[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7687-H7690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             RESTORE CRIME PREVENTION DOLLARS IN H.R. 2067

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 
30 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating H.R. 
2067, which was the legislation that we debated earlier today and the 
legislation we will resume debating on tomorrow. On tomorrow we will 
introduce an amendment to this piece of legislation to restore money 
for an interest that I have, an interest that I feel is very important 
to the American people, and that is the prevention dollars that were 
taken out of the bill and put in a block grant form and give the States 
the discretion to use money, either for prevention or for 
incarceration.
  Mr. Speaker, I think one of the problems we have in this country, we 
fail to realize one of the problems with crime, is that we do not put 
money where I believe it needs to be, and that is in the area of 
prevention. If we just send block grant money to States and let them 
make the decision as to where they want to spend this money, we could 
very well end up with 90 percent or 100 percent of the dollars that we 
send to a particular State being used in incarceration, building more 
jails and prisons, and not dealing with the root of the problem. And in 
my opinion the root of the problem is in fact prevention.
  The amendment that I introduced today, as a matter of fact, Mr. 
Speaker, and will debate on tomorrow will provide that 10 percent of 
the funding must be used for crime prevention, which would allocate 
about $200 million of the total $2 billion that is allocated in this 
appropriation to crime prevention. It just makes basic sense to me, Mr. 
Speaker, that we take 10 percent of the dollars and use it for crime 
prevention.
  We passed the legislation last year to appropriate about $30 billion 
to fight crime. We allocated X number of dollars to go toward building 
jails and prisons, and we also allocated X number of dollars that would 
go toward prevention, because we felt that was a balanced approach.
  We felt that in order to fight the real crime problems in this 
country, you had to do it twofold, not only just build jails and 
prisons, but also have drug treatment, also have educational programs 
and
 recreational programs for youth all across the country.

  In this bill, I am sad to say, this bill does not address that 
problem. Many argue that you can use the money for crime prevention or 
you can use the money for incarceration and enforcement. That is 
absolutely true. But the trend in this country is many States are using 
money only for locking people up.
  Let me tell you why prevention makes sense, Mr. Speaker. Prevention 

[[Page H 7688]]
  makes sense because if you look at my own State, the State that I come 
from, the State of Louisiana, in the State of Louisiana we have the 
highest incarceration rate per capita in the whole country. We also 
have the highest high school dropout rate.
  If you look at the people incarcerated in the State of Louisiana, 80 
percent of the people who are behind jail cells in Louisiana are high 
school dropouts. So it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that 
education and incarceration does have some nexus. It makes more sense 
that if we spend $60,000 to build a jail cell and then $30,000 a year 
to maintain that jail cell, it just makes more sense to me that we put 
that kind of money in education, when we only spend about $4,000 a year 
to educate a child.
  So this amendment that I will introduce tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will 
do just that. Up to $2 billion that we will allocate for enforcement 
and crime and crime prevention, we will earmark 10 percent of that, 
which would be $200 million, that will be designated for the sole 
purpose of crime prevention.
  On another note as relates to crime prevention and education, I am 
going to introduce another bill, because I have gotten to the point 
that I am somewhat tired of us debating the issue of crime on the floor 
of the House of Representatives and never talking about the real root 
of the problem, and the real root of the problem is prevention.
  I am introducing legislation that would deal with one of the main 
roots of the problem, and that is education. It is ironic that we have 
spent time, days and nights debating the crime bill and appropriate 
billions upon billions of dollars to put people in jail, and by the 
same token, we spend very little time talking about how to provide 
education to our children.
  There were discussions on this very floor to eliminate the Department 
of Education. How can anyone even entertain the thought of eliminating 
the Department of Education in this country? What message do we send to 
our children?
  I am introducing a national education plan the latter part of this 
week on this House floor that will provide for a national educational 
trust fund. Those moneys will be used for three purposes and three 
purposes only, Mr. Speaker. One, moneys will be used to provide a book 
for every student for every subject. I think that is a commitment that 
we as Members of the Congress ought to make. There should not be a 
student who walks into a public school in America that does not have a 
book, the very basic requirements, a book for every subject.
  Some may think that is very radical. But we spent $30,000 to build a 
prison cell, but we will not spend $10 to buy a kid a book and 
guarantee every kid in America who goes to a public school have a book 
for every subject that he or she engages in.
                              {time}  2115

