Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1639-H1672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H1639]]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS ACT OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 728.

{time} 1635

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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all
time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered as having been read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 728
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Local Government Law
Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Title I of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
``TITLE I--LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS

``SEC. 101. PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

``(a) Payment and Use.--
``(1) Payment.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, shall pay to each unit of local government which
qualifies for a payment under this title an amount equal to
the sum of any amounts allocated to such unit under this
title for each payment period. The Director shall pay such
amount from amounts appropriated to carry out this title.
``(2) Use.--Amounts paid to a unit of local government
under this section shall be used by the unit for reducing
crime and improving public safety, including but not limited
to, 1 or more of the following purposes:
``(A)(i) Hiring, training, and employing on a continuing
basis new, additional law enforcement officers and necessary
support personnel.
``(ii) Paying overtime to presently employed law
enforcement officers and necessary support personnel for the
purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such
personnel.
``(iii) Procuring equipment, technology, and other material
directly related to basic law enforcement functions.
``(B) Enhancing school security measures by--
``(i) providing increased law enforcement patrols in and
around schools, whether through the hiring of additional law
enforcement officers or paying overtime to presently employed
officers;
``(ii) purchasing law enforcement equipment necessary to
carry out normal law enforcement functions in and around
schools;
``(iii) equipping schools with metal detectors, fences,
closed circuit cameras, and other physical safety measures;
``(iv) gun hotlines designed to facilitate the reporting of
weapons possession by students and other individuals in and
around schools; and
``(v) preventing and suppressing violent youth gang
activity.
``(C) Establishing crime prevention programs that may,
though not exclusively, involve law enforcement officials and
that are intended to discourage, disrupt, or interfere with
the commission of criminal activity, including neighborhood
watch and citizen patrol programs, sexual assault and
domestic violence programs, and programs intended to prevent
juvenile crime.
``(D) Establishing or supporting drug courts.
``(E) Establishing early intervention and prevention
programs for juveniles to reduce or eliminate crime.
``(F) Enhancing the adjudication process of cases involving
violent offenders, including the adjudication process of
cases involving violent juvenile offenders.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `violent offender' means a person charged
with committing a part I violent crime; and
``(B) the term `drug courts' means a program that
involves--
``(i) continuing judicial supervision over offenders with
substance abuse problems who are not violent offenders; and
``(ii) the integrated administration of other sanctions and
services, which shall include--

``(I) mandatory periodic testing for the use of controlled
substances or other addictive substances during any period of
supervised release or probation for each participant;
``(II) substance abuse treatment for each participant;
``(III) probation, or other supervised release involving
the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration
based on noncompliance with program requirements or failure
to show satisfactory progress; and
``(IV) programmatic, offender management, and aftercare
services such as relapse prevention, vocational job training,
job placement, and housing placement.

``(b) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, a unit of local government may not expend any of
the funds provided under this title to purchase, lease, rent,
or otherwise acquire--
``(1) tanks or armored personnel carriers;
``(2) fixed wing aircraft;
``(3) limousines;
``(4) real estate; or
``(5) yachts;

unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and
exigent circumstances exist that make the use of funds for
such purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety
and good order in such unit of local government.
``(c) Timing of Payments.--The Director shall pay each unit
of local government that has submitted an application under
this title not later than--
``(1) 90 days after the date that the amount is available,
or
``(2) the first day of the payment period if the unit of
local government has provided the Director with the
assurances required by section 103(d),

whichever is later.
``(d) Adjustments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director
shall adjust a payment under this title to a unit of local
government to the extent that a prior payment to the unit of
local government was more or less than the amount required to
be paid.
``(2) Considerations.--The Director may increase or
decrease under this subsection a payment to a unit of local
government only if the Director determines the need for the
increase or decrease, or if the unit requests the increase or
decrease, not later than 1 year after the end of the payment
period for which a payment was made.
``(e) Reservation for Adjustment.--The Director may reserve
a percentage of not more than 2 percent of the amount under
this section for a payment period for all units of local
government in a State if the Director considers the reserve
is necessary to ensure the availability of sufficient amounts
to pay adjustments after the final allocation of amounts
among the units of local government in the State.
``(f) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
``(1) Repayment required.--A unit of local government shall
repay to the Director, by not later than 27 months after
receipt of funds from the Director, any amount that is--
``(A) paid to the unit from amounts appropriated under the
authority of this section; and
``(B) not expended by the unit within 2 years after receipt
of such funds from the Director.
``(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Director shall reduce payment
in future payment periods accordingly.
``(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the
Director as repayments under this subsection shall be
deposited in a designated fund for future payments to units
of local government.
``(g) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available
under this title to units of local government shall not be
used to supplant State or local funds, but shall be used to
increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence of
funds made available under this title, be made available from
State or local sources.

``SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title--
``(1) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 2.5 percent of
the amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)
for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000 shall be
available to the Director for administrative costs to carry
out the purposes of this title. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.
``(c) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available
until expended.

``SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT.

``(a) In General.--The Director shall issue regulations
establishing procedures under which a unit of local
government is required to provide notice to the Director
regarding the proposed use of funds made available under this
title.
``(b) Program Review.--The Director shall establish a
process for the ongoing evaluation of projects developed with
funds made available under this title.
``(c) General Requirements for Qualification.--A unit of
local government qualifies for a payment under this title for
a payment period only if the unit of local government submits
an application to the Director and establishes, to the
satisfaction of the Director, that--
``(1) the unit of local government has established a local
advisory board that--
``(A) includes, but is not limited to, a representative
from--
``(i) the local police department or local sheriff's
department;
``(ii) the local prosecutor's office;
``(iii) the local court system;
``(iv) the local public school system; and
``(v) a local nonprofit, educational, religious, or
community group active in crime prevention or drug use
prevention or treatment;
``(B) has reviewed the application; and
``(C) is designated to make nonbinding recommendations to
the unit of local government for the use of funds received
under this title;
[[Page H1640]] ``(2) the chief executive officer of the
State has had not less than 45 days to review and comment on
the application prior to submission to the Director;
``(3) the unit of local government will establish a trust
fund in which the government will deposit all payments
received under this title;
``(4) the unit of local government will use amounts in the
trust fund (including interest) during a period not to exceed
2 years from the date the first grant payment is made to the
unit of local government;
``(5) the unit of local government will expend the payments
received in accordance with the laws and procedures that are
applicable to the expenditure of revenues of the unit of
local government;
``(6) the unit of local government will use accounting,
audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to guidelines which
shall be prescribed by the Director after consultation with
the Comptroller General and as applicable, amounts received
under this title shall be audited in compliance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984;
``(7) after reasonable notice from the Director or the
Comptroller General to the unit of local government, the unit
of local government will make available to the Director and
the Comptroller General, with the right to inspect, records
that the Director reasonably requires to review compliance
with this title or that the Comptroller General reasonably
requires to review compliance and operation;
``(8) a designated official of the unit of local government
shall make reports the Director reasonably requires, in
addition to the annual reports required under this title; and
``(9) the unit of local government will spend the funds
made available under this title only for the purposes set
forth in section 101(a)(2).
``(d) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--If the Director determines that a unit
of local government has not complied substantially with the
requirements or regulations prescribed under subsections (a)
and (c), the Director shall notify the unit of local
government that if the unit of local government does not take
corrective action within 60 days of such notice, the Director
will withhold additional payments to the unit of local
government for the current and future payment periods until
the Director is satisfied that the unit of local government--
``(A) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
``(B) will comply with the requirements and regulations
prescribed under subsections (a) and (c).
``(2) Notice.--Before giving notice under paragraph (1),
the Director shall give the chief executive officer of the
unit of local government reasonable notice and an opportunity
for comment.
``SEC. 104. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

``(a) State Set-aside.--
``(1) In general.--Of the total amounts appropriated for
this title for each payment period, the Director shall
allocate for units of local government in each State an
amount that bears the same ratio to such total as the average
annual number of part 1 violent crimes reported by such State
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most recent
calendar years for which such data is available, bears to the
number of part 1 violent crimes reported by all States to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation for such years.
``(2) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall receive not
less than .25 percent of the total amounts appropriated under
section 102 under this subsection for each payment period.
``(3) Proportional reduction.--If amounts available to
carry out paragraph (2) for any payment period are
insufficient to pay in full the total payment that any State
is otherwise eligible to receive under paragraph (1) for such
period, then the Director shall reduce payments under
paragraph (1) for such payment period to the extent of such
insufficiency. Reductions under the preceding sentence shall
be allocated among the States (other than States whose
payment is determined under paragraph (2)) in the same
proportions as amounts would be allocated under paragraph (1)
without regard to paragraph (2).
``(b) Local Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--From the amount reserved for each State
under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate--
``(A) among reporting units of local government the
reporting units' share of such reserved amount, and
``(B) among nonreporting units of local government the
nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount.
``(2) Amounts.--
``(A) The reporting units' share of the reserved amount is
the amount equal to the product of such reserved amount
multiplied by the percentage which the population living in
reporting units of local government in the State bears to the
population of all units of local government in the State.
``(B) The nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount
is the reserved amount reduced by the reporting units' share
of the reserved amount.
``(3) Allocation to each reporting unit.--From the
reporting units' share of the reserved amount for each State
under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate to each
reporting unit of local government an amount which bears the
same ratio to such share as the average annual number of part
1 violent crimes reported by such unit to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for
which such data is available bears to the number of part 1
violent crimes reported by all units of local government in
the State in which the unit is located to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for such years.
``(4) Allocation to each nonreporting unit.--From the
nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount for each
State under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate to
each nonreporting unit of local government an amount which
bears the same ratio to such share as the average number of
part 1 violent crimes of like governmental units in the same
population class as such unit bears to the average annual
imputed number of part 1 violent crimes of all
nonreporting units in the State for the 3 most recent
calendar years.
``(5) Limitation on allocations.--A unit of local
government shall not receive an allocation which exceeds 100
percent of such unit's expenditures on law enforcement
services as reported by the Bureau of the Census for the most
recent fiscal year. Any amount in excess of 100 percent of
such unit's expenditures on law enforcement services shall be
distributed proportionally among units of local government
whose allocation does not exceed 100 percent of expenditures
on law enforcement services.
``(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) The term `reporting unit of local government' means
any unit of local government that reported part 1 violent
crimes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most
recent calendar years for which such data is available.
``(B) The term `nonreporting unit of local government'
means any unit of local government which is not a reporting
unit of local government.
``(C)(i) The term `like governmental units' means any like
unit of local government as defined by the Secretary of
Commerce for general statistical purposes, and means--
``(I) all counties are treated as like governmental units;
``(II) all cities are treated as like governmental units;
``(III) all townships are treated as like governmental
units.
``(ii) Similar rules shall apply to other types of
governmental units.
``(D) The term `same population class' means a like unit
within the same population category as another like unit with
the categories determined as follows:
``(i) 0 through 9,999.
``(ii) 10,000 through 49,999.
``(iii) 50,000 through 149,999.
``(iv) 150,000 through 299,999.
``(v) 300,000 or more.
``(7) Local governments with allocations of less than
$10,000.--If under paragraph (3) or (4) a unit of local
government is allotted less than $10,000 for the payment
period, the amount allotted shall be transferred to the chief
executive officer of the State who shall distribute such
funds among units of local government whose allotment is less
than such amount in a manner which reduces crime and improves
public safety.
``(8) Special rules.--
``(A) If a unit of local government in a State that has
been incorporated since the date of the collection of the
data used by the Director in making allocations pursuant to
this section, such unit shall be treated as a nonreporting
unit of local government for purposes of this subsection.
``(B) If a unit of local government in the State has been
annexed since the date of the collection of the data used by
the Director in making allocations pursuant to this section,
the Director shall pay the amount that would have been
allocated to such unit of local government to the unit of
local government that annexed it.
``(c) Unavailability of Information.--For purposes of this
section, if data regarding part 1 violent crimes in any State
for the 3 most recent calendar years is unavailable or
substantially inaccurate, the Director shall utilize the best
available comparable data regarding the number of violent
crimes for such years for such State for the purposes of
allocation of any funds under this title.

``SEC. 105. UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR.

``Funds or a portion of funds allocated under this title
may be utilized to contract with private, nonprofit entities
or community-based organizations to carry out the purposes
specified under section 101(a)(2).

``SEC. 106. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

``(a) In General.--A unit of local government expending
payments under this title shall hold not less than 1 public
hearing on the proposed use of the payment from the Director
in relation to its entire budget.
``(b) Views.--At the hearing, persons shall be given an
opportunity to provide written and oral views to the unit of
local government authority responsible for enacting the
budget and to ask questions about the entire budget and the
relation of the payment from the Director to the entire
budget.
``(c) Time and Place.--The unit of local government shall
hold the hearing at a time and place that allows and
encourages public attendance and participation.

``SEC. 107. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

``The administrative provisions of part H of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, shall apply to
this title and for purposes of this section any reference in
such provisions to title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall be deemed to be a reference to
this title.
``SEC. 108. DEFINITIONS.

``For the purposes of this title:
``(1) The term `unit of local government' means--
``(A) a county, township, city, or political subdivision of
a county, township, or city, that is a unit of local
government as determined by the Secretary of Commerce for
general statistical purposes; and
``(B) the District of Columbia and the recognized governing
body of an Indian tribe or Alaskan Native village that
carries out substantial governmental duties and powers.
[[Page H1641]] ``(2) The term `payment period' means each
1-year period beginning on October 1 of any year in which a
grant under this title is awarded.
``(3) The term `State' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands, except that American Samoa, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be considered as 1
State and that, for purposes of section 104(a), 33 percent of
the amounts allocated shall be allocated to American Samoa,
50 percent to Guam, and 17 percent to the Northern Mariana
Islands.
``(4) The term `juvenile' means an individual who is 17
years of age or younger.
``(5) The term `part 1 violent crimes' means murder and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.
``(6) The term `Director' means the Director of the Bureau
of Justice Assistance.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 is repealed effective on September 30, 1995.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), any
funds that remain available to an applicant under part Q of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 shall be used in accordance with such part as in effect
on the day preceding the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act,
section 1001(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Q,''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (11).

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Ounce of Prevention Council.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle A of title III of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(2) Funding.--Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(1), any funds that remain available to an applicant under
subtitle A of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 shall be used in accordance with such
subtitle as in effect on the day preceding the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Local Crime Prevention Block Grant Program.--Subtitle B
of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is repealed.
(c) Model Intensive Block Grant Programs.--Subtitle C of
title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is repealed.
(d) Family and Community Endeavor Schools Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle D of title III of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(2) Funding.--Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(1), any funds that remain available to an applicant under
subtitle D of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 shall be used in accordance such
subtitle as in effect on the day preceding the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth.--Subtitle
G of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(f) Police Retirement.--Subtitle H of title III of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is
repealed.
(g) Local Partnership Act.--
(1) Subtitle j.--Subtitle J of title III of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(2) Federal payments.--Chapter 67 of title 31, United
States Code is repealed.
(3) Table of chapters.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of subtitle V of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking the matter relating to chapter 67.
(4) Funding.--Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(2), any funds that remain available to an applicant under
chapter 67 of title 31, United States Code, shall be used in
accordance with such
chapter as in effect on the day preceding the date of
enactment of this Act.
(h) National Community Economic Partnership.--Subtitle K of
title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is repealed.
(i) Urban Recreation and At-Risk Youth.--
(1) Recreation.--Subtitle O of title III of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(2) Urban park and recreation recovery.--(A) Section 1004
of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 is
amended--
(i) by striking subsection (d); and
(ii) by redesignating subsections (e) through (k) as (d)
through (j), respectively.
(B) Section 1005 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 is amended by inserting ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period
at the end of paragraph (7), and by striking paragraph (8).
(C) Section 1007(b) of the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act of 1978 is amended by striking the last 2
sentences.
(D) Section 1013 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 is amended by striking ``(a) In General.--''
after ``1013'' and by striking subsection (b).
(j) Community-Based Justice Grants for Prosecutors.--
Subtitle Q of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(k) Family Unity Demonstration Project.--Subtitle S of
title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is repealed.
(l) Gang Resistance and Education Training.--(1) Subtitle X
of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A), any
funds that remain available to an applicant under subtitle X
of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 shall be used in accordance with such subtitle as
in effect on the day preceding the date of enactment of this
Act.
(m) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The matter relating to title I in the table of contents
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
is amended to read as follows:
``TITLE I--LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS

``Sec. 101. Payments to local governments.
``Sec. 102. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 103. Qualification for payment.
``Sec. 104. Allocation and distribution of funds.
``Sec. 105. Utilization of private sector.
``Sec. 106. Public participation.
``Sec. 107. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 108. Definitions.''.
(2) The table of contents of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by striking the matter
relating to subtitles A, B, C, D, G, H, J, K, O, Q, S, and X
of title III.
(3) The table of contents of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by striking the matter
relating to part Q of title I.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be considered for amendment under the 5-
minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read. Are
there any amendments to the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff: Strike subparagraph (B) of
section 101(a)(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1994, as amended by section 2 of this bill,
and insert the following:
``(B) Enhancing security measures--
``(i) in and around schools; and
``(ii) in and around any other facility or location which
is considered by the unit of local government to have a
special risk for incidents of crime.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, we take an approach in this bill that quite
obviously one can see from the general debate not everyone is in accord
with, and I strongly suspect that those Members who do not want our
approach will vote no, virtually regardless of what amendments are and
are not accepted here today.
Nevertheless, in accordance with our approach, I want to explain my
amendment. Our amendment, as has been stated a number of times, is a
block grant program to units of local government in which they can
decide the best use of their funds. That may in fact be for more
police. It may be for what we have come to call prevention programs. It
may be for some combination of each. Our bill would leave that to the
discretion of local government.
Nevertheless, we do in H.R. 728 provide several illustrations at
least of what Congress has in mind for local governments to look at.
These are not mandatory and they are not restrictive, just because we
list several areas, such as hiring of police, is not totally
restrictive on how local government should in fact use the funds. But
it shows at least what Congress is considering. We then at that point
defer to their discretion as local government officials elected
essentially by the same constituencies that we have and that sent us
here.
More particularly, Mr. Chairman, the bill states that the funds can
be used, by way of illustration again, for the purpose of enhancing
security, and the bill mentions as an illustration enhancing security
of schools.
What I would do in this amendment is to keep the illustration of
enhancing security at schools. I doubt that there is any State,
probably no local government that does not have some problem in
security somewhere in its schools. However, I would add in addition to
that, and again we are illustrating here, units of local government can
already use these funds to enhance security, they can already use it to
enhance security at schools and anywhere else, but just to make that
fact clear, to make clear that schools are not all-encompassing and
that nothing is left out, I would add the words that the local
governments could use the funds
[[Page H1642]] to enhance security at schools and in and around any
other facility or location which is considered by the unit of local
government to have a special risk for incidents of crime.
We had a debate in the Committee on the Judiciary about the fact that
some communities have a special incidence of crime at reproductive
clinics.

