[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1622-H1638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS ACT OF 1995
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 79 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 79
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for
[[Page H1623]] consideration of the bill (H.R. 728) to
control crime by providing law enforcement block grants. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to
exceed ten hours. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
{time} 1430
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 79 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block
Grants Act of 1995. This act authorizes a total of $10 billion in
direct block grants over 5 years to assist State and local governments
in their fight against crime.
Specifically, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the Judiciary Committee. After general debate is completed,
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule for
a period of time not to exceed 10 hours.
The rule makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute as the original bill for purpose of amendment,
and the committee substitute shall be considered as read. Finally, the
rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Once again, under this rule the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may give priority recognition to those Members who have caused
their amendments to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to
their consideration.
Preprinting of amendments in the Record is not mandatory, Mr.
Speaker, and no Member of this body will be denied the opportunity to
offer his or her proposal during the time allocated under the rule for
amending under the 5-minute rule.
The majority members of the Rules Committee recognize both the need
for and the value of informed debate on important legislation such as
the one we are about to consider today.
We strongly encourage Members to preprint their amendments in the
future not only to receive priority status, but also to alert our
colleagues as to the number and types of amendments that are likely to
be offered on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 79 brings to the floor of the House the
last of six comprehensive measures reported by the Judiciary Committee
to combat crime in the United States. H.R. 728 is an especially
important piece of legislation because it gets at the heart of the
Federal, State, and local partnership, which is needed to effectively
reduce crime, and reduce the threat of crime, in our society.
Mr. Speaker, while the Federal Government loves to take a high
profile in the fight against crime, the overwhelming majority of crime
falls within the jurisdiction of State and local authorities. As a
result, the real burden of fighting crime falls preeminently to States
and localities.
The challenge for us then, Mr. Speaker, is to define our role in such
a way that we can productively assist localities in fighting and
preventing crime without getting in their way, in other words, without
micromanaging, as we are prone to do.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government does have a role to play in
keeping our cities and communities safe from crime, but any support
from Washington, be it financial or otherwise, must not lose sight of
the fact that communities across the United States face many different
types of crime.
What works to fight crime in my own hometown of Glens Falls, NY, may
be vastly different from what is proven to be effective in Columbus,
OH, or Sanibel, FL.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who supported the unfunded relief bill so
fervently, earlier this month, did so because we fear that the vital
partnership between Federal, State, and local governments is terribly
off-balance.
That partnership--that critical relationship--between America inside
the beltway and outside the beltway, is being threatened by the
arrogance of power in Washington which presumes that the Federal
Government is the only source of good ideas and practical solutions.
Too often, Washington's one-size-fits-all approach to a problem, or
even a perceived problem, stifles innovation, and chokes off creativity
at the State and local levels. In so many instances, Washington is all
too eager to impose its will when a local problem can be more
effectively addressed by a local solution.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 728 is the commonsense solution to restoring
balance to the Federal, State, and local effort to confront crime.
Unlike last year's crime bill, this legislation allows the Federal
Government to fulfill its role in assisting local governments in their
fight against crime, without prescribing the specific steps which must
first be taken, in order to receive much-needed Federal assistance.
Very simply, it provides localities with the resources they need to
respond to their unique crime situations with their own solutions--with
no strings attached and no matching fund requirements, I might add.
Let me just point out to my colleagues that this bill does not hand
over a blank check to our communities, for them to spend taxpayer
dollars in any way they see fit. While H.R. 728 delivers maximum
flexibility to local governments, it also requires accountability, and
ensures that grant funds are being utilized to fight crime.
Mr. Speaker, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act
represents a real and meaningful commitment by the Federal Government
to assist localities in combating crime.
By supporting this rule Mr. Speaker, we bring to the floor of the
House of Representatives the final installment in the new Republican
majority's comprehensive anticrime strategy.
And in so doing, we give life to one more crucial element in our
Contract With America--our commitment to making our cities and
neighborhoods safer, and more prosperous.
I urge adoption of this rule, and urge my colleagues to support the
underlying legislation so that local governments can have the freedom
and flexibility they require to fight crime in their communities with
their own unique solutions.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] for yielding the customary one-half-hour debate time to me,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman explained, this resolution provides a
rule with a 10-hour time limit for the consideration of H.R. 728, the
Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995.
While I shall not oppose the rule, we in the minority are concerned
about the nature of the rule. It is not the type of rule the new
majority continues to promise, especially for legislation as
significant as H.R. 728, a piece of legislation that represent a
dramatic shift in national policy.
[[Page H1624]] The most significant restrictions that the Republicans
on the Committee on Rules included in this rule is the 10-hour time
limit on the amendment process. My colleagues should fully understand
the implications of this restriction: The time limit is not applied to
debate time only. It is instead a repeat of the device we first saw
last week in considering another of the crime bills. This a restriction
on all time, including the time required for voting itself.
This is, therefore, a constraint on debate during the amendment
process and, in the opinion of this gentleman, an extremely
objectionable restriction. Unfortunately, an attempt by the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] to strike this time limit, was
defeated by the Committee on Rules last week.
Mr. Speaker, we are disturbed about the nature of this rule. It is a
continuation of the pattern we already have begun to detect in the
majority's attempt to deliver the open rules it has long advocated and
promised, but rules that turn out to be truly open in name only.
The majority claims to be providing open rules when the result is, in
effect, a process that closes down and restricts debate during the
amendment process.
We are aware of the fact that the majority wants to complete
consideration of all of the bills included in its so-called Contract
With America within the first 100 days. And I suspect they will be able
to do so. But some of these bills are, in fact, very major, very
serious pieces of legislation, which should not be rushed. The truth if
the matter is that we have all year to consider these bills and, if
necessary, we could take a few additional days beyond the 100 to
consider them.
The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Hyde, said in his
testimony to the Committee on Rules that this is, the ``most
controversial of the six crime bills being presented to us by the
majority party.''
So all we are trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is there is a better
way of doing this than what we seem to be currently embarked upon. We
are suggesting respectfully that we start consideration of these bills
under an open rule, with no restrictions on time. If the proceedings
drag on too long, if dilatory tactics are apparently being used, then
we can do what we usually do in such circumstances, get unanimous
consent that further consideration of amendments to the bill be limited
to some specific period of time.
{time} 1440
Let us not start the process with time restraints that might not be
necessary or, to the contrary, might well prevent the adequate
consideration of major amendments to the bill.
The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, is very controversial, certainly the
most controversial element in the Contract With America crime package.
It seeks to dismantle the core of the bipartisan crime bill enacted
last year by eliminating the program to put an additional 100,000 State
and local enforcement officers on the beat and by eliminating virtually
all of the specific crime prevention programs in the new law.
In place of these carefully targeted programs, the bill would
establish a new block grant program which is strikingly similar to the
program administered by the law enforcement assistance administration,
which was finally eliminated by the Reagan administration.
As our colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary wrote in their
dissenting views in the committee report on the bill, H.R. 728, the
bill breaks the promise Congress made last year to the American people
that we would put 100,000 new police on the streets to fight violent
crime, and it also destroys the promise Congress made to our people
when we approved carefully targeted crime prevention programs.
Unfortunately, H.R. 728 itself guarantees absolutely nothing in the
way of increasing the number of police on our streets. It will actually
cut spending for police and crime prevention. We are being asked to
consider a bill that has a very real chance of wasting a good part of
the $10 billion cost of the bill to taxpayers with no specific goals up
front and with no specific results to show in the end, and all in the
name of flexibility. In fact, unlike the contract's bill on prison
construction, which included very strong restrictions and requirements
for use of the funds, this bill permits spending for categories so
broad that there is no doubt that some grants will simply disappear
into municipal budgets. That is exactly the history of the block grants
program with the law enforcement assistance administration, which the
Alabama State attorney general called ``A politician's dream for the
biggest pork barrel of them all.'' We are, all of us, confronted with
some difficult choices in considering this bill. Most of us are all for
local governments deciding what to do about crime or about education or
about welfare, for that matter. But we are not all for voting on behalf
of the taxpayers we represent to send money to other levels of
government without knowing how it will be used. It is bad enough, it is
often embarrassing, to find out sometimes that money we have voted for
Federal programs has not been wisely spent, and it is worrisome and
potentially irresponsible in the extreme to vote funds for local
programs whose purposes are not even clearly set out in the legislation
itself and whose use we will have very little control over.
Yes, in theory it is nice to give the responsibility to local levels
of government, but it is we who are voting to make taxpayers' money
available. And it is we who will and who ought to be eventually held
responsible, for the wise use of that money.
I am only suggesting that we may well be getting ourselves into a
similar situation to the one in which we found ourselves with respect
to the LEAA block grants which, as many Members will recall, we stopped
funding a decade or so ago.
Mr. Speaker, the programs we enacted just last year have only begun
to work. We should allow them to continue so that more police will be
on the streets of our communities and more criminals are locked up.
To repeat, we shall not oppose this rule despite our continuing
concerns about the use of the time limit on the amendment process.
I ask my colleagues to approve this resolution so that we may start
consideration today of this important legislation and of the important
amendments that would help correct its many provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I heard the word ``pork barrel,'' the connotation that these local
governments, these local police chiefs, these local sheriffs were going
to spend this money in ways that were not important.
I would just like to read the part of the minority Democrat report on
this bill before us. It says, ``Proponents of this bill argue that
these Federal dollars, taken from the taxes of hard-working Americans
all over the land, should be showered back without meaningful
guidelines, all in the name of local control. We say,'' this is the
Democrat minority, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, ``We say that
mindlessly obstinate and ideologically inspired mantra,'' let me repeat
that, because I doubt if the people I represent back home would
understand that kind of elitist verbiage, let me go back and read it
for a minute, ``should be showered back without meaningful guidelines,
all in the name of local control. We say that mindlessly obstinate and
ideologically inspired mantra will result at the end of 5 years in
billions of dollars being thrown down a rat hole.''
Now, who said that? This is signed by the gentlewoman from Michigan,
John Conyers, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Patricia Schroeder, the
gentleman from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, the gentleman from New York,
Jerrold Nadler, the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra, the
gentleman from North Carolina, Melvin Watt, the gentleman from New
York, Charles Schumer, the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee,
the gentleman from Virginia, Robert C. Scott, and all but two, because
one, I think, is a freshman, all of these but two, when they talk about
money going down a rat hole, made the National Taxpayers Union's list
of big
[[Page H1625]] spenders. And I think they have made it for a number of
years in a row.
For anyone to say that the local sheriffs and local police chiefs do
not know best how to spend this money, believe me, they have been
living inside this beltway too long. It is time they went home to
outside the beltway.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Goss], one of the most articulate and knowledgeable
Members of this body. We are so fortunate to have the gentleman
upstairs on the Committee on Rules; he is in the midst of his third
career now. He was an Intelligence Agency officer for many years, he
was a successful private sector policeman, and he now is one of the
best Congressman in Washington.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens
Falls, NY, for that extraordinarily over generous introduction. I am
petrified to say anything, lest it be disproved.
Mr. Speaker, what we have got in front of us is a modified open rule
which actually has got a time limit on it, which is the only reason it
is not a full open rule. It is a time limit of 10 hours of debate. The
10 hours of debate was thought to have been more than adequate by the
Members who have brought this to the Committee on Rules for
consideration, the type of rule we are bringing to the floor. And in
fact, it was, I think requested pretty much by everybody, and we
specifically asked if the chairman of the committee had an objection.