  How do we expect teachers to teach and kids to learn if they do not 
have the proper tools; so I just think that is basic sense and basic 
logic for me.
  The second part of this legislation I will introduce will deal with 
infrastructure. I am sick and tired of walking into schools all across 
this country and the schools are in worse conditions than in our jails. 
I have visited schools and jails, and, when I visited jails in 
Louisiana and in this country, the ceilings are never leaking, the air 
conditioners are always working, the infrastructure is absolutely 
gorgeous, but when you visit public schools in this country, 
unfortunately many times the ceilings are leaking. I mean the building 
is about to collapse. But yet we study, put down more and more money 
into jails and prisons and fail to make the investment in our children 
and in our schools.
  And lastly this bill would provide for the funding of teachers' 
salaries. We take money and put--I think the national Government, the 
Federal Government, has an interest in what we pay teachers. You know 
we cannot any longer expect teachers to work and raise a family for 
little or nothing. I mean teachers cannot buy bread and milk cheaper 
than anybody else. So I think we have to make that investment now.
  Many say how are you going to fund this. I mean we are facing 
trillions of dollars of debt. And we have a deficit. I mean how are you 
going to fund it? It sounds very great to stand up on the floor of the 
House and talk about providing a book for every student and providing 
teacher's salaries as well as building new schools and improving 
infrastructure of the schools we presently have.
  Well, there is a proliferation of gaming that is taking place all 
across this country. You know I think we ought to have a Federal tax on 
gaming, 5 percent, and that 5 percent ought to go to a national 
education trust fund, and those dollars ought to be used solely for the 
three purposes I enumerated on the House floor tonight, and it is 
amazing what we will do with education in this country if we can put 
those kind of dollars in education.
  I see the gentlewoman from Texas is standing in the well, and I would 
be happy to yield to the gentlewoman
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the gentleman give us 
really an agenda, because
 someone would be listening and ask the question how do we pay for many 
of the things that I heard you express concern about, but the real 
question becomes how do we focus, what are our priorities, and you 
mentioned education taking some of the most devastating cuts, chapter 
1, many of our rural and urban schools where children need an extra leg 
up or an opportunity.

  Again I always emphasize it is not a handout, it is a hand up, but 
yet we are going almost to the bone on programs that provide special 
educational opportunities for our children. There is a lack of focus. 
The infrastructure where we find that our children go to schools with 
leaking roofs and windows that do not shut or those that shut tight and 
they cannot get any air.
  Then we have a situation where we say to our seniors, and in fact I 
want to emphasize again, and I was on the floor of the House saying 
this before, it is not just our seniors that are impacted by Medicare 
and Medicaid. We want to do a $270 billion cut, not because we have 
heard from the task force put together to assess the condition of 
Medicare, and they did indicate that Medicare needs to be reformed, but 
specifically they said it needs to be reformed in the context of a 
total health reform package, and they also mentioned that what needs 
most to be emphasized in Medicare reform is elimination of fraud and 
abuse. No one disagrees with that. But I do wonder about the $270 
billion cut that is now proposed by Republicans to give a tax cut to 
those making over $200,000 and then another proposal to voucher those 
individuals receiving Medicare benefits.
  And so the question becomes focus because, if you eliminate and cause 
seniors to have to pay an increase, which they will, in the amount of 
the Medicare premium, the balance is going to come on the backs of 
those seniors, either that they will not be able to pay that increase 
and, therefore, their health will go down, their health maintenance 
program will go down, or they will choose between eating and health 
care.
  But more importantly for those of us who think, well, it does not 
impact me, those are our parents who will have to come back into our 
homes or rely upon the meagerness of the income that you already have 
while you are trying to raise your children and send them to college on 
a cutback on student loans by the way, and then you have to face the 
concerns and the needs of your parents.
  It is a question of focus, and I was looking, if the gentleman would 
yield just a little bit more, on what we do in terms of crime. We stood 
here today, and argued, and tried our best to bring some reason to the 
Department of Justice appropriations. That is also a question of focus. 
When we had already in the 103d Congress--my predecessors; I was not 
here--had already reconfirmed the value of having cops on the street, 
community policing, we had confirmed through the crime bill of last 
year that it is important to have preventive programs, late night parks 
that are used in the city of Houston, the DARE program, drug-free 
schools, very, very important measures to get to young people and say, 
``Be a part of our gang and not theirs.''
  What do we get? A slashing of that program so drastically, and, when 
we come back with a very measured, reasoned proposal to include the 
cops on 

