Capital Scene

Washington, D.C.

IN his weekly radio address in mid April President Clinton lamented that his anti-terrorism bill had been watered down and argued that “we need the real thing.” When the bill was in conference, Democrats worked to add provisions to give it “some teeth.” Rep. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a liberal’s liberal, complained that “there’s a lot that should be in this bill that’s not.” Clinton FBI Director Louis Freeh, meanwhile, argued that a federal law- enforcement review commission provided for in the bill would have “a chilling effect on those charged with vigorously enforcing the law.” What all these newly tough-on-crime Democrats were complaining about were provisions either deleted from the bill or added to it at the behest of Republicans like freshman Rep. Bob Barr (Ga.).

About the Author

Rich Lowry

Rich Lowry is the editor in chief of National Review.

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

Washington, D.C.

IN his weekly radio address in mid April President Clinton lamented that his anti-terrorism bill had been watered down and argued that “we need the real thing.” When the bill was in conference, Democrats worked to add provisions to give it “some teeth.” Rep. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a liberal’s liberal, complained that “there’s a lot that should be in this bill that’s not.” Clinton FBI Director Louis Freeh, meanwhile, argued that a federal law- enforcement review commission provided for in the bill would have “a chilling effect on those charged with vigorously enforcing the law.” What all these newly tough-on-crime Democrats were complaining about were provisions either deleted from the bill or added to it at the behest of Republicans like freshman Rep. Bob Barr (Ga.).