Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153243
label
National Association of Attorneys General 3/11/91 [OA 6856]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153243
contentType
document
title
National Association of Attorneys General 3/11/91 [OA 6856]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13749-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153243
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
39b83b2c995520b4
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13749
Folder ID Number:
13749-001
Folder Title:
National Association of Attorneys General 3/11/91 [OA 6856]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
3
2
(McNally/Simon)
March 8, 1991
Draft Two (B:CRIME)
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW CRIME BILL
THE ROSE GARDEN
MONDAY, MAR. 11, 1991, 11:15 A.M.
Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, State Attorneys General,
other law enforcement officials and local community leaders: It
is an honor to welcome you to the White House.
Last week I went before the United States Congress, and the
American people, to salute a group of hometown heroes -- the
finest combat force this Nation has ever assembled -- the brave
men and women of the United States military!
We honored them with our cheers and with our prayers. And
come this summer, we'll honor their homecoming with the biggest
Fourth of July since the Liberty Bell first rang. But as I said
last week, the real way to honor them is to welcome them home to
an America that is worthy of their sacrifice -- by joining
together with Congress to move forward on the domestic front.
Last month we launched an innovative package designed to
ensure real opportunity for all Americans. Our veterans deserve
to come home to an America of improved schools, better jobs,
increased home ownership, and families that are healthy and
together. Our veterans deserve to come home to an America
without discrimination. And most of all, our veterans deserve to
come home to an America where it's safe to walk the streets. III
Economic opportunity is impossible for citizens who cannot
be safe and feel safe in their homes, schools, jobs and churches.
This is what I mean when I say our most basic civil right is --
2
quite simply -- the right to be free from fear.
Some of you may remember that, shortly after I took office,
we met with the 50 A.G.'s here in the Roosevelt Room. It was two
years ago, almost to the day. And I told you how, a few days
earlier, I had gone to New York to meet the family and friends of
Everett Hatcher, a brave D.E.A. agent who was gunned down in the
street. And they told me that it used to be unthinkable to shoot
a cop. But now the culture has changed -- and when the bad guys
hear the word "POLICE," they just turn around and start shooting.
Two months later, on that rainy day on Capitol Hill, we
launched a Crime Bill designed to help protect our cops by giving
them the tools they need to do their job. We proposed stiff new
penalties for criminals using semi-automatic weapons; an improved
exclusionary rule designed to protect the truth and punish the
guilty; and habeas corpus reform that would stop frivolous
appeals and ensure that punishment was both swift and certain.
Most of all, it would have provided constitutionally sound pro-
visions in federal cases that support a simple rule of justice:
Those who kill a cop must be prepared to pay with their own life.
And today, two years later, the Congress has still failed to
act on these critical core provisions. And today, two years
later, another 294 policemen and women are dead -- 294 -- almost
three times the number of precious American lives lost during the
entire Gulf War. The killing must stop. And it must stop now.\\
Today, it's time to stand up and be counted. It's time to
stand up for what's right. We stood by America's troops. Today
3
it's time to stand up for America's police!
Last week, many of you joined together with the Attorney
General and me in an unprecedented council of war -- America's
first Crime Summit. For three days you freely traded ideas,
insights, suggestions and support. When I visited you Tuesday
the mood was contagious -- powerful, confident, and most of all
-- driven by a sense of urgency. And so when it was over, we
wasted no time. I told the A.G. we wanted the Crime Bill ready
in final form before another week was out. And today, five days
later, I have it here in my hand. III Of course, we had a head
start -- the truth is, the vast majority of these core proposals
are basic, long-overdue reforms that you and I have fought for
for the better part of two years. Habeas corpus reform. A good-
faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Stiff new penalties
for firearms offenders. And a workable death penalty for
terrorists, serial killers, cop-killers and other heinous crimes.
These fundamental, badly-needed reforms have been argued
over for years. But the American people are not clamoring for
more debate. Today they're demanding action -- action to stop
violent crime -- action that translates to a straight up-or-down
vote on these core, common-sense proposals. As I said Wednesday
night: If our forces could win the ground war in 100 hours --
then surely the Congress can pass this legislation in 100 days.
Our core proposals have also been strengthened by some
potent new additions. We're calling for new laws to protect
women and children against violence and exploitation. New safe-
4
guards to ensure due process in every capital case. And most
important of all, tough new laws that will protect our people and
our police by helping prosecutors put away America's most violent
offenders. One of the most important of these provisions
recognizes that reducing firearms violence must mean exclusionary
rule reform. I am not a lawyer. But I put great stock in common
sense. And it never did make sense that, because a policeman has
blundered -- a dangerous criminal can just get off scot-free.
The Supreme Court has invited legislative experimentation
with alternative ways to punish the cop who blunders. And so
today I am announcing that we are accepting that invitation. Our
plan would authorize the A.G. to develop alternative, administra-
tive sanctions for any federal agent who improperly seizes a gun
in violation of the 4th Amendment. Once these protections were
in place, firearms in serious drug, violent and certain other
cases would always be admissible in federal court. Never again
would a federal jury be denied the most obvious, common-sense
opportunity in their pursuit of the truth in a firearms case --
the opportunity to actually see the weapons in question.
Our message to Congress is simple: The time to act is
now. The time to schedule hearings is now. The Attorney
General is ready to testify now. And most of the other
experts needed are probably here in the Rose Garden \\ now.
Looking out here today, I see a group of principled, all-
American heroes whose dedication at home matches that of our
brave men and women overseas. Heroes like Mississippi A.G. Mike
5
Moore, a Democrat, who stood with us here in the Rose Garden last
fall and described the terrible ordeal -- due to current habeas
rules -- in which victims and their families can never draw the
curtains on tragic murders and rapes. Heroes like Louisiana D.A.
Richard Ieyoub, also a Democrat, who called the efforts to gut
M
last year's crime bill a "major fraud on the American people"
this country T --
one that, for all practical purposes, would have shut down the
death penalty in the 37 states where it now exists. And heroes
like Dan Lungren, California's new A.G., whose miracle "end run"
in Congress in 1984 produced the most far-reaching criminal law
reforms in our Nation's history.
Mike and Richard -- we're on a hundred-day clock -- and we
hope you and your colleagues are ready to roll up your sleeves
again today. And Dan -- we're hoping you can lend your magic to
the cause once more. Because this week marks the anniversary of
the F.B.I.'s "10 Most Wanted" list. And I'm here to tell you
that this new crime bill is on America's "most wanted" list of
pressing national business. And as I said last fall: America's
prosecutors will not accept a phony crime bill that is tougher on
law enforcement than it is on criminals.
No more loopholes. No more rolls of the dice. I urge the
Congress to heed the voices of our people, our police, and our
prosecutors -- and help us take back the streets. III Together,
let's act on this crime bill now. \\\
Thank you. Good luck. And God bless the United States.
#
#
#
(McNally/Simon)
March 8, 1991
Draft Three (B:CRIME)
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW CRIME BILL
THE EAST ROOM
MONDAY, MAR. 11, 1991, 11:15 A.M.
Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, State Attorneys General,
Members of Congress, other law enforcement officials and commun-
ity leaders: It is an honor to welcome you to the White House.
Last week I went before the United States Congress, and the
American people, to salute a group of hometown heroes -- the
finest combat force this Nation has ever assembled -- the brave
men and women of the United States military! 1111
We honored them with our cheers and with our prayers. And
come this summer, we'll honor them again with the biggest Fourth
of July since the Liberty Bell first rang. But as I said last
week, the real way to honor them is to welcome them home to an
America that is worthy of their sacrifice -- by joining together
with Congress to move forward on the domestic front.
Last month we launched an innovative package designed to
ensure real opportunity for all Americans. Our veterans deserve
to come home to an America of improved schools, better jobs,
stronger laws against discrimination, increased home ownership,
and families that are healthy and together. And most of all, our
veterans deserve to come home to an America where it's safe to
walk the streets. III
Economic opportunity is impossible for citizens who cannot
be safe and feel safe in their homes, schools, jobs and churches.
This is what I mean when I say our most basic civil right is --
2
quite simply -- the right to be free from fear. III
Some of you may remember that, shortly after I took office,
we met with the 50 A.G.'s at the White House. It was two years
ago, almost to the day. And I told you how, a few days earlier,
I had gone to New York to meet the family and friends of Everett
Hatcher, a brave D.E.A. agent who was gunned down in the street.
And they told me that it used to be unthinkable to shoot a cop.
But now the culture has changed -- and when the bad guys hear the
word "POLICE," they just turn around and start shooting.
Two months later, on that rainy day on Capitol Hill, we
launched an effort to pass our crime legislation, legislation
designed to help protect our cops by giving them the tools they
need to do their job. We proposed stiff new penalties for
criminals using semi-automatic weapons; an improved exclusionary
rule designed to protect the truth and punish the guilty; and
habeas corpus reform that would stop frivolous appeals and ensure
that punishment was not only just, but also swift and certain.
Most of all, it would have finally given us a Federal law to
uphold a simple rule of justice: Those who kill must be prepared
to pay with their own life. 111
And today, two years later, the Congress has still failed to
act on these critical core provisions. And today, two years
later, another 294 policemen and women are dead -- 294 --- almost
three times the number of precious American lives lost during the
entire Gulf War. The killing must stop. And it must stop now.\\
Today, it's time to stand up and be counted. It's time to
3
stand up for what's right. We stood by America's troops. Today
it's time to stand up for America's police! III
Last week, many of you joined together with the Attorney
General and me in an unprecedented Crime Summit -- America's
first. For three days you freely traded ideas, insights, sugges-
tions and support. When I visited you Tuesday the mood was
contagious -- powerful, confident, and most of all -- driven by a
sense of urgency. And so when it was over, we wasted no time. I
told the A.G. we wanted the Crime Bill ready in final form before
another week was out. And today, five days later, I have it here
in my hand. III
of course, we had a head start -- the truth is, the vast
majority of these core proposals are identical to those we sent
to Congress two years ago. These fundamental, badly-needed
reforms have been argued over for years. But the American people
are not clamoring for more debate. Today they're demanding
action -- action to stop violent crime -- action that translates
to a straight up-or-down vote on these core, common-sense
proposals. As I said Wednesday night: If our forces could win
the ground war in 100 hours -- then surely the Congress can pass
this legislation in 100 days. III
Our core proposals have also been strengthened by some
potent new additions. These include new laws to protect women
and children against violence and abuse. And most important of
all, they include tough new laws that will protect our people and
our police by helping prosecutors put away America's most violent
4
offenders. One of the most important of these provisions
recognizes that reducing firearms violence must mean exclusionary
rule reform. I am not a lawyer. But I put great stock in common
sense. And it never did make sense that, because a policeman has
made a mistake -- a dangerous criminal can get off scot-free.
The Supreme Court has invited legislative experimentation
with direct action to prevent illegal searches and seizures. And
so today I am announcing that we are accepting that invitation
-- in conjunction with a serious gun control initiative. Our
plan would authorize the A.G. to develop alternative, administra-
tive sanctions for any federal agent who improperly seizes a gun
in violation of the 4th Amendment. Once these protections were
in place, firearms in serious drug, violent and certain other
cases would always be admissible in certain federal cases involv-
ing armed felons. It is simply intolerable that these armed
criminals should go free when good, solid evidence is available.
Our message is simple: The time to act is 11 now. The time
to schedule Congressional hearings is 11 now. The Attorney
General is ready to testify 11 now. And most of the other
experts needed are probably here in the East Room 11 now. III
Looking out here today, I see a group of principled, all-
American heroes whose dedication at home matches that of our
brave men and women overseas. Heroes like Mississippi A.G. Mike
Moore, who stood with us in the Rose Garden last fall and
described the terrible ordeal -- due to current habeas rules --
in which victims and their families can never draw the curtains
5
on tragic murders and rapes. Heroes like Louisiana D.A. Richard
Ieyoub, who called the efforts to gut last year's crime bill a
"major fraud on the American people" -- one that, for all
practical purposes, would have shut down the death penalty in the
37 states where it now exists. And heroes like Dan Lungren,
California's new A.G., whose miracle "end run" in Congress in
1984 produced some of the most far-reaching criminal law reforms
in our Nation's history.
Mike and Richard -- we're on a hundred-day clock -- and we
hope you and your colleagues are ready to roll up your sleeves
again today. And Dan -- we're hoping you can lend your magic to
the cause once more. Because this week marks the anniversary of
the F.B.I.'s "10 Most Wanted" list. And I'm here to tell you
that this new crime bill is on America's "most wanted" list of
pressing national business. And as I said last fall: America's
prosecutors will not accept a phony crime bill that is tougher on
law enforcement than it is on criminals.
No more loopholes. No more rolls of the dice. I urge the
Congress to heed the voices of our people, our police, and our
prosecutors -- and help us take back the streets. III Together,
let's act on this crime bill now. III
Thank you. Good luck. And God bless the United States.
#
#
#
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Memo
William P. Barr to Dick Thornburgh, re: Proposal to Replace
02/14/91
P
Exclusionary Rule for Firearms in Federal Court. (6 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Speech File, Backup
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
By N (NLGB) on 4/5/2005
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
National Assoc. of Attorneys General 3/11/91
Date Closed:
10/26/2004
OA/ID Number:
06856
FOIA/SYS Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2004-2265-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
MR Case #:
Appeal Case #:
MR Disposition:
Appeal Disposition:
Disposition Date:
Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advise between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
February 14, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dick Thornburgh
Attorney General
FROM:
William P. Barr
Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Proposals to Replace the Exclusionary Rule
for Firearms in Federal Court
As you know, the nucleus of our omnibus package will be the
same as that offered in the last Congress: a federal death
penalty, habeas corpus reform and expansion of the good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule. The Administration will
likely be in the position of again opposing a number of "gun
control" measures including the "Brady Bill" and a flat ban on
certain semi-automatic weapons. Given the increasing firearm
violence in the Nation's urban centers (19 cities set homicide
records in 1990) we have attempted to develop options for new
legislative responses in the area of firearm violence.
One such option would be to replace the exclusionary rule as
a mechanism for punishing Fourth Amendment violations where a
firearm has been seized. Under such a regime, firearms would
never be excluded from evidence in federal court. Our proposal
would authorize the Attorney General to promulgate alternative,
administrative sanctions for violation of the Fourth Amendment
where a firearm is improperly seized by any federal officer.
Once these protections were in place, firearms would always be
admissible in federal court, and the alternative sanctions would
be employed against federal law enforcement personnel who
violated the Fourth Amendment. 1 This memorandum is intended to
1 These sanctions could include monetary penalties assessed
against the budget of the enforcement component involved. This
liquidated sum could be disbursed directly to the victim of the
(continued
)
provide you with the arguments pro and con on the issue so that
you may decide whether or not such an initiative should be part
of our omnibus violent crime bill.
1) Arguments for Inclusion of the
Alternative Sanctions Proposal
First, the proposal will help focus the legislative debate
on violent offenders who misuse firearms and away from the
regulation of firearms themselves. Empirical data suggest that
the exclusionary rule does result in the release of significant
numbers of violent offenders whose reintroduction into the
community results in additional criminal violence. See National
Institute of Justice, The Effects of the Exclusionary Rule: A
Study in California, 2 (1982) ("To a substantial degree,
individuals released because of search and seizure problems were
those with serious criminal records who appeared to continue to
be involved in crime after their release. Practically
speaking, those who favor banning certain weapons or having a
waiting period for firearm purchases will find it extremely
difficult to object to a proposal that targets offenders who have
already been apprehended in illegal possession of a firearm.
Second, the proposal would open a new conceptual front on
the exclusionary rule issue. Since the good faith exception to
the exclusionary rule was recognized in United States V. Leon,
468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Department's efforts have centered on
legislative proposals that would extend that exception to
warrantless searches. While this effort is worthwhile, there are
compelling reasons why the good faith proposal should not be the
Department's only exclusionary rule initiative.
Because it is an exception to the underlying rule, the good
faith proposal entails acceptance and, in a sense, tacit
endorsement of the underlying proposition that the criminal
should go free because the constable has blundered. At bottom,
the Department's position should be that the exclusionary rule
1
(
continued)
unconstitutional search or seizure, giving the program both a
deterrent and compensatory aspect. The program could be
administered by an Attorney General-appointed Review Board within
the Department. The alternative sanctions proposal would be
limited to firearms and would apply only in federal court. If
successful, it could form the basis for future exclusionary rule
initiatives.
- 2 -
itself is inherently flawed as a mechanism to enforce the Fourth
Amendment. The alternative sanctions proposal allows the
Department to raise the numerous flaws in the exclusionary rule
in the most favorable context: violent criminals apprehended in
possession of firearms. 2
Third, the prospects for legislation extending the "good
faith" exception are very low. At the same time, there is a
strong possibility that the Supreme Court will take this step on
its own. Although it has passed one or both houses on several
occasions, the good faith proposal is strongly opposed by several
key Democrats (including Senator Biden) and is thus among the
first items dropped in any conference. On the judicial front,
two Circuits have already found that the rationale of Leon
extends to warrantless searches, and it appears very likely that
the Supreme Court will come to this conclusion when the issue is
presented to it. Thus, our only public response to the
exclusionary rule as an Administration is quite likely to become
a fait accompli outside of our legislative efforts.
In contrast, alternative sanctions by definition can only be
undertaken by legislation. The Supreme Court has explicitly held
that the exclusionary rule is not a personal constitutional
right, but rather a prophylactic device whose only purpose is to
deter unconstitutional law enforcement activity. See United
States V. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974). As such, judicial
creation of the rule was faute de mieux, and the Court has
indicated that the rule's vitality rests on "the absence of a
more efficacious sanction." See Franks V. Delaware, 438 U.S.
154, 171 (1978). Most significantly, in INS V. Mendoza-Lopez,
468 U.S. 1032 (1984), the Court refused to extend the
exclusionary rule to INS deportation proceedings based in large
part on the existence within INS of "a comprehensive scheme for
deterring Fourth Amendment violations by its officers." Id. at
1044. In sum, the Supreme Court has placed the ball in our
court, inviting legislative experimentation with alternative
sanctions.
2 In addition to the enormous costs that the exclusionary
rule imposes on society, it has two very obvious deficiencies in
enforcing the privacy values of the Fourth Amendment. First, it
does absolutely nothing to compensate those who most deserve
compensation -- victims of unconstitutional intrusions who are
themselves not guilty of any crime. Second, it does nothing to
deter police actions that are not motivated by the prospect of a
criminal conviction, such as simple harassment. The proposed
system of alternative sanctions is more effective in enforcing
the Fourth Amendment in both these cases than is the exclusionary
rule.