He said, no, he felt it would be all right. So I think we are well
within the spirit of an open rule, if not technically a full open rule,
if it is modified.
We did have a lot of discussion, again, at the request of the
chairman of the committee, and the ranking member. Excuse me, it was
the ranking member who agreed that 10 hours would be enough as well as
the chairman. And both the ranking member and the chairman themselves
suggested that we have something like an hour and a half or so of
general debate. Well, we had planned for an hour and a half but, in
discussing this in the Committee on Rules, we brought that back to 60
minutes of general debate. Actually, on the motion of a member of the
minority, because there was a feeling that we had taken care enough of
the general debate in this and more time that way for amendments. And
that seems a reasonable proposition.
So we have carved a rule here that has actually considered the time
very, very carefully. And we think we have got one that gets as much
time as we need focused on the areas that it needs to be, both in terms
of general debate and in terms of amendments for all Members who come
forward and deal well under the 5-minute rule. Once again, we have put
in what we think is the very helpful preprinting option. It is not a
requirement. It is not a mandate. It merely allows every Member to tell
us ahead of time what his or her amendment will look to the
legislation. That allows Members to become acquainted with those
amendments. It allows the proponents of those amendments to get some
support for their amendments going. And frankly, I think it enhances
the process of deliberation and helps us get better laws enacted when
we understand what it is we are talking about. We have more time to
digest them and we have the opportunity to ask questions of the
proponents of these amendments that occur to us not at the last minute
but through a deliberative process, after having reviewed what
amendments might come forward.
Basically, I think it is better government.
I want to speak just for one second to the bill itself. In the
Committee on Rules, we had some concerns from the ranking membership
side on behalf of the ranking member about accountability. Are we
somehow or other dodging accountability by going to these community
development grants? And the answer, in my view, as member of local
government, having graduated from local government to the Congress, if
that is the right term, is that I do not think there was less
accountability at the local level. I think that there was more
accountability at the local level.
It is very simple. That is where the front lines are. When someone is
down there and they are at municipal meetings or their country
commission-type meetings, or state meetings, they generally have more
people directly interested in the audience looking at them, eyeball to
eyeball, and giving them their opinions, usually rather unrestrained.
{time} 1450
Mr. Speaker, I think I can honestly say I do not remember times when
there is more interest in the agenda at the local level than when the
sheriff is doing his annual budget, or when the police departments are
doing their annual budgets in the municipalities. Those are the times
when the scrutiny really happens. That is when you get the really
impassioned testimony about crime, or need for more police on the
street, or need for specific programs tailored to the individual
requirements of the community, not the one-size-fits all mandates from
the Federal Government which are so wasteful and so often so off
target.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the question, the shibboleth that
somehow there is no accountability in this program is not a valid
observation. I would report further on that, Mr. Speaker, that in fact
we have put in some safeguards to make sure there are report-back
systems, there are monitoring systems, and, indeed, there is some
built-in accountability and scrutiny under the legislation that has
been proposed.
The other thing that I think needs to be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is
that we sometimes have mischaracterized what is going to happen, it
seems, in this bill, that somehow or other all the police are going to
no longer be on the beat. I have heard all kinds of hyperbole and
exaggeration. That could not be further from the truth. What is going
to happen is that locals who have a direct first-hand confrontational
day-to-day existence with the criminal element are going to be able to
take resources which they desperately need and put them right where
they need to deal with the criminal element. I think that makes a lot
of sense. I think it is a much better, more straightforward deal than
saying, ``We are going to give you a bunch of money to go out and hire
some policemen for a few years, and then we are going to take the money
away from you. Then you are on your own.'' You have created a false
expectation, you have created a serious problem, a level that the local
governments cannot sustain, and the only recourse they have is either
to retire those policemen, those law enforcement officers, or to raise
taxes, by and large.
We saw it with the CETA program. We saw it loud and clear. I was in
local government at the time and I know we got left hanging out there.
I am afraid that is what would happen if we did not fix this bill as we
propose to do under this legislation.
I, for one, Mr. Speaker, feel this is a decided improvement. While we
have given it a great rule, so we will have plenty of debate on this
and the other subjects that are certainly worth debating. I hope that,
when all is said and done, that not only do we have the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] not opposing the rule, we
appreciate his support, but we also have him not opposing the
legislation. We will wait to see how the debate comes out.
I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Greensboro, NC [Mr. Coble] who is not only a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary but is also a member of the Subcommittee
on Crime, and one of the very articulate members of this subcommittee.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] for his courtesy. I thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon] for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken very infrequently during this 104th
session of the Congress, but I have done a powerful lot of listening. I
think this must be, Mr. Speaker, probably the most loquacious
legislative body in the world. A lot of my colleagues, and good friends
thought they might be, I think they find complete ecstasy in the
[[Page H1626]] sound of their own voices. I, conversely, do not
particularly like the sound of my voice, as evidenced by my previous
reticence, so I will be brief today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct attention to section 11 of H.R. 728,
and specifically to the advisory board and what constitutes membership
thereof. Under the present prescription of the bill, members to the
advisory board must be representatives from police or sheriffs, No. 1;
a local prosecutor, No. 2; a local court, No. 3; the public school
system, No. 4; and a local community organization, charitable or
otherwise.
In that fifth category, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be advisable
for someone subsequently to seriously consider the input of the various
parks and recreation departments throughout the country. To begin with,
parks and recreation officials serve an essential component of any
crime reduction strategy, as well as being uniquely cast in their
respective communities to be able to attract the generated assistance
from the private sector, financial and otherwise. The reason I
emphasize this second feature, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that every
program that surfaces necessarily has to be sanctioned, endorsed,
subsidized by the Federal Government, which, of course, means
subsidized by taxpayers.
I met last week with officials from parks and recreation facilities
throughout the country, and perhaps other Members did as well, and they
are vitally interested in this.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, as the day advances, I would say to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], who has replaced the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], I may want to engage in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Florida to indicate the importance of the input of
parks and recreation, and perhaps maybe have language or a statement of
the managers in conference to emphasize and to illustrate the
significance of the input that would be felt if parks and recreation
officials are to be considered.
I realized that they are not precluded under the present bill, but
neither are they specifically identified, Mr. Speaker. Having said all
that, Mr. Speaker, and again, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] for his kindness, I hope that parks and recreation
people, who do contribute very obviously to reducing crime, will get
more than a fair shake as we finalize this bill.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say that Members may not hear from me
again for some time to come, but I assure the Members I will be
listening.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask for a record vote on
the rule before us, but I was very tempted to do so, because this is
not an open rule.
It is interesting to me that the majority now considers a rule that
lets some amendments come up and not others as an open rule. This rule
requires all amendments that have not been taken up by the House within
the time limit of 10 hours, they are no good. Members cannot bring them
up. That is a closed rule, Mr. Speaker. That is not an open rule.
It is interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, that, I think it is today, even
Roll Call has caught it. Roll Call even points out that the Republicans
are not doing what they said they would do in the Contract With
America. They said ``We will have an open rule.'' They said we would be
able to offer our amendments. Now, lo and behold, they are not doing it
on this bill, and they did not do it on a previous bill.
Why are they not doing it on this bill? It is very obvious to me why
they are not. If Members read this dog, and that is what it is, or a
turkey, that is a better description, maybe, of it, we will find that
the gentleman that earlier talked about this rule and the bill, they
were talking about how our police chiefs and how our sheriffs back home
were going to be able to get this money and use it to fight crime.
Mr. Speaker, Members had better read the bill. This means the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], when he was talking on the
rule about all the debate that is going on in the House and all the
things he is hearing and everything, I suggest to the gentleman from
North Carolina, he had better start reading the bills. He could spend
time a lot better.
When Members read this bill, there are several things in it that I do
not believe anybody has really talked about yet. I hope we discuss it
in this 10 hours.
One is, a sheriff does not get to get the money. The police chief
does not get to get the money. It is a unit of local government that
gets the money.
Now, what input does the police chief or sheriff have in it? Each
unit of local government has to have an advisory committee to the local
government, and they have to have at least one hearing, and they have
to have a meeting.
There is the sheriff there or the chief of police, and there is also
a prosecuting attorney, there is a judge, and anybody else that the
local government wants to put on it. There are a whole bunch of people.
They can put 50 people on it if they want to, and there is one law
enforcement official on there.
{time} 1500
They are going to make a recommendation to the unit of local
government. Well, after they make their recommendation, what can they
recommend? Well, they can recommend whatever their imagination can
dream about that would help with law enforcement and fighting crime,
because there is no limit. I want everybody to read right here on page
2 of the bill: ``Amount paid to a unit of local government in this
section shall be used by the unit for reducing crime''--that is a
limit, has to be for reducing crime--``and improving public safety.''
That is all. As long as it is reducing crime or to improve public
safety.
I can tell you back in my district, folks, that we have some people
with imagination. Right now we probably need some courthouses fixed up
and we do not have the funds for it. Maybe we can get some money to fix
up the courthouses, especially where the prisoners might be kept. That
could help reduce crime and combat crime. Or maybe we cannot get a new
limousine under this bill but we can get a new chief of police car
because that is not in the budget and they do not have the money to buy
it but we can get him a new car. That can be a Cadillac, or maybe just
a Chrysler Fifth Avenue, not quite a Cadillac. It will not be a
limousine.
How about the prosecuting attorney back home--that is what we call
them, we do not call them district attorneys, maybe you do--but some of
them may need new secretaries. They may need, say, an assistant
prosecutor, and that is not in the budget, it is not supplanting funds,
so we are going to hire some new secretaries and we are going to hire
some other people. And maybe need some new equipment in there and get
some new equipment in there and get some new equipment.
For those of you who have a lake or two in your State, I am sure you
can get some boats on that lake to help fight those people going around
in those boats that are drunk. That is combating crime. Is driving a
boat while drunk now a crime? It is in some States, quite a few. You
can get yourself a nice boat, as long as it is not a yacht under this.
Use your imagination, folks if this bill ever becomes law. Use your
imagination, because the only restriction is it has to so-called be
reducing crime and improving public safety.
What did that do under the old program that we got rid of because of
all the pork and all the abuses in it? Well, back then some people
thought that a tank was a good thing to have, to use a tank to reduce
crime. The director's office, different people, same office, said that
was fine to reduce crime. You need a tank down there, I think it was in
Louisiana. They need that tank.
I know we are prohibiting yachts, but we are not prohibiting any kind
of boats. We are prohibiting limousines, but not every good car has to
be a limousine. That means I could buy, how about a Jag? Yes, that is
not a limousine. My police chief needs a Jag. That is what this one
will do. That is what you are going to do under this.
[[Page H1627]] Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. It has been fascinating
listening to the statement that my friend the gentleman from Hannibal
has gone through here. In fact, the only thing that I could conclude is
that those local elected officials who are going to be purchasing
Jaguars, boats on lakes, additional secretaries for their prosecuting
attorneys' offices are no longer accountable to the same people who
sent us up here.
The only thing I can conclude is that there is in fact no desire on
the part of local elected officials to respond to the pressing needs of
crime that exist within their jurisdictions. Am I correct in concluding
that?
