[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 107 (Friday, August 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         TRUE CRIME PREVENTION

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, to most Americans, including this Senator, 
crime prevention is a fairly simple concept. It means taking steps to 
avoid becoming a victim of a criminal act or to provide protection for 
citizens from potential criminals. That could include everything from 
leaving a porch light on, stopping the newspaper delivery when you are 
gone for extended periods of time, walking your block with your 
neighbors to deter drug dealers, teaching your children to avoid 
talking to strangers, or taking down license plate numbers of 
suspicious vehicles, just to name a few. These crime prevention 
measures are commonsense methods to deter criminal behavior.
  I have pursued a balanced approach to fighting crime that includes a 
proper mixture of law enforcement and true crime prevention. For 
instance, the DARE Program involves law enforcement officers working 
with students on how to avoid drug dealers. The Triad Program is a 
grassroots-oriented program that coordinates crime prevention 
activities between seniors groups and law enforcement. Operation Weed 
and Seed is perhaps the best example of a coordinated and targeted 
crime prevention program that has had enormous success in one of 
Seattle's roughest neighborhoods. Safe Streets in Tacoma receives some 
minor Federal assistance, and is a model of community mobilization that 
has cleared streets of drug dealers and gang members by means of phone 
trees, yard signs, and block watches. Washington State leads the Nation 
in its community policing programs that has lowered crime rates in some 
areas simply by getting officers out of their squad cars and getting 
them closer to the community.

  The basic element of success in each one of these crime prevention 
activities is the simple fact that they are intended to deter a 
specific criminal act against a law-abiding citizen. They have a proven 
track record of success and each has this Senator's full support. They 
work, not surprisingly, because law enforcement is either directly or 
indirectly related to each crime prevention program. That makes sense 
because no one wants to prevent crime more than those who have to 
enforce the law.
  What does not make sense, Mr. President, is what this Congress and 
administration have done to the term ``crime prevention.'' Rather than 
relating crime prevention activities to law enforcement or criminal 
behavior, they have included everything from swimming pools to bicycle 
paths as methods to stop a crime from occurring. They equate a 
candlelight walk through a rough neighborhood by concerned citizens to 
scare off drug dealers with grants to encourage arts and crafts 
classes.
  The conference report on the crime bill dropped the single best 
example of true crime prevention: my amendment to notify communities of 
violent sexual predators. Law-abiding citizens have a right to know of 
the dangers around them so they can take the simple precautions such as 
getting an escort to walk them home or picking kids up after school. 
Instead, conferees were more concerned about the rights of convicted 
repeat sexual offenders. They just don't get it. This crime bill would 
not have helped Polly Klaas or Megan Kanka.
  Perhaps the best distinction between the Democrats approach to 
spending on crime prevention and my own is Operation Weed and Seed. I 
would have taken a large chunk of the money earmarked for pork barrel 
social welfare programs that have never worked and would have greatly 
expanded this crime prevention program that has proven itself. Weed and 
seed combines tough law enforcement with coordinated and targeted 
social services, some of which are the very same programs funded under 
many of the so-called crime prevention programs. The important 
distinction, however, is that weed and seed has the law enforcement 
component that follows the seed money for a balanced mixture of law 
enforcement and prevention. The conference report, on the other hand, 
does not guarantee the law enforcement element. That is right, cities 
and high-crime areas have a much greater chance of receiving social 
spending money than the match-based law enforcement money. The result: 
seeding without weeding. That is not crime prevention.

  Under the title of crime prevention, $7.4 billion in tax payer money 
includes such deterrence as $900 million for the youth employment and 
skills crime prevention which would provide grants for job training, 
apprenticeships, occupational skills, and job experience targeted at 
youth in high crime, high unemployment areas; $1.8 billion for the 
Local Partnership Act providing revenue sharing grants to localities 
for education, drug abuse treatment, and job training programs; $895 
million for the model intensive grant program providing grants to fund 
up to 15 model programs in high crime areas for any reason justified as 
crime related including deterioration or lack of public facilities and 
public transportation.
  Now, this Senator has no doubt that some activities undertaken by 
these programs may have some positive impact. I am fully aware of the 
need in many communities for additional assistance. But what this 
Senator will not accept is the myth, the scam, that this is crime 
prevention and therefore should be included in a crime bill.
  In addition, of course, these programs are nothing new.
  The Government Accounting Office recently found that there are 
presently 154 separate, overlapping Federal employment and training 
programs run by 14 separate executive departments and independent 
agencies. A total of 50 different offices are responsible for these 
programs, for which $25 billion was budgeted in fiscal year 1994. The 
conference report throws another $900 million at these programs.
  GAO also found that 266 current prevention programs sponsored by 
seven Federal departments are serving delinquent and at-risk youth. 
According to the report, the Government has undertaken ``a massive 
Federal effort on behalf of troubled youth'' to the tune of $3.0 
billion a year. It continues to state that, ``Taken together, the scope 
and number of multiagency programs show that the Government is 
responsive to the needs of these young people.''
  Many of those who support this kind of crime legislation are 
believers in the what I call the bankshot theory of crime prevention. 
In their heart of hearts, they honestly believe that if you invest this 
money in communities for social welfare purposes, you will end up with 
drug addicts strung out on heroin who would otherwise be inclined to 
mug an 80-year-old grandmother of her Social Security check, instead, 
choosing to take a cool dip in the new community pool built by Federal 
funds. They believe that if you build that bike path, maybe, just 
maybe, that sex offender will spend the day getting fresh air and 
exercise rather than stalking his next victim at the school yard. They 
believe that if only we could build a nicer park for that gang member 
to enjoy, he will not commit that drive-by shooting tonight that will 
take the life of an innocent bystander.
  They argue that these things take time, perhaps as long as a 
generation, but that we must start now to change behavior later. 
Ultimately, they say, the shot will find the corner pocket.
  The fundamental problem with this bankshot theory of crime prevention 
is that we need to stop violent crime today. America is in a crisis of 
enormous cultural and social consequences due to our inability to deal 
directly with the threat of criminal violence we face everyday. Crime 
in the most important issue to Americans and we think about how to 
avoid it every day. It is on everyone's mind.
  Our purpose in 1994 should be to do everything we can to put violent 
criminals behind bars. Instead, the bankshot theorists of crime 
prevention have given us swimming pools and bike trails.
  This is a crime bill fit for the care-free and easy-spending days of 
1964, perhaps, but not the violent and deficit spending days of 1994.
  It is a missed opportunity for which I hope, but doubt, the American 
people will forgive us. Before it is too late, Mr. President, let us 
reopen the so-called crime bill and make it work for America.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, [Mrs. Hutchison].
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for allowing me to make my statement before we go into the 
rest of the debate.

                          ____________________