Finally, a Crime Bill That’s Not a Crime : House puts finishing touches on an approach that is generally superior to the Senate’s

When it comes to crime, Congress is usually all promise and no delivery. A decade of debate has produced little more than hot rhetoric, despite massive entreaties from fed-up and fearful Americans. But this year could prove different. Just about everyone--the President and most Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and House--agrees on the core of a remarkably good anti-crime package.

The bills would put 100,000 new cops on the streets, toughen sentences, build prisons, provide drug treatment and open boot camps for young offenders. The House and Senate also agree on how to finance the $23-billion price tag over five years: with alleged savings from planned reductions in the federal payroll. Money is usually the biggest hurdle in Washington, so this approach is touted as one that neither requires new taxes nor swells the deficit.

The broad areas of agreement bode well in a city where bipartisan consensus is rare. But there is still room for improvement on the equally broad areas of bitter disagreement over punishment versus prevention.

The House leans toward the impressive anti-crime approach of Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), which toughens punishment without sacrificing rehabilitation. A strong prevention program would keep schools open at night and on weekends, expand job training, fund community programs and increase drug treatment in prisons and elsewhere. Strong civil-rights provisions, crafted by Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), would protect Death Row appeals and challenge racial bias in death-penalty sentences.

The Senate version, which passed in November, contains many good elements, including California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s ban on assault weapons. But it also includes a “three strikes and you’re out” provision that could apply too broadly to nonviolent criminals. And it would now extend the death penalty to 64 federal crimes--an ill-conceived move.

In contrast, the House approach fine-tunes the Senate’s work by more appropriately reserving the harshest punishment for violent repeat offenders. It would also give states greater discretion over use of new federal prison money. California, for example, could use funds to cover the incarceration of undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes but cannot be deported. This is a big-ticket item in California.

The Clinton Adminstration is pushing hard for passage of a crime bill. Washington just might produce its best effort in years.