THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release August 11, 1993 PRESS BRIEFING BY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL PHIL HEYMANN AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR DOMESTIC POLICY BRUCE REED The Briefing Room 10:40 A.M. EDT MR. HEYMANN: This is just going to be on the crime bill, and I really do think I can help a little bit explain what's going on if I can just have about 10 minutes of your time. The habeas corpus provisions of the proposed legislation are no more important than the police provisions which may do a lot of good, and the Brady provisions which may do a lot of good. But the habeas corpus provisions are arcane and it's very difficult for any ordinary human being to know what in the world this is all about. And so I want to tell you just what it's all about. Again, the introduction is just to say the fact that I'm talking about that shouldn't obscure the fact that the police provisions and the Brady provisions are at least equally important. We have a system going that the habeas provisions will change, particularly in the death sentence area. The system in many ways is the worst of all possible worlds at present. People are not provided adequate counsel for their trials, appeals, habeas, and then, having gone through a procedure without adequate counsel, they get endless further reviews. So we have cases where people are executed 15 years after the conviction. The habeas provisions are intended to reverse both halves of that. And in that, the conception is to my mind absolutely right, and so I think it is a substantial contribution. It will guarantee adequate counsel with an elaborate set of provisions and an elaborate system for the appointment of counsel in all state cases, with federal assistance and funding to both prosecutors and defense, but an elaborate system to guarantee counsel at trial, counsel on appeal, counsel in the collateral proceedings afterwards -- Q This is only in capital cases, right? MR. HEYMANN. Only in capital cases. Some of the provisions are only capital, some of them are all the way through. So I have to sort it out. But this is only capital cases. But then it says you have six months after your final appeal to file a habeas corpus petition. And it intends to bring things to a close with a habeas corpus petition which is -- now, let me make that clear -- that's the federal review of a state conviction when the Supreme Court has refused to review it. You have your state conviction, you go to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court says we're too busy. Then you go to a federal trial court -- the federal district court and you seek habeas. You have to do that within six months. So there are the twin simple purposes of the bill: A fair trial, a full set of state reviews, the Supreme Court if it will take it -- the United States Supreme Court if it will take it. If it won't, one federal review, bring your review within six months. Q Is there an administration crime bill? We're a little confused by the vehicles. There's the Biden, there's Brooks. Is there an administration bill? MR. HEYMANN. There is not an administration bill that will be separate from what is being called the Biden bill, the Brooks bill. And all of these will have to be sorted out. Q How different will they be from what -- the conference report that was stalled for 11 months? MR. HEYMANN. For example, the habeas -- the police provisions are new -- are substantially new this year. The Brady provisions I think are very similar to the conference report. The habeas provisions involve significant changes. And all the discussion you had out there of long, elaborate, difficult negotiation with Chairman Biden's staff, Chairman Brooks' staff, our staff from the Justice Department, and, very importantly, staff of the AGs -- the attorneys general from around the country, and the DAs. That's all about the habeas corpus provisions. And then -- Q What are you going to do -- MR. HEYMANN. Can I just say one more thing and then no more about -- then you know all that I expect you to know about habeas corpus. There will be disputes about provisions, but disputes about provisions are simply about what are the exceptions -- what are the details of how counsel are going to be provided and what happens if there's not compliance, the details of what happens if you suddenly discover new evidence of innocence or something like that. but the broad structure is fair representation for death sentence cases at trial, appeal, Supreme Court if you get there, federal habeas corpus in district court, and then one fair review in federal court. Q Can I ask two quick questions about habeas before we go on to something else? MR. HEYMANN. Sure. I'm going to probably disappear quickly after habeas. Q How much do you estimate bringing the counsel up to standard will cost both the federal government and the states? And are there any states that are currently up to what the bill would consider standard? MR. HEYMANN: I can't tell you how much we estimate, but