[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6487-S6489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TRIGGERLOCK

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to begin a 
discussion about the crime bill that within the next several days I 
will be introducing. I would like today to continue to talk about other 
provisions of that crime bill.
  As I indicated yesterday, I believe that there are really two truly 
fundamental issues that we always need to address when we are looking 
at the validity or the merits of any particular crime bill. First, what 
is the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime in this 
country? Second, despite all the rhetoric, what really works in law 
enforcement; what matters and what does not matter?
  It has been my experience, Mr. President, as someone who does not 
pretend to be an expert in this area but someone who has spent the 
better part of 20 years in different capacities dealing with this, 
beginning in the early 1970's as a county prosecuting attorney, it has 
been my experience that many times the rhetoric does not square very 
closely with the reality, and that really, if we are serious about 
dealing with crime, the people that we ought to talk to are the men and 
women who are on the front lines every single day--the police officers, 
the tens of thousands of police officers around this country who really 
are the experts and who know what works and what does not work.
  The bill that I will introduce is based upon my own experience, but 
it is also based on hundreds and hundreds of discussions that I have 
had over the years with the people who, literally, are on the front 
line.
  Yesterday, I discussed these issues with specific reference to crime-
fighting technology. The conclusion I have reached is that we have an 
outstanding technology base in this country that will do a great deal 
to catch criminals. Technology does, in fact, matter, and it clearly 
matters in the area of law enforcement. But we need the Federal 
Government to be more proactive in this area, more proactive in helping 
the States get on line with their own technology.
  Having a terrific national criminal record system or a huge DNA data 
base for convicted sex offenders in Washington, DC, is great, but it 
will not really do much good if the police officer in Lucas County, OH, 
or Greene County or Clark County or Hamilton County cannot tap into it. 
It will not do any good if we cannot get the information, the primary 
source of this information, from them and get it into the system.
  Crimes occur locally. Ninety-five percent of all criminal 
prosecution, of all 
[[Page S6488]] criminal investigations, occurs locally, not at the 
national level. Crime occurs locally, so we have to make sure that the 
crime-fighting resources, like this high-technology data base that I 
talked about yesterday, are available to local law enforcement.
  Mr. President, today I would like to continue this discussion, and I 
would like to discuss another component of my crime legislation: How do 
we go about protecting America from armed career criminals? I am 
talking about repeat violent criminals who use a gun in the commission 
of a felony. In this area, too, we need to be asking what works, what 
does not work, and what level of Federal Government is most appropriate 
to do what, what level of Federal Government is most appropriate to get 
certain help from.
  Again, experience tells us that we really do know what matters, we 
really do know what works. In the area of gun crimes, we have a pretty 
good answer.
  We all know that there is a great deal of controversy about guns, 
controversy over whether general restrictions on gun ownership would 
help reduce crime. But, Mr. President, there is no controversy over 
whether taking guns away from convicted felons will reduce crime. Let 
me guarantee you, if we know one thing, it is this: If we take guns out 
of the hands of convicted felons, we will reduce crime and we will have 
fewer victims.
  There is legitimate disagreement over bills such as the Brady bill, 
whether that will reduce crime. Similarly, reasonable people can 
disagree concerning the question of whether a ban on assault weapons 
will reduce crime. I happen to support both of these measures, but I 
recognize that many people do not and many people think that they are 
not effective.
  But what I am talking about today is something on which there is 
absolutely no controversy, absolutely no dispute. There simply is no 
question that taking the guns away from armed career criminals will, in 
fact, reduce crime, and history shows that that works.
  When it comes to armed career criminals, we need to disarm them, we 
need to lock them up, we need to get them out of society. Let us disarm 
the people who are hurting our victims, who are hurting the citizens of 
this country. As I said, history indicates that this works. We have a 
historic track record to point to. We actually have tried this and it 
does, in fact, work.
  One of the most successful crime-fighting initiatives of recent years 
in this country was a project that was known as Project Triggerlock. 
This project was very successful, wildly successful, precisely because 
it addressed a problem squarely and it placed the resources where they 
were most needed.
  Let me tell the Members of the Senate a little bit about the history 
of this Project Triggerlock.
  The U.S. Justice Department began Project Triggerlock in May of 1991. 
The program targeted for prosecution in Federal court armed and violent 
repeat offenders. Under Triggerlock, U.S. attorneys throughout the 
country turned to the local prosecuting attorneys in whatever 
jurisdiction they were located and said: ``If you catch a felon with a 
gun, if you want us to, we, under existing Federal statute, we the 
Federal prosecutors, we the U.S. attorneys will take over that 
prosecution for you. We will prosecute that individual, we will convict 
that individual, and we will hit that individual with a stiff Federal 
mandatory sentence, and we will lock this individual up in a Federal 
prison at no cost to the local community, to the State.''
  That is true Federal assistance. That is Federal assistance that 
matters. That is Federal assistance that makes a difference. That is 
Federal assistance and Federal action that will save lives by taking 
these career criminals off our streets.
  Mr. President, that is what Project Triggerlock did. Triggerlock was 
an assault on the very worst criminals, the worst of the worst in 
American society. And it worked. This program took 15,000--15,000--
career criminals off the streets in just an 18-month period of time. 
