[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1701-H1743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1130
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). 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} 1131
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 on Monday,
February 13, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant] had been disposed of, and the bill was open for
amendment at any point.
Five hours and twenty minutes remain for consideration of amendments
under the 5-minute rule.
Are there any further amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mr. mccollum
Mr. McCOLLUM. Is the amendment printed in the Record?
Mr. McCOLLUM. The amendment is not printed in the Record, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: On page 10, line 20,
strike ``45'' and insert ``20''.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple and pretty much
technical amendment. Under the bill as written, the chief executive
officer of every State has not less than 45 days to review and comment
on an application for a grant submitted to the director. We would like
to change that. This amendment changes that to 20 days.
We have no basis for wanting the States to have any more time than
necessary to delay the possible getting
[[Page H1702]] the money by any city or county that is supposed to get
the funds. In fact, I am not even sure 20 days is a magic number of
days, but the objective here, since we have a complicated formula, is
to let there be at least a certain amount of time out there for the
situation to be observed and acted upon in cases where we have to have
cooperation between the local unit of government and maybe a sublocal
unit, such as the city and county situation, where the formula has to
be adjusted to take into account some diverse interests in some parts
of the country.
There needs to be some time here. The thinking is that 45 days is too
long, and 20 days is more reasonable, for the Governors to have this
sitting before the director to disburse the money, to comment on it or
to have some reaction to it.
I would urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I do not think it
is controversial in any way.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen this amendment on our side. We have no
problems with it, and I urge its passage.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the amendment printed in the Record?
Mr. SCHUMER. The amendment is not 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 2, line 6, insert
after ``amended'' the following:
``by redesignating that title as title XXXIV and a new
title I is inserted in that Act''
Page 8, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 9,
line 2, and insert the following:
``(1) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $1,732,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''
Page 21, strike line 17 and all that follows through page
22, line 7.
Page 26, strike line 9 and all that follows through line
11.
Mr. SCHUMER (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. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
Mr. Chairman, Speaker Gingrich has been talking about his Contract
With America. We made a contract with the American people last year, as
well, a contract to put 100,000 new police officers on our streets. We
cannot and must not break our promise so that Speaker Gingrich can pass
a bill written by pollsters and pundits who said it would be popular.
Under the crime law we passed last year 100,000 new community police
officers will be put on the streets of America. Under Speaker,
Gingrich's bill, not one new police officer must be hired.
Speaker Gingrich said last year, Mr. Chairman, that sending a blank
check to cities would result in a pork barrel boondoggle. Today Speaker
Gingrich is not only defending this blank check approach to crime-
fighting, he is, unfortunately, championing it.
Last year's crime bill, Mr. Chairman, guaranteed 100,000 new police
for our streets. Speaker Gingrich's bill guarantees billions of dollars
of pork, like tanks, useless studies, or this airplane, bought by the
Governor of Indiana in the 1970's.
It is a simple, simple choice, Mr. Chairman: Do we want police, or do
we want pork? That is the choice of the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman
amendment. It cuts clearly to the difference between the super pork
barrel block grant program, and the bipartisan commitment this Congress
made last year to the American people.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment unequivocally preserves, protects, and
defends the promise we made to America less than a year ago. Passing
this amendment will show the American people that this House is not a
Chamber that lightly throws away such solemn promises, particularly
when that promise is to put 100,000 new cops on America's streets.
Passing this amendment will show that Members of this House on both
sides of the aisle can think for themselves, that they are not mindless
puppets who march in lockstep simply to fulfill the promises of a
poorly drafted political document, hastily written in the heat of a
political campaign, because that is what H.R. 728 is.
Passing this amendment, Mr. Chairman, will keep faith with the
hundreds of thousands of men and women who are police officers, who, at
this very moment, are walking America's streets and need our help.
Every major police organization in this country has had the courage
to go on record. They want the cops on the beat program saved exactly
as it was passed last year, and that is what this amendment does. It
fully restores the cops on the beat program, and leaves a net balance
of $2.5 billion for the block grant purposes already outlined in H.R.
728.
Mr. Chairman, we should not let anyone tell us that the cops on the
beat program is not working. It clearly is. As of last week grants have
been awarded that will put over 16,000 new police officers on the
streets. Think about that, Mr. Chairman, 16,000 new police officers
provided in less than a year, in a day when government bureaucracy
seems to overwhelm us. This is almost a modern miracle. Why are we
pulling it back?
This fact alone, Mr. Chairman, disproves the repeated misstatement we
have heard in this Chamber that the cops program will not provide
100,000 cops. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this program is being
implemented without a lot of red tape or complicated applications.
Here is the application for this program, Mr. Chairman. Look at it, I
would ask the Members. It is simple, straightforward, no nonsense, that
anyone worthy of leading the smallest police department of a sheriff's
office can fill out in a few minutes.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this program is flexible, and being
administered in a sensible way. It is true that the law requires the
local community to put up a 25 percent match. We all know from our
experience if we just give free money with no strings attached, it is
much more likely to be wasted.
However, the law also recognizes that sometimes there should be
waivers when communities cannot afford it. It allows the Attorney
General to waive the match, as she has done for communities all over
the country. I have here a list of the Attorney General waivers of the
25 percent match. It includes police departments in California,
Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, the plain fact is that any community with a good cause
and the determination can help solve its own problems by qualifying for
these funds.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Schumer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. SCHUMER. What has H.R. 728 to offer in place of this proven
working program that America's cops and America's people want? The
biggest pork-laden boondoggle in the history of this Congress since the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration disaster upon which it is
modeled.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to keep faith with the American
people, keep faith with America's cops, and show their thoughtful
independence on both sides of the aisle. Vote for the Schumer-Conyers-
Chapman amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, what we have just heard is an explanation of the
pivotal amendment on this entire bill.
[[Page H1703]] {time} 1140
It is an amendment which would restore to its full funding the entire
presidential cops-on-the-street program from last year's Congress, a
program that thousands of communities have found is not of any benefit
to them, a program that is not working but a program that is a pet
project of the President, upon which he threw down the gauntlet, the
veto threat this past Saturday during his radio address if we are to
disturb it in any way.
I would suggest that what the gentleman from New York is stating,
while I know his sincerity is there, is simply not representative of
the reality that America finds itself today, nor the reality of this
bill.
The primary concern of Americans today is to fight crime on the
streets in their local communities and to stop the onslaught of violent
crime. There are myriads of programs out there that are important to
them to do this. What is good for one community in one corner of the
country is not necessarily good for another. Some communities need new
police officers, some do not. Some would take advantage of this money
that is now on the table in the old bill. Some cannot afford to.
The simple fact is that the cost of hiring a new police officer is
nowhere near the base figure being used for the grants match or
otherwise that are in the current law. The cost of a new police officer
instead of being $20,000 to $25,000 a year which is what the base
figure is for taking the 75-25 match moneys that are involved in that
bill, that is simply the hiring cost for the average new police officer
for his salary for the first year. Instead of it being that figure, it
is closer to $60,000 or $70,000 a year to put a new police officer on
the street when you consider training, equipping him, et cetera.
This bill, in addition to not getting anywhere near that for 1 year,
expires at the end of 3 years with any Federal money. Consequently,
local communities are often finding this a pig-in-the-poke and a very
bad program.
I would like to call attention to my colleagues to the editorial in
today's Washington Post that has not always been known for its
endorsement of Republican initiatives.
``The President,'' it says here in the editorial, ``wants at least to
preserve the mandatory funding of what he says will be 100,000 new cops
on the street.''
``When last year's bill was enacted, that 100,000 figure was cited as
the most important feature of the law. Almost immediately, though, it
was challenged by law enforcement experts and some local officials. In
fact,'' the Post says, ``the law created a 5-year matching program
during which the Federal Government's share diminished and eventually
disappeared, leaving localities with the full cost of maintaining the
new officers. Since the maximum Federal contribution could not have
exceeded $15,000 a year per new hire, the program would never have
supplied enough to pay salary, benefits, pensions and other costs, so
the cities would have had to come up with a lot of up-front money many
say they don't have.''
``So put aside,'' the Post says, ``the 100,000 figure and the issue
boils down to whether decisions about the expenditure of law
enforcement dollars are best made locally or nationally.''
Skipping a little bit down in the editorial, the Post goes on to say,
``Our sense is that the world won't end if local authorities are given
more flexibility. In some cities, like this one, the greatest need may
not be additional police on the
roster, but better equipment, specialized training or even midnight
basketball. What's wrong with letting them use Federal funds for less
expensive but still effective programs rather than for costly hiring?
But if cities already have a drug court, as Washington does, and a
fully staffed police force, what's wrong with using Federal funds for
social workers in juvenile detention facilities, or for improving
computer systems to track parolees? One hundred thousand cops sounds
good, but congressional failure to include that mandate is not worth a
presidential veto.''
The long and the short of it is that the Washington Post recognizes
as we do on this side of the aisle that flexibility is the key to this.
We do not want to hamstring the local communities around the country
with the type of program that is in existence today. We need to give
them maximum flexibility.
I also have a copy of a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors
dated February 10 signed by Victor Ashe, the mayor of Knoxville, the
President, and Norman Rice, the mayor of Seattle, its Vice President,
addressed to the Honorable Richard Gephardt, the Democratic leader,
expressing concern. I will quote only part of the letter, and I will
later submit the whole letter for the Record:
``As President and Vice President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
the 63-year-old bipartisan organization which represents mayors and
local governments throughout the Nation, we are writing to express our
concern about your recent comments on the ability of local governments
to manage block grants. At your February 7 press conference, you said:
`These crime bills want to just turn the money over to the local
governments without any strings, and we are likely to wind up where we
were back in the 1970's when we had some local jurisdictions using the
money for tanks and fixed-wing airplanes and all kinds of wild things
that didn't have much to do with really fighting crime.'
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. ``First of all, this comment is factually incorrect.
The LEAA program to which you were referring provided funds to the
States, not to the Cities.''
They go on then, and I will skip some of this.
``Second, we are distressed that you seem to have so little
confidence in the integrity and administrative ability of local
government officials. Your statement of February 7 is in direct
contrast to what you told the mayors on January 27 at our Winter
Meeting at the Capital Hilton in Washington:
`If we're going to block-grant money for prevention and for police, I
want that money to go to you, the cities of this country, and not
somewhere else. You're the ones on the front lines. You're the people
that have got to show results, and I think you're well-equipped to try
to figure out what to do with the money.'
``We prefer to believe that this is really your assessment of local
government officials today. With all due respect, we believe that
because of the leadership position you hold, it is important that you
clarify the trust you have in the mayors, city council members and
county officials throughout our Nation.''
I would suggest that the comments of minority leader Gephardt clearly
indicate from what he said to the mayors and their quoting of him on
their winter meeting date of January 27 that there is no question that
he recognizes that local communities do act responsibly and they are
the best ones to make these decisions. It should be a bipartisan effort
today to mold a flexible local community block grant program here that
takes care of both the cops on the street and the prevention and lets
the local communities decide for themselves. We should not be holding
back and trying to preserve an old and clearly debunked program for
cops on the street simply because the President wants to hold up the
political image of having completed the hiring or providing for 100,000
new cops. It sounds great, but there will never be 100,000 new cops
provided under his program. Many communities will not apply, cannot
accept if they are given the grants, do not have the money to do that,
and would not want the police even if they did because there are other
alternatives they would prefer.
It was an interesting idea. It is not the best idea. The best idea is
in this bill for local block grants.
I urge the defeat of the Schumer amendment as a result of that. I
think it is an ill-conceived amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the letter referred to is as follows:
The U.S. Conference of Mayors,
Washington, DC, February 10, 1995.
Hon. Richard Gephardt,
Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Gephardt: As President and Vice
President of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 63-year-old
bi-partisan organization which represents mayors
[[Page H1704]] and local governments throughout the nation,
we are writing to express our concern about your recent
comments on the ability of local governments to manage block
grants. At your February 7 press conference you said:
``These crime bills . . . want to just turn the money over
to the local governments without any strings, and we are
likely to wind up where we were back in the '70s when we had
some local jurisdictions using the money for tanks and fixed-
wing airplanes and all kinds of wild things that didn't have
much to do with really fighting crime.''
First of all, this comment is factually incorrect. The LEAA
program to which you were referring provided funds to the
states; cities received only a small portion of those funds
and generally their purposes were dictated by the state
government. It was state governments, not cities, which would
have purchased tanks and fixed-wing airplanes. Such purchases
are specifically prohibited by HR 728.
Secondly, we are distressed that you seem to have so little
confidence in the integrity and administrative ability of
local government officials. Your statement of February 7 is
in direct contrast to what you told the mayors on January 27
at our Winter Meeting at the Capitol Hilton in Washington:
``. . . if we're going to block grant money for prevention
and for police, I want that money to go to you, the cities of
this country, and not somewhere else . . . You're the ones on
the front lines. You're the people that have got to show
results, and I think you're well equipped to try to figure
out what to do with the money.''
We prefer to believe that this is really your assessment of
local government officials today. With all due respect, we
believe that because of the leadership position you hold, it
is important that you clarify the trust you have in the
mayors, city council members and county officials throughout
our nation.
Sincerely yours,
Victor Ashe,
Mayor of Knoxville, President.
Norman B. Rice,
Mayor of Seattle, Vice President.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, on yesterday we attempted to restore the prevention
part of this crime bill the way that it was written in 1994 and
approved in a bipartisan fashion.
Today our attempt is to restore the community police program and
restore that in the original form in which it was passed only several
months ago.
Nothing has more symbolized the Federal Government's commitment to
fighting crime than the President's program of putting 100,000
policemen on the streets. If there is anything that most people dislike
about Washington, it is the breaking of commitments. That is exactly
what the Republican block grant program deliberately does. It breaks a
commitment to put 100,000 policemen on the street, folding it into a
block grant program, knowing that thereby they will dilute or destroy
both the prevention program and the police program.
So we should not break this promise. This amendment, Schumer-Conyers-
Chapman, is an attempt to fulfill that commitment by restoring the
funding for the cops on the beat program by reserving $7.5 billion for
the block grant for the program.
