[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5920-S5921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       WORDS AND ACTIONS ON CRIME

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, one of the key measures of any government 
is how well it protects the people from the threat of violent crime. In 
the preamble to our Constitution, the charter of our Government, we are 
told the purpose of Government is to ``establish Justice, insure 
domestic Tranquility * * *''
  Only by doing those things and doing them well do we hope to ``secure 
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity * * *''
  I would like to talk today about the record of the Clinton 
administration in regard to crime. In doing so, I will contend that 
mere words are not enough to fulfill that sacred trust between 
Government and the people. To fulfill its obligation, its obligation to 
protect people from crime, Government must act.
  One of the President's closest advisers said recently, ``Words are 
actions.'' Words are actions. They really are, Mr. President. The 
record of this administration gives grave cause for doubt.
  For 2 years, 1993 and 1994, President Clinton and his party 
controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. One-party 
control means the party in charge generally gets to set the agenda. It 
is pretty clear that the fight against crime should be at the top of 
any sensible national agenda.
  Violent crime remains at historic highs. Every year 43 million 
Americans become victims of crime, and 10 million become victims of 
violent crime. Juvenile crime is a problem now of historic proportions.
  Frankly, Mr. President, there is no reason to believe that this is 
going to change unless we take some very drastic measures. Here is why. 
Violent crimes by young people age 18 to 24 have gone up 50 percent 
since 1986. These young predators are moving coldly, dangerously into a 
career that will wreak havoc on their communities for years to come. 
That is bad enough.
  But it will get even worse, even scarier, because while crime among 
18- to 24-year-olds has gone up 50 percent, crime by even younger 
offenders, those aged 14 to 17, has gone up 150 percent--150 percent--
since 1986. So if we think violent crime is bad now, wait until these 
14- to 17-year-olds get into their prime age for crime, the late teens 
and early twenties. The problem we will have to face is when today's 
violent teenagers grow up. They are going to be a major social force in 
this country. To me, that would indicate cause for serious concern 
about the kind of America we are going to have in the next couple of 
decades.
  Mr. President, the picture is bad in regard to violent crime. But, 
unfortunately, it does not get any better when we look at the issue of 
drugs. Since the Reagan-Bush years, marijuana use has tripled--
tripled--among those 14 years of age and 15 years of age. In 1992, 1.6 
million young people were reported to have used marijuana--1.6. Today 
that number has risen to 2.9 million.
  Mr. President, one good way to find out what our real social problems 
are is to visit a hospital emergency room. Today cocaine-related 
episodes have hit their highest level in history. People talk about the 
1980's as the cocaine decade. But visit any emergency room and you will 
see that it is even worse today.
  Heroin-related episodes are rising, too. They jumped 66 percent in 
1993 and have stayed at that higher level.
  In summary, Mr. President, I think any fair observer would 
characterize this as a very bleak picture. A fair observer would say 
that violent crime, especially youth violence, is a major challenge to 
America and very probably the single greatest challenge we face in this 
country.
  Let us talk for a moment about how the U.S. Government has coped with 
this crisis. Let us examine what the new Clinton administration wanted 
to do after they took office, what it proposed to do in its first 2 
years. Then let us examine what the Clinton administration actually 
accomplished in its first 2 years. Finally, I would like to examine 
what was accomplished after the first 2 years.
  Let us start first with the new administration's proposals. So I 
begin with the first phase: The new Clinton administration and its 
agenda and what they wanted to do.