{time} 1640

I want to say that I helped cosponsor and helped pass the Federal law
we passed which made it a crime to use violence and otherwise illegally
interfere with people's access to reproductive clinics.
That is indeed one problem that is faced in certain communities, but
not all communities. In Albuquerque, NM, which I have the privilege of
representing, in the last Christmas season holidays the Albuquerque
police department put a substation in the parking lot of the largest
shopping center. As we might expect, crime went down in that shopping
center dramatically. It had been rather high up until then with
attacks, shoplifting, break-ins and so forth. The subject is without
limit.
There could be any number of special areas, locations, facilities
that a unit of the local government feels needs enhanced security and
my amendment would illustrate this could be used by the local
government in any such place whether it is a reproductive clinic, a
mall, a school, a neighborhood, any other place that the unit of local
government feels has a special risk of being subject to crime.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Mexico would just stay a
minute I would like to ask him a couple of questions about his
amendment, if I may. As I read the bill, and correct me if I am wrong,
the only limitations actually on any unit of local government is on
line 21, page 2 of the bill where it says for reducing crime and
improving public safety. Is there any other limitation?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there are any other
limitations as set out in the bill.
Mr. VOLKMER. After that it says including but not limited to.
Included but not limited to is everything on page 3 where the gentleman
is amending, is that correct?
Mr. SCHIFF. The gentleman is again correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Yours is a limitation of the language on page 3; it is
not a limiting amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentleman will yield further, and I appreciate the
gentleman yielding, all of the examples given in the bill as drafted
are illustrations. The operative language, as the gentleman from
Missouri pointed out a little bit earlier, is that the grants can be
used for these ideas but not limited to these ideas.
I am merely in my amendment expanding the illustrations that we gave
in terms of enhancing security, because it was suggested in the
Committee on the Judiciary that a local government could not use such
funds to enhance security at areas other than schools and particularly
at reproductive clinics, and my amendment is intended simply to make
clear by way of illustration that wherever a unit of government has a
need for enhanced security they can provide it. I yield back to the
gentleman.
Mr. VOLKMER. What the gentleman is saying to me and making clear is
under the bill as it is written, if a unit of the local government
feels it is necessary to have policemen around abortion clinics they
can have all of the police around the abortion clinics that the Federal
Government will fund them under this.
Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is exactly
correct. They can use police to enhance security wherever they feel
there is a special need to enhance security. My amendment is not
absolutely authorization, it is an illustration.
Mr. VOLKMER. If they feel and the Attorney General would feel it is
for reducing crime and improving public safety, that is the limitation.
It does not make any difference what the gentleman's amendment says.
Mr. SCHIFF. Basically the gentleman is correct in that my amendment
is an illustration and the local governments are free to make this
choice. There were some who felt that was not clear enough, which is
the reason for my amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman's amendment is to make it clear we can use
moneys from these funds to have people that are picketing at abortion
clinics go to jail.
Mr. SCHIFF. It could be used to help local law enforcement identify
wherever they felt that a special incidence of crime, that is up to
them to decide in their communities.
Mr. VOLKMER. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is telling me,
this bill is really going to restrict pro-life people from picketing
abortion clinics, and I am glad to hear about that.
One other thing that I noticed in here is that I remember I did not
vote for that crime bill last time, I think the gentleman might
remember that. I thought it was pretty lousy. In fact, I put a bill in
this morning to repeal the whole thing and start brand new, because I
think yours is lousy too and you do not do much better.
We had a big discussion on the same floor of the same House last
August, ranting and raving about midnight basketball. I find midnight
basketball and I find morning and afternoon and evening basketball in
here. You want basketball, you name it, you can have it any time you
want it. It is not even limited to midnight. Any kind of basketball, as
long as local units of government feel it is necessary to reduce crime
and improve public safety. That is what I find in this, and I find a
lot of other things.
It is very interesting, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde] because earlier on during debate I was over in my office and
doing some work around the office, and I listened to him and how he
believes so strongly in local government and how great local government
is; and local government, I agree, sometimes it is and sometimes it is
not.
Mr. HYDE. Just like Washington.
Mr. VOLKMER. I am going to yield in a minute.
I remember the gentleman was here and I was here when we found out
all of these things about LEAA and we were not happy. Then I find in
this bill the local government may not be quite, may not just be quite
the local government that the gentleman told us because right in here
in the bill it says we do not want them buying tanks or armored
personnel carriers, fixed-wing aircraft, limousines, real estate.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I find that and that tells me the
gentleman does not trust local government, because surely his local
government the way he described it in general debate would never do
this.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I hope the gentleman knows I supported LEAA. I voted for
it. I had some concerns and they were good concerns because the LEAA
was mismanaged. We correct that in our bill, but I supported LEAA. Did
the gentleman know that? I do not think he did or he would not have
brought it up.
Mr. VOLKMER. I do not think I would have supported something that
even President Reagan, this House, and our Senate at that time found
there was such gross abuses in by local units of government, using it
for things it should not have been used for.
Mr. HYDE. We correct that here. We have ways of correcting that. We
learned from LEAA, and we are building on that experience.
But would the gentleman yield on the Schiff amendment?
Mr. VOLKMER. Sure. I am glad to yield on any amendment.
Mr. HYDE. The gentleman knows how I feel about abortion and am very
much opposed to killing unborn children. But I suggest to the gentleman
that under the block grant concept wherever the public safety is at
risk, and this is in the judgment of the local officials, they are
permitted to employ policemen or security anywhere in
[[Page H1643]] their community where they think the public safety is at
risk.
Now this could be around abortion clinics, and I know the gentleman
feels that is picking on the pro-life moment. I regret that. I do not
want to pick on the pro-life movement, but if safety is jeopardized,
then it seems to me the local community authorities have the right and
ought to have the right to have policemen there protecting the public
safety, and I do not see that as a violation of my commitment nor the
gentleman's commitment to the pro-life cause.
Mr. VOLKMER. If I still have time remaining, I would just like to
comment to the gentleman that a local unit of government, if it sees
fit under this bill, can make a specific proposal to the Attorney
General's office, to the Department of Justice, specifically asking for
dollars to employ people in order to protect clinics because there are
too many picketers around the clinics and proposals can come in for
that specific purpose and be studied for that specific purpose under
this bill the way it is written.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Only if in their judgment the public safety is endangered.
Surely the gentleman does not want the public safety endangered by any
group that is picketing.
Mr. VOLKMER. I do not want the public safety, but I think a lot of
times the people that are out there picketing are not endangering
anybody. We have had this discussion; I thought we were on the same
side.
Mr. HYDE. We are on the same side. We are on the same side. But
nobody has the right to violate and create a threat to public safety.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
again has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I think I have tried to point out some of
the things that are severely wrong with this bill, and I think it goes
too broad, permits any and every thing that you can use your
imagination for if you are a member of local government. And one thing
it does not do, it does not let the chief of police in my local town
make a decision about it. It lets all of the other people make that
decision. It does not let my local sheriff decide, it lets other people
make that decision.
It depends on who can persuade that unit of local government what
they best need the money for. And if I remember, I doubt if there are
very many communities to say that have all kinds of money laying
around, and they do not need some money for a lot of things and they
are the ones that are going to decide what their priorities are.

{time} 1650

And if that priority is to have some more police or security at
abortion clinics, then that is what they will make it for.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes legislative history is more interesting than
other times. This particular amendment from my friend, and the
gentleman from New Mexico, has such an interesting history that I feel
compelled to share it with my colleagues, because I think it is a nice
effort but ultimately an unsuccessful one, and I believe it will have
to be improved upon tomorrow by our colleague from Colorado.
Let use even begin the education process now, because one of the
major issues we now have before us is whether or not the constitutional
right of women to get abortions, if they choose, will, in fact, be
fully protected. That is under attack, it seems to me, with regard to
the nomination of Dr. Foster, but there is also a collateral attack
here in the House. What we have in this amendment is basically an
effort to deflect our defense.
The bill came before us in the Committee on the Judiciary with the
language that the gentleman from New Mexico has described, which says,
under this bill, local governments can do pretty much what they think
necessary for law enforcement. But that is not all it said. If that was
all it said, I suppose that would have been the end of it. But it went
on to give some illustrations. It went on to say in language of the
legislation, including but not limited to, and it listed some things in
the bill that the Republicans brought forward. Presumably these were
favored programs, programs they wanted to highlight. They were not just
wasting words. They were not legislatively binding on the local
communities, but they felt it was important to highlight certain
things, and then when we got to committee, two Republican members for
the committee felt that even further highlighting was necessary.
The gentleman from New Mexico himself offered one regarding violence.
I thought it was an excellent one. I thought it was a very good idea to
highlight that these could be used for violence against women and
domestic violence. The gentleman from North Carolina, a former police
official, said well, wait a minute, some people think we are anti-drug
courts; drug courts are a good idea, and I want to show that drug
courts are possible under this. we thought both amendments were a good
idea. We supported them. Then
the gentlewoman from Colorado said,

Look, we have a serious problem in this country with deadly
violence being used against people who are trying to provide
abortion or other health services for women, and we want to
highlight that.

By the exact same logic that said you highlight drug courts and you
highlight domestic violence and other things that were in the bill, we
are afraid in some communities people will not understand that you can
use these to protect clinics. This is a matter of great sensitivity to
my district where two young women were killed in the town of Brookline
only recently for doing nothing other than trying to provide these
services. So the gentlewoman from Colorado, quite sensibly, said,
``This is what we should do.''
It seems to me from my distance some uncertainty from the other side
of the aisle as to how they should respond. The gentlewoman from
Colorado was simply following their lead and said, ``This is important.
Let us not have any confusion at the local level. Let us highlight
it.'' She accepted an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
to her amendment. But the chairman of the committee said, ``This is a
bad idea.'' He did not want you to appear to be sanctioning in some way
what goes on at these clinics. He opposed it. It became clear the
gentlewoman from Colorado would bring it up on the floor.
So my friends on the other side have a bit of a dilemma, because they
are not men and women who like violence. They are men and women
conscientiously opposed to it. Some of them had a problem appearing too
specifically to be defending the right of these reproductive clinics to
get safety. so what has emerged but the amendment from the gentleman
from New Mexico. It was not in the original Republican bill. It was not
presented when the gentleman had other amendments in the committee. It
is proposed to try to deflect the gentlewoman from Colorado. I think it
is a perfectly harmless amendment and have no objection to it. People
should understand our friend from Colorado is harder to deflect than
they may have thought. I am surprised they do not realize that.
Many of us still believe, given the violence that has been very
specifically directed at abortion providers on an interstate basis,
given the controversial nature of that protection unfortunately in some
communities, it is still important to make it clear to people beyond
doubt that police overtime and other facilities can be used under this
bill to protect reproductive clinics and, therefore, I welcome the
gentleman from New Mexico, and I appreciate his desire to shield some
of his colleagues from having to take a tough vote.
I have to say it does not seem to me to work. I think that having
adopted this amendment, it will still be relevant to have the amendment
of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his recollection of the
processes by which this amendment came to the floor. What this could be
called is the big duck amendment, because
[[Page H1644]] what we are going to try to do now is get around----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Conyers and by unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I further yield to the
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking minority member.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] was
clearly planning to offer an amendment that would specify that funds
may be used to protect reproductive health clinics which have been
targeted for violence lately around the country. This amendment appears
to be a roundabout way of addressing that concern and a way for
Republican Members to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on whether to
provide special protection for our abortion clinics.
And it will not work, because it fails to specify that Congress
recognizes the need to protect the reproductive health centers. That is
what is in trouble now.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say, reclaiming my time, we are
talking not just about public buildings. We are talking about some
facilities that might be private. In committee, the gentleman from
Florida said, ``Well, wait a minute, you do not want to give public
funds to private facilities to buy equipment with.'' We said, ``That is
right.'' The gentlewoman accommodated that. It might be appropriate,
however, to lend certain facilities to certain locations for certain
time.
So this does not obviate the need to point it out. When you begin to
look at the examples, if there is an example anywhere of violence in
this country which is fairly widespread sadly, it is violence aimed at
these clinics, and therefore, it is certainly, if they are going to
single things out, something that ought to be singled out.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I hope the gentlewoman will continue to offer the same
provision she offered in the committee, because we need to have it
clearly discussed and debated on the floor.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do think the gentlewoman from Colorado
is to be congratulated, because she got us started early. I do think
that absent the gentlewoman from Colorado our friend from New Mexico
would not have been up with the first amendment, and I thank our friend
from Colorado for getting into this so early. As I said, I understand
the motivation. I understand the notion it would be nice to avoid the
issue, but I think the question of safety for reproductive clinics is
too important to be folded into a kind of parliamentary sidestep.
Therefore, while I will vote for this, I will also vote with the
gentlewoman tomorrow.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his recollection
and let me thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his amendment.
But there are some questions that I have about the gentleman's
amendment that I would like some clarifications on. The amendment I was
planning to offer would allow Congress, or would allow local
authorities, to pay overtime for law enforcement officers in protecting
women's reproductive health care clinics.
Do you feel your amendment is broad enough to include that, the
overtime issue?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. In my opinion, my amendment, well, once again, I just
have to back up to say again, we are talking about illustrations here.
I think the operative authorization language is already there, and I
think that authorization language would allow the payment of overtime
for police officers to provide security at reproductive clinics if the
unit of local government thought that was necessary.
I would just add, at least as an illustration, we are pointing out to
the unit of local government they can provide security many other
places.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. So then I kind of hear that as the answer is ``no.''
Let me say the one thing I worry about the gentleman's amendment not
being inclusive enough also on is that the gentleman says in and around
any facility or location considered by the unit of local government to
have a special risk. Now, what I was trying to do in my amendment is
say that lots of localities have been hesitant to enforce this right of
women to have access to a health care clinic, and I think that that
might be the big duck in which local communities could duck out from
under this. They could say, ``Well, we do not consider it dangerous,''
because that is really the qualifier on it.
What I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico is, if this
would be possible, because I think he is trying hard, and I appreciate
what he is trying to do. What if we were to offer an amendment to the
gentleman's amendment, first, you would have (i), ``in and around
schools,'' which has no qualifiers in front of it.
{time} 1700

What if you then had (ii), ``in and around women's reproductive
health clinics,'' again with no qualifiers, like schools, and then you
could do other facilities that have qualifications. We could draft that
and make that an amendment to the gentleman's amendment. I think that
would be clearer on point because the issue here being one of a
constitutional right that we think has a much higher Federal level of
calling than just random crime. I think that would then give this a
little more status, and we would believe then it would be a little
clearer to the communities that this is indeed what Congress intended
by this amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I just have to say, as an aside, and as a supporter of the law that
passed in the last Congress making it a Federal offense to commit
violence, to prevent people from entering reproductive clinics, not
simply for picketing them, as was referred to by a previous speaker,
perhaps is a matter for another hearing. The prosecutions with which I
am familiar that the Federal Justice Department has brought under that
act appear to me to be duplications of prosecutions brought under State
law.
So the representations that the States are not enforcing the law,
which is the representation I accepted when I supported that act, I
would like examined perhaps at a hearing. I mention that because of the
gentlewoman bringing up the subject.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If I may reclaim my time, I do not think we are
communicating. What I am saying is clearly what I want to do is send a
strong message from this Congress to local officials that with this
money comes the ability for them to then have no excuses for protecting
women's constitutional rights because we spoke before on that very
clearly when we passed the prior bill.
Now, there may be some ancillary issues. I understand what the
gentleman is saying. But I do not think that message gets through with
the gentleman's amendment, because he has that qualifier on it. That is
why I am saying could he accept a substitute that would specifically
list women's reproductive health facilities? Because then I think it is
standing there clearly, saying we will not accept excuses to localities
who get money and then do not use it.
Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentlewoman would yield further, I made the point
at the point the gentlewoman reclaimed her time, just in response to
the lady's point that there are localities that are reluctant to
protect reproductive clinics, that is the representation on which I
voted to make it a Federal offense to use violence to interfere with
entrance to reproductive clinics.
I am merely pointing out----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Schiff and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Schroeder
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
[[Page H1645]] Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield further to the gentleman from
New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say with respect to that
issue that the gentlewoman has raised, I have not seen the Federal
Justice Department prosecute cases primarily where local government or
State government has not prosecuted. I have seen duplication of
prosecution, the same individual prosecuted twice. I am again saying
that that may be a matter of further inquiry.
Also I wanted to respond with respect to the gentlewoman's suggested
amendment, I would oppose the additional amendment for this reason: As
we discussed the matter in the Committee on the Judiciary, there was
universal agreement, as I understand it, that in every State there are
locations where schools have a security problem. There was no move by
either side of the aisle to remove, as an illustration, enhancing
security at schools. I feel past that point, that different localities
have different threats to their security and different needs of law
enforcement.
I think in a number of localities the gentlewoman's point is quite
correct, there is a threat of violence at reproductive clinics. I do
not think that has been shown to be all over the Nation.
I make it as clear as I can, in terms of Congress' intent, that my
illustration even if it were operative, which it is not, would allow
the communities to provide additional security support at reproductive
clinics or anywhere else in their communities they felt it was needed.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Reclaiming my time, I feel bad that we cannot get
agreement to add it here as freestanding, because at that point I think
we can prevent having an amendment later on.
The reason I feel that way is the gentleman from New Mexico and I
seem to be agreeing that the reason we got into this in the clinic
violence bill last year was that we were afraid localities were not
doing their job in some places. Now, the gentleman feels like maybe
there is duplication. I do not think that is the issue.
The issue is: Are we putting a qualifier on this so that localities
can continue to refuse?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that many, many Americans would
not have the benefit of having been on this floor when we had this
debate. There would be uncertainty. There would be localities----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and by unanimous consent,
Mrs. Schroeder was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I do yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman again for
yielding.
The point is there will be differences about how to spend this money
locally.
Local governments are not monolithic. Some people will say, ``Well,
they list this and they list that, they list schools, they do not list
the clinics. It is disfavored. It is not one of the things that they
wanted us to do.''
We understand it is all optional locally, but if you did not think
there was any point in listing things, you would not have listed things
in your bill. You would not have added amendments listing things in
committee.
We believe, to resolve any dispute because we know protecting
reproductive clinics is an issue that is debated at local levels,
whether you should or should not, unfortunately; therefore, since it is
likely to be debatable, we think for you to have listed in your bill
some issues and left this one out specifically by name would be a
mistake. That is why, in addition to this, we think the gentlewoman's
amendment would be necessary.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for continuing to yield.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank], again we are dealing with illustrative language. I was
sensitive to the argument made in the Committee on the Judiciary that
even where you were proceeding with illustrations, there could, by
omission, be an implication that something is not intended by Congress.
The amendment I am offering is as all-encompassing as I can make it,
that the local government can select any location or facility where
they think they have a security need to enhance security with a block
grant under this bill.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Reclaiming my time, that is precisely why I do not
think the gentleman is getting where he wants to go without
specifically listing health care clinics, because he does say, when it
comes to any other facility, it is qualified ``as the local community's
saying it is needed.'' And that qualification, as far as I am
concerned, is the qualification that kills it and does not send the
clear, resonating message that we think Federal funds should go to
protect Federal constitutional rights.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, if this did not separately say schools, there might be
an argument. But it separately says schools and a lot of other things.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, we are going to revisit this debate when the
gentlewoman offers her amendment. So we are in for a bit of a debate
here.
Just in passing, I must say, if it were not so tragic, it would be
amusing. The wordsmiths on the other side use euphemisms like
reproductive rights when they are talking about abortion. Why do they
not call it abortion? Let us be intellectually honest. Or is there
something unpleasant about that word? There is nothing reproductive
about killing an unborn child. The gentlewoman wants to elevate
reproductive health clinics, anything but what she really means, which
is abortion clinics, or abortion mills. She wants to elevate that to a
very special place where the bill, the block grant program, will
specify they get special protection.
Now, I am not against abortion clinics getting protection by the
police if they reasonably expect violence or a threat to safety. I say
that clearly.
The gentleman from Missouri may not agree with me, but threats to
safety; it is the business of government to protect people from threats
to safety. So I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is elevating abortion clinics to a special
status over other places where an awful lot of killing really goes on.
In 1993 there were 1,946 people killed in New York. In the great
District of Columbia there were 454 murders. In Chicago, my city, there
were 845 murders. How many cab drivers have been murdered in their
cabs?
We cannot specify every place, every location, every convenience
store, every liquor store, every currency exchange that is going to be
threatened by robbery and people with guns that are going to kill
people. Communities where there are gangs that are armed; you cannot
spell it all out, especially in the block grant program.

