[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     THE SIGNING OF THE CRIME BILL

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in cities and towns across our country, 
crime is getting worse.
  For example, Utah's gang-related crime problem is getting worse. The 
Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Salt Lake County has already 
seen seven gang-related murders this year. One case involved the murder 
of a 15-year-old by a 16-year-old named Ben Martinez. Prior to the 
killing, Martinez had already been arrested seven times for various 
offenses including weapons offenses and assault. Utah prosecutors will 
attempt to prosecute Martinez as an adult.
  The Republican crime bill amendments, which were stripped from the 
conference report, would have provided for mandatory adult prosecution 
for violent juveniles like Ben Martinez; enhanced mandatory minimum 
penalties; and made such firearms crimes punishable in Federal court. 
Our efforts to improve the crime bill, had we prevailed, would have 
also provided over $13 billion to build more prisons for these violent 
offenders.
  Unfortunately, these and several other tough-on-crime measures were 
not included in the final crime bill.
  When asked about how we should deal with recidivist juveniles, Utah's 
Youth Corrections Director Gary Dalton said, ``There has to be a time 
when we say enough is enough.'' Utah Detective Kent Cravens said that, 
``Violent juveniles, ought to get slam-dunked the first time.'' Yet, 
does the crime bill President Clinton is signing today slam-dunk 
violent juveniles? Does it say ``enough is enough?'' No. Instead, it 
continues the soft-headed coddling that has gotten us where we are. It 
does not include the tough-on-crime provisions that Republicans fought 
for in the Senate.
  In a partisan rush to secure a legislative victory at any cost, the 
other side of the aisle sacrificed substance and padded the bill with 
still more social spending programs.
  For instance, the $50 million community-based justice grants will 
require social workers' involvement in the prosecution of criminal 
cases. Participating prosecutors will be required to ``focus on the 
offender, not simply the specific offense, and impose individualized 
sanctions [such as] conflict resolution, treatment, counselling and 
recreation programs.'' These sanctions would be imposed on individuals 
``who have committed crimes of violence, weapons offenses, drug 
distribution, hate crimes and civil rights violations * * *.''
  The spuriously labeled ``Certain Punishment for Young Offenders'' 
Program provides $150 million for education and job training and 
aftercare programs for young offenders.
  Mr. President, what about the victims--and future victims--of these 
crimes? When is it time to stop focusing on the offender and start 
protecting the public?
  Senate Republican efforts to improve the bill were rejected because 
enactment of the crime bill was critical. Today, after nearly 3 weeks 
of delay, President Clinton will sign the crime bill. During the 3 
weeks he was on vacation, Republicans could have made the bill a much 
tougher, trimmer package.
  Even the administration has acknowledged that the crime bill is 
loaded with wasteful spending. In a recent issue of Newsweek magazine 
[August 1], an administration official described the crime bill as 
containing $2 billion in, as he put it, ``pure pork.'' Frankly, the 
amount of wasteful spending is much higher than what the administration 
was willing to concede but it is still telling.
  As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I pledge to do my best 
to assist the administration in its implementation of the bill. I will 
be evenhanded, but I expect the effectiveness of this bill will be 
negligible. A recent Harris poll found that 54 percent of surveyed 
voters believe that this crime bill contains too much unneeded spending 
and won't reduce crime [Wall Street Journal, September 9, 1994]. Only 
time will tell. President Clinton has shown a proclivity for talking 
about the crime problem. Now we shall see how good he is at doing 
something about it.
  Will the bill place 100,000 new community police officers on the 
streets? I am not aware of a single neutral expert who has said it 
will. Already, the administration is seeking to lower expectations. 
Attorney General Reno announced last week that 40,000--not 100,000--
police officers will be hired before the end of President Clinton's 
term.
  This leads me to a second point. The distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee has distributed documents that provide detailed 
estimates of the amount of money each State will receive pursuant to 
the crime bill. His estimates even purport to provide us with the 
number of police each State will receive. For instance, according to 
the Senator's estimates, my State of Utah will hire 997 new local 
police officers thanks to the crime bill.
  However, with all respect to my friend from Delaware--and he is my 
friend--these estimates are based on sheer speculation and unsupported 
assumptions. No independent, neutral analyst has ever stated that this 
bill will fund anywhere near 100,000 police officers, or that the 
$75,000 per officer limit on which he relies covers the cost of placing 
an officer on the streets for even 1 year, much less the 3 years of the 
grants.
  Moreover, the vast bulk of the crime bill's policing grants are 
distributed on a discretionary basis. Yet Senator Biden's numbers 
assume that these funds will be distributed on the basis of population. 
The fact of the matter is that Congress could have provided for a 
formula that would have distributed grants pursuant to population. 
Indeed, my efforts to insert such a formula in conference were rejected 
by Senator Biden and his Democrat colleagues.
  Mr. President, the administration and my Democrat colleagues can be 
sure that the Congress and America will be keeping a close eye on 
whether the crime bill lives up to its billing. I believe it will not. 
For this reason, I am pleased to be joining Senator Dole in 
Republicans' ongoing effort to deliver to the American people a true, 
tough, effective crime bill. The legislation we are introducing today 
is a worthy first step.

                          ____________________