[ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/federal/gop.crime-bill.15aug94] [Note: The full text of the Republican press release is available as: gopher://ftp.senate.gov/11/committee/repub-conf/releases /Why Republicans Opposed the Crime Bill - 8/15/94 and is included below after Dorr's summary. -- Jeff C.] __ Date: 15 Aug 1994 19:22:06 -0700 From: "Dorr Clark" Subject: Ten Reasons to Oppose the C To: "alert list" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. -Second Amendment, United States Constitution Ten Reasons to Oppose the Crime Bill The GOP has issued a press release today listing ten reasons to oppose the crime bill. It contains good ammunition for calling representatives. The original release is almost 400kbytes, so I have summarized it here. 1) THE "PRISON GRANTS" AREN'T GRANTS FOR PRISONS Of the $8.3-10.5 Billion which allegedly covers "prison grants", it is broken down into the following pieces: $1.8B for the incarceration of criminal aliens $6.5B for "comprehensive correction plans" which must include: "drug diversion programs [and] appropriate professional training for corrections officers in dealing with violent offenders, prisoner rehabilitation and treatment programs, prisoner work activities, and job skills programs." $2.2B of unfunded budgetary authority 2)TOUGH CRIME CONTROL MEASURES REJECTED OR WEAKENED BY THE CONFERENCE 16 provisions passed in the Senate bill were stripped out in committee. For example, these included: HIV testing of accused rapists (Hatch), and allowing prosecution of violent juveniles 13 years-of-age and older as adults in appropriate cases (Moseley-Braun). 3) WASTE & DUPLICATION IN THE CRIME BILL The bill includes "$9 billion in social welfare spending, all gratifying to the root-cause school of criminology, but excessive and duplicative of existing programs...for every police officer this bill funds, it also funds two new social workers..." 4) THE PORK IN THE CRIME BILL Some examples: $895 million for programs that "attempt to relieve conditions that encourage crime" and "provide meaningful and lasting alternatives to involvement in crime." $300 million for lines of credit to community development corporations $630 million for after-school, weekend, and summer programs in athletics, culture, education, and arts, and crafts. $270 million to "improve academic and social development by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and coordinates the efforts of teachers, administrators,social workers, guidance counselors" $125 million for programs to assist children who have "come into contact with gangs". $40 million for programs to improve "self-esteem" of youths aged 11 to 19 who are at risk of dropping out of school. $5 million to establish 50 "youth anticrime councils" $22 million for "gang resistance, education, and training." 5) THE CONFEREES WATERED DOWN THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS AMENDMENT The community notification provision was eliminated. Only LEOs and victims will be told of the presence of convicted sex offenders in their communities. The original amendment was accepted on a voice vote in the Senate and passed by a 407-13 margin in the House. 6) THREE NECESSARY REFORMS ARE ABSENT Provisions increasing the penalties for possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, discharging a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and an adult who uses a child in the commission of a drug felony were all stripped from the bill. Instead, a provision was inserted to put 10,000 convicted felons serving minimum mandatory sentences back on the streets. This last point is the preferred liberal method to create the prison space needed for 3-strikes convictions. 7) HOUSE MEMBERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO READ WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON The conference report on the crime bill was about one thousand typewritten pages long. Yet is was brought to the floor just hours after it was made public. Members of the House are guaranteed only two hours to review a conference report before voting on it. For the crime bill, the rule which was supported by the leadership attempted to waive even that requirement. 8) NOT 100,000 COPS, BUT ONLY 20,000 OR 2,000 "The crime bill calls for 100,000 new cops. But when you read the relevant titles, you discover that really means about 20,000 fully-funded positions. . . .it takes about ten police officers to put the equivalent of one police officer on the street around the clock. This is factoring in everything from sick leave and disabilities to vacations and three shifts a day and desk work, and so on. So that 20,000 funded position[s] becomes 2,000 around-the-clock cops...distributed over 200 jurisdictions for an average actual street enforcement strength increase of about 10 cops per city." -John J. DiIulio, Jr., a professor at Princeton University & a Democrat, 9) CLINTON REJECTS GOP COMPROMISE OFFER This House GOP compromise offer consisted of -- restore the new state prison funding to $13.5 billion -- restore the so-called Gekas provisions to strengthen the death penalty procedures -- restore the Dole-Molinari-Kyl provision on the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes in sex offenses -- remove the police hiring quotas -- remove $9 billion in social welfare spending This compromise was offered on 8/9. After the President was defeated he still refused to meet with GOP leaders. 