Mr. VOLKMER. Oh, no, no, we are going to take care of those, too. I
am just saying you do not restrict these other things. You do not
restrict them at all.
You are saying as long as you are doing it to stop crime or, I will
use your exact words again that are in the bill, right there at page 2.
Mr. DREIER. If my friend would further yield, I will tell him exactly
what we are trying to say.
Mr. VOLKMER. All it has to be is reducing crime and improving public
safety. That is it.
Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield on that point, what we are
trying to say is very simply that we believe, my State being 3,000
miles to the west of here, that the people who are on the front line
are better equipped to make those decisions rather than those of us
3,000 miles away. It is not nearly the distance to Missouri, but
obviously we are in a position where we are convinced that those local
elected officials should have the opportunity to make those decisions
for themselves rather than our dictating to them exactly what should be
done.
I just met a few minutes ago with the mayor of Fresno, CA, who told
me that he felt very strongly that the opportunity to have the choice
made right there in Fresno rather than in Washington, DC, will go a
long way toward dealing with the crime problem that they have.
I suspect that in the Show-Me State, they are going to be much better
off making the decision for themselves rather than having us in fact
dictate it to them. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. VOLKMER. I disagree. I do not think we have to dictate it.
Mr. DREIER. That is exactly what the status quo does.
Mr. VOLKMER. But I do think you can tighten the purposes up quite a
bit more and narrow them quite a bit more than you have done.
What we have attempted to do and some of us feel that one of the
major items facing this Nation, especially in our major metropolitan
areas, is the fact that they cannot afford the police that they need.
They cannot afford the police that we need.
So you take the police away. You say, ``Well, you can have an
option,'' but you reduce the amount that can be used totally from the
present law into this, what can be used for police, if every bit of
this money in your bill was used for the police.
Mr. DREIER. We are not taking away the police.
Mr. VOLKMER. The biggest thing we can do you help undo, and you leave
it open. The gentleman says, ``They're not going to do those things.''
Well, who bought the tank? Who bought the tank? The tank was bought
by law enforcement people under the old LEAA grant. You are saying they
will never do that again, they will never do anything like that? No?
Well, gentlemen, you should have been here back in the 1970's and
early 1980's.
Mr. DREIER. I think my friend knows it is a new day and I suspect the
local elected officials will not be doing that.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 7
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this will be the first time I have ever debated
on the House floor about the content of a rule. The Committee on Rules
is one of those committees that is stacked pretty heavily in favor of
the majority and generally when they decide on a procedural matter and
that matter comes to the floor, it just kind of goes right through on a
partisan vote. So in some respects it is kind of banging your head
against the wall to come and speak.
I am not speaking generally on the content of this rule today but
only on one particular aspect of it that I think my colleagues and the
American public need to be aware of.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 10 hours of debate, they say.
What they do not say very loudly is that included in that 10 hours is
voting time. I think the American people need to understand what that
means, because if there is a recorded vote on the floor of the House,
every recorded vote takes 15 minutes. Under the Speaker's policy
announced earlier he has extended that recorded vote to 17 minutes. So
that if there are 10 votes, 10 amendments on this bill, then that is
2\1/2\ hours gone to voting on those amendments. If there are 20
amendments on this bill, that is 5 hours gone just in the time that it
takes to vote on those amendments. So we are left not within 10 hours,
as the majority would have the American public believe, but then we
would be left with half of that time because all the rest of the time
would be spent in the voting process, not in the debate process.
Mr. Speaker, I am on the Committee on the Judiciary, and I will tell
you that we had over 20 amendments being offered in the Committee on
the Judiciary on this bill. In that body, we do not even have one-tenth
of the membership of the House of Representatives. There are 435
Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I just want my colleagues to do the basic arithmetic on
this. If 2 percent of the Members of this House have a sufficient
interest in this important bill to come and offer an amendment, that is
over 10 votes, or approximately 10 votes.
{time} 1510
If 5 percent of the 435 Members of this House have a sufficient
interest in this important bill to want to offer an amendment, then we
have already used up more than half of the 10 hours of debate time
simply on the voting process.
So, my objection to the rule does not really have to do so much with
the 10 hours, but the allocation of that 10 hours or a substantial part
of it simply to the voting process.
And I will tell Members that last week we got to the point just to
keep Members from offering amendments that they had on a bill, that
they started asking for votes so that Members would not even have the
time left to offer the amendments because the voting time would take up
more time than the debate time.
America, that is no way to run a democracy. That is no way to run a
democracy. We ought to at least have time to debate these issues. This
is an issue, this is a bill that the President of the United States
indicated over the weekend he has a personal interest in, a political
interest in. So we know it is going to be a heavily debated issue, and
yet we will spend our time walking back and forth and using up our time
in the voting process.
I think we ought to defeat this rule and let us have some real debate
in this House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
has 10 minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Beileson] has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend whether he has
any remaining speakers?
Mr. BEILENSON. We do not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. I would like to make some closing remarks myself.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying I appreciate very
much and strongly support the comments made by our friend, the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
[[Page H1628]] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California
is recognized for 10 minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and to include therein extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this issue is one that many have said is the
most controversial of the six crime measures that we are scheduled to
consider and I have a difficult time understanding why this is the most
controversial of the measures that have been considered, and I say that
for several reasons. We have had this ongoing discussion here about the
issue of local control, and the role that people will play at the local
level in making determinations as to how the resources through this
block grant program will be expended.
It seems to me that everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, needs to
recognize that at the local level people who are on the front line
dealing with issues of crime are much better equipped than we are here
in Washington, DC, to deal with that.
Last year we had an extraordinarily vigorous debate on the
President's crime bill which came forward. We all know that there was
at the very end a compromise that was struck and some Republicans
supported it, and during that time last fall as we were proceeding with
this and the President stood regularly with cadres of police officers
behind him at press conferences, I received calls from local elected
officials in the Los Angeles area urging me to support the President's
crime bill. The main reason they did was that there was a guarantee as
far as they were concerned that they would get 100,000 police officers
on the street, who would dramatically turn the corner on the very
serious crime problems that we face in our communities.
One of those city officials happened to be the city manager of the
city of Monrovia which is in the San Gabriel Valley part of the area I
am pleased to represent. He is a registered Democrat. He and I engaged
in a very spirited discussion on the issue of the crime bill and he
told me that the only responsible thing that I could do was support
that crime bill last year.
Well, I did not for a number of reasons, I think the most important
of which was that we all concluded that we would not get 100,000 police
officers on the street.
I got a letter that came just a couple of days ago, the end of last
week from Rod Gould who is city manager of Monrovia, again a registered
Democrat and one who wanted me to support that crime bill last year,
and we had debated it. I will include this entire letter in the Record.
But I would like to share one paragraph from this letter Mr. Speaker.
It says, ``You and I have had several talks about the merits/demerits
of the 1994 crime bill.'' He finally came to the conclusion we were
right and he said, ``You correctly pointed out that this $30 billion
bill would not put nearly 100,000 police officers on the streets of
America.'' He said, ``The City of Monrovia strongly supports the idea
of combining the major portions of the bill into block grants for
cities to allocate as they see fit to officers, equipment, training,
jails or social services. This approach has worked well for years in
the area of community development, and it would be welcomed by
municipalities across the country.''
Mr. Speaker, I include that entire letter at this point in the
Record.
The letter referred to is as follows:
City of Monrovia,
Office of the City Manager,
Monrovia, CA, February 6, 1995.
Hon. David Dreier,
Covina, CA.
Dear Congressman Dreier: I have been meaning to write and
add my congratulations to you on your remarkable rise in
authority and responsibility since last November. I have had
the pleasure of tracking your progress in the papers and on
CSPAN. You are to be commended for your tireless effort to
streamline Congressional operations. Your leadership of the
House debate on unfunded mandates made us all cheer. You have
given your district in the San Gabriel Valley a powerful
voice on the hill, and all Americans benefit from your
undaunting attempts to reduce fraud and waste in government.
The Monrovia City Council is firmly on record as opposing
further federal and state unfunded mandates. We are currently
grappling with the open-ended stormwater requirements under
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Any assistance you could give us in ratcheting this
regulation back a few notches would be most appreciated by
all cities.
You and I have had several talks about the merits/demerits
of the 1994 Crime Bill. You correctly pointed out that this
$30 billion bill would not put nearly 100,000 police officers
on the streets of America. The City of Monrovia strongly
supports the idea of combining the major portions of the bill
into block grants for cities to allocate as they see fit to
officers, equipment, training, jails, or social services.
This approach has worked well for years in the area of
community development, and it would be welcome by
municipalities across the country.
Thanks again for your ongoing concern and interest in local
matters as you shape national policy and the federal
governing structure.
Sincerely,
Rod Gould,
City Manager.
That is the reason that I find it difficult to believe that this is
the most controversial crime measure of the six that we are
considering, because across this country we are finding a strong level
of support from local officials.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, that quotation simply was from the
gentleman's own chairperson, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde],
who said in his view this was the most controversial of the bills. It
was not we who said it; it was your own chairman who said so.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for pointing that out and
I disagree with the chairman of the committee. I guess that was
concluded because of the fact that controversy existed in the Committee
on the Judiciary when debate proceeded.
All I am saying is that the controversy probably did not come from
the chairman of the committee, it probably emerged from members of the
Committee on the Judiciary who believe very strongly that Federal
control on this issue would be more important than local control, and I
believe that is why Chairman Hyde concluded it was controversial.
All I am saying is I am hard pressed to see why it is a controversial
issue. And the reason I say it is that these messages have come through
very clearly. Again, Jim Patterson, the mayor of Fresno, CA, was in my
office about 1 hour ago and he talked about how important it is for us
to move ahead with this block grant concept. And I hope very much that
the controversy that existed in the Committee on the Judiciary will not
exist here because I believe Members on both sides of the aisle, as I
said, this Democrat city manager from Monrovia believes this is an
important thing for us to pursue, and I hope very much that we can.
This is an amendment process which allows for open debate. To call
this a closed rule, as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] did I
believe is really totally inaccurate because we will be operating with
this 10-hour limitation under the 5-minute rule.
{time} 1520
We are simply putting an outside time limit on the consideration for
amendments. Any amendment that a Member has to offer that is germane
will be able to be considered, and a Member can stand up and simply
make that proposal here.
So we are proceeding with a very fair and balanced procedure, and I
hope that we can bring about what people at the local level believe is
necessary for them to turn the corner on this serious crime bill that
we have.
I urge support of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what I think is
the complicated parliamentary situation that we are in now. If the
Chair
[[Page H1629]] will bear with me, I have a series of inquiries.
Mr. Speaker, is it correct to say that whenever a committee reports a
bill, the rules of the House require the report to include a detailed
analytical statement as to whether that bill may have an inflationary
impact on prices and costs in our Nation's economy?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire further whether the rules
of the House provide a general exception for reports from the Committee
on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The answer is no. They do not.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my parliamentary inquiry, do
the rules of the House permit the Committee on Rules to report a
special order waiving the inflation impact requirement?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. BEILENSON. Further, Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying, however,
that the rules reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted just
now by the House did not waive the inflation impact requirement?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. BEILENSON. Continuing my inquiry, if I may, the report on a block
grant bill from the Committee on the Judiciary, House Report 104-24,
does not discuss whether the block grant bill will have an inflationary
impact on the Nation's economy. There is a section titled
``Inflationary Impact Statement'' on page 20 of the printed report.
