[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             THE CRIME BILL

  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I traveled with President 
Clinton to Minnesota as he addressed the National Organization of 
Police Officers and their association. I must say that the response at 
home with regards to the failure of the House to act on the crime bill 
was one of outrage. Universally, as I met with the police officers and 
other officials that were impacted by that decision, they and the 
general public in Minnesota were very concerned.
  The fact is, that there has been a lot of complaints about the 
provisions of the bill referred to as being ``porked up.'' I would 
suggest to my colleagues that this claim of pork is a cooked-up excuse 
to, in fact, disarm this bill, to take out the weapons ban, to, in 
fact, distort the provisions of the bill which has for sometime on 
regular basis been pushed forward.
  I would suggest my colleages ought to hit the books a little more in 
looking at what is in the bill; the design of the opponents is to 
defund the bill, taking out the important dollars for prevention, 
which goes for police training, for programs that have universal 
support in the Congress in terms of providing for prevention, small 
programs for sports that offer vision, that offer hope to youngsters 
and young people and others who live in troubled communities. The 
dollars that are spent for prevention in terms of eliminating or trying 
to prevent people that are incarcerated from using drugs and treatment 
afterwards and monitoring programs for individuals released.

  Most of this criticism is simply a heat shield that is being put up 
in terms of suggesting these dollars are being wasted. These are 
noncontroversial programs, proven programs. They have been considered 
carefully.
  Furthermore, each one of these programs are subject to be separately 
appropriated, although there is a trust fund, Congress would still have 
the right and responsibility to vote individually on those 
appropriations. Members would have the right to stand up on this floor 
and move to strike an appropriation in any appropriation bill that 
dealt with those particular topics over the next 5 or 6 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is asking too much to commit $30 
billion over a period of 5 or 6 years in terms of fighting crime, which 
is a very important issue in this country. Twenty-two million people 
are affected each year by crime. There are provisions in that bill that 
each of us could look at and disagree with, the death penalty 
provisions I personally find objectionable and what the message is with 
regard to that issue and the dehumanization of how to address 
punishment and crime to resort to the death penalty. It illustrates to 
me the great frustration with crime in this Nation today. Members of 
this House could all find a basis to abandon or to rail against the 
crime bill. I think after 6 years of debate and failure to act the need 
persists. We need those 100,000 new police officers on the street. 
Sadly we need to construct the additional prison space to deal with the 
problems of overcrowding and the fact that there are mandatory minimum 
penalties that have been put in place by this Congress in recent years 
that have caused the overcrowding.
  We need prevention dollars to provide hope, to offer vision, to offer 
alternatives, and to provide the special community-based organization 
assistance such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. We need those 
programs. I hope that after my colleagues have been home, after they 
have had a chance to read this crime conference report over more 
carefully, that we will rally together this week and finally pass this 
important new crime bill. All of us can find some things we disagree 
with in the crime bill, but I think the people we represent are telling 
us they want a crime bill, they want it to pass, they want the Congress 
to get on with its business and pay attention to the people, not just 
the special interests, the narrow special interest groups and partisan 
interests that rallied last week to prevent the crime bill 
consideration.
  This tactic has backfired on Members that have tried to move in this 
negative direction and to oppose this particular bill last Thursday. I 
hope Members will come back this week with a different attitude and a 
changed vote.

                          ____________________