When we want to fight crime on Capitol Hill, we should listen to
those who work in this field, work on the front lines. The Fraternal
Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the
Sheriffs Association, the Black Police Association, the Police
Executive Research Forum, the California Police Chiefs have all
endorsed this amendment. We have met with their leaders. They are still
on board and they are still hopeful that common sense will prevail in
the Congress today with reference to our efforts to have a community-
based police program of 100,000 police officers emanating from the
Federal Government.
They support it because they understand the Republican block grant.
They realize that the Republican proponents say it may increase the
overall number of cops on the beat, but they will not put any guarantee
in writing.
There is no guarantee, as a matter of fact, that a single police
officer would be put on the beat, despite the wide consensus in city
after city and State after State for more community police. There is no
guarantee that the funds will result in any crime reduction whatsoever.
There are no performance measures written so that we can measure the
effectiveness of the bill in later years. Its formula does not take
into account the adequacy or inadequacy of existing police staffing
levels in particular areas, or the ability or inability of such areas
to effectively utilize additional police resources.
The proposal could deny needed funds to hard-pressed areas that would
otherwise receive funding under the existing program. Simply put, it is
a total abdication of responsible legislation and thoughtfulness.
In fact, the program of theirs is nearly identical to the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration grants that we are reminded of
merely by the similarity in programs. We know what happened, the
inefficiencies, the waste, the abuse, and worse.
We are replacing an existing, proven police program and an existing
prevention program which is widely popular at local levels with failed
programs. Is that what the contract of America is about?
Mr. Chairman, the program of cops on the beat has already been
successful. Seventeen thousand have already been put in place. The
President announced 7,000 for small communities just last week. Over
half of all police districts nationwide have received or will shortly
receive new police.
In this body, we can write all the tough laws we want, all the death
penalties, all the mandatory minimums, but this is the test of whether
we really want to have community policing at the national level.
Support this amendment.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to strongly support the
Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment.
I recall last year when we had a really good crime bill that we had a
proper balance, somewhat like a 3-legged stool. We reflected the 3 P's
of crime fighting: crime prevention grants at the beginning of the
process to prevent crime, police to both prevent crime and apprehend
criminals, and prisons to house prisoners and to keep violent offenders
off the street.
Unfortunately, that delicate and, I think, very sensible balance has
been disrupted in the Republican-sponsored bill we have before us
today. What they have done is disrupted this balance by being too heavy
on prisons, the part of the process at the very end, and creating a
very heavily funded dysfunctional leg for prisons, then trying to merge
prevention and police into one also dysfunctional leg. It is very
unfortunate.
I want to commend all of those who tried unsuccessfully yesterday to
restore prevention funds. But today I want to talk specifically about
the ground troops in the war on crime, and that is police.
We say it is a war on crime, and in any other national defense
circumstance it seems to me we would advocate national decisionmaking
and national priority setting. This is the only one in which we say the
most important thing is local decisionmaking.
We need to assure that the ground troops necessary to fight the war
on crime are in place and that means we need more police.
Every single law enforcement entity has said community policing
works. Every local neighborhood, neighborhoods who never before had
positive relationships with their police departments said, ``Yes, if
you bring a law enforcement official into our community not as a storm
trooper but as someone who can work with the community, work with young
people, identify local problems, this works.''
``Yes, if you have consistent patrols that can walk the beat and get
to know the community, we can solve crime.''
{time} 1155
The Republicans, unfortunately, do not believe that this makes quite
as much sense, and that is why they have taken away our opportunity to
guarantee these police forces.
I believe we do need national priority setting on this issue. We do
need to ensure that we here in the Congress provide the ground troops
in the war on crime.
We have an interesting situation here: We have the Republican
judgment that we do not need these police or to let the locals make the
decision, but we have the law enforcement community saying across the
board--major
[[Page H1705]] city police chiefs, International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, Law Enforcement Officers Association, Fraternal Order of
Police, Black Police Officers, Black Police Executives, National
Troopers Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the
Police Foundation--all say they support the police program. They
support the current COPS program to guarantee 100,000 police. They say
that it is essential in our efforts to taking back our streets.
So we have in this corner the Republican judgment, ``Let the locals
decide.'' You have in this corner the judgment of our law enforcement
community, the people that we ask to defend our streets, who say the
top priority should be the retention of the COPS program.
Now, I am not here to object to local decisionmaking. As a former
State official, I believe in it. But the fact remains that if we send
these grants down to the local level, they will be caught up in
competing interests.
One gentleman got up yesterday and suggested, ``Well, we are going to
need a road to connect one prison to another.'' Another one wants
lights. Another group may want sports. Another may want other
activities. These are all legitimate activities and all contribute to
fighting crime.
But the issue before us today is whether we in the U.S. Congress take
a stand with law enforcement officials across this land and say that
police ought to be our top priority.
I can tell you in the State of Maryland we have already received 284
officers. My district has received 55 more police officers. You know
what, Mr. Chairman? It is working.
My small town mayors, my county executives are all saying this is
what we need, additional police.
So I want to say emphatically that local decisionmaking has its
place, but if we are in a war in this country on crime, it seems to me
we need to make some national decisions, and that national decision
ought to be to strongly support the cops on the beat.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, a vote for the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment is a
vote of no confidence in the local public officials. Your mayors, your
township officials, your municipal officers elected by the voters to
make decisions at their level on what is best for their streets, for
their neighborhoods, for their public safety contingents, this
constitutes no confidence in them and, as a matter of fact, a
condemnation of their abilities to govern their own municipalities.
That is the difference that we are trying to determine over on this
side when we offer this elastic, flexible program which will allow
these local officials to respond to their local voters and taxpayers.
Now, what is the difference between what we are attempting to do here
and what occurred under LEAA? That was a bipartisan measure, as I
remember, and that served its purpose at that time. If there was any
difference between that and this which you now decry, you on the other
side of the aisle, it might be this: that today we have the expanded
coverage of C-SPAN, we have total communications from individual
Members of Congress to their constituents and vice versa. And the
likelihood of the local public officials taking this money and using it
for automobiles or some of the other wild stories that we have heard
about, misuse of the LEAA funds, simply cannot happen except at the
risk of the people involved back home.
This program of flexibility on the part of local government is no
more subject to corruption or waywardness of funds than is the 100,000
police officer part that is in the former crime bill. What is to
prevent special favoritism on the part of anyone making the selection
of the communities that are to receive this largess?
So it is confidence that we have in the local officials that drives
us in this direction. Your program signals no confidence at all in
local public officials.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, this clearly is not a partisan issue.
I am wearing a badge today, a badge that talks about 100,000 cops and
reminds Americans that we should not go back. The hiring of 100,000 new
police officers should not be a partisan issue. It is very interesting,
as I listened to the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas' district liked this program enough to apply
for and get some 23 new officers on the street.
Again, this is not a partisan issue. Hiring officers is not an issue
that should divide us; it should be one that brings us together.
What we are doing with H.R. 728 is throwing money, with no specific
direction, in the name of flexibility.
Mr. Chairman, I come from local government, I respect their
decisionmaking powers. I know they work. But there is no guarantee that
these dollars will get down to the local police jurisdictions and
municipalities. These dollars may ultimately go to our States and then
have to have the continued massaging at to where these dollars might
end up.
The COPS program, in particular, responds to the public's demand that
we use tax dollars to make our streets safer. The COPS program requires
a commitment to increasing their force size by requiring them to come
up with at least 25 percent of the cost of hiring new officers.
It establishes a working relationship, a partnership. The COPS
program's local matching program with the declining Federal share over
the course of the grant encourages and prepares local jurisdictions to
pick up the tab in 3 years or so.
H.R. 728, on the other hand, does nothing to prepare them. It drops
the ball. You go off the side of the Earth. There is no commitment.
There is no planning.
And most of all, this program helps the needy jurisdictions. It helps
our communities who need cops the most. People are looking for safer
streets. They are asking us not to be partisan in this. It is
interesting that we would put such extreme restrictions on requiring
our jurisdictions to get prison dollars, some 85 percent requirement
under truth-in-sentencing, which requires the different jurisdictions
to have prisoners incarcerated up to 85 percent of time given, and yet
when we talk about police officers--where you stop the criminal
activity along with prevention, where you allow for community
policing--then we throw all reasoning to the winds.
This is not a partisan issue. We are required, if you will, to look
at this from the perspective of the American people. The American
people who embraced this wholeheartedly in the 103d Congress, in that
bill, the omnibus crime bill of 1994, the American people supported
this and stood up for it.
Mr. Chairman, today is Valentine's Day, and I simply ask that we, the
U.S. Congress, send a valentine to the American people. That valentine
is safer streets; that valentine is embracing the idea of 100,000
police officers. That valentine is recognizing that the American people
want tax dollars to be used to provide the opportunity for police
officers in their communities.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment
making our streets safer and supporting 100,000 police.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been in committee, the Committee
on the Judiciary, with my colleagues here, and I have come to respect
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and her positions on law
enforcement.
I think what we are talking about here is we are talking about just
what I mentioned last night, a philosophical difference of where we
want to go, whether we want to dictate to local law enforcement and the
States as to how much money should be spent and where it should go. We
on this side of the aisle seek flexibility at the local level in that
regard. And I say that there is nobody in this Congress--not even
myself, who has been a police chief for 15 years; in fact last year at
this time I was in that position--that know better how to use money at
the
[[Page H1706]] local level. I can say I knew for years exactly how to
use grant money at the local level, because I was there. I cannot tell
you now that I know better than the police chief of Raleigh, NC, at
this point how best to use that money under a block grant. They know.
One size does not fit all, I can tell you that.
Rudy Giuliani, Mayor Giuliani's name was mentioned here several times
as not being in favor of more cops but of equipment. He knows better,
his police chief knows better. Nobody in this Congress knows better how
to use that block grant money than the people at the local level.
LEAA has been brought up several times as a Dunkirk when it came to
funding at the local level. I cannot argue with that. I was in law
enforcement at that time, big-time law enforcement. I know there was
waste. But this bill, hopefully, provides a framework under which
Dunkirk will not reoccur.
But there is a raging fire on the streets in this country today,
right now. As a matter of fact, since last Thursday, at 1:21 p.m., when
we started debating prison grants, up to now, the FBI will tell us that
357 Americans were murdered in that time up to now. We are chasing the
clock as it relates to this. I think our intentions are all in the
right direction. It is just how are we going to get there. We had
hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary, where people pleaded from
the local level, pleaded with us for help, pleaded with us to send help
to the local level, where prisons are concerned, and law enforcement as
well.
I do not want to hear LEAA being brought up again. We did bring into
this bill safeguards; that is, accountability at the local level. It
does set up an advisory board. It does provide for the chief executive
within 45 days to respond. Three percent of the moneys is provided for
oversight, oversight hopefully, not to repeat the LEAA boondoggles.
I tell you, when I gave testimony today that the best knowledge of
how to use that money will come from the local level and the local
level will provide law enforcement officers; it is built into the bill.
So if you know best, if you know better than local police officers at
the local level how to use the money and how to dispense it, then do
not vote for this bill. But as far as the Schumer amendment, I rise to
defeat that amendment on the basis of the fact of what I have said, and
also stressing, as best I can, that let the local level determine where
the money should go.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I too appreciate very much the very clear
insightfulness that the gentleman brought to the deliberation in the
Committee on the Judiciary. I think all of us have made every effort to
be as effective for the broad views of Americans.
I only raise a concern. I appreciate the gentleman coming from the
police perspective, and in a discussion that we had on the floor
yesterday when, I think, in another bipartisan effort we suggested a
very small modification that would not allow these dollars to be used
for road and highways. Again, we thought that that was fair, if you
will, a striking of a balance of how those funds may ultimately be
used. We did not win that. The Republicans voted against that.
That is the concern I raise, coming from local government, respecting
local government, local police chiefs, that because of the lack of
clarity, in the name of flexibility, that we would have the occasion to
use very precious dollars that should be used for our police officers
and to use them for things like roads and highways. I have that great
concern. That is why I raise this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Heineman] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Heineman was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEINEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just wish to bring to the gentleman's attention,
because the major of New York City, Mr. Giuliani was mentioned: The
major, when the original bill was drafted would only allow cops on the
beat, and the mayors in New York and Los Angeles, and some others have
said, ``What if we want to put in a computer? What if we want to put in
overtime? What if we want to put in civilians?''
{time} 1210
A compromise that was worked out, which is now in the law, says very
simply that, as long as it will increase the net number of cops on the
beat, they can do that. So, our bill has a great deal, the present law
does have a great deal of flexibility which would be restored by the
Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment; not in my judgment too much
flexibility that they could do anything, but it would certainly allow
police departments to pay for other types of things provided, as a
result, there were new cops on the beat. I would argue to the gentleman
that is preferable to that proposal. I would not want to see them put
in a computer and not have new cops on the beat, but, if they want to
use it to put in a computer, free up people with desk jobs and have
them start walking the beats, great.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and let me at this
point say this is a bipartisan effort, as I see it, and I thank my
colleagues from law enforcement on both sides of the aisle for going to
bat and swinging the bat at the ball to get him the help they needed.
We heard it in committee. We heard the mayor, Mayor Ash, we heard the
DA's, we heard the judges asking for help, and I think we are really
moving in the right direction. It is just a matter of how are we going
to get there and who knows best.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, there is an implication here that the
Members of Congress, and there are many on both sides of the aisle,
that are the most grass roots representatives matching any local
officials in their communities, and let me just say that I will match
my access and knowledge of what my constituents want over 2,000 town
meetings in 12 years, and I think this is matched by many here. The
implication being: that it is local officials that know what is best.
Let me say that what worries me about the Republican plan is that
there are no guarantees that even one police officer is going to be
hired. We already have a plan underway. Let us not mess with it. We
have grants for over 17,000 new officers in cities and small towns
across the country. Half of all the police departments in the country
have applied for a cops grant.
Law enforcement and the American people want more police, and my
colleagues are trying to dismantle it. The only thing that this bill
guarantees is fewer new police on the streets of America. There will be
fewer police to build partnerships with communities, fewer police to
work with residents to reduce and control crime, and fewer police to
keep our streets safe for law-abiding citizens.
