[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]

 
                             THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays,] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the crime bill 
during my 5 minutes. I would like to express some real concern that in 
the process of debating this bill, a lot of misinformation has been 
discussed that has really I think distorted the issue. Candidly, I have 
tremendous concern that in the end what we have been doing is bashing 
up on the cities.

                              {time}  2000

  I believe we need a crime bill. I believe we need to have a strong 
law enforcement component. I believe we need more prisons. I also 
believe that we need a preventative part to this legislation.
  I represent a district that includes some of the wealthiest in the 
country, and yet it has one of the poorest cities in the country, 
Bridgeport, CT. A few years ago it attempted to go bankrupt. It simply 
was running out of resources. And it is coming back from the brink, and 
we are real proud of what Bridgeport is doing.
  But it is really a tale of two cities, a Fairfield or a Greenwich and 
a Bridgeport. In my suburban communities, it would be hard for many 
constituents to imagine what it is like to raise a kid in an urban area 
like Bridgeport. During the Memorial Day parade, I had the incredible 
pleasure of marching in the parade at Fairfield, and there were so many 
people on both sides of the street.
  It was about 2 miles in length. It was just filled with people. And 
we were at the beginning of the parade. By the time the parade ended 
and when I had reached the destination, I got to review the rest of the 
parade. It went on for about two or three hours.
  The parade consisted of one group of children after another: Indian 
guides, boy scouts, girl scouts, soccer teams, little league teams, 
football teams, just a plethora of organizations for young people.
  That would not happen in my city of Bridgeport. There would not be 
this kind of community involvement. There would not be these kind of 
activities for my young kids.
  In a town like Fairfield, the young children have to decide what not 
to do. Their problem is getting overloaded. In a city like Bridgeport, 
when a kid is out after 2:30 at school, there is simply nothing for him 
to do or her to do. There are no activities at all. If you go to a 
public housing project, you might see an improved situation because we 
are improving this public housing. But inside you will see a mother 
trying to make a home. But on the door will be padlocks and chains. The 
kids are arrested at night.
  I just make the point to you that I believe with all my heart and 
soul that we need to build more prisons and we need more police. And I 
argue for that and I want it part of the bill. But I just do not see 
how we can leave out the preventative side of this legislation. We 
simply have got to deal with the young people in these urban areas.
  So there have been tremendous complaints about what is on the 
preventative side. I take strong exception to those who talk about it 
as being pork. The general public has accepted this is more of a pork 
bill than a crime bill.
  In judgment it is a crime bill with some strong preventative 
measures. I just plead for this country to have some sense that we have 
got to deal with our young children in our urban areas.
  I weep for our kids in our urban areas. And if this debate is about 
pork and it forgets about the kids in these areas, one of the things 
that just amazes me, it is true, the bill grew by the time it went for 
the Senate, from the Senate to the House to the conference. I mean, it 
was 27.8 in the House. And by the time it came back from the 
conference, it was 33. But I submit that the 33 was not in the 
prevention side. It is not on the side that it has been accused of 
having all these programs that people, some people, particularly in 
suburban areas, do not want kids in urban areas evidently to have.
  I just make the point to you, those numbers did not go up. What went 
up in the bill from the House to the conference was 5.5 in law 
enforcement to 13.9. What made the bill more expensive was more law 
enforcement and not preventative.
  I just conclude by saying that I just hope in the next day or two we 
get to focus back on how we can deal with crime both from an 
enforcement and a preventative side and what can we do to help our 
cities. The mayors came down and they presented their case. They are in 
there. They are working day and night on these issues. Congress cannot 
turn a deaf ear to it.

                          ____________________