[[Page H 7689]]
the beat program, to include more preventive programs for our children, 
and also to include the violence against women prevention programs and 
support for those kinds of programs under the Violence Against Women 
Act, what happened? We reject it, or it was rejected by the majority.
  And so I think that we have a problem with focus in this 
appropriating process, and we are not focused on the future, we are not 
focused on those who need the extra helping hand.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments, and she certainly makes some very strong points in both 
areas, first in terms of the seniors. I mean it is so important that we 
not forget about those people who have worked hard all of their lives, 
who have built this country, and their mothers and fathers, and their 
grandmothers and grandfathers, those people who built this country, and 
who worked hard, who fought our wars, who served in our governments and 
who just did basic things, those people who worked in hospitals and 
those people who worked in schools, and to say to our seniors now that 
you are just not important anymore to me is absolutely asinine and 
unconscionable to say the least.
  So, we have to have some consideration when we talk about this whole 
issue of Medicare because it is an important issue, and it will impact 
when you talk about billions of dollars in cuts.
  You know you could call it what you want to call
   it. It is a cut, and it will impact a bunch of senior citizens in 
this country, and I am glad that the gentlewoman took the time to stand 
up in the well tonight to talk about the need to preserve programs such 
as that and the need to protect elderly people in her own State in 
Texas and all across this country. So I thank the gentlelady.

