The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TRIGGERLOCK” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S6487-S6489 on May 11, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRIGGERLOCK
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to begin a discussion about the crime bill that within the next several days I will be introducing. I would like today to continue to talk about other provisions of that crime bill.
As I indicated yesterday, I believe that there are really two truly fundamental issues that we always need to address when we are looking at the validity or the merits of any particular crime bill. First, what is the proper role of the Federal Government in fighting crime in this country? Second, despite all the rhetoric, what really works in law enforcement; what matters and what does not matter?
It has been my experience, Mr. President, as someone who does not pretend to be an expert in this area but someone who has spent the better part of 20 years in different capacities dealing with this, beginning in the early 1970's as a county prosecuting attorney, it has been my experience that many times the rhetoric does not square very closely with the reality, and that really, if we are serious about dealing with crime, the people that we ought to talk to are the men and women who are on the front lines every single day--the police officers, the tens of thousands of police officers around this country who really are the experts and who know what works and what does not work.
The bill that I will introduce is based upon my own experience, but it is also based on hundreds and hundreds of discussions that I have had over the years with the people who, literally, are on the front line.
Yesterday, I discussed these issues with specific reference to crime-
fighting technology. The conclusion I have reached is that we have an outstanding technology base in this country that will do a great deal to catch criminals. Technology does, in fact, matter, and it clearly matters in the area of law enforcement. But we need the Federal Government to be more proactive in this area, more proactive in helping the States get on line with their own technology.
Having a terrific national criminal record system or a huge DNA data base for convicted sex offenders in Washington, DC, is great, but it will not really do much good if the police officer in Lucas County, OH, or Greene County or Clark County or Hamilton County cannot tap into it. It will not do any good if we cannot get the information, the primary source of this information, from them and get it into the system.
Crimes occur locally. Ninety-five percent of all criminal prosecution, of all
[[Page S6488]] criminal investigations, occurs locally, not at the national level. Crime occurs locally, so we have to make sure that the crime-fighting resources, like this high-technology data base that I talked about yesterday, are available to local law enforcement.
Mr. President, today I would like to continue this discussion, and I would like to discuss another component of my crime legislation: How do we go about protecting America from armed career criminals? I am talking about repeat violent criminals who use a gun in the commission of a felony. In this area, too, we need to be asking what works, what does not work, and what level of Federal Government is most appropriate to do what, what level of Federal Government is most appropriate to get certain help from.
Again, experience tells us that we really do know what matters, we really do know what works. In the area of gun crimes, we have a pretty good answer.
We all know that there is a great deal of controversy about guns, controversy over whether general restrictions on gun ownership would help reduce crime. But, Mr. President, there is no controversy over whether taking guns away from convicted felons will reduce crime. Let me guarantee you, if we know one thing, it is this: If we take guns out of the hands of convicted felons, we will reduce crime and we will have fewer victims.
There is legitimate disagreement over bills such as the Brady bill, whether that will reduce crime. Similarly, reasonable people can disagree concerning the question of whether a ban on assault weapons will reduce crime. I happen to support both of these measures, but I recognize that many people do not and many people think that they are not effective.
But what I am talking about today is something on which there is absolutely no controversy, absolutely no dispute. There simply is no question that taking the guns away from armed career criminals will, in fact, reduce crime, and history shows that that works.
When it comes to armed career criminals, we need to disarm them, we need to lock them up, we need to get them out of society. Let us disarm the people who are hurting our victims, who are hurting the citizens of this country. As I said, history indicates that this works. We have a historic track record to point to. We actually have tried this and it does, in fact, work.
One of the most successful crime-fighting initiatives of recent years in this country was a project that was known as Project Triggerlock. This project was very successful, wildly successful, precisely because it addressed a problem squarely and it placed the resources where they were most needed.
Let me tell the Members of the Senate a little bit about the history of this Project Triggerlock.
The U.S. Justice Department began Project Triggerlock in May of 1991. The program targeted for prosecution in Federal court armed and violent repeat offenders. Under Triggerlock, U.S. attorneys throughout the country turned to the local prosecuting attorneys in whatever jurisdiction they were located and said: ``If you catch a felon with a gun, if you want us to, we, under existing Federal statute, we the Federal prosecutors, we the U.S. attorneys will take over that prosecution for you. We will prosecute that individual, we will convict that individual, and we will hit that individual with a stiff Federal mandatory sentence, and we will lock this individual up in a Federal prison at no cost to the local community, to the State.''
That is true Federal assistance. That is Federal assistance that matters. That is Federal assistance that makes a difference. That is Federal assistance and Federal action that will save lives by taking these career criminals off our streets.
Mr. President, that is what Project Triggerlock did. Triggerlock was an assault on the very worst criminals, the worst of the worst in American society. And it worked. This program took 15,000--15,000--
career criminals off the streets in just an 18-month period of time. Incredibly--at least incredibly to me as a former prosecutor--the Clinton Justice Department abandoned Project Triggerlock. It was the most effective Federal program in recent history for targeting and removing armed career criminals from our society. But for some reason--
for some reason--the Justice Department stopped Triggerlock dead in its tracks.