remember that even though we have, in many ways, a very large number of death sentence cases in the United States, remember that we're talking about a tiny fraction of the total costs of representation. I mean, death sentence cases, if you added all the ones in the United States together, are a tiny, tiny fraction of the total cost. And is any state doing it? I'll bet they are, but I'm afraid that I'm not -- I simply am not able to tell you what state is doing it in this way now. We may even have copied some state. Have we, Harry? MR. LITMA: Many states already have standards that are at least comparable. And one other point to make is that whatever costs are, the bill provides for federal assistance to different -- Q But not 100 percent? MR. LITMA: Correct. Q Have you talked to the Republicans who were threatening to filibuster last time around over habeas to get them on board? Have there been negotiations with them? Any talks -- MR. HEYMANN: Basically, most of that type of conversation has been handled by the chairman, and I simply can't tell you how much there's been or I can't give you any details. MR. REED: But let me just interject. We had Republicans here today for this event and -- Q They not the ones who are the problem. MR. REED: I know. But we also have strong support from the state attorney generals and the prosecutors who were the -- their support is critical to whatever habeas is going to go through. MR. HEYMANN: Their opposition was critical last year. Q Can I ask you about the six month -- Q I want to know how you're going to separate out the Brady bill when you pursue it and put it on a fast track? MR. REED: The President supports the Brady bill, he'll take it either way. There are differences between the House and Senate as to whether it should be included or not. Q But he did say he wanted it to move faster. MR. REED: He wants it. He asked Congress to -- he said in his speech in February, asked Congress to sign the bill -- if they send him the bill he'll sign it. And he wants it to be the version of the Brady that was in the conference report last year. Q But he won't accept -- I mean push it? MR. REED: It's a question of legislative strategy. It's up to the sponsors and the House and Senate leadership. Q But the sponsors would like it separate. Q I'd like to ask about the six months provision. What do you do in the case where 12 months after the regular final appeal some very credible new evidence arises, for instance, you have recanting of very incriminating evidence? Is there going to be an exception? How's that going to be handled? MR. HEYMANN: There are two different exceptions both of which are intended to handle just the situation you describe. I can give you more detail if you want. One is for all cases. If it wasn't -- if the information wasn't available at the time you earlier filed a habeas corpus and got habeas corpus review and if it would bear very significantly on your guilt or innocence, you can have a new habeas corpus. That's for all crimes. And then for capital crimes, there's a separate provision which says that as long as you didn't have it you can get a new habeas corpus if a reasonable juror would not have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the new evidence. Q And is there a time limit on -- MR. HEYMANN: On those there's no time limit. Q No time limit -- except if you were executed in the meantime? MR. HEYMANN: You would have to find the evidence before -- Q Another question on the six-month limit. A lot of defense lawyers who handle capital cases say that just isn't long enough to review a record, to even get transcripts. What kind of look have you done about whether that's a reasonable period or not? MR. HEYMANN: As I understand that it's six months after your final appeal going to the Supreme Court. That will turn out to be much more than six months after trial and you will have had all that time to put together a record, to go over the record for trial, for appeals. This is really six months after you've done everything you otherwise would have done anyway to get appellate review of your conviction. And, again, if new evidence comes up, the six months doesn't bind you. Q Is there something in your counsel's standards that's going to guarantee in some way you're going to have the same counsel all along? MR. HEYMANN: Actually, there are counsel standard provisions which I think require you to have a different counsel because you may want to complain about your trial counsel. Q But then you have the same counsel throughout -- MR. HEYMANN: The appellate procedure, Harry? MR. LITMA: Normally there will be a change and that's the way defense lawyers -- that's the normal practice and what they prefer. Q change from trial to -- I'm sorry, keep going. MR. LITMA: Normally there's a change from appellate to then state collateral and then there doesn't have to be a change from state collateral to federal collateral. So what the Deputy Attorney General says is -- when the work you've done you'll be able to apply in federal. Q What about