{time} 1710

I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts, when we start eroding
the notion that this is within the call--it is the call of the local
government, by suggesting drug courts and suggesting violence against
women, we have ourselves eroded the concept of the block grant. I could
not agree more; logic forces me to do that. However, because we did it
two times does not mean we need to do it 20 times.
Now what we are doing here with the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is we are broadening the concept
that wherever the public safety is threatened, and that includes
abortion clinics, if
[[Page H1646]] the gentlewoman does not blanch at the term--it includes
that, but to specify them gives them a status that I am, frankly,
unwilling to yield, and that is where I come down.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. It will be very brief because, as my colleague knows, I
am just amazed about the support for this bill in general because of
what it does do as far as abortion clinics, and as my colleague knows,
we have people out there that are picketing, taking their time, their
youth, their adults, their grandfathers, their grandmothers, and
everything. They are trying to save unborn babies. That is where the
crime is. I say to my colleague, ``That's what's happening, and the way
I read this bill, you're just going to help it happen.''
Mr. HYDE. Does the gentleman say they are entitled to freedom of
speech?
Mr. VOLKMER. I say they are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom
to walk down there, and what I am afraid of is that in the name in some
localities they will get these Federal funds, and they will put people
down there so they cannot do that----
Mr. HYDE. I appreciate what the gentleman says, and indeed the
gentleman and I are on the same side.
I just want to say the reason the gentlewoman's subsequent amendment
is flawed is it continues to erode the notion of block grants, which is
that the call for where these policemen should go and with what
equipment shall be made by the unit of local government, not us here in
Washington. It is that simple.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. May I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado and then to
the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. First of all, let me explain to the gentleman from
Illinois why these are called reproductive health care centers.
Mr. HYDE. Please do.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is because most women of reproductive age get
their entire health care through their reproductive years through these
clinics.
Mr. HYDE. If they just performed abortion, the gentlewoman would not
want them protected?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am not afraid to say the word ``abortion.'' But I
must tell the gentleman, if you look at most of these clinics----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has
expired.
(On request of Mrs. Schroeder and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hyde was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I say to the gentleman, if you look at these clinics,
you will find that it is a very, very small percentage of what people
are doing. Basically, they're going for family planning information,
for mammograms, for breast checks, for Pap smears, for the whole range
of services, and many even extend services to the children.
Mr. HYDE. And 1\1/2\ million abortions a year in this country.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. But their problem is that what has happened is, as
the gentleman knows, is that this is a constitutionally protected
right, but localities have been under seige because of people going
beyond just passive--no one has any problem with free speech, but they
are going on with a very aggressive type approach to it, and that is
why I feel, if we do not put clinics in there free standing, then it
will not override communities who were refusing to protect them, and I
think Federal money ought to go for federally constitutional rights. I
think that is a very important----
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I think under the
block grant concept it ought to be up to local government. If they want
to send police there, they ought to send them, and, if they do not,
they ought not, and we should not tell them how to deploy their
policemen.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like it to be made clear that the debate going
on now is whether the authority to send in protection should reside at
the local level or not, and in the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Mexico it resides at the local level.
In the discussion with the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder], she does not want it to reside, the decision of whether
police are to be provided or not for these clinics--she wants it to be
specifically in this legislation that reproductive health centers shall
be protected. Why? Because that is the focus of where the violence is
occurring.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. What
we do not want is localities to be able to use the resource scarce rule
to protect women from a federally--from a Federal constitutional right,
and if they are getting resources from the Federal Government, but then
refusing to protect the Federal taxpayers, half of whom are women, and
all of them pay exactly the same amount men do, I do not want them to
be able to use some other criteria. So that is why I think it very
important it be free standing rather than it be modified.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. As soon as I say this:
It has been made clear by the gentleman from Illinois that we are
trying to duck whether there will be a direct authority to protect
these clinics in this crime bill or whether it will be left in some
discretionary pool with a lot of other problems in which they may or
may be included.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Illinois is
one of the most intellectually honest people here, and he has just made
clear why so many of us will be supporting the gentlewoman's amendment
tomorrow. He is conscientiously, and firmly, and on principle opposed
congresses legalized abortion, and he says he does not want abortion
clinics or other reproductive clinics included in this bill by name
because it would give them a status that he does not want them to have.
Yes, I want them to have the status. The status is as entities that
are known as eligible for protection against murder and protection
against criminals. Once we begin to list some things--there are two and
a half pages of specific examples in the bill my Republican friends
brought forward--if we list some things and do not list others, we put
them--apparently the gentleman agrees--in a disfavored category.
There was not any controversy about a lot of what the police do in
this country, but there has unfortunately been controversy about
protecting Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide these
services, and at this point, having mentioned some of these things, if
after the gentleman from Illinois has been honest enough to say he is
opposed to mentioning abortion because he does not want to see them get
that status, if tomorrow the gentlewoman's amendment is voted down, it
will be correctly interpreted as one more step on the part of some
people who want de facto to take away the legal protected status of
abortion because they will have passed a bill in which some things have
been mentioned, others will have not been mentioned, and my colleagues
will have specifically repudiated, if my colleagues vote down that
amendment, protection for abortion clinics.
There is some controversy, as I said, at the local level. What we are
doing is saying this: ``We want to send a clear signal to people at the
local level, without any debate about it, that it is possible for you
to use your Federal funds this way,'' and the only reason to oppose the
gentlewomen's amendment that makes any sense is the one conscientiously
articulated by the gentleman from Illinois. He is so strongly opposed
to abortion that he does not want us to call attention to the fact that
they have this status where they are eligible for protection. That, to
me, is a reason to pass it.
Mr. CONYERS. And so, even if we accept, or if the Schiff amendment
passes, it does not change the underlying problem that has been raised
in
[[Page H1647]] committee about protecting reproductive health clinics.
We cannot get around it, my colleagues. We have got to face it. We are
the Congress. This is where the issue is going to be decided, the
rubber hits the road. There is no way we can collapse it into some
general language that will include anything and everything and then
leave it to the discretion of local officials to pick it up.
I say to my colleagues, ``This is the big duck amendment. Whether you
like it or don't, it doesn't change the problem that victims of the
violence at health clinics need protection, and I urge that we keep
this in mind as this debate moves on.''

{time} 1720

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, one that was not
printed in the Record, the technology assistance amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder:

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Add (c) Technology Assistance.--(1) The Attorney General
shall reserve 1% in FY 1996 through FY 1998 authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) for use by the National
Institute of Justice in assisting local units to identify,
select, develop, modernize and purchase new technologies for
use by law enforcement.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I think this should go fairly simply.
This is about the National Institute of Justice, which many of us feel
with this amendment we are going to be able to avoid many of the
pitfalls that we saw with LEAA. This is basically a new group that has
really started that is kind of like what the firemen have had all
along. It is a group that tests the different equipment, that can tell
you what works and what does not work. When you have got over 17,000
police entities and their average number of cops per police entity is
like 12, you know they do not have their own R&D department. When they
go to purchase stuff, the only people they are getting objective
information from is the vendor, and we all know that might be a little
slanted. Caveat emptor rings loudly.
So this is a group that has really gotten a terrific track record in
doing R&D and transferring military technology to law enforcement and
trying to get a much better deal for the taxpayer every way around.
What they have done with bulletproof vests, with fingerprinting, with
all sorts of standards, I think is long overdue. The firemen had this
ages ago.
So I think if the gentleman from Florida can accept this?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I think the gentlewoman from Colorado has worked up a
fine amendment. What I understand it would do is it sets aside 1
percent per year for the National Institute of Justice for these
purposes. That would amount to roughly $20 million a year for the life
of the bill.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is absolutely correct. There are three
people. When 17,000 entities come knocking at the doors, they are going
to need a little more help.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, while the
subcommittee has not had the opportunity to hold the kind of hearings
we would like to on the National Institute of Justice programs which
the gentlewoman has represented and several members on the committee,
including Mr. Schiff, are aware of, we want to put this in the bill
because it is the suitable place to go to set aside the money. But
after the time has passed here and we get off the floor, we are going
to hold some hearings in our subcommittee before this bill winds up
going to conference with the Senate and see what all we can learn to
help further enhance this.
For right now, I think this is a very appropriate provision, I would
like to do this, and I accept the amendment in the spirit in which it
is offered.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida,
because he has been wonderful on this, as has the gentleman from New
Mexico, a cosponsor, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. We
have a real bipartisan agreement on this one. I really appreciate the
remarks of the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the
gentlewoman for drafting this amendment. We have discussed this at
great length. We are pretty much in agreement, Mr. Chairman, that
oftentimes modern law enforcement officers are Wyatt Earp in a car.
Many of the attachments they have in terms of what they have available
to them in the way of technology have not changed for many, many
decades.
I am pleased to say it is starting to change around the country, from
simply computer access within police automobiles, to research going
into items such as smart guns, in this particular case a police officer
having a weapon that cannot be fired unless he or she, that is that
officer, is in fact holding that weapon. A large number of the police
officers shot in the line of duty across the country are shot with
their own weapons.
That technology goes even further than police officers. We could
prevent some of the tragedies that happen when children get hold of
firearms if we could simply keep applying that technology. So
advancement in this area is very necessary.
Although our side has not from the committee entertained very well
the idea of reserving and
earmarking funds for various purposes, and I strongly support the fact
that we will oppose some amendments coming later in that regard, I
think that this is very appropriate for this reason: Small police and
small sheriff departments cannot be expected to have the resources to
do all of the analysis necessary to know what technology is presently
on the shelf and available to them, and how it works and the cost and
so forth. Therefore, a centralized department, in this case the NIJ at
the Department of Justice, has been selected for that purpose.

I have to say, as the gentleman from Florida indicated, there is at
least some reservation as to whether the NIJ is the right agency to do
this right now, and that is a matter that we may have to discuss if
that amendment is accepted and the matter goes to conference with the
other body.
I want to say wholeheartedly the concept offered in this amendment is
a great improvement in the bill, and will greatly benefit law
enforcement.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both
gentlemen for their support. It is one of the ways we will be spending
the rest of the funds a lot smarter and will hopefully not repeat the
LEAA problems we had before.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think that this is an
excellent job done by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder],
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], and the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. It is really essential that we take military
technology and apply it so that we can have law enforcement and use it.
And the amount of technology, when I was chairman of the subcommittee
we explored this, is enormous. With a little bit of help, they can take
that technology and convert it.
So I think this is an excellent, excellent amendment. I am delighted
the other side will accept it. I know I have talked to the gentleman
from Florida, and our subcommittee will have hearings and go further in
terms of exploring. I have a particular interest, of course. I see my
good friend from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is in the Chamber. Rone
Laboratories, in upstate New York, is helping out here, and they are
very able to do that.
So overall this is a very, very good idea, and I hope that all
Members accept it. The technology, Mr. Chairman, is unbelievable. The
idea that a police officer might be able to just point a ray in a
certain direction and see who has
[[Page H1648]] an armed weapon on him, the ballistics tracing types of
technology, the ways of finding all these things out are just enormous,
and we ought to be using them.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York, because I did mention his leadership too. The gentleman had some
wonderful hearings. I always figure if you can get a double bang for
the people's buck, which is what you are doing with this, it is great.
Not only that, but our military is going to need that too, because they
are looking more like law enforcement officers every day. This has been
a very exciting program, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Schroeder amendment,
and I am glad to hear the conversation ongoing here between the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the author, the gentlewoman
from Colorado, and my colleague from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Currently, H.R. 728 contains no money for research and development of
law enforcement technologies, and this amendment would appropriate a
mere fraction of the block grant authorizations for 3 years to focus on
the development of technology assistance.
This is critical. Wyatt Earp would recognize much of today's police
technology, and it has been a long time since Wyatt Earp was around.
Law enforcement officers must be afforded the opportunity to take
advantage of new technologies to take that proverbial bite out of crime
and to prevent injury and alter the balance of powers criminals possess
to control America's streets. I want the good guys to have all the
technology they need on their side.
All over America we have outstanding research facilities. In my own
congressional district, Rone Laboratories, one of the premier military
laboratories anywhere in the world, with responsibility for command,
control, communications, and computer technology, is working
cooperatively with the National Institute of Justice to develop the
type of technology that our law enforcement officials can effectively
use to wage war on crime. It is an exciting concept. I applaud the
initiative and effort of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
I once again thank my colleague from New Mexico, and the chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. McCollum, for outstanding leadership in this area,
and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hyde. We want the good guys
to have what they need. All of us want to stop the bad guys, the guys
we are after. With technology advancements that make them better able
to do what they want to do, and when our guys try to get in there, they
do not have the equipment they need.
{time} 1730

There are all sorts of possibilities. One could hold something the
size of a pack of cigarettes in their hand and point it at a crowd and
be able to detect a weapon instantly. They could detect illegal
substances under special circumstances. There are all sorts of exciting
developments taking place in the marketplace out there.
The other thing that really thrills me and should thrill all of us is
the fact that we are getting such magnificent cooperation from our
military laboratories. They are reaching out. They are making available
their expertise to work in sensitive areas like this.
So I rise in the strongest possible support of this amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to give it the attention it deserves and to take
advantage of it, because it is good for America.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous support of
this amendment. The continuing episodes of violence directed against
women's reproductive health care clinics across the Nation and the
providers and patients that work at and utilize such facilities are an
outrage. We must put an end to these growing attacks once and for all.
Last year Congress passed legislation containing provisions making it
a Federal crime for a person to physically restrict or bar access to a
medical facility for the sole purpose of dissuading or stopping someone
from receiving reproductive health services. In addition, this
legislation contained provisions not only to allow women and clinics
the ability to obtain injunctions against protestors employing
blockades, but also to permit victims of attacks by blockaders to sue
for damages as a result of such brutality. However, more can and must
be done. The Schroeder amendment greatly assists in this regard.
This amendment would allow H.R. 728's local law enforcement block
grant funding to be used to improve security measures at women's
reproductive health care clinics to protect patients and providers
against violence directed at the free exercise of their constitutional
rights. This funding could be used for overtime pay for law enforcement
officers, security assessments, and the purchase of materials, such as
bulletproof glass, to enhance the physical safety of clinics.
Mr. Chairman, the most recent shootings in Massachusetts and Virginia
accentuate the urgent need for action to further protect the safety and
privacy of all individuals who support a woman's constitutional right
to choose. We must continue to grant all levels of government the
necessary authority to act when abortion protestors go beyond the
legitimate exercise of their opinions to acts of terrorism and violence
against those who have made different decisions.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. hyde

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: On page 9, strike lines 3
through 8, and insert the following
``(v) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not
more than 3 percent of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) for each of the fiscal
years 1996 through 2000 shall be available to the Attorney
General for studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency
of the provision of this title, and assuring compliance with
the provisions of this title and for administrative costs to
carry out the purposes of this title. The Attorney General
shall establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring
the activities of grant recipients. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.''

Mr. HYDE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the question of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] and myself. We both came up with
almost the same idea and that was to provide funds to the Attorney
General to oversee the compliance with this act by local units of
government. And the idea of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] was
to make sure that the programs they were overseeing were effective. So
we put them both together in one amendment, and this provides that
funds will be available to the Attorney General for studying the
overall effectiveness and efficiency of the provisions of this title
and assuring compliance with the provisions of this title and for
administrative costs to carry out the purposes of this title.
The Attorney General shall establish and execute an oversight plan
for monitoring the activities of grant recipients.
Now, not more than 3 percent of the amounts that are appropriated is
to go to this fund, but it can be as much as $60 million a year. That
$60 million would be given to the Attorney General, as I have said, to
assure compliance and the welcome addition of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott], effectiveness with the act and to carry out the
purposes of the act.
The Attorney General must establish and execute an oversight plan,
and I would say not because we do not trust local government but to
ensure the success of the bill's intent.
I think this adds to the oversight requirement of this $10 billion. I
think it is a very useful amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] who
is the cosponsor of this good amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and
congratulate the gentleman from Illinois
[[Page H1649]] for introducing it and working with me and others to
have in it a provision that will review the effectiveness of these
expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend $30 billion fighting crime in
these various bills. This amendment will ensure that that money is well
spent. It provides for the evaluation of programs, which is extremely
important so that other localities may get the benefit of the
experience from some programs that work, and unfortunately, some
programs that do not work.
So with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we will see that this money is
well spent. Localities can benefit from each other's experience, and
that the actual prevention programs will actually go to preventing
crime.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his valuable
contribution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, on our side, we are delighted that the cooperation has
been worked out between the chairman and the gentleman from Virginia.
We are delighted to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman: Page 12, after line 7,
add the following new paragraph:
``(10) Preference for former members of the armed forces.--
The unit of local government has established procedures to
give members of the Armed Forces who, on or after October 1,
1990, were or are selected for involuntary separation (as
described in section 1141 of title 10, United States Code),
approved for separation under section 1174a or 1175 of such
title, or retired pursuant to the authority provided under
section 4403 of the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and
Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (division D of Public Law
102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1293 note), a suitable preference in the
employment of persons as additional law enforcement officers
or support personnel using funds made available under this
title. The nature and extent of such employment preference
shall be jointly established by the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Defense. To the extent practicable, the Director
shall endeavor to inform members who were separated between
October 1, 1990, and the date of the enactment of this
section of their eligibility for the employment preference.''

Mr. ACKERMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment to
H.R. 738, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grant Act. My
amendment employs a very innovative approach to tackling two very
critical problems currently facing our Nation.
My amendment would assist in the fight against violent crime while
also helping to alleviate the unemployment that has resulted from the
downsizing of our Nation's military. Since the end of the cold war,
thousands of members of the military have been involuntarily separated
or have been released from active duty as wide scale downsizing has
forced cutbacks in military personnel.
This amendment simply requires that local law enforcement agencies,
in applying for grants under this bill, provide a preference for
veterans who are victims of our downsized military as a condition of
receiving funds for additional law enforcement officers.
Providing these former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with
meaningful employment, our communities will benefit from the experience
and dedication that they have already demonstrated in serving our
country.
What a great way to recruit people for our local police enforcing
agencies. People who are in shape, people who are well trained, people
who have experience with the use of firearms, young men and women who
have a great deal of discipline. Bringing these veterans in from the
cold to fight our domestic war on crime will let the enemy know how
serious we are about crime and will not let their wanton acts go
unpunished and that crime does not pay.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it makes good
common sense.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I think the gentleman has
offered a good amendment. I am prepared to accept it. I do want to make
a couple of points about it, though.
First of all, as I read it, it provides that in order to get the
funds, one of the qualifications that the unit of local government must
have to give is that it has established procedures to give members of
the Armed Forces that he has described, to give them a suitable
preference in the employment of persons as additional law enforcement
officers under the funds that are made available in this title.
The preference is going to be set forth as far as how it would work
by the Department of Justice under the Attorney General and under the
Secretary of Defense.
What I want to make clear is my reading of this does not indicate
that the local units of government are required to hire armed services
personnel who are retired, but if they come forward and they do apply
and there is a notice provision in here for some notice to be given to
those who are coming out of the services, that they will be given a
suitable preference to be determined based upon what the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Defense have worked out, as well as the
nature of what the local unit of government has.
I would like to make sure that my interpretation of this is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman],
to confirm that what I am stating is indeed the sense of his amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman's interpretation is absolutely correct.
It does not require the hiring. It just creates a veterans' preference
within the statute so that they would get a certain amount of points
depending on the system that is used in the local municipality.

{time} 1740

Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, having gotten that assurance from
the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to keep the time any
longer. I will support the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman]. This is a provision that is used in other parts of the law
already, and it tracks it. I think it is very important that we use
this for giving suitable preference in the employment of persons as
additional law enforcement officers, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman,
I support the amendment and hope it will be unanimously agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?

amendment offered by mr. schumer

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the amendment printed in the Record?
Mr. SCHUMER. I do not believe the amendment is printed in the Record,
Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer: Page 6, strike the word
``or'' on line 10, and insert the following after line 11:
``(6) consultants; or
``(7) vehicles not primarily used for law enforcement.''

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple one. This
basically puts some limitations on the wide-open nature of the
Republican bill, H.R. 728. The problem, of course, is that the bill as
drafted is so broad and so wide open, while things could be spent for a
noble and worthwhile purpose, such as police or prevention programs, it
could also be spent on anything under the Sun, and what we are
[[Page H1650]] trying to do here is prevent that from happening.
Very simply, Mr. Chairman, in committee, a majority of the committee,
although not the majority of the other party, prohibited tanks,
airplanes, limousines, and yachts from being used for these funds. Why
did we come up with examples like that? Very simply, the reason we came
up with examples like that is that these types of things had actually
been used.
Mr. Chairman, the now-Speaker of the House, then when he was a Member
of Congress, said, and let me quote, and this is quoting from Speaker
Gingrich only 6 months ago, he said ``If they say to me, in the name of
fighting crime, will I send a $2 billion check to cities, many of which
have destructive bureaucracies, to let the local politicians build a
bigger machine with more patronage, my answer is `no.'''
The same day he said ``If we have to choose between paying for a
directed purpose, such as building prisons, I can defend that. What I
cannot defend,'' and this is Speaker Gingrich, ``is sending a blank
check to local politicians across the country for them to decide how to
spend it.''
Mr. Chairman, if there was anything that rebutted the presumption
from the other side that this bill is good for America, it is Speaker
Gingrich's words 6 months ago.
What has changed? Are things any different? Most of the very same
mayors and county officials who were in office then are in office now.
They are the same local politicians across the country, and we should
not send them or give them a blank check; Speaker Gingrich's words.
Yet, that is just what the majority party seeks to do in its bill.
What is going on here, Mr. Chairman? Something that had more
restrictions on it a while ago, now, even broader, is perfectly OK. It
does not add up. It does not make sense.
Speaker Gingrich knew what he was talking about. The old LEAA
program, which had less money and more restrictions than the Republican
bill, paid for this.
If Members cannot see it, it is an armored personnel carrier, an M113-
A3, bought in Louisiana.

