On the recordFebruary 7, 1995
I think that is a very worthwhile thing, to do the exclusionary rule today. That makes a good deal of sense. That was the main urgency I had. I would not have wanted to adjourn at 3 o'clock and be told we did not have time to debate. The second point I would make is on a different point. It is on the general crime bills themselves; that is, what the American people want is this: They want us to do something real about crime. They knew that we did something real last year. The tough on punishment, smart on prevention, hundred thousand cops formula had broad and wide public support from one end of America to the other. There may have been minor imperfections in those bills, most of which were cleared up by the time the bill reached the President's desk, but the basic concept was there. Mr. Chairman, I am virtually certain--I have seen polling data, I have talked to people in law enforcement and everywhere else--that the American people do not want to rip up that bill and start all over. They certainly do not want to just make a few quick and rather cheap political points to say, ``We had a better one than you had.'' They want us to work together on crime. This bill, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about is just what it is all about. If the new majority wants to build on our old crime bill, fine. Everything can be improved. That is what is happening in restitution.
Source
govinfo.gov




