constraints 
     of the Budget Act, unless the funding would also fall outside 
     of the Federal Treasury.
       Now, Madam President, I would like to remind my colleagues 
     of an interesting vote which occurred on this floor on 
     October 27. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] had proposed 
     that we take the money dedicated to the superconducting super 
     collider, instead apply it against deficit reduction.
       Madam President, it is very interesting. On a Budget Act 
     point of order, there were only two Republicans that voted 
     against the question--Mr. Stevens of Alaska and myself. 
     Thirty-seven Democrats voted against it. The proponents got 
     only 58 votes. The budget waiver was denied by two votes.
       The arguments used were simple. The appropriations process 
     ought to be able to make priorities across the board and to 
     reallocate those dollars saved from the superconducting super 
     collider, rather than earmarking them against the so-called 
     budget deficit, an objective which we all think is very 
     important.
       Today, we are hearing the arguments being made from that 
     same side of the aisle that somehow we ought to take these 
     savings made from the President's reinvention of Government 
     and put them in a trust fund for crime prevention.
       Madam President, the principle is the same as that we 
     defeated by an interesting combination of 2 Republicans and 
     37 Democrats on October 27.
       Now I just think it ought to be clearly established here 
     that we are talking about a fundamental principle that has 
     been tested on this floor for a worthy cause within the last 
     few weeks. And yet, today, we hear the whole proposition 
     being put to us again, because of the importance of crime--
     and I do not disagree with the vital importance of crime--but 
     the proposed approach is wrong.
       I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Massachusetts.
       Mr. Kerry. Madam President, I thank the Senator from 
     Oregon.
       I must say, I am glad I let him speak before me, because 
     everything that I say will be an effort to try to contradict 
     the reservations that have been articulated by the Senator.
       I well understand his concerns about trust funds. But this 
     is an issue unlike any other issue that confronts us today.
       The argument that I will make is an argument that this is a 
     national emergency, similar to those we have met in many 
     other ways.
       I would point my colleague's attention to this chart, which 
     I ask colleagues to focus on. That book that was written, 
     ``Keep Your Eye on the Prize'', well, let us keep our eyes on 
     the prize.
       We are a nation that was willing to spend $120 billion in a 
     couple of years to bail out the savings and loans; a nation 
     willing to spend $100 billion for the Department of Energy 
     weapons cleanup; the Stealth bomber, $44 billion; the space 
     station, $37 billion over 5 or 6 years.
       You can run down the list of items.
       We just spent $6 billion in a couple of hours of debate to 
     bail out people from the floodwaters of the Midwest. And now 
     we are unwilling to say that we are going to declare a 
     national emergency for the flood of crime which is ripping at 
     the fabric of this country.
       Our bill currently has, what, $9.6 billion, up from $5.6 
     billion last week, and now it is contemplated to rise to $12 
     billion over 5 years. That is about $2.4 billion a year, when 
     Americans are dying at a rate that is faster than GI's died 
     during World War II.
       Madam President, I read to my colleagues the Constitution 
     of the United States from the Senate Manual: ``We the People 
     of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 
     establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility * * * do 
     ordain and establish this Constitution'' of this country.
       Our entire Constitution is founded on the notion that we 
     will ensure the domestic tranquillity of this country.
       Mr. Hatfield. Will the Senator yield for just one question?
       Mr. Kerry. The Senator would be honored to yield for a 
     question.
       Mr. Hatfield. The Senator, I think, makes an excellent 
     point. I could not disagree with him one iota on the 
     significance and the national character of this terrible 
     issue.
       But is the Senator not aware that in the Budget Act we have 
     provisions for emergencies of this kind? All the President 
     has to do is to declare an emergency. And, as a member of the 
     Appropriations Committee for over 20 years, almost without 
     fail, we have responded to those emergencies and we have 
     handled it without establishing a trust fund.
       I will respond as a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
     as ranking Republican of the Appropriations Committee, to the 
     money required to fight the war against crime that we 
     consider in this authorization bill. But I will say to the 
     Senator, I do not see where he feels that it is so vital and 
     necessary to establish a trust fund, merely to separate funds 
     from the pool of domestic discretionary moneys for a special 
     purpose.
       Mr. Kerry.  Madam President, I say to the distinguished 
     Senator, who really, I know, is as committed to doing 
     something--I am not trying to suggest he is not--but who 
     understands the budgeting process very well around here. I 
     wrote a memo to the President the other day suggesting he 
     declare a national emergency. And I have talked with the 
     leadership about it, and others.
       There is obviously the dilemma that, when we are trying to 
     live within certain budget constraints, we want to send all 
     the right messages. You do not want, hopefully, to have to 
     come back and declare a budget emergency each year, because 
     we are talking about outyears in the effort to fund here.
       So the establishment of a trust fund is a way of 
     guaranteeing to Americans, as well as to the police forces, 
     to the prison construction process, to the guards, to those 
     who are part of what we call the criminal justice system, 
     that, in effect, we are not relying on the vagaries of 
     American politics to come up next year and the next year to 
     meet the need of the deficits. The fund is there; this is for 
     real.
       Now I would like to make the argument to the Senator from 
     Oregon as to why I think this is so important. I ask my 
     colleagues to try to strip away what cloaks us so quickly 
     around here, which is this horrible partisan mantle.
       I applaud a lot of what the Senator from Texas said a 
     moment ago. I would like to see if we could get both sides 
     together and find the best of a legitimate approach so that 
     we defuse the rhetoric and so that we take the partisanship 
     away and respond, because, while there are differences among 
     us, there ought to be a consensus that this problem--I do not 
     even want to call it a crisis, it is a horribly overused 
     word--that this problem has now reached a level in this 
     country that demands of us a different kind of response. Not 
     a Democratic response, not a Republican response, but, 
     frankly, just a fundamental approach of common sense and 
     downright, sort of back home plain talk that Americans expect 
     of us here.
       I would like to suggest to my colleague, the only way you 
     can measure what the approach ought to be here is to put in 
     context what is happening in this country.
       Madam President, I want to congratulate the Senator from 
     Delaware, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, because he 
     has been one of the prime advocates of this. He has pushed 
     and cajoled through all of his years here, and he has brought 
     to the floor year in and year out a bill that has tried to do 
     more than we, his colleagues, were willing to do.
       And now we are at a point where we have had a bill that, 
     just in the last week has gone from $5.9 billion to $9.6 
     billion, now to $12 billion. Something tells me there is 
     something cooking here where people are beginning to make a 
     measurement of what is really at stake.
       Madam President, if we are going to decide whether or not 
     to create a trust fund, and if we are going to think 
     realistically about how much money to put into that trust 
     fund, then we need to take a few minutes to try to strip away 
     the politics and think in reality about what is happening to 
     this country of ours, as a consequence of not just crime but 
     a whole set of circumstances that have their own momentum, 
     that have really broken loose and now have a life of their 
     own.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for years now, many of us have been 
fighting for a tough, anticrime bill. Unfortunately, the conference 
report that we have before use today is full of pork-barrel spending 
and falls far short of meeting the needs of law-abiding Americans. This 
bill spends billions of dollars on programs that have no connection 
with fighting crime and spreads money around on new programs and 
purposes when the Federal Government is already spending billions of 
dollars for such purposes.
  First, there is too much social spending in the bill. The President 
is trying to pass his failed economic stimulus package by calling it a 
crime bill. The pork contained in this bill, under the title of ``Crime 
Prevention,'' is more than double what the Senate passed. In round 
numbers, the Senate provided $3.6 billion and the conference report 
provides $6.9 billion, even after the $2.1 billion cut made by the 
House Republicans.


                                examples

  The $1.6 billion for the Local Partnership Act provides revenue 
sharing grants to localities for education, drug abuse treatment, and 
job training programs to prevent crime. There are no requirements on 
how recipients spend the money. Funds are distributed according to a 
formula which rewards cities with a low population, high unemployment, 
and a high tax burden.
  The $695 million for the Model Intensive Grant Program are grants to 
be distributed by the Attorney General for crime prevention in chronic 
high-intensive crime areas. The criteria for the program are very 
general, allowing recipients to spend money on virtually anything so 
long as the applicant for the funds claims the spending is linked to 
crime control no matter how tenuous the link. This includes spending on 
deterioration or lack of public facilities, and inadequate public 
facilities such as public transportation, as well as drug treatment. 
Fifteen cities will be handpicked by the administration to receive 
these grants.
  The $270 million for the National Community Economic Partnership. 
This antipoverty program provides lines of credit through HHS to 
nonprofit community development corporations for communities to improve 
the quality of life. No pretense of tying the use of these funds to any 
sort of crime control is made.
  The $100 million for the Ounce of Prevention Program. This program is 
established to coordinate all of the wasteful spending programs 
established by this bill. The Council is given $100 million of its own 
grant money to hand out on a discretionary basis.
  Second, the $13 billion in deficit spending creates a trust fund that 
is not deficit neutral because it does not extend budget caps in the 
out years--1999 and 2000. The Senate crime bill capped its spending in 
every year, 1995-1998. The conference agreement extends the spending 2 
years beyond the caps. There is nothing to require Congress to rein in 
spending in out years.
  Third, it expands criminal rights by repealing mandatory minimum 
sentences for many drug traffickers, dealers, and conspirators. In the 
original conference report, this provision was applied retroactively 
and would have resulted in the early release of up to 16,000 prisoners. 
Thanks to Republican demands in the House, this provision has been 
changed to only apply prospectively. Nevertheless, prosecutors still do 
not support this provision because it does not require certification 
that defendants have provided truthful information in order to qualify 
for a lesser sentence.
  The conference report also removes mandatory minimum sentences for 
the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime and rejects mandatory 
minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors or employing minors in a 
drug crime.
  Fourth, prison money equals $7.9 billion. None of the money in this 
bill that is designated as ``prison money'' is required to be used for 
actual bricks and mortar. This money can be used for any purpose that 
is at minimum remotely connected to prisons. In order to receive any of 
this money, a State is required to implement a comprehensive 
correctional plan which must include drug diversion programs and 
professional training for correctional officers in dealing with violent 
offenders, prisoner rehabilitation and treatment programs, prisoner 
work activities, and job skills programs.

  Fifth, it only hires 20,000 police at $8.9 billion. Contrary to 
statements that this bill will provide funding for 100,000 more police 
on the street, this bill guarantees full funding for only 20,000 
permanent new cops over the next 6 years, or one-fifth the number 
claimed by bill supporters. This is equivalent to adding about one new 
officer to every police department in the Nation. In addition, the $8.9 
billion in grants are distributed by the Attorney General on a 
discretionary basis. This allows the Attorney General to decide which 
cities and States receive the community policing funds. This invites 
handouts to politically connected big-city mayors and politicians.
  Sixth, victims restitution: during Senate debate on the crime bill, I 
offered an amendment that required mandatory restitution to victims of 
violent crime. That amendment passed and became part of the Senate 
crime bill. However, the conference report, although providing for 
mandatory restitution to women and victims of child molestation, fails 
to include my broader victims' rights reform. The revised conference 
report does make court-ordered restitution a nondischargeable debt in 
bankruptcy, but this is a hollow change so long as restitution orders 
are discretionary with the court.


                               conclusion

  This bill is not the toughest, smartest crime bill in the history of 
the United States. While deleting good crime control provisions, the 
bill still ladles out nearly $7 billion on new social programs. This is 
in addition to the already existing 266 prevention programs which 
currently serve delinquent and at-risk youth. The Federal Government 
already spends over $3 billion a year on these programs. Why then are 
we spending more money on these Great Society style programs at the 
expense of more prison space to keep violent criminals behind bars?
  Senate and House Republicans tried to work with Democrats on a truly 
bipartisan crime control measure. More than a year ago, Senate 
Republicans were the first to offer their own anticrime initiative, 
most of whose provisions were included in the final bill we approved on 
a bipartisan vote. But since then, congressional Democrats have larded 
on billions in new spending and weakened tough provisions that the 
Senate approved.
  The problem with this conference report is not partisanship or even 
special interests. This crime bill is far too soft on crime and far too 
ladened with congressional pork. In order to produce the toughest, 
smartest crime bill in the history of the United States, Congress needs 
to reinstate the tough crime control provisions that were dropped in 
conference and eliminate the billions of dollars of wasteful social 
spending.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, there are many aspects of the crime bill 
which I do not agree with. There is too much social spending, too many 
Federal strings, and Montanans clearly do not support that. One other 
aspect of the crime bill which Montanans do not agree with is the gun 
control provision.
  Make no mistake about it, I do not support gun control. I never have 
and I never will. Montanans believe in our constitutional rights--be it 
private property or the right to bear arms. Montanans are fair people, 
but this is an issue which most Montanans are not willing to negotiate 
on--it is plain and simple, this is an issue of the integrity of our 
Constitution. I am one of those Montanans who believes in our second 
amendment rights.

  There are some other interesting points to raise in this debate. The 
ban which is included in the crime bill would not just ban the sale and 
manufacture of 19 semiautomatic weapons. It would ban somehwere between 
160 to 182 firearms. The reason we do not know exactly how many would 
be banned is because the language before us is vague--the people who 
crafted this language do not know about guns. In fact, on the list of 
670 firearms which are exempted, only 85, or 13 percent, are even 
semiautomatics. Even more alarming is that with this being so broad and 
vague, it is unclear how the BATF would enforce this language. I do not 
think giving the BATF more latitude to control guns is wise.
  Another ironic point is this provision does nothing to stop crime. 
Less than 1 percent of all serious crimes involve the use of 
semiautomatics. All this ban does is infringe upon law-abiding 
citizens' rights and takes away guns from the sportsmen of Montana and 
the entire United States.
  There are 820,000 people who live in Montana. And I have heard over 
10,000 times from Montanans who oppose gun control. Since coming to the 
Senate, I have received more mail on this issue--with this position--
than any other. It is plain and simple, Montana does not believe in gun 
control and neither do I.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President,

       The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the 
     country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is 
     common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit 
     it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The 
     millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever 
     while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy 
     reach.

  Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke these words in 1933. Today, these words 
are as true as when they were first heard over 60 years ago. Throughout 
American history, each generation has had to face new challenges 
unknown to its parents.
  Today, this generation's challenge is to create a safe community in 
which our children survive to become responsible adults instead of 
career criminals. For this reason, I stand in support of the crime bill 
now under consideration.
  Traditionally, crime is a problem that has been dealt with at the 
local level. Now, crimes that were once of local concern have become 
national in scope. For example:
  High profits from the drug trade have created competition among 
street gangs to franchise chapters in towns across this Nation, like 
fast food franchises, with the sole purpose of peddling drugs in our 
schools; and
  Local law enforcement officers who now face greater physical harm 
from criminals who are better armed and use more sophisticated 
techniques than the police.
  As a result, this Nation, specifically the Federal Government, is 
boldly experimenting. The Federal Government is stating that it will be 
a full partner in the local communities' fight. This experiment has 
been 6 years in the making. Let me reiterate some of its history.
  On November 18, 1988, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was signed into 
law. This act, concerned with stopping the abuse of narcotics and 
drugs, began the momentum. However, it was realized at the time that 
there needed to be a more comprehensive approach to the fight against 
crime.
  The Crime Control Act of 1990, started this more comprehensive 
approach. It contained provisions aimed at: first, rural drug use; 
second, hired additional DEA and FBI agents; and third, codified a 
Crime Victims' Bill of Rights in the Federal justice system. 
Unfortunately, this act was gutted and unable to meet the needs of the 
communities. Once again, we realized that more had to be done.
  On March 12, 1991, Senator Biden introduced S. 618. This legislation 
called for: First, aid to State and local law enforcement agencies; 
second, increase in penalties for criminals who commit firearm 
offenses; third, measures for youth violence; fourth, assistance for 
rural crime and drugs; fifth, drunk driving provisions; and sixth, 
assistance for victims of crime.
  On June 6, 1991, Senator Biden introduced S. 1241, which was 
characterized as the same as S. 618. However, the new legislation 
included the Brady handgun bill.
  After a House-Senate conference agreement, this legislation failed a 
vote for cloture on November 27, 1991 and it was carried over to the 2d 
session of the 102d Congress.
  Again, a second cloture motion failed on March 19, 1992.
  And when a third cloture motion failed on October 2, 1992, the hope 
for relief to our communities dimmed with the end of the 102d Congress.
  In essence, we stand at the threshold of a true opportunity that is 
within reach, one last hurdle before the finish line.
  This bill is not perfect. It contains measures that I did not 
support. For example, I voted against Senator Feinstein's assault 
weapons ban because I believe that Congress does not have the expertise 
to determine what weapons should be prohibited. The role of Congress is 
to set general policy. The role of Congress is not to manage minutiae.
  However, the negatives of the bill are outweighed by the greater good 
that results from its implementation. In my home State of New Mexico, 
the bill enjoys wide support from different areas of the community for 
many reasons.
  First, the Fraternal Order of Police, the New Mexico Municipal Police 
Chiefs, and Richard C de Baca, the secretary of New Mexico's Department 
of Public Safety support this legislation. This legislation goes after 
those violent offenders who are committing most of the crimes.
  According to the Judiciary Committee, New Mexico will receive 
approximately 500 additional police officers from this bill. Sheriff 
Bert W. Delara from Sandoval County states while endorsing this bill 
that ``Regardless of size [referring to the size of his county], crime 
affects us equally.'' Mr. President, this bill will help all New Mexico 
counties regardless of size.
  Additionally, New Mexico will receive approximately $26 million for 
prison grants, including military-style boot camp prisons;
  Further, the rural areas of New Mexico will receive approximately 
$6.5 million for drug and crime enforcement.
  Second, the National Association of District Attorneys endorses this 
bill.
  According to the Judiciary Committee, New Mexico will be eligible for 
an additional $1 million dollars for judges, prosecutors and public 
defenders.
  Third, and last the New Mexico Municipal League endorses this bill, 
specifically the Local Partnership Act.
  Again, according to the Judiciary Committee, the cities and towns in 
New Mexico will receive approximately $13.5 million in direct grants.
  In summary, our society is faced with new levels of crime that other 
generations did not have to face. In order to meet these challenges, we 
must propose new types of solutions and this bill is the answer. It is 
not perfect. It represents 6 years of delicate compromise and hard work 
on the part of many people of good will. Our present actions are too 
important to let this opportunity slip away. Mr. President, this crime 
bill helps the citizens of New Mexico. It helps all the citizens of 
this country. I urge the Senate to adopt the conference report.


                     sexually violent predators act

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, among those provisions I support in the 
crime bill is title XVII, subtitle A, section 170101, the Jacob 
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender 
Registration Act. Section 170101 is the result of two separate bills 
combined to achieve a similar purpose: The encouragement of States to 
register, track, and notify communities about individuals who have been 
convicted of crimes against children or sexual offenses. The sex 
offenders component is modeled after elements of Washington State's law 
that also provides for community notification of dangerous sex 
offenders.
  Some of my colleagues have asked me whether this section represents a 
minimum or maximum of what States may do in regards to these offenders. 
Let me make this very clear: Nothing in section 170101 of subtitle A, 
title XVII limits what States may do. The intent of the legislation is 
to set only a minimum of what States may do. States wishing to require 
additional types of offenders and additional requirements are 
completely free, and encouraged to do so. Our intent is simply to 
establish a minimum level of requirements regarding sex offenders.
  Other colleagues have inquired as to the level of State flexibility 
in complying with the definitions and other language in this section. 
Our intent was to allow the broadest level of flexibility to States in 
complying with these sections and implementing their programs. In 
addition, we anticipate that the Attorney General will use broad 
discretion in reviewing State efforts and will provide maximum 
flexibility.
  It should be clear that those States with any type of sex offender 
and community notification program, including Washington State, would 
be considered in compliance already. Again, our intent is set forth 
minimum standards and allow States the broadest discretion in 
implementing their own programs. That is why States have in effect a 
full 5 years to comply with section 170101, title XVIV.
  As I said at the beginning of my statement, section 170101 of title 
XVII combines two separate measures: The Jacob Wetterling Act, and the 
Sexually Violent Predators Act. When such a combination occurs, the 
result is bound to be less than perfect. Had I opportunities to improve 
on the language and clarify some sections, I certainly would have done 
so. If we find that some clarifications need to be made, we will make 
that our top and immediate priority.
  Finally, the overwhelming support for this measure is an indication 
that Congress feels this measure strikes a proper balance between the 
constitutional rights of convicted criminals and society's need to 
protect itself from violent crime. No rights are infringed on in any 
way under this legislation. Instead, we have taken moderate, but 
essential steps to bring additional security to our neighborhoods and 
families from those who would victimize them.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report 
on the crime bill.
  I join Montana's Attorney General Joe Mazurek, U.S. Attorney Sherry 
Matteucci, police officers and prosecutors across the State in calling 
for the Senate to pass it now.
  And I join virtually all Montanans in asking the Senate to stop the 
posturing, stop the politics, and start doing the people's work.


                    crime problem growing in montana

  We Montanans are proud to call our State ``the last, best place.'' We 
love our way of life. But in the past several years, it has become very 
clear to us that even the last, best place is not immune from the germs 
of crime and hate which have infected so much of the Nation. We have 
gangs, we have thugs, and we have killers. The problem is already bad, 
and it is getting worse.
  Here are just a few examples.
  Mike Salvagni of Bozeman is the county attorney for Gallatin County, 
population 50,463. His office prosecuted 92 violent crimes in 1990. In 
1991, he prosecuted 108 such crimes. In 1992 it was 115, and last year 
it was 125. Put another way, 1 in every 400 Gallatin County citizens 
fell victim to a violent crime just last year. And Gloria Edwards, who 
runs the County's Victim and Witness Support Program, helped 194 people 
who saw or were victimized by violent crime last year alone.
  Just yesterday in Helena, a man went on trial for murdering his 19-
year-old fiancee and her 18-month-old baby boy a year ago last June.
  Then take Billings. On two occasions, last year police officers 
apprehended a skinhead on his way to a local bar. Both times, the man 
had an assault rifle. And both times, he told the police he wanted to 
kill some Mexicans.
  That July, a Billings man shot and killed his sister-in-law. He then 
grabbed his two young children and fled in his car, with the police in 
hot pursuit. Once cornered, he attempted to use his own children as 
human shields while firing at the police.
  And last fall, two rival youth gangs met in a confrontation in the 
parking lot of a Billings fast food restaurant. They beat each other up 
with baseball bats. One young man took a handgun and shot a rival gang 
member in the arm.
  Finally, remember the winter morning in 1992, when just before the 
Christmas holidays, a disturbed Montana teenager bought an AK-47 rifle 
at a store near his college in Great Barrington, MA? He walked straight 
onto campus and began shooting. He killed two people and wounded four 
more before he was overcome.


                  too many criminals for montana jails

  These are not just graphic, isolated incidents. Crime is on the rise 
in too many Montana communities.
  In Billings, for instance, a new jail built in 1987 to provide more 
space for prisoners is already overflowing. The jail was built to hold 
138 prisoners. At times it now swells to 170.
  L. Chuck Newell, in the Yellowstone County Sheriff's office, tells us 
of the changes he has observed in his 20 years in the department. He 
says the community used to have one homicide a year. Now they have 
four. The coroner's office logs up to 350 deaths a year. Fewer officers 
handle a caseload that is up by 60 percent. Lieutenant Newell says they 
are shorthanded at every level.
  And the criminals are getting younger. Some of the kids they arrest 
in Yellowstone County are just 11 or 12 years old.
  Then look at Dawson County, by the North Dakota border. With the 
county seat of Glendive, Dawson County has a population of 9,505, 
spread out over 2,500 square miles of land. Jerry Navratil, the county 
attorney, tells me they are sending 20 percent more people to the 
prison at Deer Lodge than they used to, mostly for burglaries and 
sexual assaults. This in one of the most tranquil, beautiful, rural 
places in America. Jerry says the community is stretched very thin. He 
doesn't know how they can cope without help.


                       focus first on punishment

  Mr. President, this is intolerable. The very first, most important, 
most critical responsibility of government is public safety. Protection 
of the citizens. And Montana law enforcement needs the help this bill 
will provide. It will not solve the problem. But it will help. It will 
toughen penalties, it will prevent crimes, and it will support law 
enforcement.