That section discusses the inflationary impact of the proposed
constitutional amendment to balance the budget and, in fact, by the
way, claims the balanced budget amendment will have no significant
impact on the U.S. economy. Truly, Mr. President, this section in the
entire report does not comply with the rules of the House, specifically
clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI. Am I correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The report does appear to refer to another
measure.
Mr. BEILENSON. I do not intend to press the point of order. I am only
trying to understand the parliamentary situation.
Am I correct to say that, because the Committee on the Judiciary
violated the rules of the House and did not provide to the American
people an explanation of the potential inflationary impact of the block
grant bill, and because the Committee on Rules did not waive the
requirement, because of this, could any Member now raise a point of
order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If such a point of order were raised, the
Chair would rule on that point of order at that time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, if then the point of order were raised
and it were ruled by the Speaker to be in order, what would be the
effect of that point of order? Would it delay the consideration of the
block grant bill until either the Committee on the Judiciary fixed the
defect in its report in a supplemental report or the Committee on Rules
reported another rule waiving the requirement?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill would be recommitted if the point
of order were sustained. The Committee on Rules could report out a new
rule dealing with the point of order.
Mr. BEILENSON. I thank the Chair for his responses. I will conclude
my inquiries, if I may, sir, by asking whether this is a unique or even
unusual parliamentary situation? Because it seems to me, Mr. Speaker,
that so far in the 104th Congress, we are in this situation on almost
every rule we have considered. On the unfunded mandates bill, a
parliamentary inquiry established the committee report was defective,
and the rule had not waived the point of order. On the balanced budget
joint resolution, the rule, as reported, also failed to include the
proper waivers to cover another defective report. When we pointed this
out, the rule was amended on the floor. The rule on the Taos Pueblo
Indian land transfer bill also did not waive the necessary points of
order to fix a defective report. In addition, the rule did not allow
for instructions in the motion to recommit, violating clause 4(b), rule
XI. The point of order on the rule was not pressed when the majority
agreed to amend the rule on the floor, and the rule on the Butte County
land conveyance bill did not contain the waiver made necessary because
the bill was reported out of the Committee on Resources without a
quorum being present.
Here again, we are having passed a rule that failed to waive the
necessary points of order to protect a defective report.
I thank the Chair for giving us the opportunity to ask these
questions and will not press any potential point of order that may be
available to us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his
observations.
Pursuant to House Resolution 79 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares
the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 728.
{time} 1525
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
728) to control crime by providing law enforcement block grants, with
Mr. Gunderson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to make the point initially that what we are dealing with here
today is a bill which will consolidate two programs that were passed in
the last Congress under one local community block grant system for $10
billion.
Those programs were the President's Cops on the Street Program and
the so-called prevention programs that were allocated in categorical
grants last year. In both of those combined together, there was a total
of about $16 billion of a $30 billion crime bill that passed this
Congress and became law.
This bill would as I said, consolidate the prevention programs and
the Cops on the Streets Program into a single community block grant
program in the tune of $10 billion to let the local communities decide
for themselves how to spend the money that they receive under this
block grant proposal, rather than having the Federal Government tell
it.
I was very disappointed to hear the President's radio address this
past Saturday in which he said should this bill go to his desk, if I
heard him correctly, he would veto it, because he felt it would
undermine or destroy the Cops on the Streets Program.
This is especially disappointing, because I recognize what I hope he
will in time come to recognize, and that is there are thousands of high
crime rate communities around this country, who will not be taking
advantage and not be able to take advantage of the President's Cops on
the Streets Program that is now law, because they simply cannot afford
to do so, and there are also thousands of communities that will not
find the so-called prevention grant programs that are spelled out by
last year's bill, those kinds of programs which they can utilize and
they will never apply for those programs.
Consequently, the only way to remedy that defect is by passing the
bill that is before us today, H.R. 728, and getting the President
somehow convinced to let it become law or sign it into law or have
enough Members to override his veto, because it is only if we do that
that we will provide the maximum flexibility to the communities, the
cities and counties of this country, to decide on their own what they
want to do with this money, whether that is hire a new cop or whether
that is to pay overtime for police or whether that is to buy a new
police car or whether that is to extend the prevention program of their
choice, whether that prevention program is one that is labeled in one
of those previous grant programs or not in order to reduce crime in
those communities.
Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
[[Page H1630]] Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, if
the gentleman is prepared to give an opening statement here at this
point.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Crime Subcommittee. I will not take
much time to explain the details. I would rather he would.
But I just want to say I as quoted as saying this is the most
controversial bill. I want to make it clear that it ought not to be the
most controversial bill, but it was treated as such in the Committee on
the Judiciary by the furor of the resistance of the minority party in
transferring any authority away from Washington, where apparently all
wisdom resides, out to local communities.
This bill illustrates the philosophical difference between the two
parties. Everybody wants to stop crime. Everybody is interested in
doing something about the crime problem. But there we diverge. The
Democratic Party thinks and acts and believes that Washington, DC, the
Federal Government, must dictate down to the most minute detail how
these funds are going to be spent, because Daddy knows best. That is a
philosophical commitment they have had on welfare and almost every
issue--that wisdom trickles down, if you will, one of their favorite
phrases, when we talk about economics--from Washington to the local
communities.
{time} 1530
On the other hand, it is our belief, the Republican belief, that
local governments know best, that government is best which is closest
to the people, which understands the problems that are indeed local.
Somebody said once, a famous person, a famous Speaker of this House,
``All politics are local.'' Well, a lot of crimefighting is local.
People in Boise, ID, have different problems and different needs than
people in New York City or Bangor, ME, or Pensacola, FL. We have a very
diverse country. We have diverse communities, and each has different
needs.
I was--I do not want to say shocked--but I was saddened to hear local
government maligned on this floor earlier today, and even by the
President, who assumes from the beginning that this is going to be
pork, that local government officials are not concerned about local
circumstances and fighting crime and adding to public safety.
It is our belief that local government officials are honorable
people, they have been elected by their constituents, who live very
close to them. They want to fight crime, and they can do it more
effectively because they have superior knowledge. They are on the
scene.
Now, it may well be that certain communities need after-school sports
programs, tutoring programs, neighborhood watch programs; to put more
police in the schools, put metal detectors in the schools, put better
weapons in the hands of their police, put more prosecutors in the
courtrooms, build boot camps for first-time offenders, build drug
courts, put more communities at ease by having community policing.
There is an infinite variety of remedies that can be applied to this
exacerbating problem, but let us trust the local people to do it.
So, to assume in the beginning that they cannot handle it, that they
are going to waste it profligately, on pork, is an insult, really. It
demeans public officials in the myriad, thousands of cities and towns
around this country.
We believe that the best government is closest to the people and most
responsive to their needs. That ought not to be too tough to
understand, but it is indeed a defining issue, one more defining issue
between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
We trust local government, and I can assure you there are safeguards
in this bill, advisory councils which involve the people. That is a
great phrase, ``We the People.'' I suggest that these advisory councils
that will be looking at this money and looking at how it is spent will
be composed of people in the community, law enforcement, education,
municipal officials. And, they will see that the money, which, after
all, are tax dollars and collected from the same long-suffering
taxpayer; whether the money goes to the State or to the Federal
Government, it is the same money, is wisely spent.
And so to assume in the beginning it is going to be wasted or spent
for pork does a great disservice to local governments across this
country.
I guess not only do we think Washington does not always know best,
but we have more faith and trust in local government officials than
does the minority party.
This is an important bill, a significant bill. It is going to help
fight crime. It is going to give the flexibility to local government to
meet their situations.
The mayor of New York, I was present in a room when he said, ``I
don't want any more policemen, I need technical help.'' That may be
true in many areas. So let us let them decide, let them spend the
money. We will be watching, the community groups will be watching, the
advisory councils. If they misstep, it will not go ignored or
unacknowledged, and it will be corrected.
So I am proud of this bill, I am proud of the work that the gentleman
from Florida, Bill McCollum, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, and everybody
on our committee has done, and I hope it gets the support of a majority
of this House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strenuous opposition to the measure before
us.
Before I get into some other remarks, let me just respond about the
new-found trust that the majority party has in local government. We
trust local government as well. as a matter of fact, we not only trust
them, we listen to them. And when we listen to them, we listen to the
policemen that they say we do not trust, the policemen that we are
listening to in the Fraternal Order of Police, who say that the crime
bill that divided out the prevention program from the Cops on the Beat
Program was the way to go. The international Brotherhood of Police
Officers, their chiefs and police officers, saw that the 1994 crime
bill created a community police program of 100,000 policemen. That was
what they wanted to do. The Major Cities Chiefs representatives, we
just talked to them only an hour ago, and they again are here urging
that we turn down this proposal that the Republican majority has
dreamed up.
The National Association of Police Officials, police organizations,
with Bob Colley, a 30-year police officer from Detroit, are all
testifying 100 percent on behalf of the 1994 crime bill: namely a
return to community police as a separate program and not put it into a
block grant with prevention, so that we may not end up with the
Hobson's choice of either prevention or police.
The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers are
strongly in support of the modification that we will shortly offer to
keep 100,000 community police in a separate position. This shows we do
not just trust our local government, we hear them and we trust them and
listen to them and then act on that premise.
So the police officers organizations--and they represent the rank-
and-file policemen and police chiefs--are for the proposal which we
will shortly offer to restore 100,000 policemen in a separate program.
The Sheriffs Association, the National Sheriffs Association, have our
support, the Police Executive, the Police Executives Research Forum,
has our support. former police chief Hubert Williams, of the Police
Foundation, has our support.
There are eight police organizations, foundations, brotherhoods, all
supporting the plan that we will shortly bring to restore the
fundamental provisions in the 1994 crime bill that will create 100,000
community policemen. Funds for 17,000 new police have already been
certified by the Attorney General and will shortly be on the beat, if
they are not already.
Now, the Republican majority has replaced a prevention and COPS
Program that we know works, with a 1970-style revenue sharing program
that we know
[[Page H1631]] has failed. That is why we are not supporting it. We had
that experience. It did not work. This is the pork program that we do
not want to have put into law.
Why are we doing this? The 1994 bill is only a few months old, it is
working fine; let us continue and not create the incredible confusion
that will result from having to pull it. The Republican program is $10
billion worth of pork, and it will end up, I predict, in getting very
few cops, very little for prevention programs, no guarantees for crime
reduction, no money for the programs that mayors and community leaders
tell us are needed to reduce crime, no accountability.
Mr. Chairman, this is a $10 billion taxpayer giveaway that we are
being asked to support; the formlessness of the block grant program is
begging to be abused. We know the program will fail, because of our
experience with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Program,
which did not work 35 years ago.
The Members of this body should make no mistake, this block grant
formula is nearly identical to the failure structure of the 1970's
program. And what did it bring us?
{time} 1540
Well, at one university a $300,000 study to assess the need for a
looseleaf encyclopedia on law enforcement; in one State, the purchase
of aircraft used by the Governor and his family primarily for
traveling. In another area, a national accounting firm was paid $27,000
for a government manual that we later found already existed.