  For 2 years, Mr. President, 1993 and 1994, we had an undivided 
Government, a Government under the control of a single party. A 
President with a free hand could create positive change and do what is 
necessary to protect the American people from the plague of violent 
crime. What use was made of this opportunity? What did the new 
administration propose to do about this major national crisis?
  Here is the answer. Here, Mr. President, if you can believe it, is 
what the new administration proposed to do. This is what the 
President's budget proposed to do. The President wanted to cut 790 
agents out of the FBI. The President wanted to cut 311 agents out of 
the DEA. The President wanted to cut 123 prosecutors, take them out of 
the Federal courts. The President wanted to construct zero--zero--new 
Federal prisons. Finally, the President wanted to cut prison personnel 
by 1,600. That was the proposed response of the Clinton administration 
to this major national crisis.
  It is true, Mr. President, that much of this agenda did not actually 
become a reality. It did not happen because, fortunately, congressional 
approval was required. Again, fortunately, concerned Senators on both 
sides of the aisle said to the administration, ``No. No way. We're not 
going to do it.'' Thanks to Senators like Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden, Pete 
Domenici, Fritz Hollings, much of that misguided agenda was not passed, 
was defeated.
  Let me turn, Mr. President, to the actual Clinton administration 
record. There is, Mr. President, of course, a lot that the President of 
the United States can do without congressional approval. The President 
has a great deal of discretion. Let us look at what the new 
administration actually did without congressional approval. I think 
when we look at this we will find that on every front of the war on 
crime there was a monumental retreat.
  First, no new FBI agents were trained. No class. No FBI class.
  Second, the White House Office of Drug Policy was absolutely gutted, 
an 83 percent cut in staff.
  Next, the prosecution of gun criminals went down 20 percent. The 
prosecution in Federal court of those who use a gun in the commission 
of a felony went down 20 percent.
  Prosecution of drug criminals--drug criminals--went down 12.5 
percent.
  No new FBI agents trained, the White House drug office was gutted, 
gun prosecutions down 20 percent, drug prosecutions down 12.5 percent. 
That is what the President did by himself.
  Here is what else actually happened under the President's leadership.
  Federal spending on drug interdiction went down 14 percent. The 
Federal drug budget accounts that fund antismuggling efforts dropped by 
55 percent. In fact, the Clinton administration made a conscious 
decision to ignore the fact that drugs were coming into this country. 
They thought it would be enough to focus on the drugs once they were 
already in the country.
  But, Mr. President, we should make no mistake, spending less on 
interdiction does have consequences. It does make a difference. 
According to recent Federal law enforcement statistics, the disruption 
rate, the amount of drugs that are blocked from actually entering the 
country, dropped 53 percent between 1993 and early 1995. The projection 
is an additional 84 metric tons of marijuana and cocaine coming into 
the United States every year.

  What was the result of this cut? What was the result of this change 
in policy by the administration, change in emphasis?

[[Page S5921]]

  Since 1991, Coast Guard seizures of cocaine are down 45 percent. 
Coast Guard seizures of marijuana are down 90 percent. The Clinton 
administration, unfortunately, has ignored a fundamental fact: Spending 
money on the antidrug effort does make a difference. When we make the 
antidrug fight a national priority, drug use does drop. Between 1981 
and 1992 Federal spending on the drug war effort rose 700 percent. Over 
roughly the same period, drug use was cut in half.
  But, tragically, the opposite has happened under the Clinton 
administration. Drugs have gotten cheaper. They are more easily 
available and more pervasive in the lives of our young people. Between 
1993 and 1995, the retail price of a gram of cocaine fell during that 
2-year period from $172 to $137. Over roughly the same period, 
answering a survey, the number of 8th graders who think it is bad to 
even try crack once or twice dropped from 61 percent to 51 percent. And 
overall teenage drug use is up 55 percent.

  On measure after measure in the years 1993 and 1994, America's 
anticrime and antidrug effort lost ground. That was the Clinton 
administration's record of accomplishment. They faced a tough problem 
and had to make tough choices. The sad litany I have recited is the 
best they could do.
  Now, moving to the third item I want to talk about, in 1995 there was 
a major change in the landscape of Federal crime-fighting policy. The 
new Senate came under new leadership. Over the last 16 months under 
that new leadership, a dramatically different effort on the issue of 
crime has emerged. Since January 1995, the majority leader, Senator 
Dole, took over the helm of America's anticrime strategy. Here is 
America's new strategy for fighting crime: FBI agents, up 20 percent; 
DEA agents, up 15 percent; $800 million in new funding for Federal 
prosecutors; $3 billion in new funding for prisons; $1 billion in 
grants to States and local communities so they can fight crime at the 
grassroots level from neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood.
  Mr. President, that is a truly remarkable change. I do not believe it 
is just a coincidence. A pattern of differences as striking as this can 
lead to only one tenable conclusion. Only one major factor intervened 
between the dismal record of 1993 and 1994 and the truly remarkable 
resurgence in the Federal crime-fighting effort that has occurred over 
the last 16 months.
  That one factor, Mr. President, is the new management in the Senate 
and the House. I suggest Senator Bob Dole be given the credit he 
deserves for changing the culture of Washington in this very important 
way.
  Mr. President, politics has been defined as the art of the possible. 
The best definition of leadership I ever heard is this: ``Leadership is 
the art of changing the limits of what's possible.''
  Over the last 16 months, Mr. President, we have seen this happen in 
the fight against crime. I think it is time that Senator Dole got the 
recognition he deserves for a very, very impressive accomplishment. 
Further, Mr. President, I believe people should be paying more 
attention to actions and accomplishments than simply to election year 
conversions and all the rhetoric that they spawn.
  The former chairman of the House Committee on Narcotics, a Democrat, 
once said he had ``Never seen a President care less about drugs,'' 
referring to the President of the United States. The lackluster war on 
drugs is just one symptom of an overall abdication on the issue of 
crime itself.
  Mr. President, as we prepare to say goodbye to Majority Leader Dole, 
let me say I speak for many when I observe that we will miss his 
excellent leadership on this very vital and important issue. We owe him 
our thanks not for his words but, rather, for his actions.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________