  Let us begin with the dramatically tougher Federal crime penalties it 
establishes. The crime bill's punishment provisions include:
  Federal death penalties for 60 crimes ranging from murdering a law 
enforcement officer, to drive-by shootings, to murders committed during 
carjackings.
  A ``three strikes and you're out'' provision, requiring life 
imprisonment without parole for criminals committing three violent 
felonies or drug offenses. They will be off the streets forever.
  Authorizes prosecution of teenagers as adults, when they are accused 
of murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and 
rape.


         what the crime bill means for montana law enforcement

  Tougher punishment is essential. And so is greater Federal support 
for law enforcement. Let me now state for the record what the crime 
bill will mean for Montana's prosecutors, prisons and police in six 
critical areas.
  Passing the crime bill guarantees that Attorney General Mazurek, 
county prosecutors like Mike Salvagni and Jerry Navratil, police 
officers like Lt. Newell, Governor Racicot and our local officials will 
receive, at the very least:
  Police. Montana will receive at least $44 million over the next 6 
years, so Montana's State government and police chiefs can hire new 
police officers and buy modern equipment.
  Prisons. Montana will receive $12 million for prison grants. This 
will be used primarily to build new prisons and to construct boot camps 
for younger offenders.
  Rural Crime. Montana will receive $6.5 million over the next 6 years 
for drug and crime enforcement specifically dedicated to fighting rural 
crime. This will help Montana train officers to investigate drug 
trafficking and related crimes. It will give us more DEA agents. And it 
will help us enforce drug free truck stops and rest areas.
  Brady bill. Montana will receive its share of a national $130 million 
authorization to establish a national instant criminal background check 
system, and help States improve their criminal records to ensure that 
local police departments do not bear the burden of carrying out an 
unfunded Federal mandate.
  Drug treatment. Montana will receive $1.5 million over the next 6 
years to treat drug-addicted prisoners in Montana prisons. Drug 
treatment is proven to be one of the most effective ways to prevent 
recidivism.
  Violence against women. Montana will receive $2.9 million in grants 
for police, prosecutors and victim services, and $1 million in grants 
to set up shelters for battered women and their children.


                           time to act is now

  When this bill emerged from the conference committee, it cost about 
$7 million more than the Senate bill I had earlier supported. That was 
too much. I believe the House of Representatives, and the House 
Republicans in particular, acted appropriately in scaling back the 
cost. But the time for delay has come to an end.
  The Great Falls Tribune wrote on Tuesday, ``the Senate should approve 
a bill most Americans want and that the nation needs.'' The Billings 
Gazette followed suit, saying that ``the House of Representatives 
nudged the crime bill off gridlock. But so far the Senate is sitting in 
the dark, building walls when it ought to be building consensus.''
  I agree with both. In particular, I think the debate over the crime 
bill has shown why Americans are angry at politicians. The people are 
not interested in political maneuvering--they want their Government to 
do something about America's problems. And they do not see that 
happening. What they see is posturing, rhetoric, and obstruction.
  After watching the interminable Senate debate a couple of days ago, 
my friend Chuck Merja, a farmer from the town of Sun River, sent me a 
fairly disgusted fax. He wrote, speaking of both sides:

       If these people had been anybody but adults, they would 
     have had various restrictions put on their lives until and 
     unless they could act in a cooperative manner.

  Chuck is absolutely right. It is time to stop shouting and start 
cooperating to solve America's problems. That is all the people of 
Montana want. I believe it is all that Americans want. It is time to 
get to work and pass this bill.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we have spent 4 days debating whether or 
not we should take up the conference report adopted by the House. The 
bill before us represents a balanced approach to making our 
neighborhoods and our homes safer. We have the opportunity to provide 
crime-free environments for our families, and we must not delay the 
passage of this bill any longer.
  Despite the complaints I've heard this week, the crime bill retains 
funding for more policing, more punishment, and more prevention.
  This bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the streets, 
walking the beat, working with citizens to prevent and solve crimes. 
Under current figures, the Senate Judiciary Committee estimates that 
Hawaii is guaranteed a minimum of $44 million over the next 6 years, 
which would assist the State in hiring at least 500 new police 
officers.
  We cannot turn our backs on those who are placing their lives on the 
line to protect us. We in the Senate can show our support by passing 
this legislation. This bill includes money for rural law enforcement, 
implementation of the Brady bill, increased funding assistance for DNA 
testing and research, and funds for our courts.
  The crime bill deals with youth crime and violent young offenders. It 
includes innovative incarceration programs and tough alternative 
approaches, such as boot camps, that provide the discipline and 
training necessary to deter young people from embarking on a life of 
crime. The measure also supports discretionary authority to prosecute 
hardened young criminals, 13 years old and above, as adults for the 
most violent crimes.
  A second objective of the crime bill is to ensure that the punishment 
fits the crime. Despite efforts by law enforcement, too often violent 
criminals are returned to the streets. The bill includes tougher 
sentencing procedures, including life imprisonment on a person who 
commits a serious violent felony under Federal law, after having been 
previously convicted of two or more serious violent felonies, under 
Federal or State law.
  The measure would also encourage the States, through Federal grants 
money, to keep violent criminals from being released prematurely due to 
jail overcrowding.
  A third part of this bill would help States and local governments 
fund programs to steer young people away from crime and gangs through 
initiatives ranging from antigang programs to police partnerships. 
States and local governments would retain the flexibility to target 
areas of need rather than have the Federal Government dictate use. 
Funds could also be available for Triad partnerships between senior 
citizens and police.

  Mr. President, another key provision of the crime bill is the 
Violence Against Women Act, which I strongly support and cosponsored. 
It is imperative that the Federal Government provide increased 
resources to combat sexual and domestic violence through education 
programs, law enforcement training, and a national domestic violence 
hotline.
  Nearly every major law enforcement organization in the country 
supports passage of this bill. They are joined by the two largest 
prosecutor associations and groups representing cities, towns, and 
counties. All are unanimous in their agreement that swift passage of 
the crime bill will benefit all citizens.
  These men and women, who are on the front line of the fight against 
crime, do not believe that this crime bill places too much emphasis on 
keeping kids out of jails. Rather, they see the bill as a means to 
strike a balance between prosecution and prevention. In a recent 
conversation with Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro, he 
noted that 80 percent of Hawaii's prisoners with drug problems do not 
receive treatment.
  Mr. Kaneshiro said drug treatment in prisons is critical because the 
bulk of crimes committed in Hawaii are drug related. This includes a 
dramatic rise in domestic violence cases, partially due to the 
increased use of crystal methamphetamine, which causes violent 
behavior.
  Again, I wish to emphasize that the conference report is a balanced 
measure--law-abiding citizens should not live in fear for their safety, 
nor should children and teenagers dread going to school because a 
classmate may be armed. We can make a difference, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the passage of this conference report.


                       crime bill point of order

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to express a few concerns I have 
pertaining to this debate over the crime bill, and specifically this 
budget act point of order.
  My first--and most immediate--concern, Mr. President, regards the 
people of Delaware, men, women, and children, who are suffering beneath 
a frightening increase in crime. Over the past 12 years alone: Violent 
crime has increased over 55 percent in Delaware; manslaughter has 
increased by 28 percent; forcible rape has increased 158 percent; 
robberies are up 49 percent; and, murder has gone up a staggering 28 
percent.
  Something must be done. There's no question that crime in my State is 
a very serious problem.
  Is this a perfect bill? No. In fact, there are a number of 
improvements I would like to see, and I would support amendments that 
would strengthen the bill. But the simple fact is that with the 
dramatic increase in the amount of crime experienced in Delaware these 
past 12 years, we need a crime bill for certain.
  The second concern I have is that the point of order now in 
question--based on the previous position of this Senate, recorded by 
vote on several occasions--should not now derail the crime bill.
  The pending conference report is subject to a point of order because 
of the funding mechanism that is the very heart of the legislation. 
This funding mechanism is the violent crime reduction trust fund, which 
fences off the savings realized from the reduction of the Federal 
Government work force. It is to insure that the savings associated with 
the reduction of more than a quarter million Federal employees are 
dedicated to fight crime and not frittered away on unnecessary 
programs.
  The point of order lies not because of deficit spending but because 
the fence around the trust fund was not constructed by the Senate 
Budget Committee. The trust fund was created, in part, by action taken 
by the Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I serve as the ranking 
minority member, to reduce the Federal work force, as well as by action 
taken by the Judiciary Committee to fight crime. These two themes were 
married on the Senate floor on two occasions--last November when the 
Senate considered the crime bill and adopted the Byrd amendment 94-4 
and last February when the Senate unanimously adopted the Roth 
amendment which made the Byrd amendment part of the Federal Workforce 
Restructuring Act.
  When the Senate considered the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, 
which mandated a reduction of more than a quarter million Federal 
employees, my main concern was that the savings would not be used to 
fight crime but would be wasted on less worthy programs. And I was not 
alone. So widespread was this concern in the Senate that a motion to 
instruct conferees to insist on the Roth amendment was adopted 90-2. 
And when the conference report came back to the Senate without the Roth 
amendment, it took two cloture votes before the legislation was finally 
adopted.
  The issue for which so many of us fought long and hard was a 
guarantee that the savings from the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act 
would be spent on crime. We were concerned--very concerned--that the 
House crime conferees would insist that the crime bill be subject to 
regular appropriations and not be funded by a trust fund from savings 
through Federal employee reductions. We therefore demanded that the 
trust fund be included as part of the act that created the savings 
rather than wait for the trust fund to be included here in the crime 
bill.
  The savings from the reduction in the Federal work force will, under 
the terms of the conference report, be fenced off to be spent only on 
crime fighting. The fact that the fence was not created by the Budget 
Committee is a technicality that should not obscure the fact that the 
trust fund is what so many Senators have so long fought for. This point 
of order lies only because of our efforts to guarantee that the savings 
from Federal employee reductions would be spent to fight crime. I do 
not find that reason very persuasive and therefore cannot support this 
point of order.


               police corps provisions of the crime bill

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the conference 
report on the anticrime bill contains a provision I have fought long 
and hard for, one that will make a real difference to public safety, 
the Police Corps. I am disappointed, however, that the authorized 
funding for this critical program was cut to only $100 million over 5 
years. This sum is simply inadequate.
  I introduced the first legislation to create the Police Corps back in 
1985 at the suggestion of New York lawyer Adam Walinsky. Since that 
time, I have supported it and have sought to get it enacted in every 
comprehensive anticrime bill we have considered. The Police Corps 
passed the Senate as part of the 1990 anticrime bill, but did not 
survive conference because of House objections. It again passed the 
Senate in 1991 and that year was included in the conference report, 
which was blocked in the Senate because of its habeas corpus reform 
provisions. After Senator Sasser and I again reintroduced police corps 
authorizing legislation during this Congress, it was included by the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the anticrime bill 
that passed the Senate. The House included similar provisions in its 
anticrime bill.
  Although there had been earlier speculation that the authorization 
levels called for in both the Senate and House bills would be cut in 
conference, supporters of the Police Corps were able to convince the 
conferees of the importance and merit of the Police Corps, and the 
funding levels were retained, albeit outside the anticrime trust fund 
set up by the bill.
  Unfortunately, however, when the bill was recommitted to conference, 
the authorization level was cut back to only $100 million over 5 years. 
While this amount will now all come from the anticrime trust fund, it 
is inadequate to do the job conceived of for the Police Corps. I 
understand that the cut in funds for the Police Corps was due to a 
misunderstanding and was the unintended effect of an agreement made 
among certain Members of the House of Representatives to delete funding 
for programs outside the trust fund. As a result of this unintended cut 
in funding levels, we will need to return to this issue later this year 
and seek to increase the authorization.
  The Police Corps is not a new idea. It is based on the reserve 
Officers Training Corps concept: In return for the Federal Government 
providing scholarship funds to college students, these students will 
agree to serve as police officers for 4 years. The Police Corps will 
tap the sense of duty and commitment that young Americans have always 
shown to improving their communities and the world. In addition to the 
ROTC, we have seen this commitment at work in the Peace Corps and most 
recently in the National Service Program. To these successes will be 
added the Police Corps, whose graduates will bring their commitment to 
confront the pressing issue of public safety.
  In order to assist hard-pressed communities to hire Police Corps 
graduates into the ranks of their police departments, the Police Corps 
Program will now provide a Federal subsidiary of $10,000 per officer 
per year for each of the 4-year term of service. The 4-year term will 
reduce the costs to the communities, because most pensions vest after 5 
years of service.
  The strong bipartisan support of both Houses for the Police Corps 
provides ample evidence of the promise of this vital program. I am 
certain that that promise will be redeemed by the service of the 
dedicated Police Corps graduates who will soon be patrolling our 
communities, making a real difference in the lives of the American 
people. I am pleased and proud that this bill will authorize the Police 
Corps. But as contained in the bill, the Police Corps is only a start, 
a promise. We will have to redeem that promise by seeking additional 
authorization levels, and I intend to do so at the earliest possible 
moment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


         on the drug court provisions of the conference report

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wanted to briefly express my strong 
support for the drug court provisions of the conference report on the 
omnibus anti-crime bill.
  In 1989, a blue ribbon commission established by the Philadelphia Bar 
Association recommended that the city of Philadelphia establish a drug 
court to take non-violent, drug using offenders out of the criminal 
courts and require them to undergo drug treatment. Unfortunately, 
because of fiscal constraints Philadelphia was unable to establish the 
proposed drug court. While I have actively sought an appropriation for 
drug courts since 1990, no such funds were ever appropriated because 
the program was not authorized. In the 102d Congress, I introduced 
legislation to authorize Federal financial assistance to States and 
local communities to enable them to establish drug courts. That idea 
found its way into the Senate-passed crime bill late November and it 
was retained in the conference report.
  Skimming low-level, drug-using offenders out of the criminal courts 
would allow these courts to devote their time to trying and punishing 
the more serious offenders. Requiring them to receive drug treatment 
would help break the cycle of drug abuse, commission of a crime to 
support the drug habit, arrest, jail, and release, at which point the 
offender is back at square one.
  It seems to me that the prospect of breaking this cycle would reduce 
crime, make our communities safer, and lower the costs associated with 
crime. Money will be saved on police, jails, prosecutors, and courts, 
not to mention the reduction in losses due to the crimes that will not 
occur.
  Some people question the effectiveness of drug treatment in reducing 
crime and breaking the cycle of recidivism. Research into the 
effectiveness of the Dade County, FL drug court demonstrates that 
persons who have completed the drug treatment have lower incarceration 
rates, less frequent rearrests, and longer times to rearrest than 
similar defendants who did not go through the drug court program. Other 
studies have demonstrated the success of drug treatment in reducing 
both drug dependency and recidivisim.
  I believe that the provisions of this bill authorizing $1 billion 
over 5 years for drug courts will enable communities throughout the 
country to establish drug courts to combat drug abuse and stop the 
cycle of crime before it really starts. As a leading proponent of drug 
courts, I expect that as Federal funds become available, Philadelphia 
and other cities will become able to establish and implement drug 
courts to address the problem of drug-related crime.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.


                      utah motorcycle enthusiasts

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in my home State of Utah there are some 
22,000 men and women who are motorcycle enthusiasts. Whether it be for 
pleasure, sport, or work, they use motorcycles to get to and from their 
points of destination.
  These men and women are, for the most part, good citizens of the 
State of Utah. They work hard in their communities. In fact, these men 
and women have biked throughout the State every Christmas in a run to 
gather toys for needy Utah kids.
  They have been leaders in Utah's highway beautification program, 
leading the antilitter campaign.
  They have worked hard with the Utah legislation on bills to help in 
biker safety, helmet laws, and rider education.
  They are not the stereotype bikers from Marlon Brando's ``Wild 
Ones,'' and yet, I feel, I might have perpetuated that stereotype when 
I mentioned--earlier this week--that criminal motorcycle gangs might 
have wanted to terrorize Utah communities.
  Earlier this week, I recalled what my father-in-law has said to me on 
many occasions--do not let Congress take away his right to own a 
firearm. Every time a ban the gun debate erupts in Congress, folks out 
West reel back with horror. My father-in-law told me that a criminal 
element would never go into his small town of 700--because homeowners 
had the right to own guns, and no person would even think about 
confronting them. That is how they held the peace. That is how they 
would combat any of the so-called bad guys.
  I inadvertently said--in retelling that story during the debate on 
this crime bill--that criminal motorcycle gangs could roll into these 
small towns and terrorize the townspeople, were it not for law-abiding 
citizens like my father-in-law.
  What I should have said was criminal motorcycle gangs might come to 
Utah. Certainly, there was no intention for me to infer anything about 
our Utah clubs, or any other law-abiding motorcycle clubs.
  Again, let me salute the 22,000 men and women in Utah who use 
motorcycles, and the millions more across the great country who use 
cycles as a way of life.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah today made a number 
of statements about this bill--how it is weak and wasteful.
  The primary Republican criticism has been of the prevention programs. 
Here are the facts about those programs.


  prevention programs in revised conference report--separately funded 
                                programs

  Violence Against Women Act: $1.62 billion.
  Community Schools/FACES: $810 million.
  Local Partnership Act: $1.62 billion.
  Drug Treatment in Prisons: $270 million.
  Model Intensive Grants: $626 million.
  Certainty of Punishment for Juveniles: $150 million.
  Community Youth Academies: $36 million.
  Family Unity Demonstration: $22 million.
  National Community Economic Partnership: $270 million.
  Urban Recreation and At-risk Youth: $4.5 million.
  Gang Resistance Education and Training: $45 million.


               violence against women act: $1.62 billion

  Senator Hatch is a cosponsor.
  The $820 billion Law Enforcement and Prosecution Grant Program to 
fight violence against women assures that at least $410 million will go 
to police and prosecutors to help catch and convict abusers. That is at 
least $205 million each to police agencies and to prosecutors. At least 
$205 million more is guaranteed to go to services for victims of 
domestic violence.
  Another program under the Violence Against Women Act provides $120 
million to help State and local police implement pro-arrest programs, 
so the aggressor goes to jail and cannot resume the beating as soon as 
the cops leave.
  Some $200 million will pay for rape prevention education, to teach 
boys and girls that just because he spends $10 on a date he is not 
entitled to sex.
  Also $325 million will help pay for more battered women's shelters, 
so victims do not have to endure continued abuse in the home simply 
because they have no place else to go.


                 community schools/faces: $810 million

  This Afterschool-Safe Haven Program is the product of much hard work 
by Senators Bradley, Danforth, Domenici, and Dodd. It is in the 
Republican bill and it provides for: Supervised sports programs, work 
force preparation, entrepreneurship, tutorial and mentoring programs, 
and the purchase of sporting and recreational equipment and supplies, 
meals, an initial physical examination, and provision of first aid and 
nutrition guidance.


                  local partnership act: $1.62 billion

  The House defeated, 247-143, a motion that would have instructed 
conferees to eliminate the LPA, signaling strong support in the House 
of Representatives for this provision. Indeed, 27 Republicans in the 
House voted against instructing conferees to eliminate LPA.
  This program gets Federal dollars quickly and directly to where they 
are needed most--to local officials who know best where they are needed 
on the front lines of this battle. It also gives the local officials 
the flexibility to use the money to address their most urgent and 
critical crime prevention problems--such as drug treatment, education, 
or jobs.


                drug treatment in prisons: $270 million

  The Republicans are always talking about the revolving door, about 
how criminals shuttle in and out of prisons. Well, we know--and the 
Republicans know as well, they say it all the time--that the revolving 
door is fueled by addiction to alcohol and drugs.
  And we know from a host of studies--including one by the former drug 
director, William Bennett--that treating addicted offenders, helping 
them kick the habit, cuts their crime rates in half. It breaks the 
cycle of recidivism and shuts the revolving door. It is that simple.
  The total $383 million in the conference report for prison treatment 
is enough to treat nearly 350,000 State and Federal inmates, preventing 
tens of thousands of crimes that would be committed if these offenders 
needed fast money for their next fix.


                  model intensive grants: $626 million

  This initiative targets crime-fighting aid to urban and rural areas 
that have been especially hard-hit by violence and drug trafficking.
  The Model Intensive Grant Program is virtually the same as the Drug 
Emergency Areas Program that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in 
the Senate in previous crime bills, including cosponsorship by Senators 
Gorton and D'Amato. And the bipartisan Drug Emergency Area Program is a 
5-year effort totaling $1.5 billion, substantially more than what is 
proposed here.
  It brings together law enforcement officials with educators, 
community leaders, and others to streamline their efforts to relieve 
the conditions that encourage crime, like an abandoned building that 
has been taken over by crack dealers, and to provide meaningful and 
lasting alternatives to involvement in crime, by coordinating with 
other programs to give kids a place to go besides the streets.


                 CERTAINTY OF PUNISHMENT FOR JUVENILES:

  The juvenile justice system is overwhelmed with delinquents but 
starved for programs that hold these kids accountable, that provide 
them with meaningful punishments and services that can turn them around 
before it is too late.
  We are always hearing about the kid who shot somebody who had been 
arrested 10, 15, 20 times. Well the reason is because many of their 
offenses are not serious enough to send them to a juvenile prison, so 
they get put on probation. The juvenile probation officers are as 
overloaded with cases as the probation officers in the adult system.
  The result is these delinquents go totally unsupervised, unpunished, 
and totally undeterred.
  This program will help fill this critical gap in the juvenile system, 
and hold young offenders accountable before they become adult 
offenders.


                 COMMUNITY YOUTH ACADEMIES: $36 MILLION

  These programs follow on the strategy behind the certainty of 
punishment programs. They recognize that despite the terrible increase 
in violent crime among juveniles, the fact is most kids are not out 
there committing murders and muggings. They are stealing and 
vandalizing.


                family unity demonstration: $22 million

  These programs keep nonviolent offenders' families together, to 
reduce recidivism and welfare dependency.
  This program allows nonviolent offenders to stay with their small 
children--kids up to the age of 7--so that they do not grow up without 
a parent, without the family bonds they need.
  It also serves to remind the offenders that they have obligations--
not only to society, but to their children as well.


         National community economic partnership: $270 million

  This program is a response to a profound lack of capital in 
communities in need and will make a significant contribution to 
restoring vitality to our urban streets. The former Secretary of HUD, 
Jack Kemp, understood the long-term imperative of rebuilding our 
cities.


            Urban recreation and at-risk youth: $4.5 million

  This program will provide expanded recreational opportunities in 
high-crime areas. Having something constructive to do is the most 
logical alternative to crime in our cities, particularly when school is 
out.


          Gang resistance education and training: $4.5 million

  One of the most dangerous components of the prevalence of gangs in 
our cities is the intense peer pressure on kids to join gangs. This 
program is an ambitious effort to foster personal responsibility and to 
embolden kids to resist such pressures. This program is to gangs what 
the DARE Program is to drugs. There is broad support for this concept.


                   local crime prevention block grant

  Some $377 million allotted directly to local governments, based on 
their jurisdiction's share of violent crime, for the purposes listed 
below.


                   olympic youth development program

  Senators Domenici and Stevens fought for inclusion of this program in 
the Senate bill. This prevention program says the same thing as the 
Community Schools Program--money for supervised sports and recreation 
programs, purchase of sporting and recreational equipment and supplies, 
hiring of instructors and other staff, provision of meals for 
participants, provision of an initial basic physical examination, and 
provision of first aid and nutrition guidance.


                          boys and girls clubs

  For boys and girls clubs, $36 million was in the Republican bill.


          juvenile drug trafficking and gang prevention grants

  This program is also in the Republican bill, sponsored by Senators 
Dole and Hatch. It is ``to develop and provide parenting classes to 
parents of at-risk youth, to develop and provide training in methods of 
nonviolent dispute resolution to youth of junior high school and high 
school age, and to establish sports mentoring and coaching programs in 
which athletes serve as role models for juveniles to teach that 
athletics provides a positive alternative to drug and gang 
involvement.''


                          midnight basketball

  Nighttime sports leagues keep kids off the streets and out of 
trouble. They build values like teamwork, sportsmanship, and personal 
responsibility. They put youngsters who may have few positive 
influences in their lives in touch with coaches and parents who care.
  The kids won't just be out on the court; in order to play, they must 
attend job counseling or other educational programs as well.
  Republicans have targeted midnight basketball as one of the most 
egregious cases of wasteful spending in this conference report, even 
though President Bush honored a midnight basketball league as his 124th 
Point of Light in 1990.


                    police partnerships for children

  This program will provide aid to child victims of crime, who suffer 
violence at a rate five times higher than adults. It puts a protective, 
comforting net of law enforcement officers and family service workers 
around small children who have been traumatized by violence, on a 24-
hour-a-day basis, so they are there when the children need them the 
most.


                        safe low-income housing

  Provides incentives to get police officers to live in the communities 
they serve, investing them in the livelihood of their neighborhoods and 
making their neighbors feel safe.
  A low-income neighborhood in Portland, OR, Police Chief Charles Moose 
and his wife bought a home and moved in. The residents say they feel 
safer knowing he is there, and they have been able to venture out in 
the evening for the first time in years.