  I yield to the gentlewoman for just a second.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. One of the things that moved me most when I go home 
to the district would be those who would say, ``Do not cut me off 
Medicare.'' It was not individuals who did not realize that we had to 
make sure Medicare survived into the 21st century. They were not being 
selfish, but they wrote letters or have written letters to my office 
asking are those of us who are going to be put off? Are those who will 
become eligible in the year 2000 not be able to secure the necessary 
health maintenance and health benefits necessary for what has been very 
positive in this country, which is old age, the ability for our 
citizens to live longer and healthier lives; is that something that we 
should give up when most nations look to this country in admiration 
that we can do that for our seniors?
  And then let me just add to the focus question to include two other 
areas, and that is the question of homelessness. We had begun to make 
strides in the homeless area serving homeless persons. Again let me 
emphasize a hand up and not a handout. We had uniquely been able to 
focus on what we call transitional housing that allows people to get 
support services and survive. What do we do? Drastically cut 
transitional housing because there is not a focus, pitching one support 
need against another, and then they take it a step further and put in 
jeopardy the Ryan White treatment dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I recall when these moneys were first proposed for AIDS 
treatment that Houston was then 13th on the list. It may be 7th now in 
HIV cases, and so the Ryan White treatment dollars are a vital 
component of treating those with this deadly disease and, as well, 
carrying forth the message that we care, but most importantly, that we 
are in partnership with local health entities that face and have the 
greater burden for HIV cases. Are we saying to them that we, the 
Federal Government, are throwing up our hands, we are no longer going 
to be partners in this very vital effort that we are making both in 
AIDS and in
 homeless? And those living with AIDS will now be impacted by not 
having dollars that may be helpful.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments 
and, taking it a step further, in the VA-HUD appropriations they also 
cut off moneys for national service. I mean eliminate the President's 
program on national service. Now here was a program, or here is a 
program, that dealt with kids who were caught in the middle and parents 
who were caught in the middle, I mean parents who made a little bit too 
much money to qualify for Government assistance to send their kids to 
college, but did not make enough money to afford to send their kids to 
college on their own. So last year we came up with this innovative 
idea. We said we are going to have a national service program under the 
President's leadership, and it was a program that did not have an 
income criterion. If you want to volunteer your services and work your 
way through college or work your way even after college and pay off 
your student loan because of the high default rate we had among 
students who graduated, and even those who did not graduate from 
college, so this Congress came up with a unique idea to provide a 
national service program for kids, young students, who decided to go to 
college, and work their way through college and work with nonprofit 
organizations.
  In this legislation, it totally wipes out that program, zero dollars, 
not phased down, but wiped it out. I mean 20,000 kids right now and 
today are benefiting from the national service program what will not be 
in effect in 1996 if this appropriation passes this House.
  You know I mean what are we saying? On one hand we are telling 
seniors we are going to cut Medicare, on the other hand we are telling 
young people we are going to cut out drug-free schools in communities 
and national service programs. And then we tell them God knows if you 
have AIDS in America, then you are going to be cut out of public 
housing. I mean zero, not phased down. I mean zero.
  I mean to zero these kinds of budget items to me is you have got to 
have a hard conscience or no conscience to make these--to come to these 
kinds of conclusions. I mean from the elderly to the youth, to those 
people who need assistance, the most--you know, people with AIDS--to 
tell them that they are no longer going to have this kind of public 
assistance as relates to housing--you know, what is wrong with
 the conscience of this Congress to be making such drastic decisions?

  In fiscal year 1995, for example, we appropriated $18.7 billion for 
housing programs; in 1996, only $13 billion were appropriated, which 
means that is going to be a $4.9 billion cut. I mean $4.9 billion; that 
is a 26-percent cut in this program. Assisted housing programs, 1995, 
we appropriated $11 billion. Next year we are going to appropriate, 
according to this legislation, $10 billion. That is a $1 billion cut. 
Well, you say that is a $1 billion cut. What is wrong with a $1 billion 
cut? Well, let me tell you what is wrong with a $1 billion cut.
  First of all, it is 9 percent, and you have more homeless people. We 
have 600,000 families in America right now today who are homeless. We 
are not fixing the problem. We are adding to the problem when we cut 
assisted housing programs and homeless programs to the degree that we 
are cutting them in this budget.
  I mean homeless programs. This year we appropriated $1.2 billion. We 
are going to cut about $576 million. I mean next year we are going to 
appropriate $576 million, which will provide a $544 million cut in the 
homeless program, not to mention what we are going to do to the 
environment.
                              {time}  2130

  We are talking about how we need to preserve the air, water, and 
soil. But if we do not have an agency that has the wherewithal to do 
that, then we are failing. We cannot grow more land in America. It is 
the Federal Government's responsibility to preserve the air and 
preserve the water and preserve the soil.
  That is our responsibility, in my opinion. If we do not do it, who 
will? Are we going to just depend on somebody from space to protect the 
air and environment that we live in?
  We talk about deficit reduction. We have a deficit reduction as 
relates to the environment as well. There are a lot of cleanups that we 
must provide, a lot of cleaning up that we must engage in right here in 
this country.
  In my own district, I have several Superfund sites. There needs to be 
an agency in Baton Rouge, LA, next to a community called Ethel and next 
to a community called Scotlandville. There 