- 3 -
Finally, a strong argument can be made that the alternative
sanctions proposal in the firearms area has a greater chance of
legislative success than does the good faith exception. Sarah
Brady, the NRA, and the Fraternal Order of Police could all unite
behind the idea that guns should not be excluded from evidence in
criminal trials. The National District Attorneys Association and
the Police Executive Research Form have each endorsed
administrative sanctions as an alternative to the exclusionary
rule. In addition, Senators Biden and DeConcini both have
supported bills providing for alternative sanctions to the
exclusionary rule in the past. We also could expect the
alternative sanctions proposal to garner strong support from
other police groups, a development that may significantly enhance
prospects for our entire crime package.
2) Arguments Against Inclusion of an
Alternative Sanctions Proposal
Three possible concerns were raised about the alternative
sanctions proposal. First, it was feared that the proposal could
be demagogued by the media and the liberals in Congress with an
"assault on the bill of rights" type theme. They would assert
that the Administration was endorsing "bad faith" searches and
seizures by police. OPD felt there was some danger that during
the 200th anniversary of the bill of rights the Administration
would be perceived as "favoring repeal of the Fourth Amendment. "
OPD was also concerned that because the proposal could be viewed
as exposing innocent gun owners to "bad faith" searches it might
attract opposition from the NRA. Overall, our credibility on the
crime issue could be diminished if this proposal were effectively
cast as extreme.
Given the firearms context and public opinion on the
exclusionary rule, it seems very unlikely that the proposal could
be effectively denounced as a threat to civil liberties. The
Supreme Court itself has clearly delineated between the Fourth
Amendment and the exclusionary rule. The Court has made it clear
that the exclusion of evidence is not a personal constitutional
right. Moreover, Justice O'Connor's opinion in INS V. Lopez-
Mendoza provides strong judicial support for the alternative
sanctions approach. The consensus was that a system of credible
alternative sanctions could not be painted as an endorsement of
bad faith searches. This is particularly true with an initiative
limited to federal law enforcement personnel, who are better
trained and have a better track record in the Fourth Amendment
area than their state and local counterparts.
- 4 -
Nor is it very likely that the NRA will oppose the
alternative sanctions proposal. By definition, those who are
"harmed" by the proposal are those who have been apprehended
while in illegal possession of a firearm (the firearm will be
used against them in court). Alternative sanctions do not
encourage police to violate the Fourth Amendment and innocent gun
owners can only benefit from provisions that punish officers and
compensate innocent victims when a firearm is illegally seized.
If certain radical elements of the gun owners community oppose
the alternative sanctions proposal, that will only enhance our
position by placing the Department shoulder to shoulder with the
police and against the gun lobby.
Second, concern was expressed that the proposal would be
criticized as too narrow. Since most exclusionary rule cases
involve drugs, OPD was concerned that the firearm distinction
would be viewed as artificial. For example, under this proposal,
if firearms were seized next to drugs, laundered money, or other
contraband, only the firearms would be admitted if the search
violated the Fourth Amendment. This result would be perceived as
absurd, and thus it was argued that the proposal should either
extend to all evidence or to none at all.
A short answer to this hypothetical is that all of the
listed evidence would be excluded absent our proposal, and a
firearms conviction is better than none at all. In addition,
firearms have the most direct nexus to the death or serious
injury of innocent citizens and thus provide a logical place to
begin the alternative sanctions experiment. This criticism was
not seen as posing any serious threat to the success of the
alternative sanctions proposal.
Finally, OPD expressed concern that liberal elements in the
Congress (particularly Don Edwards in the House) might seize upon
the sanctions part of the proposal, not as an alternative, but in
addition to the exclusionary rule. We would then have no relief
from the exclusionary rule with additional burdens. While there
is no doubt that some in Congress would favor this outcome, OLA
felt that it was very unlikely that liberals in Congress would
"take the offensive" against police in this environment of public
opinion on violent crime. In addition, our strength on the floor
of both Houses on violent crime issues could undo any committee
mischief.
- 5 -
My office, the Criminal Division, the Office of Legislative
Affairs, and the Office of Liaison Services are persuaded that
the benefits far outweigh any possible costs, and thus support
inclusion of this proposal in the Administration's omnibus
violent crime control package. The Office of Policy Development
opposes inclusion of this initiative in the crime bill.
Options for the Attorney General
The alternative sanctions proposal should be included in the
Administration's crime bill.
The alternative sanctions proposal should not be included
in the Administration's crime bill.
CC: J. Michael Luttig
Robert S. Mueller, III
W. Lee Rawls
William Lucas
Thomas M. Boyd
- 6 -
audress
- 47 of so A.G.'s
- 17 are new
who championed
the cause on
- Dan Sungreen 1star of the fredum class)
Cap. Hill-
-Mike Moore (Miss. - D)
stool up in W.H. press room
- DAIS ala, NJ,, Penn, Da.
-7142
Department of
No had JUSTITIA soon STATE the than Summit sum I bill now. it
Not Justice one arqued for bearing they
No
AN ANTI-CRIME COALITION
inded A.G. Arine
/
FOR AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES"
well-
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
the
BY
notfor words
a
DICK THORNBURGH
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
TO THE OPENING ASSEMBLY
OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUMMIT
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES TO VIOLENT CRIME:
PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE NINETIES
igm
you. ready
information
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1991
9:15 A.M.
to of in and
here
Last week, our hearts lifted as joint military operations
won a great victory over violence and aggression in the Persian
Gulf. That victory -- a textbook example of military might
brought implacably to bear upon a ruthless enemy -- is remarkable
in two respects. First, it was achieved by a unified coalition
of the forces of twenty-seven nations, and second, it brought
renewed respect, worldwide -- as the President has said -- "for
the rule of law over the rule of the jungle."
I believe there are strong lessons here for us today -- even
goals -- as we embark upon this joint effort to respond to
violent crime in America. I fully trust that we can, by engaging
in this dialogue, fashion a similar coalition of forces -- at all
levels of our government -- to combat lawless violence here at
home. And I greatly hope that together -- by building this
coalition against crime -- we can preserve the rule of law to our
threatened neighborhoods and the communal life in this country.
Let it then be understood, we are here in the name of the
law and for the furtherance of justice. We are not here to
search for the roots of crime, or to discuss sociological theory.
The American people demand action to stop criminal violence
whatever its causes. The debate over the root causes of crime
will go on for decades, but the carnage in our own mean streets
must be halted now. Those streets where violent crime last year
claimed some 6 millon American citizens as victims, where the
- 2 -
odds of becoming a victim of violent crime are now greater than
becoming involved in an automobile accident.
Indeed, unless violent crime is checked -- and checked soon
-- we may well jeopardize what I have always called the first
civil right of every American -- the right to be free from fear
in our homes, on our streets, and in our communities.
President Bush has said that he always remembers this
freedom from fear as the last, but often forgotten, of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt's original Four Freedoms. And the
President rightly reminds us all: "When we ask what kind of
society the American people deserve -- what kind of society we
hope to pass on to our children -- it's clear that our goal must
be a nation in which law-abiding citizens are safe and feel
safe."
True enough that all of us here this week would hope for a
future that solves all the problems of inadequate housing,
substandard health care, marginal education, and a lack of
opportunity for meaningful employment -- those familiar causal
grounds for potential criminal enterprise. Last week, the
President proposed a comprehensive program to enhance opportunity
for all Americans, and raise just such chances of crime-free life
becoming the order of the day. But unless and until that day
comes, we who are involved in the criminal justice system will be
- 3 -
looked to for leadership in protecting our citizens from the
ravages of violent crime. Police, prosecutors, judges,
correctional officials, involved citizens -- all who are
represented here today -- must bend to the task of making our
system work better so that our citizens are safer, and know they
are safer. Only then will their quality of life match their
legitimate expectations in a country so blessed with freedom, so
rich in opportunity, and therefore, so dedicated to democracy.
I mentioned that this week's Summit is to be a dialogue.
There will be very few speeches. Most of what we can accomplish
will come from exchange, from what we learn from each other. And
that means police interacting with prosecutors, sheriffs with
judges, citizens with correctional officials -- federal, state
and local -- so that the whole outcome of our discussions -- our
coalition against crime -- will truly exceed the sum of your
valued and individual contributions.
I.
In that spirit, since we are here to learn from each other,
let me offer some observations. One is a caution, another is a
call to cooperative action, and a third, a call for innovation in
policing while sticking to the rule of law.
- 4 -
First let me caution you about money. There are some, who,
even in these days of tight budgets, see additional federal
financing as the only answer to more effective law enforcement.
Now, don't get me wrong. This Administration believes in
federal, state, and local law enforcement. Indeed, over the past
two years, while our federal crime-fighting budget has gone up 39
per cent, our formula grant program, now called the Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Program -- in honor of
the New York City policeman slain in the line of drug-fighting
duty -- has seen appropriations increase by over 200 per cent.
This is President Bush's major initiative, and it has allowed
each state's law enforcement cadres the flexibility and
discretion needed to confront the local virulence of drug-related
violent crime in all fifty states.
This fiscal round, expenditures for your innovative anti-
crime and anti-drug programs will rise to nearly a half billion
dollars. And additional funding will be forthcoming from our
asset forfeiture program which recycles the assets and profits of
the drug kingpins back into more effective law enforcement. Many
of the police forces here today have participated in the
equitable sharing of nearly half a billion dollars seized in
joint drug investigations over the past five years. And there
will be more to come, thanks to our mutual efforts to preserve
this program in Congress last year.
- 5 -
And I know that many cities and states have already
responded by reordering their priorities to provide more support
for effective law enforcement. It is heartening, for example,
that Mayor Dinkins and Police Commissioner Lee Brown are seeking
to add 5000 policemen to New York City, even in the face of a
fiscal crunch.
Let me move then to my second point, "working together."
Increased cooperation among all agencies of law enforcement --
federal, state, and local -- has consistently proven to be the
best answer to stopping violent crime.
It has succeeded with our Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Forces -- OCDEFT (for want of better acronym). These task
forces bring together eleven federal agencies with their state
and local counterparts to gather the street intelligence, make
the arrests, and then bring the prosecutions that finger the
major drug enterprises dominating the streets of thirteen major
metropolitan areas.
Working together has succeeded as well in our DEA-funded
state and local anti-drug task-forces -- now 52 in number. These
joint efforts often produce cases against violent drug
traffickers which can be developed at the local level and then
tried in the federal courts, where far stiffer penalties are
available. And finally, working together succeeds on a day-by-
- 6 -
day basis in a variety of ad hoc cooperative arrangements such as
the Philadelphia Violent Traffickers Project, about which you
will hear tomorrow, where innovative law enforcement leaders find
their own path to more effective and efficient use of existing
resources.
That is the call to cooperative crime-fighting I am issuing
today. We will look to you for insights, ideas, suggestions,
backing, and good faith, so that communal police work --
determined to take back our streets from violent criminals --
will have the full support of the whole justice community.
But we also want you to know that we have designed this
Summit to demonstrate some of the innovations in policing which
appear to be working around the nation. You will hear about a
community policing program in Charleston, South Carolina; another
community involvement effort in Kansas City, Missouri; a street-
gang program in Los Angeles; anti-organized-crime efforts in New
York and New Jersey; new and helpful laboratory technologies at
the FBI; and alternative sentencing programs in Wisconsin. These
deserve, indeed command, your close attention.
We also have an innovation of our own to offer -- largely
based on some of your past efforts -- an initiative by this
Department to set up violent crime task forces within several
- 7 -
urban communities, where the local infrastructure has been
blighted, and human capital bled dry by drugs and crime.
Phase one: a coordinated attack on drug-dealers, gangs, and
criminal predators -- to free the target area of crime -- by
combined federal, state, and local law enforcement, led by the
U.S. Attorney's Office in the target area. These task forces
will employ modern, anti-crime techniques such as clean sweeps,
street cameras, and top-gun arrests, all of which you can learn
about at this Summit.
Phase two: a coordinated redevelopment program in
conjunction with an augmented state and local police presence --
stade
to keep the target area free of crime. The idea is to strip the
streets of violent criminal elements so that legitimate
furn
enterprise can rehabilitate such barren ground. First, we pull
the weeds, then we plant the seeds. And we are allotting $12
million to the model task forces in these blighted urban areas --
along with accompanying federal grants -- in hopes of a real
harvest of human dignity. If we succeed, we will weed and seed
elsewhere -- anywhere that criminal violence can be plucked out
and human decency take root and grow.
- 8 -
II.
On another, perhaps more controversial subject, I realize
that any discussion about the armed career criminal is inevitably
going to turn to the question of what do we do about his
firearms? A panel discussion is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon
on "Targeting the Armed Violent Offender." But I have no doubt
this subject will come up during other discussions as well.
Various proposals to deal with this problem have been on the
agenda of the Congress and various state legislatures and city
and county councils. We won't resolve these political
differences here this week, to be sure, but let me offer a couple
of common sense observations.
I first think back to my days as a governor when we adopted
a statute that imposed a minimum mandatory five-year sentence --
no probation, no parole -- whenever a firearm was used to commit
a crime. We put out menacing billboards across the state: "You
commit a crime with a gun in Pennsylvania and you've shot five
years of your life!" That message was very potent, and so was
our courts' strict imposition of sentences. We saw the number of
firearm offenses go down. People didn't want to shoot five year
of their lives, and they knew they would be held accountable.
- 9 -
That is the key to me. Accountability under the rule of law
-- I'm sure you believe along with me -- is our only real
assurance of public safety. And that is what the President has
sought to guarantee by his support of federal firearms statutes
to hold violent criminals accountable for use, and even for
possession, of a firearm. For example, a first federal offense
today for using a firearm in the course of a violent crime or
drug-trafficking offense carries a minimum mandatory sentence of
five years -- no parole or probation, and, I might add, no plea
bargaining under orders I issued in 1989. A second conviction
carries a minimum twenty-year sentence.
Over the past two years, more than 2,500 such offenders have
been charged under this statute, and the vast majority -- some of
America's most dangerous felons -- have been convicted. Another
thousand such cases are pending. Some of the more habitual
offenders, whose sordid careers fall within sanctions under the
Armed Career Criminal Act, presently receive a minimum sentence
of fifteen years for merely possessing a firearm after three
violent crime or drug trafficking offenses, again no probation,
no parole, and no plea bargaining. Through Project Achilles,
over three hundred of these violent and armed criminals have
already been put very far away.
Under soon to be proposed legislation, accountability would
be further enhanced. Possession of a gun after only one such
- 10 -
conviction would bring a five-year mandatory sentence. This is
right in line with increased penalties that we are proposing
across the board with regard to the use -- or now the possession
-- of semi-automatics or other dangerous weaponry, in connection
with any crime. And these sanctions extend to smuggling
firearms, even to lying to a license bureau when acquiring a
firearm.
Some critics have complained that we're becoming too tough,
that we're locking up too many of these violent offenders. Not
me and, I think, not you.
We sincerely hope these tough federal laws can serve as
model statutes for state firearms codes. And we are encouraging
that by formula grants, so that the armed and violent criminal
will face severe sanctions at all levels of law enforcement.
But I am well aware that this is precisely where the debate
begins -- over whether, and at what level, further limits should
be set upon the availability of firearms to the general public.
How far should such limits go -- if they threaten to curtail
legitimate ownership of firearms? And should the states -- or
even, as some propose, the federal government -- impose them?
As I have said, we will not resolve those questions here
this week. But let me explain something that must be taken into
- 11 -
realistic consideration in this debate. Whatever efforts are
taken to deal more effectively with the illegal use of firearms
by felons will be severely inhibited by a serious shortcoming in
our present system. Today the records needed to make the
necessary match-up between a potential firearms purchaser and his
possible criminal past do not adequately exist. To put it
bluntly -- no matter what point of purchase or 48-hour delay or
seven-day waiting period you might establish, you couldn't come
up with the needed facts, on a consistent basis.
And that, I will say right here, is something I want
corrected. Today only one out of six felons actually purchases
his weapon at a sporting goods store instead of on the black
market. But turning up even his prior record would be hit-or-
miss because we are behind times in keeping modern, up-to-date
conviction files at our electronic fingertips. This simply
should not be, and we want to cooperate with you in doing
something about it. Immediately.
First, we are going to spend over $12 million this year,
seeing that the FBI criminal file backlogs are cleared up, so as
to include the very latest input from your own state criminal
records. And we want to make doubly sure that your records are
accurate too, so -- again through federal grants -- we are
allotting $27 million to state law enforcement agencies to
improve their own criminal records. These represent giant steps
- 12 -
forward in ensuring that we are in a position to track down those
who pose the very greatest threat to our communities.
III.
That is the present story on dangerous weapons in the hands
of violent criminals. But let me once again turn to the example
of Desert Storm, and the great might that was brought to bear
upon a threatening and violent enemy. Under brilliantly
coordinated "command and control," the Gulf coalition forces made
the best use of firepower guided by great ingenuity and
relentless certainty. We had the weapons to do the job --
not
wart
"smart" weapons that worked with deadly effect against an enemy
finally reduced to desperate encounter, ineffectual response and
forber
abject retreat.
smart
but
Here at home, in the fight against violent crime, we should
employ, to be sure, the same "command and control," the same
ingenuity and certainty. Only here we battle not with the weapon
of the military, but with the far stronger weapon of our laws.
We need to make certain that our laws are just as "smart" --
just as efficient and effective against criminals -- as those
weapons that turned back the ruthless and violent intrusion by
Saddam Hussein's forces.
- 13 -
In that regard, we have work still to do. We need new laws
to provide this coalition against crime with the tools to drive
crime from our streets with command and certainty.
*
We need a workable death penalty for terrorist murderers,
serial killers, and other heinous crimes.
*
We need reform of habeas corpus proceedings that have
fostered seven-to-eight year stays of the ultimate sanction,
and all but nullified the death penalty in 36 states.
*
We need reform of the exclusionary rule that keeps
necessary and probative evidence from juries, often allowing
the criminal to go free.
*
We need new laws to protect women and children against
violence and exploitation.
In a word, we need the legal weapons for the next decade to
get the job done. And we are going to go to the Congress again
so that they can deliver these weapons and others to all of us.
Let us not be misunderstood in this justified effort at
legal reform. This year marks our observance of the 200th
anniversary of the Bill of Rights, that bulwark of due process
and the rule of law in our society. No one suggests that our law
- 14 -
enforcement efforts should in any way invade or invalidate the
Constitutional rights of those charged with crime. But we do
suggest that we advocate and utilize every Constitutional weapon
to protect the rights of the law-abiding citizen as well.
IV.
