[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 51 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3701-S3702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           GUNS AND CRIMINALS

  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia for putting 
this time together this morning.
  Mr. President, I want to talk this morning about the question of guns 
and criminals who use guns. We have debates--and often they are very 
contentious debates--about a lot of issues concerning crime. We talk on 
this floor about contentious issues, such as the Brady bill and assault 
weapons. And these are important issues. They are important. I happen 
to favor these bills. But I think we need to recognize what really is 
important, and we need to step back a little bit and talk about what 
really makes a difference when we talk about what we do to deal with 
the crime problem.
  These two issues--the Brady bill and assault weapons--are highly 
contentious. Second, frankly, they, at best, only have a marginal 
impact on the problem. Third, they tend to attract somewhat overblown 
rhetoric, frankly, on both sides of the issue. I think both sides of 
the Brady bill debate and both sides of the assault weapon debate 
overemphasize what the importance of this debate is.

  I am, frankly, puzzled that we cannot seem to move forward on more 
effective proposals that everyone ought to favor--proposals that will 
really make a difference. These proposals that I am talking about may 
not be very exciting, but they are real, they work, they make a 
difference, they make a difference out on the street.
  Mr. President, we all agree that we, as a society, ought to do more 
to protect our citizens from armed career criminals. There are 
predators out there--predators, Mr. President--who are repeat violent 
criminals who use a gun while committing a crime. We, as a society, 
have to make a strong, effective response to this threat.
  Mr. President, in this area, as in all areas of national concern, we 
really need to be asking the following questions: One, what works? What 
really makes a difference? Two, what level of Government should do this 
particular job?
  In the area of gun crimes, we have a pretty good answer. We have an 
answer that is based on experience and based on history. Now, we all 
know that there is some controversy over whether general restrictions 
on gun ownership would help to reduce crime. But there is no 
controversy over whether taking guns away from felons would reduce 
crime. Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative--I think everyone 
gets that, everyone understands it, and there should not be any 
controversy about it. If you take guns out of the hands of felons, you 
are going to reduce crime.
  When it comes to felons, Mr. President, unilateral disarmament of the 
thugs is simply the best policy. Let us disarm the people who hurt 
people. Although we can quibble about statistics, the facts are that 
the vast majority of crimes in this country today, the vast majority of 
violent crimes, the vast majority of crimes that hurt people are 
committed by a small number of the criminals. One estimate is that 70 
percent of all violent crime in this country is committed by less than 
6 percent of the criminals, which is a relatively small number of 
people.

[[Page S3702]]

  And so what I say that we need to do, Mr. President, is to target the 
violent career criminals, particularly those who use a gun to commit a 
felony--target them, convict them, get them off the street, lock them 
up, and keep them locked up.

  Mr. President, we have actually tried this, and we know it works. One 
of the most successful crime fighting initiatives of recent years was 
known as Project Triggerlock. This project was wildly successful 
precisely because it addressed a problem squarely head on, and it 
placed the resources where they were most needed.
  Let me talk for a moment and share with you the story about Project 
Triggerlock. The U.S. Justice Department began Project Triggerlock in 
May 1991. The program targeted for prosecution in Federal court armed, 
violent, repeat offenders. Under Project Triggerlock, U.S. attorneys 
throughout the country turned to their local, State prosecutors and 
said this: ``If you catch a felon, and you catch that felon with a gun, 
and if you want us to, the U.S. attorneys, we, the Federal prosecutors, 
will take over the prosecution for you. We will prosecute this 
individual under Federal law--Federal law that many, many times, in 
regard to violent repeat offenders who use a gun in the commission of a 
felony, is tougher than State law. We will prosecute this individual. 
We will convict this individual, and we will hit this person with a 
stiff Federal mandatory sentence. And then we will lock him up in a 
Federal prison at no cost to the State or local community. Basically, 
we will deep-six this guy, get him out of society. We will take the 
cost of prosecution and then we will pay to house him for 10, 15, 20 
years while he is out of society.''
  That is the type of assistance to local communities that makes a 
difference. That is what Project Triggerlock did. Triggerlock was an 
assault on the very worst criminals in America. Mr. President, it 
worked.
  Listen to these figures. This program took 15,000--15,000--criminals 
off the streets in an 18-month period of time. Triggerlock caused a 
dramatic increase in Federal firearms prosecutions. In the first 12 
months of Triggerlock, the program initiated firearms prosecutions 
against 6,454 defendants. It worked.
  Now, incredibly, Mr. President--incredibly--the Clinton Justice 
Department has chosen to deemphasize Project Triggerlock. They tell us 
they still have it; they just do not talk about it. Apparently, they do 
not even keep the statistics on it. They do not make it a priority.
  Mr. President, Project Triggerlock was the most effective Federal 
program in recent history for targeting and removing armed career 
criminals. But the Clinton administration Justice Department, today, 
acts like Triggerlock simply does not exist. While the Clinton Justice 
Department says that Triggerlock remains important, the facts, the 
statistics do not bear this out. They, apparently, no longer keep 
records on these prosecutions--and, I guess, for very good reason.
  If you look at the records kept in Federal courts--go to the Federal 
courts to get your statistics, here is what you learn: Since the advent 
of the Clinton administration we have seen a substantial decrease in 
the prosecution for weapons and firearms offenses.

