[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]

 
                         SUPPORT THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, last week one of my heroes and great friends 
in politics, a gentleman by the name of Cecil Partee who had served as 
President of the Illinois State Senate, passed away. Cecil Partee had 
the greatest sense of insight into politics and politicians. He used to 
say to me, ``Durbin, every time a politician makes a decision, there is 
a good reason and a real reason.''
  Listen to the speeches here today. We have heard a lot of talk about 
how important an issue crime is for America. I think it is one of the 
most important. I am looking up in the gallery here at hundreds of 
people who have journeyed to our Nation's Capital who have thought at 
some moment while they were sitting there or during the course of their 
vacation or trip about a concern they might have about whether they or 
some member of their family might be a victim of crime in this city or 
some other city. We are all sensitized to it. It gets dark outside, you 
get a little worried. You worry about your daughter living in the city 
of Chicago and how safe she will be at night. It goes on across 
America, not just in Washington or Chicago, but in my hometown of 
Springfield, IL, and in every hometown represented in the gallery. So 
you think to yourself, if this problem is so important and the American 
people are so concerned about it, why did Congress get so tied in knots 
over it? This seems pretty simple.
  We know what we want. We want more cops out there to protect our 
families. People who commit crimes should go to jail and those who 
commit violent crimes should stay there. We have to give the police the 
resources they need, give the prosecutors the resources they need. 
Build the prisons if we need them. I think most people would also 
agree, we need to try to grab these kids before they turn to drugs, 
before they turn to violence, before they turn to gang activity and 
try, just try, to put them on the straight and narrow. Are we going to 
fail? You bet we are. But we ought to try, because we know the expense 
of failure, the expense of a life of crime not only in the wasted lives 
of the criminals but what it costs us as taxpayers. You know, this all 
seems pretty simple. It seems like the ABC's of crime and you wonder 
how did Congress get in such a mess.
  Let me go back to my friend Cecil Partee. We have heard a lot of good 
reasons why people oppose this bill. The real reason the rule lost a 
week ago was over the issue of assault weapons and over the strength of 
one major lobby group, the gun lobby here in Washington. Had the gun 
lobby in Washington released their votes and given Members of Congress 
a green light, we would have passed the rule and the crime bill, gone 
home and said at least we are trying, we are listening and we are 
trying. But the gun lobby put the pressure on and as a consequence many 
Members of the House said, ``No, we can't vote for the rule'' and that 
was the end of it. So today we have another reprise, we have another 
go-around on the same issue. Guess what, the players are the same, the 
people who come here and say, ``We want a stripped-down bill, no pork, 
let's get down to basics. Vote for the Brewster-Hunter bill.'' I want 
to give a little insight for those who are trying to follow this 
program and wonder what the players are really saying.
  The National Rifle Association and the gun lobby support the 
Brewster-Hunter bill because it strips out the assault weapons ban. 
This is their last gasp, their last chance. They are putting all the 
money on the line. They may win it. I hope they do not. I am going to 
vote against them. Because after you take a look at that Brewster-
Hunter bill, it reminds me of what my favorite governor in the United 
States, Ann Richards of Texas, once said about another issue. She said, 
``You can take a hog, you can put lipstick on it and call it Monique, 
but it's still a pig.'' when you take a look at the Brewster-Hunter 
bill, you can call it whatever you want, streamlined, no pork, get 
serious and so forth. It is the National Rifle Association's bill 
removing the assault weapons ban. It is ``Monique.'' and we all know 
it.

  So I hope when this is all over, that we not only do the right thing 
on crime but that we also say to the gun lobby, ``What has happened to 
you folks?'' There was a time in the history of the National Rifle 
Association when they worked as tight as could be with police groups. 
They used to agree. They would come together to Congress and say we 
have sportsmen and hunters who are responsible, safe people. They love 
their law enforcement people and want to work with them, and they would 
come with a program and Congress would embrace it and there would not 
be any debate. But over the years, things started to separate. The 
police groups started moving in this direction and the gun lobby 
started moving in the other.
  This Congressman has decided that when it comes to a problem in my 
neighborhood and my family, when I pick up the phone and dial 911, I am 
not looking for a National Rifle Association lobbyist, I am looking for 
that man or woman dressed in the uniform, the policeman who put the 
badge on this morning and put his life on the line to protect me and my 
family.
  When it comes to issues of crime, I do not care how big a political 
action committee the gun lobby has, I do not care how many free bumper 
stickers they give out to intimidate Members of Congress. I think we 
have a moral responsibility to stick with the police, to stick with the 
deputies, to stick with the men and women who put their lives on the 
line. I am not an expert on crime. The real experts are the people on 
the street protecting us and that is why today I am going to be voting 
for the rule, against ``Monique'' the Brewster-Hunter crime bill put 
together by the National Rifle Association, and I will be voting for 
the real crime bill. It is a good one. It strikes a balance. It is 
tough but it puts prevention funds in there, too.
  The toughest cops in my district, when I sit down with them, tell me 
what I said earlier. Tougher sentencing, put them in prisons, give us 
the resources, and then they say, ``Congressman, that isn't enough. 
We've got to step into the lives of these young people before they go 
wrong and try to help.'' Try with the drug rehab, try with the 
activities for youth who might go astray. That is a balanced approach, 
that is a tough but sensible approach.

                          ____________________