In conclusion, let me return to my central message. We are
here to fashion a domestic coalition against crime based on the
rule of law, so that we will have the full forces needed to
confront violent crime in our communities. We have a rare
opportunity over the next two days to exchange views on "what
works" in the criminal justice process -- the old and the new,
the tried and the true, the innovative and the time-tested. Let
us not fail to take full advantage of this unique chance to fine-
tune our efforts.
I speak as one who has seen how law enforcement operates
over the last twenty-two years as a working prosecutor at the
local level, as the governor of a major state, and now as
Attorney General of the United States. I feel strongly about the
need for close cooperation in protecting our citizens. In my
visits to many of you around this great nation, I have sensed the
special commitment and dedication which you bring to your work --
and the deep gratitude our citizens feel for your professionalism
in securing their safety and well-being.
- 15 -
Let us strive to see that each of us leaves this Summit
Conference satisfied that we have given and partaken of the very
best that this nation has to offer in law enforcement and the
administration of justice. For that, our citizens will be
eternally grateful, and we ourselves, eternally fulfilled.
Let me expand on this by an example. Last Friday in The
Philadelphia Inquirer appeared the following:
When federal agents arrested Ruben Floyd Wednesday
night at his North Philadelphia home for allegedly
supplying an arsenal of weapons to drug dealers,
neighbors showed exactly how they felt about it.
They applauded.
And so do we. For this is what it's all about.
I wish you Godspeed in our endeavors, now and hereafter.
The almanac of Dates
Spring wildfowl shooting and the sale of wild
1871
Philadelphia got a paid fire department
1913
game birds outlawed in the U.S.
1875
Archbishop John McClosky made first American
1915
German cruiser Dresden blown up by its crew
Cardinal
1919
Max Shulman, author, born
1898
Sir Henry Bessemer, steel-making inventor, died
Hank Ketcham, creator of "Dennis the Menace,"
1909
Edward P. Weston, aged 71, left New York to walk
1920
to San Francisco
born
1927
Jan Tschakste, first President of Latvia, died
1915
David Schoenbrun, news correspondent, born
1932
George Eastman, founder of Kodak Camera
1916
Harry James, bandleader, born
Company, died
General Pershing entered Mexico
Republic of Czechoslovakia dissolved
1917
End of a four-day revolt by Russia's armed
1939
Hungarian troops seized Carpatho-Ukraine, USSR
forces when Czar Nicholas II
FBI's "10 most wanted" list begun
abdicated
3/14
1950
Prince Albert Alexander Louis Pierre, heir to
1919
American Legion organized in Paris
1958
1942
Monaco, born
Rachel Field, author, died
1960
Bakersfield, California, train wreck
1943
Empress of Canada torpedoed off Freetown, West
Cosmos 206, Russian satellite, launched
Africa
1968
End of the Water Drawing Festival at Todaiji,
1970
Expo '70 opened at Osaka, Japan
1971
Japan
March 16th
March 15th
Start of a 3-day fair at Preston, Lancashire,
Ides of March
England
Turkey buzzards return to Hinkley, Ohio
Feast of St. Julian of Antioch
Ancient Romans sacrificed a 6-year-old bull to
Feast of St. Paul the Simple
Cybele
Feast of the Martyrs of North America (Jesuit
45
BC Pompey camped at Munda, Spain
missionaries killed by the
44
Julius Caesar was assassinated
Indians)
Odoacer the Barbarian, King of Italy, slain by
45 BC
Caesar arrived at Munda, Spain
493 AD
Theodoric the Osgoth
1021 AD
St. Heribert of Cologne died (Feast Day)
King Henry V of Germany defeated the Magyars
1285
King Alexander III of Scotland died after a
933
1147
Alphonso I, King of Portugal, stormed the
fall from his horse
Moorish fortress of Santarem
1452
Frederick IV, King of Germany, married Leonora
1493
Columbus returned to Spain from Hispaniola
of Portugal
Magellan sighted the Philippine Islands
1494
Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, married Bianca
1521
Charles IX crowned King of Sweden
Sforza
1607
1660
England's "Long Parliament" ended
1561
Portuguese Jesuit missionaries in East Africa
St. Louise de Marillac, founder of the Sisters
killed
of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul,
1713
Asiento Treaty signed, a slave trade agreement
died (Feast Day)
among Britain, France, and Spain
Andrew Jackson, U.S. President, born
1739
George Clymer, signer of the Declaration of
1767
Independence, born
1781
British victory at Guilford Courthouse,
1751
North Carolina
James Madison, 4th U.S. President, born
1778
1798
Oneida County, New York, founded
New York State coat of arms adopted
1792
King Gustavus III of Sweden shot at a
1820
Maine became a state
St. Clement Hofbauer died (Feast Day)
masquerade
New York Institute for the Blind, first in the
1802
U.S. Military Academy founded at West Point
1832
U.S., opened with three pupils
1833
Parley's Magazine, a children's illustrated,
Gold discovery first announced in a California
founded
1848
newspaper, San Francisco's
1889
Two U.S. and two German warships wrecked by a
Californian
typhoon in the Samoan Islands
Liberty Hyde Bailey, horticulturalist-author,
1898
Aubrey Beardsley, illustrator, died
1858
1903
Senator Mike Mansfield born
born
1906
Florence, Colorado, train wreck
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
2
4TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 The Times Mirror Company;
Los Angeles Times
September 13, 1990, Thursday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 14; Column 1; National Desk
LENGTH: 612 words
HEADLINE: BUSH ATTACKS CRIME BILL, SAYS IT 'HANDCUFFS POLICE'
BYLINE: By ROBERT L. JACKSON, TIMES STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
President Bush attacked a House-sponsored crime bill Wednesday, telling a
group of 110 state and local prosecutors assembled at the White House that it is
a "pro-criminal" measure that "handcuffs the police."
In the Rose Garden with Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh at his side, Bush was
backed by leaders of the National Assn. of Attorneys General and the National
District Attorneys Assn., whose members enthusiastically applauded his remarks.
The crime bill, approved by the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to be
debated on the House floor later this week.
Bush said the bill would expand the exclusionary rule, under which evidence
seized without a court warrant may be barred from a criminal trial. He said the
measure would also increase "litigation abuse" by prisoners, delaying the
imposition of capital punishment in many instances by allowing Death Row inmates
to make repeated habeas corpus appeals.
"We need a crime bill that will stop the endless abuse of habeas corpus
and one that ensures that evidence gathered by good cops acting in good faith
isn't barred by technicalities that let bad people go free," the President
declared.
"And, for the most unspeakable of crimes, we do need a workable death
penalty, which is to say a real death penalty."
In threatening to veto the House measure if it reaches his desk, Bush added:
"I will not sign a crime bill that handcuffs the police."
Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), chief sponsor of the House bill, defended the
legislation as "a tough and effective package
that
was
the
product
of
30
days of hearings." He called on the White House to "refrain from political
posturing so that we can proceed in a bipartisan manner" to enact anti-crime
legislation.
Thornburgh told reporters that the House bill "is largely a specious anti-law
enforcement measure" that was approved by "naive and overly idealistic" members
of the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Brooks.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
3
(c) 1990 Los Angeles Times, September 13, 1990
He said the bill Omits the death penalty for a number OF Federal Crimes
currently subject to capital punishment, including mail bombings and airplane
bombings resulting in death.
A separate crime bill approved by the Senate in July would be "acceptable,"
Thornburgh said, although it contains some features, including its estimated
cost, that are not to the Bush Administration's liking. Any House-passed measure
must be reconciled with the Senate legislation before it can be sent to Bush For
his signature.
Michael Moore, attorney general of Mississippi and chairman of the national
association's criminal law committee, joined Bush in criticizing the House
measure. "I don't think you're going to find a single prosecutor in this country
who is going to support the habeas corpus provisions in the House bill," he
111
said.
Moore said the President was "speaking for every one of us" when he attacked
provisions that would allow Death Row inmates in state prisons to initiate a
series of habeas corpus proceedings that could delay imposition of punishment
FOR years.
"I suspect the House committee was Meavily 1888128 by defense attorneys, ME
said.
Moore, a Democrat, said at MORE preferable plan that would limit habeas corpus
suits was developed by at. legal COMMISSION headed by retired Supreme Court
Justice Lewis F. Powell JF.
Richard Ieyoub of Lake Charles, La., a Democrat who 15 president of the
district attorneys' group, said the House bill "would perpetrate a major fraud
Gn this country
at a time when people are calling out for stronger
criminal sanctions."
"The House bill would effectively prevent imposition of the death penalty in
37 states which now have capital punishment," leyoub told reporters.
SUBJECT: BUSH, GEORGE, LEGISLATION -- UNITED STATES, CRIME -- UNITED STATES;
EVIDENCE; EXCLUSIONARY RULE; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ---- UNITED STATES, POLICE --
UNITED STATES
LEXIS® ® NEXIS® ® LEXIS® ® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
4
6TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation;
Federal News Service
SEPTEMBER 12, 1990, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: NEWS MAKERS & POLICY MAKERS
half mill
LENGTH: 4624 words
from here,
HEADLINE: CB
PRESS BRIEFING
CRIME BILL CURRENTLY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PARTICIPANTS:
construction crown hard at or
RICHARD THORNBURGH, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
MIKE MOORE, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
RICHARD IEYOUB, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
work.
THE WHITE HOUSE
KEYWORD:
(before another
THORNBURGH ET AL-09/12/90
name to thourd
BODY:
ALIXE GLEN (White House Deputy Press Secretary): i just want to introduce the
Attorney General. HE is joined by Attorney General Mike Moore of Mississippi,
law on the book)
the chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the National Association of
Attorneys General, and Richard Ieyoub of Lake Charles, Louisiana, president of
the National District Attorneys Association.
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Thanks, Alixe.
Today, representatives OF hearly 8,000 Federal, state, and local prosecutors met
in Washington to examine and evaluate the provisions of the Crime Bill reported
out of the House Judiciary Committee, and WE have heard from the President this
afternoon in the Rose Garden with respect to the provisions that the originally
proposed over a year ago. And examination of the President's original proposal
ES compared with the bill now presently working its way toward the floor of the
House of Representatives provides a stark contrast between a bill that is
pro-law enforcement and a bill that is pro-criminal.
your
On a bipartisan basis, the assembled prosecutors MEFE today expressed their
concern about this legislation, and questions that involve the labeling OF a
bill as an anti-crime bill when it would make it MOTE difficult to impose a
federal death penalty, when it would eliminate from the federal death penalty
crimes such as the mail bombings that took the life of the civil rights lawyer
in Savannah earlier this year and such as the Pan Am 103 plane bombing, or a
bill that would make it more difficult to impose the death penalty in the 37
states that have adopted chemical -- capital punishment -- in effect virtually
wipe out the death penalty in those states and a bill that would entertain
the notion of some kind of bizarre system of racial or ethnic quotas when it
comes to applying capital punishment.
Finally, I think we're most concerned, at all levels of government, with the
provisions in the House bill that would delay and postpone the finality of
sentences imposed on convicted criminals. Last year there WETE 11,000 cases in
the federal courts involving post-conviction Felief being sought by convicted
state criminal defendants. So in each case, we are concerned that the bill
labeled a crime bill that's coming out of the House Judiciary Committee falls
way short and 10 Fact 15 contrary to the proposals that the President originally
made OVER a year ago.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
us?
(d) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
We are here to express our support OF the President's proposals and to reason
with the members in the hope that the amendment process which will ensue in
consideration of this bill will restore many of the provisions that the
President originally proposed.
I'd like to offer the opportunity my colleagues from the state, Mike Moore of
the National Association OF Attorneys General, and Richard Ieyoub of the Natinal
District Attorneys Association, to extend their comments, and then we'd be
pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Mike?
MR. MOORE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
It is usual that the federal government comes to your state and says, "WE'TE the
Federal government, we're here to help you. Well, Mr. Attorney General, as I
All
said earlier, we're the states of the United States of America, and WE'TE here
to HELP you, OR this particular occasion.
I don't think you're going to find a single prosecutor that supports the habeas
corpus provisions 1A the House bill as it stands right MOW. Prosecutors in this
country have worked VETY hard to do a couple of things. One of those things is
to make the criminal justice system work for everyone -- for the victims of
crime, for the prosecutors, for the law enforcement -- to make it a little
faster. WE think the intent of the bill before Congress was to do just that.
We think it failed. WE think it's a bill that is pro-criminal and is not an
anti-crime package.
Perpetual relitigation in the federal courts OF constitutional issues handled in
state criminal trials is in nobody's best interest. Perhaps Even more
importantly, victims and their families are never able to draw the curtains on
the tragic events that occur to them, such as in a death penalty case or in a
terrible rape or armed robbery. The legislation would make the perpetrators of
violent crime, not the victims OF their Families, the beneficiaries of an act of
Congress.
For the last several years, defense lawyers have been losing ground in the
United States Supreme Court in their efforts to delay final judgments. The
habeas corpus provision is an effort to regain the ground they have lost by
overruling the decisions favorable to the people of the United States. And
these efforts, if they're exposed in the light of day, as they are today, the
lack OF popular support for such efforts would become very obvious. That's why
you Find the National District Attorneys Association, the attorneys general of
this country, coming together with the federal government against this
legislation. That's why we're here today.
Thank you.
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: Richard.
MR. IEYOUB: Mr. Attorney General, the National District Attorneys Association,
which represents OVER 7,000 elected and appointed prosecutors across the country
strongly support the President and the Attorney General in their efforts to
defeat this legislation and to foster legislation which is, in fact, anti-crime.
If certain provisions of this bill are passed, provisions which WETE mentioned
by the Attorney General, I believe it would be tantamount to creating or
perpetrating a major fraud on the American people. At in time when this country
15 plagued with drug-related orime and gang walfare and the people OF America
are crying out for stronger criminal sanctions, these provisions, which at best
can be characterized as pro-criminal, will dramatically increase the opportunity
for delay, abuse, and repetitive litigation in both capital cases and cases that
are not capital. And for all practical purposes, it would prevent the
imposition of the death penalty in the 37 states which now have death penalty
statutes.
This ts anything but an anti-crime piece of legislation. It is pro-criminal.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® ® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
Rod
fack
PAGE
6
hand,
they
(c) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
And for the Congress, under the guise of reform, to try to pass this legislation
one
is ai sham.
The district attorneys around this country realize that IF this type OF
legislation is passed, it's going to be very difficult For us to do the jobs
that WE'FE supposed to do to protect the public and to see that the law is
enforced and protected. So, WE are in strong opposition to this legislation,
and we hope the American people will be informed that it is not in fact, as it
has been billed, an anti-crime bill, an anti-crime piece OF legislation, but in
fact, it can be termed id pro-criminal piece of legislation.
Thank you VETY much.
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: Mr. leyoub promises not to beat about the bush the next
time the's here. (Laughter.)
We'll be glad, I think - any of us -- to take questions. Yes?
Q Could 1 ask you a question, not relating to the substance -- (inaudible) -
but a political question. I know you'd like for Congress to always deal with
the substance, but it's a political world out there.
Given the President's current high popularity standing, particularly 1A the wake
of the Gulf crisis, does this give you more hope, and do you believe that this
can translate into some support FOR his stand On this? I'd ask you, General
Thornburgh, and the out of town guests, as well.
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: 1 think this legislation's appeal in the form that it was
originally proposed by the President stands OR its OWN. But I think there is al
connection between dealing with international lawlessness and dealing with
lawlessness here at home. The same kind of resolve and determination and
commitment that the President has evidenced in dealing with maked aggression in
the Persian Gulf 1 think characterizes his determination to "take back the
streets" as he said earlier today. And my expectation is that that will give an
extra boost to this legislation in the Form that he originally proposed it.
& Could I ask your colleagues?
MR. MOORE: I think you're - you're talking to two Democrats. I'm in Democrat
from Mississippi and Richard is a Democrat from Louisiana, and I think the
Attorney General is a Republican. I'm not sure about that -- (laughter) -- but
they tell me that.
1 think what's happening now is you're seeing the state and local folks come
together with the federal folks to fight this crime package, because it's not
good for the people of Mississippi. 1 don't think it can be characterized
political in any manner whatsoever. When 1 said earlier that you can go across
this country and talk to the city prosecutors, county prosecutors, DAS,
attorneys general all the way across the board, and ask them if they are in
support of this piece OF legislation, they're going to tell you in resounding
"no". The chiefs of police association and the police officers all over this
country are against this piece of legislation because what it does, it wears the
people OF Mississippi and America out Financially, and waiting on these cases to
be over with. There's no finality whatsoever. WE have death penalty cases now
that last 10, 12 years. If this litigation passes I think we'll add another
five or six years on that. We can't afford to do it, and 1 don't think it's the
right thing to do. People in America are fed up.
& But even (as?) a Democrat, would you hope that on this time the Republican
President's popularity could win debate on this issue with Congress?
MR. MOORE: I commend the President -- Republican, Democrat, whatever he is. HE
stood in the Rose Garden and said some things to the law enforcement community
of this country. And IF you were there you heard the applause. We stand solid
behind the President of the United States, and WE also commend this Attorney
General, who has done in the last year and a half in lot of things to bring the
nation's prosecutors and attorneys general together on behalf of the people OF
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
7
(c) 1998 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
this country and I think it's great.
MR. IEYOUB: I think that partisanship has nothing to do with this at this point.
The President of the United States has proven that he is a strong law
enforcement President. And as such, WE, as district attorneys, certainly
support him and support the Attorney General. They have been very receptive to
us. They have invited us to certain meetings regarding legislation to be
passed. They have accepted our input and want to hear from us.
We Feel like WE have real friends in the White House, with the President's
administration and with the Attorney General at Justice. WE have worked very
closely with them, and obviously WE support them because WE think that they have
us in mind, that what's best for us 15 what they want.
And the President was brilliant today in his speech in the Rose Garden. HE
covered every issue that is really concerning prosecutors -- the ability to
overcome these technicalities which allow good people to suffer and allow bad
people to go free --- the exclusionary rule, for instance. The President has
tried to propose legislation which would expand the good faith exception to
warrantless searches. That's the type of thing that WE, as prosecutors and law
enforcement officers, want to see. And WE think that WE can gain that IF WE
support the President and the admimistration. And WE're here 1A Force to talk
to our congressment to try to get this legislation defeated and get better
legislation passed.
G Some have complained that the President has spent so much time on foreign
affairs issues, relations with the Soviets, the Persian Gulf crisis, that the has
ignored domestic items, such as the crime package, and that it's taken trim too
long to bring it to its finality, to a resolution. From all three of you, do
you think it's taken too long to get this package in its final shape?
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: Let me speak for my client, first of all, I think today's
interest expressed by the President is not an isolated event. He was in on the
formulation of the original package, which he presented in the rain (?) over a
year ago. He was involved in the passage of an acceptable bill from the Senate,
just as he has now taken arms to oppose an acceptable bill that's on its way to
the House floor.