  That is a shocking fact.
  We also see a substantial decrease in actual convictions for these 
firearm related offenses in Federal court.
  Let us look at the numbers. In 1992, there were 4,501 prosecutions of 
gun criminal charges for these crimes. In 1993, the number of 
prosecutions dropped slightly to 4,348. But in 1994, the number plunged 
all the way down to 3,695. We should have been seeing an increase. 
Instead, we started going the wrong way. That is a 19-percent drop in 
weapons and firearms prosecutions in the Federal courts during the 
Clinton administration--a 19-percent drop.
  Mr. President, who in this country can believe that this is 
justified? Who in this country believes that the threat of gun 
criminals to the society is less than it was 2 years ago? Clearly, it 
is not.
  Mr. President, the number of total convictions for firearm-related 
prosecutions in Federal court has dropped as well. Again, let me go 
back to 1992. In 1992, 3,837 of these defendants were convicted. In 
1993, there was a drop, a drop to 3,814. But in 1994, we see a more 
severe drop--down to 3,345. Again, instead of going up in prosecutions, 
which is what you would have expected, we see the trend lines going 
down. Mr. President, that is going in exactly the wrong direction.
  Last year, I introduced a crime bill that would have restored Project 
Triggerlock. It would have required a U.S. attorney in every 
jurisdiction in this country to make a monthly report to the Attorney 
General in Washington on the number of arrests, the prosecutions and 
convictions that they had achieved in the previous month on gun-related 
defenses. The Attorney General under my bill should then report 
semiannually to the Congress on the work of these prosecutors. Then we 
would know the information would be available.
  It is like anything else. When you start counting, when you start 
publicizing the results, you start holding people accountable, and 
people then respond.
  Let me say that there are a lot of U.S. prosecutors who are doing a 
good job in this area who on their own are emphasizing the prosecution 
of people with guns. But it should not just be left up to every U.S. 
attorney in the country to decide one way or the other. This should be 
a national policy. It should be a national policy that is driven by the 
Attorney General and driven by the President of the United States. 
Quite frankly, nothing short of that, in my opinion, is acceptable.
  The truth is that, like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys have limited 
resources. So like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys have to exercise 
discretion about whom to prosecute. We know that. We all recognize that 
Congress can and should not dictate to prosecutors whom they should 
prosecute. But it is clear that we as a Congress, that we as a Senate, 
should go on record with the following proposition. There is nothing 
more important in fighting crime than getting armed career criminals 
off the streets.
  Mr. President, I think the Project Triggerlock is a very important 
way to keep the focus on the prosecution of gun crimes. Getting gun 
criminals off the streets is a major national priority. I believe that 
we should behave accordingly.
  This is no time to turn our backs on a proven, promising mainstream 
anticrime initiative; an anticrime initiative that is not 
controversial, an anticrime initiative that would not tie up 5 minutes 
of debate on the Senate floor in regard to whether or not we should do 
it. Everyone understands that we need to do this. What we need is the 
will from the executive branch to really reinstitute Project 
Triggerlock and make it work.
  Mr. President, families who are living in crime-threatened 
communities need to know that we are going to do what it takes to get 
guns off their streets. We are going to go after the armed career 
criminals. We are going to prosecute them, we are going to convict 
them, we are going to lock them up, and we are going to keep them 
locked up.

  Mr. President, in conclusion, this is why we have a Government in the 
first place--to protect the innocent, to keep ordinary citizens safe 
from violent predatory criminals.
  I think Government needs to do a much better job at this very 
fundamental task, and it is inherently the fundamental task of the 
Government. That is why targeting the armed career criminal is such a 
major component of our national policy.
  The Clinton administration, I believe, should reverse its opposition 
to Project Triggerlock, and should do so immediately.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia for the time. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from Ohio.
  I now yield up to 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________