semiassault weapons? What is the President proposing on that? MR. HEYMANN: I would just like to leave that for Bruce with my apologies. I am going -- maybe one or two more on habeas and then I want to just scoot out on you. Q Is it the administration's decision that if this six-month provision passed that the chances that someone would be wrongly executed would not increase at all? MR. HEYMANN: In light of the provisions that allow for the consideration of new evidence, I think that the risk of wrongly executing someone will not be greatly increased. I can't say it wouldn't be increased at all. Q But it will be increased? You concede that it would? MR. HEYMANN: Anything that brings an end to review sometime, increases the chance that sometime someone will be wrongly executed. Q Senator Biden out here in the Rose Garden referred to the fact that this plan would be more victim friendly, this legislation. What does he mean by that? MR. HEYMANN: What I think he meant in this term is that it won't be 15 years later when the victim's family finally sees the carrying out of a duly arrived at, reviewed, rereviewed, rereviewed, rereviewed, rereviewed death sentence. I'm not positive. I just heard it when you heard it, but that's what I think he means. Q What exactly is Janet Reno's position on the death penalty? MR. HEYMANN: I have nothing to hide there, but I would get it about 85 percent right and you might as well ask her, Wolf, what it is. I shouldn't give it 85 percent. MR. REED: Last call for habeas questions. Phil has to go. Q? Can I ask you about mandatory minimums before you leave. MR. HEYMANN: No, but you'll get a full account from my friend Bruce Reed. MR. REED: Thanks, Phil. Q Can you address the gun provisions? MR. REED: The Attorney General's expressed concerns about new mandatory minimums that I believe were included in last year's conference report. We haven't seen the legislation from the House and Senate; it's another issue that needs to be worked out over August. Q So that issue's basically unresolved? MR. REED: Yes. Her concerns are that we need to examine the current mandatory minimums to see what impact they're having before we add additional ones. Q Through the -- MR. REED: No. Q But, basically, the administration as a whole has not taken a position or you're just waiting to see what comes out? MR. REED: No, I think our position is no new mandatory minimums. Q No new something -- MR. REED: Right. Q On the executive order on assault pistols, how many weapons will that affect and how many do you estimate are already in -- MR. REED: There are permits for the import of about 10,000 assault pistols, 2,000 assault pistols have been imported in the last year. Q What do you mean a permit for -- that's the maximum number that will come in? MR. REED: That's right. In order to import weapons you need to get a permit from ATF. And this is essentially a loophole in the ban -- the Bush administration imposed a ban on the import of assault rifles, but assault pistols were not affected by that ban. Assault pistols are still governed under the pistol criteria of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was designed to get at Saturday night specials and cheap, small, lightweight, concealable handguns. So now we have handguns that are much larger, much heavier and for that reason escape the criteria that were designed to stop Saturday night specials. Q Could you talk about these semiautomatic assault weapons? What part of the legislation -- do you see that as a freestanding bill? Do you see that as part of -- MR. REED: The President has called for a semiautomatic assault weapon ban. There are proposals on the Hill. DeConcini, Metzenbaum, I believe Senator Feinstein is considering one, Chuck Schumer has one. But, again, it's a tactical question for the House and Senate leadership as to whether to package it with the crime bill. Q Does this void those 10,000 permits then? MR. REED: This asks ATF to review -- and I think it suspends future imports. Q When does it take effect? Q It will allow those 10,000 to come in and then shut the door after that? MR. REED: Right. If they come in. That permit goes through, I believe, the end of August. Q What are they reviewing? MR. REED: I'm sorry? Q What is the purpose of the review? I mean, what's the goal of the review? MR. REED: To change the criteria so that -- Q What is the criteria now? MR. REED: That is what I was just explaining about -- the criteria are designed -- the current handgun criteria are designed to get at little guns, Saturday night specials, which are no longer the big problem. Q But anybody can import a bigger pistol? MR. REED: That's right. Q Well, does this mean that those 10,000 that are permitted now still get to come in and then you don't have any more, or does it end -- MR. REED: That permit expires in about three weeks, I think. It's an -- are they on an annual basis? MR. CERDA: It depends, but they're set to expire, I think, August 26th. And those would not be affected. MR. REED: So this will affect new permits and future imports. Q