Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 124 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)

[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.

____________________