Mr. Chairman, it is a boon for consultants who, by the way, got one-
third of the funds according to these surveys.
We have boondoggle after boondoggle that makes us know that the
police chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police Officers, the foundations,
organizations, are all correct. We need to return to a separate
category of community police, and that is what we propose to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to, first of all, respond to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] on these comments about all these police
organizations supporting last year's version and not supporting ours.
We can all get down here and have litanies of who supports what and who
does not. I do not know what good that does, but I can say that it is a
split decision at this point if we add up who is and who is not on the
list of them. For example, the National Association of Chiefs of Police
strongly support our block grant approach as opposed to last year's
cops on the street version, and that is also true of the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America, it is true of the Memphis Police
Association, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, the
American Federation of Police, the Police Superior Officers Association
in Trenton, NJ; we have any number of individual lodges of the
Fraternal Order of Police, though maybe their national office wants to
go, and the board of directors, the other way; the Oklahoma Sheriffs
Association.
I have right here in front of me a copy of a newspaper article
recently where the chief of police right here in Washington, DC, says
that he much prefers the version that we are going to offer because the
city of Washington, DC, does not have the money or the ability to take
advantage of the Cops in the Streets Program the way that the President
has put it forward, but they could take advantage, and get some new
police and some support for their police in this city of ours right
here that we all know has such a very high crime rate, and the list
goes on and on.
I do not think the debate today ought to be over how many police
support which program. I think the debate should be on the merits of
what is the better position, and I think clearly we have the better
position. There are always going to be some communities that benefit
more by this than others do. My own city of Orlando, FL, while its
police chief and mayor strongly support our block grant program as a
growth city, we are going to hire more police officers anyway and
obviously get an advantage out of the President's proposal because he
is saying, look, we will pay 75 percent of the first $20,000 or $25,000
each year for 3 years of hiring a new police officer, whereas another
community, which was not, maybe, going to plan to hire them, like the
city of Orlando, that finds that to be a very beneficial thing because
it helps pay something they were going to pay for anyway. Somebody else
would not find that to be the case, and in many communities, thousands
of communities around the country were not planning to hire police, who
now find themselves in the position of having to look at this in the
cold, hard light of day and the dollars they have available, and they
clearly cannot afford to do that.
We are going to hear a lot more about that over time. Let me describe
briefly what H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grant
Act of 1995, does.
Mr. Chairman, it is the last of six crime bills I introduced in
connection with the Republicans' Contract With America. In many ways,
it represents the central differences between the policies of last
year's crime bill and the policies of the new Congress, and, as the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] our chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, said a few minutes ago, in many ways it represents
succinctly the differences in political philosophy between Democrats
who controlled this Congress for 40 consecutive years and the new
Republican-controlled
majority. Republicans generally believe in government which governs
best governs least. We believe in limited Federal Government. We
believe government closest to the people, in the case that we are
talking about here today, the cities and the counties of our Nation,
are the best government for making decisions, and in this case that is
precisely what this bill does. It delegates to those cities and
communities around this Nation the decisionmaking authority to decide
how best to fight crime in their communities, either with more cops, or
prevention or whatever.
Last year's bill said Washington knows best when it comes to fighting
crime. Local governments were offered more police, so long as they
agreed to pay most of the costs for those additional police and to use
them for community policing. Last year's bill also said that America
needed billions of dollars in crime prevention spending, but only the
kind of crime prevention that a liberal-controlled Congress favored.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the American people, in poll after poll and at the
ballot box, stated clearly their objection with that kind of so-called
crime fighting strategy.
H.R. 728 before us today takes the opposite approach. It says that
Washington does not know best when it comes to fighting crime. It says
that local governments are capable of determining what their needs
truly are. It recognizes that better than 90 percent of all crime is
local and not Federal. It says that the President's cops project,
created in the heat of presidential politics, is not beyond question,
and that, if it is what America's localities actually desire, they will
prove it when they spend their block grants that they get under this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, there is a role for the Federal Government to assist
the States in the fight against crime. But such assistance must
appreciate that the problems vary from State to State and community to
community. We must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, even as we
reject micromanagement. Support from Washington cannot come at the
expense of flexibility.
H.R. 728 leaves to local governments the decision regarding what
their funding priorities should be. It neither requires that funds be
spent on police officers, nor on prevention programs, it leaves that
decision to local governments, which understand their crime problems
far better than we do. Under H.R. 728, localities can fund police on
the beat, or prevention activities, or anything in between. The act
simply requires that those funds be used to reduce crime and improve
public safety.
At the same time, the act ensures that there will be fiscal and
programmatic accountability as the funds are utilized. The opponents of
local control argue that this act will become another LEAA. They cite
horror stories from the 1970's when the Federal Government gave money
go the States
[[Page H1632]] which was then passed along to local recipients. But a
fair and thoughtful examination of this bill that is before us today,
should lead any unbiased observer to see that this is a new day and a
new approach.
Under section 103, units of local government must submit an
application which ensures that a local advisory board has been
established and has reviewed the application. The advisory board's
membership must include a representative from the local police
department or sheriff's office, the local prosecutor's office, the
court system, a local community group active in crime prevention, and a
representative of the local public school system. This advisory board
is an important way to ensure that a range of views are considered as
localities' grant applications are being completed. The advisory board
will further ensure a healthy dose of public scrutiny during the
application process.
Section 103 also includes fiscal and accounting requirements to
ensure that grant funds are properly managed. Moreover, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will
be offering an amendment later today, to set aside up to $60 million
each year for oversight and accountability activities. There are many
other differences between this initiative and the days of LEAA, and we
will highlight those differences as the debate on this bill continues.
H.R. 728 repeals title I of the 1994 Crime Act, the public safety and
policing section, and replaces it with a block grant program to provide
funds directly to units of local government to assist them in their
efforts to improve public safety. The use of grant funds includes, but
is not limited to hiring, training, and equipping law enforcement
officers and support personnel; enhancing school safety, and
establishing crime prevention programs.
It is important to note that units of local government may use funds
under section 101 for purposes other than those specifically
identified, so long as they are used to reduce crime and improve public
safety. The act provides maximum flexibility to localities while
ensuring that funds are used to fight crime.
The act requires that grant funds supplement and not supplant State
or local funds and there will be an amendment to the act to add a 10
percent match requirement to further assure that only the most worthy
programs are supported by the block grants.
The bill authorizes a total of $10 billion for the block grants over
5 years, with $2 billion to be distributed in each of fiscal years 1996
through 2000. Units of local government can apply for funds each fiscal
year. The formula for determining grant amounts is straight forward. It
directs funds where they are most needed by taking into account the
severity of crime and the population of a locality. Having examined the
alternatives, I believe that the current formula is the most equitable
method of distributing resources, and that it keeps funding anomalies
to a minimum.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 728 is precisely what the voters demanded on
November 8. The majority of Americans said, ``We want less government
control coming out of Washington.'' They said, ``We want government
policymaking to be closer to the people where it will be more
accountable to the taxpayers.''
{time} 1550
Finally they said that we do not want anymore expensive, unrealistic,
pork programs coming out of Washington.
H.R. 728 meets those demands. It provides resources for localities to
respond to their unique crime problems with their own unique solutions.
Make no mistake, this bill will provide more money with greater
flexibility to the vast majority of localities throughout America than
last year's crime bill.
Also for those who might be concerned with what happens to the cops
the President handing out money to some communities who can afford them
in this fiscal year, they are protected and their funding for the full
3 years is also protected so they do not lose the opportunity for
getting more police or the police that they have already gained. Some
have said that we have obliterated that, and that is not true.
Mr. Chairman, the Local Government Law Enforcement Act of 1995 is an
important way for the Federal Government to assist localities in
dealing with crime without getting in their way. It is a rejection of
the Washington-knows-best mindset that gave us the 1994 crime bill. and
it provides far more resources for the counties, cities, and towns of
America to develop homegrown solutions to their unique crime problems.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this crime bill is a very, very
interesting issue, and for anyone watching this, it must be very
confusing to hear one side saying one thing and the other side saying,
``No, that's not right, it's just the opposite.''
So where is the truth? I must say that I just came from a press
conference where the Federal Order of Police, the International
Brotherhood of Police Officers, the major city chiefs, the National
Organization of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police
Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation had representatives
there saying that in order to retain the police that we got under last
years's bill, we really should stand firm and vote against the one
today.
I know we just heard the opposite, so what do we believe and where do
we go? Not only that, but why is it so important to sort all of this
out?
First of all, I tend to believe the people who are in the field, the
police officers. Having been on the Armed Services Committee, I found
the biggest mistake we have always made year after year is that we
never talk to the people who are out there trying to implement the
stuff; we only talk to the people here in Washington who are trying to
sell the stuff.
Yes, there may be a few local cities that do not agree, but the
tremendous ground swell across the country is that they prefer last
year's bill which targets police officers. And then we hear people say
in answer to that, ``Well, why should Washington say that? Why
shouldn't it be up to the localities?''
Well, one of the reasons it is not up to the localities totally is
because this is a partnership and because really the localities are
supposed to be taking care of crime anyway, and the only reason the
Federal Government got into this is that the localities felt they were
totally overwhelmed. So if the localities felt they were overwhelmed by
crime and violence in their neighborhoods and in their cities and they
said to the Federal Government, ``Please, please send resources,'' and
since we all know the Federal Government does not have a lot of extra
resources to send, because we would do much better to
do debt-sharing than revenue sharing, and not only is there the threat
of crime but there is the threat of the debt, we would be very stupid
to send money out with no strings attached. So if we are going to send
it out, we felt we ought to be prioritizing what it had to be spent for
and put it into things that people agreed upon were the most concrete
and realistic approach. And the No. 1 thing everyone seems to
constantly agree upon is that we need more police officers, that if we
see community policing, that is when crime rates go down; if we see
more police out there so that they are not under the strain and stress
of overwork or whatever, we see crime rates go down. The cities tell us
they cannot get more police because it is so costly. So that is why we
targeted the money, and that is why they say we need to continue
targeting this money. I think that is very important.
Now, most localities would spend the money very well if we did not
tell them that. Many of them would probably hire cops, but there would
be some that would not. That was our lesson of LEAA, and as we all
know, they say those who do not learn from history are condemned to
repeat it.
So the prior bill does not totally micromanage in any way, shape or
form, but it does say, ``If you want
[[Page H1633]] Federal dollars, then you are going to get more
police.'' I think that is critical.
There are other parts in this bill that I think we lost out on, and
that I find to be very sad. One is community schools. We all know the
saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, in most of our
villages, everything has collapsed except the schools. The community
schools grant under the prior bill was one that we had more
applications for than anything else. People understand that. The
schools are there. It makes sense to utilize them in a much broader
sense. It certainly makes a lot more sense to do that than go to
orphanages, for heaven's sake. If we can utilize these on a full-day
basis or an evening basis or weekend basis to help lift young people up
rather than just focus on locking young people up, it makes a big
difference. So that community schooling item would be gone if we do not
pass this through. In other words, the interest last year was to bring
everything to the table and see what the things are that we really
need, because we in the Federal Government are not sitting around here
awash in surpluses, for heaven's sake. Yet crime is foremost on
people's minds. If we are going to send this money to localities, we
should put some constraints on it, not micromanage, but put constraints
around it, and I think they have done a very good job of coming up with
one-page forms that people have to fill out. That is all there is to
it. It is not complex, but we want to make sure that when we spend the
money, we get police officers, or that when money is spent, community
skills are rebuilding so that they lock something into that community.
