[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 61 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4703-S4704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE VOID IN MORAL LEADERSHIP--PART VII

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the weekend before last, I had the 
privilege of responding to the President's Saturday radio address.
  Some of my colleagues may not have heard my remarks. For their 
benefit, I would like to paraphrase and expand upon what I said.
  A few of my colleagues or their family members have had a brush with 
violent crime here in our Nation's Capital. Some assaults occurred in 
the streets nearby the Capitol Grounds, which are patroled by our own 
Capitol Hill Police Force. This reinforces to us that, if it can happen 
here, it can happen anywhere.
  Imagine, Mr. President, that you are driving home from work after a 
busy day in the Senate. All of a sudden, young kids pass you by in 
their cars. A gunfight breaks out just as they pass. A stray bullet 
comes crashing through your car window. Suddenly, you are slumped over 
your steering wheel, dead. You were caught in the crossfire of a 
senseless gun battle.
  Although an unpleasant thought, it is not hard for us in this body to 
relate to the possibility of such a tragedy happening here in 
Washington--the murder capital of the country. But a similar tragedy 
happened just over 3 weeks ago in Des Moines, IA, the capital city of 
middle America.
  The victim's name was Phyllis Davis. She was 42.
  Phyllis was driving in Des Moines in broad daylight, on her way home 
from work. She was suddenly the victim of a gunfight between two gangs 
of kids. A stray bullet lodged in her body and killed her. These punks 
had no regard for her innocent life, let alone their own.
  This tragedy stunned Des Moines. It drove home two points:
  First, you cannot hide from crime, nowadays. No one and no place is 
safe. It could be you next, or someone you love. And second, dangerous 
criminals are getting younger and younger. Respect for life and 
property is diminishing earlier in the lives of our citizens.
  The obvious question is, Why? Why is it that there is no place to 
hide from crime? Why is it that perpetrators of violent crimes are 
getting younger and younger?
  Much of the reason, I have observed, is this:
  We have created a culture in our society that coddles the criminal. 
We talk the tough talk, we throw money and resources at the problem, we 
throw 30,000 cops on the street. After we've done all that, what do we 
get? Violent criminals are getting younger and younger, and the 
violence can happen to you or your loved ones anywhere, anytime.
  A culture that coddles the criminal, Mr. President. That is what we 
have got. In plain terms, we have got a bad criminal justice system. It 
is upside down. It seems that criminals have more rights than victims. 
We handcuff justice instead of crime. How can this happen in America.
  One reason younger people are committing more crimes may be that 
word's getting out that the system will be easy on them.
  Juveniles now account for nearly 20 percent of all violent crime 
arrests. If the trend continues, that figure will double in 15 years. 
This is outrageous.
  When tragedies occur like what happen to Phyllis Davis, communities 
pull together to respond. But they get hamstrung. The system undercuts 
them: Too many bad laws; too many soft-on-crime judges; not enough 
moral leadership.
  That is the problem, Mr. President. That is what causes the culture 
of coddling criminals. First, liberal judges let dangerous offenders 
back on the streets; second, the Clinton Justice Department has 
frustrated efforts to enforce the death penalty. And more often than 
any previous administration, the Department intervenes in cases on the 
side of convicted criminals.
  Third, our leaders in the White House have abandoned the bully pulpit 
in the war or drugs. In the absence of moral leadership, drug use among 
America's youth is up dramatically. In fact, there has been a 52-
percent increase in drug use by teenagers since President Clinton took 
office.
  Republicans have waged a long battle against a legal system that 
coddles criminals. Instead, this Republican Congress has done much to 
strengthen the criminal justice system on behalf of victims instead. We 
passed major reforms, clamping down on frivolous prisoner lawsuits. 
This was in the budget bill signed 2 weeks ago. One result is that 
prisons will again be more like prisons, and less like Marriott Hotels.
  And the antiterrorism bill signed 2 week ago will make it easier to 
deport criminal aliens. It also provides effective death penalty 
measures, for a change. This is a provision President Clinton initially 
opposed and worked against. But he was finally forced to accept it. His 
lieutenants went kicking and screaming.
  Mr. President, this was the gist of my comments in response to the 
President's Saturday address. Following my remarks, the White House 
responded in turn. I will now address the White House response to me.
  The Associated Press quoted a White House deputy press secretary, 
Ginny Terzano, as saying the following:

       The President has fought long and hard to get a tough crime 
     bill and to place 100,000 more police officers on the 
     streets.

  Mr. President, the problem is a culture of coddling criminals. How 
does this statement by the White House reassure the American people? 
How does it reassure them that they won't be next to get caught in the 
crossfire of a senseless gun battle, or some equally senseless, violent 
act?
  For one thing, the Clinton administration worked to soften the crime 
bill, not make it tough. Remember? It was larded up with social 
programs to coddle the criminal. Remember midnight basketball? Second, 
more cops on the street is only part of the solution. What good do more 
cops do if the system keeps handcuffing the cops instead of the bad 
guys? You just have more cops with handcuffs on them, That is all.
  Meanwhile, yesterday's Washington Post had a story showing that the 
number of Federal criminal cases in this administration have not gone 
up. This, despite billings of dollars of increases in funding for the 
FBI, DEA, and U.S. attorneys.
  The article also suggests that the caseload has lacked effective 
management within the law enforcement community. You can put all the 
cops you want in the streets. But if criminals are not being prosecuted 
and kept in jail, how effective is your crimefighting?
  What the President should be doing is addressing the real, underlying 
cause of crime. He needs to attack the culture that coddles criminals. 
For starters, he could get a solicitor general who intervenes in cases 
on the side of victims, rather than using technicalities to help out 
convicted criminals. President Clinton's solicitor did this in United 
States versus Davis and again in Cheely versus United States, to cite 
just two examples.

[[Page S4704]]

  Second, he should pick judges that do not let criminals back on the 
streets who should not be there;
  Third, he should crack the whip with his Justice Department and find 
out why large budget increases for the FBI, DEA, and U.S. attorneys 
have not produced more criminal prosecutions.
  Fourth, and most important, he should use the bully pulpit of the 
White House to show moral authority in the war on drugs.
  Mr. President, this last point is the most crucial of all. So much of 
crime--especially violent crime--is a function of drug use and 
trafficking. Yet, the President has been silent on the drug issue until 
recently. He has said more about drugs the last 2 months than he did 
the last 3 years. It is a coincidence, I am sure, that this is an 
election year.
  But when you look behind the rhetoric, and look instead at the 
record, the President has a lot of explaining to do. Why has the number 
of high school seniors using drugs frequently increased by 52 percent 
since this President took office? Why did he cut the drug office staff 
by 83 percent, and decimate its budget?
  I would argue it is because he abandoned the bully pulpit. He 
declared a time-out in the war on drugs while the bad guys kept on 
playing. In short, he created a void in moral leadership on this issue.
  And now, all the progress we made during the 1980's in fighting drug 
use are being reversed. It is just mind-boggling.
  When it comes to fighting crime, the President seems to be playing in 
the wrong arena. He is not playing in the same arena that he talks 
about. People are out there driving in their cars, wondering if they 
could be next. And the moral leadership on this issue that the People 
are looking for from their leader in Washington is absent.
  In my view, Congress will have to continue playing the lead role in 
turning our criminal justice system right-side up. We need to protect 
the victims of crime once again, instead of coddling criminals.
  We could build a strong partnership in this effort, if only the 
President would joint us. Until then, this Congress will continue to 
battle the system that handcuffs justice rather than crime.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I request that I be allowed to proceed in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________