It paid for this, an airplane that was used to fly the Governor of
Indiana around the country. In fact in one of its most famous trips, it
went to Washington, DC, to pick up Moon rocks, a great law enforcement
purpose. The LEAA Program was rescinded in disgrace.
Speaker Gingrich was right. To send local politicians across the
country a blank check makes no sense. Then why, Mr. Chairman, in the
bill before us is that just what the majority party seeks to do? It
does not add up.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have, and I could think of a
long list of purposes that we should not spend this money on, but
certainly consultants, why did I pick consultants? One-third, fully
one-third of the LEAA money, the old law enforcement money that had
more restrictions than H.R. 728, more restrictions than H.R. 728, a
third of the money was spent on consultants.
These consultants did not wear badges, did not have guns, did not put
their lives in danger. It was pork.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, lots of other LEAA money was
spent on vehicles for the emolument of local officials. That was pork.
Let me say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, if we pass H.R. 728 without
the amendments that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will
offer this evening, and the gentleman from New York, I will offer
tomorrow morning, we are looking for such trouble. We are looking for
the kinds of pork that we have not seen for ages.
Mr. Chairman, the other side says ``Send it all to the local
governments,'' but Speaker Gingrich was right. There are lots of local
politicians who will misspend the money just as well as Federal
politicians might.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]
has expired.
(At the request of Mrs. Schroeder and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Schumer was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right. There are just as
many local politicians who will waste and fritter away the taxpayers'
money as there are Federal politicians.
What we seek to do in our proposals, Mr. Chairman, is simple. We say
to the localities ``Yes, we want you to spend the money on 100,000 new
cops on the beat. We want you to spend the money on things like drug
courts, but we do not want to let you fritter away all these dollars
for anything you want.''
I say to my colleagues who are thinking of voting for H.R. 728
without these amendments, take the wisdom of Speaker Gingrich. He knew.
He knew how bad it would be to put together a huge block grant with no,
no restrictions on it. He knew in his wisdom that there would be planes
that could be bought with this money.
Under the new Republican bill, until our amendment, planes could have
still been bought; armored personnel carriers. Why some police officer
in Louisiana needed an armored personnel carrier is beyond me, but much
worse than that is the fact that the Federal Government let him buy it.
Under these provisions, they would be powerless to stop them. We
could have the President, the Attorney General, the Speaker, the
minority leader telling the locality ``You cannot buy these things,''
but they would still have the right to buy them under H.R. 728.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the times where I agree with the
Speaker. The Speaker is right. We should not be giving localities all
the money they want for anything they want. He said it, not 10 years
ago, not 5 years ago, but in June 1994, a mere 8 months ago.
Mr. Chairman, let us all listen to him. Let us not be so wedded to a
bill that was quickly drafted in the heat of the campaign last year,
and instead, improve it, build upon the crime law, but not rip it up,
start all over, and then rue the day.
That is my concluding comment to my colleagues. I would say to anyone
who votes for this wide-open blank check to the localities, 2 or 3
years from now, they will live to regret it, because the amount of
waste that will occur will be enormous.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is perfectly fine. I welcome the
effort of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] in improving our
bill. He has put forward two areas which probably should be cordoned
off, or at least it would improve it to do that, consultants or
vehicles not primarily used for law enforcement, as areas where we
would not want them to spend the money.
We probably could think of a whole litany of things out here if we
kept working at it. For the most part, he has covered all of them that
he could think of that the LEAA which is ever accused of violating.
My own judgment is that the word ``consultants'' could probably use a
definition somewhere in the definitions section. I am sure the
gentleman would not want that term to include what is in the bill right
now, and that is the fact that we may utilize the contracts that local
units of government may have with private, non-profit entities or
community-based organizations to carry out the purposes funded, to
prohibit that phrase, if we indeed go to the term ``consultant'',
because obviously, non-profit entities or community-based organizations
would not be people we would not want to receive money under this bill.

{time} 1750

So I think the term consultant perhaps needs to be defined, but I
understand what the gentleman is getting at.
What I would just like to comment on during the brief time I am up
here on this amendment is that LEAA, the law enforcement assistance
program of years past that the Democrats are so fond of saying is very
similar to this, it is going to be abused again, we are going to be
abused by this process, was quite different from what we are dealing
with today.
First of all, that program was designed specifically for innovation
and experimentation. In fact, the moneys that went to the states and
not to the local communities in that case, though the States may have
given some of that money to them, that money was specified by us to be
used only for experimental or innovative practices. It was designed to
require that the States
[[Page H1651]] and the local communities in spending that for law
enforcement purposes be creative. They could not spend it for routine
law enforcement or tried-and-true law enforcement procedures and they
could not spend it for what we would consider to be prevention programs
today. That is quite a different matter from what we have got forward
in this bill.
I would say that when you are charging them with coming up with new
ideas and experimenting and putting a lot of money out there, maybe the
past Congresses that passed it should have been wise enough to have
foreseen that you were charging them with going off and trying to find
new ways to spend money that would involve some things that would be
pretty absurd at times because they could not spend it for normal law
enforcement practices.
However, this bill today that we have before us is designed in just
the opposite fashion. We do not have a problem with some creativity,
but it is open-ended in the sense that local communities may spend this
money for anything which will help them fight crime in their local
communities. I would submit that since we have an advisory board
specifically set up that include a broad range of local community to
decide what is best for that community and we have elected local
officials making these decisions as bodies, not individually, but we
have the county commissions and the city commissions making them, it is
far less likely that the moneys will be spent on absurd projects under
this bill than may have been under the old LEAA program which is quite
different.
Plus the fact under this legislation we have got all kinds of
accounting checks and reporting requirements and oversight by the
Comptroller General that is involved. So I would submit that it is
highly improbable that this money will be misspent and that the program
that we are seeking to accomplish here, the fighting of crime in the
local communities, by its very nature requires giving this discretion
to local governments, because Washington certainly does not know best
how to fight crime which is 90 percent or better a local problem under
local criminal laws.
I submit that what is good for any community on the West Coast is not
necessarily good for one in the South or the Midwest, or who knows?
Every community is different. It is absurd for us to try to dictate to
those communities how to do it.
The very nature of providing flexibility contains within it the
inherent risk that upon occasion, some local unit of government, some
officials of government, elected by the people in their local
communities, will act irresponsibly, will act in ways that you and I
would not like them to do, and I fully expect that that is going to
happen in a very tiny fraction of the cases where this money goes out.
I would be remiss in not saying it is going to happen.
But I think that the risk of that happening and the occasional
misdeeds that will occur because local elected officials are not
responsible in some cases is going to be far outweighed by the good
that is done, by the flexibility that is provided in this legislation
as opposed to what was there in the last Congress.
What we had in the last Congress was far too narrow. It passed in a
way that many local communities cannot take advantage of it. We had
categorical grants saying, ``If you follow these things and do just
this stuff, then you can get the money for these prevention programs,
but you can't do it, for other prevention programs that might be better
for your communities, you can't get any money for that.''
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. In the Cops on the Street Program, we said, ``Here is
how you are going to go about it.
If you have this matching grant program, 75 percent of the money will
be paid for by the Federal Government for the first $20,000 or $25,000
to hire a new cop.'' Since the average cost of a new cop is about
$60,000 a year to hire him and outfit him and put him out on the
street, for 3 years we did pay a small fraction but not nearly as much
as a cop costs for that period of time. Then after the 3 years, the
local community had to pay 100 percent of it if they submitted for a
grant. We have found that in the process of the first few months of
this grant program under last year's Cops on the Street Program, a lot
of communities are saying to us, ``We can't afford to do that. We're
not going to take advantage of it.''

So our flexible approach is far better and the downsides to it are
minuscule compared to the upsides and the positive approach the
Republicans are offering today in this bill to let the local, county
and city governments of this Nation spend $10 billion to fight crime at
the highest crime rate level cities and communities around the country
in the way that they best see fit and know how.
I, therefore, commend the gentleman for this amendment, it is a fine
improvement, but I think his points other than that were not well-
taken.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Schumer and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman is raising problems with LEAA. We agree it had
problems. But what Speaker Gingrich was referring to in these quotes
was not the LEAA. It was the LPA, the Local Partnership Act which was
in last year's bill which was virtually the same thing as the block
grant proposed this year. So I would like to ask the gentleman, when
the Speaker says, ``What I cannot defend is sending a blank check to
local politicians across the country for them to decide how to spend
it,'' how is the program in H.R. 728 any different than that quote from
the Speaker? Where is the difference?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I can say to the gentleman that
first of all the Local Partnership Act grant is $1.5 billion to the
highest tax rate cities, not the highest crime rate cities.
Second, I did not hear the Speaker say that, I do not know the
context in which it was said, and I cannot defend him one way or the
other today about that comment.
But I would say to you that whatever he said, the fact of the matter
is that the broad programs we are offering today provide the widest
latitude of flexibility and conform the most to Republican principles
of letting that government govern best which governs closest to the
people. That is the local, county, and city governments. Consequently,
when it is spread out to all of the governments to participate in, not
just a narrow few as were under that LPA grant for $1.5 billion who
were the highest tax rate cities in the country, we have a far
different scenario than what we had in that bill last Congress.
I think that whatever else is said about this, we are going to let
every community in this country participate that has a crime rate
problem, and it is a very positive improvement over last year's bill
which was very narrow in scope with each of the categorical grant
programs, as well as very narrow in scope of the conditions that were
placed with regard to the cops on the street program which thousands of
communities, including Oklahoma City for one, cannot participate in,
say they cannot.
So I accept the gentleman's amendment but I do not accept his
premise.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I was going to give some more examples and make some
more arguments, but at the conclusion of the comments of the gentleman
from Florida, I am going to save them, because we are prepared to
accept the amendment at this time.
I commend the gentleman. We already have several items included. It
was thought that consultants ought to be added, and I think the
gentleman may want to indicate how we might even qualify that further.
I yield to him at this point.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy.
The gentleman from Florida makes a good suggestion. That is, that we
make sure that consultants do not include nonprofit community
organizations
[[Page H1652]] that are involved in crime fighting itself, and I would
suggest we do that in report language.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a great idea. We will take
care of that, because it is true that sometimes community organizations
do end up in a consulting capacity, and that is the last thing in our
minds to in any way limit or inhibit their working under the provisions
of this bill.
With that, I indicate my support for the amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess the
gentleman from Florida is gone. But I would just say, everything he is
talking about did not answer the question, in all due respect to him.
He was talking about the Speaker's language saying you cannot send the
localities a blank check.

{time} 1800

The gentleman from Florida is saying it is correct to send the
localities a blank check, and I do not see how to defend that in any
way other than it is a 180 degree turn, and some of the frustration we
on this side have is that it seems a lot of what is in the contract,
particularly on the crime bill, was not really designed to improve the
crime bill. Anyone who thought this so convincingly in June would not
draft something that was a blank check. I would argue to my colleague
that it was simply done as a way of saying well, I am different and it
is a bad way to go, and let us forget that mistake and let us go
forward and pass something that makes sense.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again I stand by the fact that
Speaker Gingrich said open block grants to communities is a blank
check, we should not to it. And now we have a complete reversal. I say
he was right then, he is wrong now.
Mr. CONYERS. In addition, of course, this combines police grants, so
what we are having now is a choice between every kind of prevention and
nonprevention you ever imagined, plus the opportunity to not use police
because there is not a separate category for community policing.
I support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the amendment printed in the Record?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. It is not Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 21,
after line 16, insert the following:
``(7) In no event shall the term `improving public safety'
be interpreted to allow the use of any funds appropriated
under this title for the construction or improvement of
highways, streets or roads.''

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, a real problem I have with
this bill has been illustrated by the last amendment which was adopted,
and that is the question of how the bill is drafted.
It leaves the field wide open for interpretation of about anything at
the local level to be eligible for funding under this bill.
The particular place which this amendment is designed to address is
throughout the bill where amounts are to be paid to units of local
government for improving public safety. There is no definition in the
bill for what improving public safety means. In my congressional
district there are some cities is that when we talk about public safety
the first thing that they go to is not crime in the neighborhoods,
police on the streets, or something of that kind, but public safety has
the connotation of increased traffic, roads, streets, something that
will help to improve the flow of traffic in and around the city.
Let me make it clear that I do not have any problem with improving
subject safety by building more streets or improving highways or
improving roads, but in this particular bill, which is a crime bill,
there should be no question that these funds should not be eligible for
being used in that way.
So I thought we better have something in the bill that gave some
definition to this concept of improving public safety. I thought about
trying to come up with a definition for improving public safety, and I
really had some serious problems trying to draft the language that
would cover that issue without creating more problems than I solved. So
instead of trying to craft a definition for improving public safety, I
at least thought we ought to back out this one element that could be
interpreted as a means of improving public safety. In fact, it does
improve public safety to improve the streets and roads and highways in
a particular city. And I do not have any problem with that. But I could
not come up with a crafted way, an ingenuous way to define improving
public safety, which is really one of the problems that I have with
this bill.
I do not think the local officials are going to be able to, we are
not going to be able to tell the local officials at the local level
what improving public safety means any more than we can define that
term in the bill.
So, we have this broad, open, three words, ``improving public
safety'' that we could about convert to any kind of construction or
definition or interpretation that local government officials want to
put it to, and that is a serious problem in this bill. At least if this
amendment is adopted it will be clear that it is not a traffic bill
that we are dealing with here, it is serious crime, or crime unrelated
to traffic, even though there is nothing here in my amendment that
would remove the funding from drunk driving or criminal activity other
than traffic offenses.
But I would just say to my colleagues here that as the bill is
drafted now, traffic offenses and trying to solve problems of traffic
in cities could just as easily fall under the category of improving
public safety as criminal conduct, and I encourage my colleagues to
please support the amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say to the gentleman from North Carolina that
I rise to oppose his amendment. The gentleman from Florida who is our
subcommittee chairman I believe accepted the last amendment because
there is or at least there was some demonstrated abuse of funds under
the former law enforcement administration that dealt with grants for
the purpose of fighting crime.
However, the fact of the matter is that we wanted to make that
recognition, I will still take our approach in this bill of block
grants over the micromanagement that is in the crime bill that passed
last year. More specifically with respect to this amendment, when the
gentleman said, ``in no event shall the term improving public safety be
interpreted to allow the use of any funds under this title for
construction or improvement of the highways, streets or roads,'' I
would first of all say the reference to improving public safety is
taken out of the paragraph that he says reduce crime and improve public
safety as the purpose of the bill. And more specifically to roads, I
would point out that one of the reasons to authorize the payment of
funds in the crime bill that passed last year is increasing lighting
within or adjacent to public transportation systems, including bus
stops, subway stations, parking lots or garages, so that could be
viewed under the gentleman's amendment as improving a road in such a
way that would not be allowed.
We have already allowed in the crime bill that crime occurs in roads
and streets, like highway robbery, if you will, carjacking and so
forth, and there could be action taken towards a street or road which a
community does believe is for the purpose of reducing crime and
improving public safety.
For that reason I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am surprised to hear the gentleman
concede that funds under this bill could in fact be used to improve
roads and highways and streets. I thought clearly that was not a
purpose of this bill.
[[Page H1653]] Is the gentleman sure that he wants to concede that
point?
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, I do not think that is what I said to
the gentleman from North Carolina. I pointed out that a provision of
funding in the crime bill that passed last year allows increased
lighting for roads, and under the gentleman's amendment that could be
interpreted that the improvement in lighting is some kind of
improvement to a road that is not allowed, when the improvement in
lighting was found by its inclusion in this bill, last year's crime
bill to be for the purpose of fighting crime.
I just want to say that the gentleman is taking this out of context.
The purpose of grants, block grants are for the purpose of reducing
crime and improving public safety, and we believe that local officials
that do not use the funds for that purpose are not going to be local
officials for much longer.
I yield again to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and
I want to make three quick points in response. First of all, the one
instance the gentleman has referred to where there is a reference to
reducing crime and improving public safety is on page 2.

{time} 1810

But I would point out to the gentleman that on page 6 there is a
provision dealing with maintenance of public safety which is not
connected with reducing crime in any way, and there are other examples
in this bill where improving public safety is used. So I think the
gentleman is mistaken in that respect.
Second, I have made no argument about lighting. My amendment goes to
streets, roads, and highways, and if there is something in last year's
bill about lighting at bus stops, I would not think that would related
to either roads, highways, or streets, and if we are superseding last
year's crime bill, then I am not sure why we would be debating that
issue anyway. Because this language, I would think, goes beyond last
year's crime bill.
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, I just want to point our again that
improved lighting for a street could, under the gentleman's amendment,
be determined to be improving that street and, therefore, not allowed
under our bill.
But I want to steer back to the central idea of this bill, H.R. 728.
We are going to trust the local communities. Nobody has denied on our
side that not all of the past experiences have been perfect in that
regard.
But when compared to the experience of Washington micromanagement, it
is a whole lot better, and that is why I urge defeat of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, one of the problems with this whole process is it does
not seem as if we fully understand what happens in the local
municipalities and the local processes as it relates to budgeting, and
that is even more important as we consider the fact that at every level
there are reductions in budgets as various mayors try to find the best
means of resolving their budget conflicts.
All over this country today there are those who are trying to bridge
the gap that they might be able to provide a level of service but, at
the same time, deal with the reality that they cannot tax themselves
out of problems that are endemic to the cities. In so doing, a
community, a block grant for police, a block grant for anything,
represents the potential as a tool to be used in almost any way to be
able to try to bridge those budget gaps.
I think a classic example may well be as we consider what has
happened with community development block grants. They were intended
for the purpose of insuring that many of these urban communities were
rebuilt. In point of fact, in too many instances, those community block
grants are nothing more than the difference between what it takes for a
city to be able to not have to go out to the bond market and for it to
balance its budget by the use of Federal resources. I think we all
would have to agree that any local politician who is concerned about
the next election, seeing the resources that are now available to them
in a community block grant over which they have absolute control, with
no direction from Washington, with no mandates in terms of how those
funds would be spent, could easily provide justification that what they
are spending the money for is, in fact, in the interest of public
safety.
If you consider what we are talking about and the number of bills
that are before us, the number of bills that will be before us in the
next few days, when you talk about welfare reform, when you talk about
not providing people a decent kind of wage on which to live, when you
talk about all the conditions that are endemic to the schools and other
circumstances in these communities, you are doing to drive more people
onto the kind of census that makes up this ever growing prison
population. While you are doing that, you could easily make arguments
then that your justification for spending money in various areas that
are not defined within the bill might well fit within the rubric of
public safety.
I think what we are doing, in fact, is giving to those who are local
representatives in government an opportunity to have before them
resources that would not otherwise be available. They will do as they
have done with the community development block grants, they will not
use the money for policing issues, they will not use the money for
public safety issues, they will use the money to be able to bridge that
budget gap.
If you look farther at community development block grants in some
major cities where they have taken those moneys not to create housing,
not to be able to rebuild communities, not to economic development
vehicles, rather, they have used those moneys so they might provide in
some instances security, housing that is warehoused by the city, that
would not be considered within the interest of development of housing.
I could see likewise one can just as easily argue you could make those
funds available for providing security in areas the city would
otherwise have to do it, but now would not have to do it by virtue of
the fact that they have the benefit of a community block grant.
These block grants are nothing more than a giveaway. It is a form of
welfare. It is a form of a subsidy that allows for somebody who is in
power who has the authority over a budget to say this is where I want
the money to be targeted and, you know as well as I do, and I am a
former educator, I can tell you if you give me a few minutes and you
give me a lot of money and knowing that dollars are fungible, I will
figure out a way to make those dollars usable for whatever I can
justify them to be usable for. That is what we are making available for
the cities, and we need to stand and be honest about that.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I wonder is the gentleman saying he opposes community
development block grants?
Mr. FLAKE. I oppose community development block grants that are given
to those who are in power who do not do what those community block
grants are designated to do, and in too many instances, there is a
history that community block grants do not do what we have historically
designed them to do when we have made community block grants available
from Washington.
Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentleman will yield further, either community
development block grants exist or they do not. Is the gentleman in
favor of repealing the whole issue of community development block
grants?
Mr. FLAKE. I would not repeal the whole issue of community
development block grants. What I would do though is set some specific
mandates on how those funds are being used as is the case with the
amendment that is before us right now where it says there are specific
things you can do and specific things you cannot do, because as we try
to solve a particular problem, the block grant is developed for that
reason, for that reason alone.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think we know the difference between improving
lighting
[[Page H1654]] and improving the roads, and improving the lighting
would have a significant impact on crime in an area and could be
supported.
I know many localities trying to build roads who would be praised for
spending this money on road building rather than crime fighting. This
funding is for crime prevention, and thankfully we did have some money
put into the bill a few minutes ago which would have the effect of
evaluating programs for their effectiveness in preventing crime. But
road building is one where we would not have to wait for the
evaluation.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I just wanted to reemphasize the point that I simply do not
understand why there would be opposition to this amendment. There is
nobody, I think, on this floor or in this Congress who thinks that the
purpose of this bill is to improve roads, highways, or streets. And yet
the language in the bill, improving public safety, is clearly broad
enough to cover that kind of activity.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why we make an issue of this
simply to send a message to the public. I guess that we have crafted
the perfect bill, and our language cannot be improved; surely, the
proponents of this bill, the sponsors of this bill, do not believe they
have crafted a perfect bill, and I just for the life of me cannot
understand the opposition to this amendment.
I would ask my colleagues to, please, be sensible about this. Make
this clear. There are enough loopholes and gaps in this bill without
leaving this loophole and gap for local communities to drive through.
I can tell you that in some areas traffic is the major issue that is
affecting the people, and there is no problem with addressing the issue
of traffic.
But let us do it in a transportation bill, in a roads bill. Let us
not leave open the opportunity to address that concern in what we are
calling a crime bill in the name of just the sense that they have some
perfect bill here. It is not a perfect bill. There are all kinds of
problems with this bill, and this is just one of them.
We ought to at least close this one gap.
{time} 1838

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members will
record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
The following Members responded to their names:
[Roll No 119]

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--417

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

{time} 1839

The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred seventeen Members have answered to their
name, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
{time} 1840

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business before the House is the demand of
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 230, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 120]

AYES--194

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
[[Page H1655]] Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Inglis
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--230