10) WHAT HAPPENED TO VICTIMS' RIGHTS? The restitution provisions of the Victims' Rights Act still have not been enacted into law although they have passed the Senate three times. Each time, they have been dropped by the conference committee, including the current crime bill. -Dorr H. Clark This message is posted as a public service to assist an informed political process. The content of this message and the fact of its posting does not in any way reflect on my employer. dcp'91 __ [gopher://ftp.senate.gov/11/committee/repub-conf/releases/ Why Republicans Opposed the Crime Bill - 8/15/94] U.S. SENATE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE Senator Don Nickles, Chairman Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director ISSUE ALERT August 12, 1994 [This document is composed of 10 items which were published as separate documents and then mailed together as a packet. They have been combined into one document for ease of uploading to the Net.] === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #1 === THE "PRISON GRANTS" AREN'T GRANTS FOR PRISONS By Senator Orrin Hatch The conferees are likely to state that the conference report provides between $8.3 billion and $10.5 billion in prison grants. We should be prepared to set the record straight. The conferees claim to spend $8.3 billion on prisons. (An additional $2.2 billion in budget authority is provided outside of the trust fund, i.e., they do not even purport to fund it.) Yet, $1.8 billion of that $8.3 billion is given to the Attorney General to hand over to the states to alleviate the costs associated with the incarceration of criminal aliens. None of the $1.8 billion in alien incarceration grants has to be spent on prison construction. The remaining $6.5 billion in so-called prison spending is in the misleadingly rugged-sounding section entitled, "Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants." Not one dime of that money has to be spent on prison construction or operation. Rather, the money can be spent on programs, such as alternative confinement facilities and drug treatment, intended to free up existing prison space, not to build new prisons. None of the conference report's "prison" funding must be spent on prison construction or operation. Indeed, the conference report requires state recipients to implement a "comprehensive correctional plan" which must include "drug diversion programs [and] appropriate professional training for corrections officers in dealing with violent offenders, prisoner rehabilitation and treatment programs, prisoner work activities, and job skills programs." In effect, in order for the states to qualify for what the conferees like to call "prison grants," they have to spend much or all of their money on a costly, liberal "corrections" scheme. Ironically, the truth-in-sentencing provision that Republicans fought for was opposed by some as being too costly for the states. Yet, these same persons show little hesitation in requiring the states to implement the conferees' vision of appropriate correctional policy -- drug diversion, treatment, and job skills programs in order to qualify for the prison grants. To make matters worse, the conferees' bill conditions as much as 40 percent of the so-called prison grant funding on state implementation of truth-in-sentencing. Yet, state adoption of a determinate sentencing scheme under their proposal will only apply to second-time violent offenders. Furthermore, these grants are subject to the same condition described earlier -- the state must implement a liberal "corrections" scheme. So transparent is the conference report's artificial truth-in- sentencing scheme that it contains a reverter provision which requires that funds appropriated for truth-in-sentencing grants be spent within one year. If they are not, the money will be spent on other non-prison programs. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #2 === TOUGH CRIME CONTROL MEASURES REJECTED OR WEAKENED BY THE CONFERENCE By Senator Orrin Hatch During the conference on the crime bill, Senate Republicans offered numerous amendments in an effort to toughen the bill and eliminate its wasteful spending. I offered 19 amendments, most of which were taken from provisions contained in the Senate-passed crime bill. Of these, all but two were rejected by the conferees, and both of them were watered down. Let me list some of the tough, smart crime control measures offered during conference by Senate Republican conferees which were rejected or severely weakened by the conferees. Many of these were passed overwhelmingly by the Senate when we first considered this bill. Indeed, six of the provisions were the subject of motions to instruct in the Senate. Among the provisions not included in the conference report: >>> An effective, fully funded prison provision to provide $13 billion dollars in grants to the states for prison