What we are also doing is taking a walk on accountability to the
American taxpayer. This is super pork of the highest order. No strings
attached. Do whatever you want with this money. That is basically what
we are saying. While we have banned tanks and airplanes, how many
thousands of ridiculous uses have not been explicitly prohibited? How
much money is going to be spent of thousands on wasteful purposes
rather than on police officers? There is no accountability for the $10
billion. What we have is a choice between police versus pork.
What we did was in the crime act, we paid for this program. We paid
for it by reducing the size of the Federal Government, and the
President rightfully has said that under no circumstances, he did not
fight 100,000 bureaucrats so we can trade them in for an old-fashioned
pork barrel program. What we have is a bunch of hoops, hurdles, and
fits for local governments rather than forging a partnership with them.
[[Page H1707]] What we are doing is building roadblocks to crime
fighting, creation of local advisory boards, new layers of bureaucracy,
new applications. Under the present plan we have a one-page
application. Mayors would have to defer to Governors on crime fighting
strategies even though mayors, police chiefs, and community leaders
already know best what works for their community, and, rather than
receiving grants directly to meet the particular needs, small towns and
rural communities would have to seek their portion of Federal dollars
from a pool distributed by the Governors of their State. What we have
is replacing crime fighters with administration. The court program
under the crime act is efficient, and it is centralized in distributing
grants for 17,000 police officers. In just 4 months Mr. Chairman, the
cops office is under budget and ahead of schedule. Yet the proposed
block grant would move slowly. It would delay crime fighting and would
shave off more of the taxpayers' money to pay for its administrative
costs.
Mr. Chairman, let us put police over pork. Let us deal with a program
that has enormous public support. Let us deal with a program that
already is underway, community policing, grass roots police.
I have small towns in New Mexico that have received one cop. We have
had grants awarded to 6,500 small communities, 7,100 cops. Why are we
going to mess with a program that is working for reasons of politics?
Let us give the President credit for a program that is working. Let
us not mess with this program, and if it passes the Congress,
rightfully the President should veto it.
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, I mean no disrespect, but there is an
incredible arrogance; I suppose it is an unconscious arrogance; in the
position that Washington knows best. Yes, there is a police program in
place. That is the problem. It is their program instead of local
government's program.
This bill that we are advancing provides for local advisory boards.
Now the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] said he has held
1,000 town meetings and he knows best. Well, I am not sure that I would
have the, I do not know another word, arrogance, to say that I know
more about every nook and cranny of my district and its needs for
public safety and fighting crime than the local police, and the
sheriff's office, the local prosecutor, representatives from the local
court system, representatives from the local school board system,
representatives from community groups. I mean, a little humility. These
are the people fighting the problem in their front yard.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that I think
the gentleman's point is right, that we should not in Washington be
making these decisions, but in fact we are saying we are listening to
the order of police, the sheriffs, the black police officers. They are
the ones who are saying that they want to keep this program, not people
in Washington who are not on the front line.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am terribly sorry, but I just do not agree.
I do not think they understand that their program is seed money and,
after a few years, it evaporates, it disappears, and the local unit of
government is left to absorb all of the coats. I do not think they are
thinking in those terms, but it is a fact that it is virtually
illusory.
We are talking 20,000 policemen, fully paid for, not 100,000. Those
figures have been worked out, and they are not too obscure. The fact is
we have a program that is animated by the philosophy that local
government knows its problems and how to deal with them. All wisdom
does not reside in Washington.
Now to call it super pork is really to insult thousands of local
officials who must face the same taxpayers we face only in a more
immediate fashion. They come out to the meetings and eyeball these
people. There is going to be supervision over how its spent through the
U.S. Attorney General's office having a program of oversight, and so it
just seems to me a little trust, a little faith, a little humility,
that we do not know it all, that the people in the front lines do know
it all, and let us give them the resources.
{time} 1220
Now some say, no more policemen, that they do not need policemen.
Maybe they want technical help; maybe computers are what they need;
maybe prosecutors; maybe jails; maybe policemen. But let them make the
call, not from here hundreds or thousands of miles away in Washington.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
Mr. HYDE. With pleasure, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, it is my local police chiefs and my local
sheriffs who have called me to say they like the crime bill of last
year, that it is working, and they are getting new police officers. It
is the local law enforcement people who call me, the Oregon State
Patrol. They have called and said they do not like the changes; they
want the bill that was there last year. I think they do not know what
is going on. I think we should trust them.
Mr. HYDE. Well, the city council in Cincinnati thinks just the
opposite. There are plenty of municipalities that understand that this
is illusory, that in the first year, 25 percent of the cost is going to
have to be assumed by the local units of government; by the second year
50 percent; by the third year 75 percent; and by the fourth year it is
gone.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. Of course, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I make two points. First, the argument that our program expires and
the block grant does not, that is totally false. Both are based on the
trust fund. Ours goes 6 years.
Mr. HYDE. I did not say the block grant program expires. These are
the gentleman's words.
Mr. SCHUMER. The program expires, so local communities would be on
their own under either bill; is that not correct?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, but we are not promising them 100,000 policemen, which
are not in the cards by anybody's computer. The gentleman knows that.
Will you concede that?
Mr. SCHUMER. If the gentleman will yield, there are already 17,000
police officers. If you take the prorated amounts spent and look at how
much more is left in the pot, we are easily in reach of the 100,000
police officers. Last year the gentleman may have had an argument, but
seeing what has happened this year, it is obviously clear that there
will be 100,000 police. This is a well-administered program.
Mr. HYDE. This gentleman knows they are rushing out the police now
before we vote on this, but that is not going to last long.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Schumer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hyde was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is overly generous in getting
more time for me, and I continue to yield to him.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for his generosity as well.
Mr. Chairman, the other point I make is that the gentleman is saying,
let us leave it to the locals. I think ask the American people, ``Who
do you want to leave it to, your local police chief or your local
politician,'' they would say----
Mr. HYDE. Not the local police chief.
Mr. SCHUMER. If I could, I would just like to finish my point.
Mr. HYDE. Yes, but do not misstate.
Mr. SCHUMER. That is why I gave the gentleman 2 minutes more, so I
could finish my point. That is more generosity.
Mr. HYDE. The gentleman anticipates interruption; is that it?
Mr. SCHUMER. I always do.
The local police are for our proposal, although the mayors have not
taken a position and the counties have not taken a position.
Mr. HYDE. The Governors have.
[[Page H1708]] Mr. SCHUMER. The Governors have, but we know them.
I would make one other point: It is not just we Democrats who say we
should not be trusting the local politicians.
Mr. HYDE. The gentleman is saying that, though. Will the gentleman
concede he is saying that we cannot trust the local politicians?
Mr. SCHUMER. We cannot trust all the local politicians, agreed. Let
me tell the gentleman who agrees with us.
Mr. HYDE. How many percentage-wise? How many would you say can be
trusted?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, let me read a quote.
What I cannot defend is sending a blank check to local
politicians across the country for them to decide how to
spend it.
That was said by your Speaker, then minority whip Newt Gingrich, on
this floor on June 23, 1994.
So will the gentleman concede that there must be some grain of truth
to what we are saying if someone as exalted as your own Speaker, who
seems to state things in unequivocal terms, said that?
Mr. HYDE. I would accept that as gospel if you would accept the other
things he says as gospel.
Mr. SCHUMER. That is not a fair deal.
Mr. HYDE. But you pick and choose, I say to you, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of talk this morning, very
understandably, about this issue of H.R. 728 and the broader issue of
how we are going to provide the support to law enforcement that they
need, whether it is through the approach reflected in the 1994 crime
bill or the approach in H.R. 728. The issue is whether this is a
partisan issue or not, and distinguished Members on both sides of the
aisle within the last several minutes have said, very properly so, that
it is not a partisan issue.
However, Mr. Chairman, it is an issue of credibility, and it is an
issue of honesty and an issue of forthrightness in how this matter is
presented to the people of the United States of America. I think, as
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary just
noted, any way you slice it, any way you cut it, any way you dissect
it, there is not sufficient funds in the crime bill that was passed
last year to come anywhere near 100,000 police officers on the street.
If you add up the figures just cited by the distinguished gentleman
from New York, you reach a figure that is much beyond the $8.8 billion,
and one might ask him, ``Where are those funds going to be coming
from?''
What I think, Mr. Chairman, is that we have to get away from the use
of some of these statistics, some of the figures here, and remember
that, as I think former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon said,
``Statistics are used like drunks use lamp posts, for support rather
than illumination.''
Let us get away from these figures and focus on what the issue really
is here.
Mr. Chairman, it is a philosophical approach to governing. It is an
approach that is reflected on one hand, as reflected in the proposals
and the opposition to H.R. 728 by Members on the other side of the
aisle that say we in Washington know best, we in Washington know what
strings to attach, that we in Washington know how to micromanage. On
the other side of the aisle, the aisle from which I am speaking at the
moment, Mr. Chairman, Is the philosophy that says to the greatest
extent possible, keeping in mind sound physical principles which are
contained in H.R. 728 in terms of the accountability and the reporting
requirements for communities that received money under
H.R. 728 is a principle that says to the greatest extent possible
those members of the community, and in this instance we are talking
about the municipalities and the counties all across this great land of
ours, and the officials who are on the front line fighting the battle
against crime, your police chiefs and your county commissioners making
those allocations and having to answer to the citizens who are the
victims of those crimes every single day. They are the ones who should
be making those decisions. They are the ones under H.R. 728 who would
be making those decisions.
So I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, to get away from a lot of
partisan rhetoric, to get away from the smoke and mirrors that we have
seen coming out of the White House by rekindling the mantra of 100,000
police officers, 100,000 more police officers, et cetra, et cetera, and
talk about the philosophical approach, the very real approach, the very
honest approach to law enforcement and funding the law enforcement
needs in communities that is embodied in H.R. 728. It is the right
thing to do, it is the right time to do it, and now is the time to take
that right vote.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman. I wanted to bring to his attention a letter that I think was
written to the Department of Justice in support of policing grants, and
I want to quote from that letter because I think it is particularly
appropriate in the context of what the gentleman has said. The letter
reads in this way:
I know, as do you, how important to the overall enforcement
effort effective community policing programs can be.
I am familiar with the LaGrange Police Department Community
Policing Program, and with the desperate need for more law
enforcement officers in the City. The time and effort
designing and implementing its Community Policing Program,
and the initial results have been outstanding.
This letter was written by the gentleman from Georgia in support of
community policing community grants, and I would just ask the
gentleman, in the context of the statements he has made while he was
supporting these community policing grants in the past, now it seems
that he is taking a different position, but at one point the gentleman
from Georgia was certainly supportive of the crime bill and its effort
in the community grants that are providing police all over this
country, at least as it applied to the LaGrange Police Department.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and let me reclaim my time.
When the crime bill was passed in 1994, I think all of us as
supporters of the local law enforcement units would have been remiss if
we had said that simply because we do not like the President's approach
we should not be supportive of local law enforcement agencies who view
in that the only avenue with which to obtain very desperately needed
Federal funds, that we would support them in those efforts. That does
not, and I hope the gentleman is not suggesting that simply because
there is one program available at one point in time, that if a better
program comes along, as H.R. 748 is and would do, that we would be
forever barred from saying this is a better approach and this is an
approach that now we ought to move into to provide even stronger
support for law enforcement.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Barr was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for not objecting to
the additional time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we would be remiss if we did not seize our
opportunity to provide even better and stronger and more consistent
relief for law enforcement, and I will look forward to writing an even
stronger, more aggressive letter in support of my community down in
LaGrange, in Troup County, GA, as soon as H.R. 728 is passed and those
funds become available.
{time} 1230
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
gentleman would acknowledge the current law, the COPS Program, has put
40 new police officers into his congressional district. That is what
the Department of Justice statistics show. The gentleman wants to throw
that program out and buy something in the form of a block grant that
may or may not furnish police officers.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has
expired.
[[Page H1709]] (At the request of Mr. Riggs and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Barr was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are witnessing is some degree
of sophistry, to say that again one program is good, but we cannot
support a program that is even better, I think really obfuscates the
real issue here. Whether the Department of Justice says that 40 new
officers have been available or 30 or 41 really is not the issue. The
issue is we have before us now a bill, H.R. 728, that would provide the
greatest amount of flexibility, limited by sound accounting principles
embodied in the requirements of H.R. 728 to provide the maximum, not
the minimum as under the last bill, but the maximum amount of support
and flexibility for those local communities, not only across the
district in Georgia but across the districts in New York, New Mexico,
Texas, and all the other States from which we have heard very
eloquently speakers this morning.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in the last week I have spent a lot of time on this
Floor either during special orders, morning session, or, as we have
brought this bill forward, to fight for certain aspects of the bills.
As a member of the Democratic crime task force and having been a police
officer myself for some 12 years where I have worked the road, and I
would still be there but for some injuries I received in the line of
duty, I have a very strong interest in what we are doing here, and this
program in particular of allowing 100,000 more police officers.
When the crime bill came for the final conference report, I did not
support it. I could not support all those programs in the final
analysis of the crime bill last fall. But this was one I did support.
Much like the so-called Contract on America, where you have six crime
bills or six parts to your crime bill, I will vote for some of them,
and I am going to vote against other parts of it.
Your H.R. 728, I am going to vote against it because I think it is
wrong to gut a program. You say you want flexibility. Or do you want
police officers, is really the question.
You say you are not against local control, but that we, because we
oppose this bill, somehow we are against local control; we are afraid
to let local people make decisions. We are not. We are afraid to allow
you to make decisions on our program.
Yesterday the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] offered an
amendment which said we will not use money in this bill, this block
grant, to build roads, and most of our friends on that side of the
aisle voted to allow them to build roads with crime fighting money.
Where is the crime fighting element in building a road? A police car
will go up and down the road? I mean, that is where we have our
problems. That is where we have differences of philosophy.
The gentleman from Illinois talked about arrogance on this side. I
think the arrogance comes in when you take a crime bill and allow it to
be used to build roads, when we have the highway trust fund, we have
local funds, we have state funds to build roads in your community.