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--10

Becerra
Chapman
Crapo
Geren
Gibbons
Jefferson
Matsui
Meek
Tucker
Wilson

{time} 1846

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1850

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for recognizing me for 5 minutes.
I normally do not take a vote on an issue personally, but I think I
need to say some things to this body.
Mr. Chairman, I came earlier today and offered the amendment that
just failed to the leadership on the majority side in an effort to try
to work with the majority leadership to improve this bill. There is not
a person in this House who believes that this money should be used to
build streets, roads or highways. There is not a Member of this House
who believes that the funds under this bill ought to be used for
highways, roads or streets. And I tried to offer this amendment in such
a way just to clarify that issue. And I won the voice vote.
During the course of the debate on the rule, I pointed out to the
Members of this body and to the American people that the time required
to come over here and vote on an amendment is included in the 10 hours
of public debate time that is allocated for this bill.
Immediately before I had offered my amendment, the other side had
just agreed to an amendment similar to this. So I am beginning to
wonder here what is going on in this body. We are marching in lockstep,
doing things that make no sense in the context of public policy,
denying Members that right to clarify the wording of a bill, maybe
taking out personal animosities and concerns from last week on the
content of this bill, because this vote makes no sense in the context
of what we are doing here.
I want to just make it clear to my colleagues over here, if this vote
is designed to send a message to Mel Watt, which I am inclined to think
that it is, as I speak here, I will tell them that I will send a number
of amendments that they will not like for their consideration. If they
want to single me out and discipline me by calling for a vote on
something that everybody in the House agrees to and tell their soldiers
to march, contrary to public policy, contrary to what everybody in this
House knows the intent of this bill is, then somebody have enough nerve
to come to my face and tell me that. Because if they want to declare
war, then I am up to it, and I will tell them that I am ready to start
the war right here.
But I will not be personally insulted. I will not be personally
singled out. And I will not have them march like toy soldiers on issues
of public policy without exposing what they are doing to the American
people.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is saying is, maybe
some of the Members did not quite understand, what I understand what he
is saying is that an amendment that previously delineated what they
meant was accepted by the other side; correct?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. And this amendment, which really, I think, is clear to
everybody, I do not think, surely, maybe there is, maybe the gentleman
is a little wrong, maybe they really want to use this money, crime
fighting money, for roads and highways and streets. Maybe the gentleman
missed the boat. Maybe that is really the way they want to use the
money. But it does not appear that that would be a proper use of it. I
agree with the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
if that is not so, then the only purpose of them asking for the vote
and taking all the time is because, the gentleman feels, it was he that
offered the amendment. In other words, perhaps if it was someone else
that offered the amendment, the amendment may have been accepted.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Perhaps I should let the gentleman offer
the next amendment.
[[Page H1656]] Mr. VOLKMER. I do not think I am in any better shape
than the gentleman is.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Well, perhaps I should select somebody
else of another hue to offer the amendment.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the gentleman from North Carolina, who
offered the amendment, felt that my opposition to it was based in some
way in some personal fashion. I would point out that in the last vote,
12 of my party voted with the gentleman and 14 Members of his party
voted with me against it.
I want to make two points. First of all, if we have misjudged the
situation, I cannot say, but we had received ideas that amendment after
amendment after amendment was going to be offered. We have seen drafts
that included no purchase of rocket launchers, no purchase of farm
equipment.
Now the majority party in the Committee on the Judiciary helped to
pass an amendment to this bill which provided several limitations such
as the gentleman from North Carolina is talking about. We said things
like no purchase of limousines and no fixed wing aircraft, and so
forth.
Second of all, the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of our
subcommittee, accepted an amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer], which said no use of consultants and no use of
unconventional vehicles for the police department.
The point is, our belief was these amendments were going to come
endlessly, not necessarily for their individual merit, but to make the
general point that there are Members here who do not approve of the
block grant approach and intend to oppose this bill no matter how many
amendments are accepted.
We accepted some amendments as an acknowledgment that, in fact, there
have been past problems with block grants. Most of us continue to
support H.R. 728 because we think the block grant is still appropriate
when compared to Washington and congressional micromanagement.
My point is that nothing here was designed or intended to be personal
to the gentleman from North Carolina in any way. It was just to stop
what we thought was a flurry of these amendments, duplicative in
spirit, if not in letter.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I have to say, with the utmost regard to the
gentleman from North Carolina, I want to say that this particular
amendment was a mistake. When we say that no money can be used for
roads, that could be no lighting to improve security, it could mean no
rerouting of traffic to prevent gang attacks and to prevent
carjackings.
I was given one example by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Bilbray] of a road built to a county jail.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I tried to discuss this item. I crossed
over the aisle and discussed it with the gentleman from North Carolina.
I did have a concern and I think that that kind of communication was
nothing personal on my vote. I was not in lockstep.
The fact is that we built an $800 million facility trying to fight
crime in the county of San Diego, and one of the major problems we had,
too, is that we had to spend over a million dollars to get from the
adjoining road to the site where we could build this facility.
Now, I am sure my colleague from North Carolina did not mean to
create that kind of barrier from being able to utilize these resources
for different types of crime activity, but this was one that was a good
example of where there would have been a legitimate facility built,
legitimate expense that would have been blocked by his amendment.

{time} 1900

That is why I voted, not because I was in lockstep on this side of
the aisle, but because, from practical application, I saw that this
could be a barrier from doing what the bill wants us to accomplish, and
that is fighting crime.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in conclusion once again
that it was our belief we would be debating these amendments for the
entire 10 hours of this bill, which essentially made the same point
over and over again, which we think we have recognized in accepting the
amendments we have offered.
More importantly, Mr. Chairman, I believe this particular amendment
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] inadvertently,
I am sure, would have precluded legitimate uses of law enforcement
money.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] has
made just the point that we on this side of the aisle wish to make,
which is if there was a need for a road, even if the road would be used
by law enforcement personnel, there are State funds to do that, there
are Federal highway funds to do that, et cetera.
The very point is, Mr. Chairman, in this large block grant concept,
we could stretch the definition so far that we could do almost
anything, and the money would be so dissipated that the actual bang for
the buck in law enforcement would be next to nothing. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, I think the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt] was very well advised. I do not care if there is a road
going from one prison to another. If you ask the American people
``Should the money in the crime bill, whether it be a Democratic crime
bill, a Republican bill, or a bipartisan crime bill, go to building
roads from one place to another, no matter what the purpose?'' they
would overwhelmingly say no. That is the very reason the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray] makes the point that we wish to make, the
gentleman from North Carolina, myself, and all of us on this side of
the aisle. That is that the block grant proposition, despite good
intentions, it will pave the road, so to speak, for all sorts of kinds
of things that will be built with this money that no one had any idea
of, that have nothing to do with real law enforcement, and it will end
up being a gigantic, big barrel of pork.
amendment offered by mr. wise

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Wise: At page 4, after line 19,
insert
(G) ``Enhance programs under subpart 1 of part E of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking to the majority. I
believe it will be acceptable. This amendment is very simple. It simply
says that for purposes of the block grant, that the local governments
can use the block grant for the same purposes that they presently
receive Byrne funds for. The Byrne grant is authorized under a separate
law. The Byrne grant begins its appropriations, or its authorized
amount begins to be reduced each of the next years up until the year
2000. What this simply says is that for those programs that local
governments have found useful, and there are 22 of them that are
permissible under the Byrne grant, for those programs that they can use
the block grant moneys for those Byrne programs.
To give some examples, in West Virginia, for instance, one of the
most successful programs has been the DARE, drug abuse resistance
education programs. Byrne moneys can be used there. Police officers
teach the DARE Program. Another one that has been very helpful, and I
think goes right to the heart of what the majority bill hopes to do, is
the multijurisdictional drug task force. Once again, Byrne moneys can
be used to bring, in rural areas particularly, to bring the many county
and local governments together, working with the State and Federal
authorities in ways that they have not been able to do today to work on
drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this be approved and that the
amendment be adopted which would permit the 22 purposes of the Byrne
grant, that the local governments be able to use the block grant moneys
here to implement those programs.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H1657]] Mr. WISE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's program is
excellent. We support it. We already have, as Members know, the Byrne
grant programs. The fact of the matter is this was never intended, our
bill, to in any way keep programs that have Byrne grant program funds
from receiving additional moneys out of this bill. There is total
flexibility for the States to do that.
The gentleman's amendment guarantees that. I support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the
ranking member of the committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment. The
gentleman is attempting to reimpose some needed structure to the
completely unmanageable and formless way the block grant programs are
structured, so I commend the gentleman. I think we will accept it
unanimously on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the membership that it is
the intention of the Chair, to the best of his ability, to rotate
recognition for the purpose of offering amendments between Republican
and Democrat.
It was the mistaken belief of the Chair that the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise] was seeking time to strike the requisite number of
words. Obviously he was seeking time of offer an amendment. Therefore,
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] should have been recognized
first.
amendment offered by mr. martini

Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Martini: Page 8, after line 19,
insert the following new subsection:
``(h) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this title may not exceed 90 percent of the
costs of a program or proposal funded under this title.

Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Republican
Task Force on Crime to offer an amendment that I believe is essential
if this House wants to make sure the Local Government Law Enforcement
Block Grants Act, H.R. 728, is a credible program to fight crime.
As written, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 728 is a good bill. Block grants will
combine the extra resources our communities need to combat crime with
the added flexibility to use that money in ways that best suit them.
I support the bill, Mr. Chairman, and believe it brings us a long way
toward our goal. However, Mr. Chairman, we can make a good bill even
better, in my opinion. The localities are being given the money without
having to put up any of their own funds.
With no direct financial stake in the program, I fear many local
governments will not officially use the money we offer them. If the
program is a waste, they lose nothing. It is a classic case of easy
come, easy go.
The amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware
[Mr. Castle] and I seeks to address this problem by implementing a
matching provision in which local governments will be required to put
up 10 percent of the grant they receive. Even this small matching
amount will protect the integrity of what we are attempting to do.
Mr. Chairman, as a former local official on both the county and
municipal level, I know these kinds of matching provisions bring
accountability to local units of government. It is accountability that
this amendment seeks to do.
The 10 percent matching provision is not as large as those contained
in last year's crime bill, and the amendment does not infringe at all
upon the wise latitude given the localities that is the cornerstone of
H.R. 728.
Mr. Chairman, this year this House has taken many actions to preserve
for our constituents and to tell our constituents that we understand
their money is a scarce resource, and we can no longer afford to spend
it on wasteful projects.
It is not that I begrudge the amount of money in block grants this
bill proposes; rather, fighting crime is one of the most important
functions of our government, and I wish we could afford to spend more
in this area.
What the Martini-Castle amendment does do is force localities to be
as careful with their Federal money as we have committed ourselves to
be with the Federal taxpayers' dollars. Even the smallest amount of
investment made by a locality will give local officials a stake in the
success or failure of a program, and help assure us that our block
grants are being put to good use.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strengthen what is
already a very good bill.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARTINI. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, under the gentleman's amendment, any
community of any size would have to come up with 10 percent of any
application or grant that they receive as a result of an application,
is that right? Is that the way I understand it?
Mr. MARTINI. They would have to have a 10-percent matching provision
for any grant that they would be eligible for under this program.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is that a cash
10 percent, or is that in kind 10 percent, or what is it? What is that
10 percent.
Mr. MARTINI. It would be a matching 10-percent cash. That would be
the intention of the amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. It would be in cash, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the
gentleman, not in kind?
Mr. MARTINI. Preferably in cash.
{time} 1910

Mr. VOLKMER. I just wanted to clarify it so I would know.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARTINI. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. The answer is it is a cash match. It is not an in-kind
match in any way whatsoever.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, here we are again. After hearing that we were against
block grants 4 months ago on the majority side, we are now
enthusiastically for block grants.
All during the hearings and markup of this bill, you were against any
matches in the Committee on the Judiciary, and now out of nowhere comes
an amendment printed by the chairman of the subcommittee no less but
offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a 10-percent
match.
Is there any rationale that we may employ to account for where this
miraculous change of opinion has come about?
You have quite a few positions on these matters that seem to be
changing the more we examine this bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the subcommittee
chairman.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The reason why is that we believed that we need to have a match in
here. It is a better accountability proceeding.
Mr. CONYERS. So did we.
Mr. McCOLLUM. We picked a 10-percent figure because after checking
with the mayors, this seemed to be the reasonable amount. That amount
would require the least discomfort, and a lot of the communities that
could not afford larger matches would be able to afford this. We came
up with a 10-percent figure, printed it in the Record, so it is not a
big surprise to you. The task force of the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Martini] who worked with it on our side of the aisle is the one
who has offered it today.
Mr. CONYERS. After hearing all your rhetoric against matching, I am
glad that we at least have a point of agreement here. I guess that
means that all of the discussion and debate against matching funds in
the crime bill was not as important or valid as I thought you were
making it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
[[Page H1658]] Mr. McCOLLUM. There may have been some Members who
argued against matching on my side of the aisle but this one was not
one of them. I argued against the fact that the police grant program,
there was not nearly enough money out there because it cost $60,000 a
year instead of $20,000 or $25,000 to be able to put a police officer
on the street. But I never argued against a match.
Mr. CONYERS. You do not recall yourself saying somewhere along the
line that communities could not afford the police grants because there
was a matching requirement?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, I have argued all along
they could not afford it partly because of the 25-percent matching
requirement and partly because and mainly because that the total cost
of putting a new police officer on the streets instead of being the
base number figured by the Department of Justice for a new police
officer's salary at $20,000 or $25,000 was more like $60,000 a year to
get him out on the street. Plus the end of that program was down the
road 3 years from then and the local communities
had to pick up 100 percent of the grant program then. That is what I
argued for.

Mr. CONYERS. That is why we have measures brought to the floor. We go
through the committee hearings, we go through the markup, then we come
to the floor and then you say, ``Well, perhaps there is something to
matches and we'll put one in.
So, look, this is a new position you have arrived at. I am happy
about it. I have no objection to it. I just wanted to point out that I
had not heard about it before, and it was printed in the Record and
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. So, so be it. I think it is
an appropriate time to do it. We probably will not have any other
chance to debate.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOKE. I think this reflects two things. No. 1 is the compelling
quality of your own persuasiveness in bringing these things forward.
Second, is the good things that happen when we have an open rule. We
are actually debating, we are listening.
This is an amendment that is brought to the floor, not least of which
because there has been persuasion on both sides of the aisle. We have
got better legislation as a result of it. I think we ought to all
celebrate.
Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman need more time? I am happy to hear
that. As a matter of fact, I was waiting for someone to realize that
these were our arguments.
Mr. HOKE. We are very grateful.
Mr. CONYERS. Under those circumstances, I think that this is an
amendment that we cannot resist.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. I think the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] in a
moment will speak to perhaps a different percentage, but I thought it
would be interesting to discuss a little bit how we got to the 10-
percent figure because we did start looking at higher numbers.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] has worked in local
government and was very helpful in terms of working all this out. What
we were trying to do basically was to get a threshold number that would
make the local communities realize that they are buying into something.
We have all seen the complete open-ended block grants for everybody----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Castle and by unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CONYERS. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. We attempted to find a number in which the local
communities would be involved but would not be such a high hurdle that
they could not do it. And after a lot of discussions with a lot of
local officials, we came out with a number of 10 percent. That is how
we got to that number.
We feel it does exactly what you have talked about and we should
bring the local communities into it and we get rid of the extraneous
and perhaps unnecessary and unwarranted applications that might be
made.
Mr. CONYERS. I am sorry you did not put my name on the amendment when
you offered it. I did not realize how effective we had been.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini]
would be glad to add your name to the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. It is too late now.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Martini-Castle amendment. I
think this bill must have some method of accountability in order to
ensure that the grant money is not misused. A 10-percent match
requirement would at least help ensure that local governments will have
a financial interest in the success of the grant. Instead of local
governments considering that grant money to be in effect free money,
more care will be taken to ensure that the grants are not wasted.
Oftentimes I think it can be shown that the degree of local concern
will increase proportionately to the amount of matching grant.
Mostly I rise today, however, to tell my colleagues that I really
thought a larger grant amount was appropriate. I have an amendment
prepared to the amendment for a 20-percent grant, but in an abundance
of caution and with some consultation with local officials and
especially my colleagues, I am going to support the 10-percent matching
grant requirement, insisting, as the gentleman from Delaware said, that
it is a cash match.
My experience that leads me to the conclusion that we have to have a
matching grant comes from serving on the State crime commission in the
late 1960's and early 1970's when we had a number of excesses with the
LEAA program. One of the excesses that came about, I think, related
directly to the fact that we had no sufficient matching requirement.
In the existing crime bill, last year's bill that was enacted, there
are matches that require 10 percent in some instances, in some cases as
high as 40 percent. We have got some difficulty in local governments
apparently with some of the higher matches. I think the 10-percent
match is perhaps a bit minimal, but I believe that the will of the body
would support a 10-percent amendment, and I am going to ask my
colleagues to support on both sides of the aisle the initiative by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] and the gentleman from Delaware
[Mr. Castle], and I want to associate myself with their effort and with
the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan in support of the matching
requirement.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I want to thank very much the gentleman from Nebraska
for his comments. It was partly because of his influence on me and
discussing this over some time that we decided that a matching program
was absolutely essential to accountability. I want to compliment him on
coming out today just as I want to make sure on your time, I compliment
appropriately the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] and the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] who have worked so well, one in
local government, the other in a State capacity in the past who have
seen the need for something of this nature.
We did work very, very hard to come up with a right number. Not
everybody is in agreement on that number, but it is one which is
acceptable to the vast majority of our cities and county government
officials.
I thank the gentleman for acquiescing in the 10 percent. I appreciate
his yielding. Like him, I urge the support of this amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. I would say
that I appreciate the fact that the gentleman listened to some Members
[[Page H1659]] on our side of the aisle and to the comments that we had
in Republican conference on the need for a matching requirement. Our
colleagues have taken the initiative. I urge my colleagues to support
the Martini amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini].
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1920

amendment offered by mr. mfume

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MFUME:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE II--DRUG COURTS

SEC. 201. DRUG COURTS.

(a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating part V as part W;
(2) by redesignating section 2201 as section 2301; and
(3) by inserting after part U the following new part:

``part v--drug courts

``SEC. 2201. GRANT AUTHORITY.

``The Attorney General may make grants to States, State
courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian
tribal governments, acting directly or through agreements
with other public or private entities, for programs that
involve--
``(1) continuing judicial supervision over offenders with
substance abuse problems who are not violent offenders; and
``(2) the integrated administration of other sanctions and
services, which shall include--
``(A) mandatory periodic testing for the use of controlled
substances or other addictive substances during any period of
supervised release or probation for each participant;
``(B) substance abuse treatment for each participant;
``(C) diversion, probation, or other supervised release
involving the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or
incarceration based on noncompliance with program
requirements or failure to show satisfactory progress; and
``(D) programmatic, offender management, and aftercare
services such as relapse prevention, health care, education,
vocational training, job placement, housing placement, and
child care or other family support services for each
participant who requires such services.

SEC. 2202. PROHIBITION OF PARTICIPATION BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

``The Attorney General shall--
``(1) issue regulations and guidelines to ensure that the
programs authorized in this part do not permit participation
by violent offenders; and
``(2) immediately suspend funding for any grant under this
part, pending compliance, if the Attorney General finds that
violent offenders are participating in any program funded
under this part.

``SEC. 2203. DEFINITION.

``In this part, `violent offender' means a person who--
``(1) is charged with or convicted of an offense, during
the course of which offense or conduct--
``(A) the person carried, possessed, or used a firearm or
dangerous weapon;
``(B) there occurred the death of or serious bodily injury
to any person; or
``(C) there occurred the use of force against the person of
another,

without regard to whether any of the circumstances described
in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) is an element of the offense
or conduct of which or for which the person is charged or
convicted; or
``(2) has one or more prior convictions for a felony crime
of violence involving the use or attempted use of force
against a person with the intent to cause death or serious
bodily harm.

``SEC. 2204. ADMINISTRATION.

``(a) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other
appropriate officials in carrying out this part.
``(b) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may utilize
any component or components of the Department of Justice in
carrying out this part.
``(c) Regulatory Authority.--The Attorney General may issue
regulations and guidelines necessary to carry out this part.
``(d) Applications.--In addition to any other requirements
that may be specified by the Attorney General, an application
for a grant under this part shall--
``(1) include a long-term strategy and detailed
implementation plan;
``(2) explain the applicant's inability to fund the program
adequately without Federal assistance;
``(3) certify that the Federal support provided will be
used to supplement, and not supplant, State, Indian tribal,
and local sources of funding that would otherwise be
available;
``(4) identify related governmental or community
initiatives which complement or will be coordinated with the
proposal;
``(5) certify that there has been appropriate consultation
with all affected agencies and that there will be appropriate
coordination with all affected agencies in the implementation
of the program;
``(6) certify that participating offenders will be
supervised by one or more designated judges with
responsibility for the drug court program;
``(7) specify plans for obtaining necessary support and
continuing the proposed program following the conclusion of
Federal support; and
``(8) describe the methodology that will be used in
evaluating the program.

``SEC. 2205. APPLICATIONS.

``To request funds under this part, the chief executive or
chief justice of a State or the chief executive or chief
judge of a unit of local government or Indian tribal
government shall submit an application to the Attorney
General in such form and containing such information as the
Attorney General may reasonably require.

``SEC. 2206. FEDERAL SHARE.

``The Federal share of a grant made under this part may not
exceed 75 percent of the total costs of the program described
in the application submitted under section 2205 for the
fiscal year for which the program receives assistance under
this part, unless the Attorney General waives, wholly or in
part, the requirement of a matching contribution under this
section. In-kind contributions may constitute a portion of
the non-Federal share of a grant.