construction, including tough incentives for truth-in-sentencing -- REJECTED. >>> A fair formula for distributing prison grants, to insure each state gets its fair share -- REJECTED. >>> Tough federal penalties for violent juvenile gang offenses, the Dole-Hatch-Brown language -- REJECTED. >>> The Moseley-Braun provision to prosecute violent juveniles 13 years-of-age and older as adults in appropriate cases -- REJECTED. >>> Tough federal mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, the D'Amato provision -- REJECTED. >>> Mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to minors or employing minors in a drug crime, the Gramm provision -- REJECTED. >>> Fully restricting so-called "drug-court" treatment programs to non-violent, first-time offenders -- REJECTED. >>> HIV testing of accused rapists, the Hatch provision -- REJECTED. >>> Amending the rules of evidence to allow evidence of prior offenses of rape and child abuse in prosecutions for those offenses in appropriate cases, the Dole provision -- REJECTED. >>> Requiring mandatory restitution to victims of violent crime, the Nickles provision -- REJECTED. >>> Subjecting those convicted of attempting to kill the President to the death penalty when he or she comes close to succeeding -- REJECTED. >>> Ensuring the swift removal of alien terrorists without disclosing national security secrets in the deportation process, the Smith-Simpson provision -- REJECTED. >>> Ensuring that criminal aliens are swiftly deported after they have served their sentences, the Simpson provision -- REJECTED. >>> Stemming the tide of frivolous prisoner law suits through reform of the laws governing exhaustion of administrative remedies to prisoner grievances -- WEAKENED. >>> The Equal Justice Act, which would prohibit racial discrimination and the inappropriate use of statistics in death penalty cases -- REJECTED. >>> An honest, fully-funded trust fund that pays for the crime bill without increasing the deficit -- REJECTED. Republicans have decided that they cannot support a bill which diverts billions of dollars of crime fighting resources to special interest spending programs and which drops so many urgently needed crime fighting measures. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #3 === WASTE & DUPLICATION IN THE CRIME BILL By Congressman Hyde We are all baffled and angry at the dramatic increase in the crime rate. Lots of well-meaning people spend lots of effort and money searching for the root causes of crime. Some of these causes are uncontrollable, such as the age of our population and the number of young males. Crime also might be blamed on trends that could be changed in the long run, but certainly not in the short run, such as the loss of authority over the young by families, churches, schools, and communities. The conference report on the crime bill provides for more police and more prison space, but it does so at a disproportionate cost -- indeed, an irresponsible cost. The House and Senate conferees have sent us a $32 billion bill. Unfortunately, whatever good this legislation accomplishes is heavily offset by about $9 billion in social welfare spending, all gratifying to the root-cause school of criminology, but excessive and duplicative of existing programs. Some have said that for every police officer this bill funds, it also funds two new social workers. You can call it money to fight root causes, you can call it revenue sharing, or you can call it crime pork. No matter what you call it, we have been investing in social welfare programs since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Since 1965, we have spent almost $5 trillion dollars on the War on Poverty and urban aid, and we still cannot say which of these programs has proven effective in fighting crime. We do know that the situations that these programs were supposed to cure -- the poverty and the crime -- are worse, not better. The conferees have funded almost $9 billion in social spending in this bill under the heading of prevention programs. Not only do these programs duplicate existing programs already in operation, they double- and triple-fund the same programs which are in this bill for arts and crafts classes and self-esteem classes. These multi-million dollar grant programs are based on untried and untested notions that have very little to do with crime prevention. Society has not ignored crime-ridden inner cities. Government has showered these areas with programs and money, and too many of these programs are costly failures, yet the conferees give us more of the same. Take job training, for example. The conference report on the crime bill creates a new $900 million program, the Youth Employment Skills program ("YES") to "test the proposition that crime can be reduced in neighborhoods with high incidences of crime and poverty through a saturation jobs program." But, the Federal Government already funds 154 different jobs programs at a total cost this year of almost $25 billion. Lest you think that there may be 154 jobs programs but none targeted for at-risk populations of youth, let me inform you that today we have nine jobs programs specifically targeted at the economically disadvantaged at a cost this year of $2.66 billion and we have 16 jobs programs that specifically target youth at a cost of $4.5 billion. Six of these 16 programs were enacted in the last five years. So what is wrong with adding another program? What is wrong with adding program number 10 or number 17 or number 155? What is wrong is that everyone agrees we have got too many programs as it is, and this duplication has driven up costs and reduced quality. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review found that the Federal Government should, "consolidate training programs for unemployed people." In recent months the General Accounting Office (GAO) has repeatedly attacked the proliferation of jobs training programs. In testimony before the House Government Operations Committee, Clarence Crawford, Associate Director for Education and Employment Issues of the GAO's Health, Education, and Human Services Division, said, "The current fragmented system of employment and training programs is not meeting the needs of workers, employers, or administrators, and thus is not helping the United States meet the challenges of increased global competition." Crawford went on to say that the more than 150 programs providing employment training assistance have well-intended purposes but collectively they create confusion and frustration for their clients and administrators, the hamper the delivery of services tailored to the needs of those seeking assistance, and they create the potential for duplication of effort and unnecessary administrative costs. The National Commission for Employment Policy and Welfare Simplification and the Coordination Advisory Committee, both creatures of Congress, urge that Federal jobs programs stop proliferating. The Vice President, Congress's General Accounting Office, and Federal Commissions are urging streamlining and consolidation. Yet, the conferees on the crime bill, with the support of the President, want to create an entirely new $900 million jobs program. It's incredible. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #4 === THE PORK IN THE CRIME BILL By Congressman Hyde The conferees on the crime bill have sent us a bill that will cost some $32 billion. Let's take a look at some of the big-ticket items in the bill. The model intensive grant program will distribute $895 million. Under this program, the Attorney General may award grants to no more than 15 chronic high-intensive crime areas to develop model crime prevention programs that "attempt to relieve conditions that encourage crime" and "provide meaningful and lasting alternatives to involvement in crime." If they could do that, it would be well worth the money, but don't hold your breath. The conferees included the Community Economic Partnership, which will give $300 million to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for lines of credit to community development corporations to stimulate business and employment opportunities for low-income, unemployed, and underemployed individuals. This sounds remarkably like President Clinton's defeated fiscal stimulus program but, like Dracula at sunset, here it comes again. Money is scattered throughout the conference report without any thought of duplication, without regard to whether the program has been successful in the past or whether the taxpayer will really get any return on the spending. Here is a sampling of the "youth" programs in the bill: >>> The Community Youth Services and Supervision Grant Program Act provides $630 million for after-school, weekend, and summer programs in athletics, culture, education, and arts, and crafts. This program is supposed to provide children with positive activities and alternatives to the street life of crime and drugs. If this money could be differently allocated, some of these youngsters could go to Harvard. >>> The bill gives $270 million to the Family and Community Endeavor Schools program ("FACES"). Under this program, local entities chosen by the Education Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services are given money to "improve academic and social development by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and coordinates the efforts of teachers, administrators, social workers, guidance counselors, and so on." Grants also go to community-based organizations to supervise activities such as sports, arts and crafts, "social activities," and dance programs. >>> There is a $125 million for the Attorney General to make grants to assist children who have "come into contact with gangs," to "reach their full potential as contributing, law-abiding citizens." This program is supposed to give young people positive alternatives to gangs such as -- and here they are again -- "music, art, and drama activities, physical fitness training, life skills training, and mental health counseling." >>> There is an additional $40 million for a program known as "community youth academies." The Attorney General will make grants to organizations to provide residential services to youths aged 11 to 19 who are at risk of dropping out of school or coming in contact with the juvenile justice system to increase their self-esteem, assist