[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 120 (Sunday, August 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 THE COST OF PROGRAMS IN THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me answer some of the questions. 
First of all, in the original bill in the House, which this Member 
voted for, it did have the assault language in that, it had $10 billion 
for prisons. The conference report came out with $6.5 billion for 
prisons. The group that worked to improve the bill had a $1.4 billion 
add-on that, which makes a total of $7.9 billion for prisons, not even 
what we had coming out of the House.

                             {time}   1510

  We asked and the Prisons Bureau asked for $13.5 billion in prison 
money. We only have $7.9 billion. So we do not even have the amount 
that came out of the original House bill, but yet we went from $22 
billion to $33 billion in the conference report from the House. That is 
wrong.
  Second, they reference anybody laughing at the domestic violence act 
for women. We would like that included in the Hunter-Brewster bill. We 
would like a lot of things, including the death penalty. We tried to 
take the controversial issues out and were willing to have a separate 
vote on the social spending, and those items which are secondary to 
fight crime. Education is a way to fight crime. A lot of the social 
things are a way to fight crime, but we are looking to hit it in a very 
difficult way.
  Only 1 of the 30 social programs with the group that negotiated very 
well on both sides of the aisle to try and improve the bill, but only 1 
of the 30 welfare spending programs were taken out. There are 13 
related in block grants. The remaining are still in the bill with only 
a 10-percent cut. So I would say to the gentleman, the House bill that 
we passed out of here has far more prison money than is even in there 
now. That is why we are supporting the Hunter-Brewster bill.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Has anyone explained why we are here on Sunday 
afternoon? What is the urgency about this legislation? We know there is 
a crime situation in the country. We appropriated money the other day 
for the regular appropriations for more prisons, for more policemen, 
for all the issues that are in this one, but what is the sense of 
urgency? Some of the items here have been around for 4 years. Three 
years ago now, President Bush sent a message down similar to this, not 
all the social programs. The Democrat-controlled Congress did 
absolutely nothing with that request that he sent down for similar 
legislation. So now on Sunday afternoon when Members ought to be 
relaxing with their families or back in their own districts talking to 
their constituents, why are we here this afternoon? If it is to say to 
this presidency, we have a better chance of raising the Maine, I think, 
than doing that.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think there is a sense of urgency. I do not 
personally mind being here today. I would like a chance to read the 
bill which not many of us have had a chance to get through. But I think 
we need to pass this crime bill yesterday or day before, even months 
ago or years ago.
  So I think we do need to get down at the hard facts of the bill 
today.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
might vote for a crime bill, but you said ``this crime bill''? No; I 
disagree with you entirely on that. I am not going to vote for this 
one.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am talking about the Hunter-Brewster language.

                          ____________________