[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]

 
                               CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last July the Nation was shocked 
when James Jordan, the father of basketball great Michael Jordan, was 
shot by hoodlums after pulling his car over at a rest stop.
  What made the murder even more outrageous was the fact that the two 
have been charged with committing the murder should never had been on 
the streets in the first place.
  One had a record of fourteen burglary, forgery, and larceny charges, 
most of which had never come to trial. In fact, he was awaiting trial 
in August for bashing the skull of a 61-year-old convenience store 
clerk. The second had taken an axe to the head of a classmate 3 years 
earlier in a fight over a girl.
  That predators like these should roam our streets, free to terrorize 
law-abiding citizens, is a national tragedy. That they should be able 
to do so even after passing through the criminal justice system--which 
doesn't have the resources to prosecute them or the jails to hold 
them--is also a national disgrace.
  Since 1960 the population of the United States has risen about 40 
percent. In that same period of time the rate of violent crime has shot 
up by 500 percent. We now have a higher crime rate than any other 
developed country in the world.
  These stark statistics illustrate numerically what every American who 
has ever been a victim probably felt upon hearing of Mr. Jordan's 
death. Violent crime in this country is simply out of control, and the 
old solutions aren't working.
  Ask any police officer why criminals seem to operate with impunity 
and you'll probably find out it is because most have little fear of 
getting caught or doing any real time in prison.
  Statistics bear them out. Washington, DC for instance, does not even 
have the resources to fully investigate all of the hundreds of murders 
that happen here every year, much less bring them to conviction. Their 
conviction rate is about one in four, and even then the average 
murderer spends less than 6 years in prison.
  The first step in deterring crime is restoring the legitimate fear of 
punishment. Punishment that fits the crime.
  The Republican crime bill would have done this by putting the Federal 
Government shoulder-to-shoulder with States, cites and counties to 
build a national system of regional prisons through cooperative 
agreements. To be eligible for 50 percent matching funds to build these 
prisons, States would have to enact truth-in-sentencing laws, pre-trial 
detention laws, and mandatory minimum sentences for violent and repeat 
offenders.
  The Republican plan would also have enacted stiff new sentences to 
protect children, women's and victims' rights, and crack down on 
terrorism, and gangs. It would have provided $2 billion in grants to 
cities and counties to hire 20,000 more police officers, and more 
grants to school districts to buy security equipment. And since almost 
one-quarter of Federal prisoners are illegal aliens, the Republican 
plan would also have streamlined the process of deporting convicted 
criminal aliens, and beefed up the Border Patrol to keep criminal 
aliens out before they get here.
  The Republican plan would have done all these things, but as is so 
often the case in Congress, it won't be allowed to because of a 
Democrat majority as afraid of Republican bills as Americans are of 
criminals.
  Instead of spending this week debating a real crime bill, a 
Republican crime bill, the House will busy itself with a weak crime 
bill that reflects the administration's lack of commitment to the 
issue. The President has never sent a crime package to Congress.
  Instead of an administration crime bill, a we have an administration 
budget that cuts the funds for drug enforcement and prison 
construction. Instead of an administration commitment on crime, we have 
a Surgeon General who talks about the legalization of drugs and an 
Attorney General who is making it harder to convict child 
pornographers. The administration's police care is sauntering to the 
crime scene with the siren off, the lights dark, and in reverse.
  Not only will there be no Republican crime bill, but their will be 
precious few Republican amendments. There will be no provisions against 
criminal aliens in spite of the fact that America has criminal aliens. 
I offered an amendment that would have comprehensively addressed this 
problem. the Democrats unanimously rejected it.
  Perhaps Democrats were afraid that some group would have been 
offended. Well I know that one group would have been offended by my 
amendment: criminals. I can assure you that they were against my 
amendment. They opposed it because it said if you're an alien and 
you're a criminal, then you're going to jail, then you're going home, 
and you're not coming back. The Democrats opposed it because they 
though it might win.
  Americans are outraged by criminals on their streets and revolving 
doors on their prisons. They have begged Congress to send help. The 
Republicans' crime bill would have sent America ``Dirty Harry.''; the 
Democrats' crime bill is going to send them the smurfs.

                          ____________________