them in making healthy and responsible choices, improve the academic performance of such youth, and provide them with vocational and life skills. I do not ridicule the objects of these programs. I am just awestruck at their proliferation, at the repetition, the over- lapping, the redundancy, and the billions of dollars that they cost. This explosion, this cornucopia of programs, all at high expense, is absurd. >>> The conference report contains $5 million to establish "youth anticrime councils" to give students a forum to work with community organizations, law enforcement officials, government, and media representatives, to address issues regarding youth and violence. In other words, to sit around the gym and talk about these things, somebody gets $5 million. The councils must be composed of not more than five students and meet at least once a month. >>> And, there is the GREAT Program. "GREAT" stands for "gang resistance, education, and training." This program will provide $22 million for at least 50 additional gang resistance, education, and training projects by the Secretary of the Treasury. This bill is a grab-bag of programs worthy of the wildest fantasies of the most imaginative social engineers. My point is not very complicated: Some of these programs may have merit; many may not; all are expensive. If we in Congress are to be responsible and accountable, we ought not spend $9 billion so casually. I would support some model programs and demonstration projects that are carefully chosen and carefully supervised. We all know that this Congress and this country do not have unlimited financial resources. We must carefully and critically choose programs that will have the greatest effect in protecting our citizens. This conference report is not something that we can proudly present to the American people. I would hope that we can take this bill back to the conference and get rid of its duplicative, redundant, overlapping programs and fund only those that we can agree have a real chance to work. As this bill now stands, it is not, as the President said, the toughest, smartest crime bill in history. It is a bloated, extraordinarily overpriced tradeoff to every faction in the Democratic Party. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #5 === THE CONFEREES WATERED DOWN THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS AMENDMENT By Senator Gorton When the crime bill passed the Senate last fall, it contained my amendment to encourage states to establish registration and tracking systems for violent sex offenders and, most importantly, to establish a means by which law enforcement authorities could communicate with law-abiding citizens about the presence of convicted sex offenders in their communities. That amendment, which was modeled after Washington State's successful community notification law, had been adopted without dissent. The amendment had the support of the Polly Klaas Foundation and the Families and Friends of Violent Crime Victims because it empowers families and individuals with the knowledge they need to take extra precautions against sexual predators. In addition to unanimous support in the Senate, and strong grassroots support, the House of Representatives, by vote of 407 to 13, instructed its conferees on the crime bill to accept my amendment. Despite such overwhelming support for a common-sense approach to crime prevention, the crime bill's conferees watered down my amendment and eliminated the community notification provision. The conference report allows information on sexual offenders to be provided only to law enforcement officials for investigative purposes . . . and to victims. Sadly, to be quite frank, more often than not the victims are no longer alive to be notified. The conferees just do not get it. Their kind of notification is meaningless. It would not have helped Megan Kanka, the 7-year-old from New Jersey who was brutally murdered recently by her neighbor, who was a repeat violent sex offender. And, the conference report's provisions would not have helped Polly Klaas of Petaluma, California, who was brutally killed last year by another repeat convicted sex offender. Families in these communities and the innocent victims had a right to know that dangerous sexual predators were in their midst. My amendment to the crime bill would have provided exactly that kind of notification, but the conference report on the crime bill will not. And that is the primary reason why this Senator is opposing the conference report. My amendment can save lives and prevent horrible crimes. Can the same be said for the provisions in the conference report? A crime bill should recognize the need to balance the constitutional rights of criminals with the desperate need to protect innocent, potential victims of sexually violent predators. Regrettably, the conference report leaves law-abiding and vulnerable families in the dark. A crime bill must recognize the difference between pretend crime prevention and essential measures that actually empower people to take the steps necessary to protect themselves from violent crime. A make-work program, a new swimming pool, or midnight basketball won't keep a sexually violent predator from striking again, and again, and again. My amendment would have made a difference, but it's not in this conference report. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #6 === THREE NECESSARY REFORMS by Phil Gramm In many ways, the crime issue is a litmus test of American democracy. The will of the American people is clear: They want an anti-crime bill with teeth. But in the past, key Democrats in the House, Senate, and White House succeeded in thwarting the public's will. I had hoped that this time around, finally, democracy would prevail. I was wrong. There are three areas where the crime bill produced by the House-Senate conference committee does not reflect the will of the American people: Guns, drugs, and mandatory minimum sentences. On the floor of the Senate I offered an amendment requiring 10 years in prison, without parole, for possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or drug felony; 20 years in prison, without parole, for discharging a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or drug felony; life imprisonment, without parole, for murder; and the death penalty in aggravated cases. Although a version of that amendment was adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate, when we went to conference with the House of Representatives, these sentences were dropped. For several years I have offered an amendment requiring 10 years in prison, without parole, for an adult who uses a child in the commission of a drug felony or who sells drugs to a minor. I believe the American people overwhelmingly support that provision. But although it, too, was adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate, it was dropped in the conference. I have been alarmed from the first day of the Clinton administration by the difference between the President's rhetoric on crime and the actions of his own Justice Department. The President, in his very first speech to a Joint Session of Congress, talked about getting tough on criminals. Yet the Attorney General and the Justice Department have spent every day he has been in office trying to overturn minimum mandatory sentencing for drug felons. The conference report reflects their views. It contains a provision that will allow criminals with previous drug convictions to be released from jail. According to some estimates, this provision could put 10,000 convicted drug felons serving minimum mandatory sentences back on our streets. So what began as a crime bill became, in the end, a bill to free felons. I will oppose it strenuously and work to pass a real crime bill that protects our people and makes our communities safer. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #9 === LET MEMBERS READ WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON -- AND LET'S VOTE TO FIGHT CRIME EFFECTIVELY By Congressman Donald Manzullo I'm a freshman Member of Congress. I was elected to help change the way things are done in Congress. One of the most frustrating things I find is how legislation is pushed through Congress without enough time to actually read the bill. For Members who actually want to read what they are voting on, Congress is a very frustrating place. The conference report on the crime bill was about one thousand typewritten pages long. Yet is was brought to the floor just hours after it was made public. Members of the House are guaranteed only two hours to review a conference report before voting on it. For the crime bill, the rule which was supported by the leadership attempted to waive even that requirement. The rules of the House of Representatives need to be changed. Now, what should Congress do about our epidemic of crime? In the past 30 years we have spent $5 trillion on social welfare spending while the crime rate has increased 300 percent. Spending on social programs isn't working, even as the federal government spends itself deeper and deeper into debt. There is a better way. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and I introduced a common sense approach to fighting crime. It is H.R. 4592, the Tax Rebate to Fight Crime Act. Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming introduced a similar measure in the Senate, S. 2229. H.R. 4592 is not one-thousand pages long. It is only five pages long, and it is based on the traditional American idea that fighting crime is primarily a local issue and that those best equipped to fight crime are states attorneys, county prosecutors, sheriffs, mayors, county administrators, governors, and other local and state officials. H.R. 4592 recognizes that Congress is not in a position to pre-empt the wisdom and practical knowledge of state and local officials. H.R. 4592 takes two percent of all individual federal income taxes paid from each state and rebates it back to the states. Under this proposal, the State of Illinois would receive somewhere between $500 and $600 million per year to fight crime with no strings attached. State and local governments would be empowered to act to fight crime as they see fit with no strings attached from Washington. Police officers will be acting against crime instead of filling out applications for