                        child visitation centers

  This is another program that is aimed at preserving the family unit. 
It is designed to strengthen the family and protect children, by 
providing a supervised place for abusive parents to visit with their 
kids.
  The Carnegie Corp. released a report earlier this year warning of the 
profound long-term dangers posed to children by exposure to child abuse 
and family violence. This program tries to soften the trauma these 
children experience.


                      youth employment and skills

  Programs to encourage private employers to hire at-risk teens and 
young adults, who must avoid crime, drug use, and stay in school to 
stay in the program.


                        Anticrime youth councils

  There is no greater indication of personal responsibility than 
individuals who participate in efforts to not only resist crime but 
also to actively combat it. We owe it to ourselves to encourage efforts 
such as these, which involve youths in planning responses to violence 
and in resolving disputes, to give kids a stake in their schools and 
their communities.


                             Hope in youth

  The Carnegie Corp. study cites an example of the Roar Program. In 
Boston that targets children who are at risk for school failure. The 
program uses pediatric visits to inspire an interest in reading.
  School failure is a significant cause of later delinquency. The hope 
in youth program recognizes this, and would fund innovative programs 
like Roar that will make a difference in our future.


              Gang prevention services for boys and girls

  This program is designed to provide educational, health, career and 
other services to at-risk youths who might otherwise elect lives of 
crime and drugs. Reading, recreation, or drama, have repeatedly turned 
kids away from drugs and crime.


                         safe seniors corridors

  This program seeks to better protect one of society's most vulnerable 
groups--senior citizens. It establishes greater police presence and 
supports crime prevention activities by community groups.
  At the suggestion of several Republican Representatives, a dozen 
prevention programs were condensed into one, $377 million local crime 
prevention block grant.
  The $377 million total represents an 8-percent cut from the $409 
million total these programs had in the initial conference report.
  These dollars will be distributed directly to local governments, 
according to their share of violent crime.
  Each of the key purposes of the dozen programs is included in the 
block grant, covering everything, including midnight basketball, 
Olympic youth development centers, boys and girls clubs, gang 
prevention and enforcement.
  Total funding for the block grant is $377 million. The formula allots 
a minimum 0.25 percent to each State, or roughly $940,000, with the 
rest allocated based on each State's share of violent crime. The 
funding goes directly to units of local government, based on their 
share of their State's violent crime, for the following purposes:
  Olympic youth development program for ``supervised sports and 
recreation programs'' afterschool and on weekends and holidays.
  Boys and girls clubs to establish boys and girls clubs in public 
housing.
  Juvenile drug trafficking and gang prevention grants for ``prevention 
and enforcement programs to reduce the formation or continuation of 
gangs, and the use and sale of illegal drugs by juveniles.''
  Midnight basketball. Nighttime sports leagues keep kids off the 
streets and out of trouble. They build values like teamwork, 
sportsmanship, and personal responsibility.
  Police partnerships for children to provide aid to child victims of 
crime, who suffer violence at a rate five times higher than adults.
  Safe low-income housing provides incentives to get police officers to 
live in the communities they serve, investing them in the livelihood of 
their neighborhoods and making their neighbors feel safe.
  Child visitation centers designed to strengthen the family and 
protect children, by providing a supervised place for abusive parents 
to visit with their kids.
  Youth employment and skills for programs to encourage private 
employers to hire at-risk teens and young adults, who must avoid crime 
and drug use, and stay in school to stay in the program.
  Anticrime youth councils to give students a structure to work with 
law enforcement and community and school organizations to address 
issues regarding youth and violence.
  Hope in youth targets children who are at risk for school failure 
with peer counseling, mentoring, and outreach programs.

  Gang prevention services for boys and girls to provide educational, 
health, career and other services to at-risk youths who might otherwise 
elect lives of crime and drugs, and to support training programs and 
research efforts.
  Safe seniors corridors to establish greater police presence and 
support crime prevention activities for senior citizens.
  Triad for programs for the FBI and U.S. attorneys to prevent crime 
against the elderly.
  Despite the criticism, these programs work.


                          boys and girls clubs

  A 1992 evaluation by Columbia University and the American Health 
Foundation found that public housing projects with clubs experienced 13 
percent fewer juvenile crimes; 22 percent less drug activity; and 25 
percent less crack presence than projects without clubs.


              communities in schools houston (houston, tx)

  This program aims to keep at-risk kids in school--as opposed to out 
on the streets committing crimes. Professionals set up shop in the 
schools and provide one-on-one counseling, mentoring, tutoring, job 
training and crisis intervention.
  An independent evaluation reported that approximately 90 percent of 
the kids served by the program are still in school at the end of the 
school year. In contrast, one-third of students entering high school 
statewide fail to graduate.


            ``pat''--police athletic teams (birmingham, al)

  The Birmingham Police Department sponsors softball, basketball, 
baseball, and golf teams for kids from disadvantaged neighborhoods. The 
catch: the kids must study for at least an hour every night--the 
program supplies tutors--and must maintain a ``C'' average in order to 
play.
  The police department reports that juvenile crime has dropped 30 
percent in neighborhoods served by the program.


            southwest key day treatment program (austin, tx)

  Southwest Key caseworkers provide round-the-clock tracking of kids 
who have had a brush with the law, and who are out on probation or 
parole. The program counsels the kids and their parents, and also 
requires the kids to attend daily work-related, social skills and 
recreation sessions.
  The Texas Youth Commission reports that the kids who complete the 
program have a 65-percent lower rearrest rate than kids released from 
institutions directly into standard parole services.


             project first class male (fort lauderdale, fl)

  In this program, counselors meet with at-risk young boys at school 
and in their homes with an eye toward promoting sexual abstinence and 
reducing teen pregnancies.
  An independent evaluation reports an 85-percent success rate in 
preventing new pregnancies.


                    the phoenix house (new york, ny)

  Phoenix House provides live-in high schools for juvenile drug 
abusers. In addition to traditional curricula, the program helps kids 
kick their habits and develop self-esteem, discipline, and personal 
responsibility.
  Phoenix House reports that 85 percent of its graduates remain drug 
and crime free for the 3 to 5 years that the program charts their 
progress.


              the juvenile diversion program (pueblo, co)

  This program for nonviolent first-time offenders requires kids to 
sign a behavioral contract and become involved with a nonprofit agency; 
the kids are also tutored, counseled, and required to pay restitution 
to their victims.
  The program reports that 83 percent of its graduates are not 
rearrested in the 2 years the program follows them.


 stars--success through academic and recreational support (fort myers, 
                                  fl)

  STARS, which has received accolades from Republican Senator Connie 
Mack, provides at-risk kids with positive, adult-guided tutorial and 
recreational programs.
  The Fort Myers Chief of Police reports that, in the last 3 years, the 
program has led to a 27-percent reduction in juvenile arrests and a 
dramatic reduction in repeat-offender arrests.


              specialized treatment services (mercer, pa)

  This program targets delinquent kids with mental health problems for 
intensive counseling and academic services.
  The program reports that more than 80 percent of the kids who 
complete the program do not get into serious trouble during the 5 years 
that they are tracked upon release.


            the crime conference report--fact versus fiction

  Fiction: The crime conference report is full of pork.
  Fact: Nearly $8 of every $10--was 71 percent, now 77 percent--in the 
crime conference report is for police, prisons, and Federal and state/
local law enforcement.
  The crime conference report increases funding from the levels in the 
Senate-passed bill for prisons, Byrne Grants to State and local law 
enforcement, Federal law enforcement, immigration reform, and drug 
courts.

                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Program                      CC report funding                  Senate funding             Change  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prisons.........................  $9.7 billion....................  $6.5 billion....................  Up $3.2 b.
Byrne grants to State/local law   $1.0 billion....................  $0..............................  Up $1 b.  
 enforcement.                                                                                                   
Federal law enforcement:                                                                                        
    FBI.........................  $250 million....................  $250 million....................  Same.     
    DEA.........................  $150 million....................  $100 million....................  Up $50 m. 
    Treasury....................  $550 million....................  $180 million....................  Up $370 m.
    Criminal aliens/INS reforms.  $1.19 billion...................  $0..............................  Up $1.19  
                                                                                                       b.       
Federal subtotal (also includes   $2.637 billion..................  $1.731 billion..................  Up $906 m.
 U.S. attorneys, DNA, SCAMS,                                                                                    
 courts, and Justice Department).                                                                               
    Drug courts.................  $1.0 billion....................  $1.2 billion....................  Down $200.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Fiction: The crime conference report funds social welfare programs 
that have nothing to do with fighting crime.
  Fact: The prevention programs in the crime conference report are 
supported by law enforcement--like the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National District Attorneys Association, and the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers--who cite prevention programs as 
critical to a long-term cure for crime.
  Many of the prevention efforts funded by the conference report have 
enjoyed bipartisan support over the years:


                       program and key supporters

  Violence Against Women ($1.6 billion): Senators Biden, Boxer, Dole, 
and Hatch.
  Community Schools ($810 million): Senators Bradley, Dodd, Danforth, 
and Domenici.
  Anti-gang Grants (In $377 million block grant): Senators Dole and 
Hatch.
  Drug Treatment in Prisons ($383 million): Senator Biden and former 
Drug Director William Bennett.
  Olympic Youth (In $377 million block grant): Senators Stevens and 
Domenici.
  Midnight Basketball (In $377 million block grant): President Bush--
who honored a midnight basketball league as one of his ``points of 
light`` in 1990.
  Boys & Girls Clubs (In $377 million block grant): Senators Biden, 
Dole, and Hatch.
  Family Unity ($22 million): Senators Simon and Durenberger.
  Model Intensive Grants ($626 million): Senators D'Amato and Gorton--
among others--supported Drug Emergency Areas Act on which these grants 
are modeled.
  Fiction: Sports and recreational activities don't belong in a crime 
bill.
  Fact: Giving at-risk kids an alternative to gangs, drugs, and 
violence does fight crime. President Bush, in honoring a local Maryland 
midnight basketball program as one of his Points of Light in 1991, 
said, according to the New York Times:

       The last thing midnight basketball is about is basketball. 
     . . . It's about providing opportunity for young adults to 
     escape drugs and the streets and get on with their lives. 
     It's not coincidental that the crime rate is down 60 percent 
     since this program began.

  Fact: The Republicans put these kinds of crime prevention programs in 
their latest crime proposal. For example:
  Olympic Youth Development Centers: $125 million for ``sporting and 
recreational equipment * * * meals * * * an initial basic physical 
examination * * * first aid * * * nutrition guidance.* * *''--July 1994 
Republican Crime Proposal, title X, subtitle E.
  Child-Centered Activities: $400 million for ``supervised sports 
programs * * * workforce preparation * * * entrepreneurship * * * 
tutorial and mentoring programs * * * sporting and recreational 
equipment * * * meals * * * an initial basic physical examination * * * 
first aid * * * nutrition guidance.* * *''--July 1994 Republican Crime 
Proposal, title X, subtitle E.
  Juvenile Drug Trafficking and Gang Prevention Grants: $100 million 
``to develop and provide parenting classes to parents of at-risk youth 
* * * to develop and provide training in methods of nonviolent dispute 
resolution to youth of junior high school and high school age * * * to 
establish sports mentoring and coaching programs in which athletes 
serve as role models for juveniles to teach that athletics provides a 
positive alternative to drug and gang involvement.* * *''--July 1994 
Republican Crime Proposal, title X, subtitle E.
  Boys and Girls Clubs in Public Housing: $36 million for ``the 
Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the 
Attorney General, [to] enter into contracts with the Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America * * * to establish Boys and Girls Clubs in public 
housing * * * [and for] a report * * * that details * * * the 
effectiveness of the programs in reducing drug abuse and gang 
violence.''--July 1994 Republican Crime Proposal, title X, subtitle H.
  Fiction: The crime conference report will fund only 22,000--not 
100,000 new police officers.
  Fact: The crime conference report does buy 100,000 new police 
officers:
  It provides $8.8 billion in total funding to implement community 
policing programs.
  This includes $7.5 billion to cover $75,000 per officer for 100,000 
new officers over 6 years.
  The remaining $1.3 billion will cover the costs of implementing and 
administering the community policing programs.
  The basis of this 22,000 fiction--an estimate that police officers 
get paid an average salary of $70,000 per year (at that rate, $8.8 
billion would pay $70,000 per year for 6 years for about 22,000 
police.) Of course, few police make that kind of money--nationwide 
averages are about $30,000 per year.
  The Conference Report does require that States, cities, and 
localities match this commitment of Federal dollars with dollars of 
their own, but this is neither an unfunded mandate--no city or 
community need apply for the money--nor is it an unworkable 
requirement.
  Indeed, under President Clinton's fiscal year 1994 police 
supplemental, the exact same matching requirements were in place, and 
cities and towns stood in line trying to participate in the program. In 
fact, the Justice Department could only fund 1 of every 10 cops applied 
for with this $150 million.
  Mayors and local officials of both parties strongly support this 
program because they want the real help in putting more cops on the 
streets to fight crime.
  Fiction: The violent crime reduction trust fund in the crime 
conference report is now subject to a point of order objection in the 
Senate.
  Fact: The trust fund has always been subject to a technical point of 
order, now as well as in November when Senators Byrd, Mitchell, and 
Biden--joined by Senators Dole, Gramm, Hatch, Domenici, Mack, and 
others--first offered it as an amendment to the Senate crime bill.
  The point of order arises because the trust fund is within the 
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, but was not considered by that 
committee before being added to the crime bill. Of course, the Senate 
as a whole carefully considered the trust fund at the time the crime 
bill was on the floor, where it enjoyed overwhelming, bipartisan 
support. No one raised the point of order objection at that time.
  But, every Senator was told that the trust fund was subject to this 
point of order by none other than Senator Domenici on the evening the 
Senate passed the Byrd amendment establishing the trust fund:

       Senator Domenici I am sure the distinguished chairman 
     [Senator Byrd] agrees with me that the pending amendment 
     violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.
       Senator Byrd I do concur * * * I want to be clear that a 
     60-vote point of order does lie against the pending amendment 
     [Byrd amendment]. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico 
     and I discussed this earlier today, and we both agreed that 
     it did, that it would lie. * * * May I say to the Senator, I 
     will just as zealously guard the legislative process in the 
     future as I have in the past. It was only because of the very 
     extenuating circumstances throughout this country today, that 
     I think cry out for solutions, that I have taken this 
     approach. (November 4, 1993)

  And, after this recognition Senator Domenici, joined the Byrd 
amendment as an original cosponsor, and stated:

       I think it is historic. From my standpoint, as money is 
     saved from reducing the work force of the United States. * * 
     * I join in saying if we are going to spend it, we probably 
     ought to spend it for the most serious domestic issue in our 
     country. (November 4, 1993)


                       senate votes on trust fund

  Gramm Amendment locking in cuts in federal bureaucracy for FY94-FY99, 
October 28, 1994--yes: 82, no: 14.
  Byrd Amendment establishing Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, 
November 4, 1994--yes: 95, no: 4.
  Gramm Amendment to add Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to Federal 
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1993, March 11, 1994--yes: 90, no: 2.
  Gramm motion to instruct crime bill conferees to support Trust Fund, 
May 19, 1994--yes: 66, no: 32.
  Biden motion to instruct crime bill conferees to support Trust Fund, 
May 19, 1994--yes: 94, no: 4.


                  quotes on Byrd trust fund amendment

       He [Senator Byrd] was the one who came up with the funding 
     mechanism. I just want to personally compliment him for it, 
     plus the ability to put this together the way we are putting 
     it together.--Senator Hatch, November 4, 1993.
       From day one, Republicans have insisted that any anticrime 
     bill we pass must be fully paid for. Security has a price and 
     it is a price we at least attempt to pay by establishing a 
     violent crime reduction trust fund. In the months ahead we 
     will see whether we live up to the trust fund commitment.--
     Senator Dole, November 19, 1993.
       [on motion to instruct crime bill conferees] First of all, 
     it asks our conferees to stay with the funding mechanism that 
     Senator Byrd offered. I was a cosponsor of it. It was broadly 
     supported, bipartisan effort. * * * So the first thing I want 
     our conferees to do is stay with our funding mechanism. It 
     was endorsed earlier in the House and has been adopted three 
     times in the Senate. Every time we have gotten down to the 
     goal line, trying to make it the law of the land, it ended up 
     being killed. I do not want it to die this time. Without it, 
     there are no prisons, no additional police officers on the 
     streets, and no effective crime bill.--Senator Gramm, May 19, 
     1994.


                      OTHER BUDGET POINTS OF ORDER

  Republican-proposed and passed:
  Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations, 1995--June 22, 1994: Gorton 
motion to waive to permit consideration of the Gorton amendment which 
prohibits the use of any funds to enforce an IRS prohibition against 
selling dyed diesel fuel to recreational boaters where the person 
selling the fuel collects the tax and requires IRS to establish 
collection system to allow the sale of dyed diesel fuel to recreational 
boaters. Seventy-two Senators all agreed that this was necessary based 
on some changes in tax structure that were made as part of the repeal 
of the luxury tax on boats. But, this added to the deficit, CBO-scoring 
$6 million fiscal year 1994 and $25 million in fiscal year 1995, 
because establishing the new system cost more than the tax revenue 
collections. (Passed 79-20, 42 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted to 
waive point of order.)
  Senator Nickles motion to waive section 305(b) point of order--
prohibiting non-germane amendments), expressing Sense of Senate that 
Senate should adopt balanced budget constitutional amendment. (Passed 
63-32, all 40 Republicans voting voted for the motion, and were joined 
by 23 Democrats.)
  Republican proposed to waive section 306 but none passed:
  Senator Craig motion to waive section 306 to permit consideration of 
Senator Murkowski amendment expressing sense of the Senate to eliminate 
Presidential election campaign fund checkoff and use funds for natural 
disaster trust fund. (February 10, 1994; motion defeated, 58 nay--37 
yea; 36 Republicans voted to waive.)
  Senator Dole (for Senator Durenberger) motion to waive section 306 to 
permit consideration of Senator Durenberger amendment expressing to 
establish natural disaster relief trust fund. (February 10, 1994; 
motion defeated, 54 nay-41 yea; 34 Republicans voted to waive.)
  Budget points of order have been waived by unanimous consent:
  Waiver of point of order regarding Senator Heinz' amendment regarding 
congressional action to remove Social Security trust funds from the 
definition of the deficit. (Passed by U.C., June 19, 1990.)
  Waiver of point of order prospectively for a Senator Chafee amendment 
creating a refundable tax credit. (Passed by U.C., September 23, 1992.)
  Democratic proposed, and passed:
  Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Bumpers motion to waive to 
permit consideration of the Bumpers amendment which allows States to 
withhold a portion of AFDC benefits for families whose preschool 
children are not immunized (June 25, 1993, passed, 69-29; supported by 
39 Republicans and 30 Democrats.)
  Senator Ford's motion to waive Budget Act directing Secretary of 
Transportation to establish a national noise policy, and other changes. 
(October 18, 1990; passed 69-31; supported by 30 Republicans and 39 
Democrats.)
  Supplemental appropriations bill for 1990: Motion to waive point of 
order to permit consideration of Hollings-Rudman amendment to increase 
spending for the State Department. (39 Republicans support the motion 
to waive, motion passed--62-30, April 26, 1990.)
  Several passed relating to unemployment compensation:
  October 27, 1993, motion waived 61-39; Republicans voted to waive.
  February 4, 1992, Senator Daschle's motion to waive agreed to 88-8; 
34 Republicans voted to waive.
  October 1, 1991, Senator Sasser's motion to waive agreed to 65-34; 8 
Republicans voted to waive.
  April 26, 1990, Senator Hollings's motion to waive agreed to 62-30; 2 
Republicans voted to waive.
  Fiction: The crime conference report will add to the deficit or 
require tax increases.
  Fact: The conference report pays for $30.2 billion of programs 
through the violent crime reduction trust fund, which uses the money 
saved from cutting the number of Federal bureaucrats the hire cops, 
build prison spaces, and otherwise fight crime.
  The conference report does not contain or require new taxes of any 
kind.
  And the trust fund does not add to the deficit, indeed, the trust 
fund lowers the budget caps to ensure that all crime spending is 
deficit neutral.
  As explained by Jim Sasser, the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, the trust fund:

       Guarantees that the money will be available. . . . [It] 
     achieves real savings, locks them in, and then provides for 
     their use to fund the crime bill. It provides a real and 
     enforceable method to pay for this important purpose.

  In addition every year these dollars must be appropriated from the 
trust fund. There is no direct funding. So, the trust fund cannot add 
to the deficit.
  Fiction: The conference report dropped provisions requiring the swift 
deportation of criminal aliens.
  Fact: The conference report includes the summary deportation 
provision from the Senate bill--with slightly modified language. This 
provision would speed deportation by eliminating the requirement that a 
hearing be held and by eliminating layers of appeals.
  The conference report also includes $160 million for the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service to hold deportation hearings in prisons--so 
criminal illegal aliens will be ready to be deported as soon as they 
have finished their sentences.


                                Prisons

  Prison grants: The crime bill provides $7.9 billion in prison grants 
to States, comprising 50 percent--$3.9 billion--for grants to States 
which have implemented truth-in-sentencing--that is, second-time 
violent and serious drug offenders must serve 85 percent of their 
sentence. This was a House Republican proposal offered by 
Representative Bill McCollum, and
  Fifty percent--$3.9 billion--for general prison grants to all States, 
without the truth-in-sentencing requirements.
  Alien incarceration: $1.8 billion to reimburse States for cost of 
incarcerating illegal criminal aliens.
  The prison provision in the conference report takes aim at violent 
offenders. The provision has three purposes:
  First, to ensure that prison cell space is available for the 
confinement of violent offenders.
  Second, to free up prison space for the confinement of violent 
offenders.
  Third, to implement truth-in-sentencing laws for sentencing violent 
offenders.
  Every dollar in the conference report's $7.9 billion prison grant 
program must ensure that prison space is available to put violent 
offenders behind bars.
  The language is explicit: it says that, in order for a State to 
qualify for the money, it must:

       Provide assurances that funds received under this section 
     will be used to construct, develop, expand, modify, operate, 
     or improve correctional facilities to ensure that prison cell 
     space is available for the confinement of violent offenders.

  That is an explicit condition of the money.
  This language lets the States use the money in a way that best 
maximizes their prison space to get us to the goal: getting violent 
offenders behind prison bars--whether it's prison construction, or 
operation, or boot camps which get nonviolent offenders out of 
expensive prison cells.
  States will apply for money to build prisons. The States are 
clamoring for more prison money. Right now, 34 States are under court 
order for prison overcrowding.
  But States are also in desperate need for money to activate and 
operate existing prisons:
  Utah is planning to build 1,000 prison beds, but the State does not 
have the money to do it. If we pass this bill, these beds could be 
filled with violent offenders.
  California has 13,000 beds planned but not funded.
  The State of Georgia has over 3,000 beds planned and not funded, and 
3,000 more already built that are empty due to lack of operating funds.
  In South Carolina, over 2,000 beds are empty due to lack of operating 
funds.
  If half of the $7.9 billion is used by the States to build new 
prisons and half to operate them, this crime bill would fund over 
125,000 new prison beds across the country.


          MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR DRUG OFFENSES INVOLVING MINORS

  This provision provides a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for 
someone over 21 who sells drugs to a juvenile--includes low-level 
marijuana exception; buys drugs from a juvenile--no marijuana 
exception; uses a juvenile to sell drugs; or uses a juvenile to avoid 
detection of a drug offense.
  Senator Gramm's proposal also includes a two-time loser provision--
someone who twice commits these offenses goes away for mandatory life.
  Under the current guidelines, defendants today get at least 5-6\1/2\ 
years, absent mitigating factors, for a first offense of committing 
these crimes. They can get more if the quantity of drugs is great.
  However, other provisions in the crime bill address this problem.
  Using kids to sell drugs near schools and playgrounds.--Provides up 
to triple the penalties otherwise authorized for using a juvenile to 
sell drugs in a drug-free zone--near schools, playgrounds, video 
arcades, swimming pools. Under current law, these defendants get at 
least 5-6\1/2\ years for the first offense. By providing for triple the 
maximum penalty, the Commission will amend the guidelines to provide 
for an even stiffer sentence.
  Solicitation of minor of commit crime.--Directs the Sentencing 
Commission to enhance sentencing guidelines--for all crimes--where 
defendant uses juvenile to commit crime or encourages juvenile to 
commit crime, would thus cover selling drugs to minors or using kids to 
sell drugs. Directs Commission to take into account variety of factors 
in fashioning stiffer penalties: severity of crime; number of kids the 
defendant uses or involves in the crime; and proximity in age between 
offender and minor.
  Under this proposal, a 22-year-old who buys one joint from his 17-
year-old buddy goes away for 10 years, mandatory. If he is convicted 
twice of buying a joint from his buddy--he goes away for life. Period. 
Ten years for buying one joint; mandatory life for two.
  That young man, under the Republican proposal, gets the same sentence 
as a 40-year-old drug kingpin who sells PCP to a 12-year-old. He gets 
the same sentence as the guy who sells $100,000 worth of cocaine to an 
18-year-old. The 22-year-old should be punished. But to give him the 
same sentence as the drug kingpin selling to children makes no sense.
  That is exactly the problem that Senator Hatch himself, in a very 
thoughtful law review article in which he criticizes mandatory minimum 
sentences, points out.
  The Senator from Utah wrote:

       Mandatory minimums employ a relatively narrow approach 
     under which the same sentence may be mandated for widely 
     divergent cases.

