At a particularly precarious moment during the congressional maneuvering over the 1994 crime bill, President Clinton received a powerful endorsement from an influential group on the debate’s front lines. In July 1994, 10 African-American Democratic mayors—including those from Detroit, Atlanta, Cleveland, and Denver—urged Congress to approve the measure, even after House and Senate negotiators removed a provision that would have made it easier for prisoners on death row to challenge their sentences as racially discriminatory.
While they supported that idea, the black mayors did not believe its demise outweighed the bill’s positive elements—particularly new federal funding to hire more police and for a prevention program for at-risk young people. “We cannot afford to lose the opportunities this bill provides to the people of our cities,” the mayors wrote.
That fragment of forgotten history illuminates two key points about the 1994 crime bill, which has reemerged as a flash point in the primary campaign between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, particularly after Bill Clinton’s heated encounter with protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement last week in Philadelphia.
One is that the legislation was a genuine compromise that advanced priorities of Left and Right—but also required concessions from each side. The second is that the historical record doesn’t support the Left’s assertion that the crime bill was primarily a politically motivated concession by Clinton to white racial backlash. While Clinton undoubtedly considered the bill part of his effort to rebuild the Democrats’ national coalition, he believed the best way to do that was to make genuine progress against a rising tide of violent crime.
“It was impossible to make economic progress without restoring order, and mayors … community leaders, and police were crying for help,” says Bruce Reed, Clinton’s chief domestic policy adviser in the White House. The 1994 crime bill was far from perfect. But today’s sharpest criticism of the legislation—encapsulated by the Philadelphia protester’s sign last week that read “Clinton crime bill destroyed our communities”—ignores the genuine need the bill addressed.
Fueled by soaring crack use, the violent-crime rate increased by over 25 percent from 1980 through 1992. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in the nation’s largest cities peaked at over 30 per 100,000 residents; in New York City alone, 2,245 people were murdered in 1990. This violence most heavily afflicted African-American, Hispanic, and low-income communities. In late 1993, a task force of mayors (chaired by Wellington Webb, the black mayor of Denver) urged Clinton to mount an “all-out” federal effort against “the continuing epidemic of violent crime in our cities.”
The crime bill blended priorities of Clinton and congressional Democrats—principally, more money to hire 100,000 police officers, funding for enhanced prevention programs, and a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons—with the top goal of congressional Republicans, big grants to states to build more prisons. Both sides contributed to a complex mix of sentencing changes that expanded federal mandatory-minimum sentences and required states (as a condition of obtaining the prison money) to toughen sentences for violent offenders, but also experimented with alternatives such as boot camps and drug courts. Several leading African-American legislators, including John Conyers and Maxine Waters, opposed the final bill, but many others, such as James Clyburn and Kweisi Mfume, supported it—as did leading Hispanic and white liberals, from Luis Gutierrez to Dick Durbin and then-Rep. Bernie Sanders.
Bill Clinton has correctly conceded that some of these changes were “overly broad” and accelerated a trend toward excessive incarceration that most criminal-justice experts say was primarily rooted in federal and state decisions during the previous two decades. But that’s only part of the crime bill’s legacy. The violent-crime rate has plummeted by nearly 50 percent since 1994, back to its lowest level since 1970. Across the 30 largest cities, the murder rate has dropped by about two-thirds since 1990. While the crime bill was not the principal factor in those declines—which researchers have struggled to precisely explain—most studies agree the legislation contributed to the gains, particularly by enabling cities to hire more police officers and requiring them to move into street patrols.
Clinton wanted to act against crime partly to blunt its use as a wedge issue against Democrats. But he believed the best way “to address that was by taking seriously the problem of crime,” says Michael Waldman, Clinton’s former chief speechwriter and now president of the Brennan Center for Justice. On crime, Clinton believed his signature formulation of expanding opportunity while demanding personal responsibility offered the approach most likely to produce progress, not only politically but also substantively. The crime bill’s impact was always constrained by the limits of Washington’s control of policing, a preponderantly local activity. And in some ways the bill unquestionably misfired. But on the whole it did more to advance than impede the ongoing revival of America’s largest cities.
What We're Following See More »
President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."
Facebook "outlined new measures it is taking to combat what it calls 'information operations' that go well beyond the phenomenon known as fake news" on Thursday. Facebook acknowledged that there are governments using its platform as a tool to launch propaganda information campaigns and "manipulate public opinion in other countries. ... Facebook suspended 30,000 accounts in France ahead of last Sunday’s first-round presidential election."
Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.
Members of Congress are eyeing a one-week spending bill which would keep the government open past the Friday night deadline, giving lawmakers an extra week to iron out a long-term deal to fund the government. Without any action, the government would run out of funding starting at midnight Saturday. “I am optimistic that a final funding package will be completed soon," said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.