And we want to make sure that the Federal tax dollars are being spent
in ways that we know are very effective crime-fighting ways.
There is no better way to fight crime than with police. I think that
is why most police officers in this country have been very supportive
of the prior crime bill, and I think that is also why people have been
supportive of the prior prevention balance that was put in there.
So I urge the Members to try to listen to this debate and ask, what
would you do? If you were representing the Federal Government and you
were representing a Treasury awash in red ink and you are now going to
share some of this money with communities because they say they are
under siege, do you not think some direction should be given? Should it
be totally to ``go and spend it well. We know you won't mess up?''
Most of them will not, but some will, and if they will, we will all
get condemned and people one more time will not believe that the
Federal Government can do anything well.
I thought last year's bill was the perfect balance, or as perfect a
balance, I guess, as one could have. I would just hope that we can
leave that in place because I think to take any of the strings off, to
cut the strings off and say, ``Here it is'' at a time when we have such
debts would be something most people would be a little leery of and
would say, ``Why don't you just keep the money in Washington, then, and
deal with the threat of debt rather than the threat of crime?''
I think this makes sense, and I would hope the Members would proceed
on that basis and support the bill as we know it and as it is going
forward, since police officers find that it is working very well.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a member of the committee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 728.
Last Saturday President Clinton in his weekly radio address came out
strongly opposed to this bill, saying that it would do away with the
commitment that he and Congress made on the 100,000 cops on the beat
that were promised in last year's crime bill. Unfortunately, the
President is sorely misinformed on how much money is available in his
own crime bill, and I believe he ought to apologize to the American
people for spreading such misinformation around.
{time} 1600
Let us look at the numbers in last year's crime bill and what is
proposed in H.R. 728, and the American people will see that H.R. 728
has the potential of putting more cops on the beat than the crime bill
that President Clinton signed into law last year.
Last year's crime bill provides $8.8 billion for community policing
over a 6-year period. That is $1.47 billion a year. If the President
says that that will pay for 100,000 police on the beat, that means that
there is an average Federal payment of $14,700 per police officer.
The average cost of a police officer is about $70,000 a year,
including the training and equipment expenses, as well as the expenses
of hiring a new employee. That means that only about 21 percent of the
total commitment of 100,000 cops on the beat will end up being funded
by the Federal Government. So 21,000 cops is in the Democrat crime
bill, which is a far cry from the 100,000 that the President and the
supporters of last year's crime bill are claiming.
If you put it another way, if you subtract the Federal funding of the
$8.8 billion from what it would cost to put 100,000 cops on the beat,
the local communities will have to come up with $33 billion more in
property tax revenue in order to put that number of police officers on
the beat.
So the numbers that the President talked about simply do not add up,
and I think that he and those who are using the 100,000 number ought to
withdraw those claims quite promptly, because the money from the
Federal Government simply is not there.
Now, with all of these figures on the table, why is H.R. 728 a better
approach? First, it increases the block grant for police to a potential
of $10 billion over 5 years. It takes away the strings that local
governments have to put property taxpayers' money into paying for some
of those expenses. The $10 billion a year is on the assumption that the
local communities would spend all of the Federal money on more police
and none of it on prevention programs, such as midnight basketball and
prisoner self-esteem.
Second, it is the local communities that decide how this money should
be spent. What is true in New York City and what the needs are in
Detroit is not necessarily what the needs are in Menomonee Falls, WI,
or Orlando, FL, or some districts that are completely rural.
The beauty of block grants is that each community makes that
determination for itself following a review of the advisory committee
that was outlined by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Now, I think that the advisory committee and the types of public
hearings that have to be held before the actual expenditures are made
is the perfect check against money being wasted by local government.
But even if it is, that determination can be made by the voters in each
local jurisdiction when they go to vote to reelect their mayors or town
chairmen and their council members, because come election time, the
mayor that has fettered away Federal law enforcement funds on things
that do not make any sense at all would be hard pressed to explain to
the voters of his or her community why the decision was made.
So that accountability and that responsibility to the voters of a
particular community is the best check against the dissipation of the
Federal funds to things that are not effective that there is.
Let us face it: Press and public scrutiny of government decisions at
all levels of government is much stronger now than it was during the
terrible years of the LEAA. I want to put my faith in local government.
This whole question and this whole debate is a question of money and a
question of control. I think that local government will do a much
better job in spending this money wisely than keeping the control in
Washington and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I represent a city in my First
Congressional District in Connecticut, a city that has very many
exciting things about it. But like many cities in this modern day, we
have some terrible problems.
[[Page H1634]] Two years ago the problems really became much worse.
We had the invasion of three different gangs, and the people in our
town became very worried, not only worried, they became frightened. We
had drive-by shootings; we had car hijackings. We had situations where
people were thought to be somebody else and got shot.
Understandably our citizens remained disturbed, and people like
myself who pretend to have some answers and hold ourselves out as
elected officials who should be able to help, were equally disturbed. I
really wondered what to do next. How could I help?
But something very positive happened and that was the crime bill we
passed last year.
There were three things in that crime bill that held out hope to the
people of my city. The first thing was additional cops. In that bill
the cop program provided additional police for city streets. We had
done other things. The Governor had sent in the State police, but that
was so expensive it could only last a little while. We had a Federal
crime task force, very needed, still going on, but people could not see
these results quickly. They could see additional police in the streets.
The second thing that the crime bill did was it allowed preventive
programs. Anybody who understands what was happening could see that
these gangs are made up of very young individuals, and if we did not
have alternative activities for these young individuals, they would go
into the gangs.
So these preventive programs endorsed by everybody in law enforcement
could be part of a solution to fight gang violence. We should keep
those preventive programs so there is hope for the next generation.
These activities not only included group sports but activities that
help young people to stay in school and resist peer pressure.
The third thing we had in last year's bill was the concept of
community policing. You have additional police, and where do you put
those additional police? You put them on the streets of the individual
neighborhoods. You put them where people can see them. You put them
where people can talk to them. They get to know the neighborhood, the
neighbors get to know them. When crime occurs everyone including the
police know what is happening.
Mr. Chairman, the bill we passed last year was a good bill. I think
we should keep that bill. It gives people hope that gang violence can
be addressed and our cities can survive as safe places in which to
live.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this weekend the President of the United States said,
obviously referring to this bill, H.R. 728, that he would oppose,
perhaps veto, any bill that would jeopardize the number of police
officers that would have been provided to communities under the bill
that was passed last year.
I have two responses. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that
this bill could provide even more police officers than were provided in
the last crime bill. The fact of the matter is that this bill offers
total flexibility between police programs and prevention programs to
the communities, unlike the highly structured bill that was passed last
year.
If the issue is police officers, then communities are free to use all
of the money under H.R. 728 for the sole purpose of hiring police
officers. This will generate more police officers than could ever be
provided under the bill that we passed last year.
I think the real issue, and this is my second point, is not the
number of police officers; it is micromanagement. In the crime bill as
we passed it last year, for the police programs, for the prevention
programs, are paragraph after paragraph and page after page of how to
run your communities if you want to apply for these grants, and that is
really the issue here. The crime bill passed last year sought to
micromanage from the Congress and from the Federal Justice Department
how communities are running their activities.
We recognize that a large share of fighting violent crime is at the
local level, and therefore we tell the local governments use the funds
as you think best, and you do not have to fill out a long application
to Washington explaining to them in advance how you are going to set up
programs that you think benefit your communities first. That is why,
Mr. Chairman, the House should pass H.R. 728.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this last part of the crime bill
is probably the most important part of the crime bill that is before
us, and it will determine, without any doubt, whether there is real
balance in the bill. We have done the prisons part of the bill already.
Many of us are worried even though we stand for the proposition that
there ought to be tougher and increased sentencing, that the money will
not go there and do it.
Now we have the same type of worry from the opposite end on these
parts of the bill, because the block grant proposal that is part of
H.R. 3 is unfortunately so wide open that just about anything can
happen. Read the language and you will see that the money can be spent
on anything at all.
{time} 1610
If we stand for one thing in this crime bill, if we stood for one
thing in 1994 and should stand for one thing in 1995, it is, no matter
what else happens, there ought to be 100,000 new cops patrolling the
streets. Cops are good for prevention and for punishment. In the whole
crime bill last year, there were many on the left who objected to the
prevention parts. There were many on the right who objected to the
punishment parts. There were many on the right who objected to the
prevention parts. But no one objected to the cops. And yet the
Republican proposal in one fell swoop says, there may be 100,000 cops
or there may not be 100,000 cops. That is their basic problem.
Similarly, the Republican proposal has no guarantee of any type of
prevention or of all types of prevention. The block grant is so wide
that unlike the crime bill that is now law, money could go to the
wildest and craziest prevention schemes. My colleagues, the basic
problem with the proposal is that when we give a block grant, we are
never certain where the money ends up. Some of it ends up in worthy
purposes, but much of it is either wasted or spent on purposes the
Congress, the taxpayers never, never envisioned. So there is a serious
problem.
Tomorrow morning I will be offering an amendment that guarantees the
100,000 cops, along with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
That amendment will probably be the most important amendment in terms
of crime fighting that any Member of this body will vote on for this
entire Congress. This evening we will have some amendments that talk
about keeping the prevention programs and some of the specific
prevention programs, like drug courts and community schools that make a
great deal of sense.
But the bottom line is this, my colleagues, do we want prisons and
police and prevention or do we want pork? Because all the cries of last
year that there could be pork in the crime bill will be hollow cries if
this amendment is not agreed to and if the bill passes. Because there
is no antipork provisions in this bill. We tried to put them in. We
tried to put certain limitations without imposing mandates on the
localities. But they are not there.
Is it any wonder that every major police organization supports the
Schumer-Conyers amendment? None at all. Because, again, they know the
money will go to police. And the police are what the American people
need above all.
In conclusion, I would say to my colleagues, do not march in
lockstep. The contract is doing pretty well. We have passed a lot of
provisions, but we know that it is a lot better to guarantee the police
than let local government spend it on sometimes good purposes but
sometimes misused purposes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Molinari].
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Let me say that I stand here in this well as a Republican Member that
worked in support of the crime bill that was passed by Congress last
year. I thought it was a good crime bill. I
[[Page H1635]] stand here today, Mr. Chairman, because I believe this
is a much better crime bill.
When we talk about the law enforcement block grant sections that are
under discussion today and will be voted on through today and tomorrow,
I believe that that local discretion that we give our municipal leaders
and our police commissioners is vitally important.
Let us be honest about things. In many cities such as my own, our
mayor came and said that this money would not be used under the old
crime bill to hire one additional police officer for the city of New
York. Because after 5 years, when the Federal subsidy ran out, he, we,
simply could not afford to continue that funding. Instead, he would use
it as was allowed by the----
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MOLINARI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentlewoman aware of the provisions
that the mayor of our city fought for for permanent computers,
permanent replacement that would keep cops on the beat long after the 5
years?
Ms. MOLINARI. Absolutely.