  The Senator also says:

       Mandatory minimums often result in sharp variations in 
     sentences based on what are often only minimal differences in 
     criminal conduct or prior record.

  The provisions that are already in the conference report will ensure 
tougher penalties that make sense, and distinguish between the 22-year-
old buying a joint for the first time from his buddy and the 40-year-
old kingpin who makes his living selling drugs to 13-year-olds.
  When we write sentences, we must make sure that punishment fits both 
the crime and the criminal. And by directing the sentencing commission 
to enhance penalties--as opposed to imposing mandatory minimums--we 
make sure that the kingpin gets a tougher sentence than the first time 
kid who sells drugs to his friend.


                            criminal aliens

  The Republicans keep claiming that the conference report does not 
include the Senate provisions on expediting the deportation of criminal 
aliens. But the conference report does include many of those 
provisions.
  Most important, the conference report includes the Senate's expedited 
deportation provisions. The conference report eliminates many 
procedural requirements for deporting illegal aliens who commit crimes 
in the United States. It eliminates the need to hold hearings, and it 
virtually eliminates appeals.
  The conference report also provides almost $1.2 billion for 
immigration enforcement. This money will be used for several things: To 
speed processing of frivolous asylum claims, to add border patrol 
agents, and to expedite the deportation of criminal aliens after they 
have finished their sentences.
  The conference report also doubles penalties for alien smuggling; 
creates new penalties for those who are ordered to leave the United 
States but do not do so; and doubles penalties for those who use false 
documents to get into the United States.
  The conference report is slightly different from the Senate-passed 
bill. For example, the conference report deletes a provision that would 
have allowed deportation of legal immigrants--not people who are here 
illegally--but people who have lived here for decades, solely because 
they may have committed a minor offense 30 or 40 years ago. This 
provision would have eliminated the immigration judge's right to even 
consider whether deportation in a particular case is fair.
  Another provision would have required Federal judges to start holding 
deportation hearings. This might be a good idea, except that the 
expedited deportation provisions of the conference report eliminated 
the need for any type of hearing in many of those cases. In addition, 
forcing Federal judges to learn about complicated immigration laws is a 
waste of resources when there are already procedures that work.


                   federalization of state gun crimes

  This provision would expand Federal jurisdiction to all State crimes 
of violence--including property crimes--and drug trafficking in which 
an offender possesses a gun.
  It carries strict mandatory minimum penalties: 10 years mandatory for 
gun possession during the crime and 20 years for discharging the gun. A 
second conviction for gun possession means 20 years. Three convictions 
equals mandatory life.
  These penalties for gun possession during State crimes of violence 
are stiffer than those on the books for the comparable Federal crimes--
which carry a 5-year mandatory for using or carrying a gun for the 
first offense.
  This provision is a breathtaking, unprecedented expansion of Federal 
criminal jurisdiction: It would make every gun crime committed in 
America a Federal crime.
  Today, over 95 percent of criminals are investigated, prosecuted, 
tried, and incarcerated at the State level, because local police are 
the experts when it comes to busting street gangs, street thugs, and 
street punks.
  This provision holds out a promise to the American people that will 
necessarily be broken. The Justice Department recently reported that 
offenders armed with handguns committed over 900,000 violent crimes in 
1992. The total capacity of our Federal prisons today is a little over 
80,000.
  Federalizing all crimes committed with guns does not lend the weight 
of Federal authority to the fight against gun violence.
  To the contrary: It renders the Federal authority meaningless. For 
when the Federal system bites off more than it can chew, it erodes the 
confidence of the American people in the ability of justice to be 
served.
  The conference report provides $9 billion to put 100,000 local police 
officers on America's streets and in our neighborhoods, compared to 
$250 million for the FBI.
  That is smart policy--helping the States do their job and keeping 
Federal officers doing what they do best: Investigating and prosecuting 
complex, multi-state crime organizations and drug rings.
  It also reflects the reality that 95 percent of all crime is State 
crime--and that, for over 200 years, we have gone out of our way not to 
create a Federal police force and not to federalize State crimes unless 
there is a compelling Federal nexus.


               the trust fund does not add to the deficit

  This point rests on little more than an accounting rule. The 
Republicans point out that in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 
there are no discretionary budget caps, so there is no budget total 
agreed to by a congressional budget resolution. So the argument goes, 
we cannot guarantee that the crime bill will not add to the deficit in 
fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
  This is a ``red herring''. The trust fund language in the crime bill 
specifies that the $13 billion in reductions to fill the trust fund in 
1999 and 2000 will be made from ``comparable amounts for budgetary 
purposes''--in other words, none of us know how many discretionary 
dollars the Federal Government will have to spend in 1999 and 2000, but 
whatever the total, it will be reduced by $6.5 billion in 1999 and $6.5 
billion in 2000.
  We do not know exactly how much money will be in the Federal 
Government's discretionary ``check book.'' But, whatever the amount, 
the trust fund tells us to put aside $6.5 billion of our total in a 
special checking account--kind of like a ``Christmas club''--that we 
will only use to pay for the police, prisons, and prevention in the 
crime bill.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the crime bill, now before the Senate, is 
substantially different than the $22 billion crime bill that passed the 
Senate in November 1993.
  Rather than a tough-on-crime, bricks-and-mortar bill that put its 
money where its mouth was, what stands before us now is a social 
welfare spending boondoggle that could add as much as $13 billion to 
the deficit but not one penny's worth of crime prevention to any street 
in America.
  Gone are nearly 30 tough-on-crime provisions, including those that 
would enhance mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors 
or employing minors in a drug crime; mandatory minimum sentences for 
using a gun in the commission of a violent or drug-related crime; the 
expeditious deportation of illegal aliens who have committed a crime in 
the United States; and stiff penalties for violent street-gang crimes.
  In their place is 10 billion dollars' worth of social welfare 
programs that will not only do nothing to reduce the rate of crime in 
our cities, but that also duplicate the work of seven different Federal 
agencies and over 266 similar programs that have already been funded 
under the current 1994 fiscal budget.
  As former Attorney General Ed Meese recently pointed out, Congress 
already funds a Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program to 
the tune of $72 million; a Juvenile Gangs and Drug Abuse Program at 
$5.6 million; a Delinquency Prevention Program worth $13 million; a 
program for Neglected and Delinquent Children at $35.4 million; a $57 
million program of demonstration grants for the prevention of alcohol 
and other drug abuse among high risk youth; a $10.6 million initiative 
to curb youth gangs. And more than $442 million for a program called 
Drug-Free Schools and Communities.
  Every year, American cities spend millions of dollars as well on 
these same anticrime tactics, yet crime continues to rise.
  Clearly, if these programs worked, America would have the safest 
streets in the world. Yet, while the number of programs and the amount 
of funding rises with every passing year, so does the populations of 
our prisons and the rate of violent crime in our streets.
  Mr. President, this bill does not need $3 million to locate missing 
Alzheimer's patients, or $45 million to construct six new sports 
centers for the U.S. Olympic Committee.
  It does not need a task force to study nonindigenous plant and animal 
species and their possible introduction in Hawaii. It does not need a 
provision that any product with a ``Made in the USA'' label must have a 
certain domestic content and be assembled in the United States.
  This bill does not need to transfer key dollars away from important 
law enforcement programs such as the FBI and the DEA.
  In short, Mr. President, what we don't need is a potpourri of 
politically correct social solutions that fund two social workers for 
every one policeman.
  What we do need is a tough crime bill--and one that includes the one 
provision that was specifically prohibited by the conference bill--the 
provision that allows the teaching of moral values in schools.
  Mr. President, that's the one prevention program America really does 
need--and the only one that might actually work.
  For until Americans are as serious about arresting the moral decay of 
our society as we are about arresting criminals, we will never get to 
the root of our crime problem nor reduce the incidence of random and 
violent crime in our streets.
  Mr. President, ultimately, no piece of legislation will win or lose 
the war on crime. What we are witnessing is the utter breakdown of our 
culture, and that tide will only be stemmed by repairing the breakdown 
of our families and restoring moral order to our lives. Broken families 
lead to broken lives, and broken lives too often lead to lives of 
crime.
  If Congress is really serious about social spending, it will do all 
it can to help families, not waste their hard-earned tax dollars on 
programs that won't work.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to express my regret that this crime 
bill is not the tough, paid for crime bill the Senate passed last 
November. In contrast to the tough, paid for crime bill we passed, this 
conference report lets criminals out of jail early, it wastes taxpayer 
dollars on needless pork projects and duplicative social spending, and 
it increases the deficit by $13 billion.
  I want to make it very clear, as I have before, that to this Senator, 
this vote is not about guns. This vote is not about assault weapons. I 
supported the Feinstein amendment to the Senate crime bill, and I would 
do so again today. I support the assault weapons ban.
  My opposition to this bill instead stems from the deep flaws in it 
which arose from a conference committee that did not adequately 
represent this body or the American people.
  My opposition to this bill stems from the fact that we must accept 
the early release of 900 convicted drug felons each year if we are to 
accept the bill.
  My opposition to this bill stems from the fact that we must accept a 
$1.6 billion stimulus package that has nothing to do with crime if we 
are to accept the bill.
  My opposition to this bill stems from the fact that we must accept 
billions of dollars for things like dance lessons, artistic enrichment, 
nutritional training, arts and crafts, and sports programs if we are to 
accept the bill.
  My opposition to this stems from the fact that we must accept for the 
people of the State of Colorado and other States, an increase in the 
deficit if we are to accept this bill.
  I want a tough crime bill that represents the wishes of the American 
people when it comes to fighting crime. This bill does not meet that 
test.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, if I were asked to describe the past 18 
months, I would say they have been a remarkable year-and-a-half of 
accomplishments.
  They have been about doing something for working men and women in 
America.
  Doing something about the issues that matter most for people who are 
struggling for a better life, doing something about the issues which 
were pushed into the shadows by the previous two administrations.
  Over the past year and a half, we slashed the deficit. We cut 
Government spending. We reduced the size of the Federal work force. We 
created over 3.8 million jobs. We passed family and medical leave.
  Today we stand poised to deliver to the American people legislation 
to help make them safe and secure in their homes and neighborhoods.
  Mr. President, the crime bill now before the Senate is the most far-
reaching and comprehensive assault against violent crime in my memory.
  I believe it is time that we stopped all of the hand wringing and 
windy rhetoric about crime. Talking about crime is not going to put a 
rapist behind bars. Talking about crime is not going to break up a 
street gang. Talking about crime is not going to stop a hoodlum from 
mugging your wife or sticking up your store.
  No, Mr. President, it is time we stopped talking and acted on the 
American people's challenge to do something about crime. It is time we 
took bold and dramatic action against crime. And we can do just that by 
voting for this bill.
  This legislation addresses the epidemic of crime and violence that 
has swept the Nation--from the cities' mean streets to our once 
peaceful backroads.
  The crime bill before the Senate today is a carefully constructed 
attack on crime. It is an effective counterpunch against violence and 
lawlessness.
  And, Mr. President, I want to say right from the start that we pay 
for the resources needed to fight crime. I have seen far too many crime 
bills pass through this Chamber which promised plenty, but delivered 
little money to back those promises.
  This bill takes a fundamentally different approach. It creates a 
separate trust fund which guarantees that money will be available to 
get these crime programs off the ground. It will provide $30.2 
billion--the bulk of which will go to put police on the streets and 
keep criminals behind bars where they cannot threaten law-abiding 
citizens.
  It was my great honor and privilege to work closely with the 
distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Byrd, to construct the 
violent crime reduction trust fund.
  I believe this is a wonderful concept--the fiscal centerpiece of the 
legislation--which marries our vow to fight crime to our commitment to 
fiscal responsibility.
  We pay for the war on crime by cutting Federal employment by at least 
272,000 positions. Once our task is completed, the Federal work force 
will reach its lowest level since President Kennedy sat in the Oval 
Office.
  I want to take a moment to explain how the trust fund works. First, 
the trust fund achieves real, scorable reductions in spending on the 
Federal work force. We do this by imposing enforceable limits on 
Federal full-time positions.
  Second, the trust fund reduces the caps on discretionary spending. 
This ensures that the Congress cannot use these savings for any other 
purpose but to fight crime. This money is specifically earmarked to 
protect our fellow citizens and their families.
  If a Senator sought to spend the money for any other purpose than the 
crime bill, then that spending would be counted against the newly 
lowered discretionary caps--not against the crime trust fund. If that 
spending caused these lowered caps to be breached, than any Senator 
could raise a point of order that would take 60 votes to waive.
  In addition, if the Senate waived the point of order, or passed a law 
that exceeded the newly lowered caps, the bill requires the President 
to order across-the-board cuts to lower the level of appropriated 
spending to the level of those caps. Mr. President, that is real 
enforcement.
  Third and last, the crime bill creates the violent crime reduction 
trust fund itself. It deposits into that fund the amount of money by 
which the bill lowers the appropriations caps. Congress may then spend 
this money only for the purposes authorized in the crime bill without 
triggering a point of order or the across-the-board cuts.
  Now what are we going to do with this money? This legislation 
recognizes that the war on crime is not going to be won in the Halls of 
the Capitol. The war on crime is going to be won in States, cities, 
towns, and counties throughout America. States like Tennessee. Cities 
like Nashville and Chattanooga. Counties like Cheatham and Bradley.
  Most crime is local so the response must be local. It is the local 
police officer who is on the frontline in the fight against crime. But 
there are not enough police officers to hold back the tide of crime. 
They are outnumbered. And it's time we sent in more troops.
  Through a matching grant program, the bill before us today will put 
100,000 more police officers on the street. This will allow our 
municipalities to adopt powerful community policing programs. And 
that's what we need--a community policing program with officers walking 
the streets, knowing the neighborhoods and building a relationship of 
trust with residents and local merchants.
  I estimate that over the next 5 years, my own State of Tennessee 
could hire between 1,000 and 2,500 new officers if we pass the crime 
bill.
  And those ranks could be bolstered even further through the police 
corps initiative which is based on legislation which Senator Specter 
and I introduced.
  Our legislation is modeled on the highly successful Reserve Officer 
Training Corps. In return for scholarship assistance, a student agrees 
to serve 4 years in a State or local police force upon graduation from 
college.
  The police corps will allow young people to gain the benefits of a 
college degree. And it will allow local police forces to deploy 
additional manpower in the fight against crime.
  The police corps graduates will also share their experiences with 
family, friends, and community. I strongly believe this will increase 
the respect and support for the brave men and women who put their lives 
on the line for us every day.
  The crime bill also includes important new programs to address the 
problem of domestic violence. The distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee is to be commended for his tireless efforts to 
combat this terrible scourge.
  Sadly, domestic violence is all too common in America. The FBI now 
estimates that every 15 seconds, a woman is beaten by her husband or 
boyfriend. Domestic violence is now the leading cause of injury to 
women. It knows no geographic boundaries. It knows no economic station 
in life. It also profoundly affects the children in the household.
  For too long, domestic abuse has not been taken seriously. It was the 
crime no one wanted to talk about. Well, this bill speaks to the 
problem loudly and clearly.
  The crime bill provides $24 million to Tennessee for programs to 
combat violence against women. It provides increased funding for 
shelters for battered and abused women. It includes Federal penalties 
for interstate stalking and spousal abuse. It makes gender-based 
violence a civil rights violation.
  I am also extremely proud that the crime bill contains a $154 million 
rural crime component.
  Rural crime is rising at a faster rate than in any part of America. 
The statistics are numbing.
  Violent assaults rose 30 percent faster in rural America than in our 
25 largest American cities. Let me repeat that. Violent assaults rose 
30 percent faster in rural America than in our 25 largest American 
cities.
  The number of rapes jumped by more than 9 percent in rural counties 
while decreasing 4 percent in urban America.
  In 1992, rural drug arrests rose by 23 percent. As drug enforcement 
increased along the gulf coast, the drug smugglers moved inland to 
States like Tennessee which has many small rural airstrips and 
airports.
  The crime bill would not only provide money for hiring more police to 
fight drug-related crime. It also sets up a rural drug enforcement task 
force in every Federal judicial district that contains significant 
rural areas. It allows us to explore new ways to attack the special 
problems rural law enforcement agencies face.
  Other portions of this bill toughen the penalties for crimes and 
furnish the funds to build prisons and boot camps. It levies the 
ultimate penalty--the death penalty--for six crimes. I believe the 
American people are right. Let us stop coddling criminals.
  Now, as with any comprehensive bill, there are parts of this 
legislation which I do not favor. As my colleagues know, I have long 
been an opponent of gun control. What we need to control are the 
vicious criminals who prey on our citizens. I therefore opposed the ban 
on so-called assault rifles contained in the conference report.
  But in spite of those misgivings, I believe that the bill as a whole 
is right on target. We need those additional 100,000 police officers on 
the street. We need the tougher penalties for violent crime. And we 
need to provide to our local communities the desperately needed 
resources and programs that are the core of this legislation.
  Despite many worthwhile programs, opponents of the crime bill have 
attacked it for containing pork. However, conferees have scaled back 
the bill by more than $3 billion and produced the bipartisan measure we 
have before us today.
  Mr. President, it is time we stopped the talking. It is time that we 
stood up for the law-abiding, working men and women of America. It is 
time we answered their pleas for safe streets and neighborhoods in 
which their children can play and grow. It is time to end the silence 
on domestic violence. Mr. President, it is time we passed this crime 
bill.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the conference 
report on the crime bill. It is admittedly not perfect, but it does 
include several important provisions that in my view deserve support. 
Here are five good reasons to vote for this bill:
  First, the bill contains a ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons. 
This was approved in the Senate bill as a result of the valiant efforts 
of the distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein. No one 
claims that this ban will end gun violence, but these are weapons of 
war and have no place in civilian hands. Predictably, the National 
Rifle Association has lobbied hard against this provision. Their 
behavior is appalling, and they ought to be ashamed.
  Second, the bill authorizes $9 billion to put 100,000 new police 
officers on our streets in community policing. New York City has been a 
leader in community policing since the tenure of then-Commissioner Lee 
P. Brown, now Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 
New York attests that community policing works.
  Third, the bill provides for Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants for 
prison construction and maintenance. These grants will go only to 
States which demonstrate that persons convicted of violent crimes serve 
85 percent of the sentence imposed. I voted for this provision, in 
slightly different form, when Senator Byrd offered it as an amendment 
to the Senate crime bill last November. It passed the Senate by a vote 
of 94-4.
  Fourth, the bill prohibits the possession of handguns or ammunition 
by--and the sale of handguns or ammunition to--juveniles. This is 
common sense and long overdue.
  Fifth, the bill extends the 1986 ban on armor-piercing cop-killer 
bullets to a new type of bullets not covered by the 1986 statute. As 
the Senators from Massachusetts and Ohio, Senators Kennedy and 
Metzenbaum, noted on the floor earlier, this provision was adopted by 
unanimous consent when the Senate considered the crime bill last year. 
I was the author of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 
1986, which first banned these insidious bullets, and of the amendment 
in this bill extending the ban to the new type of cop-killer bullets, 
such as the Swedish M39B. The M39B does not fall under the 1986 ban 
because of its unique construction: it is made with an extra heavy 
steel jacket. We must act to ban these new rounds, which can easily 
pierce bullet-proof vests, before police officers are killed.
  These are just a few examples of the worthy provisions in this 
anticrime legislation. I should also like to add one institutional 
reason that we must proceed to an up or down vote on the conference 
report. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that we 
ought not vote on this conference report, but instead should take up 
the bill passed by the House earlier this year. Or, in the alternative, 
that we should take up a fully amendable version of this conference 
report.
  That is a prescription for permanent gridlock. Our colleagues ask us 
to engage in a novel legislative procedure that has no end point. They 
ask that we disregard the rules under which the Congress operates. 
Elemental among these is that conference reports are not amendable. 
This has been well settled since 1796, according to the Senate 
Historical Office.
  The first House to act on a conference report has three options: 
adopt it, reject it, or return it to the conferees for further 
consideration. This is what happened in the House of Representatives 
over the weekend.
  Once the first House to act adopts a conference report, however, the 
conference committee is automatically dissolved. The other Chamber may 
then only vote up or down on the conference report.
  The House of Representatives has adopted this conference report, and 
the Senate's only task is to adopt it or reject it. If we discard this 
established procedure to take up a new crime bill which must again be 
approved by the House and again be approved by a conference, we will 
set in motion a never-ending cycle. It would be an awful precedent and 
would prevent us from ever finishing anything.
  Mr. President, President Kennedy often said ``To govern is to 
choose.'' It is time for our colleagues to make their choice on this 
legislation. Let us now proceed to an up or down vote on the conference 
report--and let us pass this important legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the conference report of 
the crime bill because we need to take strong and comprehensive action 
to fight the rising levels of violence that is occurring on our streets 
and in our neighborhoods today.
  I recognize the bill we are voting on today is not a cure-all nor is 
it a perfect bill. But it can assist law enforcement officers and State 
and local governments that are on the front lines in the battle against 
crime by giving them some of the tools they need to fight crime.
  The bill before us includes some provisions that can make a 
meaningful difference in preventing and punishing criminal activity.
  First, the bill includes an important assault rifle provision which 
restricts the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain 
semiautomatic assault weapons by specifying 19 weapons that would be 
restricted, along with other weapons which meet specified 
characteristics. At the same time, the amendment makes clear that it 
does not place restrictions on the firearms that are used for hunting 
and sporting purposes.
  Our police have strongly urged us to adopt this provision, and I was 
pleased to work with Senator Dianne Feinstein in getting this provision 
included in the Senate crime bill through a floor amendment. It is an 
essential part of the final crime bill package that we are voting on 
today. In adopting it we stand with our police in the all too real 
battle against violent crime that they face every day on the streets.
  Second, this bill contains the authorization and actual Federal 
matching funding to assist local communities in putting more police on 
the streets. Quite simply, increasing the number of police on the 
streets reduces crime. By increasing police visibility in communities, 
this bill does more than send the signal that we want to take our 
neighborhoods back. It increases the tools that enable us to do it. 
Although the Federal funds provided in this bill are in the form of 
matching funds and are phased down over 5 years, it is my hope that 
this funding can be continued after that.
  The bill we are voting on today could provide for as much as $300 
million in discretionary funds for Michigan over the next 6 years for 
additional community policing.
  Third, the crime bill conference report contains initiatives to 
reduce gang violence through increasing penalties and through grants to 
encourage young people to direct their energies to alternative 
associations and activities. It also takes steps to improve the safety 
in our schools so that students can concentrate on learning for the 
next century instead of worrying about the violence in the next 
hallway.
  Fourth, the crime bill conference report also includes increased 
funding levels for States to implement the background checks that are 
required by the Brady bill and increased funding for additional 
technical automation for law enforcement agencies. I offered an 
amendment to the Senate crime bill requesting that the FBI report to 
the Congress on how it can accelerate and improve automatic fingerprint 
systems at the State and Federal level in order to use fingerprints 
found at the scene of a crime to identify more criminal suspects more 
quickly and effectively.
  These increased funding levels will permit the FBI to establish and 
improve the technology in this area and may offer significantly 
enhanced tools to prevent crimes on a number of fronts. This same 
technology will make it more likely that a criminal who commits one 
crime will be apprehended before he or she can commit more crimes.
  Fifth, I am pleased that the crime bill recognizes the important role 
that boot camp prisons can play in the corrections system. The bill 
adds two major opportunities for Federal funding of State boot camp 
prisons. I have been an early supporter of boot camp prisons because 
they offer an innovative approach to punishing young, non-violent 
offenders. These facilities offer a tough program that teaches 
discipline and responsibility as well as keeps young offenders away 
from hardened career criminals. The bill before us includes an 
amendment that I offered with Senator Coats to improve the boot camp 
grant program by ensuring that States offer appropriate post-
incarceration programs to make sure that the lessons of boot camp 
stick.
  Sixth, I am especially pleased the bill includes the Local 
Partnership Act in the form I worked to keep in the bill. It provides 
for $1.6 billion for direct funding to localities around the country 
for anticrime efforts, such as drug treatment, education and jobs. 
According to the grant formula for this provision, this translates into 
$57 million in direct grants to cities and town in Michigan. The wide 
discretion allowed in this program will permit local governments the 
flexibility to use the funds for those programs where the need is 
greatest in the areas of education, drug treatment, and jobs programs.
  As a consistent opponent of the death penalty, I wish this bill did 
not contain the new provisions to impose the death penalty. As I 
indicated during consideration of the Senate crime bill when I offered 
an amendment to replace the death penalty provisions with life in 
prison without the possibility of release, I oppose the death penalty 
because the judicial system makes mistakes and too many of these 
mistakes have been made in capital cases.
  Each year that we have debated this issue has added to the list of 
cases in which individuals who had been put on death row were later 
released because the wrong person was convicted in error. Nor does the 
death penalty deter crime. In fact, of the 14 States with the highest 
murder rates, 13 have the death penalty and 1 State does not have the 
death penalty. Also, the violent images which are so graphically 
connected to the imposition of the death penalty are part of the 
atmosphere of violence which is all too pervasive in our communities 
and homes.
  Mr. President, on balance, however, I believe this bill will improve 
our capacity to fight and prevent crime and merits our support, so I 
will vote for it.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I oppose the crime bill conference report 
because it is a $30.2 billion bill which is short on tough crime 
fighting provisions and long on big Government spending. I find it hard 
to believe that during a year when taking a bite out of crime has 
consistently topped most Americans' wish list, that we have before us a 
bill without teeth for effective law enforcement, which may in the end 
add to the Federal debt.
  At a time when citizens, communities, and law enforcement officials 
across the Nation are crying out for our help, it seems as if some 
Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear.
  I am disappointed that this bill fails to include tough anticrime 
measures that would have helped combat some of the worst acts of crime 
plaguing our communities today.
  Last weekend, House Republicans worked to improve the bill which was 
slightly improved. I regret that the Senate Republicans were denied the 
opportunity to continue efforts to restore the bill to a true crime 
fighting measure.
  The conference report does not chart a bold new course for attacking 
our crime problem. It dusts off a failed social spending agenda and 
gives it a bright shiny new crime label. Rather than attack the problem 
head-on with tough law enforcement measures, this conference report 
simply throws money at the problem by creating $7 billion in new 
prevention and treatment programs. These numerous new social programs 
duplicate current Federal programs, and in most instances, have only a 
marginal connection to crime. The Federal Government now has 266 
programs that serve delinquent and at-risk youth. The conference report 
simply adds another layer of unnecessary Government bureaucracy without 
any attempt to coordinate with existing programs. Additionally, the 
requirements for these programs are so loose that it is anyone's guess 
as to whether the funds will actually be used for anything remotely 
related to crime. In these times of scarce Federal resources, such 
provisions can only be called irresponsible. In attacking the crime 
problem, we must balance prevention and treatment efforts with tough 
penalties so that we will send a clear signal that criminal behavior 
will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, this bill tips the scales of 
justice too far in favor of the criminal. It's time that we tip the 
scales back in favor of the many crime victims and their families.
  If this were a serious effort to produce a tough crime fighting 
measure, why were many of the provisions that passed in the Senate with 
a wide margin of support removed? The conference report does not 
include tough mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors 
or employing minors in a drug crime. Mandatory restitution to victims 
of violent crimes was eliminated. The bricks and mortar prison building 
program was substantially changed so that the funds may not even be 
used to build prisons to house violent criminals. If this were truly a 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, then these provisions 
would have been included and enhanced. Unfortunately, the title of the 
bill is as misleading as its intentions.
  In any bill of this magnitude, we must also be concerned with the 
budgetary impact. I am deeply concerned with the real potential that 
this bill has for creating $13 billion of deficit spending in its last 
2 years of funding. It is ironic that a crime bill which is touted as 
protecting our children may, in fact, burden them in later life as 
their generation attempts to grapple with a Federal debt we have failed 
to control.
  We all deserve a break from the constant fear for our safety, our 
homes, our children. I voted for a tough crime bill last November, 
which included tough mandatory minimum sentencing, funding for prisons, 
and a clear message that the crime problem would be aggressively 
attacked. Now, it seems that the American people will be burdened with 
more ineffectual social programs disguised as crime prevention and $13 
billion in deficit spending. I am appalled that the anticrime bill that 
I voted in favor of last year has been replaced by the pro-criminal, 
anticrime bill that is now before us.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased that the House and Senate 
conferees agreed to strike from the House version of the anticrime bill 
an amendment that would have once again allowed the forced retirement 
of police officers and firefighters. I am especially pleased that there 
was strong bipartisan support for striking this provision, particularly 
among my colleagues in the Senate.
  Mandatory retirement is wrong; it is cruel, blatant age 
discrimination. In 1986 it was outlawed as an employment practice. But, 
to ease the transition for State and local governments, Congress at 
that time permitted them to keep mandatory retirement rules and maximum 
hiring ages for their public safety officers for a temporary phase-out 
period. We did this even though most State and local governments don't 
have any maximum hiring or retirement ages.
  I was a party to that deal in 1986; so was Senator John Heinz and 
Senator Ford. So were many of the groups that are now trying to 
overturn that deal and get mandatory retirement reinstated. They do 
this despite studies by the FBI Academy, Pennsylvania State University, 
and others that make clear that age is not a predictor of performance 
for public safety officers. The only way to know whether someone is 
able to do the job is to give him or her a fitness test. And these 
studies and the experiences of hundreds of State and local governments 
who test for this purpose, prove that such tests are feasible, reliable 
and desirable.
  I hope that State and local governments across this country that 
previously used mandatory retirement will now comply with the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act. I firmly believe they will soon learn 
that older workers are a fit and vital addition to our Nation's 
workforce.


