[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
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]

 
                           A TRUE 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. Madam Speaker, a surprising thing took 
place in this Chamber. We passed a crime bill in the Commerce, Justice, 
and State appropriation bill, 322 to 98. That was a true crime bill.
  It is true, this conference report that we passed did not abolish 
capital punishment, as the President wanted to do in his crime bill. It 
did not release 16,000 drug pushers from the Federal prisons, as the 
crime bill desires. It did not abolish mandatory minimum sentences for 
drug kingpins, as the President's crime bill calls for. It did not 
weaken the second amendment rights, called for in the present crime 
bill.
  It did, however, restore funding for the Drug Enforcement Agency, 
which the President had sought to reduce; it provided some 400 new 
agents, as well as removing 600 agents from desk duty and reassigning 
them to the field.
  It provided funds for activating 11 new or expanding prisons 
facilities. It provides $54.5 million for new border patrol guards, 
providing almost 1,000 new agents in the field. It gives $24.5 million 
for boot camps, punishing small-time offenders, while leaving prisons 
open for violent offenders.
  It supports increased drug courts, $29 million, permitting swifter 
action against drug offenders. It grants $26 million to combat violent 
crime against women, which will support battered women's shelters, 
promote rape awareness education, and establish a national family 
hotline service. It restores the Byrne formula grants, and will give 
States and local governments some $450 million.
  In total, Madam Speaker, this bill provides over $15 billion for 
prevention of crime and the judiciary. It prioritizes the needs. It 
does not include the President's social spending. It is a real crime 
bill.

                              {time}  1900

  It was put together on a bipartisan basis and passed this House and 
when it clears the Senate tomorrow and goes to the President, it can be 
our crime bill.
  I would like, Madam Speaker, at this time to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] who is a member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, for further remarks in this area.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding. I was scheduled to speak on this bill last Thursday 
pending passage of the rule. Of course the rule was defeated and this 
is the first time I have had a chance to address matters concerning the 
crime bill.
  What bothers me, I say to my colleague from North Carolina and to 
you, Madam Speaker, when it first came to the Senate, to the other 
body, as best I remember, there was a price tag of $16 billion. When it 
cleared the other body and came to us, it was $21 billion. After it 
sailed through the House, it reached the figure of $28 billion. It then 
was assigned to a conference where, you guessed it, continuing upward, 
now it is in excess of $33 billion.
  That is not the way it is done in the real world. In the real world, 
if you have to renovate your home or your small business and you start 
at $25,000, you try to work downward. Here on the banks of the Potomac, 
it works in just the opposite way. The moral of the story, Madam 
Speaker, is simply this: It is easy to spend money that belongs to 
others, and we in this Congress do it every day. I am afraid that we do 
it recklessly and imprudently.
  I am concerned, I say to the gentleman from North Carolina, about 
some of the accusations that have been made directed to those of us who 
voted against the rule last week, and the accusations have been, 
``Well, you only voted no just simply to embarrass the President.'' 
This is poppycock and ludicrous. I voted no because the meter continued 
to run.
  Now, when you go from $16 billion to in excess of $33 billion 
spending public moneys, spending your constituents' moneys and mine 
wrapped in the package titled crime bill, something is indeed wrong. I 
say to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would like to see us prior 
to adjournment in October to instill and restore, if there ever was any 
before, some sort of fiscal sanity in the manner in which we spend 
taxpayers' money on this river and on this Hill. I think our 
constituents deserve better and I think we owe it to ourselves to do 
better.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I yield back to him.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, in closing, I think we see that this 
costly crime bill, so-called, is kind of like side pockets on a hog as 
far as its benefit in fighting crime. The bill we passed today is a 
solid crime-fighting bill and it can be one we can all be proud of for 
this Nation.

                          ____________________