Mr. SCHUMER. Then, how can the gentlewoman say that New York, that
her city, my city, the city we love, would not get cops after 5 years?
The very provisions we wrote in the bill would make sure that they get
cops for all the years this computer system is working.
Ms. MOLINARI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a bit
misleading to the American public who believes that under the crime
bill passed last year that the city of New York would be able to go out
and in fact bring on more police officers to the city of New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. That is exactly what will happen under last year's crime
bill, according to the mayor.
Ms. MOLINARI. What it does is, it frees up the police officers. It
does not add new police officers. Let me just say that the mayor of the
city of New York has that very same discretion to utilize those funds
to accomplish the very same purpose and, more importantly, additional
purposes.
Something that was left our of last year's crime bill, in terms of
the allowable uses of funding for officers such as the city of New
York, would be that police officers who can be hired and trained now
could be used to enhance school security measures and establishing
crime prevention programs that may include things like citizen patrol
program, sexual assault and domestic violence programs, programs
intended to prevent juvenile crime, using our existing police officers
to expand their abilities to deal with the growing and different trends
of crimes in our streets and particularly in the city of New York.
I think this is a very valuable allowable use of crime prevention
funds that will enable our police officers, maybe not to add an
additional person, although I do not think last year's crime bill will
have added an additional person, but to allow those police officers to
accomplish their jobs in a much more professional and dedicated manner.
I offer my wholehearted support to these improvements made in this
particular area of the crime bill.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I would ask the gentlewoman, is she aware of the provisions in the
existing crime bill?
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, yes, I am.
Mr. SCHUMER. Could they not do all of the things the gentlewoman
talked about?
Ms. MOLINARI. I think that is debatable.
Mr. SCHUMER. Why? What is debatable about it?
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the language in last year's crime bill does not specify that we have a
better opportunity of getting these grants if we can put forth a
program that shows, for example, that this money would be used toward
training police officers in domestic and sexual abuse.
Mr. SCHUMER. The gentlewoman is absolutely unfortunately correct.
Specific provisions in last year's crime bill that the mayor of New
York City sought would allow training of police officers and other
types of things.
Ms. MOLINARI. The exact language is the grants may be used to procure
equipment, technical or support systems or pay overtime.
Mr. SCHUMER. Exactly, that is in last year's bill as well as this
year's bill.
Ms. MOLINARI. That was in last year's bill. That does not extend to
this year's bill.
Mr. SCHUMER. It does, indeed, because this year's bill is even
broader. It could be spent on those purposes. Would not the gentlewoman
admit if New York City would not want to spend an additional nickel on
police of any sorts, that that would be permissible under the present
proposal, but it would not be permissible under the present law, last
year's proposal; is that not correct?
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that under this current
crime bill, the city of New York has tremendous flexibility to deal
with the problems that are affecting the city of New York. If my
colleague will recall, our mayor stood here and said midnight
basketball is a valuable prevention program. Many of the colleagues
from other areas----
Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I would simply
say here is, very simply, that our bill, and I do not think the
gentlewoman has contradicted this, despite what she is talking about,
midnight basketball, our bill would allow the money to go for many
police uses. The existing proposal would not require any money to go to
police. It could well be that not a nickel would go to police. There in
lies the difference.
Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 9 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott], a member of the committee and the subcommittee.
{time} 1620
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, a lot of motivation has been ascribed to
some Members of the minority as to the furor over this bill. I want to
make it clear that my furor is focused on the cut of $2.5 billion from
prevention and police, where it can make the most difference in
responding to the problem of crime. We have debated whether or not the
local government or the Federal Government will decide how the money
will be spent. We have had examples of local law enforcement block
grants with LEAA, but I want to make it clear that my personal furor is
over the $2.5 billion that the communities will have less to deal with.
We have seen drug courts which operate at one-twentieth of the cost
of other programs and result in an 80 percent reduction in crime. We
will have less money for those programs. We have seen community
policing, very effective in reducing crime. Police officers have been
put on the street as a result of last years's bill. We will have less
money to do that. Prevention programs, reducing crime, less money to do
that. We have heard of some organizations supporting the bill. We have
not heard whether or not
they support the $2.5 billion cut.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would restore the $2.5 billion so
the communities will have more money with which to fight crime.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in
opposing H.R. 728, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Act, and in
supporting the Conyers-Schumer substitute which will be debated later
this evening. The streets of my district, the Third District of
Connecticut, are safer today because of the 1994 crime bill. Streets
are becoming safer across this country because we are putting more
police officers on the beat.
Mr. Chairman, last weekend I met with local law enforcement
officials
[[Page H1636]] and mayors in my district. They reiterated their support
for community policing, and they asked me, ``Why are you unraveling
this bill? It is working. Give it more of a chance to work.'' The 1994
crime bill was passed and signed into law just last August. It is not
even into effect for 6 months. They regard this as a bill that has
already provided funding for 32 additional officers in 10
municipalities in my communities. They were united in their support for
the course of this landmark legislation, and the course it has charted.
The 1994 crime bill struck the right balance between prisons, police,
and prevention. The bill was tough on criminals, as it should be, but
it also recognized that the best way to deal with crime was to prevent
it from happening in the first place. That means more community
policing, more cops on the beat.
The 1994 crime bill guarantees that 100,000 more police will be on
our streets by the year 2000. The Republicans' bill does not guarantee
that even one new police officer will be hired over the next 5 years.
Without the kinds of guidelines that were included in the 1994 bill's
block grant programs, there is no guaranty that State and local
officials will ever spend any resources in support of community
policing and cops on the beat.
My police chiefs reminded me of prior law enforcement block grant
programs that did not have guidelines, the kind we are talking about in
the 1994 bill. They told me that they saw spending on cars for
politicians, airplanes, and cash for consultants; even, I might add,
armored tanks. The Conyers-Schumer substitute would restore funding
that the 1994 crime bill promised the States and localities by putting
back money into the Cops on the Beat Program. This was a promise that
was made to the American public. I urge my colleagues to support our
police and our communities by keeping our commitment to the cops,
keeping our commitment to this program, programs that are making our
streets safer, and the people who live in our communities feel more
safe. Take a stand in support of our cities, our police, and our youth,
Mr. Chairman, and support the Conyers-Schumer substitute.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise me
how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the other
side that we have no other speakers other than myself.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has the right
to close, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would then
be recognized, if he seeks recognition.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me speak for a minute
or two about what this debate and this bill is not about, and then talk
a little bit about what it is about.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard in this debate that this is about whether
the local government has control of this situation or whether the
Federal Government has control of the funds. I think the debate that we
will engage in shortly, Mr. Chairman, as we try to amend this bill, is
about what will be effective in the crime-fighting context.
If we really think about it, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen any
local government official or State government official who would refuse
funding from the Federal Government, whether it has some strings
attached to it or whether it has no strings attached to it.
If we ask a local government official ``Would you rather have money
that does not give you any guidance about how to use it,'' they will
say ``Give me the money.'' If we ask that same local government
official ``Would you take some money that gives you some guidance about
how to use it,'' they will say ``Give us the money. We need the money
because we have a crime-fighting problem.''
Therefore, the real issue here is not about whether we give the money
to the local government, with some constraints or guidance, or no
constraints and guidance. It is about having some mechanism for
accountability.
Mr. Chairman, the real issue, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott] has indicated during the course of this debate is whether we are
going to have some programs that are dedicated to prevention and some
programs that are dedicated to putting additional police officers on
the street.
By knocking down the wall between the prevention programs and the
police programs and saying we are just going to give you block grants,
not only do we give more discretion to the local officials, and they
will love it and say ``Thank you; we do not want you to tell us
anything about how we should use these funds,'' but what we are also
doing is eliminating the opportunity we have for accountability for
those funds at our level.
Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to build in some
accountability in this process. My point, Mr. Chairman, is that we
should have had in the last crime bill and we should have in this bill
a process for evaluating and forcing local government officials, or if
we retain last year's programs in place, the Federal Government, to
have an evaluation process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized
for 1 minute.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1630
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if I have ever seen a piece of legislation
that might be a candidate for a veto, I think the block grant is it. I
think replacing 100,000 policemen on the street and a prevention
program that works versus a $10 billion giveaway with no guarantees
that takes $2.5 billion out of prevention is the wrong way to go and is
likely to run into great difficulty with the Clinton administration.
The amendment that I am going to offer with my colleague from New
York and many other Members supporting would effectively strike the
block grant program, replace it with the bipartisan police and
prevention package that we had in the last bill and won the support of
Governors, mayors and, yes, law enforcement officials at the local
level.
So rather than cutting the authorized amount to $10 billion, it would
fully authorize the two packages at $12.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, if I've ever seen a candidate for a veto, this block
grant is it. It replaces 100,000 cops on the street and prevention
programs that work, with a $10 billion givaway that has no guarantees
to cut crime.
Our amendment would effectively strike the block grant, and replace
it with the bipartisan cops and prevention package, that has won
support among Governors, mayors, law enforcement officers. Rather than
cutting the authorized amount to $10 billion, it would fully authorize
the two packages at $12.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, interestingly after all is said and done in this
debate, three things remain clear:
First, the Republican majority has not told us how this block grant
differs from LEAA in the 1970's. What specific guarantees exist in the
text of this bill to ensure against the enormous waste we experienced
with LEAA?
Second, not only has the Republican majority refused to tell us how
this differs from the failure of LEAA, it has refused to identify any
experience that is more compelling than the date of the authorized
prevention programs. They have not responded to the empirical data--
such as the California study, the data on drug courts, or early
childhood intervention--all of which show us the promise of these
programs;
Third, the Republican block grant will not guarantee a single new
police officer. Our amendment here will guarantee the promise of both
100,000 new cops and smart programs that ultimately reduce tax
expenditures rather than waste them.
This is a choice between making every American safer by putting 20
percent more police on our streets--or putting every American's
pocketbook at risk with a 100-percent federally funded giveaway of $10
billion. A choice of a prevention package written on the past 20 years
of experience at the local level, or a block grant that failed 20 years
ago. Let's
[[Page H1637]] not go back to failed polices of the past. Let's move
forward in the 1990's with programs that we know will work.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the debate that we are now commenced in that will run
over the better part of 10 hours today and tomorrow is offering the
most striking difference to the American people between the two parties
that we have had in a long time on the floor of the House.
Republicans basically believe in limited government, believe in a
local block grant program for the crime prevention and the police
opportunities that we have to fight crime, and the Democrats have
always believed in the Federal Government knows best and that is what
was in their crime bill last year.
We have a real opportunity to make a difference here when we vote on
the local crime bill programs that we are offering out here in the next
day or two. What is good for New Brunswick, GA, is not the same as what
is good for Sacramento, CA or Madison, WI. The local communities know
best. They should make that decision. That is what this debate is all
about. We are going to decide that out here. I trust when it is all
said and done, this Congress will give the right to the local
communities to fight crime as they see fit, to make the decision of
whether they want a new cop or whether they want a prevention program
and to make sure that every community with a high crime rate in this
country can participate and not exclude some as the present law does.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express numerous concerns
about H.R. 728. At the outset I would like to commend the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, and the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Schumer, for their efforts over the last week to improve these so-
called crime bills that our Republican colleagues have brought to the
floor. They have raised many important issues which have not been given
proper consideration by the other side in their rush to bring bill
after bill to the floor in order to meet an arbitrary 100-day deadline.