Incredibly--at least incredibly to me as a former prosecutor--the 
Clinton Justice Department abandoned Project Triggerlock. It was the 
most effective Federal program in recent history for targeting and 
removing armed career criminals from our society. But for some reason--
for some reason--the Justice Department stopped Triggerlock dead in its 
tracks.
  What I propose in my crime legislation is that we resurrect Project 
Triggerlock, and we can do it. My legislation includes a provision 
requiring the U.S. attorneys in every jurisdiction in this country to 
make a monthly report to the Attorney General in Washington on the 
number of arrests, the number of prosecutions and convictions they have 
gotten within that last 30-day period of time on gun-related offenses. 
The Attorney General then would report semiannually to the U.S. 
Congress on the success of this program and report on the number of 
these individuals who have been convicted.
  Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys have limited resources. In fact, 
with U.S. attorneys, they have more discretion because of the fact that 
many times we have concurrent jurisdiction between the local 
prosecutors under State law and Federal prosecutors under Federal law. 
So the Federal prosecutors have a great deal of discretion about what 
type cases to pursue. It really is a question of what the priorities 
are. It is a question of prioritization.
  Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys do have to exercise discretion 
about whom to prosecute. We all recognize that Congress cannot dictate 
to U.S. attorneys, cannot dictate to the Attorney General who should be 
prosecuted. But it is clear that we should go on record with the 
following basic proposition, and that is this: There is nothing more 
important than getting armed career criminals off the streets. There is 
nothing more important that the Justice Department can do than to set 
this as a priority.
  Mr. President, I think Project Triggerlock was a very important way 
to keep the focus on the prosecution of gun crimes. Getting criminals 
off the streets, criminals who use guns, is a major national priority 
and we all should behave accordingly.
  Let me turn now to a second portion of this bill that deals with the 
problem of criminals using guns in the commission of a felony. The 
second thing we need to do is to change the law. We need to toughen the 
law against those who use a gun to commit a crime. My bill would say to 
career criminals: If you are a convicted felon and you possess a gun, 
you will get a mandatory sentence. Under current law, a first-time 
felon gets a 5-year mandatory sentence. A third-time felon gets a 
mandatory minimum of 15 years. But there is a gap in current law. There 
is no mandatory minimum for a second-time felon.
  My legislation, Mr. President, would fix that. It would provide a 
mandatory minimum of 10 years for a second-time felon with a gun. That 
would make it a lot easier for police to get that gun criminal off of 
our streets.
  Third, bail reform. The third thing we need to do is to reform the 
bail system. Under current law, the Bail Reform Act, certain dangerous, 
accused criminals can be denied bail if they have been charged with 
crimes of violence. But it is unclear under current law whether 
possession of firearms should be considered a crime of violence or not.
  Mr. President, let us do a reality check here today. If someone who 
is a known convicted felon is walking around with a gun in your 
community in Michigan, or in my community in Ohio, what is the 
likelihood that that person is carrying the gun for law-abiding 
purposes? Convicted felon with a gun. I think it is perfectly 
reasonable to consider that person prima facie dangerous. We should 
deny bail to keep that convicted felon off the streets while awaiting 
trial on the new charge.
  My legislation would eliminate the ambiguity in current law. My bill 
would define a crime of violence to specifically include possession of 
a firearm by a convicted felon. If you are a convicted felon and you 
are walking around with a gun, you are dangerous and you need to be 
kept off the streets. We need to give the prosecutors the legal right 
to protect the community from these people while they are awaiting 
trial.
  Mr. President, a fourth way we can crack down on gun crimes is to go 
after 
[[Page S6489]] those who knowingly provide--knowingly provide--guns to 
felons. Under current law, you can be prosecuted by providing a gun 
only if you knew for certain that it would be used in a crime. The 
revision I propose would make it illegal to provide a firearm if you 
have reasonable cause to believe that it is going to be used in the 
commission of a crime. This is the best way, I believe, to go after the 
illegal gun trade, those who provide guns to those people who are 
predators in our society. We will no longer, under this provision, 
allow these gun providers to feign ignorance. They are helping felons 
and they need to be stopped.
  Mr. President, all of these proposals are motivated by a single 
purpose. I, along with the police officers of this country, believe 
that we have to get the guns away from the gun criminals. Project 
Triggerlock was one major initiative that we can pursue at the Federal 
level to help make this happen. Imposing stiff mandatory minimums, 
cracking down on illegal gun providers, are also good, important 
measures.
  All of the gun proposals contained in my crime legislation, Mr. 
President, really have the same goal. They are designed to assure 
American families who are living in crime-threatened communities that 
we are going to do what it takes to get guns off of their streets. We 
are going to go after the armed career criminals. We are going to 
prosecute them, convict them, and we are going to keep them off of our 
streets. That is why we have a Government in the first place, to 
protect the innocent, to keep ordinary citizens safe from violent, 
predatory crimes.
  Mr. President, I believe that Government needs to do a much better 
job with this fundamental task. That is why targeting the armed career 
criminals is such a major component of the crime bill that I will be 
introducing.
  Mr. President, tomorrow I intend to talk briefly about a third major 
component of my bill, and that is how we help the victims of crime, 
those who are victimized by the criminals, those who we, many times, 
forget.
  It has been my experience that, unfortunately, many times society 
treats the criminals as if they are victims and the victims as if they 
are criminals. Provisions in the bill that I will be discussing 
tomorrow deal with that. We will reach out to the victims of crime to 
help them and to make the playing field more level.
  Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________