[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     CALL FOR A TOUGHER CRIME BILL

  (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, 435 out of 435 Members of Congress seem to 
agree that Americans need a tough crime bill. But is the pending 
legislation tough? We know this: It does not allow pretrial detention. 
It does not have truth in sentencing. It increases the number of 
appeals for death row inmates; and it has a very watered-down ``three 
strikes and you're out'' provision. What is so good about ``three 
strikes and you're out''? Why should a violent criminal get three 
strikes, and let us quit using the word ``strikes'' and talk about what 
is the heart of the matter, and, that is, victims.
  Why should a violent criminal get three victims? It is absurd. We 
need to do what we should do the first time and lock him or her up and 
not give them an opportunity for a second or third victim.
  Remember, also, Mr. Speaker, we are only talking about the people who 
he is caught hurting.
  Mr. Speaker, ``three strikes and you're out'' is the most overblown 
discussion in this crime bill and I think we should amend this bill, 
make it much tougher than it is now, and I support an open rule, not 
the closed rule we have.

                          ____________________