[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]

 
                     COMPROMISING ON THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I address the House tonight to talk about 
the crime bill. I do not know if we have said enough about that in 
America for the last 2 or 3 days. So I want to throw in my 2 cents.
  The great moments we have had during the Clinton administration in 
the legislature, the times when the Clinton administration has passed 
items which it considers very high on its agenda, they have done so 
with bipartisan support. The only deviation from that would be the tax 
increase, but aside from that, NAFTA, family medical leave, and assault 
weapons ban were all passed on a bipartisan basis.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is realize that the best of 
the Democrats', the best of the Republicans' ideas should always be 
combined together with the best of the administration's ideas so that 
we can have the best type of reform and the best type of legislation 
possible for the American people.
  Last week, despite what the President said, there were 58 Democrats 
who voted against the rule on the crime bill. As I went home and read 
about it in the newspaper back in Savannah in the First District of 
Georgia, as I watched it on national news, I was not sure if I was in 
the same House Chamber that the President was talking about when he 
blamed his failure to pass it on the NRA and the Republican Party. I am 
against gun control. I believe in the second amendment. The President 
and I disagree on that. But I will say this: NRA never contacted me 
about the crime bill. I am sure they were contacting Members, but they 
never contacted me. The party leaders did talk, but where I got most of 
my direction was not from folks in Washington, and not from Republican 
Party members, and not from the NRA folks, obviously, not from other 
special interests, but from the sheriffs and police chiefs in the First 
Congressional District of Georgia.
  As we in our office called them, as we faxed to them somewhat of a 
summary of the crime bill--it was hard to summarize 700 pages in a 
brief period of time, particularly when the bill had not been written 
until the day of the vote, but aside from that, from what we had 
understood we sent out a fax to our police officers. The majority, the 
overwhelming majority, and by that I mean 90 percent said vote no on 
this. There is lot of good in the crime bill, but there is a lot of bad 
in it too.
  I think if we could say come up and admit, if the administration will 
say we can do a better job, the people of America are right, then what 
we should do tonight during the course of this debate and over the next 
couple of days is work on a compromise.
  Here is my suggestion for the compromise. The bill is about $33 
billion. It was about $9 billion in so-called special spending such as 
midnight basketball, arts and crafts fairs, and self-esteem programs. I 
think we ought to cut that. I would like to see it eliminated in its 
entirety, but I realize in certain areas of the country you may need 
that. For example, in New York City they probably need self-esteem 
programs. If I was living in New York I probably would too.
  But we should reduce that level as much as possible, and then 
whatever balance we save, put it into the construction of new prisons. 
When the bill passed the House the construction level on the prisons 
was over $13 billion. When it came out of conference it was more in the 
$9 billion range. What we should do is put the balance into keeping our 
streets safe by keeping the criminal element off of the street so they 
do not harm your family members.
  The other part is since out of 100,000 new police officers only 
20,000 are paid for, what we should do is put the balance into that. I 
think that compromise makes sense.
  But let us just say it does not. Why not then give the money back to 
the States and let them decide if they are going to put that money to 
self-esteem programs or a new prison construction or new police 
officers. I trust the great State of Georgia to make the decisions on 
that, and I am sure 435 Members of Congress trust their own home States 
to make decisions on that. I think that would give a great cooperative 
effort between the State and Federal levels of government, and it would 
promote I think a better harmony between the two entities as opposed to 
always handing down to the State government unfunded mandates. That is 
the first part of the compromise I would suggest.
  The second part I would suggest is a separate vote on the assault 
weapons ban.

                              {time}  1850

  That way the President and everybody else who is against the second 
amendment can jump on gun owners of America and the NRA and all that 
and they could have a good old second-amendment bashing. But that way 
it would be a separate issue. We already passed the assault-weapon ban 
in the House.
  The third thing, no retroactive appeals for people who have already 
been sentenced, which the bill would do. Let us eliminate that.
  The fourth and final thing, Mr. Speaker, would be to promote the 
Byrne grant program more in rural America, which is an antidrug program 
which is helping rural America tremendously. It is kind of hidden in 
this bill. It is in there, but let us build upon it.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your time. I appreciate the Members of the 
House listening.

                          ____________________