                    conference report on crime bill

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the crime 
bill.
  Mr. President, when I grew up in a working class family in Paterson, 
NJ, it was a different time in a different era. There was a strong 
sense of family. A strong sense of community. A strong sense of values.
  Those days are gone, Mr. President. And, unfortunately, many of 
yesterday's values are gone as well.
  Today, in many ways, the fabric of our society is ripping apart. Too 
many children are growing up without fathers. The values of work, 
community and mutual respect are not getting passed down to the next 
generation. Our streets increasingly are dominated by disorder and 
filled with fear.
  Mr. President, we need to pull together as a society. We need to 
consolidate and restore order to our streets. We need to reestablish 
the values of work community, and respect for others. And we need to 
eliminate the anxiety and fear that lie quietly but powerfully under 
the surface of American life.
  Mr. President, this crime bill will not, by itself eliminate crime or 
reestablish the old fashioned values of community. But the bill stands 
as a symbol of a deep national yearning to move back in that direction. 
A yearning to live our lives with a basic feeling of security. And a 
yearning to rebuild and restore our social fabric.
  It also stands for the proposition that we have to make some basic 
choices. Choices about where our priorities are as a country. How we 
want to spend our money. Choices about how to reconcile our basic human 
compassion and tolerance with the need to protect ourselves and our 
children from crime.
  This crime bill makes those choices. And it's basic message is clear: 
security must come first. Protecting our children must come first. 
Restoring order must come first. Restoring our social fabric must come 
first.
  Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. In many ways, it doesn't 
go as far as I would like. However, it's an honest attempt to restore a 
sense of security in our neighborhoods, and to keep dangerous criminals 
and dangerous weapons away from our children. It will make a real 
difference.
  Mr. President, there isn't time to mention all the important elements 
of this legislation, but let me just touch on a few highlights.
  First, this bill will add 100,000 new police officers around our 
Nation. Not to sit behind a desk, but to get out on the streets, 
walking the beat. Community policing like this isn't a new idea, Mr. 
President. It's an old fashioned idea. A good, old fashioned idea. It 
made sense when I was growing up. And it makes sense to return to it 
today.
  Second, this bill gets tough on criminals. In doing so, it reaffirms 
the old fashioned value of individual responsibility. The legislation 
includes a wide variety of tough penalties, which together should send 
a strong message to all Americans: you are responsible for your own 
actions, and if you fail to live up to those responsibilities, you will 
be held accountable.
  I am especially supportive of the three strikes and you're in 
provision in the bill, under which three-time offenders can be put away 
for life. With no parole. And no ifs, ands or buts about it.
  The bill also encourages States to adopt so-called truth in 
sentencing laws. These are laws that require criminals to serve at 
least 85 percent of their sentences. In my view, all States should 
enact tough laws along these lines.
  Mr. President, Americans are sick and tired of criminals getting out 
of prison after serving only a fraction of their sentences. We read 
about convicted rapists getting sentenced to 10 years, and then getting 
out after only two or three. Sometimes quicker. And it's just 
outrageous. It's not fair to the victim. And it's not fair to the rest 
of us, whose security is being placed at risk.
  Does it cost money to keep criminals behind bars? Yes. But some 
things are worth it. And personal security is one of those things. 
There's no excuse, just no excuse, to be letting dangerous criminals 
out free to roam the streets and prey on innocent Americans.
  Another important element of the bill is its ban on assault weapons. 
These deadly weapons of war have no place on our streets, and should be 
banned outright. In fact, I wish the conferees had gone further, and 
omitted the grandfather clause that exempts from the ban weapons that 
are lawfully possessed at the time of enactment. I realize that 
opposition from pro-gun Senators would have made it virtually 
impossible to pass a broader ban at this time. However, I am hopeful 
that Congress will reconsider this in the future and get all assault 
weapons off our streets.
  There are several other gun control provisions in the bill that I 
strongly support. For example, the legislation would ban the transfer 
of handguns to minors, a proposal I have cosponsored. The bill also 
would tighten the regulation of firearm dealers. There are too many 
rogue dealers on the loose today, selling guns out of their kitchens or 
even the trunks of their cars. This has got to stop, and this bill, 
while not going nearly as far as a related bill I have cosponsored with 
Senator Simon, still would make a real contribution.
  However, a serious concern of mine about this bill, Mr. President, is 
its provision to exempt pawn shop redemptions from the Brady law.
  As you know, Mr. President, the Brady law generally provides for 
background checks for people who seek to obtain a handgun. The law was 
enacted at the end of last year, after we finally broke the legislative 
stranglehold of the National Rifle Association. I was proud to be a 
part of that effort. It was a victory of the public interest over the 
special interests; a victory of sanity over madness.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the special interests are back. And 
their effort to unravel the Brady law has now begun to bear fruit.
  Under this provision of the conference report, when a felon redeems a 
gun he or she has pawned, there would be no requirement of a background 
check. And no requirement of a waiting period. The felon could get the 
gun back right away, with no hassle, no fuss, and no questions asked.
  Mr. President, this backtracking on the Brady law doesn't make any 
sense to me. After all, criminals often go to pawn shops to hock their 
guns. Why shouldn't we use the opportunity to catch them, and deny them 
their dangerous weapons?
  After all, convicted felons, drug addicts, and juveniles don't have a 
right to those guns. To the contrary--they're specifically prohibited 
under Federal law from possessing firearms. That prohibition was 
designed to protect the safety of law-abiding Americans. But it isn't 
worth the paper it's written on if it's not properly enforced.
  So I find this exemption deeply disturbing. And I am hopeful that the 
provision will be reconsidered in the future.
  I am very pleased that the legislation includes provisions based on 
the Violence Against Women Act, which I have cosponsored. Rape, spousal 
abuse, and other forms of domestic violence are an extremely serious 
problem in our Nation, and require a strong, multidimensional approach. 
This bill not only would increase penalties for sexually related 
offenses, but it would support a variety of prevention and treatment 
programs. In addition, the bill would help protect rape victims from 
unfair personal attacks in the trial process.

  In addition to measures to protect women and victims of domestic 
violence, I am especially pleased that the conferees were able to 
strengthen provisions to provide for notification of the community when 
a violent sexual predator moves into the neighborhood.
  This is a matter of special concern to me because of a recent tragedy 
in New Jersey. Not long ago, a 7-year-old girl, Megan Kanka, was 
sexually assaulted and then brutally murdered. The man who has 
confessed to this outrageous killing already had been convicted of 
sexually related offenses. Yet when he moved into Megan's community, 
nobody in the neighborhood was notified of his criminal history. So 
this convicted sex offender was free to mingle freely with the 
neighborhood children and to gain their trust. Meanwhile, the 
children's parents had no idea who he was, or the extreme danger he 
posed.
  This kind of situation is simply intolerable, Mr. President. 
Something is terribly wrong when a dangerous sex offender can move into 
a community filled with young children, without any of the neighbors 
even being notified of his presence. It's time we did something about 
this, Mr. President,. It's long past time.
  The conference report takes some significant steps in remedying this 
unacceptable situation. The bill has been strengthened to allow State 
and local law enforcement agencies to release information concerning 
released sexual offenders and sexual predators that is necessary to 
protect the public. While I would have wanted the bill to include a 
clear requirement for community notification, the bill produced by the 
conference committee is an important movement in the right direction.
  It is my hope that State and local law enforcement agencies will make 
broad use of their authority under this provision and take the steps 
necessary to provide parents and families with the information they 
need to protect their children. I will continue to work with Senator 
Gorton on a bill that I have cosponsored with him to make such 
notification mandatory.
  In my view, Mr. President, when you are talking about dangerous 
sexual offenders moving into a community, the neighboring parents have 
a right to know. Because nothing is more important than protecting our 
children.
  Mr. President, I also want to briefly note another provision in the 
bill based on legislation I authored, the Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Act, which would establish a voluntary theft prevention 
program for owners of motor vehicles. I will have a separate statement 
on this proposal that discusses its provisions in more depth.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, this is an excellent piece of 
legislation that deserves prompt enactment. It responds to a real 
problem, and proposes realistic solutions that are consistent with the 
values of most Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.


   motor vehicle theft provisions in conference report on crime bill

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the conference report before us 
includes legislation I authored, the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Act, to address the growing national problem of motor vehicle theft.
  The Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act, or MVTPA, would establish a 
national framework for State and local vehicle theft prevention 
programs. The legislation is based on programs operating in various 
jurisdictions around the country, typically called Combat Auto Theft 
[CAT] or Help End Auto Theft [HEAT].
  Under these programs, a vehicle owner may voluntarily sign a form 
stating that his or her vehicle is not normally operated under certain 
conditions, typically between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. Decals are 
then affixed to the vehicle. If a law enforcement officer later sees 
the vehicle being driven under the specified conditions, the decals 
provide grounds for establishing the reasonable suspicion necessary to 
stop the vehicle and make appropriate inquiries.
  The MVTPA directs the Attorney General to develop a uniform design 
for decals and consent forms, so that the program can be taken 
nationwide. Participation will be entirely voluntary on the part of 
States, localities, and individual vehicle owners.
  Mr. President, the problem of auto theft has increased substantially 
in recent years. According to the Uniform Crime Report, between 1984 
and 1991, motor vehicle theft increased by 61 percent, to almost 1.7 
million offenses per year. Around the country, there is an average of 
one motor vehicle theft every 19 seconds. The total value of stolen 
vehicles now exceeds $8 billion annually.
  There are many dimensions to the vehicle theft problem. To a large 
extent, stealing cars has developed into a full-fledged industry, run 
by professionals. Criminal conspirators are stealing cars, sometimes 
after a buyer gives them an order for a particular part, and selling 
the parts on the black market. Chop shops are taking in stolen cars, 
breaking them down, and making large profits. And increasingly, 
organized rings of criminals are exporting cars abroad, where they may 
be worth three times more than in the United States.
  In many parts of the country, the problem of auto theft is primarily 
one of juvenile crime. Children, some not even teenagers, are stealing 
cars at an appalling rate. They start young--sometimes they're barely 
tall enough to see over the steering wheel. Unfortunately, it doesn't 
take long for them to become experts, able to enter and steal a car in 
a matter of seconds.
  Beyond the costs and inconvenience to owners, and the higher 
insurance rates that result, auto theft is also a highway safety 
problem. Auto thieves, particularly juveniles, often drive recklessly, 
sometimes to avoid the police, and that leads to death, injuries, and 
destruction of property.
  Clearly, Mr. President, there is no magic formula for eliminating 
auto theft. Much of the responsibility rests with local and State law 
enforcement agencies. But auto theft is a crime with a clear interstate 
dimension. So the Federal Government also has an important role.
  About 2 years ago, the Congress approved the Anti-Car Theft Act of 
1992, legislation which I strongly supported and which included several 
proposals that I had sponsored. Among other things, the new law 
established Federal criminal penalties for carjacking, authorized 
grants for anticar theft committees, tightened export controls, and 
strengthened the vehicle parts marking program.
  More, however, must be done. And while the MVTPA is no cure-all, it 
can make an important contribution.
  The concept for the MVTPA was first developed in New York City in the 
mid-1980's by State Senator Leonard Stavisky. New York's program allows 
law enforcement officials to stop the vehicles of participating owners 
if the vehicles are being operated between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 
a.m., the period during which most thefts are believed to occur. To 
participate, an owner must sign a consent form stating that the car is 
not normally driven during those hours. The owner then gets two decals 
to place on the rear and side windows, which tell the police that the 
car may be stopped during the designated hours. Participation is 
entirely voluntary.
  It's a simple, inexpensive, and innovative concept. And by all 
indications it has been extraordinarily successful.
  In New York City, over 70,000 vehicles have participated in the 
program. In 1990, only 60 were stolen. Cars without decals were about 
65 times more likely to be lost to theft.
  The success of the program in New York has led to similar success 
stories around the country. Over 100 jurisdictions have adopted the 
program, including Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, St. Paul, 
and San Diego. New Jersey and New York have programs that operate on a 
statewide basis. The idea has even been adopted in England, Canada, and 
Australia.
  As a testament to the program's effectiveness, several insurance 
companies have voluntarily reduced the insurance rates for vehicles 
that participate in the program.
  As I have explained, Mr. President, the Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Act directs the Attorney General to develop a uniform design 
for decals and consent forms, so that the program can be taken 
nationwide.
  There are several benefits of establishing a national program. First, 
it will increase the use of this approach, by increasing its visibility 
and making it more practical and economical for jurisdictions to 
participate. Although the idea is spreading rapidly, many local 
officials remain unfamiliar with the concept. At the same time, many 
officials, particularly those in small towns, are interested in 
the program, but do not believe it is cost effective to develop and 
produce a decal when only a small number may be needed. Mass production 
of decals and consent forms would enable many more municipalities, 
particularly smaller towns, to participate.

  Greater participation in the program should mean reduced thefts, 
which also means saved lives, reduced insurance costs, and lower costs 
of enforcement to the law enforcement and judicial systems.
  The second primary benefit of establishing a national framework for 
the program is that it will help law enforcement officials apprehend 
thieves who drive stolen cars across State or city lines. Currently, if 
a car is stolen in one town and driven into another, law enforcement 
officials in the second town may be unfamiliar with the decals used in 
the first town and may not be in a position to lawfully stop the car. A 
uniform design will eliminate this problem.
  Mr. President, some have asked how a program like this works, since 
professional auto thieves should be able, with some work, to scratch 
off the decals. Most officials I have talked with, believe that the 
program works because time is of the essence to auto thieves, who 
typically will enter a car and drive away in a matter of seconds. Many 
cars are stolen in exposed areas, such as shopping center parking lots. 
So thieves feel they cannot afford the time to get into a car, climb 
into the back seat, and scratch off two decals. Also, most decals are 
manufactured so as to be very difficult to dispose of, and many leave a 
mark even if they are scratched off.
  The bottom line, in any case, is that the program works. The results 
speak for themselves. And under this bill, if State or local officials 
are skeptical about the program's likely effectiveness in their 
jurisdiction, they are free not to participate.
  I would also note, Mr. President, that this type of program is 
entirely consistent with the Constitution's fourth amendment 
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under well-
established constitutional law, the police may stop a vehicle if an 
officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Under this 
bill, a law enforcement officer will be allowed to stop a car only if 
the car is being operated under conditions that create such a 
reasonable suspicion. It is also important to again emphasize that 
participation in the program is entirely voluntary.
  Mr. President, the problem of auto theft is of great concern to law 
enforcement officials, the insurance industry, and highway safety 
advocates. This proposal is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, 
the Alliance of American Insurers, and Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety.
  I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Biden for his 
support and assistance on the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act.
  Mr. President, I have prepared several questions and answers about 
the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act that will help explain the 
legislation in greater detail. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
printed in the Record at this point, along with other materials related 
to the legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Questions and Answers--Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act