After August there won't be more imports? MR. REED: That's right. Q Are there domestically produced assault pistols that are not affected by this? MR. REED: Yes, that's right. But ATF does not keep numbers on domestic production because they don't have to permit them. So I don't have an estimate -- Q It doesn't affect -- they just produce more assault pistols domestically? MR. REED: Right. That's right. Q How do you attack that problem? MR. REED: Well, that -- we attack that through an assault weapons ban. But that requires legislation. Q Is it just a real small number of guns on the street? In other words, these foreign import guns -- MR. REED: Yes, I think that the assault pistols are the tip of the iceberg. Q So it's just symbolic? Q And most of the assault pistols are American made, rather than imported, right? MR. REED: Yes, that's right. Q So is he calling for legislation to ban assault weapons? MR. REED: Yes, he's called for legislation to impose a ban on assault weapons. Q How many -- what percentage would you say are domestically made compared to foreign import? MR. REED: As I said, they don't keep numbers. So -- Q Do you have any idea of how many are produced? MR. REED: I would say that it's in the -- domestic production of assault pistols is probably in the tens of thousands, but I don't -- Q This won't have much impact at all. MR. REED: Well, I mean, it affects between two and 10,000 Uzis and other assault pistols. Q It doesn't affect those. You said most of them would come in. MR. REED: I mean, assuming that future requests for permits will reflect current requests. Q Another aspect of the program dealt with -- Q Can we stay on this just for a moment before we move over to another? The ban that President Bush put on imports of guns, that's still in litigation and it's never -- it hasn't taken effect, right? MR. REED: I think it's taken effect, yes -- it's taken effect. Q It's taken effect pending litigation? Do you expect that you're going to be able to, through the rule-making process, close the loophole before this sort of disappears into the -- the courts or -- MR. REED: Well, I mean, it's possible that it will be litigated. Q But can you close off permits -- how quickly can you actually close off permits if you have to start a new rule- making, I guess, is the -- MR. REED: I don't think it's that -- it's not that detailed. Q These weapons that we sell that our agencies -- Q On community policing and empowerment zones, the administration requested, I believe, up to $500 million for that particular area. And the appropriations committee hasn't approved any of that. Are you expecting them to approve a portion of the $500 million? MR. REED: The request is still pending the FY '93 request. There's still $225 million at issue. There's another $500 million for FY '94. And we have been hoping to get half of that for community policing. It remains to be seen whether the appropriators will give it to us. Q There was a second executive order that he mentioned -- MR. REED: That's right. On federal firearms licensing. But basically the federal government is required to give firearms licenses to gun dealers. There are 286,000 licensed gun dealers. And in recent years, enforcement and standards for those licenses have been very lax. So a substantial portion of those permits have gone to people who are dealing guns out of their homes or just trying to get wholesale prices on guns. So we're attempting to change the licensing standards and improve enforcement so that only legitimate gun dealers -- Q How? MR. REED: Well, there's some that can be done through the regs. But we're also going to be supporting legislation. Q Well, as it stands now, you just send some money into ATF and there's not even a background check, as I understand it. It's almost an automatic procedure, isn't it? MR. REED: Yes, that's right. It's almost easier to get a driver's license -- Q What do you mean by executive order? I don't understand what he's doing today. MR. CERDA: There are a whole series of things that they mention. One is background checks, improving background checks and screening applicants, which we don't do now; revising the application process -- revising the application process to supply information relevant to establishing qualification for a license. This includes fingerprinting and identifying an applicant's criminal or other disqualifying history. Basically, another issue is the business premises and what premises are required. I guess ATF estimates that about 40 percent of licensees now don't do any business at all. They are folks that are able -- Q Say that again. I couldn't hear -- Q don't do any business -- can you come closer to the mike? Q Forty percent, what? MR. CERDA: That 40 percent of the licensees conduct no business at all -- that they have licenses, and with those licenses, they can get around certain provisions of state and federal law and they are not business dealers per se. Q So what are they? Q Do you know they all are? MR. REED: No, well, I think part of the thing has been that -- Q You know who they all are because they wrote you for an application. MR. REED: I think part of the thing is that the policy, particularly since 1978, there have continually been appropriations riders that have prevented ATF from doing more. I think previous administrations also had policies where this was -- the compliance was not a priority at all. What we're doing here is simply making sure that we are doing everything possible within the current law in terms of checking for proper business premises, in terms of getting finger printing and getting better i.d. from the dealers to make sure that we know who those dealers are, because there's been a huge jump during the '80s in these license -- Q Can you do that with the current number of ATF agents? MR. REED: Resources are an issue, and there's a provision there saying that the Attorney General is going to work with monies that she has. There are projects funding -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- currently through BGA and working with states and ATF on this and to the extent possible -- Q What's BGA? MR. REED: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Q If they don't have any business, what's the reason why they want this license? Just to have their own personal gun? MR. REED: That is correct. They can buy all -- they are exempt from certain provisions of federal and state law by owning this license. And they can buy guns under -- without restrictions that other properly licensed gun dealers have. Q Mr. Reed, would you tell us about our own export of arms? Are we exporting the same type of arms through the CIA, contract out agents -- MR. REED: Any other questions about the crime initiative? Q Wait a minute now. Q overall cost estimate and how you're going to pay for the whole package? MR. REED: Well, the paper that outlines the authorization levels and the budget requests for each -- there are a number of programs outlined and if -- there's a handout from the press office that goes over each of them. The community policing part of the crime bill is authorized to $3.4 billion over five years, which would fund up to $50,000 new police officers. There's a -- the supplemental appropriations which the President signed in July, which was $150 million, which will put 2,100 officers on the street over the next three years. There's the empowerment zone proposal, which is a $500 million request, which will be 6,000 to 7,000 officers. Then there's a proposal for -- then there's national service, a HUD public safety program and a safe s schools program. Q Would you please answer my question now? Q Is the police corps part of that? MR. REED: The police corps is part of that, yes. Q So the police corps is not a separate piece of legislation? MR. REED: The police corps is likely to be part of the crime bill. Q Do have any objection to answering my question now, sir? MR. REED: No, I have to leave in a minute here, though. Q Well, I have a question to ask you, and I want you to answer it, please. Are we exporting any of this type of arms that you're talking about here -- are we exporting any? MR. CERDA: I do not know. And I would imagine -- MR. REED: I mean, the President is seeking a ban on domestic production, so -- Q Well, I know, but are we at the same time -- Q She's asking you a very legitimate question. Q we could be exporting arms to people who are bringing them into this country. Are we exporting -- MR. REED: We've put a ban on production, and that will deal with that question. Q A ban on production in this country? Q On mandatory minimums -- Q Wait, could with just finish with the guns? I have a question about -- Q We go back and forth with this discussion, and I don't really see why you should interrupt me. On mandatory -- Q are you talking about raising that up to $250, the way it's been proposed in Congress? For the licensing fees for gun dealers. MR. REED: The legislation on the table does that -- right? MR. LITMA: Yes. Q Is that what you guys are supporting? MR. LITMA: No, no. That has to be done by statute. We can't raise that fee through this. So that's something we'll be pursuing through legislation. Q On mandatory minimums -- ignore him back there -- Biden and Brooks both -- Q Does this end crime as we know it? (Laughter.) Q What is so ridiculous here? Q Biden and Brooks both have new mandatory minimum proposals in their versions -- MR. REED: I'm not sure -- I don't know that that's true. Q If they did, the administration wouldn't support them? MR. REED: The Attorney General has asked that there be no minimums -- new minimums. Q This gets to the confusion that I think a lot of us have about why there's no administration bill. MR. REED: Right. Let me go over that one more time. The President wants a modified version of last year's crime bill. Both the House and Senate have done a tremendous amount of work over the last three years. Crime bills have passed in various versions with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. We didn't want to start over. So the President asked Chairman Biden and