And I don't think, from my point of view, as a pointman on these kinds of
efforts, that there's been any diminution of effort or any neglect of this
particular domestic need, which he has consistently identified as the number one
problem OR the domestic agenda.
Q Why has it taken 50 long to to bring it to this point?
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: I think you'd have to ask those people who control the
Senate and the House. If the President had his way, it would have been passed
long ago. But, it has taken a good deal of time to bring it to the Floor, and
now, unfortunately, it comes to the Floor OF the House 1A an unacceptable FORM.
Q Could you let the gentlemen answer the question? DO you think that the
President has ignored domestic items like this? Do you have any complaints about
the speed with which the has pursued this?
MR. IEYOUB: on the contrary, I think the President has been great in his efforts
to SEE that a crime package which is reasonable would be passed. He sent his
package to Congress and they hacked it up and have produced this aberration that
WE see right now that's obviously pro-crime.
We think that the President 15 doing everything he can to help the prosecutors
and law enforcement agents across the nation. And WE know he's sensitive after
what he said in the Rose Garden and as a result of what WE have seen. He is
extremely sensitive to Our needs and desires and he certainly wants to have id
crime bill passed which will help us, as he stated, "take the streets back."
MR. MOORE: In Mississippi WE say "the proof's in the pudding."
@ No complaints?
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
8
(c) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
MR. MOORE: (Laughs. Really don't have many complaints. I would like to maybe
SEE some things MOVE along a little faster, but the people who are actually out
doing the day-to-day work, William Bennett, Dick Thornburgh, and others, Bill
Sessions, they have -- in may opinion, in the last year and a half -- done an
excellent job. 1 think WE'FE doing better now than WE are - than WE WETE a
year ago on the drug problem in America, and that 15 the cause of, as you know,
of about 80 percent of the crime in this country, 50 I give him an A+.
Yes?
Q To the two prosecutors, does the National District Attorneys Association agree
with most police associations in this country that there's a need For tougher
gun control? And have you brought this topic up to the President, specifically
such as the Brady plan?
MR. IEYOUB: The National District Attorneys Association, at one of its national
conferences, did pass a resolution in support of certain types of gun control,
especially 1A controlling automatic weapons, certain part -- certain types of
automatic weapons.
Q (OFF mike.)
MR. IEYOUB: WELL, just generally in some sort of control. I can't - I'm not -
WE didn't get specific about it, but WE have that resolution and can supply you
with the resolution. But, especially as to automatic weapons, WE did come out
in opposition to not controlling automatic weapons at all, and that we were in
favor of some sort of control of automatic weapons.
Q Well do you think the President's done enough on this, OF are you among those
Who Believe ME Mash't done enough?
MR. IEYOUR: Well as I said, I think that the President 15 very sensitive to our
needs and is pro law enforcement, 50 I'm in support of him.
& But I'm saying that a lot of police groups have been calling on the President
to be tougher on gun control, and Bush hasn't. Are you asking the President to
do so, OT are you not asking him about it at all?
MR. IEYOUB: Well I'm not asking him right now. 1 am asking him to go along with
the NDAA relative to OUT resolution as to automatic weapon --
Q (Inaudible) -- gun control?
MR. IEYOUB: Not at this point, 1 do not.
Q Wait, you just said that your organization passed a resolution in support of
restrictions on assault weapons which is in the House bill and which is opposed
by the President, 50 how do your --
MR. IEYOUR: Well, certain types of assault weapons WE have passed a resolution
for some control of that.
2 Right, and that is in the House bill and it is opposed by the President. DO
you -- have you made that point to the President, and do you want to see that
provision in the House bill retained, and the President reverse his position in
opposition to it?
MR. IEYOUB: We have not made that point to the President. We think that there
are other features of this particular bill that are a lot more important, and
that are much more significant than that particular piece of, or that provision,
in the bill. WE have not made that point to the President.
Q Can Mr. Moore answer that question, as well?
MR. MOORE: WE haven't addressed that point at all, the National Association OF
Attorneys General.
@ On any aspect of gun control?
MR. MOORE: No.
& Why?
Q It seems to be a major issue.
MR. MOORE: Well, we have 49 other attorneys general in this country that you
might ask the same question to.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS® ®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE
9
(c) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
Q Well you're the one that voted --
MR. MOORE: No, I'm the one that's here from Mississippi, and I'll tell you, I
can't speak on behalf of the folks from all the other states on that issue
because we haven't passed a resolution, hadn't had any discussion at all. I'll
tell you if we do.
Q How about the Brady Bill? Has the association -
MR. MOORE: We haven't taken a position on that. No.
Q A number of your critics in Congress say that, while the administration acts
tough on street crime, you only talk tough on corporate white collar crime. And
specifically going through the Judiciary Committee now is H.R. 5111, which is
the so-called RICO reform, which would retroactively change the measure of
damages in bank fraud cases from triple to single damages. And the
administration hasn't indicated one way or the other whether they feel strongly
on this. And some of the critics say that this is the most important anti
corporate white collar crime bill because it effectively lets off savings and
loans and banks off the hook in these civil damage cases. Could all three of
you address yourselves to that question?
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: Well, I don't know who these critics are, but it would be
a news flash indeed to over 300 defendants involved in savings and loan fraud
who have been convicted of federal offenses in less than two years, 77 percent
of whom have gone to prison. I don't think they'd think that we were being soft
on ---
Q The question is, though, on the --
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: You're asking about the specific bill?
Q Right.
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: This is a -- this involves private litigation, not -- not
government.
Q It affects the -- (inaudible) -- yes, it does.
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: It affects private parties, non-governmental parties and
the Department of Justice. And we haven't taken a position on that because
we're studying it.
But let nobody have any misgivings about how we feel about white collar crime.
This President addressed it as a priority within three weeks of his
inauguration, and when we finally got the funding for our savings and loans task
forces, we're up and running and putting people in jail with alarming, to them,
regularity.
Similarly, in the defense procurement area, in the HUD fraud area, dealing with
public corruption, white collar crime is and will remain a number one priority
with this Department of Justice because our jurisdiction permits us to follow it
across state lines, and we have tools and weapons that are not available to
state and local prosecutors. So, let me just put that on the record.
Q General, in describing the House bill as a pro-criminal bill, is it your
belief that the members of the House Judiciary Committee acted in fact in bad
faith in passing this legislation?
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: No, I think they may have been mistaken, they may have
been overly idealistic, they may have been naive about what these provisions
were intended to accomplish, but I think they have an opportunity to protect
that mistake -- to correct that mistake, and we hope to give them the fullest
chance to do SO.
Q I know it's off the topic, but I can't ignore the nomination hearing tomorrow
for Judge Souter. Senator Biden says that he's going to question Judge Souter
on the great issues of our times. What is your response to that? To what
extent should he answer those questions? What are your expectations of the
hearing? Will it be tough, difficult, easy?
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: I think Judge Souter has the experience and the
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE 10
(c) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
character and the integrity to be able to differentiate between questions that
seek legitimately to plumb his views on constitutional issues and those
questions which seek a commitment from him as to how he might decide a
particular case or react to a particular issue when he is confirmed to the
Supreme Court. He has an extensive background in the law, has distinguished
himself intellectually. And I expect that when he's given the opportunity at
last to respond to proper questions that it will pave the way for a rather
speedy confirmation.
And I don't see anything inconsistent in what's been expressed by any of the
members of the Judiciary Committee relating to their intentions with regard to
questions to him with the proper kind of examination that should take place of a
prospective Supreme Court nominee.
Q Have you met with him at all? Has he --
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: Yes.
Q Has he spent much time with you briefing, preparing himself for the --
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: He has spent a great deal of time preparing for this.
Q With you, sir?
ATTY GEN. THORNBURGH: He wouldn't want to waste time with me. I'm a former
prosecutor. (Scattered laughter.) But he has talked with teams of experts. In
a sense that I don't want to convey a false impression that he has to be
coached or boned up on the issues. I think it's a matter of giving him a dry
run at the type of questions that he's going to get. He's perfectly capable to
answer these questions on his own, as you will see beginning tomorrow.
Q Thank you.
Q Pardon me. Mr. --
Q Go ahead.
Q Mr. Thornburgh, Chairman Jack Brooks of the Judiciary Committee, Bill Hughes,
a Subcommittee Chairman on Crime Committee, both contend that their bill
actually speeds up the habeas corpus process and they say that it expands the
death penalty. Now that, in effect contradicts what you're saying -
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Not in effect, it plainly -- yeah.
Q Now, both of these guys, by the way, are for the death penalty, and you're
suggesting that they may be overly idealistic and naive ---- although I find that
a little hard to apply to Jack Brooks, being naive -- (laughter) ---
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Don't tell Jack that.
Q Nevertheless -- nevertheless, I wonder if you could provide a couple of
specific examples ---
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Yeah, I can.
Q -- of how habeus corpus is impaired and how the death penalty is --
particularly in state cases is --
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Yeah. These are set forth at some length in the material
we furnished to the Speaker earlier this week. Well, let me see if I can take
the time to look through the legalese and find out where we are. (Spoken to
self) Habeus corpus, page 18.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, who authored the recommended reforms at the request of
Chief Justice Rehnquist, testifying earlier, stated that support for this bill,
and I'm quoting, "Would mean support for increased delay, piecemeal litigation
and more last minute appeals. A vote for H. R. 4737 would in practical effect be
a vote to eliminate capital punishment in the United States." The defense rests.
Q -- (inaudible) -- procedural steps, this would drag it on out --
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Yes, and there's the introduction of a lot of undefined
and amorphous standards that permit wide leeway to the courts to delay these
proceedings, standards that would call for relief where the interests of justice
might be served, where ther may have been a miscarraige of justice or, in cases
invoving cause and prejudice - these are in pages 18 through 20 of the letter
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central
PAGE 11
(c) 1990 Federal Information Systems Corporation, September 12, 1990
that we sent up to the Speaker. And I don't think Justice Powell would be
viewed as an alarmist in this respect. He has studied
carefully at the Chief Justice's request the whole area of habeas corpus reform.
And that was essentially what was imported into the President's original
proposals. It has now been transmutated into something that's entirely
different, and as we have stated today, would have the directly opposite effect
from that intended by the Powell Commission recommendations.
MR. MOORE: Let me just make this one point.
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Mike, you're the expert on it.
MR. MOORE: Coming from a state that doesn't have all the money in the world,
Mississippi, I would be for -- absolutely for --- anything that I thought would
speed up the process. We actually handle --- Sonny White (sp) in my office and
many others -- handle the death penalty cases all the way through the state
system and through the federal system, back and forth, for the years it goes on.
It cost us literally millions of dollars to go through these cases. If there
was something there that I could support that would save the taxpayers of my
state -- and I'm sure the same would go in other states - some money, we would
do that.
We don't see it in these bills, and we're the ones -- and I think that's the
importance of seeing the Attorneys General of this country and the District
Attorneys of this country -- the ones that actually try those cases, the ones
that try them at the trial level and also through the appellate process, that's
why we're against the bill. It won't do what they intended it to do. And the
question was asked earlier about whether we thought it was ill-intentioned or
there was bad faith there. No, but I think there's been some heavy lobbying by
the defense bar in this country, and I think they got there first, and we're
hoping to get there near the end, hoping to change some minds. And I will tell
you that we've already changed some minds in the last couple of days, and I hope
the vote will support that.
ATTY. GEN. THORNBURGH: Let me just give you one other example of the kind of
thing that concerns us. Under the pending legislation, the death penalty would
be appropriate if the jury found an aggravating circumstance and the absence of
a mitigating circumstance. That is to say, for example, an aggravating
circumsance might be the assassination of the president.
Under the bill as it's coming to the floor, it requires two aggravating
circumstances in the absence of a mitigating circumstance, which would mean, for
example, that assassination of the president would not be grounds for the death
penalty unless, for example, he had been tortured prior to assassination.
Now, this is foolishness. This flies in the face of all of the appropriate
legislation that's passed at the state and federal level since the Furman (sp)
case was decided. And these kinds of fine-tuning and tinkering done to -- we
feel -- have the effect of - put a roadblock in the way of a strong death
penalty bill and a strong habeas corpus proposal that would permit these
sentences to be carried out, truly is far from the anti-crime bill that its
proponents would have you believe.
Thank you all very much.
LEXIS® NEXIS® LEXIS® NEXIS ®
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW CRIME BILL \ THE EAST ROOM
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1991 \ 11:15 A.M.
THANK YOU. MR. VICE PRESIDENT, MR. ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS:
IT IS AN HONOR TO WELCOME YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
LAST WEEK BEFORE THE CONGRESS, I SALUTED A GROUP OF
HOMETOWN HEROES -- THE FINEST COMBAT FORCE THIS NATION
HAS EVER ASSEMBLED -- THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE
UNITED STATES MILITARY! 1111
- 2 -
WE HONORED THEM WITH OUR CHEERS AND WITH OUR
PRAYERS. AND COME THIS SUMMER, WE'LL HONOR THEM AGAIN
WITH THE BIGGEST FOURTH OF JULY SINCE THE LIBERTY BELL
FIRST RANG. BUT AS I SAID LAST WEEK, THE REAL WAY TO
HONOR THEM IS TO WELCOME THEM HOME TO AN AMERICA THAT
IS WORTHY OF THEIR SACRIFICE -- BY JOINING TOGETHER
WITH CONGRESS TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE DOMESTIC FRONT.
LAST MONTH WE LAUNCHED AN INNOVATIVE PACKAGE
DESIGNED TO ENSURE REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL AMERICANS.
- 3 -
OUR VETERANS DESERVE TO COME HOME TO AN AMERICA OF
IMPROVED SCHOOLS, BETTER JOBS, STRONGER LAWS AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION, INCREASED HOME OWNERSHIP, AND FAMILIES
THAT ARE HEALTHY AND TOGETHER. AND MOST OF ALL, OUR
VETERANS DESERVE TO COME HOME TO AN AMERICA WHERE IT'S
SAFE TO WALK THE STREETS. III
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CITIZENS WHO
CANNOT BE SAFE AND FEEL SAFE IN THEIR HOMES, SCHOOLS,
JOBS AND CHURCHES.
- 4 -
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY A MOST BASIC CIVIL RIGHT
IS -- QUITE SIMPLY -- THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM FEAR.
111
SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT, SHORTLY AFTER I TOOK
OFFICE, WE MET WITH THE 50 A.G.'s AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO, ALMOST TO THE DAY. AND I TOLD
YOU HOW, A FEW DAYS EARLIER, I HAD GONE TO NEW YORK TO
MEET THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF EVERETT HATCHER, A BRAVE
D.E.A. AGENT WHO WAS GUNNED DOWN IN THE STREET.
- 5 -
AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IT USED To BE UNTHINKABLE TO
SHOOT A COP. BUT NOW THE CULTURE HAS CHANGED -- AND
WHEN THE BAD GUYS HEAR THE WORD "POLICE," THEY JUST
TURN AROUND AND START SHOOTING.
Two MONTHS LATER, ON THAT RAINY DAY ON CAPITOL
HILL, WE LAUNCHED AN EFFORT TO PASS OUR CRIME
LEGISLATION -- LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO HELP PROTECT OUR
COPS BY GIVING THEM THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO DO THEIR
JOB.
- 6 -
WE PROPOSED STIFF NEW PENALTIES FOR CRIMINALS USING
SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS; AN IMPROVED EXCLUSIONARY RULE
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE TRUTH AND PUNISH THE GUILTY;
AND HABEAS CORPUS REFORM THAT WOULD STOP FRIVOLOUS
APPEALS AND ENSURE THAT PUNISHMENT WAS NOT ONLY JUST,
BUT ALSO SWIFT AND CERTAIN. MOST OF ALL, IT WOULD HAVE
FINALLY GIVEN US A FEDERAL LAW TO UPHOLD A SIMPLE RULE
OF JUSTICE: THOSE WHO KILL MUST BE PREPARED TO PAY
WITH THEIR OWN LIFE. III
- 7 -
AND TODAY, TWO YEARS LATER, THE CONGRESS HAS STILL
FAILED TO ACT ON THESE CRITICAL CORE PROVISIONS. AND
TODAY, TWO YEARS LATER, ANOTHER 294 POLICEMEN AND WOMEN
ARE DEAD -- 294 -- ALMOST THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF
PRECIOUS AMERICAN LIVES LOST DURING THE ENTIRE GULF
WAR. THE KILLING MUST STOP. AND IT MUST STOP NOW. 11
- 8 -
TODAY, IT'S TIME TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED. IT'S
TIME TO STAND UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT. WE STOOD BY
AMERICA'S TROOPS. TODAY IT'S TIME TO STAND UP FOR
AMERICA'S PROSECUTORS AND POLICE! III
LAST WEEK, MANY OF YOU JOINED TOGETHER WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ME IN AN UNPRECEDENTED CRIME
SUMMIT -- AMERICA'S FIRST. FOR THREE DAYS YOU FREELY
TRADED IDEAS, INSIGHTS, SUGGESTIONS AND SUPPORT.
- 9 -
WHEN I VISITED YOU TUESDAY THE MOOD WAS CONTAGIOUS --
POWERFUL, CONFIDENT, AND MOST OF ALL -- DRIVEN BY A
SENSE OF URGENCY. AND SO WHEN IT WAS OVER, WE WASTED
NO TIME. I TOLD THE A.G. WE WANTED THE CRIME BILL
READY IN FINAL FORM BEFORE ANOTHER WEEK WAS OUT. AND
TODAY, FIVE DAYS LATER, I HAVE IT HERE IN MY HAND. III
OF COURSE, WE HAD A HEAD START -- THE TRUTH IS, THE
VAST MAJORITY OF THESE CORE PROPOSALS ARE IDENTICAL TO
THOSE WE SENT TO CONGRESS TWO YEARS AGO.
- 10 -
THESE FUNDAMENTAL, BADLY-NEEDED REFORMS HAVE BEEN
ARGUED OVER FOR YEARS. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT
CLAMORING FOR MORE DEBATE. TODAY THEY'RE DEMANDING
ACTION -- ACTION TO STOP VIOLENT CRIME -- ACTION THAT
TRANSLATES TO A STRAIGHT UP-OR-DOWN VOTE ON THESE CORE,
COMMON-SENSE PROPOSALS. As I SAID WEDNESDAY NIGHT: IF
OUR FORCES COULD WIN THE GROUND WAR IN 100 HOURS --
THEN SURELY THE CONGRESS CAN PASS THIS LEGISLATION IN
100 DAYS. III
- 11 -
OUR CORE PROPOSALS HAVE ALSO BEEN STRENGTHENED BY
SOME POTENT NEW ADDITIONS. THESE INCLUDE NEW LAWS TO
PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN AGAINST VIOLENCE AND ABUSE.
AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, THEY INCLUDE TOUGH NEW LAWS
THAT WILL PROTECT OUR PEOPLE AND OUR POLICE BY HELPING
PROSECUTORS PUT AWAY AMERICA'S MOST VIOLENT OFFENDERS.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE PROVISIONS
RECOGNIZES THAT REDUCING FIREARMS VIOLENCE MUST MEAN
EXCLUSIONARY RULE REFORM. I AM NOT A LAWYER.
- 12 -
BUT I PUT GREAT STOCK IN COMMON SENSE. AND IT NEVER
DID MAKE SENSE THAT, BECAUSE A POLICEMAN HAS MADE A
MISTAKE -- A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL CAN GET OFF SCOT-FREE.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS INVITED LEGISLATIVE
EXPERIMENTATION WITH DIRECT ACTION TO PREVENT ILLEGAL
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. AND so TODAY I AM ANNOUNCING
THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING THAT INVITATION -- IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A SERIOUS INITIATIVE ON GUNS.
- 13 -
OUR PLAN WOULD AUTHORIZE THE A.G. TO DEVELOP
ALTERNATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS FOR ANY FEDERAL
AGENT WHO IMPROPERLY SEIZES A GUN IN VIOLATION OF THE
4TH AMENDMENT. ONCE THESE PROTECTIONS WERE IN PLACE,
FIREARMS IN SERIOUS DRUG, VIOLENT AND CERTAIN OTHER
CASES WOULD ALWAYS BE ADMISSIBLE IN CERTAIN FEDERAL
CASES INVOLVING ARMED FELONS. IT IS SIMPLY INTOLERABLE
THAT THESE ARMED CRIMINALS SHOULD GO FREE WHEN GOOD,
SOLID EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE.
- 14 -
OUR MESSAGE IS SIMPLE: THE TIME TO ACT IS 11 NOW.
THE TIME TO SCHEDULE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS IS 11 NOW.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS READY TO TESTIFY 11 NOW. AND
MOST OF THE OTHER EXPERTS NEEDED ARE PROBABLY HERE IN
THE EAST ROOM 11 NOW. 111
LOOKING OUT HERE TODAY, I SEE A GROUP OF
PRINCIPLED, ALL-AMERICAN HEROES WHOSE DEDICATION AT
HOME MATCHES THAT OF OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS.
- 15 -
HEROES LIKE MISSISSIPPI A.G. MIKE MOORE, WHO STOOD WITH
US IN THE ROSE GARDEN LAST FALL AND DESCRIBED THE
TERRIBLE ORDEAL -- DUE TO CURRENT HABEAS RULES -- IN
WHICH VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES CAN NEVER DRAW THE
CURTAINS ON TRAGIC MURDERS AND RAPES. HEROES LIKE
LOUISIANA D.A. RICHARD IEYOUB [I-YOOB], WHO CALLED THE
EFFORTS TO GUT LAST YEAR'S CRIME BILL A "MAJOR FRAUD ON
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" -- ONE THAT, FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES, WOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE
37 STATES WHERE IT NOW EXISTS.
- 16 -
AND HEROES LIKE DAN LUNGREN, CALIFORNIA'S NEW A.G.,
WHOSE MIRACLE "END RUN" IN CONGRESS IN 1984 PRODUCED
SOME OF THE MOST FAR-REACHING CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS IN
OUR NATION'S HISTORY.
MIKE AND RICHARD -- WE'RE ON A HUNDRED-DAY CLOCK
-- AND WE HOPE YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE READY TO
ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES AGAIN TODAY. AND DAN -- WE'RE
HOPING YOU CAN LEND YOUR MAGIC TO THE CAUSE ONCE MORE.
- 17 -
BECAUSE THIS WEEK MARKS THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE F.B.I.'s
"10 MOST WANTED" LIST. AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT
THIS NEW CRIME BILL IS ON AMERICA'S "MOST WANTED" LIST
OF PRESSING NATIONAL BUSINESS. AND AS I SAID LAST
FALL: AMERICA'S PROSECUTORS WILL NOT ACCEPT A PHONY
CRIME BILL THAT IS TOUGHER ON LAW ENFORCEMENT THAN IT
IS ON CRIMINALS. 1111
- 18 -
No MORE LOOPHOLES. No MORE ROLLS OF THE DICE. I
URGE THE CONGRESS TO HEED THE VOICES OF OUR PEOPLE, OUR
POLICE, AND OUR PROSECUTORS -- AND HELP US TAKE BACK
THE STREETS. III TOGETHER, LET'S ACT ON THIS CRIME
BILL NOW. III
THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK. AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED
STATES.
#
#
#
(McNally/Simon)
March 7, 1991
Draft One (B:CRIME)
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW CRIME BILL
THE ROSE GARDEN
MONDAY, MAR. 11, 1991, 11:15 A.M.
Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, State Attorneys General,
other law enforcement officials and local community leaders: It
is an honor to welcome you to the White House.
Last week I went before the United States Congress, and the
American people, to salute a group of hometown heroes that, like
you, represent all 50 states. And of course, I'm talking about
the finest combat force this Nation has ever assembled -- the
brave men and women of the United States military! 1111
We honored them with our cheers and with our prayers. And
come this summer, we'll honor their homecoming with the biggest
Fourth of July since the Liberty Bell first rang. III But as I
said last week, the real way to honor them is to welcome them
home to an America that is worthy of their sacrifice -- by
joining together with Congress to move forward aggressively on
the domestic front.
Last month we presented our blueprint for the 1990's -- an
innovative package designed to ensure real opportunity for all
Americans. Our veterans deserve to come home to an America of
improved schools, better jobs, increased home ownership, and
programs devoted to keeping families healthy and together. Our
veterans deserve to come home to an America without discrimi-
nation. And most of all, our veterans deserve to come home to an
America where it's safe to walk the streets. III
2
Economic opportunity and full participation in democratic
life are impossible for citizens who cannot be safe and feel safe
in their homes, schools, jobs and churches. This is what I mean
when I say our most basic civil right is -- quite simply -- the
right to be free from fear.
Some of you may remember that, shortly after I took office,
we met here in the Roosevelt Room with the National Association
of Attorneys General. It was two years ago, almost to the day.
And I told you how, a few days earlier, I had gone up to New York
to meet with the family of Everett Hatcher, a brave D.E.A. agent
who was gunned down in the street. I spoke with his fellow
agents. And they told me that it used to be unthinkable to shoot
a cop. When you shouted "POLICE" or "F.B.I.," the criminals
would stop and submit to arrest. But now the culture has changed
-- and when the bad guys hear the word "POLICE," they turn around
and start shooting.
Two months later, on that rainy day on Capitol Hill, we
launched a Crime Bill designed to help protect our cops by giving
them the tools they need to do their job. We proposed stiff new
penalties for criminals using semi-automatic weapons; an improved
exclusionary rule designed to protect the truth and punish the
guilty; and habeas corpus reform that would stop frivolous
appeals and ensure that punishment was both swift and certain.
Most of all -- especially in states like New York where there is
no death penalty -- it would have provided constitutionally sound
provisions so that all cop-killers would come to know a simple
3
rule of justice: That shooting a cop means facing not only the
loss of your freedom, but also the loss of your life.
And today, two years later, the Congress has still failed to
act on these critical core provisions. And today, two years
later, another 294 policemen and women are dead -- 294 -- almost
three times the number of precious American lives lost during the
entire Gulf War. The killing must stop. And it must stop now.
Today, it's time to stand up and be counted. It's time to
stand up for what's right. Ladies and gentlemen -- you stood by
America's troops. Today it's time to stand up for America's
police! 111
Last week, many of you joined together with the Attorney
General and me in an unprecedented council of war -- America's
first Crime Summit. For three days you freely traded ideas,
insights, suggestions and support. When I visited you Tuesday
the mood was contagious -- powerful, confident, and most of all
-- impatient. And so when it was over, I gave the A.G. an
impossible task. We told him we wanted him to take the Crime
Summit -- and turn it into a Crime Bill in under one week.
Today, five days later, I have it here in my hand. Of
course, we had a head start -- the truth is, the vast majority of
these core proposals are basic, long-overdue reforms that you and
I have fought for for the better part of two years. Habeas
corpus reform. A good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
Stiff new penalties for firearms offenders. And a workable death
4
penalty for terrorists, serial killers, cop-killers and other
heinous crimes.
These fundamental, badly-needed reforms have been argued
over for years. A forest of trees has been felled producing
countless volumes of congressional debate dissecting each propo-
sal. But the American people are not clamoring for more debate.
Today they're demanding action -- action to stop violent crime
-- action that translates to a straight up-or-down vote on these
core, common-sense proposals. As I said Wednesday night: If our
forces could win the ground war in 100 hours -- then surely the
Congress can pass this legislation in 100 days.
III
Our core proposals have also been strengthened by the
addition of some new teeth. We're calling for new laws to
protect women and children against violence and exploitation.
New safeguards to ensure due process in every capital case. And
most important of all, tough new laws that will help protect our
people and our police from the ravages of armed offenders.
For many years the federal government has been able to help
state prosecutors put away America's most violent offenders
through tough, mandatory sentences for armed career criminals.
Our new crime package will give you another such weapon: A
mandatory five year sentence for any felon who -- after just a
single conviction for armed or violent crime -- so much as
possesses a single gun.
Finally, reducing firearms violence must mean exclusionary
rule reform. Unlike many of you here, I am not a lawyer. But I
5
put great stock in common sense. And it doesn't make sense that
-- because a policeman has blundered -- a dangerous criminal can
just get off scot-free.
The Supreme Court has invited legislative experimentation
with alternative sanctions -- other ways to punish the cop who
blunders. And so today I am announcing that we are accepting
that invitation. Our proposal would authorize the Attorney
General to develop alternative, administrative sanctions for any
federal officer who improperly seizes a firearm in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. Once these protections were in place,
firearms would always be admissible in federal court. Never
again would a federal jury be denied the most obvious, common-
sense opportunity in their pursuit of the truth in a firearms
case -- the opportunity to actually see the weapons in question.
Our message to Congress is simple: The time to act is 11
now. The time to schedule hearings is 11 now. The Attorney
General is ready to testify now. And most of the other
experts needed are probably here in the Rose Garden now.
Today, I look out at this gathering and see a group of
principled, all-American heroes whose dedication at home matches
that of our brave men and women overseas. Heroes like
Mississippi A.G. Mike Moore, a Democrat, who stood with us here
in the Rose Garden last fall and described the terrible ordeal
-- under current habeas rules -- in which victims and their
families are never able to draw the curtains on tragic murders,
rapes, or armed assaults. Heroes like Louisiana D.A. Richard
6
Ieyoub, also a Democrat, who called the efforts to gut last
year's crime bill what they were -- a "major fraud on the
American people" -- one that, for all practical purposes, would
have prevented the imposition of the death penalty in the 37
states where it now exists. And heroes like Dan Lungren,
California's new A.G., whose miracle "end run" in Congress in
1984 produced the most far-reaching criminal law reforms in our
Nation's history.
Mike and Richard -- we're on a hundred-day clock -- and we
hope you and your colleagues are ready to roll up your sleeves
again today. And Dan -- we're hoping you can lend your magic to
the cause once more. Because this week marks the anniversary of
the F.B.I.'s "10 Most Wanted" list. And I'm here to tell you
that this new crime bill is on America's "most wanted" list of
pressing national business. And as I said last fall: America's
prosecutors will not accept a phony crime bill that is tougher on
law enforcement than it is on criminals.
No more loopholes. No more rolls of the dice. I urge the
Congress to heed the voices of our people, our police, and our
prosecutors -- help us take back the streets -- and together,
let's act on this crime bill now.
Thank you for your dedicated efforts to makes our cities
safe. Good luck. And God bless the United States.
#
#
#
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
comprehensive crime controe Act
Major Crime Package Cleared by Congress
President Reagan Oct. 12 signed into law a sweeping
leadership in general and the House Judiciary leadership in
anti-crime package that represented the culmination of an
particular for failing to act on the Senate-passed package.
11-year effort to make major changes in the federal crimi-
The criticism greatly annoyed House Democrats, but
nal code.
they never found an effective way to counteract it. The
The crime provisions were attached to the fiscal 1985
House Judiciary Committee, which disliked omnibus bills,
continuing appropriations resolution (H J Res 648 - PL
approved several important elements of the Senate pack-
98-473) cleared by Congress Oct. 11. (Funding bill, p. 444)
age as separate pieces of legislation, and the full House
The package was not quite as comprehensive as earlier
passed those bills. Sentencing reform and pretrial deten-
criminal code reform proposals. But the new law incorpo-
tion legislation, however, lagged behind other provisions,
rated many major elements of the earlier proposals, and it
and these were considered to be the most important sec-
was the most far-reaching anti-crime measure enacted
tions of the crime package.
since the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act. (Code reform history, 1979 Almanac p. 363; Safe
Legislative Maneuvering
Streets Act, 1968 Almanac p. 225)
On Sept. 25, House Republicans employed an end run
to get the Senate crime bill passed. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-
Major Elements
Calif., a Judiciary Committee member, made a motion to
The new law overhauled federal sentencing procedures
send the "must-pass" fiscal 1985 continuing appropriations
to reduce the disparity in punishment for defendants who
resolution (H J Res 648) back to the Appropriations Com-
commit similar crimes, and allowed pretrial detention of
mittee with instructions to attach a House bill (HR 5963)
defendants considered dangerous to the community.
identical to the Senate crime package and return the mea-
Other provisions prohibited tampering with comput-
sure to the full House.
ers, unauthorized use of credit cards or bank-account ac-
Lungren's motion was agreed to 243-166, with 89 Dem-
cess numbers, and trafficking in counterfeit trademarked
ocrats joining 154 Republicans in supporting the maneuver.
goods. Still others substantially increased penalties for ma-
(Vote 370, p. 112-H)
jor drug offenses and gave federal prosecutors new author-
The funding bill, with the crime package attached,
ity to seize the assets and profits of drug traffickers.
promptly returned to the House floor and was passed the
In addition, the law re-established a grant program for
same day, 316-91. (Vote 371, p. 114-H)
state anti-crime projects, although one substantially more
On Oct. 2, House Democrats countered by consolidat-
modest than the defunct Law Enforcement Assistance Ad-
ing various Judiciary Committee proposals into one bill
ministration.
(HR 5690) and proposing it for passage under suspension
Further, it tightened the legal definition of insanity
of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority. The bill
and made it harder for criminal suspects to employ such a
passed 406-16. (Vote 382, 118-H)
defense successfully. This section was largely an outgrowth
When the funding bill (H J Res 648) got to the Senate,
of concern over the acquittal based on insanity of John W.
members decided to retain the crime provisions, even
Hinckley Jr., who shot President Reagan and three other
though most other riders were eventually stripped from the
people in a March 30, 1981, assassination attempt. (1981
measure. A few amendments were made to the crime sec-
Almanac p. 6)
tion, and a number of new provisions were added. Nearly
all of the new provisions had been approved as separate
Pressure From Reagan
bills by one chamber or the other. They dealt with such
President Reagan could claim a large share of credit
issues as terrorism, trademark counterfeiting, computer
for getting the crime package enacted. Beginning with his
and credit card fraud, and victim compensation.
1983 State of the Union address, he made it one of his top
The Senate decision assured that major crime legisla-
domestic priorities.
tion would be enacted in 1984. And the House Democrats'
"It is high time that we make our cities safe again," the
Oct. 2 move to pass their own bill did have some effect on
president declared in that Jan. 25 message. "This adminis-
the final product. When appropriations conferees met Oct.
tration hereby declares an all-out war on big-time orga-
10, they called in House and Senate Judiciary members to
nized crime and the drug racketeers who are poisoning our
advise them on the crime section of H J Res 648.
young people." (Text, 1983 Almanac p. 3-E)
During a lengthy and somewhat testy meeting, a final
On March 16, 1983, Reagan sent to Capitol Hill an
compromise crime package was worked out. Senators re-
anti-crime proposal that contained a number of provisions
sisted efforts to alter the pretrial detention and sentencing
ultimately included in the legislation that cleared Con-
provisions. But House Judiciary members succeeded in
gress. (Text, 1983 Almanac p. 19-E)
tailoring the measure's drug enforcement provisions more
The Senate on Feb. 2, 1984, passed by 91-1 a compre-
to their liking.
hensive crime bill (S 1762) containing most of Reagan's
proposals. (Vote 6, p. 3-S)
Criticisms of the Bill
At his next televised press conference, on Feb. 22, the
While most lawmakers hailed passage of the anti-crime
president opened his remarks by declaring the legislation
measure, representatives of the American Civil Liberties
"long overdue," and urging the Democratic-controlled
Union (ACLU) expressed deep concern about the preven-
House "to stop dragging its feet and to act promptly." He
tive detention, insanity and computer crime provisions.
returned to the theme repeatedly in the months thereafter.
They said these provisions infringed on individual liberties,
Throughout the year, House Republicans also ham-
and Jerry Berman, of the ACLU's Washington, D.C., office,
mered away at the crime issue, denouncing the Democratic
contended that it was "fraudulent" to claim "that this bill
1984 CQ ALMANAC-215
Crime Package - 2
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
will
reduce
violence
or make this a safer society."
Sentencing
Berman said one of the computer crime provisions was
Established four general purposes of sentencing and
so broad that it amounted to a "government secrecy" law.
specified that individuals could be sentenced to probation,
He was referring to a provision that made it a crime for a
a fine, a prison term or a combination of those sentences.
person who was authorized to use a government computer
An organization could be put on probation, fined or a
to use it in a manner beyond the scope of his authorization
combination of the two.
and subsequently disclose the information he obtained.
Created a grading system for crimes, ranking them
The Senate passed a bill (HR 5616) Oct. 11 to revise
according to their seriousness.
this provision in PL 98-473, but the House did not act on it.
Established a seven-member commission to write
The sentencing provisions caused some concern in the
guidelines for sentencing, which were to be completed
federal judiciary, because they reduced the historically
within 18 months of enactment. Panel members, to be
broad discretion of judges to impose punishment. Under
appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate,
the new law, federal judges were required to stay within
must include three federal judges.
specific sentencing guidelines, to be written within 18
Required judges to follow sentencing guidelines pro-
months, or justify in writing why they had departed from
duced by the commission, although a judge could deviate
those guidelines. Judges were given three of the seven slots
from them if he stated in writing the mitigating and ag-
on a special commission that was to draft the sentencing
gravating factors that led him to do so.
guidelines.
