[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]


 
  IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CRIME BILL: 
                    DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am part of the freshman reform class of 
1992. I was elected to help reform Congress and change the way things 
are done around here.
  One of the most frustrating things I find around here is not knowing 
what I am voting on. It is not because I am not interested. In fact, I 
am extremely interested. And, that is the problem. For Members who want 
to know what they are voting on, this is a very frustrating place.
  In the next 2 weeks, we will vote on at least two historic changes to 
our laws. On Wednesday, the House Democrat leadership has promised a 
vote on the crime bill. Next week, the leadership has also promised a 
vote on the House majority leader's version of health care reform. Yet, 
to this date, I have not received a copy of either bill. The House of 
Representatives will act on the top issues in the minds of most 
Americans, yet most Members who were elected to serve here have no idea 
on what they are voting on.
  The rules of the House must be changed. On page 708 of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, rule 28 paragraph 2 (a) states:

       It shall not be in order to consider the report of a 
     committee of conference until the third calendar day 
     (excluding any Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday) after such 
     report and the accompanying statement shall have been filed 
     in the House . . . Nor shall it be in order to consider any 
     conference report unless copies of the report and 
     accompanying statement have been available to Members for at 
     least two hours before the beginning of such consideration.

  In other words, the rules of the House only guarantees Members that 
they can have 2 hours to review a conference report before voting on 
final passage. And, even that tiny requirement can be waived if the 
Rules Committee waives the rules of the House.
  That means, Mr. Speaker, that Members will have little time to review 
these huge documents. I have heard that the crime bill is over 1,200 
pages long. How can Members even read that document in 2 hours? You 
would have to be a graduate of the Evelyn Woods speed reading course.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative that Members have adequate 
time to review bills before voting on them. It will save the House 
further embarrassment when the media discovers mistakes in the fine 
print of these bills.
  I am only reporting from summaries of the crime bill and what I've 
discovered already shocks me.
  For example, I have learned that the money for hiring more cops on 
the beat is so tied up with Federal requirements that some cities may 
not apply for them. For example, States would have to comply with 
expensive and intrusive minority hiring preferences to receive money 
under this bill. There is no change to the Justice Department criteria 
on awarding grants, which places a greater emphasis on how well the 
grant application was written than on the crime rate. Plus, the funding 
for these new police will expire at the end of 5 years, leaving States 
and cities holding the bag.
  Also, the tough truth in sentencing provisions that I cosponsored and 
voted for were watered down in conference. If we help States build 
prisons, the least we can ask is that criminals sent to these prisons 
serve 85 percent of their sentence. What did they do in conference? 
Sixty percent of the prison funds in this bill are not conditioned on 
any truth-in-sentencing requirements. If a State wishes to participate 
in these prison construction grants, all they have to do is wait 1 year 
to get unrestricted funds.
  But the real bad news for the taxpayer and those who want a tough 
crime bill is spending $9 billion on social programs masquerading as 
crime prevention. Yes, crime prevention is an important component of 
fighting crime. But this crime bill labels almost everything as crime 
prevention that it makes a mockery of the concept. This is a 
resurrection of the failed pork-laden economic stimulus package from 
last year.
  For example, the Federal Government will now determine the 
composition of midnight sport leagues. They must have at least 80 
participants. This bill would mandate that at least 50 percent of those 
who play in these leagues must be residents of public housing. There 
also has to be representation from communities with a high incidence of 
persons infected with the HIV virus. Since when does the Federal 
Government have the authority to order how basketball leagues are 
formed?
  This bill will spend $100 million on a new Government entity, the 
Interagency Ounce of Prevention Council, for such projects as arts and 
crafts and dance programs.
  The crime bill also incorporates another bill that was originally 
introduced as an economic stimulus package. The crime bill will spend 
$1.8 billion on the Local Partnership Act, which contains no references 
to fighting crime. To magically change one part of the bill at the last 
minute for the purpose of preventing crime when it is really aimed at 
just spending money as fast as possible in depressed areas of the 
country is not right.
  Do not judge a book by its cover. I want to read it. Mr. Speaker, 
please give us all the same opportunity to know what we are voting on.

                          ____________________