federal grants. States could spend the money to pay and hire police officers on a permanent basis. They could increase salaries of those already on the force. They could use the money to build new prisons or expand existing ones. They could pay criminal court judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, as well as clerks, administrative officers, and probation officers. If they decide the money is not needed, they could do something almost unheard of: give it back to the taxpayers who earned it. H.R. 4592 would allow greater flexibility and much more local control. It would take the politics out of police funding. It would double the amount of money available to fight crime -- over a five year period, the bill would provide $55 billion nationwide to fight crime. It would also encourage taxpayers to take action to reduce crime. The bill allows a tax break for such things as buying a burglar alarm, joining with neighbors to hire a private security guard, or simply installing lights in the front yard. The great strength of H.R. 4592 is this: It would allow those closest to the problem of crime and most knowledgeable about what it takes to reduce it -- and not Congress -- to fight the problem swiftly and efficiently. Much of today's crime debate could be solved by a simple five page bill that Members could read and comprehend in a few minutes. Passage of those five pages would return the authority to fight crime to the state and local levels where it belongs in the first place. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #8 === NOT 100,000 COPS, BUT ONLY 20,000 OR 2,000 Senator Robert Dole The House has now defeated the rule on the conference report on the crime bill. I listened to President Clinton say what a sad day it was, and how badly he felt because 225 Members of the House of Representatives -- Democrats and Republicans -- chose a procedural route to indicate their displeasure with the crime bill conference report. The President indicated that the rule failed because of the National Rifle Association. I do not think that is the case. The crime bill that passed the Senate last year by vote of 95 to 4 was, for the most part, a good bill. But a strange thing happened in the conference committee, it got loaded up with a lot of pork, a lot of spending. There was not a minute of hearings on some of this spending that added up to billions and billions of dollars. That is what killed this bill. I put in the Congressional Record just a few days ago a statement by Mr. John J. DiIulio, Jr., a professor at Princeton University, a Democrat, someone who supported the Brady bill and the ban on assault weapons, and Professor DiIulio said that this conference report might create more crime. He also says that the conference report is not going to put 100,000 cops on the street. It will fund something like 20,000 cops for a few years, but only 2,000 will be on street at any time. Professor DiIulio said: "The crime bill calls for 100,000 new cops. But when you read the relevant titles, you discover that really means about 20,000 fully-funded positions. . . . "And if you are stouthearted enough to look at this bill in light of the relevant academic literature, you know that it takes about ten police officers to put the equivalent of one police officer on the street around the clock. This is factoring in everything from sick leave and disabilities to vacations and three shifts a day and desk work, and so on. So that 20,000 funded position[s] becomes 2,000 around-the-clock cops. And 2,000 around-the-clock cops gets distributed over 200 jurisdictions for an average actual street enforcement strength increase of about 10 cops per city." I commend Mr. DiIulio's statement to everyone, regardless of politics. He happens to be a Democrat, and what he said about the conference report was not very kind. # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #9 === HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERS OFFER TO HELP PASS AN ANTI-CRIME BILL [The Republican leaders in the House of Representatives sent the following letter to the President on August 9, 1994.] Dear Mr. President: Contrary to the assertions of some in your Administration, the crime conference report is not stalled because of the assault weapons provision, but instead due to the more than $9 billion in new social welfare spending. We are writing to offer our assistance in moving a real crime bill that will get more police on the street and more violent criminals in prison now. Mr. President, you have been quoted in the press as touting this bill as the largest crime bill in history. