[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 42 (Monday, April 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
           CRIMINALS, NOT VICTIMS MUST BEAR THE COST OF CRIME

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to talk a little 
about crime. Crime is on our agenda in the House this week.
  Crime is on the agenda of most Americans. Even in my State of 
Wyoming, where we are far from the inner city, where we are far from 
population areas, crime is important. It is important because we have 
crime in rural areas. It is important because crime from urban areas 
begins to move in from urban areas to rural areas.
  I want to talk about crime, but I hope that is not all we do in the 
Congress this week, is talk about crime. I hope we do not just talk 
endlessly and come forth with a bill that really does not do much. I 
hope we do not just talk tough and walk away from it.
  We are looking at a bill that does not have any money. We are looking 
at one that does not deal with truth in sentencing. We are looking at 
one that does not redefine appeals, endless appeals. We are looking at 
one that does not put 100,000 officers on the street. We are looking at 
one that provides for racial quotas in terms of the death penalty. We 
are looking at one that has $8 million in it for social programs, one 
that is not tough on crime.
  It seems to me there is a very basic fundamental issue here, and that 
is that caring for citizens and protecting citizens is a fundamental 
basic issue of government. We can argue about a lot of the things that 
Government does or does not do, whether they should do it, whether it 
can best be done in the private sector or in other ways, but protecting 
citizens is clearly a function of government at all levels.
  This is a crime bill that tends to talk tough, but then to shift away 
to causes. We are not talking here about welfare programs, we are not 
talking about education programs, we are talking about crime programs. 
We are not talking about excuses for crime, whether someone has been 
rejected in their early childhood or discriminated against or whether 
there has been boredom or a lack of training. We are talking here about 
getting a bridle on crime. Our emphasis should be on putting the price 
of crime on the criminal, not on the victim.
  Habeas corpus, it seems to me, and the idea of endless appeals is one 
of the most difficult problems.
  It is interesting. We talked about this when I was in the Wyoming 
legislature, and we were told--and I think it is true--that the cost of 
the death penalty, the cost of executing the criminal, is higher than 
the cost of life imprisonment. Why? Because of endless, year-after-year 
appeals, and the legal costs that go with it.
  We can change this. We ought to change it. This bill does not. On the 
contrary, the bill that is before the House provides for an endless 
appeal process, and any new policy made by the Supreme Court would be 
basis for an additional appeal, an endless one.
  Racial quotas: Would you like to be a victim of a crime, a murder, a 
crime against your family, and have the judge say, ``Well, I'm sorry. 
Because the perpetrator does not fit into the racial quota for this, 
there will be a life sentence instead of the death penalty''? It does 
not seem to me that is appropriate at all.
  Prisons: We are talking about building prisons. This bill provides 
for $3 billion. The alternative provides for $10 billion.
  About 95 percent of the crimes come under the jurisdiction of State 
and local agencies, as they should. This alternative proposition 
provides for $10 billion to be worked in cooperation with States in 
grants, States that would agree to have truth in sentencing or 85 
percent of the sentence served, which is far beyond what we have now, 
not an unfunded mandate but, rather, a cooperative arrangement with 
States.
  Finally, it seems to me we have to be very careful of some basic 
things. One of them is not to federalize the criminal system. The most 
effective crime fighting is going to take place in communities, in 
neighborhoods, in cities, and in States. There is a clear definition, 
and a proper one, of what the Federal role ought to be and the kinds of 
crimes the Federal Government ought to be involved in, but the 
preponderance of safety for our citizens will be carried on by State 
and local agencies, and we need to help them, not restrict them and not 
federalize them.
  A good deal of criticism arises about government, particularly the 
Federal Government. It seems to me it comes from promises that are 
never carried out. It comes from tough talk and very little action.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not let that happen. We need truth in 
sentencing, but we also need truth in promising. Let us come forward 
with a tough crime bill that deals with crime and causes the cost of 
crime to be on the criminal and not on the victim.

                          ____________________