[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S2678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 CRIME

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to commend the House of 
Representatives for completing action on one of the key elements in the 
Contract With America--the Taking Back Our Streets Act. As a result of 
yesterday's vote, we are now one step closer to enacting the kind of 
tough-on-crime legislation the American people deserve:
  Mandatory restitution for the victims of Federal crimes.
  The swift deportation of illegal aliens who have broken our criminal 
laws.
  More funds for prison construction so that Governors like George 
Allen can abolish parole and make truth in sentencing a reality in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.
  Comprehensive reform of the habeas corpus rules to prevent convicted 
criminals from exploiting the system, with more frivolous appeals, more 
unnecessary delays, and yes, more grief for the victims of crime and 
their families.
  Reform of the exclusionary rule to ensure that relevant evidence is 
not tossed out at trial simply because a police officer made an honest 
mistake.
  And, finally, a rewrite of last year's police-hiring program to give 
States and localities more flexibility in determining what best suits 
their own unique law enforcement needs. Is it more cops? Or is it more 
squad cars? Better technology? Training? Perhaps even computers?
  Unfortunately, this last provision has raised President Clinton's 
political hackles. He is now out on the stump, threatening a veto, and 
arguing that the law enforcement block grants will somehow jeopardize 
his pledge to put 100,000 more cops on the street.
  Of course, last year's crime bill was one of the
   most politically oversold pieces of legislation in recent memory. As 
most experts will tell you, the 1994 crime bill barely contains enough 
funding to hire 25,000 more cops, never mind 100,000. So, President 
Clinton's complaints may make for good rhetoric, but when all is said 
and done, rhetoric has never put a single cop on the beat.

  The President's veto-threat also raises a more fundamental question: 
Who knows best how to fight crime? Is it Congress? The bureaucrats in 
Washington?
  Or is it the people on the frontlines: the sheriffs, the mayors, the 
county commissioners, the Governors? Does President Clinton not trust 
our State and local officials to make the right decisions, to do the 
right thing, or does he think they cannot be trusted and that, if given 
the flexibility, they will somehow squander the block-grant funds?
  As the Washington Post editorialized yesterday, and I quote:

       ``One hundred thousand cops'' sounds good, but 
     congressional failure to include that mandate is not worth a 
     Presidential veto ***. The world won't end if local 
     authorities are given more flexibility.

  So, Mr. President, I commend the House of Representatives for 
toughening up last year's crime bill and giving the States and cities 
the flexibility they need. It is now up to the Senate to finish the 
job, and I hope we can do that in the next 60 days.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as if in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________