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. In a matter of days, or even hours, the law enforcement provisions of the crime bill could be beefed up and the social welfare spending dramatically trimmed down to produce a product that will crack down on violent crime, but not bust the budget. Specifically, we are willing to work with you and congressional Democrats to revise the crime bill in the following ways: -- restore the new state prison funding to the $13.5 billion passed by the House, allocated under the terms of the so-called Chapman formula currently in the bill, -- restore the so-called Gekas provisions passed by the House to strengthen the death penalty procedures, -- follow the overwhelming view of the House shown by its motion to instruct conferees and restore the Dole-Molinari-Kyl provision on the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes in sex offenses, -- remove the hiring quotas and other bureaucratic conditions on receiving grants to hire police, -- remove the more than $9 billion in social welfare spending and replace it with the Senate's full funding for the Byrne grant program to ensure that the money we spend in this bill is truly directed at crime prevention. Many Republicans have other concerns about this bill, but we believe that if you and congressional Democrats strengthen the crime bill along the lines suggested above, you would have overwhelming Republican support -- and overwhelming support in Congress as a whole -- for this truly tough, anti-crime legislation. Because we realize that there are some in your party who feel strongly about the new social spending provisions, Republicans would be willing to support a rule allowing for the consideration of a social welfare spending package as a separate bill after we have passed the consensus crime bill outlined above. That means Congress would have an opportunity to both pass a tough anti-crime bill that puts more police on the street and more violent criminals in prison, and consider a package of new social welfare spending. This approach would avoid the gridlock that has developed within your party as a result of the current strategy of tying these issues together in one bill assuming that Members will hold their nose and vote for anything that has police and prison funding. The American people are demanding action now on a tough anti- crime bill. We look forward to working with you to draft such a bill this week so that we can move immediately to consideration of a bill that commands overwhelming bipartisan support. Sincerely, [s]Robert H. Michel [s]Newt Gingrich Republican Leader Republican Whip [s]Dick Armey [s]Henry Hyde Conference Chairman Policy Committee Chairman [s]Bill McCollum Conference Vice Chairman # # # # # === WHY REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE CRIME BILL #10 === WHAT HAPPENED TO VICTIMS' RIGHTS? By Senator Don Nickles Last fall when the Senate passed its version of the crime bill, I lauded its provisions on victims' rights and mandatory restitution. Several years ago, I introduced the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, and many of the initiatives for victims' rights that were in that bill have now been enacted into law. For crimes tried in Federal court, victims now have the right to be notified of and involved in court proceedings, the right to be protected from the accused, the right to be treated fairly and with respect, and the right to be informed of the detention status of the convicted criminal. However, the restitution provisions of the Victims' Rights Act still have not been enacted into law although they have passed the Senate three times. Each time, they have been dropped by the conference. This year's conference was no exception. Passage of the restitution provisions would signal a great victory for all victims of crime. When these provisions become law, crime victims will enjoy rights at the Federal level that they already enjoy in many states. Under my proposal, crime victims will be entitled to receive full financial compensation directly from the criminal in the form of mandatory restitution. A restitution order would be a condition of any form of release for the offender. The restitution provisions of the Senate-passed crime bill also addressed the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hughey case, which addressed the problem of plea bargaining. If a defendant is charged with five crimes but pleads guilty to one, can he be required to provide restitution to the victims of the other four offenses? We addressed this question by allowing a court to consider the course of the defendant's criminal conduct, and we allowed the court to order restitution for crimes other than the offense of conviction. This is a sensitive area, but plea bargains should not rob victims of restitution they otherwise would be entitled to. The restitution provisions of the Senate-passed crime bill would have helped ensure that the criminal not only pays his debt to society, but also pays his debt to his victim. Unfortunately, the conference committee deleted the Senate-passed provisions from the final bill. Over the years, mandatory restitution provisions have received the endorsement of victims' rights organizations across the Nation, including the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Victims Center, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the National Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Mandatory restitution will not heal all of the wounds associated with a crime, but it will provide some compensation for persons who have been victimized. If Congress reconsiders the crime bill conference report, mandatory restitution provisions must be included. # # # END # # # .