       Isn't it wrong to allow car owners to waive the 
     constitutional rights of passengers, or people to whom they 
     might lend their car?
       According to well-established constitutional law, a person 
     may consent to be searched under circumstances in which the 
     search would otherwise be unconstitutional, so long as the 
     consent is given voluntarily. However, a law enforcement 
     officer may stop a vehicle without consent, if the officer 
     has a ``reasonable suspicion'' of criminal activity.
       Vehicles may be stopped under the Motor Vehicle Theft 
     Prevention Act (MVTPA) not simply because the owner has 
     consented to be stopped, but also because the existence of a 
     decal on a vehicle being driven under the specified 
     conditions provides grounds for establishing a ``reasonable 
     suspicion'' of criminal activity.
       The ``reasonable suspicion'' arises because, in order to 
     receive a decal, the owner must sign a certification 
     establishing that: (1) the vehicle is not normally driven 
     under the specified conditions, and (2) ``the operation of 
     the vehicle under those conditions would provide sufficient 
     grounds for a prudent law enforcement officer to reasonably 
     believe that the vehicle was not being operated by or with 
     the consent of the owner''. Therefore, if the vehicle has 
     such a decal, and is being driven under those circumstances, 
     there is an objective, reasonable basis for a police officer 
     to suspect that the car is not being driven with the owner's 
     consent.
       To illustrate the point, the decal might be considered the 
     functional equivalent of a large, highly visible placard 
     attached to the rear of a car that says: ``If this car is 
     being driven between 1 and 5 a.m. it probably has been 
     stolen.'' If a police officer sees such a car being driven at 
     2 a.m., he or she will be entirely justified in stopping the 
     car to see if it has been stolen. In fact, in the case of a 
     decal under the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act, the 
     officer would have an even stronger basis for stopping a 
     vehicle, since decals may be affixed to a vehicle only if the 
     owner personally has signed a written statement certifying 
     that the car is not operated under the specified conditions. 
     In either case, the fact that a passenger has not personally 
     consented to a stop, or may not have seen the placard or 
     decal when he or she entered the car, does not affect a 
     police officer's right to stop the vehicle.
       Moreover, under the terms of the legislation, the decal 
     design must include an express statement explaining that the 
     vehicle may be stopped if operated under the specified 
     conditions. The decal must be ``highly visible''. So, 
     although this is not required by the Constitution, passengers 
     (and drivers other than the owner) will get notice of the 
     possibility that the car may be stopped under certain 
     conditions.
       How can this type of program be successful when thieves can 
     just peel off the decals?
       The primary goal of the program is not to apprehend auto 
     thieves, but to protect vehicle owners from having their car 
     stolen in the first place. The effectiveness of the program 
     as a deterrent is well established.
       In 1990, for example, of 71,000 vehicles participating in 
     the C.A.T. program in New York City, only 60 were stolen. 
     Vehicles without decals were 65 times more likely to be 
     stolen. Many of the other 100-plus jurisdictions that have 
     these programs report similar success.
       The demonstrated effectiveness of the program explains why 
     several private insurance companies offer discounts to owners 
     who participate. It also explains why the legislation is 
     endorsed by the Alliance of American Insurers and State Farm, 
     the nation's largest auto insurer, as well as the National 
     Fraternal Order of Police and Advocates for Highway and Auto 
     Safety. In addition, it explains why the concept is spreading 
     so rapidly around the U.S. and abroad.
       Why does the program work when professional thieves are 
     able to remove decals? First, decals are produced so as to be 
     very difficult to remove. While professional thieves are able 
     to do so, most cannot afford to spend the time it takes to 
     get into the back seat and scratch the decals off. Vehicles 
     typically are stolen in a matter of seconds. From the 
     perspective of a prospective thief, who needs to escape as 
     soon as possible, the additional time it takes to scratch off 
     the decals makes such a vehicle an unattractive target.
       In any case, the bill is entirely voluntary. States and 
     municipalities need not participate if they don't think the 
     program will work. And even in States/municipalities that 
     establish programs, vehicle owners who don't think the decals 
     will help are also entirely free not to participate.
       Who will produce the decals?
       The Federal government could produce the decals itself, or 
     could procure the decals from private sources. Alternatively, 
     if the Attorney General determines that private firms would 
     produce and market the decals adequately, there may be no 
     need for direct Federal production or procurement of decals. 
     Private firms could simply be allowed to produce the decals 
     and then market them to municipalities and States. If the 
     Attorney General so chose, I would urge her to consider the 
     establishment of quality standards, under her general 
     authority to promulgate regulations under the legislation.
       For example, the Attorney General could require 
     manufacturers to get approval for their decals before they 
     are used by participating jurisdictions. This would ensure 
     that decals used accurately reflect the Attorney General's 
     design, and that the appearance of the decals produced by 
     different manufacturers remains uniform.
       How quickly must the Justice Department act to make the 
     program operational?
       Under the legislation, the program must be developed within 
     180 days of the date of enactment. No separate appropriation 
     is necessary. I would expect the costs for the program to be 
     borne under the general appropriation to the Department for 
     salaries and expenses. These costs should be very limited, 
     especially if the Attorney General decides not to directly 
     produce or procure decals, but to leave production to the 
     private sector.
       Who would distribute the decals and consent forms at the 
     State and local level?
       That's left up to the State and local governments under the 
     legislation, though nothing precludes the Attorney General 
     from promulgating regulations on this matter, if appropriate. 
     In New York, administration is handled by police departments.
       Would States and localities be allowed, or required, to 
     charge a fee to participants in the consent-to-stop program?
       States and localities may charge fees, but they are not 
     required to do so. Many jurisdiction may be able to fund the 
     program from private sector donations.
       How can we be sure that law enforcement officials will know 
     what the decals mean?
       As a condition of participating in the program, a State or 
     locality must agree to take reasonable steps to ensure that 
     law enforcement officials throughout the State or locality 
     are familiar with the program, and with the conditions under 
     which motor vehicles may be stopped under the program.
       Can the Attorney General establish more than one set of 
     conditions under which vehicles may be stopped?
       Yes. If the Attorney General does so, she must establish 
     separate decal designs and consent forms for each set of 
     conditions. For example, she might use different colored 
     decals to designate different sets of conditions.
       Typically, existing programs are based on the use of 
     vehicles during late night hours. It may be best to at least 
     start the program with only one set of conditions, such as 
     driving during the hours between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. However, 
     in drafting the legislation, I wanted to provide the Attorney 
     General with the flexibility to establish other types of 
     conditions, if they make sense.
       For example, it may be appropriate to establish a decal 
     design for vehicles that are not normally operated during 
     business hours. I understand that a program operating in San 
     Francisco in conjunction with the BART transit system 
     operates during daytime hours--to protect owners who commute 
     to work and who park in mass transit parking lots during the 
     day.
       Also, since many senior citizens and others do not drive on 
     fast-moving highways, some have suggested that the Attorney 
     General might consider a decal design that allows a vehicle 
     to be stopped if operated on such a highway, or above a 
     certain speed. Another possibility would be to establish a 
     design indicating that the vehicle is not normally operated 
     outside of a given geographical area, such as a county or 
     state. Such a design could include a space for printing the 
     name of the prescribed normal driving area.
       Having raised these possibilities, I would urge the 
     Attorney General to be cautious. Before adopting a wide 
     variety of conditions, I would hope that she would take 
     reasonable steps to ensure sufficient interest among vehicle 
     owners. A plethora of conditions could prove needlessly 
     confusing to law enforcement officers.
       Can owners take decals off their car if they want to?
       Yes. They need not inform anyone or do anything else, 
     although conceivably the Attorney General, or a State or 
     local government, might establish such a requirement.
       What happens when you sell your car?
       In New York, you must take the decals off when you sell 
     your car. Under the legislation, the Attorney General would 
     have the authority to promulgate regulations requiring owners 
     to remove decals upon sale or transfer of the vehicle.
       What if some kids, as a prank, get some counterfeit decals 
     and start putting them on cars. And then someone driving in 
     the car is stopped, without realizing that a decal has been 
     put on his car. Wouldn't the stop violate the driver's 
     constitutional rights, since he has not consented to be 
     stopped?
       No. The basis of the stop would be the officer's reasonable 
     suspicion of unlawful activity, not the driver's consent. The 
     presence of the decal will give an officer reasonable 
     suspicion to stop the car (assuming it is being driven under 
     the specified conditions). However, the legislation 
     includes a provision that makes it illegal to affix a 
     theft prevention decal to a motor vehicle unless 
     authorized to so so under the law. The maximum penalty is 
     $1,000.
       Once an officer has stopped the car, what kid of questions 
     can he or she ask?
       The legislation doesn't say anything about the questions 
     that a police officer asks once the car has been stopped. 
     Police will ask the same type of questions that an officer 
     would ask now if the officer stops a car because of a 
     suspicion that it has been stolen.
       For example, the officer might ask the driver for his 
     license and registration forms. If the driver says he doesn't 
     have them, he can ask further questions like: (1) where do 
     you live? (2) how long have you owned the car? (3) from whom 
     did you buy the car? (4) how much did you pay for the car? 
     (5) what model year is the car?
       Most police can determine through such questions whether 
     the driver is really the owner, or has the consent of the 
     owner. Also, the police can call their office, which can 
     check the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer 
     data bank, which maintains records of cars reported stolen.
       How long can an officer hold a car to ask such questions?
       The legislation doesn't change the rules about how long the 
     police can hold a car that has been stopped because they 
     suspect it has been stolen. Generally, the stop can only be 
     for a few minutes, unless the police through questions or 
     otherwise, determine that there's probable cause to detain 
     the person further, or to make an arrest.
       Does the legislation seek to establish a new form of 
     ``reasonable suspicion''?
       No, Congress may not change constitutional law, and this 
     legislation does not seek to do so. The bill operates 
     entirely within the existing structure of Fourth Amendment 
     doctrine. It does not change the meaning of ``reasonable 
     suspicion''; it works by establishing the factual conditions 
     that give rise to a ``reasonable suspicion'', as that term is 
     currently defined.
       What if a police officer sees a vehicle with a decal being 
     driven under the specified conditions, but happens to know 
     that the car is being driven by the owner and the officer 
     does not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; 
     does the legislation authorize the officer to stop the 
     vehicle simply on the basis of the decal?
       No. Under the bill's language, the existence of a decal on 
     a vehicle provides a basis for a stop-and-question procedure 
     ``to determine whether the vehicle is being operated by or 
     with the permission of the owner''. Signing a consent form 
     constitutes consent to be stopped for this purpose, not to be 
     stopped on an arbitrary basis. Where an officer already knows 
     or believes that the car is being driven by or with the 
     permission of the owner, and has no reasonable suspicion of 
     criminal activity, the legislation does not authorize a stop.
       Would police officers be allowed to stop a vehicle on the 
     basis of the driver's race, gender or age?
       No. The legislation makes clear that vehicles may not be 
     stopped on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender 
     or age. Stops would be allowed only on the basis of a 
     reasonable suspicion that a vehicle has been stolen.
       Are vehicle owners likely to be coerced by police officers 
     to participate in the program?
       No. I am not aware of any evidence that this has been a 
     problem in the cities that have adopted CAT or HEAT programs, 
     nor is there any reason to believe that police officers would 
     want to coerce citizens to participate. Moreover, the 
     legislation contains safeguards to ensure that owners 
     understand that participation is entirely voluntary. Under 
     the bill, before obtaining a program decal, an owner must 
     sign a consent, form that clearly states that participation 
     in the program is voluntary.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, there has been so much sound and fury 
on this floor since the Senate began debating the revised crime bill 
conference report sent over from the House on Monday, I hesitate to add 
to the din.
  But I do want to speak today because the voices of my constitutents--
particularly the police officers and prosecutors who are on the line 
fighting crime and violence every day, as well as the victims of crime 
and the many people who give up their liberties everyday because of 
fear of crime--are being lost in the partisan noise.
  The mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors, school officials, community 
leaders, domestic violence shelter directors, boys and girls clubs 
leaders, and citizen community watch groups are simply incredulous. 
They cannot believe what is happening on the floor of the Senate as 
they struggle to deal with violent crime on the streets of our cities 
and towns. They cannot believe that on the eve of what looked like 
certain passage of a crime bill that might actually give them real help 
instead of unreal rhetoric from the Federal Government, we may turn our 
backs on them because some Senators can't support a bill that is very 
good, but like all things produced by mortals, not perfect.
  If given the opportunity we could all think of amendments to improve 
this bill. I know there are provisions in the bill that Senator Biden 
himself, who has worked so tirelessly and effectively on this bill and 
others, would like to strike and replace with others. But he 
recognizes, as do I, that we must operate by consensus here in this 
democratic body and accept some finality to the process. Not to do so, 
dooms this bill and every other.
  If the outlines of this bill were described to pundits a year ago--80 
percent of funds for putting more police on the streets and building 
more prisons; three-strikes-and-you're-out; 60 death penalties; tougher 
penalties for gang crimes, drug use, sex offenses, crimes against 
children and crimes against the elderly; tightening evidentiary rules; 
treating violent juveniles as adults; more money for courts, 
prosecutors; and 20 percent of the funds going to prevention programs 
and all of this to be paid for by cutting Federal Government workers--
they might assume that the bill was too conservative to pass.
  But it did pass the House. And a very similar bill, which served as 
its foundation, passed the Senate 95-4 last November.
  This is a tough bill. Almost 80 percent of the money will go to our 
States, cities and towns for more police and more prisons. To 
Connecticut, that may mean 1,000 or even 1,500 more police on our 
streets, and millions of dollars to help the State build enough prison 
cells so that criminals--especially violent criminals--will one day 
serve their full sentences. It is a mockery of our system of justice 
that they so rarely do so now.
  Of the remaining 20 percent devoted to prevention, almost one-third 
will go to helping police, prosecutors, and judges battle violence 
against women and aid those who provide shelter and assistance to those 
who have been abused. I have visited shelters all over Connecticut, 
talked to the women and children they serve, and if it were up to me I 
would devote even more resources to their support. For too long 
violence against women was taken as a private matter, a family matter, 
it is not, violence against women is a crime a serious crime, it is 
treated that way in this bill.
  The other prevention dollars in the bill are intended to provide some 
hope to communities desperate to find ways to turn young people away 
from violent crime. They focus on young people, because that is where 
we have seen the greatest rise in murder and violence.
  They include opening schools in poor neighborhoods after hours to 
provide safe havens, sports programs, supporting coordination between 
police and community groups, and drug treatment programs in and out of 
prisons. Not every program will work, but many will, if what police in 
Connecticut and my own visits to boys and girls clubs in housing 
projects throughout the state, a boxing club in Hartford, a high school 
in New Britain and a baseball league in Bridgeport tell me.
  The focus in a crime bill should properly be law enforcement and 
corrections. The focus of this bill is.
  Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our communities 
have been waiting far too long for us to act. Let us do so without 
further delay.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, when I spoke against the Senate version 
of the crime bill last fall, I noted the crisis of spirit facing this 
Nation. I noted the manner in which our society is embracing violence, 
and is not moving to address its underlying causes. While there are 
provisions in this conference report that I can support, it relies too 
heavily on some of the same misguided notions as the bill that passed 
last fall. For this reason it is with much frustration that I announce 
that I can not support this bill.
  The Federal Government can only aim to influence a small portion of 
the crime that afflicts urban and rural areas all across America. Most 
crimes are under State and local jurisdiction. It does little good to 
federalize more crimes, or try to tell the States what is best in their 
own local communities. In this way, many proposals in this bill are 
merely symbolic. This is especially true of the vast expansion of 
Federal death penalties.
  The misguided creation of dozens of new death penalty crimes is the 
most distressing fault in this bill. I strongly believe that violent 
criminals should be caught, prosecuted, and locked up. If they commit 
heinous crimes, they should remain in prison, away from law-abiding 
citizens. But, I have opposed the barbaric act of State-sponsored 
killing throughout my life because it does nothing to assist in these 
goals. The death penalty serves only to further pummel even more 
violence into our decreasingly civilized society while focusing the 
debate away from the real issues at stake. It does not deter crime more 
than true life sentence does. It offers us only a fig leaf, nothing 
more. This is a dangerous trend because it points us away from the real 
problems facing States, localities, and neighborhoods all across this 
country who are engaged in trench warfare on the crime problem.
  By the time a child is old enough to wield a gun and shoot someone 
over a vial or crack or over a pair of basketball shoes, we have 
already lost them. The death penalty will not outweigh their concern 
about the bullets of a rival gang member. They are not going to stop 
and think about the death penalty any more than they stop and think 
about spending the prime years of their life going nowhere in a crowded 
prison.
  Earlier today I noted my opposition to the crime trust fund in this 
bill. Some of the programs in this bill are very worthy and should be 
funded, others may not be as worthy. These are the decisions usually 
made on an annual basis by the Appropriations Committee. Setting aside 
$30 billion of taxpayer money into a temporary fund that has no revenue 
source for the future, and has no annual review of these programs, is 
not in the best interests of the people we are here to represent.
  This omnibus crime bill is now over 440 pages long. It concerns me 
that Congress often creates these enormous pieces of legislation 
because it does not allow us to vote on the merits of specific 
proposals. Regardless of my opposition to this bill, I have 
consistently supported many prevention programs contained in it. I 
authored one of the programs included in it, to provide for community 
initiatives attacking domestic violence. Another provision I sponsored 
would help police ensure the safe return of wandering Alzheimer's 
victims, freeing police time for pursuit of violent offenders. In 
addition, I was a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act now 
included in this bill, to improve the safety of women in the home, on 
the street, and on college campuses.
  But, most of the focus of this bill is on incarceration: federalizing 
more crimes and building more prisons. We cannot afford to keep turning 
back the clock to the same crime policies that have failed us in the 
past. We now have almost a million people in our prisons, more per 
capita than any democratic country in the world. Nevertheless, there 
were about 2 million violent crimes reported last year. It is obvious 
we cannot legislate this problem out of existence.
  We can keep building more prisons, and we will keep filling them. We 
can throw billions of tax dollars at incarceration for the rest of our 
lives. But, where will that leave us? It may leave us with more people 
wasting away in prison. But, it will not leave us with people who have 
a decent education, a well-paying job, and a moral sense of direction 
in their life.
  If we are going to face realities here, we are going to have to quit 
clinging to symbolic gestures and admit the frightening truth that 
there is only so much that the Federal Government can do about the 
problem of neighborhood crime. More importantly, the Federal Government 
may not possess the tools needed to address the real cause of crime in 
society: the erosion of our moral fiber. Too often we legislate 
incrementally, looking for the quick political fix while ignoring the 
long-term causes of the problems.
  Penalties that affect small numbers of offenders will not halt the 
deterioration of a society that not only tolerates but embraces 
violence in all of its forms. Symbolism makes us feel good, but it 
rarely works.
  The responsibility belongs to each of us, individually, to stand up 
for the values that have been the bedrock of this Nation and have seen 
it through all of its crises for over two centuries. We can no longer 
tolerate dehumanization in our communities. We have a tradition in this 
country of rising to all challenges that face us. Confronting the 
crisis of spirit which underlies the violence in our society may be our 
biggest challenge yet.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have discussed the procedure on the 
bill with the distinguished Republican leader, the managers of the 
bill, the distinguished Senators from Delaware and Utah. I will not put 
a formal agreement, but we have agreed informally that we should bring 
this matter to a conclusion and that we would proceed with statements 
of approximately 5 minutes, first by the Senator from Utah, then the 
Senator from Delaware, then the distinguished Republican leader, and 
then myself, and then we will vote on the motion to waive the Budget 
Act.
  I now estimate that vote will occur at approximately 4:15.
  I inquire of the distinguished Republican leader and the Senator from 
Utah whether that is an agreeable manner in which to proceed.
  Mr. HATCH. That is reasonable.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am happy to have this long process 
finally come to a halt, so we can vote and make a determination what we 
are going to do.
  I think everybody understands what the game is here. Everybody 
understands that we are going to vote on a point of order. If the point 
of order is sustained, then we will have a concurrent resolution, to 
which we will try to vote on 10 amendments. Four of them are amendments 
that would cut pork out of this bill. Six of them are amendments that 
would strengthen the bill.
  So there have been two aspects to our arguments. One is the bill is 
laden with pork--and we are leaving some in, even at that --and the 
other is to try to strengthen this bill with the amendments this body 
voted on and put into our Senate bill but were unceremoniously stripped 
out of the bill by the House because they do not want it to be as tough 
a crime bill as we want it to be.
  And there is little or no reason to strip out amendments that would 
require mandatory minimum penalties for people who use a gun in the 
commission of a crime, mandatory minimum penalties for selling drugs to 
kids, mandatory minimum penalties for employing kids to sell drugs; 
that really would give us the right to deport criminal aliens after 
they serve their time; that would rectify and straighten out the 
mandatory minimum repeal problems that we have because the language in 
the conference report is the House soft language.
  We want the Senate language which all of us voted for, or most all of 
us voted for, in order to be tougher against crime and to get those 
first-time convicted drug lords when we get them.
  Last but not least--I have left it to last--we wanted to tighten up 
the prison language so that we use that money for bricks and mortar, 
rather than just about anything they want to that they call prisons. We 
wanted to tighten it up so there is not $11 billion in grants in this 
bill.
  The fact of the matter is, the majority leader has offered to lump 
these four pork amendments in this gravy-sucking hog bill into one 
amendment, knowing that he can get 51 votes on his side to defeat us on 
it and keep those moneys in, and probably release some of his Members 
to vote against it who might be up this year. We cannot play that 
charade.
  There are two sides to this. We want to cut back on the pork and we 
want a tougher bill. And the reason they do not want these last six 
amendments is because we would win on them and the American people 
would win on them.
  Now I am very concerned about it, because I believe that we have to 
roll the dice. We are going to vote on this point of order. If we win, 
we win. If we lose, we lose. I will be happy just to get it over with, 
because it has been a long ordeal and I am happy to accommodate my 
colleagues on it.
  But make no bones about it, there are a lot of promises by this 
administration as to what this bill will do and it will not. There are 
not going to be 100,000 police on the street next year or the next year 
or the next year or the next year. And if there are any police, the 
States are going to get stuck with the ultimate costs.
  There are not going to be the reductions in crime that have been 
prophesied by those who are pushers of this bill. And, I might add, 
there are not going to be a lot of things that they say that are tough 
on crime, because this bill is not tough on crime. Most of this money 
is going to be used to reelect people they want to reelect.
  Mr. President, that is hard language, but that is the way it is. It 
is the way it has been around here for almost 60 years--business as 
usual.
  We have this Federal Government that is in everybody's lives, that is 
dominating all of us, and is ferociously sucking all of the taxes out 
of all of our people through deficit spending to a point where it is 
wrecking the country. That is what is involved here.
  I hope we will vote for the point of order. If we do not, then that 
is what is going to happen to us. And we are going to point out every 
year from here on in why the American people have been suckered once 
again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ford). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are--I was going to say finally at an 
end--but even after we go through this, we still have a cloture vote to 
go through, so we are not finally at an end, but we are getting there.
  A number of things have been said on the floor the last couple of 
weeks that I am sure every Senator on both sides of the aisle who said 
them, everything they said, they believed every word they said. And 
because they have not had a chance, I suspect, to read all of what is 
in this bill, they have mistakenly--in terms of a factual sense--
characterized what this bill does or does not do.
  Let me start off by dealing with part of what my friend--these are 
just several illustrations I will give--my friend from Maine, Senator 
Cohen--he is truly one of my close friends--he cited two aspects of 
what he talked about, the National Association of Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys, one of which related to whether or not someone was going 
to--had threatened them or not threatened them, whether they could 
meet. I do not know about that, so I will not respond to that. But on 
the other part of that, what they were worried about, whether or not 
that was taken care of substantively in their letter sent to me, and 
Senator Hatch and I spoke to them on the telephone. They had a 
telephone conference. They called me. I was on a telephone conference 
with these individuals after receiving the letter.
  They said, ``The present crime bill contains provisions which not 
only severely negate the benefits of mandatory minimums for certain 
class of offenders but also would permit the filing of 10,000 to 20,000 
frivolous lawsuits.'' Then it goes on. ``The bill's present language 
was intended to address low-level drug traffickers who are so minimally 
involved that they cannot have their sentences reduced.'' Then it goes 
on, ``We are not opposed to those objectives,'' and it says, ``This is 
the language we want corrected,'' and it gives language.
  They told me the thing they most worried about was the retroactive 
provision. That is the number--that would affect 10,000 to 20,000 
people. We took that out. That is not in this bill; rectroactivity--the 
thing they were concerned about, spoke to me about, I had a telephone 
conference with them about--is not in the bill.
  I do not speak to the second issue. I will look into it as the 
Senator has asked, about whether or not they were threatened or not 
threatened. I do not know the facts on that.
  No. 2----
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I only have 5 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Just the point, if you would have walked into a room and a 
Justice Department official would say, ``You are in violation of the 
Criminal Code; we are not interested in prosecuting you, but we will 
sort it all out later''----
  Mr. BIDEN. I would fire them.
  Again, I do not ever question what my friend from Maine said. I do 
not know that; that is a different issue from the second point about 
what things apparently were just misunderstood; we did not have enough 
time; my Republican friends were not involved in this. We had 11 days 
of debate on this bill in the Senate in November; 102 amendments were 
offered.
  We then, when we finally got to conference, had 19 hours of open, 
contemporaneously televised CNN debate between Democrats and 
Republicans, Republicans and Republicans, and Democrats and Democrats, 
in the clear sunshine of the klieg lights of CNN, C-SPAN, and other 
stations.
  There were numerous amendments. I do not know how many amendments--29 
Republican amendments offered in that process. I do not know what is 
required to constitute participation, but I thought that was 
participation.
  Third point, on the issue--I am just picking three things. It was 
said today by one of my colleagues who is an able lawyer and a member 
of the committee, he sincerely thought that the mandatory minimum 
sentences for selling drugs to children were repealed in this 
legislation.
  That is factually not true--factually not true. Not only was it not 
repealed, these minimum mandatory sentences for selling to minors, 
under a statute that was not touched by the Congress, title 18, United 
States Code, section 5--859 and 861, there are existing minimum 
mandatories.
  And, in addition to that, two sections were added to that continued 
existing minimum mandatory. On page 246 of this legislation, sections 
14005 and--14006 and 14008, we increased the penalties for those who 
sell or use minors--increase the penalties--increase them.
  Last, this notion that this is not tough. There are 60 new death 
penalties, brand new--60. There are 70 additional enhancements of 
penalties; that is, you go to jail longer. This notion that the--the 
idea the last statement of my distinguished friend from Utah made that 
this is--I thought he said ``a giveaway program for reelection'' or 
something. I do not know what it was.
  The point of the matter is what we did between the vote you all voted 
on in November and the one that came back, the conference report that I 
brought back in here has an additional $1.3 billion more for law 
enforcement than when it left here; and it has an additional $3.2 
billion for prisons than when it left here.
  So it is pure misinformation, unintentionally delivered by couriers 
on both sides of the aisle, to suggest that, A, there is less money for 
cops; B, there is less money for prisons, and so on.
  This bill will save people's lives. This is necessary. I hope to the 
Lord we, in fact, waive the budget point of order and get on with the 
next filibuster.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first let me send to the desk the amendments 
that we would have offered, had the motion to waive not been approved.
  I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. Again, I think in our dealing with minors on drugs and 
those who employ minors to sell drugs, we increased the minimum penalty 
from 5 to 10 years. I think that is the difference. The Senator from 
Delaware may have increased the maximum. We increased the minimum 
penalty. We think it ought to be increased--it was increased.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is right--exactly.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking my Republican 
colleagues in the House for their efforts last weekend on the crime 
bill.
  Restoring the key public notification provision of the Megan Kanka 
Law; preventing the retroactive repeal of mandatory minimum sentences 
for drug offenders, cutting some spending--these are all steps in the 
right direction and House Republicans deserve credit for hanging in 
there and making a bad bill a little bit better.
  But, Mr. President, what does it say about the liberal leadership in 
Congress when House Republicans have to resort to legislative 
trenchwarfare to prevent 16,000 convicted drug dealers from getting out 
of jail early?
  What does it say about the toughness of the so-called crime bill when 
Republicans have to fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that the public is 
notified when violent sexual predators are living in their communities?
  And what does it say about our crime-fighting priorities when the new 
and improved crime bill still earmarks billions and billions of dollars 
not for law enforcement, but for a gaggle of social-spending programs.
  Yes, the conference report has been improved, but it still falls far, 
far short of the tough crime-fighting plan the American people deserve.
  So, Mr. President, Republicans here in the Senate want to be helpful. 
Just like our House colleagues, we want to improve the crime bill, make 
it stronger, tougher, better--and that's why we would like to offer a 
series of 10 tough-on-crime and tough-on-pork amendments.
  First, there's still too much social spending, nearly 7 billion 
dollars' worth which happens to be $3 billion more than the amount of 
social spending contained in the crime bill passed by the Senate last 
November. Yes, there was some pork in the Senate bill too much port 
and, to be fair, Republicans have to confess that we, too, participated 
in the spending-spree last November.
  But we have done something unusual around here, we have gone back 
home and listened to the American people. And the message we are 
hearing loud and clear is that the American people do not want a pork 
bill, they want a crime bill, a tough-on-crime bill.
  All the fancy arithmetic can not hide the fact that when the crime 
bill passed the Senate last November it was a $22 billion measure. The 
conference report, as it now stands, is still a $30 billion package, 
nearly a 40-percent increase. So, obviously, somewhere along the way, 
the crime bill was hijacked by the big-dollar social spenders. That is 
a fact.