Authorized a defendant to appeal a sentence that was
The U.S. Judicial Conference, the policy-making arm
harsher than the guidelines and authorized the government
of the federal judiciary, had supported a House Judiciary
to appeal a sentence more lenient than the guidelines.
Committee version of the sentencing bill (HR 6012), which
Barred parole for prisoners incarcerated after the
gave judges greater authority over the creation of the sen-
guidelines went into effect. Phased out parole over five
tencing guidelines.
years for prisoners incarcerated before the guidelines took
The federal judiciary "recognizes the need to have a
effect.
commission and guidelines," said conference spokesman
Provided that a sentence of more than one year could
William James Weller, "but judges have been apprehensive
be shortened at the end of each year by 15 percent for good
about the process being controlled by people who aren't in
behavior.
the business every day of actually sitting there and making
Gave a judge authority to modify a term of imprison-
the difficult sentencing decisions."
ment if certain conditions specified in the bill were met.
Gave a judge authority, when imposing a sentence, to
order supervision of a defendant after his prison term
Final Provisions
ended. Existing law provided varying degrees of supervi-
sion when defendants were put on parole, but not after
As cleared by Congress, the crime sections of PL 98-
completion of a prison term.
473 included the following major provisions:
Forfeiture: Seizure of Assets
Bail, Preventive Detention
Expanded the government's authority to require for-
Authorized federal judges to consider whether a defen-
feiture of profits and proceeds from organized crime enter-
dant posed a danger to the community in deciding whether
prises and narcotics trafficking.
to release him before trial.
Established revolving funds in the Justice and Trea-
Authorized judges to detain a suspect before trial upon
sury departments for a number of purposes, including
a determination that no conditions for release would assure
maintenance of equipment seized through forfeiture pro-
both the defendant's appearance at trial and the safety of
ceedings, payment of rewards for information leading to
the community. Existing law required pretrial release un-
seizure, purchase of drugs pursuant to an undercover oper-
der the minimal conditions required to assure the defen-
ation, and rebuilding seized equipment so it could be used
dant's appearance for trial.
for drug enforcement.
Established a presumption that a defendant was not
Increased the value of goods that could be forfeited to
entitled to pretrial release if there was enough evidence to
federal agents without a full-scale court proceeding. Prior
charge him with a major drug offense or specified other
to enactment of the law, goods valued at up to $10,000
serious crimes. The defendant could seek to rebut the
could be forfeited through default proceedings, when no
presumption.
one showed up to claim the goods. The new law raised the
Required detention after conviction pending sentenc-
value for most cases to $100,000.
ing or appeal, unless a judge found by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant was not likely to flee or pose a
Insanity Defense
danger to the community.
Modified the definition of insanity to require a defen-
Previously, there was a presumption in favor of release
dant to prove that as a result of a severe mental disease or
on bail, even after conviction.
defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and wrong-
Increased penalties for bail jumping from a maximum
fulness of his acts. Existing law required proof that a
of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine to 10 years in
defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect that left
prison and a $25,000 fine.
him unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or
Required revocation of bail of a person arrested for a
conform his conduct to the law.
crime committed while on pretrial or post-conviction re-
Shifted the burden of proof for establishing insanity to
lease, and set up procedures for such revocation.
the defendant, who had to show by clear and convincing
Permitted an appeal of release and detention orders by
evidence that he met the legal test. Under existing law, the
both the government and the defendant. Under the law
prosecutor had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
prior to PL 98-473, only the defendant could appeal.
defendant did not meet the insanity test.
216-1984 CQ ALMANAC
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
Crime Package - 3
Limited psychiatric testimony to the presentation and
a license to practice medicine by an appropriate licensing
explanation of a diagnosis of mental disease or defect; no
board.
testimony would be allowed on whether the defendant had
Authorized the attorney general to seize or place under
the mental state or condition constituting an element of
seal any controlled substances owned or possessed by a
the crime, such as intent, or a defense to it, such as the
registrant whose registration had expired or who had
inability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions.
ceased to practice or do business in the manner contem-
Provided for commitment to a mental hospital or other
plated by his registration.
suitable facility of anyone found not guilty by reason of
Authorized the attorney general to establish programs,
insanity until such time as a court determined that the
including investigations, collection of information and
person had recovered sufficiently so that his release would
grants, to help states reduce the amount of drugs diverted
not endanger- other people or their property. Under the
from medical channels to the black market.
previous law, there was no federal procedure for commit-
ment of those acquitted on insanity grounds.
Justice Assistance
Created an Office of Justice Programs within the De-
Drug Enforcement
partment of Justice, headed by an assistant attorney gen-
Increased maximum fines for most serious drug of-
eral appointed by the president and confirmed by the
fenses from $25,000 to $125,000 for individuals. For traf-
Senate.
ficking in large quantities of specified drugs, including
Authorized the assistant attorney general to publish
heroin and cocaine, the maximum fine was set at $250,000,
and disseminate information on the progress of criminal
and the maximum prison term at 20 years. Under current
justice systems, and maintain liaison with the executive
law, the maximum prison term was 15 years.
and judicial branches of the state and federal governments,
Authorized judges to fine a drug offender up to twice
public and private research and educational institutions.
the gross profits from his enterprise instead of imposing
Gave the assistant attorney general authority to co-
the fine specified for the crime in question.
ordinate programs of the National Institute of Justice and
Increased the first-offense penalty for illegally distrib-
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
uting or making certain drugs from a maximum of five
Created a Bureau of Justice Assistance within the
years to 15 years.
Justice Department, headed by a director appointed by the
Gave the attorney general emergency authority to re-
attorney general.
quire tight control, similar to that already in effect for
Authorized the director to provide funds to eligible
heroin, of new chemical substances when he determined
states, local governments and private, non-profit organiza-
such action was "necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to
tions for criminal justice projects through a block grant
the public safety." Required 30 days' notice before the
program.
attorney general could place a substance on "Schedule I"
Provided "such sums as may be necessary" to carry out
status, the most restrictive for controlled substances. The
the block grant program.
emergency listing would expire after one year, although the
Provided that of the amount appropriated each year,
attorney general could extend it for up to six months.
80 percent was to be set aside to give each participating
Required anyone who manufactured or distributed any
state at least $250,000. Any remaining amount would be
controlled substance to obtain an annual registration from
allocated based on population.
the attorney general.
Established that the purpose of the block grant pro-
Required anyone dispensing or proposing to dispense
gram was to provide funds for anti-crime programs of
any controlled substance to obtain a registration from the
proven effectiveness, with special emphasis on combating
attorney general for a term of not less than one nor more
violent crime and dealing with serious offenders. The mea-
than three years.
sure specified 18 types of programs that could be funded.
Required the attorney general to register a physician
Limited federal grants to 50 percent of program costs.
or pharmacy to dispense and conduct research with con-
Required applicants to make a detailed request for
trolled substances if an applicant was authorized to do so
funds covering the type of program the funds would be
under the laws of the state in which he practiced, and no
used for and providing assurance that state and local offi-
circumstances existed that would make such registration
cials and members of the public had been apprised of the
"inconsistent with the public interest." Such circumstances
application and given an opportunity to comment upon it.
would include, among others, a prior criminal record in-
Provided an applicant the opportunity to seek a re-
volving drug offenses, or an adverse recommendation by a
consideration of any grant proposal that was rejected.
state licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
Required each state to designate a "state office" to
Expanded the authority of the attorney general to
prepare applications and administer grants.
deny or revoke a registration upon a finding that the reg-
Provided that 20 percent of the funds appropriated
istration was inconsistent with the public interest, as deter-
would be for "discretionary" grants to public agencies and
mined according to specified factors.
non-profit organizations for training of criminal justice
Required the attorney general to present the applicant
personnel, technical assistance to state and local govern-
or registrant with a document stating the basis of the
ments, multi-state projects and demonstration projects.
denial or revocation and to give the person an opportunity
Created a pilot program of grants to help states and
to respond.
localities build new prisons to relieve overcrowding and
Authorized the attorney general to suspend any reg-
improve substandard facilities.
istration on an emergency basis upon finding that there
Limited grants to no more than 20 percent of the cost
was "imminent danger to the public health and safety."
of constructing a correctional facility.
Previously, a practitioner could be stripped of his registra-
Authorized the director of justice assistance to estab-
tion only upon criminal conviction, upon proof that the
lish a clearinghouse of information on the construction and
application for registration was false, or upon revocation of
modernization of prisons.
1984 CQ ALMANAC-217
Crime Package - 4
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
Authorized $25 million annually for fiscal years 1984-
defraud a federally chartered or insured financial institu-
88 to carry out the pilot program and set up the clearing-
tion or to obtain any assets of such institution through false
house.
or fraudulent pretenses. A prison term of up to five years
Authorized the head of the FBI to conduct training
and a fine of up to $10,000 was established.
programs for state and local officials at the FBI's National
Made possession of contraband in prison a criminal
Academy in Quantico, Va.
offense. Under previous law, bringing contraband into a
Required annual reports to Congress on the various
prison or moving it around was a federal offense, while
programs set up under this title.
possessing such material was not.
Provided for $50,000 in benefits to the survivors of law
Revised current law barring theft and fraud involving
enforcement officers and firefighters who died as the result
"cattle" to cover theft and fraud involving "livestock."
of injuries sustained in the line of duty.
Prohibited anyone from obtaining or using without
Permitted immediate payment, upon a showing of
permission another's livestock worth $10,000 or more, and
need, of up to $3,000 to a survivor expected to qualify for
set a penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to
full benefits. Any interim sum would be deducted from the
$10,000.
$50,000.
Juvenile Justice
Surplus Property
Reauthorized the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
Authorized the donation of surplus federal property
quency Prevention for fiscal 1985-88, to be funded by
for the construction and modernization of state prison or
"such sums as may be necessary" for each of the years. The
jail facilities.
office was to help states develop alternatives to incarcera-
tion of juveniles and to develop programs to combat juve-
Violent Crime Amendments
nile delinquency.
Made murder-for-hire a federal crime when interstate
Reauthorized the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act
commerce was involved; made violent crimes such as mur-
of 1974 (PL 93-415) for fiscal 1985-88. This law, adminis-
der, kidnapping and assaults federal offenses if they were
tered by the Department of Health and Human Services,
in aid of racketeering activities.
authorized assistance to state and local facilities that pro-
Prohibited "solicitation" to commit a crime of vio-
vided emergency shelter care for runaways.
lence, which covered a person who tried to persuade an-
Authorized such sums as necessary to carry out these
other to commit a crime of violence.
programs for fiscal 1985-88.
Revised and strengthened existing requirements of
Emphasized in both the juvenile justice and runaway
minimum mandatory sentences for use of a firearm in the
youth programs that the family of the children involved
commission of federal crimes, setting a minimum sentence
should be made part of any counseling and treatment pro-
of five years in addition to whatever sentence was imposed
gram.
for the underlying crime.
Continued the two mandates of the original 1974 law
Provided new penalties for kidnapping specified fed-
- removal of juveniles from adult jails and the creation of
eral officials and for crimes directed at the family members
institutions, such as group homes, for juveniles who com-
of specified federal officials.
mitted no crimes but who were runaways or truants.
Prohibited carrying or using in a crime of violence a
Required for the first time that grants from the admin-
handgun loaded with armor-piercing ammunition, and set
istrator's discretionary pool of funds be made on a competi-
a mandatory five-year prison term as the minimum pen-
tive basis. Previously, there were no statutory requirements
alty.
for awarding these grants.
Made it a federal offense to damage willfully energy
facilities such as electrical transmission towers if the dam-
Missing Children
age exceeded $100,000 or resulted in a significant interrup-
Required for the first time federal assistance in locat-
tion of the facility; the maximum penalty was set at 10
ing missing children and providing treatment for such chil-
years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
dren and their families. The programs were to be run by
Non-Violent Crime
the administrator of the juvenile justice office.
Required establishment of a national toll-free hotline
Created a new obstruction-of-justice offense for im-
that members of the public could use to report information
pairing an authorized search by moving, concealing or de-
about missing children aged 13 or under.
stroying the property that was the object of the search.
Established a national clearinghouse to provide tech-
Created a new offense to cover theft, fraud and bribery
nical assistance to public and private agencies involved in
involving federal money disbursed to private organizations
locating missing children; coordinate public and private
or to state and local governments under a federal program.
missing-children programs, and disseminate information
Created a new offense for counterfeiting the securities
about such programs.
of state and local governments or of corporations.
Required periodic studies to determine how many chil-
Clarified the law covering receipt of stolen bank prop-
dren were reported missing each year, how many were
erty to cover situations in which a defendant knew prop-
abducted by strangers, how many were the victims of pa-
erty was stolen even though he did not know it was stolen
rental kidnappings, and how many were recovered.
from a bank.
Authorized the administrator to award grants to public
Revised the law covering bank bribery to broaden the
agencies and non-profit organizations for research, dem-
types of institutions, such as credit unions and the Federal
onstration projects or service programs related to the prob-
Home Loan Bank System, not currently covered and to
lem of missing children and sexual exploitation of children.
cover indirect as well as direct bribes.
Created an advisory board on missing children to make
Created a new bank fraud offense to cover anyone who
recommendations for federally assisted missing-children
knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme to
programs.
218-1984 CQ ALMANAC
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
Crime Package - 5
Provided $10 million for fiscal 1985 for the program
Gave the attorney general discretion to determine how
and such sums as might be necessary for the remaining
long to protect a witness, and authorized the attorney
fiscal years.
general to provide the witness with identity documents,
housing, transportation to a new home, a payment to meet
Procedural Changes
basic living expenses, and help in obtaining a job.
Allowed federal prosecution as adults of certain juve-
Required deductions from living-expense payments to
nile defendants charged with serious federal drug offenses
a protected witness to cover court-ordered family support
or crimes of violence. Under previous law, most cases in-
payments.
volving juveniles were transferred to the states unless the
Gave the attorney general discretion to disclose or
attorney general determined that the state could not han-
withhold information on the identity or location of a pro-
dle the case.
tected witness. Required disclosure of such information to
Authorized emergency wiretaps without a court order
state and local law enforcement officials when the person in
in situations involving immediate danger of death or seri-
question was sought for a crime of violence or an offense
ous physical injury to any person. Emergency wiretaps also
punishable by more than one year in prison.
were authorized in cases involving child pornography, ille-
Provided for a $5,000 fine, five-year prison term or
gal currency transactions and offenses against crime vic-
both for anyone convicted of illegally disclosing informa-
tims and witnesses.
tion about the identity and location of a protected witness.
Gave the attorney general new authority to seek a
Required the attorney general, "to the extent practi-
court order to bar a mail-fraud, wire-fraud or bank-fraud
cable," to obtain information about the suitability of a
scheme once he had sufficient evidence of a violation of
person for protection and relocation. Such information was
anti-fraud laws.
to include a criminal history, if any, and a psychological
evaluation of the person.
Labor Racketeering
Required the attorney general to determine whether
Raised from a misdemeanor to a felony willful viola-
the need for a person's testimony outweighed the risk of
tion of the Taft-Hartley Act provisions involving labor
endangering people and property in the community where
bribery or payoffs in excess of $1,000. Increased penalties
a witness was to be relocated, and barred relocation if the
to a maximum of five years in prison and a $15,000 fine,
risk to the public outweighed the need for the person's
from one year in prison and a $10,000 maximum.
testimony.
Barred union officials from holding union or trust fund
Required the attorney general to issue a written
positions for a minimum of three years and a maximum of
"memorandum of understanding" to the protected witness
13 years after conviction on corruption charges. Under
specifying the person's responsibilities under the program.
previous law, the maximum disqualification was five years.
These required no criminal conduct, payment of all legal
Provided disqualification only for those union officials
obligations and civil judgments, agreement to testify and
who used their position in a labor union to seek or obtain
provide information to law enforcement officials, and
an illegal gain.
agreement to take the necessary steps to avoid detection.
Made clear that federal labor racketeering provisions
Provided for emergency protection in specified cir-
did not bar states from enacting their own laws to deal with
cumstances without the written memorandum.
labor racketeering.
Allowed the attorney general to terminate protection
of a witness for a substantial breach of the memorandum of
Foreign Currency Transactions
understanding.
Increased civil and criminal penalties for violating
Specified procedures for notifying a protected witness
record-keeping and reporting requirements involving the
of a civil proceeding against him and set out elaborate
transport of currency in and out of the United States.
procedures for enforcing the rights of any litigant who had
Authorized customs officers to stop and search, with-
a judgment against a protected witness. Authorized disclo-
out a warrant, any vehicle, vessel or person entering or
sure to the plaintiff of the identity and location of a pro-
leaving the United States if the officer had reasonable
tected person who failed to comply with a civil judgment
cause to suspect a violation of currency transaction laws.
against him. If the attorney general did not make such
Authorized rewards of 25 percent, up to a $150,000
disclosure upon request, the plaintiff could seek a federal
maximum, to anyone who provided information leading to
court hearing on the issue.
recovery of more than $50,000 through a penalty, fine or
Barred the attorney general from relocating any child
forfeiture.
in connection with protecting a witness if it appeared that a
person other than the witness had legal custody of that
Witness Protection
child.
Authorized relocation and protection of federal or
Provided detailed procedures for safeguarding custody
specified state witnesses and potential witnesses when the
and visitation arrangements involving a protected witness
attorney general determined that a crime of violence was
who had legal custody of a child, and required the parent
likely to be committed against those individuals.
being relocated to seek and abide by modifications in the
Authorized relocation and protection for the immedi-
existing court-ordered custody arrangements if compliance
ate family of the witness, or another person closely associ-
with a visitation order was not possible.
ated with the witness, if those individuals might also be
Specified that the custody and visitation rights of the
endangered.
non-relocated parent could not be infringed if a child was
Required the attorney general to issue guidelines on
relocated as part of the program.
the types of cases in which witnesses could be protected.
Required the Justice Department to pay transporta-
Gave U.S. officials and employees immunity from civil
tion and security costs necessary to ensure up to 12 visits
liability for their decisions to protect or not to protect a
per year, or up to 30 days, between parents and children.
witness.
Provided for arbitration if no agreement on modifying
1984 CQ ALMANAC-219
Crime Package - 6
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
a custody arrangement was reached within 60 days of a
any excess money to go to the Treasury.
legal action to alter the arrangement.
Barred deposits in the fund after Sept. 30, 1988.
