[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 42 (Monday, April 18, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 CRIME BILL STRAYS INTO SOCIAL PROGRAMS

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 18, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend to his 
colleagues the following editorial from the April 18, 1994, Omaha 
World-Herald, concerning the anticrime measure pending before the 
House. Crime prevention programs are important, and must be adequately 
funded, yet, as the editorial makes clear, the majority party's 
leadership has confused fighting crime with creating expensive social 
programs. It is a thoughtful editorial and this Member urges his 
colleagues to heed its message.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Apr. 18, 1994]

                 Crime Bill Strays Into Social Programs

       Christmastime returns in April to Capitol Hill. At least 
     that's how it appears as Santa Claus wannabes in Congress 
     decorate the crime bill with additional ornaments.
       For cities, the House version includes $6.9 billion in 
     community-based crime ``prevention'' programs. That's nearly 
     half the cost of the bill--and all for social programs that 
     may or may not have any effect on the crime rate.
       Congress would pay local governments to run midnight sports 
     leagues. It would create yet another jobs program. The House 
     version includes $2 billion that would be sent to cities 
     under a revenue-sharing plan. Cities wouldn't have to apply 
     for the money but would get it automatically according to a 
     formula based on the number of residents who met poverty 
     guidelines. Recipients would be encouraged to use the money 
     for health and education programs.
       The $6.9 billion package for cities isn't the only gift 
     that Santa Congress plans to leave. For trial attorneys, the 
     package includes the so-called Racial Justice Act. The 
     residents of the nation's death rows could use it to clog 
     court dockets with even more appeals. It would give the 
     government's blessing to the use of sentencing statistics to 
     challenge the death penalty as racically discriminatory.
       Congress sometimes seems to confuse creating more court 
     cases with fighting crime. That confusion is apparent in the 
     Violence Against Women Act, another ``anti-crime'' measure 
     that isn't included in the main crime bill.
       Violence against women is a problem in this country, to be 
     sure. But it's hard to see how this bill would stop violence 
     against women. The bill would allow a person to file a civil 
     suit to seek compensation for an assault by a person of the 
     opposite sex. A woman who was assaulted by her husband's 
     girlfriend couldn't sue, for example, but an abusive husband 
     could use the act to sue his wife if she fought back. The 
     bill could also open the door for women to harass men with 
     civil suits on the basis of alleged assaults for which no 
     evidence existed to justify a criminal charge.
       Putting real teeth in sentences for rape and assault would 
     do more to prevent violence against women than would this 
     misguided act.
       Fighting crime means putting police officers on the 
     streets, prosecuting cases in a timely manner and handing 
     down sentences that provide real punishment. It also means 
     restoring respect for authority and reverence for the 
     sanctity of the family--a field in which government has so 
     far displayed little ability to bring about a positive 
     effect.
       In Congress, fighting crime apparently still means forking 
     over huge sums of cash for questionable social programs and 
     pushing the agenda of interest groups in search of a vehicle 
     to carry their politically correct cause. It hasn't reduced 
     crime in the past, and there's no reason to assume that it 
     would in the future.

                          ____________________