``SEC. 2207. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

``The Attorney General shall ensure that, to the extent
practicable, an equitable geographic distribution of grant
awards is made.

``SEC. 2208. REPORT.

``A State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local
government that receives funds under this part during a
fiscal year shall submit to the Attorney General a report in
March of the following year regarding the effectiveness of
this part.

``SEC. 2209. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING, AND EVALUATION.

``(a) Technical Assistance and Training.--The Attorney
General may provide technical assistance and training in
furtherance of the purposes of this part.
``(b) Evaluations.--In addition to any evaluation
requirements that may be prescribed for grantees, the
Attorney General may carry out or make arrangements for
evaluations of programs that receive support under this part.
``(c) Administration.--The technical assistance, training,
and evaluations authorized by this section may
be carried out directly by the Attorney General, in
collaboration with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, or through grants, contracts, or other
cooperative arrangements with other entities.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended by section 40231(b), is
amended by striking the matter relating to part V and
inserting the following:
``Part V--Drug Courts

``Sec. 2201. Grant authority.
``Sec. 2202. Prohibition of participation by violent offenders.
``Sec. 2203. Definition.
``Sec. 2204. Administration.
``Sec. 2205. Applications.
``Sec. 2206. Federal share.
``Sec. 2207. Geographic distribution.
``Sec. 2208. Report.
``Sec. 2209. Technical assistance, training, and evaluation.

``Part W--Transition-Effective Date-Repealer

``Sec. 2301. Continuation of rules, authorities, and proceedings.''.

(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and U'' and inserting
``U, and V''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(20) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part V--
``(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
``(B) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(C) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(D) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(E) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(F) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.

SEC. 202. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall study and assess the effectiveness and impact of
grants authorized by part V of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as added by section
50001(a) and report to Congress the results of the study on
or before January 1, 1997.
(b) Documents and Information.--The Attorney General and
grant recipients shall provide the Comptroller General with
all relevant documents and information that the Comptroller
General deems necessary to conduct the study under subsection
(a), including the identities and criminal records of program
participants.
(c) Criteria.--In assessing the effectiveness of the grants
made under programs authorized by part V of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Comptroller General
shall consider, among other things--
(1) recidivism rates of program participants;
(2) completion rates among program participants;
[[Page H1660]] (3) drug use by program participants; and
(4) the costs of the program to the criminal justice
system.

Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order on the
amendment.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly happy the distinguished
gentleman from Florida has a concern because the amendment actually
grew out of a program that found its genesis in Florida, and the
distinguished Members of the Florida delegation I am sure will
understand after I have an opportunity to discuss it, why it is so very
important.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to H.R. 728, an
amendment that would continue the Drug Court Program as enacted by the
Violent Crime and Prevention Act of 1994. The Drug Court Program
included in the list of programs targeted for elimination under H.R.
728 is an effective and valuable crime fighting tool, with the kind of
proven results that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want.
Although lumped, and I think lumped inadvertently with the prevention
programs that this bill tends to eliminate, drug courts really are not
a prevention program. Drugs courts would better be classified as an
alternative punishment measure that has the indirect benefit of
preventing crime.
Drug courts began as an innovative program by the State of Maryland.
The gentlemen from Florida, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Stearns, the other
distinguished members of the Florida delegation I am sure can attest to
the effectiveness of it in the State of Florida.
The State of Florida utilized a formula grant funding approach under
the Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Act to
fashion what eventually became an alternative punishment and drug
rehabilitation program.
The program was very successful in providing first time drug
offenders with a second chance. I am not talking about the hard core
drug user, I am not talking about the weekend user. I am not even
talking about the recreational user of drugs. I am talking about that
first time drug offender, that young boy or
that young girl who experiments with taking a drug and then gets
caught.

In the city of Baltimore there are currently 130 people who have been
diverted to the Drug Court Program and away from what conceivably could
have been a life of crime, certainly a life of drug abuse.
Of almost 200 people that have been involved in the program since its
inception almost a year ago, only 10 of that 200 have dropped out. That
means that out of every 20 nonviolent drug offenders who have been
brought into the program in Baltimore, 19 out of that 20 has remained
sober and clean, a surprisingly pleasant success rate.
The basic program includes intensive supervision of the participants
by the court through drug testing and treatment and the prompt
application of a graduated number of sanctions for failure to comply
with the conditions of the program.
The program can be administered on a pretrial basis, it can be
administered as a post-conviction program or it can be administered as
both. That is up to the locale.
The Drug Court Program as we know it in various States has been so
successful in reducing recidivism and providing drug offenders with an
alternative to drug use that the crime bill that we have been talking
about over and over again funded this as a separate entity in the 1994
act.
The cost of drug courts is about one-twentieth what it costs to put
people in prison, and again let me point out that the recidivism rate
is so very low that we end up cutting crime by 80 percent.
In my State of Maryland a unique consortium has been forged with
representatives of the public defender's office, State's attorney's
office, probation department, and treatment facilities work together to
ensure adequate monitoring of treatment and supervision for the
department.
Drug courts in Maryland provide drug treatment on demand and serve as
an alternative to incarceration, again for first time drug offenders,
thereby saving prison beds for the most violent of offenders in our
society.
The program also provides job placement, it provides job counseling,
it provides educational services and it even provides relapse
prevention, in an effort to treat the problem and to provide intense
supervision.
The drug courts programs that divert first time drug offenders from
prison and then ultimately places them under strict court-enforced
supervision is necessary and it is responsible. And as I said before,
it is not Democratic, it is not Republican, it is not independent. It
is the right thing to do and it is not something that we do not know
about. The results are all over this society, and they have been shown
to reduce recidivism rates and to return first time drug offenders to
society as productive, law-abiding citizens.
Building more prisons does not necessarily do that. It may not be a
bad idea but it does not do the same thing. So I would argue as we look
at the first time drug offender that a young man or young woman or who
for whatever reason experiments and gets caught, that we ought to make
sure we do not do away with drug courts as we have known them and as
they have worked so well.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida insist on his point of
order?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not insist on my point of order. I
withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it does appear that since the gentleman is adding back
in drug courts from last year's crime bill as a separate drug courts
title to this bill, and in essence undoing the repealer of the money
for that in the program, that indeed this is a germane amendment. But
what it does do is add $1 billion in additional drug courts money and
drug courts authorization to this bill, to the $10 billion that
underlies the bill, and adds it specifically to the purposes of drug
courts. It goes against the grain of the very essence of what we are
attempting to do in this bill even though many of us, including the
people here, support the general precepts of drug courts.
What it does is to set forth a specific categorical grant program for
drug courts to protect them, to make sure that indeed the monies that
are set aside go to drug courts and not to anything else. Drug courts I
might add again, it is additional money separate and apart from the $10
billion that underlie this bill, so the way it is crafted, as I
understand it, does not from my reading of it and my staff study of it,
does not affect the underlying $10 billion, it simply authorizes
another billion for drug courts.
But the thrust of the principle of this still violates the concept
that we on our side of the aisle want, and that is to send back to the
local communities a decision on what they want to do with money that we
provide them under this bill. We would like for the cities and the
county commissions of each local community to make their own decision
as to whether they want a drug court or not. We set up a supervisory
panel and require one be set up for all the cities and counties that
get money under this bill that include officers or some person
representing the local courts. In addition, of course, there is a local
prosecutor's representative, a local police or sheriff's department
representative, a local school system representative and a local
representative of a prevention program of some type in the community
who presumably, and I would assume in most communities the way it works
on lots of things, get together, talk over what is best for this
community with the resources that they get under this bill; and then
they will say, OK, look, if we have the idea for a drug court, and I
know there are a lot of judges and law enforcement community members,
district attorneys and so on who get together and like this idea, if we
think this is good for our community, then
[[Page H1661]] let us use a portion of our money to supplement or to
create drug courts.
{time} 1930

In some communities, drug courts are thriving right now without any
Federal assistance. They got created without it. It would be nice to be
able to help them. We would like to encourage them, but to suggest they
work in every community is to suggest something I do not think is our
duty to do, nor do I think it is the responsible thing to do.
There are plenty of places where it would work fine. There are lots
of communities where it may not. I would suggest we should provide the
resources here to let Spokane, WA, Sacramento, CA, Madison, WI, New
Brunswick, GA, Orlando, FL, each of the communities wherever they are
around the country decide for themselves if they want drug courts with
this money and to use some of it to support it, not our setting it
aside and saying, ``Look, here is a certain amount of money. If you
want that money, come get it, because we in Washington know what is
best for you as a drug court. By golly, we want to get as many of these
drug courts out there as possible.''
I am not convinced every community ought to have a drug court. I am
convinced they do work in a lot of communities. I would encourage them.
Our bill does do that. Our bill uses drug courts as a specific
example of those kinds of things that we would list in order for local
communities to look to for guidance of how they might use this money.
It is one of those that we have as sort of preferentially treated by
that example, but everything in this underlying bill is including, but
not limited to, so it allows local communities to decide yes or no or
not at all.
And so I must oppose this amendment reluctantly, because I do like
the concept of drug courts, reluctantly because I know the gentleman
from Maryland has offered this with good intent, and reluctantly
because I know how important it is to a lot of communities to have drug
courts. But it destroys the underlying fabric and concept of the local
community grant program that is in this bill, and I am opposed to it,
and I do oppose this amendment and urge its defeat.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman and members, this is a measure that we should compliment
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] for bringing to the crime bill.
The record is clear on this one. A study of 4,500 drug court
participants between 1989 and 1993 showed that only 11 percent slipped
back into criminal activity, which is a phenomenal accomplishment
compared to the 60 percent recidivism rate for those who did not
participate in the program.
Drug courts, which cost only $800 a participant, compared to $25,000
for incarceration, achieved these results through a tough court-
supervised program of counseling, drug testing, and daily monitoring.
Those who do not comply know the alternative is incarceration, and so
it is more than a prevention program. It is really almost an
alternative form that is very effective, and with our prisons facing
massive overcrowding that has been mentioned constantly here, these
courts offer an effective alternative for steering nonviolent first-
time offenders away from crime toward a productive future as
contributing members of society.
This is an important provision of last year's crime bill that I think
many would welcome into the 1995 version.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Let me correct something that was said earlier by my colleague on the
other side. This does not add new money. This simply takes the $10
million that was already there for drug courts which has been taken out
and puts it back in.
Let me get to the heart of this particular effort. We always say in
this body that we want to look at those programs that work, and we want
to eliminate those that do not. Well, in the State of the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], he and the other distinguished Members of
that delegation know this is where it found its genesis. It worked so
well there it became a model for other States, including my State of
Maryland.
You have got to remember this program is for the first-time drug
offender, not the hard-core addict, not the weekend user, not the
recreational user, but somebody's son or daughter who is in school, who
might experiment with drugs and get caught. We put them in a program
where 19 out of every 20 young people that go into it all have proven
results. Recidivism rates are at an all-time low.
I dare say there is not another program that has that kind of a
success record. So what we are saying here today is do we really want
to, in all that we are doing, despite the partisanship on both sides,
want to embrace a program that does what Democrats want, does what
Republicans want, does what Americans want, independence; it creates
the kind of results that make us feel proud and says to us in the
process that we are able to go out and help young people before they go
back and become the second-time offender, third-time offender, or the
fourth-time offender and they have got a gun to your head or my head.
We are talking about somebody's son or daughter. I am not here to
talk about pie in the sky. This is not an Mfume creation. This was born
in Florida. The good people in Florida had the sense to embrace it and
nourish it. It became so much of a national model in Maryland and
elsewhere. It is working fantastically.
Might I say also that it is not mandatory. It says the Attorney
General may make grants to the States, and so if a State does not want
to participate, then it does not have to, but those grants go to
specific things that deal with recidivism, with treatment, relapse
prevention, and making sure we get young people away from drugs.
So I would just simply urge those who watch this debate and who are
on the floor now to recognize that of all the things that we have come
to embrace or to reject or to examine, that when it comes to drug
courts, there is not another example that Democrats, Republicans, and
independents can point to that has the kind of success in just the few
short years that this has had.
I would urge all of my colleagues to find a way to allow themselves
on this vote to go back and to restore the $10 million that was taken
out for this program. This is not the kind of prevention program that
the bill intends to do away with. This is not really a prevention
program.
The end direct result may be prevention. This is a program intended
to help young people who are first-time offenders, and I would strongly
urge its adoption.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. His explanation has been thorough
and quite convincing.
The fact of the matter is that we have permitted this in the bill,
and what we are doing is putting a money amount to it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of the amendment and to reassert
what my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], has said
about the extraordinary success of this program.
I cannot sit here and fail to talk about something that I have had an
opportunity to witness firsthand.
I know Judge Goldstein, who was the father of this program, and no
later than just this week I received a letter from Judge Robert Fogan
in Fort Lauderdale who presides in the drug court inviting me for the
second time to speak to the graduates of the program and talking about
the enormous successes that it has had.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are constantly about
the business of trying to figure out some way to put somebody in jail.
Rightly, criminals should be.
The serious question becomes: When we do have something that does
work, should we not see to it that it is maintained?
I think that this program can be replicated throughout this Nation,
and pretty obviously is one that all Members of this House ought to
support.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H1662]] Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. Could the gentleman again talk about the phenomenal
success that the program experienced in Maryland? Actually it is
phenomenal wherever it occurred. It began in that State.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. It did begin in Florida. The judge in Miami
that originated the program is still presiding in it and has had
hundreds of success stories.
What is remarkable is that they show a 90-percent success rate, and
then in terms of recidivism, it increases. They have situations where
as much as 95 percent of the graduates do not return to a life of
crime.
Now, how best then can we work to try to help people? You know
something else, too, my colleagues, most of these people who talk about
crime have not been in a criminal courtroom, have not had to sentence
somebody, have not had to stand with somebody that was sentenced. They
have this notion that comes from this air-conditioned Capitol about
what happens on the street.
These judges are in the trenches in Florida, and in Maryland and
elsewhere in these drug courts, and they see these youngsters. They are
not the hardened criminals, but they are the people that can become the
hardened criminals.
Mr. MFUME. If the gentleman will yield, let me add also that of the
200 young people in Baltimore that entered the program, 190 never went
back to drug use, never. They stayed away from crime and everything.
{time} 1940

So again I would appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle to
understand that we are trying to help someone by preventing a set of
possibilities that nobody wants in this society. This is not for hard-
time drug users, this is not for junkies out on the corner, this is not
for crack and cocaine users, this is not for recreational users, for
the weekend user; it is for the first-time drug offender, somebody's
son or daughter in your district or mine who in school experiments with
a drug and gets caught.
We have to find a way to make sure that this program that is so
successful--every editorial, everything you read about it reeks
success--that we not do away with it in our effort to try to reform
this package.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Mr. Chairman, in deference to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Mfume], let the record clearly indicate that in the committee--and the
gentleman from Michigan can speak to that and others in the Committee
on the Judiciary--this issue was brought up at that time, and this
issue was voted on at that time by the entire committee. Now, I am not
one of those who has never been in a courtroom; I have been in many
courtrooms in 38 years. I do have a feel for victims as well as people
would have been arrested and are victims. I did offer up an amendment
to the crime bill relative to drug courts, and it was at first
unanimously adopted by both sides of the aisle.
Then there was an order to recommit and another vote taken, at which
time it passed 20 to 15. It was not unanimous on that motion to
recommit. Those folks on the other side of the aisle voted ``no'' to
that motion to accept drug courts in the crime bill and those on this
side of the aisle voted in the affirmative. That is how it made its way
into the crime bill.
We are not insensitive. It was in inadvertently not given the
standing in the crime bill that I thought it needed to have, and at
that point we did pass it onto the floor.
So we are not unfamiliar with courtrooms and with this issue.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
refreshing the memories of the members on the committee and the Members
in the House because he is absolutely correct. I am hoping that the
gentleman from Maryland has persuasively convinced him now to take the
next step to create not only the permissive use that was accepted on
the gentleman's own amendment, which was convincingly put to the
Committee on the Judiciary, but that we carve out this modest sum of
money to create an authorization for the same program that the
gentleman in his career of police work has so long enforced.
Mr. HEINEMAN. I thank the gentleman.
I think what we are really talking about is what separates the
philosophy on both sides of the aisle, on letting that be a grant
whereby it is voluntary on the parts of those folks at the local level
to use it as they see fit. And the gentleman from Maryland is putting a
dollar figure on it.
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman would yield further, we persuaded the
gentleman about block grants, we persuaded him about matching funds,
and now we have to convince him of the wisdom of moving in support of
the drug courts from a permissive use to an authorization. It is a
small step.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would point out that the gentleman is correct. I was a member of
the majority that voted to put the gentleman's language into the bill
to make it perfectly clear that drug courts are an important part of
this legislation, and the funding is available. In fact, any community
that wants to use all of the funding made available to that community
for drug courts can do so under their bill, and, in fact, we have
almost $2 billion per year made available so conceivably, if drug
courts are the preference of each locality in the country, all of the
money could be spent on drug courts.
I think they are a fine program. Some of the localities in my
district are starting them and want to have this money available. Other
communities in my district do not feel they need drug courts, and I
think, as a result, we should make it plain that this program does have
it available, the bill does that, but it does not sequester any funds
in this program for any specific program.
I think if we are going to give the localities the flexibility to
handle fighting crime at the local level in the manner they see best
fit, we should leave the bill as it is with the specific language
allowing drug courts, but nothing more.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding again.
Of course, the gentleman understands the difference between leaving
this in a block grant where it competes against an infinite number of
others; the question is whether he feels convinced of the importance of
this so as to lift it out of this infinite multitude of permissible
items in the block grant to give it a life of its own. It would still,
I say to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], still be
optional; it would still not be mandatory to anybody. But it would be
rewarding a program that works. And that to me is the important
comments that were made by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] that make it so important
that we pass this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just want to indicate that in a
conversation with the head of our Office of Drug Policy just a couple
of days ago, it was very clear that the utilization or the usage of
drugs is now increasing. So I rise to support the request of the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], his very succinct request, very
frank and honest request, that not only do we applaud the fact that we
use allocated dollars for drug courts but we isolate the language in
the legislation and it is specific.
I simply want to say we have a drug problem in this country, the
gentleman has highlighted the problem; I think it is one that should be
addressed as it relates to first-time offenders.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
[[Page H1663]] Let me say directly to the distinguished gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman] that I am heartened to hear his
remarks. The fact that he tried in committee to do essentially the same
thing is commendable, and I appreciate his courage in this effort here
tonight, which was not successful and maybe because someone on my side
of the aisle did not join with him.
Let me just say, though, that no one in this body has a license on
purity on either side of the aisle. I would strongly say to the
gentleman that I can empathize with his agony over having lost on
something like that, and that is why I am so tremendously bent on
trying to provide it myself.
Well, the gentleman won, but he did not make it this far. That is why
we are trying to win again with it.
Let me just say one thing about block grants, which is important. If
we are talking about block granting a basketball program that is one
thing. That is an easy thing to do. Or block granting something else,
it may be easy to do.
Drug courts are very specific. My fear is, if we do that, that what
you will have is a drug court type A in this State, B in this State,
and C in this. It will not be the same thing. It will not produce the
same results, because there are no guidelines mandated in this instance
that the Attorney General would carry out.
For instance, it says these courts shall provide mandatory periodic
testing for the young person, first-time offender, for the use of
controlled substances or other addictive substances, but substance
abuse for each participant would be measured. There would be diversion,
probation, and supervised training, and even the possibility of
prosecution and confinement or incarceration, based on noncompliance
with program requirements or, for that matter, failing to show
satisfactory progress.
It goes on further: Programmatic, offender management, and after-care
services, such as relapse prevention, would be there, that the Attorney
General would issue further guidelines. You are not going to get that
in block grant. What you are going to get with the States who are
saying: ``Oh, drug courts, they work, let's go try one.'' That will not
be the same thing.
So, since we have a program that works, and again I challenge Members
of this body, anyone, to show me any program that works as well as this
Nation in terms of recidivism rates, keeping them down, and success
rates in helping the first-time young person who is abusing drugs. To
say if you will just embrace this language, let us put back the money
for drugs courts that we have taken out and do the right thing so that
somebody's son or daughter whom we represent, whom they love, will not
be in a position of believing that the Congress had an opportunity to
act but did not.