Authorized the attorney general to pay restitution or,
Specified that half the amount in the fund each year
in the case of death, compensation to any victim injured or
would be available for grants to existing state victim-com-
killed by a person protected under the federal program.
pensation programs to meet claims, and half to states to
Authorized $1 million annually for this compensation
provide victim assistance programs such as rape counsel-
program.
ing.
Limited compensation in cases involving death to a
Allowed the attorney general to deduct up to 5 percent
maximum of $50,000, and prohibited payments to victims
of the total in the fund for services to victims of federal
receiving restitution or compensation through other pro-
crimes. This money would come out of the share allotted to
grams or through insurance.
states for victim services.
Authorized the attorney general, in making annual
Foreign Business Records
grants to state victim-compensation programs, to provide
Permitted the use of foreign business records as evi-
funds equal to 35 percent of the amounts awarded to crime
dence in criminal proceedings if the custodian of those
victims by the state program during the previous fiscal
records provided a certification setting forth specified in-
year, other than awards for property damage.
formation about how the records were compiled and kept.
Defined an "eligible" program as one that was oper-
Allowed a defendant to challenge the admission of the
ated by a state and offered compensation to victims or
records into evidence under certain circumstances.
their survivors for medical expenses, loss of wages and
Transferred from the State Department to the Justice
funeral expenses.
Department responsibility for administering the Foreign
Authorized the attorney general to make grants to
Agents Registration Act, but required the attorney general
states, subject to available funds, for crime victim-assis-
to inform the State Department of foreign registrations it
tance programs run by public agencies or non-profit orga-
had received.
nizations.
Made clear that the United States had jurisdiction
Provided that each state should receive $100,000 under
over any offense committed by or against a national of the
the grant and that any remaining money should be distrib-
United States any place outside the jurisdiction of another
uted among the states on the basis of population. If there
country. This provision was intended to cover crimes that
was less than $100,000 per state available, then the money
might occur on Antarctica, an ice floe or the moon. (A
would be distributed to the states equally.
"national" was a U.S. citizen or a person whose principal
Authorized a federal court, upon request by a U.S.
place of residence was the United States.)
attorney, to ensure that someone convicted of a crime
Drug Policy Board
causing physical harm to an individual did not profit from
that crime. A court could order forfeiture of all or part of
Created a National Drug Enforcement Policy Board, a
the proceeds the defendant or his designee received from a
high-level interagency council to coordinate federal drug
contract relating to depiction of the crime in a movie, book,
enforcement activities.
newspaper, magazine, drama, radio or television produc-
Designated the attorney general as chairman and in-
tion.
cluded on the board the secretaries of state, Treasury,
Authorized a judge to order the person who contracted
defense, health and human services, the director of the
with the defendant to pay the specified amount to the
Office of Management and Budget, the director of the
attorney general.
Central Intelligence Agency and any other officials the
Provided that proceeds paid to the attorney general
president wanted to appoint.
through forfeiture be held in the Crime Victims Fund for
Authorized the board to develop and coordinate all
five years, but allowed payment for specified purposes,
U.S. efforts to halt national and international drug traf-
including a fine or monetary award to the victim. At the
ficking.
end of the five-year period, a court could require all or part
Authorized the chairman to make recommendations to
of forfeited proceeds to be released for use by the Crime
the board for coordination of drug enforcement activities,
Victims Fund.
to be the primary adviser to the president on drug enforce-
ment issues, and to review and approve the reprogramming
Trademark Counterfeiting
of funds relating to drug enforcement.
Prohibited trafficking in goods or services using a
Specified that neither the new drug board nor its
counterfeit trademark and set a fine of up to $250,000, a
chairman could "interfere with the routine law enforce-
prison term of up to five years, or both for a first offense by
ment or intelligence decisions of any agency" or undertake
an individual. A corporation could be fined up to $1 mil-
activities "inconsistent with" the authority and respon-
lion. A second offense by an individual would carry a
sibilities of the director of central intelligence.
maximum $1 million fine and 15-year prison term, while an
Required the chairman to submit a report to Congress
organization could be fined up to $5 million.
within nine months of enactment on drug enforcement
Authorized a judge to order the destruction of goods in
policy. After the first report, others would be required
the possession of a defendant that were determined to be
every two years.
counterfeit.
Victim Compensation
Increased civil penalties for counterfeiting by allowing
a judge to impose triple damages or three times the profits
Created a Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury De-
from counterfeiting, whichever was greater. A judge could
partment financed through fines collected from persons
decline to award triple damages if he found "extenuating
convicted of federal offenses, with specified exceptions,
circumstances."
plus forfeited bonds and collateral.
Authorized a plaintiff to seek a court order - without
Set a $100 million maximum for the fund and required
prior notice to the opposing party - directing federal
220-1984 CQ ALMANAC
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
Crime Package - 7
authorities to seize counterfeit goods, the equipment and
could not be suspended nor could the defendant be pa-
documents used to make and sell them.
roled.
Required, before such an "ex parte" order was issued,
that the plaintiff post bond covering the costs of the goods
Terrorism
in question, and that the judge find factual evidence indi-
Required imprisonment for up to life for taking hos-
cating that only such an order would assure that the goods
tages either inside the United States or outside the country
in question remained intact for further legal proceedings.
in order to compel a third person or government to do or
Required a court hearing on the seizure within 15 days.
abstain from doing a particular act as a condition for
Authorized an award of damages and attorneys' fees to
releasing the hostages.
anyone whose goods had been wrongfully seized.
Barred prosecution under this section unless the of-
fender or person detained was a U.S. national, the offender
Credit Card Fraud
was found in the United States, or the U.S. government
Provided a maximum fine of $10,000 or twice the value
was the one the offender sought to influence.
obtained, and a prison term of up to 10 years, for anyone
Set a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of up to 20
who used or trafficked in one or more unauthorized credit
years, or both for anyone who destroyed or damaged air-
cards or other "access devices," such as bank card numbers,
craft or aircraft facilities in the United States, or acted
and obtained at least $1,000 in value in any one-year pe-
violently toward any person on such an aircraft, or know-
riod.
ingly provided false information that could endanger an
Set the same penalties for anyone who possessed with
aircraft in flight. The same penalties were established for
intent to defraud 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized
anyone attempting to commit the above crimes.
cards or code numbers.
Provided the same penalties for anyone who per-
Set a maximum $50,000 fine or twice the value ob-
formed an act of violence against a "civil" aircraft of an-
tained and a maximum 15-year prison term for anyone who
other country or placed a dangerous device aboard such
produced, used or trafficked in counterfeit access devices
aircraft, if that offender was later found in the United
or who trafficked in equipment to make such devices.
States.
Provided a maximum $100,000 fine, or twice the value
Provided a maximum $25,000 fine and maximum five-
obtained and a maximum 20-year prison term for a second
year prison term for anyone who willfully threatened to
offense of the above crimes.
commit any of the above offenses.
Provided a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for anyone
Computer Fraud
who knowingly conveyed false information that was likely
Made it a felony to gain unauthorized entry into a
to be believed concerning an attempt or alleged attempt to
computer for purposes of obtaining classified information
violate specified regulations governing aircraft licensing
with intent or reason to believe the information would be
and safety.
used to the injury of the United States or advantage of
Provided a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for anyone,
another country. Unauthorized use of classified informa-
other than law enforcement officers and certain authorized
tion by someone authorized to have access to the computer
personnel, who boarded or attempted to board an aircraft
was also banned.
while carrying a concealed dangerous weapon.
Made it a felony to attempt to commit the above
Raised the fine for carrying concealed weapons or ex-
crime.
plosives aboard an aircraft from $1,000 to $10,000. The
Provided a maximum penalty on the first offense of
offense also carried a maximum one-year prison term.
$10,000 or twice the value obtained, and a maximum prison
Raised the fine for committing an act with a weapon or
term of 10 years. A second offense would carry a maximum
explosive aboard an aircraft from $5,000 to $25,000. The
$100,000 fine or twice the value obtained, and a maximum
offense also carried a maximum five-year prison term.
20-year prison term.
Set a maximum $25,000 fine and five-year prison term
Made it a misdemeanor to enter a computer illegally
for anyone who willfully and maliciously, or with reckless
and obtain information covered by federal laws protecting
disregard for human life, knowingly conveyed false in-
privacy of financial and credit information.
formation about committing a crime on board an aircraft,
Made it a misdemeanor to enter a government com-
interfering with flight crews, or carrying weapons or explo-
puter illegally and affect the computer's operations.
sives aboard.
Made it a misdemeanor to use a government computer
Provided a maximum $25,000 fine and five-year prison
for purposes other than the authorized use and then mod-
term for anyone who threatened to commit such acts.
ify, destroy or disclose information obtained, or prevent
authorized use of the computer.
U.S. Attorneys' Salaries
Set a maximum $5,000 penalty or twice the value
Authorized the attorney general to fix the salaries of
obtained, and a maximum one-year prison term, for the
U.S. attorneys and their assistants at a level not to exceed
first misdemeanor offense. A second offense would carry a
the maximum paid to employees in the Senior Executive
maximum fine of $10,000 or twice the value obtained, and a
Service. The maximum salary was thereby raised to
maximum 10-year prison term.
$69,900 per year, up from a current maximum of $66,400.
Armed Career Criminals
Defense Attorneys' Fees
Allowed federal prosecution of specified repeat state
Raised the current rate for court-appointed defense
offenders.
lawyers from $20 per hour for out-of-court work and $30
Provided a mandatory 15-year prison term and
per hour for in-court work to $40 and $60 respectively. The
$25,000 fine for any defendant with three previous state
pay rates for these attorneys had not been changed since
convictions for robbery or burglary who possessed a firearm
1970.
that had traveled in interstate commerce. The sentence
Raised the maximum payment for a felony case and
1984 CQ ALMANAC-221
Crime Package - 8
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
for an appeal from $1,000 for each to $2,000 for each.
Rept 98-225). Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr., R-Md., cast
Raised the maximum payment for a misdemeanor case
the lone vote against the measure in committee.
from $400 to $800.
Raised the maximum for other proceedings, such as a
Controversial Items Split Off
parole revocation, from $250 to $500.
To minimize the prospect that the crime package
Maintained current law allowing the maximums to be
would get bogged down on the Senate floor in fights over
exceeded through a request to the chief judge of the federal
emotional issues, the committee split off into separate bills
district where the case in question resided.
provisions it knew would generate controversy. These in-
cluded a revised drug czar proposal and measures to re-
institute the federal death penalty, restrict use of habeas
Background
corpus claims by state prisoners and modify the exclusion-
ary rule, which barred use at trials of illegally seized evi-
Criminal Code Reform History
dence.
The effort to revise the federal criminal code dated
The drug czar plan was later incorporated into the
back to 1966, when, at the instigation of Congress, a Na-
final crime package (H J Res 648). The other three bills (S
tional Commission on Reform of Criminal Laws was cre-
1765, S 1763, S 1764) were passed by the Senate, but died
ated. Headed by Gov. Edmund G. Brown of California
in the House. (Stories, pp. 227, 228)
(1959-67), the commission produced a report that led to the
introduction on Jan. 4, 1973, of the first omnibus crime bill,
Senate Floor Action
S 1. That proposal drew swift and steady fire from civil
liberties groups, who claimed it was harmful to individual
The Senate began work on S 1762 on Jan. 27. Because
rights. (1973 Almanac p. 374)
the bill included only provisions with bipartisan support, it
Although numerous hearings were held on the legisla-
was expected to sail through the Senate.
tion, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not act on either
That hope faded Jan. 31, however, when Sens. Howard
S 1 or on a successor version introduced Jan. 15, 1975, at
M. Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, and Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., of-
the start of the 94th Congress.
fered an amendment to make it a federal felony for any
In 1977, however, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.,
government official or employee to record a phone con-
and John L. McClellan, D-Ark. (1943-77; House, 1935-39),
versation without the other party's consent. Exemptions
introduced S 1437, a revised criminal code reform that
were provided for law enforcement, national security, and
omitted some of the more controversial provisions of earlier
foreign intelligence and counterintelligence personnel.
versions. That bill was passed by the Senate on Jan. 30,
1978, but died in the House.
Telephone Taping
Kennedy tried again in the 96th Congress, supported
Metzenbaum and Bumpers said their amendment was
by Sens. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., and Orrin G. Hatch, R-
prompted by disclosures that Charles Z. Wick, head of the
Utah. A criminal code bill (S 1722) was reported from the
United States Information Agency, had recorded dozens of
Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 17, 1980, but Kennedy
telephone conversations without the other party's consent.
became so deeply involved in his unsuccessful bid to wrest
The amendment drew vehement protests from Senate
the Democratic presidential nomination from President
Republicans, and representatives from the Justice Depart-
Carter that the bill was sidetracked. The House Judiciary
ment and the government's intelligence agencies rushed to
Committee also approved a criminal code bill, HR 6915,
the Capitol to urge senators to block the amendment. Jus-
but that measure went no further.
tice also sent over two long letters identifying possible
Work resumed in the 97th Congress, as the Senate
problems with the proposals.
Judiciary Committee approved yet another criminal code
Bumpers and Metzenbaum said they were amazed at
package (S 1630) Nov. 18, 1981, formally reporting the
the opposition. They said that they had provided exemp-
measure Jan. 25, 1982 (S Rept 97-307).
tions in the areas of concern, and Metzenbaum said repeat-
Although that measure, like its predecessors, proved
edly that he had asked Justice and the intelligence agencies
too hot for the Senate to handle in an election year, some of
to bring him proposed language for the exemptions.
its non-controversial provisions were passed separately (S
None had been forthcoming, Metzenbaum said. "I'm
2572) on Sept. 30, 1982, and then attached to a minor
starting to think that what this whole thing is about is that
House-passed bill (HR 3963) that was cleared by Congress
a lot more secret taping is going on than a lot of us imag-
in the session that began Dec. 20. However, Reagan ob-
ined."
jected to certain portions of the bill, most notably a section
Some Republicans said the amendment was nothing
creating a new, centralized Cabinet-level office to combat
but a slap at Reagan, a close friend of Wick, an allegation
drug trafficking, dubbed the "drug czar." He pocket-vetoed
Bumpers called "misinformation." He said the amendment
the measure Jan. 14, 1983. (1982 Almanac p. 419)
was designed to bar "peeping Tomism."
"Does this mean the president wants to go out and
campaign that he was violently opposed to a law that in
Senate Committee Action
effect stopped peeping Toms?" Bumpers asked.
After considerable debate, the amendment was finally
With Reagan insisting that he placed a high priority on
rejected 41-51. (Vote 5, p. 3-S)
anti-crime legislation, despite his veto of the 1982 bill,
Kennedy and Thurmond started over in the 98th Congress.
Final Passage, Backup Steps
Along with Paul Laxalt, R-Nev., and Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
With the phone taping issue out of the way, the Senate
D-Del., they introduced another omnibus anti-crime pack-
passed S 1762 on Feb. 2 by a 91-1 vote. As in committee,
age (S 1762) that was approved by the Judiciary Commit-
Mathias cast the lone "nay." (Vote 6, p. 3-S)
tee July 21, 1983, and formally reported Aug. 4, 1983 (S
Mathias expressed strong reservations about the bill's
222-1984 CQ ALMANAC
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
Crime Package - 9
sentencing provisions, which he unsuccessfully sought to
Computer, Credit Card Fraud
amend.
The House July 24 passed a bill (HR 5616 - H Rept
In a move designed to facilitate House passage of at
98-894) that for the first time would make it a crime to
least portions of S 1762, the Senate Feb. 2-3 passed three of
obtain unauthorized access to computers and obtain classi-
the most important sections of the measure as separate
fied information, protected financial information, or some-
bills.
thing of value. The measure, which also made it a felony to
A sentencing bill (S 668 - S Rept 98-223) was passed
use a credit or bank card, or their code numbers, without
85-3 on Feb. 2. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., and Howell Heflin,
authorization, was passed by 395-0. (Vote 281, p. 86-H)
D-Ala., joined Mathias in voting "nay." (Vote 7, p. 3-S)
On Feb. 3, the Senate by 84-0 passed as a separate bill
Criminal Fines
(S 215 - S Rept 98-147) provisions that permitted pretrial
On July 30, the House by voice vote approved a bill
detention of criminal suspects deemed dangerous to the
(HR 5846 - H Rept 98-906) to make criminal fines more
community. (Vote 9, p. 4-S)
severe and improve the government's ability to collect
Also passed separately Feb. 3, this time by voice vote,
them.
was legislation (S 948 - S Rept 98-224) to expand the
The House and Senate Judiciary committees had stud-
federal government's authority to require forfeiture of
ied federal criminal fine levels over the last decade in
profits and proceeds from organized crime and drug traf-
connection with efforts to revamp the entire criminal code.
ficking.
Both committees concluded that current fine levels were
too low to be effective.
House Action
HR 5846 substantially increased maximum fine levels
for all federal crimes. The bill provided that an individual
The House Judiciary Committee, and the House itself,
could be fined the greatest of the amount specified for the
dealt with crime bills in a piecemeal fashion until the very
crime in question, twice the gain or loss resulting from the
end of the session.
crime, or in the case of any felony or of a misdemeanor
The effort was to little avail; the Senate simply ignored
resulting in death, $250,000.
most of these House-passed measures. Senate provisions on
A similar scheme was established for corporations, ex-
the subjects addressed by the House ultimately became law
cept that if a corporation were convicted of a felony or a
after being attached en masse to the continuing appropria-
misdemeanor resulting in death, the fine could be the
tions resolution.
greater of $1,000,000 or twice the gain or loss resulting from
Crime bills that were passed by the House, only to be
the crime.
incorporated in H J Res 648 along lines approved by the
Senate, included:
Foreign Business Records
A bill (HR 5919 - H Rept 98-907) to make it easier to
Pay for Defense Lawyers
use foreign-kept business records at criminal trials in the
This bill (HR 4307 - H Rept 98-764), passed by voice
United States was passed July 30 by voice vote. The bill
vote May 21, raised the hourly pay for defense lawyers
permitted the admission into evidence of foreign business
appointed in federal criminal cases from a maximum of $30
records if the custodian of those records provided a certi-
an hour to $50 an hour. In special circumstances, the rate
fication setting forth specified information about the
could be $75 an hour.
records and how they were kept. A defendant would have
The hourly rate had not been changed since 1970.
the right to challenge the admission of the documents
Since then, there had been a different pay rate for in-court
under certain circumstances.
time ($30 per hour) and out-of-court time ($20 per hour).
HR 4307 would have ended this distinction.
