[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           AN UNBALANCED BILL

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I stand to commend Representatives 
John Conyers and Craig Washington for their recent op-ed in the 
Washington Post, ``Senate Crime-Busters Got It Wrong.'' As they point 
out, the crime package that recently passed the Senate adopts the same 
crime-fighting strategy that has been tried--with little success--for 
the past 12 years.
  This is a policy that calls for more and more punishment--at the 
expense of proven preventive measures. Thus, the bill funds a slew of 
regional prisons, enacts a series of new mandatory minimum penalties, 
federalizes a wide array of local crimes, and adds fifty new death 
penalties. But it provides little in the way of drug treatment, 
childhood intervention programs, community development initiatives, and 
gun control.
  Everyone wants to sound tough on crime by calling for longer and more 
severe sentences. But we will only begin to make a dent in inner city 
violence when we find a better balance between punishment and 
prevention. The Senate bill--the product more of politics rather than 
prudence--is far off kilter.
  I ask that the article by Representatives Conyers and Washington be 
submitted into the record.
  The article follows:

                   Senate Crime-Busters Got It Wrong

               (By John Conyers and Craig A. Washington)

       Does anyone remember that when President Clinton came to 
     office he asked for $30 billion to meet the urgent crisis in 
     our cities? As the Senate approves $22.3 billion for police 
     and prisons, it is useful to return to the aftermath of the 
     Los Angeles riots, when everyone knew it was critical to find 
     money for a serious urban renewal package for our cities.
       Many experts recommended $60 billion for an economic 
     stimulus package to deal with the economic decline and loss 
     of jobs. President Clinton came in at half that, because the 
     political reality wouldn't support more. But even that was 
     doomed. In its deficit reduction fervor, the Senate killed 
     the House's scaled-down $16 billion stimulus package for jobs 
     and economic development, leaving only $5 billion for 
     unemployment insurance and other domestic programs. They 
     argued that the nation could no longer afford big spending on 
     federal programs to dealt with our social ills.
       Who would have benefited the most from a serious urban 
     renewal package? The same people most victimized by crime--
     the poor, who are predominantly African American and Latino 
     people in our cities. But at a time of enormous financial 
     deficit, it was not popular to further increase that deficit 
     to help our cities.
       Now, in the wake of the Nov. 3 elections, the Senate has 
     once again discovered our cities and the urban poor--only 
     this time they are to be dealt with through a crime bill. In 
     a deal cut behind closed doors, the $22 billion that Vice 
     President Al Gore found could be ``saved'' by reforming the 
     bureaucracy is now available to spend. Instead of reducing 
     the deficit or investment in prevention programs, the money 
     is to be spent solely for more police and more prisons.
       Yes, our cities do need more police. But our cities also 
     need jobs and job training to target the very people who are 
     trapped in a cycle of crime and violence. Our prisons are 
     filled beyond capacity. The statistics are grim: The United 
     States currently locks up more people per capita than any 
     other nation on Earth. Twenty-three percent of all young 
     black men are caught up in the criminal justice system: in 
     prison, on probation, or on parole. There are more young 
     black men in prison today than in college. For every Latino 
     male with a BA, there are 24 behind bars.
       Despite 19 get-tough crime bills over the past two decades 
     and a quadrupling of our prison population, violent crime has 
     increased. Why has this approach failed? Because too many of 
     the urban poor have no jobs and no hope for the future. A 
     ``tough'' prison sentence will never provide enough 
     deterrence for communities with high rates of substance abuse 
     and unemployment. Yet once again, there is no money for 
     treatment, no money for children and no money for education.
       Several weeks ago, along with other like-minded colleagues, 
     we introduced a different kind of crime bill: the Crime 
     Prevention and Criminal Justice Reform Act. The focus of our 
     legislation is on the front end--to help prevent criminal 
     activity in the first place, enable prisoners to make changes 
     in their lives and eliminate racial disparity in the criminal 
     justice system.
       How would our bill have a different impact from the one 
     just passed by the Senate? We would provide treatment for 
     low-income substance abusers; the Senate would lock them up 
     in prisons at $20,000 a year. We would provide educational 
     and vocational opportunities for young people; the Senate 
     would increase penalties for juveniles. We would try to 
     reduce the shockingly high rates of incarceration of 
     minorities. The Senate would perpetuate a prison system where 
     60 percent of inmates are black and Latino. Our bill 
     represents the best possible balance between those who want a 
     quick fix and those of us who want to get serious about 
     funding lasting solutions to a national crisis of crime and 
     violence.
       Today, many law enforcement professionals agree that the 
     solutions to the nation's crime and drug problems will be 
     found in crime prevention. We need more police on our streets 
     and in our neighborhoods. But a real anti-crime strategy 
     needs also to include drug treatment, early childhood 
     intervention programs, full funding for Head Start and the 
     Women Infants and Children Program, family support programs 
     and strong gun control.
       The crisis of crime and violence is vicious, and no one 
     suffers from it more than the African American and Latino 
     communities. Homicide is the leading cause of death among 
     young black men. The time has come to admit to a history of 
     failed criminal justice policy and to take the opportunity to 
     re-evaluate the traditional knee-jerk response to the 
     political hysteria about crime.
       Recently the House Judiciary Committee tried a different 
     strategy. Instead of playing to the politics of crime, the 
     committee supported six initiatives to fund cops on the beat, 
     substance abuse treatment in prison, juvenile justice 
     programs, boot camps and the Brady Bill. The House is engaged 
     in a thoughtful debate about what will really prevent crime. 
     That's exactly what the Senate needed to do.
       If we are going to spend $22 billion, let's have a serious 
     discussion about how that money can best be spent. Our 
     failure to address urban issues guarantees that crime, 
     violence and drug abuse in the inner city will continue and 
     will only get worse.

                          ____________________