[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               CRIME BILL

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, August 18, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an 
editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on August 18, 1994.

               How About a Bill That Really Fights Crime?

       Congress and the White House should be able to draft a 
     realistic crime bill to take the place of the monstrosity 
     that stalled last week in the House of Representatives.
       A realistic crime bill would have these features:
       Federal subsidies to add police officers where violent 
     crime is the worst.
       The improvement of sentencing laws and appeal procedures 
     that currently allow dangerous felons to avoid prison 
     sentences.
       A prison-construction program to deal with the chronic 
     shortage of cells in some states.
       In our opinion, President Clinton's proposed ban on 19 
     varieties of assault-style weapons is also a worthy idea. But 
     if including the ban is likely to jeopardize the rest of a 
     realistic crime bill, the ban should be considered at another 
     time.
       Above all, a realistic crime bill would be presented 
     honestly. It would contain no hidden bonanzas for the 
     districts of influential congressmen--bonanzas such as the 
     $10 million crime research center that would go to a college 
     in the Texas district of Jack Brooks, the chairman of the 
     House Judiciary Committee.
       Neither should the next crime bill pretend to get tougher 
     on drug offenders while allowing them the opportunity to 
     appeal by the thousands for new trials. That's what the 
     House-stalled bill would have done. It would have been a 
     victory for the muddleheaded view that drug users, many of 
     whom are also pushers or thieves, are victims, not criminals.
       A realistic crime bill wouldn't be loaded with huge grants 
     disguised as crime-prevention spending. Under the stalled 
     legislation, taxpayer dollars would be used to teach teen-
     agers who to dance. Midnight basketball leagues would be 
     organized, with special preferences for neighborhoods with a 
     higher rate of HIV infection.
       There would be self-esteem programs and subsidized jobs, 
     which often amount to no more than getting paid for killing 
     time. Someone slipped funds into the bill to track down 
     Alzheimer's patients who wander away from home. Someone else 
     put in money to retrain spray-paint vandals as muralists.
       Skepticism has materialized about the 100,000 police 
     officers. Much of the cost would fall on state and local 
     governments, with federal funds by some accounts covering the 
     equivalent of 20,000 officers. Hubert Williams, a former New 
     Jersey police chief who heads a law-enforcement research 
     organization in Washington, said the police buildup ``sounds 
     better than it is.'' The officers would be spread thinly 
     across the country for political benefit, thereby diluting 
     the impact in high-crime areas.
       A realistic crime bill would address that concern. 
     Obviously, the new officers should be placed where crime is 
     worst. If that means a large number of Miami, the Bronx, 
     South Central Los Angeles or the Anacostia area of 
     Washington, D.C., so be it. Omaha's most crime-ridden 
     neighborhoods should get some of these officers, but if the 
     number is less than the number for Houston, per capita, so 
     what?
       The White House angled Wednesday for votes to revive the 
     stalled measure. President Clinton's people held out the 
     possibility of reducing the social spending by 5 percent, 
     watering down the gun control provisions and taking out the 
     $10 million for the Texas college. All to buy support.
       But how much better it would be to start over. Begin with a 
     police-buildup provision that puts more officers where they 
     are needed. Add a prison-construction program that actually 
     builds prisons. Require more prison time for repeat felons, 
     tougher penalties for violent offenders, a greater certainty 
     of jail time for those who break the law.
       These are not revolutionary concepts. Most have already 
     received majority House and Senate support as part of the 
     original bill. Repackaged without the social spending, which 
     would remain huge even if reduced by Clinton's token 5 
     percent, they would constitute a crime bill that really 
     fought crime. The World-Herald would be pleased to urge 
     Midlands senators and representatives to support such a bill.

                          ____________________