Support Builds for Scaled-Back Crime Measure

Democrats and Republicans on Friday worked on the outlines of a compromise that would allow a scaled-back version of President Clinton’s long-stalled crime bill to finally pass the House with broad bipartisan support.

Although the compromise does not go far enough to please the two main forces that have been stalling the bill--the House GOP leadership and a group of about 40 Democrats opposed to gun controls--it appeared to be attracting more than enough Republican support to ensure its passage as early as this weekend.

“We are moving toward (an) agreement. . . . I am happy with the tone of it,” said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), one of the Republican negotiators.

Expressing confidence that the crime bill was finally “back on track” after its near-derailment in the House last week, Clinton told a White House news conference Friday that he supported the emerging deal, which would cut nearly $3.5 billion from the original $33-billion bill and, with minor modifications, preserve a 10-year ban on several types of assault weapons.

But even as Clinton announced the compromise, Democratic leaders warned that the deal could still fall through because of unresolved differences with Republicans over how the cuts would be allocated.

“We’re close and closing, but we’re not there yet,” said another of the negotiators, Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), as the bill’s sponsors met throughout the day with the leaders of about 40 moderate Republicans who have said they may support the bill with the kind of changes Clinton was offering.

“We still have problems with the across-the-board reductions,” said Rep. Peter G. Torkildsen (R-Mass.), referring to Clinton’s offer to cut every program in the omnibus bill by 10%.

He indicated that the Republican group led by Castle was satisfied with the overall cuts, but wanted them reallocated to preserve the original bill’s $10.5 billion for new prison construction and $8.8 billion for more police officers.

A senior White House official, however, said there was “no way” Clinton could accept that proposal because it would mean cutting considerably more than 10% from the $7.4 billion that the bill had set aside for after-school sports leagues, drug counseling and other crime prevention programs favored by Democrats.

But while the negotiations appeared likely to stretch into the night--and perhaps continue today--both sides agreed that they were getting close to resolving, on a surprisingly bipartisan note, one of the most bitterly partisan legislative battles of Clinton’s presidency.

As the negotiators split into working groups in an effort to come up with an agreement that would keep the bill from unraveling, the changes being discussed included:

* Tougher requirements for released sexual offenders, who under the original bill would have been required to notify police of their whereabouts every year for the first 10 years after their release from prison. Under the compromise, the notification requirement would be increased to once every three months for life, and police also would be required to notify community residents when a released sexual offender moved into their neighborhood.

* The elimination of a much-criticized $10-million grant that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) inserted in the original bill to establish a criminal justice program at Lamar University, his Beaumont, Tex., alma mater.

* A minor modification in the assault-weapons ban that outlaws the manufacture and sale of 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons for 10 years. Under the original bill, the ban would cover not only the 19 specific weapons, but all “copycat” models subsequently sold. The copycat provisions would remain in the compromise bill, but Congress would have the authority to review the regulations and determine which models would be covered in the future.

Other features left unchanged in the bill include the expanded death penalties for federal crimes, language to help protect women from spousal abuse and the so-called three-strikes-and-you’re-out provision mandating life imprisonment for three-time felons.

“The principles of the bill remain intact,” Clinton said at his news conference. “It’s the biggest increase in police in the history of the country. It’s the toughest increase in punishment in the history of the country. It’s the biggest increase in prevention programs in the country,” he said, adding that Congress should now “pass it without delay.”

But while the compromise appeared likely to win enough Republican support to pass the House without difficulties, its future was clouded by new threats from GOP lawmakers to oppose the bill when it is sent back to the Senate for final approval.

Warning that the cuts accepted by GOP House moderates were not enough for them, Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) both threatened to oppose the bill unless its crime prevention spending is reduced by considerably more than 10%.

“A 10% cut across the board is a 100% non-starter in the Senate,” Dole said, adding that “the focus should be on cutting pork, not police.”

Echoing Dole’s warning, Gramm threatened to use Senate procedural maneuvers to delay the bill if additional cuts aren’t made.

However, other Republican Senate sources said they doubted that the GOP leaders would find enough support to delay the bill any longer.

“Neither side has come out of this battle looking very good,” one GOP source said, referring to the bruising House debate over the measure, which opinion polls consistently show most voters want to see passed before November’s midterm elections.

“Each side has pretty much exhausted itself,” he added, “and now all we want to do is pass this bill and go home.”