[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   TOUGH PROVISIONS IN THE CRIME BILL

  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened to hear Members refer 
to chiefs of police and mayors and others who are seeking resources for 
prevention as prostitutes. That does not reflect the views, I might 
say, of the majority of the Members of Congress, and I am really 
embarrassed to hear that.
  The crime bill is not a perfect bill. I would not have written it as 
it is written, I must say, but it is a good bill. To suggest that it 
does not have the kind of provisions we need to deal with crime 
problems basically has missed the boat.
  I spent some 30 years in law enforcement in one way or the other, 
either as a legislator or as a prosecutor, and there are provisions in 
this bill written by Republicans that will in fact make a difference.
  In the first place, those who suggest that the child abuse provisions 
are not tough and do not notify the public have not read the bill. Many 
of our colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], wrote provisions dealing with so-called sexual 
predators. Those provisions did not call for community notification or 
call for registry. This bill does have a registry. It does require 
contacting those individuals. It does in fact give the police, the 
chief of police, and law enforcement agencies the opportunity to take 
whatever steps are necessary to protect the public.
  Mr. Speaker, those who suggest otherwise have not read the bill.

                          ____________________