[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.


                          ____________________