{time} 1950

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina won. It
is here establishing or supporting drug courts in law enforcement block
grants. I say to the gentleman, ``What we want to do, sir, is promote
you. You have done a great job. You deserve this. And what you're doing
is isolating this out, putting a lot more language around it.''
Remember, this is not a raw experiment any more. It is proven.
Attorney General Reno tried it in Florida. Judges tried it in Florida.
In Maryland it is working. I want to get this into Michigan.
So, what we are trying to say in our own stumbling way is, ``You did
great. You have done well. Please accept our promotion on this side of
the aisle.''
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, ``Thank you. You
did it as well tonight as you did it in committee; I have to say
that.''
But, for the gentleman from Maryland, I believe that language that he
read as it relates to the punishment and the sanctions are getting off
track as it relates to the drug court sanctions within the language of
the bill as it related to what came out of committee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks by saying that
drug usage is increasing. We need to do this in a bipartisan way and to
respond to the needs of all of our States. I think effective drug
courts will be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I will not use the 5 minutes in full.
Mr. Chairman, the only point that I want to make is I think we all
agree here that drug courts can be very effective. In my community, the
city of Cincinnati in Hamilton County, we are just getting under way
with the drug court. I fully support the drug court. I supported the
gentleman from North Carolina's proposal that we make, clearly in the
language in this bill, the drug courts, the money can be used for drug
courts; we all agree on that. Where we differ is that the gentleman
from Maryland would like to put another billion dollars of tax dollars
to be spent.
If we are going to actually move toward a balanced budget amendment,
we have to be very careful, and for that reason I oppose an additional
billion dollars.
I also think that we should not earmark for particular programs. I
think the local communities know best what works in those communities.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to give the
flexibility to the local governments to decide how to spend those
dollars, whether it is police officers, additional police officers,
whether it is drug courts or whatever. Let us leave it up to the
localities. I think they know better than the Federal Government does.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to be as concise as possible. The National
Justice Institute, which was the subject of some of the discussion
earlier, did a study a number of years ago where they sought to
identify the correlation between crime, street crime, and drug use and
found that in some of our Nation's largest cities that upward of 90
percent of the street crime over the course of their analysis was drug-
driven. I think we all understand how the problem of drugs drives up
some of the crime issues that we are trying to get at in this
legislation and that there is no debate on either side of the aisle
about the effectiveness of drug courts, and I would not want us to miss
the opportunity.
I served on a panel appointed by our State court, along with the bar
association, the defenders and others in Pennsylvania, to look at this
issue and to move forward on drug court as an alternative to how we
have been proceeding. Given the concern that the previous gentleman
spoke about in terms of a balanced budget, if we look at the costs of
prison construction, law enforcement, we can see that on the prevention
side drug courts could actually save us money, and the only thing that
I would hasten to add, as I conclude, is that one of the points we have
to understand as a body is that on the issue of crime we do not want to
have to create a circumstance in which one needs a victim in order for
us to do anything, and if we work on the prevention side, we alleviate
a great deal of pain, not just for the first-time drug offender, but
for all of the victims of what could become a hardened drug user.
So, I would ask the house to sincerely and favorably consider the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 266, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No 121]

AYES--160

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
[[Page H1664]] Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--266

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--8

Becerra
Chapman
Crapo
Gibbons
Jefferson
Matsui
Tucker
Williams

{time} 2012

Mr. PETERSON of Florida and Mr. RICHARDSON changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot: Page 18, after line 22,
insert the following:
``(9) Resolution of disparate allocations.--(A)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if--
``(i) the attorney general of a State certifies that a unit
of local government under the jurisdiction of the State bears
more than 50 percent of the costs of prosecution or
incarceration that arise with respect to part 1 violent
crimes reported by a specified geographically constituent
unit of local government, and
(ii) but for this paragraph, the amount of funds allocated
under this section to--
``(I) any one such specified geographically constituent
unit of local government exceeds 200 percent of the amount
allocated to the unit of local government certified pursuant
to clause (i), or
``(II) more than one such specified geographically
constituent unit of local government (excluding units of
local government referred to subclause I and in paragraph
(7)), exceeds 400 percent of the amount allocated to the unit
of local government certified pursuant to clause (i) and the
attorney general of the State determines that such allocation
is likely to threaten the efficient administration of
justice,

then in order to qualify for payment under this title, the
unit of local government certified pursuant to clause (i),
together with any such specified geographically constituent
units of local government described in clause (ii), shall
submit to the Director a joint application for the aggregate
of funds allocated to such units of local government. Such
application shall specify the amount of such funds that are
to be distributed to each of the units of local government
and the purposes for which such funds are to be used. The
units of local government involved may establish a joint
local advisory board for the purposes of carrying out this
paragraph.
(B) In this paragraph, the term ``geographically
constituent unit of local government'' means a unit of local
government that has jurisdiction over areas located within
the boundaries of an area over which a unit of local
government certified pursuant to clause (i) has jurisdiction.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship and
cooperation, this amendment is also offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren], who will also address the House.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a concern raised in our
Committee on the Judiciary markup, and I have been working with the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Many counties are
responsible for administering the criminal justice system for all the
other jurisdictions within their territory. They bear the costs of
pretrial detention. They provide the county jails. They pay the
prosecutors and the public defenders. And they are responsible for
maintaining the courts and paying for the judges.
Clearly, arrests made by jurisdictions within these counties have
significant implications for county budgets. What this amendment does,
Mr. Chairman, is say that where the attorney general of a State, in his
discretion, sees fit to certify that a county bears the bulk of
prosecution or incarceration costs associated with violent crimes
committed in a city within that county, and where the formula in this
bill, nonetheless, allocates to one city government at least twice as
much of the grant money, then the city and the county have to get
together and agree on the ways that their combined grant money should
be spent.
The same situation would obtain where a number of cities within a
county added together would be eligible for a total grant amount
exceeding 400 percent of what the county would get. If the state
attorney general determines that such a situation threatens the
efficient administration of justice, then the cities and the counties
would be required to work together.
We do not change the allocation formula at all. But we do require
that cities and counties work together when the allocation formula
creates a real anomaly, which has occurred in a number of instances.
These allocation anomalies can arise, Mr. Chairman, because while the
bill
[[Page H1665]] quite properly allocates money largely on the basis of
part 1 violent crimes occurring within the different jurisdictions,
some regions of the country report at the county level crimes that in
other regions are reported at the city level.
Thus, in some states, such as in Florida, the allocations between
counties and cities appear roughly proportionate. Whereas in other
states, such as my State, Ohio, there are some significant disparities
between the jurisdictions that make the arrests and the jurisdictions
that administer the justice after the arrests are made.
Where such disparities occur, the common sense solution is that the
affected cities and counties work together to ensure that proper
coordination occurs.
This amendment provides that cities and counties in this situation
will apply jointly for the sums of money allocated them under the bill.
And to that end, the amendment permits them to establish a joint local
advisory board in satisfaction of the requirements of the bill.
In keeping with the guiding principle of this legislation, we do not
tell these localities how they must coordinate their efforts. We leave
them to do that, and each affected area may establish such mechanisms
and policies as their local officials see.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment leaves the bill's allocation
formula in place and does not affect the amount of grant monies that
will go to any given state. It only applies to require county-city
coordination when, first, the county pays the majority of the costs
associated with prosecution or incarceration, and, second, the city, on
the basis of these crimes, is allocated at least 200 percent of the
amount allocated to the county or a group of cities allocates 400
percent of what their county allocates.

I understand that this amendment has support of the chairman of the
subcommittee, who along with the chairman of the subcommittee has done
such an outstanding job working, quite frankly, night and day to get
this legislation passed, to allow us to consider the criminal law
reforms we have taken up over the last week.
I urge its adoption, and I understand at this point that it does have
bipartisan support, that both the leadership on our side of the aisle
and also the leadership on the other side of the aisle is in agreement.

{time} 2020

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I have made no secret that I have
philosophical problems with this bill overall. I did not agree with
taking the $2.5 billion out of the local grant program and putting it
in prisons. I think we ought to do a minimum setaside for prevention
programs. Those are philosophical disputes that I have.
Nevertheless, to the extent that this bill passes, I think it is very
important that this be a workable bill. I very much enjoyed working
with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] to make sure this does work
well.
The issue that is really pertinent is when a city or cities gets a
very large amount of money and the county gets comparatively less, the
administration of justice will be defeated. We all know that it is
important to arrest people who have committed crimes and who threaten
our neighborhoods, but if the funds are not available to prosecute
those individuals and to move forward in the process, ultimately the
act of arresting somebody is not good enough.
We need to make sure that the entire system works, from arrest to
prosecution to local incarceration, and ultimately, to prison, if that
is the end result of the prosecution and conviction.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this remedy outlined by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Chabot] and myself I believe will resolve this issue. I do
not think it is controversial. It has been devised on a bipartisan
basis, and I would recommend it to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has been advised that the pending amendment
was not printed in the Record.
Without objection, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Chabot] is considered as having been read.
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the more I briefly examine this amendment, the more
difficulty I have with it, because it is not clear. Even though we like
cities and counties to work together, I began thinking about how in the
real world this is going to happen, I mean by us putting an amendment
of this kind in.
It seems to me that in areas where a city has a large allocation of
funds coming by virtue of the fact that there is activity that requires
more funding under this bill, and the county has less, forcing the city
and county together is going to operate to the detriment of the city.
It may be, I would say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren], who herself is a former county official, better to let them
work these differences out themselves, because it is not clear what we
are ordering them to do in the amendment.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, to give us a little
more detail about the language contained.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me preface my remarks by saying that
I spent half of my political career prior to being here in Congress as
a city official, being a Cincinnati city councilman. I spent the other
half being a county commissioner, so I have seen both sides.
What we have done in this bill, working with the gentleman's
colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], is to come up
with a formula here which sets out what we felt was a fair and
equitable way for the parties to come up with a reasonable solution.
We are not dictating to those jurisdictions what the exact formula
should be. We are saying they should get together and work it out among
themselves, if they come up with a situation where there is really an
anomaly.
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the
gentleman, are they not going to work it out anyway? I mean, if the
gentleman is not giving them any specific direction, if this is just a
hortatory couple of paragraphs, no problem.
If there is nothing specific driving them into an agreement, Mr.
Chairman, then I feel less reluctant about it.
However, Mr. Chairman, what is it we are doing? Are we inviting them
to cooperate?
Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
the thing that will drive them to cooperate is they would not get the
money if they did not cooperate, so they would be receiving Federal
dollars here for law enforcement that would benefit both the city and
the county.
It would be up to the city and the county to work together to come up
with an agreement, because otherwise, Mr. Chairman, neither would get
the money, so it is definitely to their advantage to come up with an
agreement. We do not want to dictate exactly what that agreement needs
to be, but it is in both of their interests.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, which entity
would not get the money if they did not agree? Would they not all be
eligible for a certain amount of money anyway?
Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, neither.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Very briefly, although in a sense this is analogous to
the plan in last year's bill that provides for a comprehensive plan as
a condition precedent to receive the funds, but only in the limited
circumstance where a city gets a disproportionate amount of money
compared to a county, the intent is for those two entities to work it
out as they would have in last year's crime bill, in a comprehensive
plan, to make sure that the system works. I will give the gentleman an
example.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that under this formula, Chicago would get
in the neighborhood of $60 million, and Cook County would get $700,000.
Cook
[[Page H1666]] County is not going to be able to prosecute all the
people that Chicago arrests unless they get together and figure out
what they are going to do as a unit, so that is in the city's interest,
it is in the county's interest, it is in the citizens' interests, and I
think the precedent was really set last year.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. I was listening to this and I was curious about what the
gentleman just said, Mr. Chairman. If we have a county in which we have
a major city that is predominant in the county, and what this
amendment, the way I am understanding this, listening to it, is, if
that city is not able to persuade the county to work with them and make
an application, nobody gets any money.
What it means to me, Mr. Chairman, is that the county can say ``OK,
we want half the money. we get half, or we are not going to get any.''
Now wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. Is that really what the members want
to do?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, at first when I heard that everybody was
in harmony about this amendment and everything, I was not paying much
attention, but as I listened and listened I got more concerned about it
all along.
That concerns me, to where I know not every city and county
government get along; that not every city within a county and that
county government get along. It is not like everybody is really happy
with what is going on.
As a result of this, Mr. Chairman, what I am afraid may happen is
that we are going to find local jurisdictions fighting with each other
as to how much money they are going to get out of the total
application.
To be honest with the Members, I will tell the gentleman, the
chairman of the committee, I really do not care about this amendment,
and I do not care about the bill, anyway. But I am afraid if it did
become law that it is really going to bring strife out there more than
anything else. I have serious concerns, also.
I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. What we are doing here is
putting the political subdivision that has a large area, a large
population and small eligibility into the driver's seat in terms of an
accord being worked out at the peril of municipality not receiving
anything. That, I think, would be a position we would not want to write
into the bill, because it would put every city, particularly every
major city, at a horrendous disadvantage.
Mr. Chairman, if we did not have the provision in, I think that
agreement would have to come about anyway, but it might come about on
parts where the county would not be involved.

{time} 2030

After all, we have been working on crime grants, block grants, direct
grants all along and we have been doing it without the sense that is
implied in this particular amendment.
What I am saying is that at best I would like my two friends to
withdraw this amendment, so that overnight we can give it a little bit
more support, or else I would probably have to oppose it at this point.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very much in support of this essential
amendment. There is an anomaly where you have a high crime rate city
that is within the confines of a county and a shared responsibility for
the administration of justice. Cook County is a perfect example, where
the city of Chicago under the formula in the bill gets some $30
million, as I understand it, and that is because the crime rate in
Chicago is high. However, the housing of the prisoners, the prosecution
of the prisoners and all that administration costs belongs to Cook
County. So Cook County gets $200,000 and the city of Chicago gets $30
million. Now, justice is served if both Cook County, and I might add
the administration of Cook County and the administration of Chicago are
very friendly, if both the county and the city apply together and the
State attorney general determines that this anomaly exists so there is
that protection, then the money is more evenly distributed and
appropriately distributed as agreed to between the parties.
So this recognizes an anomaly. It is an effort to establish some
equity and balance. This situation in Chicago and Cook County obtains
in many other places around the country. Frankly, it just makes a more
equitable, fair distribution of these essential funds.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman very articulately spelled out
the reasons why this amendment is important.
To use another example, in my community, the city of Cincinnati, when
the city police officers make arrests, the criminals are basically then
turned over to the county. The county prosecutes them, there are county
judges and they are incarcerated at county expenses. So what we want to
occur is some fairness and reasonableness, and for the city and the
county to work together, and I think they will. I think the counties
and the cities all across this country are very reasonable and will do
that.
Mr. HYDE. The State attorney general makes that determination of this
anomalous situation.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HYDE. This is an important amendment, it is not really that
controversial, and I hope we will all support it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Ohio. Both of these
Members of the House are members of the Committee on the Judiciary and
brought up at the earliest possible moment the fact that defining any
formula for allocation of grants can be difficult, and in particular,
the bill selects the part 1 violent crimes as determined by the FBI as
the method to makes grants to various localities.
Using part 1 violent crimes, again as defined by the FBI, is probably
the best overall way that anyone can come up with for such an
allocation, but it is by no means perfect, and it may omit certain
kinds of situations, in particular the one that is being addressed in
this amendment right now where the higher number of crimes are in one
jurisdiction and, therefore, the criminal activity is there and
presumably the police department or sheriff's department is most active
there, but another unit of government has responsibilities for those
criminal cases generated by arrests that might occur, either housing in
a county jail before trial or prosecuting the cases.
I think that while no formula is perfect, the amendment being offered
here jointly is a very good attempt to solve a portion of the problem
that exists in using part 1 as the system for awarding grants.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Just briefly, frankly I would have preferred that in
every case localities would have to get together and put together a
comprehensive plan in order to get any money. But that is not what this
amendment does. It is a very narrow amendment that I actually wish
would go further, that basically says when the city gets more than 200
percent of what the county has, you are going to have a problem. If
those cities utilize that for police, the administration of justice
will be impaired. In the case of smaller cities, it would be 400
percent. So I think this is targeted to a problem.
Perhaps it is not the perfect solution, but it is the solution we
were able to come up with. It is only when the counties bear the cost
of prosecution and incarceration. So I still think it resolves a
problem that will be created by the bill absent this or something like
this, because in the end both the cities, the counties and the
citizens
[[Page H1667]] want the bad guys to be arrested and then prosecuted,
and unless we have something like this, the prosecution then may
suffer.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a sufficient
discussion on the issue. I wanted to flag this problem. I am going to
see if it is tracked in the old crime bill. I want to make it clear
that this may come back up in conference. I withdraw any of my own
personal feelings about it, but let me remind you, relations are not as
harmonious as they are reported to be in Cook County and Chicago
between the city and the county. I am delighted to hear how well the
local governments work together. Unfortunately, I know better across
the Nation that there are a lot of places where that is not the case.
Also remember, please, that Chicago is not getting the money because
they are Chicago. They are getting the money because that is where the
crime is. That is where the problem is. The county does have to lock
them up and have some prosecutorial responsibility, but Chicago is
getting the bulk of the money because the way we have derived the
formulas, they are entitled to it.
So I want everyone to know that, stay tuned on this. I will withdraw
my reluctance about this amendment, because we have one more we would
like to get through tonight before we conclude.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. conyers

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers: Page 4, after line 19,
insert the following:
``(G) Establishing the programs described in the following
subtitles of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (as such title and the amendments
made by such title were in effect on the day preceding the
date of the enactment of this Act):
``(i) Ounce of Prevention Council under subtitle A.
``(ii) Local Crime Prevention Block Grant Program under
subtitle B.
``(iii) Model Intensive Grant Program under subtitle C.
``(iv) Family and Community Endeavor Schools Grant Program
under subtitle D.
``(v) Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth under
subtitle G.
``(vi) Police Retirement under subtitle H.
``(vii) Local Partnership Act under subtitle J which made
amendments to chapter 67 to title 31, United States Code.
``(viii) National Community Economic Partnership under
subtitle K.
``(ix) Urban Recreation and At-Risk Youth subtitle O which
made amendments to the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978.
``(x) Community-Based Justice Grants under subtitle Q.
``(xi) Family Unity Demonstration Project under subtitle S.
``(xii) Gang Resistance and Education Training under
subtitle X''.
Page 9, after line 8, insert the following (and redesignate
any subsequent subsections accordingly):
``(c) Set-Aside for Prevention.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated under subsection (a), the Attorney General
shall allocate $1,000,000,000 of such funds for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to carry out the purposes of
subparagraph (G) of section 101(a)(2).

Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order for one moment
to just read the amendment since it was not printed and we were just
handed a copy.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.