Mr. Chairman, local control, who applies for these police officers
underneath the President's program? Who applies? Local officials. Do we
force them to apply for this program? No. But across this Nation, every
community that is less than 50,000 people, more than half have already
applied for this program. No one forced them, no one said they had to.
We said here is a program, apply if you would like. That is
flexibility. That is local control. We did not make them apply.
Look, you are going to have an opportunity later today if you want
other things. It is called the Byrne grants. If you look at the current
crime bill, one of the problems I had is you take Byrne grants, 282
programs, which everybody has said is a fantastic program: 1995, we
have $580 million; 1996, it drops to $130 million; 1997, $100 million;
1998, $75 million; all the way down to $45 million. So later today we
are going to have an opportunity to give you all the money you want for
local people to apply for these programs in the Byrne grant. We will
authorize $450 million for the next 5 years.
Now, your leadership on that side tells us we cannot do that. Why
not? Why can we not provide stable funding for 5 years in the way local
people would like it? That is flexibility. We are putting forth the
money for communications, wherever you want to use it for. But, no, you
say we are going to oppose that program.
So there is flexibility there. There is plenty of flexibility there.
We made a promise 4 months ago that we would put 100,000 police
officers on the street. We are trying to achieve that. Suddenly now,
because there is a change in the election, you do not want that
program. You are destroying the program. So where is the flexibility
now? What happened in 4 months that suddenly a program that was
supported in a bipartisan manner, somehow we have lost that?
It is just strictly politics. And having been a police officer, I
know the gentleman from North Carolina and some of the others, police
officers, quite honestly are sick and tired of being played with in
politics. It is a great issue to run a campaign on, but it is not fair
to the police officers or the local communities to say here is the
program, here is 100,000 cops over 5 years, but because of a
philosophical change, we will now play politics and take the program
away. Take it away. And, by the way, you can go ahead and build roads
with it, as you voted to do yesterday, instead of fighting crime.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I think the gentleman makes an excellent point here, and
that is that we have had a dramatic reversal. A program last year
supported by so many of you, a program that you wrote in favor of, a
program that is bringing hundreds and hundreds of cops to each State,
is now no good and the blank check to local politicians across the
country decried by Speaker Gingrich 6 months ago is now the right
thing, the best thing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Schumer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Stupak
was allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Let us admit what is going on here, and that is you just
want to say there is a different bill. And let us admit another thing,
that your bill is not as good as this one.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Stupak was allowed to proceed for an
additional 30 seconds.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in summation, H.R. 728, your bill right
here, you want flexibility. There is not one program in there to
guarantee one police officer. Not one police officer. You are going to
take away the local control to apply for the Clinton COPS Program. We
want cops, we want cops. We do not need politics, we do not need the
so-called flexibility. You have the Byrne grants for your local
control.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I will enter into the Record an
editorial from the Fall River Herald News, a city which I represent in
part. They are a very independent paper, and they make an excellent
point in the editorial.
In my district, as in districts all across the country, police
officers have already been hired by local governments which took the
word of the Federal Government that funds would be available for hiring
police officers. What this bill would do would be to disrupt a process
of hiring police officers that is already underway.
I think the approach that we have in the current bill is better than
this one, but that is not even the issue we are talking about. We are
not here deciding between two variants of how to approach this. We have
a program underway. It was passed last year. The Republican Party tried
very hard to stop it, but it passed. President Clinton and the Justice
Department have been
[[Page H1710]] doing an excellent job of getting these funds out there.
Communities came to plea and said this bill says we can have the
police officers in 3 years. We are worried about that. Is that good? I
said I cannot believe Congress will disrupt that. Well, I
underestimated the extent to which my colleagues on the other side were
prepared to put partisanship ahead of sensible law enforcement.
{time} 1240
Because their bill will undeniably disrupt that process. There is no
logical match between the distribution formula in this bill and the one
under which police are being hired. There is no way at all to guarantee
that the communities which in good faith have already hired police
officers will be able to maintain those commitments.
Now, if we were starting from scratch, if this were a new bill, I
would understand their preference, although we ought to be very clear,
the Republican Party in this House is for States rights on Tuesday and
Thursday. But they are for Federal dictation on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday. Because when it comes to telling the States what product
liability law should be, they are eager to preempt hundreds of years of
State jurisprudence. When it comes to telling States how to sentence
criminals, members in the Committee on the Judiciary said, the States
do not have the courage to do the right things. We better tell them.
So I am not pretending one way or the other to be motivated by a
general preference for the State or a general preference for the
Federal Government. It is my colleagues on the other side who have
decided that States rights is a water faucet, and they can turn it on
sometimes and they can turn it off the other.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois to turn it on.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend. I am going to try to turn
it on. I am willing to accept the thoughts and the pronouncements of
the gentleman's leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. I
am willing to accept what he says, every jot and tittle.
I quote from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] on January
27, at the Capital Hilton, to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, no little
group. Here is the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]:
If we are going to block grant money for prevention and for
police, I want that money to go to you, the cities in this
country, not somewhere else. You are the ones on the front
lines. You are the people that have got to show results. And
I think you are well equipped to try to figure out what to do
with the money.
I rest my case.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman rests his case because it
is Tuesday. But last week, he was dictating to the States. And tomorrow
he will be dictating to the States. In fact, he has a quote of the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], although he does say, ``if'' we
are going to block grant it.
I am going to finish my response to the gentleman. He said, ``if'' we
block grant it. If means maybe we will and maybe we will not.
First let me say, I also have a quotation, though, which is much more
to the point, from the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], which
takes exactly the opposite position. We have Mr. Gingrich saying:
If we have to choose between paying for directed purposes,
such as building prisons, I can defend that. What I cannot
defend is sending a blank check to local politicians across
the country for them to decide how to spend it.
So you have a conditional statement from the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Gephardt]. I have a flat statement from the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich]. I think in the trade the gentleman owes me an
inconsistency to be named later.
The point is that the Republican position on this is wholly
inconsistent. It was one thing on prisons. It is another with regard to
liability and tort law. And the gentleman will be bringing to this
floor a bill which flatly says it preempts State law with regard to
punitive damages. It preempts State law with regard to joint and
several liability. It preempts State law with regard to statutes of
repose, because the busiest community wants them to preempt State law.
That is a reasonable position.
But when they are about to preempt 200 years of State commercial law
involving product liability, please do not put on your Thomas Jefferson
outfit and say ``Oh, but I am great believer in States' rights.'' Say
what you want to say, which is, you do not want to see the program that
we adopted last year go forward and so you will take a very
inconsistent position from what you are doing on the rest of your
program in this regard.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
gentleman does not recognize an Abe Lincoln outfit when he sees one. I
just want to suggest to the gentleman that product liability crosses
State lines and is an entirely different breed of animal than what we
are talking about.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hyde, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to Abe
Lincoln.
Mr. HYDE. We are in the anomalous situation, Mr. Booth----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman would have to turn around
to make that analogy better.
Mr. HYDE. All sorts of things occurred to me.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. None of them occurred to me, I would
assure the gentleman.
Mr. HYDE. I hope not. I certainly hope not.
I just suggest to the gentleman that we are in the anomalous
situation of the gentleman espousing what the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich] says and we espousing the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt]. And this time, and this time alone, I think the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has the better of them.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am espousing neither as a philosophical
principle. The inconsistency is wholly on the gentleman's side. Members
on our side have not claimed to be all for States' rights. And I
appreciate the gentleman's acknowledging the inconsistency here.
We have said we will make policy according to what we think is the
best public policy. And we do believe, and this is the key point, when
police officers have been authorized and have been hired and when this
program is at work and going forward to come in now and disrupt this
process and to say to communities, I know you have hired police
officers, but too bad, because there has been a partisan change and we
are going to disrupt that ongoing process, we are not content to do a
new program and then we will call it States rights to make ourselves
feel better.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is really misstating what
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] said. He said, ``if'' there
is going to be a block grant, he would rather it go to the mayors than
the Governors. But he did not say he supports a block grant, the way
Speaker Gingrich said he unalterably opposes----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
very language, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] says, and he
is a man of honor and integrity, ``you are the people that have got to
show results and I think you are well equipped to try to figure out
what to do with the money.''
[[Page H1711]] Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Now the gentleman from
Illinois has added----
Mr. HYDE. Words to live by.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The words to live by include the one the
gentleman from Illinois so conveniently forgot to mention, ``if'', as
the gentleman first read it. It said, if we are going to block grant
it, I want to do it for you. Saying ``if we block grant it, I want to
do it his way'' is not saying ``I want to block grant it.'' The
gentleman has, of course, testified to the importance of that ``if'' by
quite consciously and deliberately leaving it out. So what we have is
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] saying if we block grant it,
we give it to the mayors.
And what we still have is a partisan effort to disrupt an ongoing
program with a transparently inconsistent obeisance to States rights
which the Republicans will be violating tomorrow.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to make clear at this point in the
debate that really the debate is illustrating the fundamental
differences, the ideological and philosophical differences between the
two parties in the House of Representatives. First of all, we think a
better approach is a streamlined, simplified approach to providing
Federal resources to local communities in fighting crime. Therefore, we
decided that we wanted to take a block grant approach.
Second, we believe that the best way to combat local crime problems
is to emphasize a bottom-up, rather than a top-down process. That is
what our bill attempts to do.
I do not think any of us can question that local approaches to local
problems is the best way to get at local solutions.
Now, we have, it is nice to sort of have a law enforcement fraternity
reunion here on the floor with my colleague, the gentleman from North
Carolina, the gentleman from Michigan, myself, all of whom have served
time working on the streets. In fact, I recalled the other day, as I
had the extraordinary privilege and honor of presiding over the first
portion of the crime bill debate, that in a relatively short time span
in my life, I had gone from graveyard shift patrol to being able to
preside over the House of Representatives.
My point is, I have harkened back to my law enforcement experience.
In fact, after working the street for a number of years, I was finally
talked into taking an administrative position in crime prevention and
community relations. And it used to be my job to travel around to all
the different neighborhoods within the jurisdiction of the law
enforcement act agency I worked for, the Sonoma County Sheriff's office
in Sonoma County, CA and conduct neighborhood watch type of meetings.
The whole emphasis behind neighborhood watch was to promote the idea
of citizen involvement and neighborhood participation in combating
crime problems. The first step of which was to identify what those
particular crime problems are related to the neighborhood, the
demographic markup of the neighborhood and the nature of local crime
problems in those neighborhoods. That is what we are attempting to do
with this bill. We are attempting to make sure that this legislation,
by putting in one block grant for police and/or prevention programs for
local communities, becomes a bottom-up process, not a top-down,
federally mandated process.
{time} 1250
I do not think there is any doubt, again speaking directly to my
colleagues with former law enforcement experience, there is no doubt
what the chief law enforcement administrators of law enforcement
agencies around this country would prefer. They would prefer to get, if
we are going to go ahead and provide Federal taxpayer resources to
combat crime in America, they would prefer to get that money in the
form of a block grant so that they, in consultation with local citizens
and local elected officials, and through the advisory boards, through
the legislation, can determine the best approach in fighting crime
locally. That is what we are attempting to do here.
This process, this debate, has become far too politicized as it
becomes apparent that the minority is going to try to protect a program
that, frankly, I think we can all expect to see in the President's
reelection platform.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
That is exactly what police representatives, one of them from seven
organizations, said yesterday: ``It is time to stop the politics and
continue the program'' that they are getting.
Second, the gentleman has gotten 36 policemen to date, in 4 months.
Could I ask the gentleman why he would want to cut off the rest of
them?
Third, the Neighborhood Watch Program is included in the amendment we
bring back restoring the 1994 crime bill cops on the beat program.
Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, let me first of all, Mr. Chairman,
speak to the fact that, having reentered the body, I think some of the
applications for the local law enforcement funds under the gentleman's
version of the crime bill the last session were already well underway
by the time that I returned to the House, although we hasten to point
out that it is not our intent here to jeopardize funds that have been
committed. Our intent here, though, is to maximize flexibility and
local decisionmaking on the part of those individuals who are closest
to the problems in their local communities. That is the thrust of this
legislation.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I do not understand the point, Mr. Chairman. The
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] said there are 36 police officers
in the district of the gentleman from California. The riposte of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] said ``Those were probably
applied for when I was not yet in the Congress.'' What is the
difference who applied for them and when? They are walking the streets,
they are in the cars, they are protecting the people, as they are
through all the other districts in America. We are not trying to play
politics with them and say ``You did, you did not.'' We are trying to
keep cops on the beat. I want to know what the difference is.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the idea again here is by creating block
grants for local law enforcement, and I do not know how many times we
can say it on this side of the aisle, to maximize discretion and
decision-making on the part of local elected officials. Really, they
are the ones who ultimately have to be responsible to local citizenry.
Those local elected officials in almost every community across the
country, with the exception of elected chairs, appoint the chief law
enforcement officer of the community.
It is our desire, again, Mr. Chairman, to empower local governments
and their individual communities and to return decisionmaking to the
most effective, that is, the local citizenry, and to return that
decisionmaking back to the people who most directly represent local
citizens. That is local elected officials. That is exactly what our
legislation will do.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield to me?
Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want the former speaker to realize
that the block grant program is a copy of the Local Partnership Act
that I introduced into the crime bill that was so widely lambasted by
Speaker Gingrich, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey], and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Bill McCollum].
Therefore, to keep referring to the block grant program, that is a
small part, with total flexibility, that was in the previous bill and
is in the amendment that is now before us.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
[[Page H1712]]
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge Members to support the
Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment, and to oppose any legislation which
would cut last year's funding for community policing. In my view,
Congress should listen to local officials.
There is, I think, some confusion here when we talk about ``local.''
The bill that became law, that was signed into law last year, came
about as a result of the Congress listening to local officials when it
came to fighting crime on our streets.
I think that there is a blind march going forward to fulfill an
ideological agenda dictated from Washington, and I do not think that is
what people in our local communities want or need.
Mr. Chairman, according to a recent National League of Cities survey,
municipal officials, those people closest in our communities, the ones
that are elected and serve closest to the crime problem, believe that
last year's crime bill is better than the alternative that is being
offered.
