[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]

 
                   WHY THE CRIME BILL HAS NOT PASSED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for 5 
minutes, just common sense, about the crime bill that is in front of us 
and some of the reasons why it was turned down. I hope the public and 
the Members of this body will think about what is in the bill and why 
many people voted the way they did.
  First of all, this was not a Republican defeat of the crime bill. In 
the first place, we only have 178 votes in this body. It takes 218 to 
defeat. There are many people who opposed the crime bill and opposed 
the rule for the crime bill. First of all, the FBI chief criticized the 
bill in a recent newspaper statement and his reason was he was 
concerned that the President's approach toward crime cut the FBI, cut 
the DEA, cut the INS and cut law enforcement, basic Federal law 
enforcement agencies that are needed really to be tough on crime. That 
is the head of our FBI criticizing the bill. There were some 20 
committee and subcommittee chairmen, these are all Democrats, who voted 
against the rule. Many of them voted because they felt that this rule 
was not proper, that a closed rule would not allow the amendments 
necessary to improve the bill, and that was a principal reason they 
opposed the crime bill. Some 58 other Democrats, Members of the House 
of Representatives, voted against that rule.
  Many of them remembered the experience about the Los Angeles 
earthquake where we were told we needed $8 billion to take care of the 
people in Los Angeles during their trials in the earthquake. Most 
Members felt that was appropriate, that if they needed the money to 
help cure the problems in Los Angeles with the earthquake, they would 
vote for it. Then as we began to read the bill and later a major 
television network pointed out that over half of that $8 billion, some 
$4 billion or more, did not even go near California, it did not even 
get close to where there was a rumble, in fact. It wound up in Arkansas 
and West Virginia and places that had nothing to do with the California 
earthquake. So having been duped once, you can see that a lot of people 
were nervous about a $33 billion crime bill that so clearly does not 
address crime with a great portion of the funds.
  George Will, a prominent writer and a personality who writes for the 
Washington Post and others, says:

       This crime bill is a bipartisan boondoggle because of the 
     cachet that currently accrues to any legislation with an 
     `anticrime' label. But the bill sprays money most 
     promiscuously at Democratic constituencies, the so-called (by 
     themselves) `caring professions'--social workers, 
     psychologists, and others who do the work of therapeutic 
     government.

  He warns that it does not address tough problems on crime. He points 
out that even the midnight sports leagues--first of all, the leagues 
have to be made up of a specific population, those from specific areas 
with a prescribed number with HIV positive. He also points out that 
many of the other programs involved have nothing to do with crime but 
that are primarily social programs, many of them shopworn, that have 
come before this body before and have not been able to pass.
  Then in my home State, we have a police organization that polled over 
3,000 members of their officers and 86 percent opposed aspects of the 
crime bill because they called it phony, they said it does not address 
crime, it addresses other questions and it is bureaucratic and will not 
aid them in their fight against crime.

  So there is a widespread concern in this country about this crime 
bill. It was not a partisan matter, it was a matter that came across 
party lines, and that is why the vote lost in this last week's attempt.
  Is this a crime bill? Well, when you read it and you ask people, both 
committee staff and you ask prominent people who have been in this 
House, the first thing they say, ``Well, not exactly.''
  You ask, does it ban 19 assault weapons as the press says? ``Well, 
not exactly.'' It actually bans several hundred weapons, most of them 
sports weapons.
  My son has a shotgun that he uses to turkey hunt with. It is a gun 
that I will have to admit, it is not a threat to turkeys much because 
we have tried for the last 2 years and we have not been able to hit 
one. It is, however, an assault weapon under the definition of this 
bill. It has to meet two criteria to be that. It meets three. First of 
all, it has six shots, it only has to meet five; secondly, it has a 
curved handle just before the stock as most shotguns would have; and 
thirdly, you can affix a bayonet if you want to. You can affix a 
bayonet to any gun that the stock does not come all the way out to the 
end. Maybe he should affix a bayonet and try to bayonet the turkeys 
because he is not having much luck shooting them. But to think of that 
weapon is ridiculous. In fact most of what people think of as automatic 
weapons are already banned under Federal statute. Even Uzis and other 
types of guns that are changed to become automatic weapons violate the 
Federal statute.

                          ____________________