[[Page H 7690]]
is a polluted Superfund site that needs to be cleaned up. But will the 
EPA be able to do it? We appropriated $7 million last year. Next year, 
they will appropriate only $4 million, $2.3 million cut, 32 percent.
  We expect our kids to look at us and say yes, son, we are going to 
make sure when you go fishing 10 or 20 years from now you can fish in 
clean water. When you walk outside you can breathe clean air. When you 
decide to grow crops, you are going to be able to turn over clean soil. 
Yet we are failing to provide EPA the kind of mechanisms they need to 
protect these natural resources.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. The gentleman from Louisiana does not know how right 
he is on the Environmental Protection Agency. I am as we speak dealing 
with a problem of lack of resources: An area in a community of 3,000 
homes of individuals in my community, in the 18th Congressional 
District, Pleasantville, bedroom community, stalwart citizens, 
experienced in their nearby neighborhood, a very tragic, if you will, 
and disturbing fire of a warehouse that contained hazardous materials.
  We have been trying to work for weeks now in order to get the 
resources put in by EPA that is so downsized already, to get into this 
area and do additional testing. That is why I am so opposed and 
concerned about a $2 million cut, because when neighborhoods that need 
to be secure, people who live
 in communities, have invested in their property, suffer this threat so 
close to their community, and then when we call upon the resources that 
need to be utilized for testing, to protect their lives but as well to 
make sure they are safe in their living conditions, we face this 
response of downsizing and no resources.

  It is the same kind of response that you hear with the homelessness 
and that you hear with the question of the AIDS treatment, and the same 
kind of response that you may have to give now those 99.1 percent of 
Americans that have Medicare and Medicaid, that eventually you will 
have to say there is no more room at the inn.
  The question that you have asked, I would like to answer, is that we 
do not have focus. We have taken away from the American people their 
dreams, their aspirations, and their hopes. I think once you do that 
you have turned away the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
capture hopes and dreams and aspirations of the American people. We 
have lost our focus.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Further in the environment portion of this 
legislation, as the gentlewoman knows, it also cuts money that deals 
with water treatment grants. Fiscal year 1995, we appropriated $2.6 
billion. This year, for 1996, we appropriate $1.7 billion.
  Now, there is some who probably do not appreciate, as I do, the need 
for these grants. I have several little small towns and villages in the 
district I represent that do not have water treatment plants and do not 
have the wherewithal, do not have the tax base to develop a water 
treatment plant.
  I have citizens who live within the district that I represent who do 
not drink clean water everyday, not because they enjoy drinking water 
that is probably not safe. There are people who live in my district, I 
can give you a town; for example, the town of White Castle, I have an 
excellent mayor, Maurice Brown, who worked hard. We were just able to 
appropriate money to that town so they could improve their water 
situation. Before such time, we have citizens who were drinking water 
that had color in it. Some refused to drink it. Some just bought 
bottled water. Then they asked, Congressman Fields, I drink bottled 
water, but what do I do when I have to take a bath? Those kind of 
things. I do not think people really have a real
 appreciation of those kind of problems that really exist in rural 
America today.

  To cut this kind of program to this degree will not allow this 
Congress to help small towns like White Castle. It will not allow this 
Congress to help little, small towns like the town of Donaldsonville 
and other small towns in rural America. That makes sense. It is through 
no fault of their own.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for coming out tonight to 
discuss some of these budget cuts in these appropriations bills, 
because they are devastating, and they will have an effect on real 
people back home in all of our districts. It is something we need to be 
cognizant of.
  Lastly, I just wanted to say tomorrow, when we debate the amendment 
on the Commerce appropriation, that we will put 10 percent, earmark 10 
percent of the dollars to prevention.
  I would hope that Members of this body will stand up and support that 
amendment, because we cannot fight the crime problem in this country by 
only dealing with jails and penal institutions. We are going to have to 
fight it from both angles. That is incarceration, law enforcement, and 
prevention. I think that this bill fails to provide that.

                          ____________________