Their executive director, Donald Borut, summed up the survey results
by saying ``Municipal officials believe that last year's Crime Bill
struck the right balance. There is serious concern about the current
efforts at revision under consideration in Congress.''
I am continuing this quote: ``Last summer's bill has been in effect
barely four months, and we believe it should be given a chance before
attempts are made to tamper with it.''
Mr. Chairman, instead of listening to local officials who have first-
hand experience with community policing and crime prevention programs,
some or our colleagues are busy essentially telling them what they
think is best. It is on its head. It is turned the wrong way.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, Jerry Abramson, the mayor of Louisville,
KY, and the former chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, recently
said:
What many in Congress refuse to understand is that the
police chiefs and their departments are even more vehement
for prevention programs. Again and again, I have heard police
chiefs tell Congressmen that the police would infinitely
prefer to work with 6-year-olds in a gym or a church rather
than wait 10 years and have to fight them in an alley.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, IN, Paul Helmke,
agrees, He stated that
During the fighting over last year's bill, you heard a lot
of talk from the opponents about how when they call 911, they
don't want the phone answered by a social worker. In my city,
folks would prefer a situation where they didn't have to call
911 in the first place.
Not only is it a critical mistake to restructure the crime bill, as
is being proposed, but I believe it would be disastrous to reduce the
amount of money that is targeted for community policing and is already
working. These funds mean more cops on the street, police, not pork.
The math is strikingly simple: more cops means less crime. I believe
the administration has moved aggressively to get these funds to our
communities, and it is already working. It is working in the
communities that I represent.
I recently received a letter from the county sheriff in San Mateo
County, CA, talking about the additional deputy sheriffs that have been
hired as a result of this, and looking forward to placing more local
money, which is accountability, in my view, and I come from the board
of supervisors, local government, with the Federal dollars.
Just last week we received word that there are
more small communities in my district that are willing to put up
this money and to make use of this for community policing. Why? Because
they know it works, and it is what people in the community want.
One of those small communities, Mr. Chairman, is East Palo Alto, CA.
It is a town that bore the distinction, unhappily, of being labeled the
murder capital of America in 1993, because it had the highest per
capita homicide rate of any city in our country.
However, thanks to the efforts of community policing, more cops were
put on the beat and the math worked. It worked. It worked. It is still
working. East Palo Alto's homicide rate dropped from 42 murders.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Berman and by unanimous consent, Ms. Eshoo was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a point to what the gentlewoman
said. Before we get too crazy about worshipping at the alter of local
government, I just want to tell the story of Los Angeles, the most
under policed major urban area anywhere in the United States by far, an
area with twice the geography and one-half the population of New York
City, that has less than one-quarter of the uniformed personnel on the
streets.
In the area of the San Fernando Valley that several of us represent,
an area of over 1.2 million people, there are less than 100 uniformed
police officers on patrol at any given time. How did this situation
come about? Somehow over the last 20 or 30 years the mayor and the city
council of that city over the years allowed that situation to develop.
{time} 1300
We are talking here about wiping out the most important anticrime
measure that could possibly be offered to the city of Los Angeles, a
chance for them to receive a substantial amount of Federal funds if
they start prioritizing and making tough decisions in order to get a
local match which will put hundreds and hundreds, I would say thousands
in the end, of more police officers on that street.
This is a city that has suffered riots, where the drive-by shootings
and the gang killings, stories of them have been carried all over the
United States. This is a city where people live in palpable fear, where
more and more people are thinking of carrying a gun on the street as
the only protection they have. This is a city that desperately needs to
increase its uniformed personnel to have any chance at the economic
recovery that it has not enjoyed, as the rest of the Nation has
rebounded from the recession of the early 1990's.
As sure as I stand here, without the cops on the street program as
passed and signed by the President last year, without the local match
required in that program with the Republican substitute that they are
offering here to wipe out that program, there will be less police,
substantially less police on the street than there would have been with
this program.
The mayor and the city council may not prefer this. They would love
the block grant.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]
has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Berman and by unanimous consent, Ms. Eshoo was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BERMAN. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I would
appreciate it.
The mayor and the city council may love the local block grants. I
know what is going to happen. Each council member is going to want to
take part of that money for programs they think are worthwhile in their
own districts. The mayor will have his own ideas. We will eliminate the
impetus for them to make the cutting decisions to provide the local
match. At the end of the day there will be substantially less police on
the streets. The efforts of Los Angeles to recover will be set back.
I think the gentlewoman is absolutely right in her case. I thank her
for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Eshoo was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to summarize by saying
this is not an issue that should be fought on the backs of those that
are elected to serve in local government. But there have been sins of
the past, the LEAA program. I think it is important to point out how
those dollars were misused.
I would like to show this. I would rather have community police than
this. This is what Federal dollars were spent for in the past.
[[Page H1713]] I would like to show this. I think the people in my
community would rather have police in their automobiles, community
policing and working with the community. This did not work. This was
pork.
We have a decision to make today by supporting the Schumer-Conyers-
Chapman amendment and saying that we want police and not pork, we want
to retain what works, and we want to listen to law enforcement,
schoolboard members, those that serve in local government to make
optimum use of our Federal dollars for community policing.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Would the ranking member answer a question for me, please?
Mr. CONYERS. I would be delighted.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers],
like a lot of Members, I have been back and forth between committee
hearings, meeting with constituents and having other meetings. I want
to be sure where we are in this bill.
Are we now discussing the diminution of the number of police that
would have been made eligible under the crime bill that passed last
year?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. We now have 17,000 policemen on the job or are in the
process of being hired throughout our large cities, and then around
through the smaller cities, and there are more on the way.
Mr. WILLIAMS. This would reduce the overall number of police?
If the bill that the Republicans are proposing here was accepted
without this amendment, it would reduce the number of police in our
cities and towns?
Mr. CONYERS. It would do more than that. It would destroy this
program. It would end the current crime bill law which is the law of
the land as we speak.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If I may ask the distinguished Member from Michigan one
additional question: Is this the portion of the bill that President
Clinton has said would raise a veto by him?
Mr. CONYERS. The reason the President has said that he is going to
veto anything that disturbs his community policing program is that he
made the commitment 2 years ago. He got the bill through on the
bipartisan basis last year. It was enjoyed 5 months' worth of great
success. We had eight police organizations that represent four-fifths,
or certainly two-thirds of all the police in America all supporting
strongly the program.
He feels that he has no other alternative but to resist any attempts
by the new majority to destroy a program that is eminently successful,
as we speak here today.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the ranking member.
Let me say to my colleagues on both sides, but most particularly to
our colleagues on the right that may be resisting this amendment.
This President, it is clear, is determined to not only cooperate, as
Speaker Gingrich has said he is willing to do, but this President is
willing to compromise, which is something as you recall Speaker
Gingrich said we will not catch him doing.
This President, I believe, is going to use his veto pen very
sparingly, but I would say to my Republican colleagues, if you are
serious about getting this bill passed, then you ought to listen to
this President's determination about vetoing this bill unless the
current amendment is accepted.
In other words, my colleagues, if you do not accept this amendment, I
think you are wasting your time. President Bill Clinton intends to keep
his word and the word of this Congress to the people of this country,
to the city officials of this country, that they are going to have more
cops on the beat. Anything that creates a diminution of that promise
will be vetoed by this President. This amendment is to save this bill.
If you do not accept this amendment, I think you will have no bill,
because I believe Bill Clinton intends to keep his and the
congressional promise about more cops on the beat.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and at this time
yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion over the course of
listening to the last several speakers about funds that have already
been made available through grant programs, and I think focusing on
that really misses the mark to some extent, that those funds will
continue that have already been appropriated, for example, those under
the cops program and under the prevention programs under the bill last
year. So raising the specter of all of these programs all of a sudden
being defunded, I think, is somewhat of a red herring.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of something that occurred during
the campaign last year in my district down in Georgia just a few days
before the fall election. We had received word that one of our county
governments had been approved for a grant under the 1994 just-then-
passed crime bill, and the county officials came to me somewhat
mystified because they had not applied for any money under that 1994
bill.
What had happened is, they had applied for some money, Mr. Chairman,
under a previous program and insofar as the Clinton administration
wished to move forward, for whatever reason, not impugning their
motives as political at all, they had wished to move forward under the
new 1994 bill, they had on their own considered the previous grant
application under the 1994 bill and passed it.
I have every confidence, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Justice
will continue to exhibit that sort of flexibility when this new bill is
passed.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend the gentleman
from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize once again, that our bill,
H.R. 728, does not, I repeat, does not strip funding already awarded
under last year's cops on the beat program. These local communities
will continue to receive every cent already granted to them, including
payments for years 2 and 3. That defeats the argument made a few
moments ago by the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] that somehow
our bill might jeopardize funds going to hire additional police
officers. That is not the case at all. If the local elected
decisionmakers in those communities deem it worthwhile to hire
additional police officers, they will have maximum authority and
latitude to do so under our bill.
{time} 1310
It is hard to understand that convoluted logic coming from the other
side of the the aisle during this debate. Here we have Members of the
minority suggesting that the Federal Government, the model of fiscal
propriety for the rest of the country can best determine how to spend
these monies and in fact ought to dictate to State and local officials
how these monies be spent.
Well, far be it from me and my colleagues on this side of the aisle
to impugn the motives of State and local officials. We truly believe
they are closer to the crime problems in their communities and far
better able to determine the proper community-wide or State wide
response to those crime problems. So we can either stand with our
colleagues in State and local government or we can stand against them.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer],
if the gentleman has a point.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask the gentleman from
California which local officials he means. Does he mean the local
police chief who supports our proposal or the local politicians, the
elected officials who seem to support that approach, although I must
say neither the mayors or counties or Governors have taken sides on
which approach they prefer?
[[Page H1714]] But I would ask the gentleman which local officials?
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Texas yield?
Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. I mean both, Mr. Chairman. I do not know of too many
police chiefs who are in their own right local officials. They are
normally appointed. In fact I do not know of a single elected police
chief in the country. They are appointed by the local elected
officials.
Mr. SCHUMER. If the gentleman will yield, I am aware of that. All he
is saying is send it back to the local officials. Our bill has the
support of all of the local police officials because they know if they
just leave it up to the politicians they will not get the same amount
of money for cops on the beat that our bill provides.
Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman from Texas will yield, let me say this: I
want to stop just short of suggesting that perhaps scare tactics have
been used in this debate. Local officials need help we all admit from
the Federal Government in fighting local crime problems, and the burden
in hand is, of course, the funding under last year's crimes bill. All
we are saying is we think we can take a better approach and actually
maximize discretion and decisionmaking in our bill. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Reclaiming my time, what just absolutely screams and
jumps in this debate out of the debate itself is the inconsistency of
the point the gentleman makes, and I understand the gentleman's point,
but the inconsistency of the point the gentleman from California makes
in the context of the position of the majority on the prison portion of
the bill last week in which the majority was perfectly willing, in fact
did pass legislation which imposed strict plan dates, strict rules,
strict requirements, truth in sentencing, 85 percent hurdles for local
and State officials to qualify for prison funding.
It is mind-boggling to me that what was good a week ago is no longer
good, and I cannot understand. I opposed and offered an amendment in
fact to moderate the community position on prison funding, but no, the
majority insisted that we have strict truth in sentencing guidelines
even though the Department of Justice told us not a single State could
qualify under the law, that only three States potentially could
qualify. Yet we set the bar so high we have effectively denied prison
funds to the States, because we seat specific rules, we dictated, the
majority dictated in that legislation what the States would have to do
to qualify for the funds, and now we have done a total 180-degree turn
1 week later in which we are wanting to send a blank check to the
cities and the States.
It is inconceivable to me when every major police organization in
America supports current law, when every major police organization says
the current law is working, when the gentleman's district, my district,
districts all across America are receiving policing, cops on the beat,
it is working and the gentleman made a point in debate a few minutes
ago, and a good point I might add, about streamlining the process. My
goodness, cops on the beat, the cops program is an one page
application. There is nothing more streamlined than the Federal
Government to acquire access to funds that will fight crime than this
program.
I just sit and listen as a ex-district attorney and this district
attorney had a 99-percent conviction rate over 8 years and prosecuted
death penalty cases. I do not believe anyone in this Chamber is tougher
on crime than this Member and has a history of being tougher on crime
than this Member, and to sit with a program that is working, to have
every major police organization in the country supporting it, to sit
and know that cops are going on the beat in communities across this
country, it is making a difference, and listen to the position of the
majority, the politics scream at you, the politics scream at you.
If you are for block grants why did you oppose the Local Partnership
Act in the last crime bill? The Republican majority last year, when we
had a block grant program, offered by the gentleman from Michigan as a
part of last years crime bill, the Republican now majority violently
opposed that program, said it did not belong in the crime bill, made
all of these statements that we have seen quoted on the floor here
today from now Speaker Gingrich to other Members, a block grant program
last year was an evil, it was a sin, it was the devil reincarnated and
yet today it is the answer to crime you tell us.
I cannot imagine the inconsistency of the majority position on this.
We ought to keep a program that is working. That is why this amendment
ought to be passed and that is why it is important.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to the Members' attention, members
of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle, that we have
gone on at some length on this amendment, this debate, primarily,
perhaps exclusively, between Members of the Judiciary Committee. I
assume this matter has been debated in committee as well. The result of
all of this may be that Members of the House, not members of the
committee, will have no opportunity to offer their amendments.
I understand that on the minority side there are at least three or
four members of the committee who have amendments, and since we have
approximately 3 hours left, that will mean a Member of the House, not a
member of the committee, will never have an opportunity to offer an
amendment.