H.R. 728 is the final blow to the most comprehensive crime fighting
legislation ever passed by Congress. The Crime Bill struck a smart
balance between punishment and prevention. It had the support of
police, local officials, Governors, community leaders, teachers,
recreation directors, and many others across the country. Most
importantly, it responded to the calls of the American people for safer
neighborhoods by establishing a grant program to put 100,000 new police
officers on our streets. Thanks to Herculean efforts by the Justice
Department, funds have already been directed to thousands of
communities, large and small, to hire approximately 17,000 new police.
Importantly, these officers will be involved in community policing.
Community policing has been proven successful over and over again in
reducing crime and improving relations between law enforcement
personnel and residents. Almost nothing works better to deter crime
than having officers highly visible in the community.
I say almost nothing because stopping crime from ever occurring works
better than anything else to make our communities safe. By taking steps
to address the root cause of crime--drug abuse, lack of educational and
economic opportunity, and the decline of the family--we can prevent it
from occurring in the first place. The Crime Bill took this proactive
approach by allocating a small portion of the funds available to local
communities for a wide range of worthwhile initiatives. Funds would be
available for education, job training, anti-gang programs, drug
treatment and after school and summer activities. Importantly, the bill
did not impose solutions or program designs on communities. Instead, it
provided broad discretion to communities to develop programs to meet
their particular circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 728 will change all of this. It guts the
prevention side of crime fighting, the proactive side, to fund more
prisons and police, the reactive side. Of the $5 billion previously
allocated to prevention, this bill shifts $2.5 billion to build more
prisons according to a formula established by legislation passed by the
House last week. Unfortunately, few
states meet the requirements to receive funding and some estimate that
states will have to spend $60 billion on prison construction so that
they can incarcerate prisoners long enough to qualify for assistance
down the road. For my colleagues who are concerned about unfunded
mandates, alarm bells should be going off.
The remaining $2.5 billion will go into a new program relating to
police officers. Unfortuantely for the American people, this new
program takes several steps backwards. First, it does not require that
new officers to be engaged in community policing and may not result in
100,000 new police being put on the street. People want officers out of
their cars and the station house and onto the streets of their
neighborhoods. Communities which utilize community policing have seen
their crime rates go down and relations between the police and
residents dramatically improve. The Crime Bill encouraged this
effective policy nationwide.
Virtually every major police organization in the country is opposed
to altering the provisions of the Crime Bill relating to cops on the
beat. The National Association of Police Organizations, the Law
Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the
National Sheriffs Association and the Police Executive Research Forum
all strongly support the current program. Many of these groups are
concerned that the provisions of H.R. 728 will not put 100,000 new
police on our streets. I fail to see why the House would want to pass a
bill which our law enforcement professionals say will undermine our
efforts to put additional cops on the street. This is just another
example of the unintended consequences of certain Republican policies
which are not being provided careful scrutiny in committee.
I am also troubled by the fact this legislation eliminates the
requirement that local communities pay part of the costs of hiring
additional officers or buying new equipment. Law enforcement is a local
function. Virtually no one in this chamber would argue that the Federal
Government should begin paying for local police. Assistance in the
Crime Bill is designed to provide a rapid infusion of new officers to
meet the challenges of violent crime. The Federal Government agreed to
pay the vast majority of the costs, but asked local communities to make
an investment as well. It only makes sense to ask communities to make a
commitment to the safety of their residents. With a voluntary program,
it makes even more sense to ask participants to pay part of the cost.
The need for a local contribution is more acute in light of efforts
to pass a balanced budget amendment. I would like my Republican
colleagues to explain how they plan to balance the budget by developing
voluntary programs designed to meet profoundly local needs that don't
require the local entity to put up any money? I know it is politically
expedient to eliminate the local contribution. However, from a public
policy and a budgetary standpoint, the things that should matter the
most around here, this makes no sense. The Crime Bill struck a balance
in this area, a balance which this bill destroys.
Finally, by eliminating support for prevention, I believe this bill
will actually undermine efforts to substantially reduce crime in this
country and drive up the costs of law enforcement. During debate on the
Crime Bill last year, we all heard from communities across the Nation
which have experienced substantial reductions in criminal activity when
they set up after school programs, anti-gang initiatives, or provided
job training to young people. Crime went down because kids had
constructive things to do with their time and they were being given
opportunities to do better in school or to learn a new skill that will
help them get a good job down the road. Communities plagued by gang
violence worked to combat it with programs to educate youngsters about
the negative side of gangs and the list goes on and on. The bottomline
is that communities are getting real results with prevention programs,
results they aren't getting by sending more people to prison.
Prevention makes sense for several reasons. First, it is proactive,
it works to reduce crime before it ever occurs, before the police have
to be called and before someone goes to prison. The most effective way
to make our communities safe is to stop crime in the first place.
Second, prevention is probably the most cost-effective way to reduce
crime. A community can invest $25,000 in an anti-gang initiative which
can serve countless young people. On the other hand, it costs about the
same amount to incarcerate a single violent criminal for one year. We
get a much greater return on the first $25,000 than we do on the
second. For people who want the Government to spend the American
taxpayers' money wisely, nothing makes more sense than investing in
prevention.
Mr. Chairman, this bill takes a giant step back in the fight against
crime. It does not guarantee that 100,000 new police will be put on the
streets, it does not stress community policing, and it repeals what I
believe are the most cost-effective crime fighting programs. Major law
enforcement organizations and our Nation's mayors and other elected
officials have strong concerns about this bill. Moreover, it puts
political expedience before good public policy by funneling billions to
localities without requiring them to make an investment as well. I urge
my colleagues to defeat this measure and preserve the existing cops on
[[Page H1638]] the beat program as well as badly needed prevention
initiatives.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 728. During
the last session, the Democratic-led Congress passed a crime bill
riddled with problems and weaknesses. Most notably, it would have spent
billions of dollars on questionable social spending disguised as crime
prevention.
The crime bill also placed so many conditions on local governments to
receive Federal funds to hire more police that many could not even
afford to apply for these funds.
To make matters worse, it assumed that all police departments needed
or wanted to hire more police, ignoring the reality that many strongly
felt that they could use the money in more effective and efficient
ways--such as modernizing outdated equipment and hiring civilian office
workers to move desk cops out on the streets.
Last year, I tried to offer an amendment to give local law
enforcement flexibility to use these grants for these other important
purposes--only to be rejected by the Rules Committee.
H.R. 728 addresses both problems. It authorizes $10 billion of block
grants over 5 years for law enforcement, replacing the police and crime
prevention sections of the crime bill.
These grants can be used, among other things, to hire new officers,
purchase equipment and technology directly related to law enforcement,
pay overtime to current officers, enhance school security and establish
citizen neighborhood watch programs. In other words, the $4 billion in
mandated social spending in the crime bill are gone and police
departments now have the flexibility to spend Federal funds as they see
fit.
After all, they are the ones on the front lines in the war on crime
and certainly know better than Washington bureaucrats how to more
effectively combat our crime problem.
Mr. Chairman, I am also very pleased that H.R. 728 preserves the
Violence Against Women Act provisions in last year's crime bill.
This section created Federal penalties for interstate stalking or
domestic abuse, strengthened existing Federal penalties for repeat
sexual offenders and required restitution to victims in Federal sex
offense cases. In addition, it created a civil rights violation for
violent crimes motivated by gender, allowing victims of such crimes to
sue for damages or court-ordered injunctions.
The act also authorized $1.6 billion over 6 years for programs to
fight violence against women.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 728--in combination with the other crime bills
passed by the House during the past week--is a vast improvement on last
year's crime bill and I urge my colleagues' support of this
legislation.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we all recall last year's
unfounded cries by the GOP that the 1994 crime bill was loaded with
pork. Well, I've got news for you and the American people watching this
debate today. H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block
Grants Act, is the true oinker. This thing squeals so loud, you'd think
we were considering a farm bill instead of a crime bill.
Last year, the body made a commitment to the American people that we
would tackle their concerns about crime with a targeted, smart,
understanding approach and we did just that. Unfortunately, my
Republican colleagues have decided to ditch this approach in the name
of political expediency and, ironically, have left a pigsty in their
wake.
H.R. 728 is an absolute boondoggle. This legislation promises a whole
heck of a lot, but guarantees absolutely nothing but the potential for
abuse: $10 billion of taxpayer funds will be shuttled to States and
localities for the broad, general purpose of reducing crime and
improving public safety with no specific goals up front and no
indications that these funds will be spent responsibly.
Like the old Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grants that
were plagued by mismanagement and fraud and finally terminated during
the Reagan administration, grants under H.R. 728 could potentially go
toward the purchase of so-called police patrol cars employed by high-
ranking local officials for personal use, to support patronage jobs in
law enforcement agencies, or to fund crime consultants whose only aim
is to bilk the government.
My constituents strongly supported the addition of 100,000 officers
to walk the streets, interacting in a positive way with average
citizens and community leaders, strengthening the ties between law
enforcement and localities, creating a safer environment in which our
children can grow. Residents of several neighborhoods in my district in
Chicago, such as North Lawndale and Austin, have been successful for
some time now in organizing citizen partnerships with local authorities
to tackle problems as they arise and ensure the continued vitality of
the areas in which they work and live. In addition, suburbs in my
district such as Maywood and Bellwood, IL, have worked diligently to
create viable community policing programs and are in the process of
starting these programs with the help of the 1994 crime bill.
H.R. 728 severely jeopardizes this progress. In fact, under this
bill, there are no assurances that a single police officer will be
hired.
Even more distressing is the fact that most all prevention moneys
from last year's comprehensive crime legislation are gone, including
the $1.6 billion in long-awaited funds for the Local Partnership Act to
grant cities the resources necessary to implement proven, cost-
effective and much-needed health and educational crime prevention
programs. Gone with that act is the 10-percent Federal set-aside I was
able to include which would have provided localities across the Nation
with the incentive to partner with small minority or women-owned
businesses. I guess the GOP would rather build walls around some of the
most disadvantaged areas of our cities and towns than provide relief
and the hope of a successful future to hundreds of small enterprises
and the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Also gone are the following: $810 million in grants for a variety of
after-school and summer programs for at-risk youth involving education,
tutoring, and job preparation; $626 million for up to 15 model programs
intended to expand community services and new prevention strategies in
high-crime, low-income areas; $270 million for local community
development corporations to implement vital economic revitalization
projects such as those being undertaken on the West Side of Chicago, in
my district, with the help of organizations like Bethel New Life, Inc.;
and $45 million in BATF gang prevention and education initiatives.
So as you can clearly see, we have before us a bill that substitutes
uncertainty and irresponsibility for clarity and accountability. The
American people have hardly called for such an extreme reversal.
Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues have rejected the common sense
notion that giving individuals and families a greater stake in their
communities, as we did in last year's crime legislation, is the best
way to attack and deter lawlessness. They have rejected the belief that
we need to provide hope and opportunity where there is little or none.
They have rejected the fact that the threat of punishment and
retribution neither prevents nor stops crime from occurring on its own.
I strongly suggest we reject their irrational attempt to gut the 1994
crime bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 728.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Molinari) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gunderson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 728) to
control crime by providing law enforcement block grants, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________