Bribery and Fraud
Also July 30, the House by voice vote approved a bill
Federal Witness Protection
(HR 5872 - H Rept 98-901) to close loopholes in current
By 376-41, the House May 22 suspended the rules and
laws prohibiting bribery and fraud involving financial insti-
passed a bill (HR 4249 - H Rept 98-767) to tighten
tutions. The bill barred all payments intended to influence
controls on a Justice Department program that gave new
an officer or employee of a financial institution in making a
identities, relocation and other protection to federal wit-
discretionary decision. However, to avoid making a crime
nesses in exchange for their testimony in criminal cases.
out of trivial actions, such as taking a loan officer to dinner
(Vote 141, p. 48-H)
following a successful transaction, the bill required that the
The legislation was prompted by criticism over the
payment in money or its equivalent be more than $100.
years that stemmed from crimes committed by witnesses
who were given new identities and relocated.
Escape From Custody
The bill also established a victim compensation fund
By voice vote July 30, the House passed a bill (HR
for innocent persons injured by individuals admitted to the
5526 - H Rept 98-902) to make it a federal crime to escape
witness protection program. A $2 million maximum was
from federal custody or confinement that resulted from
authorized for yearly appropriations for the fund.
specified civil or criminal proceedings.
Missing Children
Contraband in Prison
The House June 4 passed by voice vote a bill (HR 4971
A bill (HR 5910 - H Rept 98-908) to make it a crime
- H Rept 98-741) to create a national clearinghouse to
to possess any contraband in prison was passed by voice
coordinate efforts to locate missing children and to set up a
vote July 30. Current law provided penalties for bringing
toll-free hotline to receive tips about their whereabouts.
contraband into a prison or removing it, but not for mere
The program was included in legislation reauthorizing
possession. The bill also amended the current law covering
juvenile justice programs of the Department of Justice.
prison riots by adding a definition of "riot" and providing a
1984 CQ ALMANAC-223
Crime Package - 10
LAW ENFORCEMENT/JUDICIARY
$250,000 fine for conviction. Currently, there was only a 10-
This measure, which contained provisions generally
year prison term.
paralleling those of the Senate bill, was passed 406-16
Drug Penalties
under suspension of the rules. (Vote 382, p. 118-H)
The greatest> differences between HR 5690 and the
This bill (HR 4901 - H Rept 98-845, Parts I and II),
Senate bill (S 1762) involved sentencing procedures, the
passed Sept. 11 by voice vote, allowed forfeiture of assets of
insanity defense and drug laws.
those convicted of certain drug offenses and substantially
increased penalties for drug offenses.
HR 4901 increased maximum fines for the most seri-
Pharmacy Robberies
ous drug offenses from $25,000 to $250,000 for individuals,
and from $25,000 to $1 million for entities convicted of
Congress May 17 cleared for President Reagan a bill (S
drug offenses. The measure also gave judges the option of
422 - PL 98-305) creating a new federal crime covering
fining a defendant twice the profits or gross proceeds from
the robbery or burglary of controlled substances.
the trafficking.
The measure was aimed primarily at thefts from drug
Drug 'Czar'
stores, and pharmacists had been pressing for the legisla-
tion for years. They contended that as dispensers of power-
This measure (HR 4028 - H Rept 98-1008) was also
ful drugs with a street value far above their actual cost,
approved Sept. 11 by voice vote. In contrast to a 1982
they were vulnerable to attacks by those interested in
proposal that provoked Reagan's veto, HR 4028 did not
making money on the black market.
create any centralized new drug enforcement office. In-
Final action came when the Senate by voice vote ac-
stead, it increased the authority of the director of the
cepted House amendments to S 422. The House had passed
existing Office of Drug Abuse Policy, created when the
a compromise version of the measure by voice vote May 8.
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act (PL 92-255) was
The compromise, worked out through informal negoti-
enacted in 1972. (1972 Almanac p. 162)
ations between the chambers, was essentially the same as
Trademark Counterfeiting
the version reported March 30 by the House Judiciary
Committee (HR 5222 - H Rept 98-644).
Passed by a 403-0 vote on Sept. 12, this bill (HR 6071
The Senate had passed S 422 in February, both sepa-
- H Rept 98-997) created new criminal penalties for mak-
rately (S Rept 98-353) and as part of a larger anti-crime
ing and selling products with counterfeit trademarks. It
package (S 1762 - S Rept 98-225). (Crime package, p.
also expanded and stiffened existing civil penalties. (Vote
215)
344, p. 106-H)
The measure was intended to stem what sponsors and
Background
government experts said was a booming $6 billion business
The Justice Department already had authority under
of passing off shoddy and sometimes hazardous goods as
broad federal robbery and burglary statutes to prosecute
popular brand-name products.
crimes involving controlled substances. However, the de-
HR 6071 provided a maximum fine of $250,000, a five-
partment had told Congress in past years that it was not
year prison term or both for a person convicted of counter-
interested in investigating these types of crimes, which
feiting goods or services. A corporation could be fined up to
could be handled by state authorities.
$1 million.
Justice officials changed their minds in late 1983, how-
Money-Laundering
ever, and said they could live with legislation such as S 422
if requirements for federal jurisdiction were carefully
This bill (HR 6031 - H Rept 98-984), passed Sept. 10
worked out.
by voice vote, increased civil and criminal penalties for
Rep. William J. Hughes, D-N.J., chairman of the
illicit financial transactions, generally known as "money-
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, said there was
laundering." The measure amended the Currency and For-
merit to providing a federal "backup" to state prosecutions
eign Transactions Reporting Act, which set reporting and
of drug robberies and burglaries.
record-keeping rules for financial transactions.
Hughes said there were 6,000 robberies and burglaries
Customs agents were authorized to conduct warrant-
of controlled substances between 1977 and 1981. Such
less searches when they had "reasonable grounds to be-
crimes had "terrorized the community of dispensing phar-
lieve" that currency laws were being violated.
macists," he said.
Drug Diversion
"This legislation is an important step forward in con-
trolling the diversion of large quantities of dangerous drugs
On Sept. 18, the House by voice vote passed a bill (HR
from the legitimate channels of commerce to the streets
5656 - H Rept 98-835) to help control the diversion of
and the black market," said Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr., D-
prescription drugs from medical channels into the black
N.J., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
market. It allowed the Drug Enforcement Administration
to revoke or deny a physician's registration to write pre-
Major Provisions
scriptions if the attorney general found that registration
As cleared, S 422 included the following major provi-
inconsistent with the public interest.
sions:
Omnibus Bill
Provided for federal prosecutions in any one of three
instances - when the value of the substances taken was at
On Oct. 2, reacting to the parliamentary coup pulled
least $500; when the offender traveled in interstate or
by House Republicans in getting the Senate-passed crime
foreign commerce or used a facility of interstate commerce
package attached to the continuing resolution, House Dem-
in the offense; or when a person other than the offender
ocratic leaders put on the floor an omnibus crime bill (HR
was killed or suffered "significant" bodily injury.
5690) of their own.
The original House bill provided for jurisdiction when
224-1984 CQ ALMANAC
SATURAL DISTRICT
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
1033 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET. SUITE 200. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22314
(703) 549-9222
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MEMORANDUM
Date: 3/7/91
Time: 3:15p.m.
# Pages Including Cover Sheet: 10
MESSAGE TO:
BOB SIMON
FIRM:
WHITE HOUSE
TELECOPIER NO.
202-456-6218
MESSAGE FROM: DWIGHT PRICE, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PHONE NUMBER: 703-549-9222
TELECOPIER NO. 703/836-3195
MATERIALS TRANSMITTED:
COPIES OF LETTERS FROM OUR PRESIDENT
CONCERNING LAST YEAR'S CRIME BILL
MESSAGE: PLEASE CONTACT MEEWITH ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS
If any difficulty is experienced with this transmission, please
call DWIGHT PRICE
at 703/549-9222.
100'390°
FROM NDAA
02:51 16. 2 RAR
DISTRICT
NATIONAL
ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
1033 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET, SUITE 200. ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314
(703) 549-9222
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
September 12, 1990
Re: Crime Control Act (H.R. 5269)
Dear Member of Congress:
As President of the National District Attorneys Association, I am writing to ask for your
support on a matter of great importance to the nation's prosecutors.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 (H.R. 5269), recently approved by the
House Judiciary Committee, contains several provisions which are strongly opposed by the
National District Attorneys Association.
While many of H.R. 5269's provisions are progressive steps forward, the provisions
regarding habeas corpus "reform" and the so-called "Racially Discriminatory Capital Sentencing
Act" provisions would, in effect, repeal the death penalty in the United States and would place
insurmountable burdens on prosecutors in habeas corpus litigation in capital and non-capital states
alike.
First, the habeas corpus provisions embodied at Title XIII of H.R. 5269 unduly expand the
retroactively applied new rules of criminal procedure promulgated after trial and direct appeal to
overtum convictions on collateral review, thereby overruling Teague V. Lane, 109 S.Ct. 1060
(1989). These provisions would extend the retroactive application of new rules to cases which
were tried in accordance with the law at the time of trial, and which have been approved after full
and final direct appellate review.
This provision also expansively redefines the component of the Wainwright V. Sykes, 433
U.S. 72 (1977) "cause and prejudice" standard so that many claims, which before could not be
considered because of the defendant's failure to properly raise them in state court, would be
"eligible" for federal consideration under the liberalized retroactivity law. Such initial federal
court consideration of previously unraised claims would not only undermine state court processes
and procedures, but also cause many well-based, proper and previously final convictions to be
thrown out.
200 PAGE
FROM NDAA
12:51 16, 2 RAM
The result of these objectionable provisions is disastrous. The wholesale application of
new procedural rules to cases tried before their adoption could cause many non-capital, as well
as capital sate convictions, to be re-opened. This will create an impossible burden which will
severely drain the already overburdened administration of criminal justice. Thousands of
previously proper convictions will wrongly be overturned.
In summary, instead of providing badly needed reform of collateral review of state
convictions, H.R. 5269's habeas corpus provisions will dramatically increase opportunities for
delay, abuse and repetitive litigation. For these compelling reasons, the provisions should be
opposed.
The Title XVIII "Racially Discriminatory Capital Sentencing" chapter of H.R. 5269
(Chapter 177) is likewise unacceptable. It would, in effect, repeal the death penalty in the United
Sates. Generally, the proposed bill creates a racial "quota" system for the death penalty. It
provides that if the percentage of any particular race on death row exceeds the percentage of that
race in the general population, execution of members of that race is prohibited unless: (1) the
prosecutor can provide by clear and convincing evidence non-racial factors explaining the higher
percentage of members on death IOW; or (2) the sentence being challenged does not fall within a
racially discriminatory pattern. These exceptions are virtually meaningless, however, since these
matters are simply not susceptible to evidentiary "proof." Because persecutors will not be able
to met this unprovable burden, the provision could effectively eliminate the death penalty in the
United States.
Finally, Title XXIII of H.R. 5269, the so-called "Berman Amendment", would allow all
death IOW inmates one opportunity to raise any race-related claim for the first time on federal
habeas review, no matter what reason the defendant offers for not raising the claim earlier.
Prosecutors will be required to recall why a challenge was used for jurors they struck, even in
cases dating back many years. Again, the "Berman Amendment" is just another way to eliminate
thousands of properly obtained death penalties in the United States.
In light of this information, I urge you to oppose the specified habeas corpus reform
provisions and the Racially Discriminatory Capital Sentencing sections of H.R. 5269. Specifically,
I urge you to vote as follows:
(1) Habeas Corpus - Vote to amend H.R. 5269 by striking Title XIII and substituting
language that reflects the Powell Commission report. The amendment will be introduced by
Representative Henry Hyde.
(2) Racial Justice Act - Vote to amend H.R. 5269 by striking Title XVIII, "Racially
Discriminatory Capital Sentencing." This amendment will be offered by Representative Jim
Sensenbrenner, Jr.
(3) "Berman Amendment" - Vote to strike Sec. 2212 of Title XXII, "Special Rule for
certain Habeas Corpus Petitions" (Berman Amendment).
800 PAGE
FROM NDAA
12:51 16. 2 MAR
(4) Asset Forfeiture - Vote to strike Title IV, Section 402(b) prohibiting adoptive
forfeitures that "circumvent" state law. This provision will otherwise dramatically reduce needed
revenues for state and local law enforcement to fight crime.
These issues are of critical importance to law enforcement and I would very much
appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Richard RICHARD P. IEYOUB P. Seyoub
President
CC: Jack E. Yelverton
National District Attorneys Association
Executive Director
PAGE 004
FROM NDAA
15:22 16. L MAR
DISTRICT
NATIONAL
ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
1033 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET. SUITE 200. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22314
(703) 549-9222
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
September 19, 1990
RE:
Hughes Amendment to Crime Control Act (H.R. 5269)
Dear Member of Congress:
Congressman William Hughes is proposing an amendment to Title XVIII ("Racially
Discriminatory Capital Sentencing") of H.R. 5269. To argue that the amendment "improves" the
title begs the question. It is still tragically flawed.
The nation's district attorneys believe that prosecution should be color-blind. The great irony of
the so-called "racial justice act", Congressman Hughes' amendment notwithstanding, is that it
injects into the prosecutor's decision making process considerations of race through the medium
of statistics. The application of this statistical approach to justice provides an obvious incentive
for prosecutors to apply a double standard by seeking the death penalty for non-minority
defendants in order to avoid protracted litigation by minority defendants under the provisions of
this act. This does not promote justice generally any more than it discourages discrimination
specifically. In fact, it encourages a "quota system" approach.
This bill is a legislative lemon. It cannot be fixed by cosmetic changes. Major surgery is
necessary. We urge you to: (1) vote to reject Title XVIII "Racially Discriminatory Capital
Sentencing" as well as the Hughes amendment; (2) vote to reject Sec. 2212 of XXII, "Special
Rule for Certain Habeas Corpus Petitions" (Berman Amendment); (3) vote for the Hyde
amendment substitute language in place of the current habeas corpus provision (Title XIII).
Many of the legal issues contained in H.R. 5269 are complicated. It is not expected that members
of Congress who do not have considerable previous experience in the practice of criminal law in
those areas covered by the bill will understand it. America's prosecutors do understand it and
1. 't
Extended Page
HATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNETS
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
1033 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET. SUITE 200, ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22314
(703) 549-9222
October 2, 1990
RE: Crime Control Bill (H.R. 5269)
Dear Member of Congress:
On behalf of the 6500 members of the National District
Attorneys Association, we wish to express our appreciation to
those of you who voted on Tuesday, September 25, 1990, against
the rule on the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990. We have
informed prosecutors in all 50 states about your vote.
By joining the majority of your colleagues in bi-partisan
opposition to this rule, you demonstrated your commitment to
protecting the safety of thousands of law-abiding citizens
nationwide. The rule would have thwarted a long overdue
improvement to the criminal justice system by denying the House
the opportunity to consider the Hyde Amendment on habeas corpus
reform.
The nation's district attorneys are charged by the citizenry
with the responsibility of promoting justice. This means
adherence to fair, colorblind, orderly criminal law procedures.
America's prosecutors - both Democrats and Republicans - resent
the implication by some that they approach their work with
anything less than the highest regard for fair treatment of
defendants according to the rule of law.
We write now to urge you to support the Hyde amendment and
to oppose any rule that does not make it in order. After careful
analysis, our Association agreed in February to support the
recommendations of the Powell Committee. As you probably know,
former Associate Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell does not
personally support the death penalty. Nevertheless, he believes
that all criminal law procedures - including the death penalty -
should be fair and include the element of finality. We agree.
In our view, the Powell Committee approach (the Hyde Amendment)
will reduce delay, abuse, and repetitive litigation. The major
goal of the Hyde Amendment is to restore a sense of finality to
the sentencing process.
500 PAGE
FROM NDAA
82:51 16. 2 RAR
Page Two
October 2, 1990
With the limited time remaining in this session of Congress,
we are concerned that the opponents of habeas corpus reform may
succeed in blocking this measure. While we understand the
political dynamics involved in a vote to defeat the previous
question on the rule, it may be the only way that the Hyde
Amendment will be given consideration. Therefore, we request
that you vote to defeat the previous question if the next rule
does not include the Hyde Amendment.
Finally, assuming that a rule is approved, we would like to
share with you our views on the most important amendments. The
amendments that are most important to law enforcement are as
follows:
1. Support the Hyde Amendment on habeas corpus reform
and oppose all other substitutes (including the Derrick
Amendment).
2. Support the Sensenbrenner Amendment and oppose
the "racial justice" provision that could result in a
guota approach (the Hughes amendment).
3. Support the Moorhead Amendment to strike Section 402 of
Title IV which restricts federal sharing of forfeited
assets with state and local law enforcement agencies.
4. Support the Douglas Amendment on reform of the
exclusionary rule.
We urge your support in making this legislation a landmark
reform that will truly advance the cause of public safety.
Sincerely,
RichardP. cleyout Richard P. Ieyoub
President
6
PAGE.006
FROM NDAA
15:28 16, 2 MAR
DISTRICT
NATIONAL
ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
1033 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET. SUITE 200. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22314
(703) 549-9222
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
October 15, 1990
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As you know, both the House and the Senate have passed
omnibus anti-crime bills that contain federal death penalty
provisions. Unfortunately, the crime bill passed by the House of
Representatives contains the so-called "Racial Justice Act", a
provision that would make statistics concerning the race of
defendants and victims relevant in both state and federal death
penalty cases.
On behalf of state and local prosecutors, we write today to
urge you to veto any crime bill that contains any provision that
injects racial statistics into capital sentencing. This is not a
civil rights issue -- these provisions have nothing to do with
racial justice or fairness and everything to do with a desire to
thwart enforcement of death penalty laws. Further, America's
prosecutors -- both Democrats and Republicans - resent the
implication by some that they approach their responsibilities
with anything less than the highest regard for fair treatment of
defendants according to the rule of law.
The statistical approach taken by the so-called "Racial
Justice Act" is simplistic, vague and unworkable. The Supreme
Court rejected a challenge based upon this very approach in a
1987 case. This provision is a legislative attempt to circumvent
the Supreme Court's ruling.
8
PAGE.007
FROM NDAA
MAR 7 '91 15:24
Page Two
October 15, 1990
In sum, Mr. President, the "Racial Justice Act", and the
statistical approach to the death penalty it represents, will
nullify both state and federal death penalties. At the same
time, this racial quota approach to the criminal law will strike
a blow against the cause of colorblind justice -- a cause we all
vigorously support. We strongly oppose the so-called "Racial
Justice Act," and urge you to veto any legislation that contains
its approach to criminal justice.
Sincerely,
RICHARD P. IFYOUB
President
National District Attorneys
Association
Mulic More
Emic Priate,
MIKE MOORE
ERNEST D. PREATE, JR.
Attorney General of.
Attorney General of
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
9
800'396°
MAR 7 '91 15:24 FROM NDAA