So I would hope that as we proceed here, this debate has exhausted
the arguments, pro and con, in short order, and we might have an
opportunity to proceed. Otherwise, I would ask for a little discretion
on the part of the members of the committee who have amendments to
permit those of us who do have amendments that are perhaps
noncontroversial to have a chance to offer them.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman has read our mind on this side because we
realize the hour is growing late. I am now constrained to offer a
unanimous consent request that all debate ends at about 1:55 on this
amendment, because there will be at least an hour on the amendment of
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], there are probably four
to six other amendments remaining, and I think the best way we can
accommodate that is to make such a restriction.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the
distinguished ranking member this question: For those amendments that
may well be noncontroversial from nonmembers of the committee, could
some discretion be given for us to stand up, offer an amendment,
dispose of it quickly, and proceed back to the more controversial
amendments that some of the members of the committee have to offer?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe what the ranking member was
suggesting is a unanimous consent request that debate on this amendment
close at 1:55, that there be 1 hour of debate on the Schroeder
amendment, and that would leave us more than one and one-half hours for
all of the other amendments that might exist, and I think that would
meet the problems.
We still have a good number of Members.
Mr. BEREUTER. Could I ask the gentleman from New York or Michigan, in
fact are there other amendments from members of the committee beyond
those he has just mentioned that would also eat into that hour and one-
half?
Mr. SCHUMER. There might be. There are a few I think from Members who
are not here. I know that there are.
Mr. BEREUTER. This Member's patience is not inexhaustible, and I want
to be cooperative, but eventually I think we ought to have some time
for nonmembers of the committee.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would say to the gentleman, since we go back and forth
on minority and majority amendments, the gentleman would have a chance
to offer his noncontroversial amendments before those extra amendments
would come.
[[Page H1715]] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to point out that,
among Members who have caused their amendments to be printed in the
Record, the Chair would, in accordance with precedents in the Committee
of the Whole, recognize members of the committee, regardless of party,
before he would recognize Members not a part of the committee.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you understand the
difficulty, I would say to the gentleman from New York. I can stand
here all day, and even though we are rotating back and forth, as long
as there are amendments from members of the committee I will not have
an opportunity to offer mine.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to have a unanimous-
consent request that would incorporate en bloc all of the amendments to
which there is agreement on both sides. I am going to very shortly
propose, and will do so now if the gentleman will continue to yield,
that all debate on this amendment, the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman ends at
1:55.
{time} 1320
We think that that will facilitate the gentleman's request. Does that
accommodate the gentleman?
Mr. BEREUTER. I understand what the gentleman is offering. It is not
objectionable to this Member. I hope the gentleman will examine the
amendment that I have pending.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman suspend? Did the distinguished
ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, make a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. CONYERS. I will make a unanimous-consent request. I ask unanimous
consent that at 1:55 all debate on this amendment end, and that
unanimous-consent request includes that all motions to which there is
agreement be offered.
The CHAIRMAN. May the Chair suggest he make one unanimous-consent
request at a time?
The gentleman has asked unanimous consent that all debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto cease at 1:55 p.m. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, might I
inquire of the other side if they do in fact have an additional 30
minutes of debate on this amendment now pending?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The answer is ``yes.''
Mr. BARR. 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] is recognized
for a further unanimous-consent request.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
of the gentlewoman from Colorado that will be offered directly after
this one be limited to 1 hour of debate, with the time being equally
divided and controlled.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has asked unanimous consent that debate
on the Schroeder amendment, if offered following the amendment
presently before the committee, be limited to 1 hour of debate time
thereon and on all amendments thereto equally divided between the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so
only to ask the gentleman to make his motion to include all amendments
thereto.
Mr. CONYERS. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I believe the Chair stated that.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the Chair, and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
amendments that are agreed to by proponents and opponents be able to be
offered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suggest to the gentleman that he
withhold that request until there is agreement as to which amendments
are or are not included in that request.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we will do that.
I withdraw that unanimous-consent request, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we really should not be here having this debate. We
have to work out the time here and the time there. Frankly, just last
September Congress settled a 6-year debate over crime policy by passing
legislation that combined the best elements of punishment and
prevention.
The package President Clinton signed into law will put 100,000 more
cops on the streets, build more prisons, fund educational and
recreational programs, and provide alternatives to crime for young
people, demand tougher sentences for violent offenders.
And a bipartisan majority of the House and the other body concluded,
after so much time of arguing, that the time was at hand for action. As
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Republican and member of the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said, ``If the President deserves
the credit, so be it, let us put aside politics and take a stand
against violent crime.'' That is exactly what Congress did.
Now this new Republican Congress wants to radically change this bill,
driven by focus groups, political polls.
Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, as a former first deputy
assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, who managed a caseload
of 13,000 criminal cases a year, fighting crime is serious business.
You do not fight crime by reading political polls or looking at focus
groups or getting elected to political office. That does not make one
law enforcement professional.
In order to fight crime you have to study and know what works and
what does not work. I had 54 cities and towns in Middlesex County,
where I was the first assistant. I worked with every police department
and local officials all over that county. You know what? Some of them
knew something about what the cutting edge of fighting crime was, and
others did not.
What do we do in this crime bill, the Attorney General, the
President, and Congress got the experts on how to fight law enforcement
together. And all the evidence is overwhelming that community policing
works if community policing is done correctly, by forging the
partnerships required to be formed. It works.
In my home city of Lowell, MA, the police chief there instituted a
community policing program. And after 1 year of community policing,
they issued a report that is very specific about what the effect of
community policing is in that community.
Now, this is not a political poll, it is not a focus group. This
police chief did not stick his finger in the wind and say what is going
to work in the next election. These are facts, what works and what does
not. The facts show that in 1 year of community policing, burglaries
are down by 34 percent. The facts show that residential burglaries are
down 32 percent. The facts say that business burglaries are down by 41
percent. The facts show that larcenies are down by 23 percent. And the
facts show that car thefts in that community are down by 20 percent.
You want to know what a police chief said who instituted community
policing? That police chief said that what we accomplished in Lowell,
MA, should serve as a model for the rest of the country because it
works.
So what we ought to be doing is taking a program that works and
making it a national model by instituting this program all over the
country.
I hear debate on the floor over the last couple of days about what a
county commissioner might want, is what the city council might want,
someone elected to this or to that. Fighting
[[Page H1716]] crime is serious business. You take the data you have to
institute programs that work, and community policing works. And to go
backward to another era of providing block grants to local communities
to use however they decide, when we know the evidence is clear that 33
percent of those moneys are likely to be used for administrative costs.
We know the evidence is clear that a high percentage of that money will
be used for pork and waste in programs that do not work. This is what
works: community policing. It will work all over America.
In just a very short time ago, all of us agreed in a bipartisan way.
But now, because of quick sound bites and a political campaign and
focus groups and political maneuvering, we are going to step backward
rather than forward.
We should not be debating this bill at all today. We are debating a
bill tomorrow on national security that is, frankly, something we ought
to have more time on.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Meehan] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Meehan was allowed to proceed for an
additional 30 seconds.)
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, we should not have to have this debate,
because fighting crime is a bipartisan issue; it is not an issue that
should be pitting Democrats against Republicans or having Republicans
concerned because President Clinton got too much credit in the last
campaign.
Let us take this program that works and let it be implemented all
over America, and let Republicans and Democrats alike stand up and say
we created a program that worked, that reduced crime. This is what we
ought to be looking at, hard cold facts, not sticking our fingers into
the political wind to determine what people might think.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it
preserves the preventive focus of these dollars, and I think it
preserves also the best thinking of members of both parties. It
preserves for example, the block granting of prevention dollars. It
adopts the block grant structure in the Republican bill to govern all
those dollars that are going to fund community-oriented prevention
programs, things that communities will plan that they will tailor to
their particular needs and that will realize our vision of a Federal/
local partnership that truly will be more prevention-oriented.
{time} 1330
However, it separates out the cop dollars. I think that is important
for reasons of accountability, but it does several other things in
regard to those cop dollars. It allows them to go directly to the
police, and I think that is important, I think that size a grant for
police particularly ought to go directly to the department. It
continues to require a local match. I think that is better policy.
In my own hometown, one that is very strapped financially, we went
through a very rigorous, very public debate when we decided to come up
with a match dollar for the cops program, and through that debate we
were able to demonstrate to all the people in town that at the end of 5
years this grant would not increase our local property taxes, but would
enable us to restructure our police force so that it would have more
cops and fewer administrators. In fact, these Federal dollars leveraged
change in the healthiest kind of way, and by keeping them separate, and
by making those grants go directly to the police, we maintain a level
of accountability that simply is not possible by simply block granting
a merged fund of cops dollars and other preventive program dollars.
So, I think separating the cops dollars is better law, better policy.
Last, the formula through which these funds are distributed is a
formula that I think is healthier because it allows communities to
prevent crime. It does not distribute the moneys simply on the basis of
what are your crime statistics. It allows small cities like I represent
that are, frankly, on the verge of a real explosion of crime to get the
critical dollars they need to prevent that explosion.
I know we are turning the corner on prevention. We are getting
control in the small cities of this terrible gang problem, and we are
doing it by increasing resources, dedicating cops, increasing community
focus. But we do need resources to maintain this effort and to get us
through to where this is a controllable and affordable problem for a
force based on local property taxes, and I think the distribution
formula that segregates and guarantees a certain amount of money to
towns under 150,000 where the problems are just developing and where we
can prevent an increase in crime statistics is terribly important. It
is the only way that the small cities that I represent are going to get
the kind of significant dollars they need, and it is a key reason why I
think this amendment is in the interests of my people and good policy.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the granting of time.
Mr. Chairman, we should be a bit consistent in our positions in this
organization, and I would like to quote from last year's debate on the
crime bill:
If they say to me in the name of fighting crime ``Will I
stand 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.
That was then the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], now Speaker
Gingrich, on the issue of broad grants of authority without effective
controls from the Federal Government.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, we need more police, and, if we do not
specify that the money will be spent on police, it will be spent as it
was under LEAA, on armored tank carriers, on dual-engine planes for
local bureaucrats.
I trust my communities, and they have done darn well under the
President's plan. Twenty-four police officers are coming to work in my
district that would not have been there without President Clinton's
plan.
I did not support the crime bill last year, but I said the 100,000
police I do, and I say to my colleagues, If you want to preserve that
promise, if we want to enhance that promise, we have to defeat this
move by the Republicans to gut the 100,000 new police officers for
America.
Mr. HINCHEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, last year the 103d
Congress passed perhaps the most forward-looking and comprehensive
crime bill in the history of the country. Among its most important
provisions were those that focused on the need to prevent crime, and
among those were provisions to ensure that we placed community police
officers on the streets of communities across this country, large and
small.
Now there were Members, who are now the majority party, inexplicably
who were opposed to those crime prevention measures, and they are
trying now in this bill to defeat those crime prevention measures, and
that is why it is so important for us to pass this amendment which
adheres more closely to the original bill.
In my district alone in the last several months we have 35 new police
officers in rural communities and cities stretching across a district
that runs 250 miles across New York State. This program is supported by
mayors, by town supervisors, and by police chiefs, and they support it
because they know it is effective, it works.
Now we are asked to harken back to a program that was thrown out in
the early 1980's, during the Reagan administration, because at that
time it was recognized that that program was replete with fraud, and
abuse and waste of taxpayers' money. That is what we are asked to do in
the bill before us. That is why it is so important to pass this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we want to turn our backs on wasting the taxpayers'
money, we want to turn our backs on fraud and abuse, and we want to
turn toward a program that we know is going to be successful because it
is going to place community policemen, and already has, in communities
all across this country.
[[Page H1717]] That is why this amendment is so important. That is
why it needs to be passed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the choice on fighting crime is clear. We
need to send a valentine to our cops by supporting cops on the beat. I
have checked with my local officials, and cops come first.
I voted for last year's crime bill with full support from local law
enforcement. Funding for cops on the beat is working in my district,
and we need to keep it working.
The Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment would also leave intact $2.5
billion in block grants to localities. I am for these block grants
because they give the localities flexibility. I am against prescriptive
amendments to tell localities how to spend money to fight crime.
Last year's crime bill carefully balanced funding for cops,
punishment, and prevention. We are too hasty to undo the cops on the
beat program. We have made a commitment to local law enforcement. Let
us not go back on it now.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, Let us not have a St. Valentine's Day
massacre on the crime bill.
Last July I stood on this floor to urge Members to resolve their
differences on the crime bill and to fulfill their promise to the
American people to wage a war on crime and to put more cops on the
streets of their communities. Yet today we are further away from
attaining that goal. The Republican law enforcement block grant does
not guarantee that even one more cop will be policing America's
streets. Today we must move beyond partisan squabbling.
{time} 1350
We must put on a badge of courage like police officers who patrol the
streets of our communities every day and vote for what we know will be
a more effective measure in fighting street crime, which is more police
officers through community policing. That is exactly what we seek to do
in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying to the Members, You can't go
home and say you passed the toughest, smartest crime bill possible if
you walk away from your responsibility to make certain that this money
will put real cops on real streets.
Mr. Chairman, let's not have a St. Valentine's Day massacre on the
crime bill. Last July I stood on this floor to urge Members to resolve
their differences in the conference on the crime bill and to fulfill
their promise to the American people: to wage a war on crime and to put
more cops on the streets of their communities. Yet today we are farther
from attaining that goal then we were last July. The Republican law
enforcement block grant does not guarantee that even one more cop will
be policing America's streets.
Earlier I heard a Washington Post editorial be quoted in support of
the Republican position on the crime bill; however, that same editorial
also noted the hypocrisy of the Republicans who put all sorts of
restrictions on the use of prison construction money, while
simultaneously handing out funds with unlimited restrictions for law
enforcement. Today, we must move beyond partisan squabbling. We must
put on a badge of courage, like police officers who patrol the streets
of our communities every day, and vote for what we know will be the
most effective measure in fighting street crime, more cops.
Since the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994, the Federal Government has helped localities put nearly
15,000 police officers on the streets in 8,000 communities nationwide,
thanks to the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, grant
program.
My home State of New Jersey has received funding for 546 new
officers, and the 13th district which I represent has received funding
for 95 new officers under this program.
Let me repeat that: thanks to the COPS program, local governments
have gotten grants that will put 95 new cops on the beat in my
district.
That's a program that works, and if you have any doubts, just talk to
some of the residents of my district about what a difference it makes
to see an officer patrolling their neighborhood on foot, where they
once used to roll by in a squad car.