What I propose in my crime legislation is that we resurrect Project Triggerlock, and we can do it. My legislation includes a provision requiring the U.S. attorneys in every jurisdiction in this country to make a monthly report to the Attorney General in Washington on the number of arrests, the number of prosecutions and convictions they have gotten within that last 30-day period of time on gun-related offenses. The Attorney General then would report semiannually to the U.S. Congress on the success of this program and report on the number of these individuals who have been convicted.
Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys have limited resources. In fact, with U.S. attorneys, they have more discretion because of the fact that many times we have concurrent jurisdiction between the local prosecutors under State law and Federal prosecutors under Federal law. So the Federal prosecutors have a great deal of discretion about what type cases to pursue. It really is a question of what the priorities are. It is a question of prioritization.
Like all prosecutors, U.S. attorneys do have to exercise discretion about whom to prosecute. We all recognize that Congress cannot dictate to U.S. attorneys, cannot dictate to the Attorney General who should be prosecuted. But it is clear that we should go on record with the following basic proposition, and that is this: There is nothing more important than getting armed career criminals off the streets. There is nothing more important that the Justice Department can do than to set this as a priority.
Mr. President, I think Project Triggerlock was a very important way to keep the focus on the prosecution of gun crimes. Getting criminals off the streets, criminals who use guns, is a major national priority and we all should behave accordingly.
Let me turn now to a second portion of this bill that deals with the problem of criminals using guns in the commission of a felony. The second thing we need to do is to change the law. We need to toughen the law against those who use a gun to commit a crime. My bill would say to career criminals: If you are a convicted felon and you possess a gun, you will get a mandatory sentence. Under current law, a first-time felon gets a 5-year mandatory sentence. A third-time felon gets a mandatory minimum of 15 years. But there is a gap in current law. There is no mandatory minimum for a second-time felon.
My legislation, Mr. President, would fix that. It would provide a mandatory minimum of 10 years for a second-time felon with a gun. That would make it a lot easier for police to get that gun criminal off of our streets.
Third, bail reform. The third thing we need to do is to reform the bail system. Under current law, the Bail Reform Act, certain dangerous, accused criminals can be denied bail if they have been charged with crimes of violence. But it is unclear under current law whether possession of firearms should be considered a crime of violence or not.
Mr. President, let us do a reality check here today. If someone who is a known convicted felon is walking around with a gun in your community in Michigan, or in my community in Ohio, what is the likelihood that that person is carrying the gun for law-abiding purposes? Convicted felon with a gun. I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider that person prima facie dangerous. We should deny bail to keep that convicted felon off the streets while awaiting trial on the new charge.
My legislation would eliminate the ambiguity in current law. My bill would define a crime of violence to specifically include possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. If you are a convicted felon and you are walking around with a gun, you are dangerous and you need to be kept off the streets. We need to give the prosecutors the legal right to protect the community from these people while they are awaiting trial.
Mr. President, a fourth way we can crack down on gun crimes is to go after
[[Page S6489]] those who knowingly provide--knowingly provide--guns to felons. Under current law, you can be prosecuted by providing a gun only if you knew for certain that it would be used in a crime. The revision I propose would make it illegal to provide a firearm if you have reasonable cause to believe that it is going to be used in the commission of a crime. This is the best way, I believe, to go after the illegal gun trade, those who provide guns to those people who are predators in our society. We will no longer, under this provision, allow these gun providers to feign ignorance. They are helping felons and they need to be stopped.
Mr. President, all of these proposals are motivated by a single purpose. I, along with the police officers of this country, believe that we have to get the guns away from the gun criminals. Project Triggerlock was one major initiative that we can pursue at the Federal level to help make this happen. Imposing stiff mandatory minimums, cracking down on illegal gun providers, are also good, important measures.
All of the gun proposals contained in my crime legislation, Mr. President, really have the same goal. They are designed to assure American families who are living in crime-threatened communities that we are going to do what it takes to get guns off of their streets. We are going to go after the armed career criminals. We are going to prosecute them, convict them, and we are going to keep them off of our streets. That is why we have a Government in the first place, to protect the innocent, to keep ordinary citizens safe from violent, predatory crimes.
Mr. President, I believe that Government needs to do a much better job with this fundamental task. That is why targeting the armed career criminals is such a major component of the crime bill that I will be introducing.
Mr. President, tomorrow I intend to talk briefly about a third major component of my bill, and that is how we help the victims of crime, those who are victimized by the criminals, those who we, many times, forget.
It has been my experience that, unfortunately, many times society treats the criminals as if they are victims and the victims as if they are criminals. Provisions in the bill that I will be discussing tomorrow deal with that. We will reach out to the victims of crime to help them and to make the playing field more level.
Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