{time} 2040

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, because of the lateness of the hour, I ask
unanimous consent that each side be given 15 minutes on this amendment,
for and against.
The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment and any amendments to this amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, would the
gentleman consider 10 and 10, as it is 20 minutes to 9 at the present
time?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this
amendment is pretty large.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I do not object to the gentleman from
Michigan's request to 15 and 15.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be
recognized for 15 minutes in support of his amendment, and the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] will be recognized for 15
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment merely sets aside $5 billion in a
separate block grant for the prevention programs formerly authorized in
the 1949 crime bill but does not specify funding levels for each
program. Local governments can choose which program is best for them.
Only 20 percent of last year's crime bill, that is $6 billion of the
$30 billion total went for prevention programs. But the new majority
cut $2\1/2\ billion here in favor of more prisons.
So what we are doing is creating a prevention program worth $5
billion in a separate block grant restoring each and every one of those
that were struck in the 1994 crime bill.
This is a more cost effective approach because the prevention
programs are essential to dealing with crime on the front end of the
problem, nourishing the health growth of communities, and study after
study shows that this dose of prevention will now avoid the most costly
police courts and prisons that later come on.
Let us look at the data of just a few of them. The drug treatment
program: A July 1994 study of the cost of treating 150,000 participants
in drug treatment programs in California found benefits in a ratio of
$7 in benefits for every $1 spent. Criminal activity declined by two-
thirds, alcohol and drug use by two-fifths and health care costs by
one-third. Recreational programs in Phoenix, AZ, crime was cut in half
by keeping recreation centers open until 2 a.m. In Fort Myers, FL,
juvenile arrests dropped 28 percent when the city built a new
recreational center in a low-income area.
The costs of these programs is often as low as an amazing 60 cents
per participant. President Bush selected one of the programs, midnight
basketball in College Park, MD for one of the 1,000 Points of Light
Program.
Gang intervention programs in Spokane, WA helped steer juveniles away
from gangs while offering constructive alternatives.
The list goes on and on, but we want to eliminate once and for all
the simplistic notion that all prevention programs are wasteful. We
repeal them in favor of a no-strings block grant that we think will
effectively reach some accommodation between the 1994 crime bill and
the 1995 proposal that is before us in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico withdraw his
reservation on the point of order?
Mr. SCHIFF. I do withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment by
the gentleman from Michigan, and the reason is not the sincerity of the
gentleman from Michigan wishing to promote the fight against crime as
he best sees it, but because I believe this amendment goes against the
very nature of the purpose of H.R. 728.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, with the utmost respect, that those who
do not agree with the philosophy of those of us who are advancing H.R.
728
[[Page H1668]] should, when the time comes, simply vote against it, but
not to change H.R. 728 in a way that changes its fundamental approach.
I believe that the gentleman's amendment makes those changes in two
separate ways. The first change is the gentleman's amendment does more
than simply reserve funds specifically for prevention programs as a
general concept. The gentleman's amendment preserves certain programs
that are found in the crime bill that passed in 1994, as I read his
amendment word for word, as they appear in the crime bill of 1994.
One of the problems with that crime bill is after many programs there
is page after page after page of restrictions and conditions, not
simply illustrations but actually Washington dictating how the programs
have to function.
This was somewhat lessened as we considered the crime bill twice last
year, but I believe it is still present, and the idea of copying in
H.R. 728 with all of the restrictive language and then micromanagement
from the Congress and Justice Department is against the very grain of
H.R. 728.
Second of all, Mr. Chairman, I have to acknowledge that even if that
problem were not there, even if this were an amendment that simply said
let us set aside a certain amount of funds for prevention programs and
did not otherwise specify the prevention programs, and that is not what
this amendment says, but even if it did, I would oppose it because,
again, the philosophy we are advancing in H.R. 728 is to let
communities decide what they need best for their communities.
It may well be that some communities feel the need to use all of
their funds or almost all of their funds for more police officers, and
that is fine with us. It may be that some communities decide that they
must use all of their funds or almost all of their funds for prevention
programs. That is also fine with us. And we believe that setting aside
amounts for certain purposes that take away that flexibility from local
governments is contrary, even without the other specifications, by
copying word for word prevention from the crime bill into this
amendment is a mistake and, therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, No. 1, these programs are all grant programs that are
utterly voluntary. Nobody has to choose them. They are not mandated
into them. They are optional programs. They are programs that,
incidentally, the Congress, including the Senate, the other body,
agreed to in last year's law. So these are not new programs, and that
is why if they sound familiar to the gentleman, they are.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan not
only for yielding me the time but also for his leadership on this
important prevention issue.
Let me say, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel that we do have to have
a broad and comprehensive approach to this bill. We need tough
punishment, and I supported more funding for prisons, and we need more
cops on the beat, and we may have an amendment tomorrow on that.
But we also need prevention funds because we do not want to be in a
situation in our society where we incarcerate and incarcerate and
incarcerate, as we sadly must, when there are violent criminals and
there is no hope.
If Members believe there is no hope at all, or if they believe
Government should play no role in bringing hope so that young men and
young women who are 12 and 13 and 14 are inevitably going to be
criminals, then vote against this amendment.
But I do not think most people believe that. I think most people
believe, yes, there are a few who are so damaged that they will become
criminals no matter what we do. But there are many who have not been
given the opportunities and the parenting and everything else, who, if
a reaching hand could come out through a mentoring program or through a
drug treatment program or through even a place where they get to
congregate and play in a constructive way, that many might be turned.
{time} 2050

The cost of these programs per individual is a heck of a lot cheaper
than incarcerating them. Now, that should not be an excuse that we
should not incarcerate. We must.
But there is no reason why we should not do both, and I would say to
my colleagues I have seen program after program that works.
Drug courts take tens of thousands of young men and get them off the
life of drugs before they become hardened criminals, mentoring programs
where an adult, the only adult in these young people's lives,
oftentimes spends an hour a day with an individual and sets him or her
straight, sets the person straight.
In Roosevelt, LI, they have a program where every junior high school
and high school student, and it is a very poor area, spends 1 hour a
day with an adult, and the dropout rate plunged. The criminal rate
plunged.
I would say to my colleagues there are prevention programs that work,
that we have seen them, tested time and time again.
One of the lowest points in my public life was when every program was
brandished as pork because it did not go to the right people or the
right district or sounded the right way. This is not an issue of not
punishing. This is not an either-or situation. This is for many people
in this country and for many communities and many neighborhoods the
only hope that there is. We should not turn away from it.
And so I would urge my colleagues in all sincerity to look at this
provision and to try and pass it. Every program in this bill has model
after model that has worked and saved the lives of the young.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think that this vote on this amendment
is the most important vote that we have faced this year.
You know, I have two small children. They go to a little inner-city
elementary school, and none of the reasons why I ran for Congress was
to make a difference in what they are facing and what their classmates
are facing.
A watershed moment for me was a year ago October when I took my
third-grader to school and they had found a dead body across the
street, and the perpetrator was still loose, and I knew that if we did
not do something different in this country that my children would not
be safe and the other children would not be safe.
I knew something then, and I know it today, that part of the answer
is prevention. As my mother used to tell me, and as our mothers told us
all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We know that
there is a Federal interest in safety or else we would not be doing
this crime bill at all, and I think it is important that prevention of
crime be part of this package throughout the country.
You know, when children get off on the wrong track early, we know
they are going to get in trouble. We know they are going to cause pain
to victims and their families, and we know that there is something,
sometimes very little things, that we can do with children when they
are 5 or 6 or 7 so that they will get on the right track. Those are the
investments to make.
I believe that every locality needs to make them. I am a firm
believer in local government and, in fact, I am not offended by much of
the block grant nature of this bill and said so during the Committee on
the Judiciary hearings. Nevertheless, I think we ought to let
localities know who are going to participate in this Federal program
that some section of that must be used for prevention. Let them use
their own creativity. Let them meet local needs. But we need to prevent
crime, because a child who is going to become a monster in Nebraska
today could be in San Jose, CA, tomorrow, threatening my children.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the need for crime prevention programs. I
have to say that, as a career criminal prosecutor and also a defense
attorney for
[[Page H1669]] 2 years, I have found it hard to identify specifically
what does prevent crime.
During one period of my career I was a specialist in the prosecuting
of what we call white-collar crimes, frauds, embezzlements, and so
forth. I prosecuted individual after individual who dressed well, spoke
well, was well educated, had a job, had a good income, but was greedy
for more. As a result, they defrauded the public, they embezzled from
their employer, they committed all kinds of crimes, not necessarily as
crude as robbing a convenience store at gunpoint, but the intent to
steal was just as glaring.
The problem is this amendment does not allow, in the words of the
gentlewoman from Virginia, the ingenuity of local government. We tell
them in this amendment what programs they have to have at the local
level and the nature of crime prevention; that is one of the serious
things wrong with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Goodlatte], a member of the committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, because it will defeat
the purpose of this legislation, which is to create the kind of
flexibility for State and local governments to fight crime that this
legislation is all about, and I would say to the proponents of the
amendment that, quite frankly, we right now have in this bill $2
billion a year, all of which can be used for prevention programs.
The bill itself specifically specifies, and I will read it,
establishing crime prevention programs that may, though not
exclusively, involve law enforcement officials that are intended to
discourage, disrupt, or interfere with the commission of criminal
activity, including neighborhood watch and citizen patrol programs,
sexual assault and domestic violence programs, and programs intended to
prevent juvenile crime, establishing or supporting drug courts,
establishing early intervention and prevention programs for juveniles,
to reduce or eliminate crime.
There are, in point of fact, hundreds of crime prevention programs
all across this country that will
effectively fight crime. The problem with this amendment is it only
recognizes 10 of them and hands them over to the States and localities
with all manner of strings attached to those programs with very
specific guidelines that might be just fine in New York City but might
not apply at all in Highland County, VA, in my district which has 2,500
people.

There is not a single community in my district with more than 100,000
people in it, and the way crime must be fought in different
jurisdictions varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That is also
why we have taken the money from the Cops on the Beat Program and put
it into this same block grant, because the fact of the matter is not
every community wants to or can qualify for the funding for the Cops on
the Beat Program.
The President says we are going to get 100,000 new cops on the beat.
If you divide that by 435 congressional districts, that comes to 230
per district. My district has received 15 new police officers in 8 of
the 20 jurisdictions. Sixty percent of the jurisdictions in my district
have either not applied for or not received funding under that program,
and I have been talking to police chiefs and others in those
communities and found out why. Some of them do not want to get
dependent upon the Federal Government for a police officer and then
have the funding end. Some of them do not feel a need for a police
officer, but may feel a need for a crime prevention program, may feel a
need for a drug court, may feel a need to have some form of equipment
made available in fighting crime, computers or patrol cars or other
things that can be made available to them.
All of these things should be left to the localities. Flexibility is
needed. When we tie their hands with specific programs that are not
needed in specific communities, we are doing absolutely nothing to
fight crime in those communities, and this will tie the hands of those
communities and, therefore, I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reassure the gentleman from Virginia that
localities will have the opportunity, if that is his major gripe about
this, to use the funds the way they want, because it includes the Local
Partnership Act, so that that provision is included.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder, how much is too much for our children? When
we begin to look at what occurred with LEAA block grants, where there
was no direction, we look at the purchase of $140,000 aircraft , we
look at $27,000 to do some Xeroxing, we look at $265,000 to give us a
2-page report, and then we look at $200,000 to buy some land.

{time} 2100

I wonder how much is too much for our children. All we are simply
asking is to recognize that we have the responsibility to focus our
local jurisdictions, not direct or restrict, but to focus them on the
value and needs of prevention.
I would simply say to you, coming from local government, they welcome
this. The cities, by and large, en masse, supported the 1994 bill that
included the provisions for prevention. They want it. They know what
happens in our inner-city housing developments, what happens in our
communities. What is too much for our children?
I ask for bipartisan support of the Conyers-Schumer amendment.
We need to have prevention programs.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us tonight does not give the
flexibility that H.R. 728 will do. H.R. 728, without this amendment,
will in fact give each community the right to establish law enforcement
block grants, the right to have such programs as community policing,
which has worked so well in Pennsylvania, where the police are tied in
closely with community leaders and each person on each block. Our town
watch programs, where each community works with either walking patrols
or walking operations where they keep in touch with law enforcement
officials. Or drug courts, which specialize in prosecutions that deal
with violent crime and those that are drug-oriented. Or crimes against
the elderly and the programs that work with our senior citizen
organizations. Or even the child-lure program, the ones that prevent
the exploitation and abduction of children in our communities.
All the law enforcement officers that I have spoken to in
Pennsylvania feel that the block grant approach will give us the kind
of flexibility that we need to truly fight the war against crime.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, before I got elected to Congress, I was the first
assistant district attorney in Middlesex county. We had 13,000 criminal
cases a year. Fighting crime is serious business. It requires a two
pronged approach: One is priority prosecution to remove those
individuals, the worst offenders, from society and put them away for as
long as you can get them away. The challenge we face in law enforcement
is what are we going to do with the majority of the people who remain?
There are countless examples from all over the country of priority
prosecution programs. When they mix prevention programs and get police
officers involved with thee school and open up schools for kids to
provide prevention programs, it works.
It is working in the city of Lowell, where crime prevention programs
have resulted in dramatically lowering gang violence in that city.
Crime prevention programs have worked in Summerville, MA, dramatically
decreasing the rates of crime.
Fighting crime is not a political issue, it should not be partisan.
It
[[Page H1670]] should not be Republican versus Democrat. Let us keep
what we passed 4 months ago. It was the best crime initiative that ever
came from this Congress. And now we are getting involved in partisan
politics.
It works. Let us keep it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the Local Partnership Act, which
will be continued under the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers], is, as we see it, one of the problems in the crime bill
of 1994. The Local Partnership Act runs for 24 pages, and this is pages
in the crime bill that are typed in very, very small print, as to what
localities have to do to qualify for the money. That is exactly the
reason why we are presenting H.R. 728 in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to advise the
gentleman that the Local Partnership Act was the single most popular
program by the cities that was in the crime bill of 1994, and that this
is the flexibility that the gentleman from Virginia did not know was
there, that would allow people to make these choices.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, our goal is to reduce crime. Studies show the effective
way to do this is through crime prevention programs, education,
recreation, job training programs, all of which have been studied, have
been shown to reduce crime 10, 20, as much as 80 percent.
Not only have fewer victims, but you also save money. We have heard
of the drug courts, one-twentieth of the cost, 80 percent reduction in
crime.
If your goal is to reduce crime, Mr. Chairman, properly designed
prevention programs work. Without the Conyers amendment, it is going to
be business-as-usual; no prevention, wait for the crimes to occur, and
then deal with the consequences. It is simply a matter of pay now or
pay a lot more later.
Prevent crime. It works. Support the Conyers amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line of all of this is simple and
straightforward; that is that many of us on this side of the aisle
simply do not agree with that side on the idea that we know best about
how to do prevention programs around the country. There are thousands
of options. The gentleman from Michigan is once again reiterating a
laundry list of those things he thinks are best, including this
Partnership Act, that, as far as I can determine, is based upon the
highest tax-rate cities in the country, not the highest crime-rate
cities. I find this approach to be abhorrent. I think it is the wrong
kind of approach. I know he means well by it. What we need is maximum
flexibility to let every community participate and determine whether
they want one program or the other. There are hundreds of cities around
this country that might differ with the gentleman on how they would
spend the money. They might not want to spend it on one of these
particular programs that the gentleman has offered about a billion
dollars a year. Hannibal, MO, might not like what Paducah, KY, wants to
have. Certainly they are not going to agree with San Francisco or
Detroit or some of our larger cities.
This is the reason why last year's crime bill is so wrong and why
this year's crime bill on local block grants for the communities of our
country that decide for themselves on whether to spend it on cops or
prevention is so right.
So I urge, with all due respect to the gentleman, a ``no'' vote on
this amendment and to keep the bill as it is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on the
Judiciary today members of the majority, who are talking now about the
absolute wisdom of the States, were talking about a piece of
legislation dealing with product liability which would take away from
the State powers that they have had since the Union was created. I have
never seen a sharper degree of inconsistency than we get from the other
side on the question of State versus Federal.
Last week they were for Federal dictation on prisons. This week they
are for States' rights here, but they are for Federal dictation when
business is involved with product liability changes.
There is one thread of consistency: They are frustrated that last
year we were able to get together on a good crime bill. If we were in
fact starting from scratch, this might be a better argument to have. We
are well along in the process of getting the money out and getting the
people to work under last year's crime bill.
This is a disruption, for partisan purposes, of a program that has
begun to work because the people who want to argue that Government can
never work hate nothing more than the sight of government working well.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and want to voice
my concern with the argument that somehow we are allowing flexibility.
We took away flexibility, in my judgment, when we said we know what is
best for States: They have to have prisons, but they cannot have more
money for cops on the beat and what I think are prevention programs.
If we want flexibility, if we on our side are saying we are going to
let everyone decide, then why did we not put the prison money in with
prevention and enforcement?
My problem is I think this is a direct assault on the prevention
programs. Maybe I am one of the few Members on this side of the aisle
who represents an urban area, where in my areas police chiefs in
Stamford, Norwalk, and Bridgeport put more weight on prevention than
they do on cops on the beat.
Candidly, I have seen cops on the beat go to some of my wealthiest
suburban communities that do not need them. We need programs that will
help young people not go through a life of crime. In Fairfield, CT,
which I represent, the people now have so many programs after school
and during school and on weekends, they do not have a hard time not
doing something, their challenge is what don't they do.
In Bridgeport, CT, when school is out, they are left on their own, in
most cases in a latchkey environment with no parent, no adult
supervision. We have an after-school program, we have weekend school
programs. These kids are hungry for preventive programs. I do not buy
for a minute that we are saying we want flexibility. If we wanted
flexibility, we would have put prison money in this package.

{time} 2110

Instead we took money out of the police, out of enforcement, out of
prevention, and gave it to prisons. My State does not need to build
more prisons. It needs to decide who better should be in the prisons.
I support this amendment. I urge its passage. I say to my colleagues,
If you represented an urban area, you would know prevention programs
are more important than anything else we could do.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has no time
remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to close.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond first to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], my friend, on the view that having a prison
funding grant is inconsistent with supporting flexibility. The argument
was also made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The fact of the
matter is that might be true if no State used prisons, but every State,
unfortunately as it may be, has found the need to have prisons. What we
did in the bill that offered grants for prisons is to simply recognize
that those States that increase the amount of time to be served by
violent criminals would incur automatically greater
[[Page H1671]] costs for that, and, since money is not unlimited, we
thought the best use of prison funds was to help those States which are
incurring the greater costs through their determination to protect
their citizens.
More importantly, Mr. Chairman, on the subject of prevention we agree
that there ought to be prevention programs. We agree that there ought
to be police. Our bill gives the maximum flexibility to communities to
decide what they need best. The gentleman from Connecticut said that
some communities in this State did not need more police. Some others
might decide they do not need more police. We leave it to them, and if
in fact we are going to block off any amounts of money, which I do not
support, we should not do it by word-for-word simply incorporating the
bureaucratic programs that are found in the crime bill of last year, in
which Washington dictates step-by-step and page-by-page: ``Here are
your prevention programs, you must use these programs, and here is how
you're going to do it.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my colleagues, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Schumer.
As a former City Council member, I have been fighting throughout my
career to demand that local governments get direct funding and
flexibility. But in this case, I seriously question whether H.R. 728
will give local governments the true flexibility they want.
Although H.R. 728 claims it will allow cities to spend money on
whatever they want, the bill does not supply enough funds to
sufficiently support the comprehensive crime-fighting initiatives of
our cities.
In practice, H.R. 728 would result in cities sacrificing prevention
programs, without guaranteeing that any police officers would be added.
This is a decision no city wants to make-because locally-elected
officials know that crime prevention works.
The City of Chula Vista in my district has urged Congress not to cut
funding for the successful prevention programs they have initiated. And
the National League of Cities recently stated that any anti-crime
legislation must include support for anti-drug abuse, crime and
violence prevention programs.
But up here in Congress, supporters of today's bill clearly do not
see crime prevention as important. And these Washingtonians are
imposing that belief onto our local governments by refusing to supply
cities with the funds they need to truly fight crime in a comprehensive
way.
H.R. 728 would eliminate the desperately needed community policing
and crime prevention programs of last year's crime bill, and without
this amendment, cut nearly $2.5 billion from the money intended to go
to local crime fighting. This would destroy the crime bill's wise and
reasonable balance between enforcement, punishment, and prevention.
We need stiffer penalties and we need to keep criminals off our
streets, but we also need crime prevention programs to stop crime
before it starts.
Crime prevention works. It works when school and community-based
programs give kids a place to go after school and give them something
positive to do. It works when police officers forge relationships with
at-risk youth and teach them how to stay from crime. And it works when
drug abuse programs rehabilitate individuals and get them back into the
work force.
In San Diego, a program called Safe Haven has been particularly
successful, and I would like to read a bit about that program from an
article recently printed in the San Diego Union Tribune.

Until Anthony Majadi established a Safe Haven program in
Southcrest Park a year ago, prostitution flourished in the
parking lot, basketball players brought booze to the gym and
the drug trade dominated.
The park is now a different place.
With a budget of $160,000, Safe Haven helped hundreds of
children and adults through its myriad activities, including
instruction in martial arts and computers, homework
assistance, summer day camp and other programs.
Safe Haven is part of a national program and federal
government established to complement seeding efforts in the
Weed and Seed target areas. Safe Haven is held out as an
example of what weed and seed can do--benefit a community
beyond drug raids and gang sweeps.

Programs like Safe haven make our neighborhoods safer, they improve
the lives of our children, and they bring tremendous cost savings to
our criminal justice system.
In the words of a concerned citizen in my district: ``Killing funding
for crime prevention programs demonstrates a disheartedly shortsighted,
simplistic and self-defeating approach to the Nation's crime
problems.''
This debate should not pit prevention against enforcement. We need
them both. We need to combine them in a comprehensive approach to
fighting crime. And it is irresponsible for Federal lawmakers to make
local governments choose between the two.
We have to address the causes of crime--not just the symptoms. I ask
my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment--and to join me
in continuing the long-term strategy to crime control that we started
last year.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

amendment offered by mr. menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez: Page 13, after line 4,
insert the following:
``(e) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--A unit of local
government qualifies for a payment under this title for a
payment period only if the unit's expenditures on law
enforcement services (as reported by the Bureau of the
Census) for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in
which the payment period occurs were not less than 90 percent
of the unit's expenditures on such services for the second
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the payment
period occurs.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to clarify and strengthen language
in the bill requiring that Federal funds granted to local governments
supplement, not supplant, local spending on law enforcement.
I understand that the chairman of the subcommittee has had an
opportunity to review the amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to accept the amendment. It is
a good amendment. It makes it very, very clear that we are not
supplementing funds the way we want to. We want to make that
protection, and I would agree with the gentleman in accepting the
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to accept the amendment on
this side.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 12, after line 7,
add the following:
``(10) the unit of local government will achieve a net gain
in the number of law enforcement officers who perform
nonadministrative public safety service if such unit uses
funds received under this title to increase the number of law
enforcement officers as described under subparagraph (A),
(B), (C) of section 101(a)(2).''.

Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment says that there
shall be a net gain of non- administrative police officers
as a result of funding under this bill, which basically means that
there will be a few more Indians around. We do a lot of talking about
cops on the beat, and I am not even sure the last crime bill did that.
This will ensure that with any police officers hired under this bill,
there would be a net gain of Indians on the street.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida.
[[Page H1672]] Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this
amendment. The gentleman is correct. It is an excellent proposal that
makes sure that we are really going to get the net gain in police we
want. It is better, as the gentleman says, than anything that we had
even in the last year's bill relative to this kind of restriction, so I
thank him for offering it. I accept the amendment and encourage its
adoption.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly accept the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with that I wholeheartedly support the
amendment and ask that it be approved.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
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 (Mr.
Bonilla) 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. 748) to
control crime by providing law enforcement block grants, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________