The bill before us seeks to change all that. While we recognize the
validity of the theory that says that localities know best what their
law enforcement needs are, let us not lose sight of the fact that the
103d Congress created a program which works. The drive for change was
never intended to dismantle what works, only to rethink what does not.
The Democratic crime bill put cops on the street, to be there when we
need them, to come to know the residents, and to make them feel more
secure in their homes.
Tell me, Mr. Chairman, where the Republican agenda differs from that
goal. It is fair to say that it does not. Street crime is combated in
only one of two ways: by preventing it from happening in the first
place, or by arresting criminals and putting them in jail. It's simple
mathematics. If you want to stem the tide, you need more cops on the
beat.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of tough talk on crime lately, but
when you strip away all the rhetoric, only one reality remains:
combating crime requires both cops and cooperation. Nobody wins the war
on crime when the door remains open to cut corners, shave edges, and
shift funding. Every Member has been perfectly clear about his or her
intent to stem the tide, and bring crime under control.
The desire of local governments for flexibility is admirable. But we
on the Federal level would fail to hold up our end of the bargain if we
did not require localities to pursue policies that work. You can't go
home and say you passed the toughest, smartest crime bill possible if
you walk away from your responsibility to make certain that this money
will put real cops on real streets.
Sleep well tonight knowing that you did the smart thing. The
amendment is a reasonable compromise that is tough on two key points--
it puts more cops where we need them, and still allows local
governments the flexibility they need to support them.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gene Green.
(Mr. GENE GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from New York, for yielding me this 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Community policing works. It works in Houston, TX. It works first in
my State house district, my State senate district, and now in my
congressional district. We have at least two substations. One is not
too far away from my district office on West 19th Street, and there is
one on Nordling, where people meet every month. We get 100 people to
meet with our law enforcement officers every month. We are getting
these citizens concerned with professional law enforcement officers to
lower the crime rate, and it works.
The crime bill we passed last year helped us in our local effort.
There was opposition to the crime bill last year, and I was part of it,
but I ended up voting for it. The opposition was because of the gun
issue.
Let us be honest with our constituents and say, sure, the gun issue
was controversial, but let us not take cops off the street. This is
prevention for our young people, more border patrol, and prison
construction. Let us stop this smoke screen and get back to what the
issue is. If it is guns, let us fight it out, but let us not hurt our
crime fighting that is working in Harris County, in Houston, and in
Pasadena, TX.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is one issue that is going to be very
hard for the other side to cover up. They can be tough on crime all
they want, they can say all they wish to say on all the talk shows, but
it is going to be hard for them to explain why they are turning their
backs on local communities and turning their backs on cops.
This is the simplest issue to understand. If you believe that we have
to do something about crime, then we have to help the people on the
front lines, and that is the police officers in our communities.
They continue to say that they are for fighting crime, but now they
have the opportunity, and what do they do? They turn against a good
program, a program that can only be restored through this amendment.
That is why I rise in support of this amendment for
[[Page H1718]] police officers, against this decision to turn our backs
on them, and to say that this is an amendment we can vote for. They may
control a lot of talk shows, but they will not control public opinion
when they turn their backs on the police departments in our
communities. And lastly, they will gain a Presidential veto, and on
cops the communities will stay with us on that issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard an awful lot of talk on the House floor
about violent crime. I know something about violent crime. The fact of
the matter is that if we want to see violent crime controlled in this
country, we are not going to do it by just asking people at the local
level what it is that a particular police chief might want. It would be
one thing if the Democratic Party came out here with some approach that
said that every police chief is going to have to go out and buy a
particular type of police car or they are going to have to buy a
particular kind of computer system or they are going to have to buy
infrared glasses or they are going to have to buy a certain type of
rifle.
That is not what this bill says. This bill says we are going to put
more police officers on the streets in this country. It says that plain
and simple. That is the cutting edge. That is where we need to invest
in the fight against crime in America.
I believe very strongly that if we are going to take back the streets
of this country, we have got to empower the people of the communities,
of the neighborhoods of America. We have to give them the sense that
there is going to be a police officer out there if they are willing to
come forward and name names, if they are willing to establish
neighborhood crime watches, if they are willing to put themselves on
the line and say that they want a country whose future they can help
determine. That is what this bill is all about. It is to give the very
resources that our country needs so desperately on the front lines of
the fight against crime.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the people of this country to support the
crime bill that has been offered by the distinguished gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer] and by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
and support the Democratic position.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important amendment to a
very bad bill.
Earlier today I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Florida,
criticize the President's support for more police officers, calling it
a pet project. Legislators and Presidents have had a lot of pet
projects through the years, and my colleague is right. Many times what
pet project means in plain English is simply more pork.
But today the pork is not in the President's frying pan. It is
sizzling on the other side of the aisle, and it is called H.R. 728, a
terrible bill that represents a huge step backward from making our
communities safer.
The argument in favor of this amendment is very simple. Will we put
100,000 new police officers on the streets, or will we not? If we pass
H.R. 728, we side with chance, we side with luck, and we side with
crossing our fingers and worrying about whether these block grants will
make our communities safer.
If we pass this amendment, we side with
confidence, we side with safety, and we side with knowing that $7.5
billion is headed toward our communities for the single, specific
purpose of putting more police officers on our streets.
We do not need hope or luck or worry. We need police officers walking
our streets. All across our cities, all across our country, more police
officers are making a difference. Community policing has meant that
finally a connection has been made between neighborhoods that are
living in fear and police officers who are pledged to protect them.
Instead of impersonal, infrequent visits by patrol cars, people now
see and talk to real police officers.
The passage of President Clinton's crime bill meant that
neighborhoods like the ones I represent knew that more help was on the
way, that the kids who worry about walking to school and the senior
citizens who worry about riding the bus could count on more police
officers. It meant that people who tell me again and again to bring
back more help and resources from Washington in their fight against
crime were finally getting another weapon in that battle.
Finally, instead of more promises, Congress was sending more police,
but thanks to H.R. 728, we are retreating again. Unless we pass this
amendment, the seniors and the young families and working people in
American are getting another big batch of rhetoric out of Washington,
DC. Here is some money. Maybe it will help, but maybe it will not. But
whatever you do, I say, don't look out your front window for the cop on
the beat. Don't look to the corner store for an extra police officer,
because the Contract With America has called them home.
H.R. 728 says that you do not really need those police officers after
all. But if you are concerned about crime, stay on the lookout for some
money that might help you sometime, somewhere, for something. That is
our choice. Do we want a real contract for more police officers on our
streets, where we need them, helping to keep our communities safe, or a
fake contract of more empty promises out of Washington?
Mr. Chairman, we can fulfill that contract by passing this amendment.
Support safety. Support real crime control. Support more police
officers. Support this critical amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, during the last couple of days I have been spending
quite a bit of time talking to folks on the front line, folks in
Kalamazoo, MI, and all across southwestern Michigan, in terms of what
they think would be the best choice as we fight the tough issue of the
crime problem. As I have talked to every one of my folks, prosecutors,
judges, police chiefs, and community activists, they have all said,
``FRED, we want flexibility. We want to be able to decide in our
community what is best. We don't want all these strings coming from
Washington,'' and the way this bill has been crafted is exactly the way
they would support it on the front line.
This is the right bill. We should allow the flexibility at the local
level so that they can decide what is best for their communities.
{time} 1350
I would urge that we vote ``no'' on this particular amendment, and
vote in favor of it when it comes on final passage later this evening.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to he gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I very much am pleased with what the
gentleman has to say. I have been listening to the other side of the
aisle have a long litany of things that they have been making comments
about and so forth.
My judgment on this is like yours. This is maximum flexibility. There
is no way anybody loses. Everybody gains by this. Local communities get
to decide this themselves, rather than our making those decisions for
them. Yes, as I heard one of the gentleman over there say, I did say
earlier that the 100,000 cops on the streets appears to be the
President's pet project. If there is any politics in this, it is trying
on his part and on some of the Democrats' part trying to keep that
100,000 cops on the street image out there.
In reality, there never were going 100,000 cops anyway, because most
communities in this country cannot afford to pay the additional cost it
takes to get that kind of police officer on the streets. They do not
have the money to do that. And in the end, the net result is what we
are proposing today, to let every community share in this, if they are
a high-crime-rate community, particularly, to do it if they want to do,
they can get a cop if they want, they can get a police car if they
want, or they can use it for prevention if they have a desire to do
that, instead of getting a policeman, which is a much preferable way,
and that is the way the Washington Post editorialized that way this
morning, saying let us not hang up on this, on politics, on veto, et
cetera. The commonsense thing to do is
[[Page H1719]] to let the flexibility reign, which is what we do in our
proposal.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to make two
points in terms of flexibility here. First, I am a very strong
supporter of the drug courts. In my district we have two drug courts
acting very properly and very well organized, and I was delighted that
the subcommittee under the gentleman from Florida's initiative has
allowed drug courts in fact to be an eligible activity for the funds
that are used.
Second, I must say I have a community, Benton Harbor, MI, which has
been designated as a weed-and-seed community, yet they did not receive
any funds from the Department of Justice when they applied with other
communities across the country. It is my understanding in fact the
procedure they have undergone over the last couple of years, that this
would in fact be an eligible community function with a board that has
been established with members from both the law enforcement community
as well as those very active in terms of prevention and community
activists, that even though they were denied by the Justice Department
to receive funding, in fact that this would be an eligible activity
under the $10 billion fund.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 100 percent right. The
local community would make this decision itself. The county and city
commissions that get these moneys would make this decision. They would
have advisory groups that we set up that would have to advise them,
which would include local prosecutors, local police, local school
system representative, somebody from the courts, so the drug courts can
be protected, and so on. I think you would find the community would
much prefer it, because you are right, they could get the weed-and-seed
money they would want.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so whereas we have been
denied in the past, this would be an avenue of actually receiving
funding to go on the frontline for prevention and deal with the problem
of crime that we have in communities both large and small.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand the
points the gentlemen are making, but I believe the cops on the beat are
critically important total law enforcement. My chief of police in
Prince Georges County strongly supports it, my police in Maryland
support, and I rise in strong support of the Conyers-Schumer amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Maryland a
quick question: I saw in one of the papers yesterday the police chief
in Washington, DC, close to Maryland, has in fact supported the
underlying bill and therefore would be opposed to this amendment. Does
the gentleman know why?
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield further, I think I do know
why. You heard frequently of Speaker Gingrich's quote of June 23, 1994,
in which he says he does not want to send blank checks to local
officials. Some officials want blank checks. Now he wants to send it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that under the unanimous-
consent request, there are 2 minutes remaining in debate on this
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 5
minutes each additional under this amendment on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to object, but I would just like to make sure I understand what
the request is. It is for a total of 10 additional minutes the
gentleman is requesting, in addition to the 1:55 drop-dead date we had
earlier, 5 minutes to your side and 5 minutes over here to our side.
Mr. CONYERS. That is correct.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if this unanimous-consent request is
granted, would it still be true that this side would have the right to
close?
The CHAIRMAN. There is no right to close under the 5-minute rule, but
if time is controlled under the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman from Michigan, then the gentleman from Florida would have the
right to close.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. In order to clarify it, this will supersede the
previous agreement. Is that the intent of the distinguished gentleman
from Michigan?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, continuing the time that is left under the
original agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. It will apply to all amendments thereto.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] asks unanimous consent that
at the conclusion of the scheduled debate, there will be 5 minutes
allocated to each side for further debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time on the previous agreement has now expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Bishop] who has been waiting patiently, be allowed to proceed for
2 minutes, in addition to the 10 minutes just agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, when Sheriff Carlton Powell of Thomas
County in rural south Georgia called our Washington office yesterday to
inquire about the cops fast program, he commended Congress for helping
to fight the war against crime in a very effective way. He said there
is nothing Congress can do that is more effective in the fight against
crime than to increase the number of law officers available at the
local level.
Congress, he said, is finally helping to concentrate more of the
country's limited anticrime resources where they are needed most, on
the front lines. Sheriff Powell also expressed a concern. He is
concerned that Congress is about to take a tremendous step backward. If
Congress junks the program designed to expand police forces throughout
our communities, then we are sending a blank check block grant program
back which will, in his words, kick police off the porch.
When are we going to learn? When are we going to have enough good
sense to listen to community law officers, who have been leading the
charge against crime every day?
State, city, and county crime officers like Sheriff Powell have been
telling us for years more police over on the street should be the top
priority. But until the last term of Congress little has been done at
the Federal level to assure that critical need. Expanding prisons and
the judicial system is good. However, spending for the number of police
officers per 10,000 citizens has not kept up. We have got to do what is
necessary to put our police officers on the street.
Mr. Chairman, let us listen to what local law enforcement communities
have been telling us, and to continue to move forward, rather than
backwards, at this critical, critical need. Let us have enough good
sense to preserve the one program that is working effectively and
efficiently. Let us stay on target. Let us pass the Conyers-Schumer-
Chapman amendment and continue putting more police officers on the
streets to guarantee that our communities will be safer tomorrow than
they are today.
The fact is, our area of Georgia has been at the very cutting edge of
the Cops-on-the-Beat Program. In Columbus, Police Chief Jim
Wetherington was one of the first to receive funding, local funding,
and now he has nine new federally funded officers now in the police
academy and soon to be deployed on the streets of his city. In Albany,
Chief Joseph Lumpkin has already deployed new officers in
[[Page H1720]] his neighborhoods--and he reports that in less than a
year it has already measurably reduced Albany's crime rate. In
Valdosta, Chief Charlie Spray says there is a new rapport between the
community and his police officers because of the additional police on
the streets. In the town of Vienna, Chief Bobby Reed says the program
has already helped deter crime, and he, too, is seeing an immediate
impact on his community's crime rate. Some of our law officers say they
like the idea of more flexibility. But, overwhelmingly, they do not
want the Cops-on-the-Beat Program dismantled.
During the 1980's, the emphasis was primarily on expanding prisons
and the judicial system, and spending at the Federal and State levels
climbed rapidly in these areas. At the same time, however, spending for
the number of police per 10,000 citizens barely increased at all. While
the number of violent crimes leaped by an enormous 37 percent over the
last half of the 1980's, the total number of police increased by a
relatively meager 16 percent.