Chairman Brooks to move bills in the House and Senate, and those bills will be introduced in September when Congress comes back. The major differences with which the administration has been involved is in adding the policing title and supporting the Biden habeas reform provisions. Q If I could ask a follow-up to that -- why does the administration -- why is it connecting the Brady bill with the crime bill? MR. REED: The Brady bill has always been part of the crime bill. There are tactical disagreements between the House and Senate as to which makes both provisions easier to pass in either House. And, as I said, we'll leave those to the sponsors and to the leadership. We want -- Q Some of the Republicans are saying that if Brady is in there, they'll filibuster the crime bill. Are you willing to take Brady out and let it have a free-standing vote to get the rest of it through? MR. REED: Well, the Brady bill passed the last time in the House. It also passed in the Senate. The conventional wisdom has been that the balance is needed in the House and past years' balance will be needed in the Senate, but you can get arguments in any direction on this. Q Were the Bradys invited to this ceremony today? MR. REED: Yes, they were. Q Do you know why they didn't come? MR. REED: I didn't talk to Sara Brady. Q It wasn't because they're concerned about the watering down of this legislation? MR. REED: She was invited. Q And the other thing is do you want to have an assault weapon ban as part of the crime bill or is this a freestanding bill? MR. REED: We want an assault weapons ban anyway we can get it. Q Could I just ask Jose one question on the gun dealers? There are 286,000 now and you say that the number had increased a lot in the last decade or so. Do you have any statistics on what the rate of increase has been and how many there were -- MR. CERDA: I have a rough number and I would have to look up more. I think there has been about an average of about 70,000 a year. Q What is it new applicants for guns? MR. CERDA: For federal firearms licenses. Q Is there any method of reviewing the people who already have licenses? Is that part of what you're talking about? MR. CERDA: That would also require legislation. Q I was unclear on the Brady bill. Senator Biden says he would like to strip that from the crime bill and move it separately. Is that agreeable to you or not? MR. REED: Legislation has not been introduced on either side. Senator Biden has indicated that he would like to move it separately, Chairman Brooks has suggested that he would like to move them together. The President will take the Brady bill and the crime bill any way he can get them. Q Can I ask you two questions, one in terms of legislative priority of the White House. Do you want this passed this year or with health care and NAFTA coming up, are you willing to let it slide into '94? MR. REED: We hope that the crime bill can pass in both houses soon with bipartisan support. The crime bill and Brady bill, to their credit, go through the Judiciary Committees rather than Ways and Means and Finance, which is where everything else on our agenda seems to go. Q So is the target right now '93 still? MR. REED: That's our hope. Q What about the number of police you want to put on the streets. Is that the same as you had in the short-term stimulus that was defeated? MR. REED: Yes, the same amount of money. Actually, we requested $200 million and we ended up with $150 million. Q You got the $150 million? MR. REED: We got $150 million. The President signed it in July. Q How much more do you want with this? MR. REED: Well, it's probably better to refer to handout rather than I run through these all again. Q I haven't had a chance to look through this. Is there an aggregate number of police that would be on the streets if the totality of this package is -- MR. REED: If we got everything we wanted, we would have up to 100,000 sworn and nonsworn officers and law enforcement personnel. Q What do you mean by nonsworn? What do you mean by the difference between police who have been sworn and nonsworn? MR. REED: Well, for example, the President's national service plan, which he hopes to sign next month, will set aside a quarter of its spots for young people coming out of college to do law enforcement and crime prevention. But in all likelihood, they won't be sworn officers. They won't have gone through cadet school. They won't be -- Q Do you want the death penalty to be in the crime bill, or separate? MR. REED: As part of the crime bill. Q And does the Attorney General support that? MR. REED: Yes. Q Are you going to put people out here who are untrained with weapons in their hand? MR. REED: No, no, no. That's why they're nonsworn officers. That's what -- Q Well, what are they going to do? MR. REED: They can do a number of -- Q Talk sternly to people. MR. REED: They can free up other police officers to be out on the street, they can -- there's a number of crime fighting and public safety tasks that they can do. Thanks very much. THE PRESS: Thank you. END11:15 A.M. EDT