  And that's why Republicans are prepared to strike out nearly all of 
the social spending, all of the pork, nearly 5 billion dollars' worth--
so we can pass a lean and mean, 100 percent fat-free crime bill.
  We can start with the $1.6 billion Local Partnership Act. This bill 
was originally introduced in 1992, not as a crime-fighting measure, but 
as a way to pump Federal dollars into the inner cities. And guess what? 
The Local Partnership Act happens to reward those cities with high tax 
rates and high rates of unemployment. So, if you are a place like 
Wichita, KS, that has managed to keep its economic house in order, you 
are out of luck. And to my knowledge, there has not been a single 
hearing--not one--on this measure--even though it proposes to spend 
nearly $2 billion of the American people's money.
  Then, there's the $1 billion drug-court proposal that funds health 
care, education, housing placement, child care--anything, in other 
words, but crime control. And again, no hearings.
  Another goodie is the national community economic partnerships, a 
$270 million program administered by the Department of Health and Human 
Services to provide grants to local community groups in order to, and I 
quote: Improve the quality of life.'' There is not even the pretense of 
trying to link the spending to fighting crime.
  And, let us not forget the $625 million model intensive grant 
program, which throws Federal money at fifteen lucky cities handpicked 
by the administration. Funding under this program can be used to 
address such crime problems as the deterioration or lack of public 
facilities, public transportation, and street lighting.
  These are just some of the big-ticket items--and there are little 
items as well.
  Take the community-based justice program, which sounds great in 
theory until you read the fine print. This $50 million program adopts 
the criminal as a victim of society approach, requiring prosecutors to: 
``focus on the offender, not simply the specific offense, and impose 
``individualized sanctions'' [such as] conflict resolution, treatment, 
counselling, and recreation programs.'' The program defines young 
violent offenders as individuals up to 22 years of age ``who have 
committed crimes of violence, weapons offenses, drug distribution, hate 
crimes, and civil rights violations.''
  There's also the $5 million urban recreation program, which is 
designed to improve recreation facilities in our cities. There's the 
ounce of prevention program, which is more like a $90 million pound of 
pork. There is something called the family and endeavor schools 
program, which provides $243 million in grants for sports, arts and 
crafts, social activities, and dance programs.

  And, of course, there is midnight basketball, which is now hidden in 
the local crime prevention block grant program.
  If you think all these programs were added to the crime bill just to 
give kids something to ``say yes to,'' as President Clinton likes to 
claim, you are wrong. They are designed not to fight crime, but to 
placate the most liberal members of the Democrat Party, who have 
insisted all along that without the pork, there will be no crime bill.
  Of course, it is a very high price to pay. According to the General 
Accounting Office, the Federal Government currently runs 154 job-
training programs with an annual cost of $25 billion. Here is the 
report. GAO also estimates that the Federal Government spends more than 
$3 billion annually on 266 programs designed to curb juvenile 
delinquency. Here's another report--prepared by the Charles Stewart 
Mott Foundation--that lists some of these programs.
  So, Mr. President, the Federal effort is already there. We do not 
need more programs, more duplication, more runaway spending, more debt 
for our children and grandchildren.
  We have spent trillions and trillions of dollars on the Great Society 
and the War on Poverty, and yet, during the past 30 years, violent 
crime has increased by a staggering 500 percent. Apparently, we still 
have not learned.
  From day one, Republicans have argued that the most effective 
prevention program is not the pork barrel, but the prison cell. Too 
often, criminals who have been arrested, sentenced, and convicted have 
slid through the revolving prison door--legally, and with tragic 
consequences. That is why Republicans have insisted that State Prison 
grants be conditioned on the adoption of truth-in-sentencing laws: If a 
criminal receives a 15-year sentence, he should serve 15 years, not 5 
or 10 years, as is so often the case.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to keeping violent criminals behind 
bars, the conference report flunks the credibility test.
  For starters, there is no guarantee that a single dime of the money 
allegedly earmarked for prisons will build a single brick-and-mortar 
prison cell. As currently drafted, all of the funding can be used for 
boot camps, half-way houses, and other prison ``Alternatives.'' So, 
reading the fine print is critical and Republicans want to offer an 
amendment that would clean this language up.
  In addition, 50 percent of the State prison grants aren't conditions 
on any truth-in-sentencing requirement at all. And the other 50 percent 
is conditioned on a watered-down version of truth-in-sentencing, 
allowing States to receive the grants if they require that second-
time--not first-time--violent offenders service at least 85 presence of 
their sentences.
  The conference report also contains something called the ``reverter 
clause.'' Under this loophole, any funds allotted for the watered-down 
version of truth-in-sentencing, remaining available at the end of the 
fiscal year, will be dumped into the non-truth-in-sentencing pot for 
the next fiscal year. This means that States that do not want to adopt 
a truth-in-sentencing law may be able to delay their grant applications 
until the following year and receive the prison funds with no strings 
attached.
  Yet, when there are ``strings attached,'' they are greased with what 
can only be described as ``Great Society'' mumbo-jumbo. For example: in 
order to receive a prison grant, States must implement something called 
a ``comprehensive correctional plan.'' The plan must include ``drug 
diversion'' programs and ``appropriate professional training for 
corrections officers in dealing with prison rehabilitation and 
treatment programs, prisoner work activities, and job skills 
programs.''
  So, Mr. President, as if they do not have enough to do already, State 
prison officials will become social workers, as well, courtesy of the 
``great minds'' in the U.S. Congress.
  Again, Republicans want to correct these problems through the 
amendment process, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have precluded us from doing so.

  Other tough-on-crime proposals were left on the cutting-room floor: 
Mandatory minimum penalties for those who use a gun in the commission 
of a crime; new Federal penalties for gang violence; Senator Simpson's 
proposal to ensure that criminal aliens are swiftly deported once they 
have served out their sentences; even mandatory restitution for the 
victims of violent crime. All embraced by the Senate. But all dropped 
by the liberal conference committee.
  And let us not oversell the so-called 100,000 cops on the street 
proposal. If you read the fine print, the States and localities will be 
picking up most of the police-hiring tab. In fact, one expert--
Princeton University 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?
  I want to pass a crime bill, and my Republican colleagues want to 
pass one, too. But if the crime bill is seriously flawed, as it surely 
is, then it is our responsibility--not as Republicans but as Members of 
the U.S. Senate--to fix what is wrong and make the crime bill even 
stronger.
  And contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are saying, the budget point of order is not some ``procedural 
trick'' that Republicans have only recently discovered. Senate 
Democrats have raised budget points of order at least 26 times in the 
103d Congress--26 times--including against Senator Hutchison's 
initiative to repeal the retroactive tax increase.
  Again, Mr. President: we are prepared to offer 10 amendments. We are 
prepared to agree to time limits on debate. But we are not prepared to 
stand by idly as Congress sticks the American people with a $30 billion 
pork-barrel juggernaut that is more hype than tough-on-crime substance.
  I assume the headline will read, ``Republicans Hand Clinton a 
Victory,'' and it ought to read that way because that is precisely what 
is going to happen here this afternoon and maybe that is the way it 
ought to work. That is bipartisanship, I guess. I commend my Republican 
colleagues in the House for sticking together long enough last weekend 
to make some changes in the bill. We were not able to do that on our 
side of the aisle. We tried. We made every effort. We thought we were 
in good faith and I think we could have saved several billion dollars 
in spending. But we are not going to have that opportunity because we 
are going to lose--lose this. But we are going to win with the American 
people.
  I have looked upon this since the start--it is win-win for this side 
of the aisle. It is going to demonstrate again to the voters that we 
need more Republicans elected in November. This is an issue that is not 
going to go away.
  This is a bill that left here--we can talk about 4 years, 5 years, 6 
years--that sort of makes your eyes glaze over, but it is a $22 billion 
bill that became a $33 billion bill. That is something I think the 
American people understand.
  I regret I failed as a leader to keep our people together on this 
side of the aisle. I commend the distinguished majority leader. He is 
more persuasive with Republicans than I am, and I commend him for it.
  But we do the best we can. There were a lot of good changes made on 
the House side and we thought we could make some additional good 
changes on the Senate side. And we have not given up, because we will 
be back next year.
  A lot of this is just authorization. It has to be appropriated. We 
are going to have more numbers next year and we will have a chance to 
do this one more time. And there will be other legislation coming up 
this year.
  There is no doubt about it, we want a tough crime bill. I know of 
nobody who does not want a tough crime bill. But I think this has 
become a big, big spending bill. When the Wichita Eagle in my State, 
not known as a conservative paper, says let the crime bill die because 
it costs too much, I think they make a point. And the people across my 
State of Kansas and across the Midwest and across America know what 
this is. We are only dealing with Federal crime. This will not touch 
but 5 percent, and we are about to launch into a $30 billion spending 
program. There are going to be some good features in anything that big, 
but it is a big, big spending program.
  But we are going to lose. That is the way it works. You win some, you 
lose some. We would rather win, obviously. We do not have much practice 
at it. But we are working on it. We would rather win. It is still a $30 
billion package. It should have been at most a $25 billion package. We 
should have a chance to vote on some of these provisions on law 
enforcement, but we are denied that, too.
  And I do not fault the majority, because they made us an offer, which 
they felt was in good faith. I think they knew in advance they had the 
votes. So when you have the votes, any offer is in good faith. We 
thought we made a good faith offer. We had the votes for about 24 
hours. That is not bad for our side, keeping people together for 24 
hours.
  So we are prepared to vote. We do not know when the cloture vote may 
come. Maybe today, maybe Saturday. I guess that would be the normal 
course of events. But it just seems to me that once the American people 
understand--in fact, I understand on ``Nightline'', the program is 
going to be: Why are people so fed up with Washington?
  Here is example No. 1. No. 1, right here. Let us do business as 
usual: spend a lot of money and tell people you are going to solve 
their problems; $30 billion. Somebody has to pay for it. That is why 
people are fed up with Washington. Everybody says, ``Oh, we don't want 
to stand in the way. Oh, we don't want to hold it up. We don't want to 
inconvenience anybody, so we're going to vote to move this process 
along.'' Why not vote one time for the American people? Why not say we 
are not going to do anything until we cut spending in this bill? We 
might go from 18 percent to 20 percent with the American people; maybe, 
maybe not.
  So there are a lot of goodies in this $30 billion package. You can 
stuff a lot of good things. We have not even figured them all out yet. 
We are not certain they are going to build one prison cell. That was 
some of the language we wanted to tighten up, but we never had a chance 
to tighten it up. We are not certain--I guess we are certain. If you 
commit a violent crime, you do not do your time. You have to do two 
violent crimes. You get a discount on the first one, and that will come 
as a great shock to the American people who are scared to death to be 
in their homes alone at night, or scared to death in the cities. So 
there are a lot of things in this bill. I am advised by the 
distinguished Senator from Utah that 30 tough provisions were dropped 
in conference.
  So we are happy to be able to cooperate and accommodate the majority 
leader, because I think once you have lost, you have lost, and there is 
no use dragging this on, on this vote. But there will be other votes. 
And we are going to continue telling the American people precisely what 
we have done here today. What we have done here today is say, ``You 
don't know anything about it out in the countryside; we know better. 
We're the ones in the Capitol. We're not going to listen to anybody 
outside Washington, and we've been here a long time and we're going to 
prove we are right.'' Well, I do not think the American people think we 
are right. They are opposed to crime, but they learned a long time ago, 
you do not just solve it by spending $25 billion, $30 billion.
  So we congratulate the distinguished majority leader, and we hope 
that the next time around we may be on the winning side.

                               Exhibit 1


                   strike the model intensive grants

       This amendment strikes the $625.5 million Model Intensive 
     Grants program. Under this program, 15 cities are hand-picked 
     by the Administrator, are given complete discretion on how to 
     spend this money, and funds may be spent on any purpose 
     loosely tied in the grant application to crime reduction. 
     This program was not a part of the Senate bill. The amendment 
     is as follows:
       ``In title III, strike subtitle C.''


                    strike the local partnership act

       This amendment strikes the $1.62 billion ``Local 
     Partnership Act'' from the bill. The LPA is part of the 
     Administration's repackaged stimulus package which takes the 
     form of revenue-sharing grants to be distributed for 3 
     general purposes: education to prevent crime, drug abuse 
     treatment to prevent crime, and job programs to prevent 
     crime. Funds are distributed according to a formula which 
     rewards cities with a low population, high unemployment, and 
     a high tax burden. This program was not a part of the Senate 
     bill. The amendment is as follows:
       ``In title III, strike subtitle J.''


                      strike house social spending

       This amendment strikes approximately $737 million in social 
     spending programs which were not a part of the Senate passed 
     crime bill. They include the Local Crime Prevention Block 
     Grant program, the Family and Community Endeavor Schools 
     program, the Community-Based Justice Grants program, the 
     Urban Recreation Program, At-Risk Youth Program, and the 
     Police Recruitment program. The amendment is as follows:
       ``In title III, strike section 30402, section 30403(b)(2), 
     and subtitles B, G, H, O, and Q.''


                  strike senate passed social spending

       This amendment strikes over $1.9 billion in social spending 
     programs, some of which were supported by Republicans, from 
     the bill. All of the programs removed by this amendments had 
     passed the Senate as part of the Senate-passed bill, 
     although, in some instances, their authorization levels were 
     increased in conference. The programs removed by this 
     amendment include the National Community Economic Partnership 
     program, the Community Schools program, the Ounce of 
     Prevention program, the Family Unity Demonstration Project, 
     the Gang Resistance Education and Training program, and the 
     Drug Courts program. The amendment is as follows:
       ``In title III, strike section 30401, section 30403(b)(1), 
     and subtitles A, D, K, S, and X.
       ``Strike title V.''


                        prison grants amendment

       This amendment strengthens the prison grants title of the 
     conference report as follows:
       The conference report currently allows the prison funds to 
     be spent on alternative correctional facilities in order ``to 
     free conventional prison space''. The amendment requires that 
     prison grants be spent on conventional prisons to house 
     violent offenders, not on alternative facilities.
       The amendment removes from the bill a provision which would 
     have conditioned state receipt of the prison grants on state 
     adoption of a comprehensive correctional which would include 
     diversion programs, jobs skills programs for prisoners, and 
     post-release assistance. Accordingly, these grants will be 
     used to build and operate prisons instead of implementing 
     diversion program and the like.
       The amendment also conditions prison grants on state 
     adoption of truth in sentencing for first-time violent 
     offenders. The conference report only required states to 
     ensure truth in sentencing for second-time violent offenders.
       The amendment also deletes a reverter clause which provides 
     that truth in sentencing incentive funds which are not 
     quickly spent will be reverted back to non-incentive grants. 
     This reverter clause would essentially remove any incentive 
     to comply with the truth in sentencing grants. The amendment 
     is as follows:
       ``In title II, strike subtitle A and insert the following:

 ``Subtitle A--Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing 
                            Incentive Grants

     ``SEC. 20101. GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make 
     grants to individual States and to States organized as multi-
     State compacts to construct, develop, expand, modify, 
     operate, or improve conventional prisons to ensure that 
     prison cell space is available for the confinement of violent 
     offenders and to implement truth in sentencing laws for 
     sentencing violent offenders.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subtitle, a State or States organized as multi-State 
     compacts shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
     which includes--
       ``(1) assurances that the State or States have implemented, 
     or will implement, correctional policies and programs, 
     including truth in sentencing laws that ensure that violent 
     offenders serve a substantial portion of the sentences 
     imposed, that are designed to provide sufficiently severe 
     punishment for violent offenders, including violent juvenile 
     offenders, and that the prison time served is appropriately 
     related to the determination that the inmate is a violent 
     offender and for a period of time deemed necessary to protect 
     the public;
       ``(2) assurances that the State or States have implemented 
     policies that provide for the recognition of the rights and 
     needs of crime victims;
       ``(3) assurances that funds received under this section 
     will be used to construct, develop, expand, modify, operate, 
     or improve conventional correctional facilities to ensure 
     that prison cell space is available for the confinement of 
     violent offenders;
       ``(4) assurances that the State or States have involved 
     counties and other units of local government, when 
     appropriate, in the construction, development, expansion, 
     modification, operation or improvement of correctional 
     facilities designed to ensure the incarceration of violent 
     offenders, and that the State or States will share funds 
     received under this section with counties and other units of 
     local government, taking into account the burden placed on 
     these units of government when they are required to confine 
     sentenced prisoners because of overcrowding in State prison 
     facilities;
       ``(5) assurances that funds received under this section 
     will be used to supplement, not supplant, other Federal, 
     State, and local funds;
       ``(6) assurances that the State or States have implemented, 
     or will implement within 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, policies to determine the veteran 
     status of inmates and to ensure that incarcerated veterans 
     receive the veteran's benefits to which they are entitled;
       ``(7) if applicable, documentation of the multi-State 
     compact agreement that specifies the construction, 
     development, expansion, modification, operation, or 
     improvement of correctional facilities; and
       ``(8) if applicable, a description of the eligibility 
     criteria for prisoner participation in any boot camp that is 
     to be funded.
       ``(c) Consideration.--The Attorney General, in making such 
     grants, shall give consideration to the special burden placed 
     on States which incarcerate a substantial number of inmates 
     who are in the United States illegally.

     ``SEC. 20102. TRUTH IN SENTENCING INCENTIVE GRANTS.

       ``(a) Truth in Sentencing Grant Program.--Forty percent of 
     the total amount of funds appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 
     1999, and 2000 shall be made available for Truth in 
     Sentencing Incentive Grants. To be eligible to receive such a 
     grant, a State must meet the requirements of section 20101(b) 
     and shall demonstrate that the State--
       ``(1) has in effect laws which require that persons 
     convicted of violent crimes serve not less than 85 percent of 
     the sentence imposed; or
       ``(2) since 1993--
       ``(A) has increased the percentage of convicted violent 
     offenders sentenced to prison;
       ``(B) has increased the average prison time which will be 
     served in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to 
     prison;
       ``(C) has increased the percentage of sentence which will 
     be served in prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison; 
     and
       ``(D) has in effect at the time of application laws 
     requiring that a person who is convicted of a violent crime 
     shall serve not less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed.
       ``(b) Allocation of Truth in Sentencing Incentive Funds.--
     The amount available to carry out this section for any fiscal 
     year under subsection (a) shall be allocated to each eligible 
     State in the ratio that the number of part 1 violent crimes 
     reported by such State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     for 1993 bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes 
     reported by all States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     by 1993.

     ``SEC. 20103. VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION GRANTS.

       ``(a) Violent Offender Incarceration Grant Program.--Fifty 
     percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to carry 
     out this subtitle for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 
     1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be made available for Violent 
     Offender Incarceration Grants. To be eligible to receive such 
     a grant, a State or States must meet the requirements of 
     section 20101(b).
       ``(b) Allocation of Violent Offender Incarceration Funds.--
       ``(1) Formula allocation.--Eighty-five percent of the sum 
     of the amount available for Violent Offender Incarceration 
     Grants for any fiscal year under subsection (a) and any 
     amount transferred under section 20102(b)(2) for that fiscal 
     year shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(A) 0.25 percent shall be allocated to each eligible 
     State except that the United States Virgin Islands, American 
     Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each shall be 
     allocated 0.05 percent.
       ``(B) The amount remaining after application of 
     subparagraph (A) shall be allocated to each eligible State in 
     the ratio that the number of part 1 violent crimes reported 
     by such State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993 
     bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by all 
     States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993.
       ``(2) Discretionary allocation.--Fifteen percent of the sum 
     of the amount available for Violent Offender Incarceration 
     Grants for any fiscal year under subsection (a) shall be 
     allocated at the discretion of the Attorney General to States 
     that have demonstrated the greatest need for such grants and 
     the ability to best utilize the funds to meet the objectives 
     of the grant program and ensure that prison cell space is 
     available for the confinement of violent offenders.

     ``SEC. 20104. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       ``The Federal share of a grant received under this subtitle 
     may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of a proposal 
     described in an application approved under this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 20105. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) The Attorney General shall issue rules and 
     regulations regarding the uses of grant funds received under 
     this subtitle not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       ``(b) If data regarding part 1 violent crimes in any State 
     for 1993 is unavailable or substantially inaccurate, the 
     Attorney General shall utilize the best available comparable 
     data regarding the number of violent crimes for 1993 for that 
     State for the purposes of allocation of any funds under this 
     subtitle.

     ``SEC. 20106. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

       ``The Attorney General may request that the Director of the 
     National Institute of Corrections and the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons provide technical assistance and 
     training to a State or States that receive a grant under this 
     subtitle to achieve the purposes of this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 20107. EVALUATION.

       ``The Attorney General may request the Director of the 
     National Institute of Corrections to assist with an 
     evaluation of programs established with funds under this 
     subtitle.

     ``SEC. 20108. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle--
       ```part 1 violent crimes' means murder and nonnegligent 
     manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault 
     as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 
     purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.
       ```State' or `States' means a State, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States 
     Virgin Islands. American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.

     ``SEC. 20109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle--
       ``(1) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(2) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(3) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(4) $1,900,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(5) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(6) $2,070,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''


            mandatory minimum penalties for use of a firearm

       This amendment provides a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 
     years imprisonment for anyone who uses or carries a firearm 
     during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. If the 
     firearm is discharged, the person faces a mandatory minimum 
     20 years imprisonment. If death results, the penalty is death 
     or life imprisonment. The amendment is as follows:
       ``At the appropriate place insert the following:

     ``SEC.  . INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR CRIMINALS 
                   USING FIREARMS.

       ``Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     `Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is otherwise 
     provided by the preceding sentence or by any other provision 
     of this subsection or any other law, a person who, during and 
     in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking 
     crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking 
     crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed 
     by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for 
     which a person may be prosecuted in a court of the United 
     States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the 
     punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime--
       ```(A) be punished by imprisonment for not less than 10 
     years;'
       ```(B) if the firearm is discharged, be punished by 
     imprisonment for not less than 20 years;' and
       ```(C) if the death of a person results, be punished by 
     death or by imprisonment for not less than life.'

     ```Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 
     shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any 
     person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall 
     the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run 
     concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including 
     that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking 
     crime in which the firearm was used or carried. No person 
     sentenced under this subsection shall be eligible for parole 
     during the term of imprisonment imposed herein.'.''


                   use of minors in drug trafficking

       This amendment provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 
     years imprisonment for anyone who employs a minor in drug 
     trafficking activities. The amendment provides for a sentence 
     of mandatory life imprisonment for a second offense. The 
     amendment is as follows:

     ``SEC.   . MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCES FOR THOSE WHO 
                   USE MINORS IN DRUG TRAFFICKING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Employment of Persons Under-18 Years of Age.--Section 
     420 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 861) is 
     amended--
       ``(1) In subsection (b) by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is 
     otherwise provided, a term of imprisonment of a person 21 or 
     more years of age convicted of drug trafficking under this 
     subsection shall be not less than 10 years. Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the court shall not place on 
     probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced 
     under the preceding sentence.''; and
       ``(2) in subsection (c) (penalty for second offenses) by 
     inserting after the second sentence the following: \1\Except 
     to the extent a greater minimum sentence is otherwise 
     provided, a term of imprisonment of a person 21 or more years 
     of age convicted of drug trafficking under this subsection 
     shall be a mandatory term of life imprisonment. 
     Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the court shall 
     not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person 
     sentenced under the preceding sentence.\1\''


                          drug sale to minors

       This amendment provides a mandatory minimum prison sentence 
     of 10 years for anyone 21 years of age or older who sells 
     drugs to a minor. The amendment provides for a sentence of 
     mandatory life imprisonment for a second offense. The 
     amendment is as follows:

     ``SEC.   . MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCES FOR THOSE WHO 
                   SELL ILLEGAL DRUGS TO MINORS.

