[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Ms. McKinney). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Hoagland] a minute ago talked about an 18-percent crime rate in Omaha. 
That very same paper that that article was taken from, the Omaha World 
Herald strongly, and I say strongly, recommended that area Members of 
Congress vote against the crime bill. They editorialized against the 
crime bill. The gentleman should have put that up to read.
  Several speakers have attempted to minimize the negative effects that 
the present crime bill has by stating there might be some Members that 
might find some little thing in the crime bill that would cause us to 
vote against the bill.
  Madam Speaker, let me explain some of those items in which we may 
vote against the crime bill: $9 billion in social spending. Many of us 
would like that $9 billion to be spend to fight crime; $9 billion is 
not just a little thing.
  I would like to read, Madam Speaker, a letter that was sent to the 
President of the United States from the Republican leadership. That 
Republican leadership was made up of Bob Michel, a respected Member on 
both sides of the aisle, Mr. Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and 
Bill McCollum, the conference vice chairman for the crime bill.
  I quote:

       Contrary to the assertions in your Administration, the 
     crime conference report is not stalled because of assault 
     weapons provisions, but instead due to the more than $9 
     billion in new social welfare spending. We are writing to 
     offer our assistance in moving a real crime bill that will 
     get more police on the streets and move violent criminals in 
     prison now. The law enforcement provisions of the crime bill 
     could be beefed up, and the social welfare spending 
     dramatically trimmed.

  Madam Speaker, I would like to submit most of this for the Record, 
but I would like to read just a couple more.
  But how do you do this?
  ``Remove the more than $9 billion in social welfare spending and 
replace it with the Senate's full funding for the Byrne grant 
program,'' full funding. What does this do? It makes sure that that 
money that we spend toward a crime bill will be used in the bill truly 
directed at crime prevention.

       Because we realize there are some in your party who feel 
     strongly about the new social spending provisions, 
     Republicans would be willing to support a rule allowing for 
     the consideration of a social welfare spending package as a 
     separate bill after we have passed the consensus crime bill 
     outlined above. That means Congress would have an opportunity 
     to pass both a tough anti-crime bill that puts more police on 
     the street and more violent criminals in prison, and consider 
     a package of new social welfare spending. This approach would 
     avoid the gridlock that has developed within your party as a 
     result of the current strategy of tying these issues together 
     in one bill assuming that Members would hold their nose and 
     vote for anything that has police and prison funding.

  Now, the simple little thing of $9 billion, the White House, Janet 
Reno have been calling Members on this side of the aisle and offering 
them, what can we give you in your district to get you to vote for the 
rule. What can we give you, what kind of payoff can we give you to vote 
with us?
  The President has done the same deal with another caucus. There is a 
caucus in this House that strongly, by principle, supported an 
amendment called the racial justice amendment. That was stripped from 
the crime bill. That, I am sure, upset the caucus. They truly believed 
in what the principle stated. But it was stripped, and it upset that 
caucus. So what can we give you? We can give you $9 billion in the 
inner cities of pork-barrel spending.

  The gentlewoman from California wanted to put a $100 stipend a month 
on teenagers. This was pointed at the gangs, $100 a month stipend for 
good grooming. Now, it is termed a different way in this bill, but it 
is there. Dancing lessons in prisons?
   Madam Speaker, are we going to have murderers and rapists lead on 
Monday, Tuesday; sex abusers on Tuesday, Thursday? I do not think so.
  The night basketball game, I changed my position on night basketball. 
I went down into the cities and said, hey, this is working, but we 
would like it to go back to conference and not include where the 
community has to be 2-percent HIV or drug abuse users. Maybe Magic 
Johnson could play in that league, but I do not want my kids playing in 
it.
  Another thing where we could replace and put more strength in a crime 
bill would be to take out the 40,000 social workers, more social 
workers actually than the amount of police that will in actuality be 
funded. The FBI came out with a news article today that this crime bill 
will cut in effect their ability to deal with not only white collar 
crime but the drug abuse as well.

                              {time}  2000

  The gentlewoman from Washington, Jennifer Dunn, myself, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Zimmerman, offered an amendment that was 
passed by this House, and on the Senate, for sexual predators.
  In New Jersey, a little girl was buried last Thursday. The sexual 
predator had been convicted twice before for preying on children. He 
moved in with two other sexual predators, males, across the street. The 
little girl was enticed into the home by a puppy and was strangled and 
murdered.
  The amendment said that when these dirty, miserable rats get out of 
prison, that the community will know about it. If those guys would have 
been in my community, Madam Speaker, and your community, I do not think 
you would have let your children go over there or even see them.
  It also cleared the liability of police officers in notifying those 
communities. However, that is being held hostage on the other side of 
the aisle. That is an amendment that should be in. It was passed by the 
Senate, and only 13 Members of this House voted against it.
  Madam Speaker, these are no little things. We are asking the 
leadership of this house to get together with the Republican leadership 
and ask for a separate vote on the socialized $9 billion in spending, 
and let us put some real teeth into our crime bill.

                          ____________________