[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    COMMON SENSE AND THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 am here again tonight to 
talk about the crime bill and the area of common sense.
  Some months ago we did a special order on the area of deception, 
pointing out what many times this body passes is nowhere close to what 
the advertisement and the press headlines are about that particular 
piece of legislation. I recalled, for instance, the $8 billion that was 
supposed to be spent for earthquake relief for Los Angeles and all the 
hype that was given for the earthquake relief for Los Angeles. All of 
us felt a great deal of concern about the victims of the earthquake, 
and that $8 billion was passed. Then we found that almost $4 billion of 
it turned out to not even be close to Los Angeles, nor even close to a 
rumble of an earthquake. It went to Arkansas and West Virginia and 
various other places. I think one television network did, 3 weeks 
later, a special on that pointing out how much pork had been rushed in 
under the guise of being earthquake relief for Los Angeles.
  We are finding it here again in the crime bill, or the so-called 
crime bill. Most of us in this country are seriously concerned about 
crime. The gentleman who just spoke before me gave evidence of a tragic 
situation where a police officer had been killed and a citizen before 
that police officer had been killed and I think all of us sympathize 
with the family of both of those victims, and we sympathize with 
victims all over the country. But we need to point toward what counts.
  If you read a recent article in the National Review, they did a 
several-page study on the way we are releasing violent criminals. In 
fact, they pointed out nationally almost one-third of all violent 
crimes are committed by criminals on parole or pretrial release. They 
pointed out the shortness of time one gets for murder, the shortness 
they get for violent crimes such as assault or automobile theft or 
breaking and entering. They point out that we are 8 times more likely 
today to be put on parole for a violent crime than we were 30 years ago 
in this country for crimes committed.
  So those are the areas I would like to see us focus on, rather than 
focus on a $33 billion bill that has such questionable crime prevention 
measures as a $10 million gift to the chairman of the Judicial 
Committee's alma mater. It is hard for me to find the crime-fighting 
aggression there, but it must be. But if you look at the weaknesses of 
the bill, and that is all I have time to point out at the moment, none 
of the prison funding in the bill must be spent for prison construction 
or operation. There is over $8 billion of prison construction money in 
the bill, $1.8 billion of it is money to alleviate the cost associated 
with incarcerating illegal aliens, so it is not directly construction 
for new prisons. But even if you take that remaining, a little over $6 
billion, none of that has to be spent for funding prison construction 
or operation.

  Then we look at the truth-in-sentencing law. The conferees' bill 
conditions as much as 40 percent of the so-called prison funding on 
States' implementation in the truth-in-sentencing and this is what we 
are talking about in trying to get sentences carried out rather than 
parole or pretrial release. But they merely have to make progress 
toward that goal of truth-in-sentencing, that is, completing sentences. 
They do not have to really serve the time that they are given.
  I think most people in this country want those sentences served or at 
least the great portion of them served, and this bill does not do it.

                              {time}  1910

  Then, last, we talk about the funding for the 100,000 police officers 
that has been touted so much. In the first place, that money has 
already been appropriated this year. It is coming back from conference. 
It appropriates $13,000 per officer, one shot, $13,000.
  Most law enforcement agencies say that it will take close to $70,000 
to put policemen on the street. So this $13,000 will go toward that 
$70,000, and from then on the local police have to pick up the cost.
  The past chairman of the National Sheriffs Association, a Democrat, 
has said, and he is in a metropolitan county, he does not intend for 
his office to use that process because first of all it provides no 
equipment. Second it is too bureaucratic, and third, it provides 
$13,000 and then leaves them in the county in a lurch for the policemen 
they may need, and if they had the funds they would already be putting 
the policemen on the streets, and $13,000 is such a small impact it 
will hardly pay for the bureaucratic trouble of the national grant. 
This is from the National Sheriffs Association, the past chairman, a 
Democrat.
  So Members can see why many of us, Mr. Speaker, are skeptical about 
this so-called crime bill.

                          ____________________