       ``(a) Distribution to Persons Under Age 18.--Section 418 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859) is amended--
       ``(1) in subsection (a) (first offense) by inserting after 
     the second sentence ``Except to the extent a greater minimum 
     sentence is otherwise provided by section 401(b), a term of 
     imprisonment under this subsection in a case involving 
     distribution to a person under 18 years of age by a person 21 
     or more years of age shall be not less than 10 years. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall 
     not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person 
     sentenced under the preceding sentence.''; and
       ``(2) in subsection (b) (second offense) by inserting after 
     the second sentence `Except to the extent a greater sentence 
     is otherwise authorized by section 401(b), a term of 
     imprisonment under this subsection in a case involving 
     distribution to a person under 18 years of age by a person 21 
     or more years of age shall be a mandatory term of life 
     imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of 
     any person sentenced under the preceding sentence.'.''


                       criminal alien deportation

       This amendment inserts the Simpson criminal alien 
     deportation provisions which were rejected in conference. 
     Virtually identical legislation was included in the Senate-
     passed crime bill. The amendment provides for the expedited 
     deportation of non-permanent resident aliens convicted of 
     certain violent felonies upon completion of the prison 
     sentence. The amendment would also allow federal judges to 
     enter deportation orders at the time of sentencing. Once the 
     sentence is served, the criminal is automatically deported. 
     This reform should be restored to the crime bill. The 
     amendment is as follows:
       Strike sections 1301, 1302, and 1304 and
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

           TITLE L--DEPORTATION OF ALIENS CONVICTED OF CRIMES

     SEC. 5001. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF AGGRAVATED FELONY.

       (a) Expansion of Definition.--Section 101(a)(43) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(43) The term `aggravated felony' means--
       ``(A) murder;
       ``(B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), 
     including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 
     924(c) of title 18, United States Code);
       ``(C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive 
     devices (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States 
     Code) or in explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) 
     of that title);
       ``(D) an offense described in section 1956 of title 18, 
     United States Code (relating to laundering of monetary 
     instruments) or section 1957 of that title (relating to 
     engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from 
     specific unlawful activity) if the amount of the funds 
     exceeded $100,000;
       ``(E) an offense described in--
       ``(i) section 842 (h) or (i) of title 18, United States 
     Code, or section 844 (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of that 
     title (relating to explosive materials offenses);
       ``(ii) section 922(g) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), (j), (n), 
     (o), (p), or (r) or 924 (b) or (h) of title 18, United States 
     Code (relating to firearms offenses); or
       ``(iii) section 5861 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to firearms offenses);
       ``(F) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of 
     title 18, United States Code, but not including a purely 
     political offense) for which the term of imprisonment imposed 
     (regardless of any suspension of imprisonment) is at least 5 
     years;
       ``(G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen 
     property) or budgetary offense for which the term of 
     imprisonment imposed (regardless of any suspension of such 
     imprisonment) is at least 33 months;
       ``(H) an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 
     1202 of title 18, United States Code (relating to the demand 
     for or receipt of ransom);
       ``(I) an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 
     of title 18, United States Code (relating to child 
     pornography);
       ``(J) an offense described in section 1962 of title 18, 
     United States Code (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt 
     organizations) for which a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment 
     or more may be imposed;
       ``(K) an offense that--
       ``(i) relates to the owning, controlling, managing, or 
     supervising of a prostitution business; or
       ``(ii) is described in section 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 
     1585, or 1588, of title 18, United States Code (relating to 
     peonage, slavery, and involuntary servitude);
       ``(L) an offense relating to perjury or subornation of 
     perjury if the offense involved causing or threatening to 
     cause physical injury to a person or damage to property;
       ``(M) an offense described in--
       ``(i) section 793 (relating to gathering or transmitting 
     national defense information), 798 (relating to disclosure of 
     classified information), 2153 (relating to sabotage) or 2381 
     or 2382 (relating to treason) of title 18, United States 
     Code; or
       ``(ii) section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 421) (relating to protecting the identity of 
     undercover intelligence agents);
       ``(N) an offense that--
       ``(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the 
     victim or victims exceeds $200,000; or
       ``(ii) is described in section 7201 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue 
     loss to the Government exceeds $200,000;
       ``(O) an offense described in section 274(a)(1) of title 
     18, United States Code (relating to alien smuggling) for the 
     purpose of commercial advantage;
       ``(P) an offense described in section 1546(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code (relating to document fraud) which 
     constitutes trafficking in the documents described in such 
     section;
       ``(Q) an offense relating to a failure to appear by a 
     defendant for service of sentence if the underlying offense 
     is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 15 years or more; 
     and
       ``(R) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense 
     described in this paragraph.

     The term applies to an offense described in this paragraph 
     whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to 
     such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country 
     for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the 
     previous 15 years.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to convictions entered on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5002. DEPORTATION PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS 
                   WHO ARE NOT PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Administrative Hearing for Certain 
     Criminal Aliens.--Section 242A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252a) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Deportation of Aliens Who Are Not Permanent 
     Residents.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding section 242, and subject to paragraph 
     (5), the Attorney General may issue a final order of 
     deportation against any alien described in paragraph (2) whom 
     the Attorney General determines to be deportable under 
     section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) (relating to conviction of an 
     aggravated felony).
       ``(2) An alien is described in this paragraph if the 
     alien--
       ``(A) was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence at 
     the time that proceedings under this section commenced, or
       ``(B) had permanent resident status on a conditional basis 
     (as described in section 216 or 216A) at the time that 
     proceedings under this section commenced.
       ``(3) No alien described in this section shall be eligible 
     for any relief from deportation that the Attorney General may 
     grant in his discretion.
       ``(4) The Attorney General may not execute any order 
     described in paragraph (1) until 14 calendar days have passed 
     from the date that such order was issued, unless waived by 
     the alien, in order that the alien has an opportunity to 
     apply for judicial review under section 106.
       ``(5) Pending a determination of deportability under this 
     section, the Attorney General shall not release the alien. An 
     order of deportation entered pursuant to this section shall 
     be executed by the Attorney General in accordance with 
     section 243. Proceedings before the Attorney General under 
     this section shall be in accordance with such regulations as 
     the Attorney General shall prescribe and shall include 
     requirements that provide that--
       ``(A) the alien is given reasonable notice of the charges;
       ``(B) the alien has an opportunity to have assistance of 
     counsel at no expense to the government and in a manner that 
     does not unduly delay the proceedings;
       ``(C) the alien has a reasonable opportunity to inspect the 
     evidence and rebut the charges;
       ``(D) the determination of deportability is supported by 
     reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence; and
       ``(E) the final order of deportation is not adjudicated by 
     the same person who issued such order.''.
       (b) Limited Judicial Review.--Section 106 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1105a) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``or pursuant to section 242A'' after ``under section 
     242(b)'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1) and subsection (a)(3), by 
     inserting ``(including an alien described in section 242A)'' 
     after ``aggravated felony''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), a petition for review 
     or for habeas corpus on behalf of an alien described in 
     section 242A(c) may only challenge whether the alien is in 
     fact an alien described in such section, and no court shall 
     have jurisdiction to review any other issue.''.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Section 242A of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Deportation of Permanent Resident Aliens.--
       ``(1) in general.--''; and
       (B) by inserting in the first sentence ``permanent 
     resident'' after ``correctional facilities for'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) Implementation.--'' and inserting 
     ``(2) implementation.--''; and
       (B) by striking ``respect to an'' and inserting ``respect 
     to a permanent resident'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c);
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``(d) Expedited Proceedings.--(1)'' and 
     inserting ``(3) expedited proceedings.--(A)'';
       (B) by inserting ``permanent resident'' after ``in the case 
     of any''; and
       (C) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(B)'';
       (5) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``(e) Review.--(1)'' and inserting ``(4) 
     review.--(A)'';
       (B) by striking the second sentence; and
       (C) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(B)'';
       (6) by redesignating subsection (f), as added by subsection 
     (a) of this section, as subsection (c);
       (7) by inserting after the section heading the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Presumption of Deportability.--An alien convicted of 
     an aggravated felony shall be deportable from the United 
     States.''; and
       (8) by amending the section heading to read as follows:


 ``EXPEDITED DEPORTATION OF ALIENS CONVICTED OF COMMITTING AGGRAVATED 
                              FELONIES''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to all aliens against whom deportation 
     proceedings are initiated after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5003. JUDICIAL DEPORTATION.

       (a) Judicial Deportation.--Section 242A of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Judicial Deportation.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, a United States district court shall have 
     jurisdiction to enter a judicial order of deportation at the 
     time of sentencing against an alien whose criminal conviction 
     causes such alien to be deportable under section 
     241(a)(2)(A)(iii) (relating to conviction of an aggravated 
     felony), if such an order has been requested prior to 
     sentencing by the United States Attorney with the concurrence 
     of the Commissioner.
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) The United States Attorney shall provide notice of 
     intent to request judicial deportation promptly after the 
     entry in the record of an adjudication of guilt or guilty 
     plea. Such notice shall be provided to the court, to the 
     Service, to the alien, and to the alien's counsel of record.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding section 242B, the United States 
     Attorney, with the concurrence of the Commissioner, shall 
     file at least 20 days prior to the date set for sentencing a 
     charge containing factual allegations regarding the alienage 
     of the defendant and satisfaction by the defendant of the 
     definition of aggravated felony.
       ``(C) If the court determines that the defendant has 
     presented substantial evidence to establish prima facie 
     eligibility for relief from deportation under section 212(c), 
     the Commissioner shall provide the court with a 
     recommendation and report regarding the alien's eligibility 
     for relief under such section. The court shall either grant 
     or deny the relief sought.
       ``(D)(i) The alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to 
     examine the evidence against him or her, to present evidence 
     on his or her own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses 
     presented by the Government.
       ``(ii) The court, for the purposes of determining whether 
     to enter an order described in paragraph (1), shall only 
     consider evidence that would be admissible in proceedings 
     conducted pursuant to section 242(b).
       ``(iii) Nothing in this subsection shall limit the 
     information a court of the United States may receive or 
     consider for the purposes of imposing an appropriate 
     sentence.
       ``(iv) The court may order the alien deported if the 
     Attorney General demonstrates by clear and convincing 
     evidence that the alien is deportable under this Act.
       ``(3) Notice, appeal, and execution of judicial order of 
     deportation.--
       ``(A)(i) A judicial order of deportation or denial of such 
     order may be appealed by either party to the court of appeals 
     for the circuit in which the district court is located.
       ``(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), such appeal 
     shall be considered consistent with the requirements 
     described in section 106.
       ``(iii) Upon execution by the defendant of a valid waiver 
     of the right to appeal the conviction on which the order of 
     deportation is based, the expiration of the period described 
     in section 106(a)(1), or the final dismissal of an appeal 
     from such conviction, the order of deportation shall become 
     final and shall be executed at the end of the prison term in 
     accordance with the terms of the order. If the conviction is 
     reversed on direct appeal, the order entered pursuant to this 
     section shall be void.
       ``(B) As soon as is practicable after entry of a judicial 
     order of deportation, the Commissioner shall provide the 
     defendant with written notice of the order or deportation, 
     which shall designate the defendant's country of choice for 
     deportation and any alternate country pursuant to section 
     243(a).
       ``(4) Denial of judicial order.--Denial of a request for a 
     judicial order of deportation shall not preclude the Attorney 
     General from initiating deportation proceedings pursuant to 
     section 242 upon the same ground of deportability or upon any 
     other ground of deportability provided under section 
     241(a).''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The ninth sentence of section 
     242(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1252(b)) is amended by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in section 242A(d), the''.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to alter the privilege of being represented at no 
     expense to the Government set forth in section 292 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to all aliens whose adjudication of guilt or 
     guilty plea is entered in the record after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5004. RESTRICTING DEFENSES TO DEPORTATION FOR CERTAIN 
                   CRIMINAL ALIENS.

       (a) Defenses Based on Seven Years of Permanent Residence.--
     The last sentence of section 212(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``has served for such felony or felonies'' and all that 
     follows through the period and inserting ``has been sentenced 
     for such felony or felonies to a term of imprisonment of at 
     least 5 years, if the time for appealing such conviction or 
     sentence has expired and the sentence has become final. For 
     purposes of this section, the term `sentence' does not 
     include a sentence the execution of which was suspended in 
     its entirety.''.
       (b) Defenses Based on Withholding of Deportation.--Section 
     243(h)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1253(h)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the final sentence and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) the alien has been convicted of an aggravated 
     felony.''; and
       (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D).

     SEC. 5005. ENHANCING PENALTIES FOR FAILING TO DEPART, OR 
                   REENTERING, AFTER FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION.

       (a) Failure To Depart.--Section 242(e) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``paragraph (2), (3), or 4 of'' the first 
     time it appears; and
       (2) by striking ``shall be imprisoned not more than ten 
     years'' and inserting ``shall be imprisoned not more than 
     four years, or shall be imprisoned not more than ten years if 
     the alien is a member of any of the classes described in 
     paragraph (1)(E), (2), (3), or (4) of section 241(a).''.
       (b) Reentry.--Section 276(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting after ``commission of'' the following: 
     ``three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against 
     the person, or both, or''; and
       (B) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``10'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``15'' and inserting 
     ``20''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following sentence:

     ``For the purposes of this subsection, the term `deportation' 
     includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to 
     deportation during a criminal trial under either Federal or 
     State law.''.
       (c) Collateral Attacks on Underlying Deportation Order.--
     Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1326) is amended by adding after subsection (b) the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien 
     may not challenge the validity of the deportation order 
     described in subsection (a)(1) or subsection (b) unless the 
     alien demonstrates that--
       ``(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that 
     may have been available to seek relief against the order;
       ``(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was 
     issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for 
     judicial review; and
       ``(3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.''.

     SEC. 5006. MISCELLANEOUS AND TECHNICAL CHANGES.

       (a) Form of Deportation Hearings.--The second sentence of 
     section 242(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1252(b)) is amended by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``; except that nothing in this subsection shall 
     preclude the Attorney General from authorizing proceedings by 
     electronic or telephonic media, in the discretion of the 
     special inquiry officer, or, where waived or agreed to by the 
     parties, in the absence of the alien.''.
       (b) Construction of Expedited Deportation Requirements.-- 
     No amendment made by this Act and nothing in section 242(i) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(i)) 
     shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural 
     right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party 
     against the United States or its agencies or officers or any 
     other person.

     SEC. 5007. CRIMINAL ALIEN TRACKING CENTER.

       (a) Operation.--The Attorney General shall, under the 
     authority of section 242(a)(3)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(3)(A)), operate a criminal 
     alien tracking center.
       (b) Purpose.--The criminal alien tracking center shall be 
     used to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     agencies in identifying and locating aliens who may be 
     subject to deportation by reason of their conviction of 
     aggravated felonies.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995 and $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.


                   mandatory minimum reform amendment

       The House bill effectively repeals mandatory minimum 
     penalties for many drug traffickers and dealers in the guise 
     of providing a ``safety valve'' mandatory minimum penalty 
     exception for first-time, non-violent drug offenders. 
     According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 
     this provision could reduce the sentences for as many as 900 
     drug offenders annually.
       The original Senate-passed crime bill contained a much 
     narrower mandatory minimum reform measure which returned a 
     small measure of discretion to federal courts in the 
     sentencing of truly first-time, non-violent drug offenders. 
     In addition, the court would have to find that the defendant 
     did not finance the drug sale, he did not sell the drugs, nor 
     was he a leader or organizer. Generally, it would apply to 
     the so-called ``mules.'' This amendment restores the Senate 
     passed version and also adds a provision which assures that 
     the ``safety valve'' will not be abused by the courts. This 
     added improvement requires certification by prosecutors that 
     the defendant cooperated with law enforcement.
       The Senate voted overwhelmingly to instruct its crime bill 
     conferees to insist on the Senate passed version. That 
     instruction passed by a vote of 66 to 32.
       This amendment, in a similar form, passed the Senate by a 
     vote of 58 to 42. In doing so, the Senate rejected the broad 
     mandatory minimum reform approach currently contained in the 
     conference report. The amendment is as follows:
       Strike title VIII and insert the following:
  TITLE VIII--APPLICABILITY OF MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES IN CERTAIN 
                                 CASES

     SEC. ____. FLEXIBILITY IN APPLICATION OF MANDATORY MINIMUM 
                   SENTENCE PROVISIONS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section 
     3553 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Mandatory Minimum Sentence Provisions.--
       ``(1) Sentencing under this section.--In the case of an 
     offense described in paragraph (2), the court shall, 
     notwithstanding the requirement of a mandatory minimum 
     sentence in that section, impose a sentence in accordance 
     with this section and the sentencing guidelines and any 
     pertinent policy statement issued by the United States 
     Sentencing Commission.
       ``(2) Offenses.--An offense is described in this paragraph 
     if--
       ``(A) the defendant is subject to a mandatory minimum term 
     of imprisonment under section 401 or 402 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 and 844) or section 1010 of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960);
       ``(B) the defendant does not have--
       ``(i) more than 0 criminal history point under the 
     sentencing guidelines; or
       ``(ii) any prior conviction, foreign or domestic, for a 
     crime of violence against the person or drug trafficking 
     offense that resulted in a sentence of imprisonment (or an 
     adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for an act that, if 
     committed by an adult, would constitute a crime of violence 
     against the person or drug trafficking offense;
       ``(C) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily 
     injury (as defined in section 1365) to any person--
       ``(i) as a result of the act of any person during the 
     course of the offense; or
       ``(ii) as a result of the use by any person of a controlled 
     substance that was involved in the offense;
       ``(D) the defendant did not carry or otherwise have 
     possession of a firearm (as defined in section 921) or other 
     dangerous weapon during the course of the offense and did not 
     direct another person who possessed a firearm to do so and 
     the defendant had no knowledge of any other conspirator 
     involved possessing a firearm;
       ``(E) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, 
     or supervisor of others (as defined or determined under the 
     sentencing guidelines) in the offense;
       ``(F) the defendant was nonviolent in that the defendant 
     did not use, attempt to use, or make a credible threat to use 
     physical force against the person of another during the 
     course of the offense;
       ``(G) the defendant did not own the drugs, finance any part 
     of the offense or sell the drugs; and
       ``(H) the Government certifies that the defendant has 
     timely and truthfully provided to the Government all 
     information and evidence the defendant has concerning the 
     offense or offenses that were part of the same course of 
     conduct or of a common scheme or plan.''.
       (b) Harmonization.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Sentencing Commission--
       (A) may make such amendments as it deems necessary and 
     appropriate to harmonize the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements with section 3553(f) of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), and promulgate policy 
     statements to assist the courts in interpreting that 
     provision; and
       (B) shall amend the sentencing guidelines, if necessary, to 
     assign to an offense under section 401 or 402 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 and 844) or section 
     1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 960) to which a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment 
     applies a guideline level that will result in the imposition 
     of a term of imprisonment at least equal to the mandatory 
     term of imprisonment that is currently applicable unless a 
     downward adjustment is authorized under section 3553(f) of 
     title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).
       (2) Emergency amendments.--If the Commission determines 
     that an expedited procedure is necessary in order for 
     amendments made pursuant to paragraph (1) to become effective 
     on the effective date specified in subsection (c), the 
     Commission may promulgate such amendments as emergency 
     amendments under the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of 
     the Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182; 101 Stat. 
     1271), as though the authority under that section had not 
     expired.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     and any amendments to the sentencing guidelines made by the 
     United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to subsection 
     (b) shall apply with respect to sentences imposed for 
     offenses committed on or after the date that is 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any defendant who has been sentenced 
     pursuant to section 3553(f) who is subsequently convicted of 
     a violation of the Controlled Substances Act or any crime of 
     violence for which imposition of a mandatory minimum term of 
     imprisonment is required, he or she shall be sentenced to an 
     additional 5 years imprisonment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, this is a good, 
strong, fair, balanced bill. It passed the House of Representatives 
with a substantial bipartisan majority. I hope it will do the same in 
the Senate.
  This is not about a victory or a defeat for any political party or 
any political officeholder. This is a victory for the American people 
who have been scarcely mentioned in this debate, the millions of 
Americans who live in fear of violence, whose lives are blighted and 
restricted by that violence, by its threat, by the fear. This bill does 
not just deal with Federal crimes. It will put 100,000 police officers 
on the streets of this country, local police officers, to deter and 
prevent violent crime and to deal with criminal activity when it does 
occur. And it includes substantial prison funding to assist States in 
the construction of prisons.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the point of order. Despite 
all of the talk, this point of order is not about money. This bill 
passed the Senate just a few months ago by a vote of 95 to 4. 
Republican Senators voted for it by a margin of 42 to 2. That bill 
covered 5 fiscal years 1994 through 1998. The conference report before 
us covers 6 fiscal years, 1995 through the year 2000. And in the 4 
years common to both bills, the amount of money spent in the bill 
before us is less in each year than the amount of money that was in the 
bill that Republican Senators voted for by a margin of 42 to 2.
  There were no complaints about money then. There was lavish praise 
for the provision now in the bill that is the subject of the point of 
order. The very people making the point of order to attack this 
provision in the bill, which ensures that the money will be spent to 
fight crime and not for other purposes, those very people praised that 
provision when it was proposed and, indeed, engaged in a competition 
for credit to suggest that they were responsible for coming up with 
this suggestion. Now we are told it ought to be subject to a point of 
order to bring the whole bill down.
  Now, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, an effort has been 
made here to suggest that because the conference report cannot be 
amended, there is something wrong or unusual or sinister about that. 
Every Senator knows, of course, that is not true. Every Senator knows 
that we debated this bill for 11 days, and 102 amendments were offered. 
And every Senator knows that in the previous Congress, we debated it 
for even more days and hundreds and hundreds of amendments were offered 
to this bill.
  Over the past 6 years, no issue has been more debated, no issue has 
had more amendments offered, no issue has been more lengthily discussed 
than this issue here. Any implication that anyone is being shut off or 
cut off or foreclosed from offering amendments is directly contradicted 
by the record.
  We have had more than enough debate. We have had more than enough 
amendments. We have had 6 years of debate and hundreds of amendments 
and, finally, there comes a time to act. Finally, there comes a time 
when delay is no longer an option. Finally, there comes a time when we 
must stand up and answer the roll: Are we or are we not willing to put 
our votes where our speeches are and do something about the tide of 
crime and violence and fear that engulfs so many in our Nation?
  That is the only issue before us, and it ought not to matter to a 
single Senator who gets credit or who does not get credit or which 
party benefits or which party does not benefit. What ought to matter is 
what is right for the American people. And this bill is right for the 
American people. They want it passed. They know that they do not want 
their children to grow up in a climate of fear, a climate in which no 
individual can reach the full limit of his or her potential as a free 
citizen in our society.
  The first responsibility of any society--any society--is the physical 
security of its citizens. Our society is not meeting that test. This 
bill will help us do so. I urge my colleagues, resist the temptation to 
take a political action. Do what is right for the people of this 
country. Defeat this point of order and pass this crime bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to permit 
further consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3355.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--39

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
  The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 61, and the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The motion to waive the Budget Act having been agreed to, the point 
of order falls.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. Is there 
further debate?
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, prior to the vote, I discussed with the 
distinguished Republican leader how best to proceed on this matter 
following the vote in the event the motion to waive was agreed to. And 
we have agreed to engage in a colloquy now on the floor restating our 
private discussions.
  Mr. President, I inquire through the Chair of the distinguished 
Republican leader whether the Senate will now be in a position to act 
on the conference report, or whether it will be necessary to file a 
cloture motion to close debate on the conference report.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I think 
it will be necessary to file a cloture motion. I am not----
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Under the agreement we were working on, we had an agreement 
that there would be a cloture vote. We can possibly do it by consent, 
but we feel it is better to file a cloture motion. I am not suggesting 
we will wait until Saturday to have the vote, but just as a matter of 
process and procedure, there would be a record of the cloture motion 
having been filed. I think the Senator from Idaho wishes to speak, and 
others wish to speak. We can do it before Saturday, I hope. Today is 
Thursday.

                          ____________________