When the administration and Congress enacted the bill that created
the cops fast and cops ahead programs this past term, we were finally
paying attention.
These programs have already deployed 17,000 additional police
officers in cities and towns across the country and will add 83,000
more over the next few years.
We are doing this efficiently, making sure the money goes for crime
fighters and not bureaucrats by spending less than 1 percent of the
funding for administration.
We are targeting our limited resources for a purpose that is certain
to produce positive results.
We are doing what an overwhelming number of our community law
officers tell us we ought to be doing.
Mr. Chairman, the war against crime is just that--a war. And to fight
a war we must have soldiers. Like any way, it is impossible to fully
calculate the costs in terms of human misery. But it is possible to
figure out how much it costs in dollars. Economists say the cost of
crime to our society totals about $674 billion a year--more than twice
the amount the Federal Government spends annually on defense. Many
things need to be done to fight this war. We need more prisons, tougher
and longer sentences for violent criminals. We also need closer
monitoring of criminals on probation. We need to attack drug and
alcohol abuse. We need to help people become employed and remain
employed. We need to keep young people in school and out of youth
gangs.
We most certainly need more--not fewer--police officers on our
streets.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous unanimous consent agreement, a
Member in support of the amendment will control 5 minutes, and a Member
in opposition to the amendment will control 5 minutes. Who will control
the time in support?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I will control the time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Who will control the time in opposition?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the
distinguished minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important amendment in
this whole block of crime bills that we are considering. As you
consider it, I want to take you back in time a few months to the period
when we were working on the crime bill, after we had lost the ability
to bring it up in the House and we had a bipartisan agreement with
Republicans and Democrats, negotiating to bring about a bill that we
could pass last fall. Those negotiations went on between my office and
now Speaker Gingrich's office, and we arrived at a bipartisan agreement
that ensured that we would get 100,000 new police, community police, on
the streets of America.
We made that decision. In my district, 80 of those police are now on
the street.
{time} 1400
Seventeen thousand across the country are already out either being
trained or already on the street preventing crime and cracking down on
crime. One of the reasons Government gets a bad name today is that we
make decisions often in a bipartisan way, as we did last fall. And then
before we even have a chance to see if the action will work, we pull
back, we change. We say, we did not want to do that. We want to do
something else.
It would be a tragedy, after we have made this decision, to now back
up and say, no, it is a no-strings block grant, you can do anything you
want.
I was in my district over the weekend. I went out with the community
police that had been hired. And all of them asked me, is this funding
going to be taken away? Are new decisions going to be made?
The chief of police of St. Louis asked me,
Are we going back to the way you did it in the 1970's, with
LEAA, when a no-strings block grant built alley lights in St.
Louis and a new promenade in front of the Mississippi River,
rather than flesh and blood police who could walk through
communities?
And there I stood on Sunday with Officer Vise, in front of the head
of the neighborhood association. And she talked about what it meant to
have on the streets on a daily and nightly basis this young man who was
a newly trained policeman that all of the people of the neighborhood
could relate to and talk to and give information to. And she said how
wonderful it was to create the confidence of the people in that
community to fight crime. And now, just 2 weeks after this young man is
on the beat stopping crime in that community, are we going to take him
away? How wrong that would be.
We have got a block grant for prevention. We put it into the
bipartisan bill. We can keep that in. But let us not back up on this
decision on police. The American people believe crime is the No. 1
problem in the country, and they want to stop crime from happening in
their communities. And police are known, community police especially,
as the best way to prevent crime.
Let us keep it moving. Let us keep going forward. Vote for this
amendment. Vote again for the bipartisan bill we passed last year, and
let us stop crime in America in the best way that we know to do it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have just heard an impassioned speech from the minority leader
about why we should keep the cops on the streets program alive. I would
like to simply correct a couple of thoughts that were put out that I do
not think are quite accurate.
No. 1, nothing in the bill that we have before us today would destroy
a single police officer that has been designated that a community is
going to get under the current year we are in, the current fiscal year
we are in, by the Attorney General.
If a community gets a cop during the course of this fiscal year with
the money that was appropriated already, then that cop is going to stay
there, the money has been protected in this bill. So that the Attorney
General may reserve money under this appropriation this year for the
full three years so there is nobody going to lose any police officer
anywhere in the Nation that has already been designated or will be
designated, for that matter, during the remainder of this fiscal year
until October 1.
Now, we are down to one simple issue. Do you
believe that it is better for the Federal Government to tell you,
communities, how you should proceed to fight crime in your community
with the money that comes from Washington, or do you believe it is
better that you, local communities, decide for yourselves how to spend
that money? That is the sole question.
We have a chance to move forward from this year forward in the
remaining years of our crime legislation and correct the deficiencies
of the last few paragraphs of last year's crime bill by giving that
flexibility to the cities and the counties, and that is all this bill
does that we propose today.
We propose to take roughly $10 billion and say to every community
that has a high crime rate throughout the Nation, city, or county, you
decide how you want to spend it, whether that is for more cops or
whether that is for police cars or whether that is for a prevention
program. That is common sense.
The mayors like it. The mayors even quoted the minority leader in a
letter dated February 10, I have a copy and I quoted it earlier today,
as having said at that meeting on January 27,
You are the ones on the front lines. You are people that
have got to show results, and
[[Page H1721]] I think you are well equipped to try to figure
out what to do with the money.
Now, I also have today the editorial that I quoted earlier from the
Washington Post. There is no question that it is pretty universally
accepted that many communities cannot use the current cops on the
streets program.
And they say here,
Almost immediately, though, it was challenged by law
enforcement experts and some local officials. In fact, the
law created a five-year matching program during which the
Federal Government's share diminished and eventually
disappeared, leaving localities with the full cost of
maintaining the new officers. Since the maximum federal
contribution could not have exceeded $15,000 a year per new
hire, the program would never have supplied enough to pay
salary, benefits, pensions and other costs, so the cities
would have had to come up with a lot of upfront money many
say they don't have. So put aside the 100,000 figure, and the
issue boils down to whether decisions about the expenditure
of law enforcement dollars are best made locally or
nationally. In some cities, like this one--
Washington, DC, they are saying.
the greatest need may not be additional police on the roster
but better equipment, specialized training or even midnight
basketball. What is wrong with letting them use federal funds
for less expensive but still effective programs rather than
for costly hiring.
I say what is wrong with letting the local communities decide what to
do with the money that we give them. They know best how to spend that
money. They are at the front lines, as the minority leader said in his
comments to the mayors just a few days ago. They are the ones that can
best decide at the local level how to fight crime.
There are thousands of options that are out there, not just the ones
Washington may dream up as to what is best for one city. It might be
one thing that is good for Sacramento, CA and another good for New
Brunswick, GA and another for Madison, WI. Who knows what is best for
those communities?
That has been the problem with the Democrats over the past 40 years
controlling this Congress. They believe that Washington knows best. We
believe that the local communities know best in these cases and the
money should go back to them to decide how to fight crime in their
communities. Ninety percent of the crime in this country is local,
local crime, not Federal crime, not under the Federal laws. It is State
and local.
The decisions on how to spend that money to fight crime are clearly
best made by the cities and the counties of this country, not by the
Federal Government.
I urge a no vote on this amendment today, a no vote against a way of
doing business that has long since been debunked in this country of the
Federal Government saying Washington knows best. Let us let the
citizens of this country at the local level of government make these
decisions once and for all. Let us keep the underlying bill intact. Let
us, under the circumstances today, go with the local grant programs in
this bill and not go back to the same old business as usual, Washington
knows best approach of the cops on the streets program, just for the
sake of allowing this President to be able to claim a political
victory.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conyers-
Schumer amendment to preserve the current community policing initiative
that we instituted in the 1994 crime bill.
Last year, Congress passed the largest anticrime package in history,
and it is working. Last year's crime bill demonstrated a balanced
approach of police, punishment and prevention. While many of these
programs have not yet gone into effect, the COPS Program has. Thousands
of grants have been awarded to small towns, medium size towns and to
our Nation's cities. With the recent announcement of grant awards under
the COPS FAST Program nearly 17,000 new police officers are or will be
hired. In my home State of Connecticut over 150 new COPS will be
funded. This is needed relief for local law enforcement agencies across
my State and for that matter across the country.
The Law Enforcement Grant Program that is included in the Contract
With America does not continue the successful COPS Program that was
instituted as part of last year's crime bill. In fact, it does not
guarantee that one additional police officer will be placed on the
street. We have all heard the horror stories of the wasteful and
unaccountable spending of the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration, including the purchase of a tank, and a $140,000
aircraft. These type of block grant programs do not work. The Conyers-
Schumer amendment is smart, it protects funding to put more COPS on the
beat. And unlike the Law Enforcement Block Grant Program it guarantees
that more COPS will be on the beat working to make our streets safe.
We can try criminals, we can put them in prison, but without
additional police we do not have the resources to arrest them and start
the judicial process. Let's continue to move forward with a program
that works, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will
protect the important funding for the COPS Program.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers and
Schumer amendment and in strong opposition to H.R. 728. Last year,
Congress voted for an anticrime strategy that struck a much-needed
balance between law enforcement and swift punishment, and innovative
prevention programs. Now, we are in the midst of dismantling the crux
of last year's crime bill by eliminating both the COPS on the Beat
Program and crime prevention programs.
The COPS Program promises to place 100,000 more police on our
streets. The COPS Program already has made an impact in my district of
Dayton, OH. In the last several months, my district has been awarded 23
police officers. New officers have been placed not only in the urban
areas of Montgomery County, but also in the rural areas which are often
passed by for federal and State funding. The COPS initiative makes our
communities safer through community policing efforts, but it also makes
the job of police officers easier and safer because of the interaction
between law enforcement officials and community leaders.
Unfortunately, the broad language contained in H.R. 728 does not
guarantee that the funds obtained through block grants
will be used to hire more police officers. In the past, many well-
intentioned grant programs, such as the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration [LEAA], failed because the broad language allowed funds
to be diverted for other purposes. The American people want
accountability for how Federal money is going to be spent, and they
expect results. This open-ended grant program will not bring the
results the public wants, and it will not target areas which need the
most attention, particularly youth violence and street crime.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the American people are asking for the
elimination of the COPS Program or of the crime and drug prevention
programs included in the 1994 crime bill. Instead, my constituents are
calling for both more police officers and programs that increase youth
employment and educational opportunities. Let us not dismantle these
programs. We worked long and hard on them, and these programs need the
chance to succeed. This is the least our young people deserve, who too
often are neglected and witness the horror of violence at an early age.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the Conyers and Schumer
amendment, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 728.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the county sheriffs, chiefs of police, and
prosecutors who deal with crime on a day-to-day basis told us that
community policing would make their jobs easier because police officers
who are visibly involved in their communities are one of the best
deterrents to crime.
According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``We
need all the help we can get in our daily work, and putting more cops
on the streets will help us do our job.''
And that is what the crime bill delivered. The COPS-FAST program,
which targets small jurisdictions, had a one-page application that was
due by December 31. No redtape. no bureaucracy. Just an announcement a
little over month later that communities in my district would receive a
total of 17 new police officers. These are officers who will not just
walk a beat, but work closely with the citizens and communities they
serve.
Community policing has proven to be effective. It is widely supported
by law enforcement across the country. Why kill it in favor of block
grants--funding which guarantees nothing and is likely to result in an
overall reduction in dollars targeted for police and prevention?
When we asked for help in developing the crime bill, local law
enforcement answered. We listened to them, and then responded with
cops-on-the-beat. Why are we putting them through the wringer again?
Support the Schumer, Conyers, Chapman amendment and perpetuate this
fine crime law offered by President Clinton.
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman I rise today to support the Schumer
amendment to H.R. 728. The question of Federal involvement in the fight
against crime at the local level is one of resources. We all want to do
our utmost to help our constituents retake their streets and
[[Page H1722]] neighborhoods from criminals. The preamble to the
Constitution lists ``ensuring domestic tranquility'' as one of the
defining goals of our Republic.
With the Federal budget mired in red ink, however, we need to
prioritize who we can help, and how best to help them. Congress has
already spoken against unfunded mandates, now we must stand against
block grants that disperse our limited resources without a single word
of advice or oversight on where the money goes. We need more genuine
Federal-local partnerships like the Community Policy Program of the
1994 crime bill.
If a municipality provides a community policing plan that is
innovative and reflects the crime-fighting needs of the community, the
Federal Government will provide the bulk of the funds necessary to
hire, train, and pay the law officers needed to carry out that plan.
The application is 1 page long, and 16,000 officers have already been
approved by the Justice Department. This program is working, and it has
the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs
Association, and the Major Cities Police Chiefs.
It has been argued that community policing is a result of Federal
coercion. In fact, community policing is a priority because it helps
communities that need Federal help fighting crime. We could approve
block grants, and dispense funds to affluent towns that want
helicopters, Tasers, new patrol cars, and fancy radios. But for every
block grant we make to a town that can afford its own officer we take
an officer away from a city or small town that is broke and desperately
need our help.
Simply put, community policing is tough on crime. And we need to be
tough on crime. We must also crack down on the causes of crime. We have
already eliminated specific funding for Drug Court programs like the
highly successful one operated by the prosecutor in my home of Jackson
County. Other popular programs, like the Mayor's Night Hoops in Kansas
City, will also be in danger.
The 1994 crime bill was the result of years of sometimes acrimonious
debate. When finally passed, it was a program of police, prevention,
and punishment. This bill has had neither the depth of consideration or
the breadth of scope. Even if a community wants a portion of the block
grants authorized in this bill, they must first convene an amorphous
committee of law enforcement, social service agencies, elected
officials, and other interested parties. This bureaucracy could turn
the fast track to cops into the slow train to nowhere.
Most cities in my district have received community policing support.
They need it because crime in our region is a serious problem. My
constituents can attest to the crime that plagues too many of our
neighborhoods. But these citizens want to work with their government
and their police to create a safer environment to live, work, and raise
their children. The 1994 crime bill gave them that opportunity.
While last year's crime bill was a solemn contract with citizens to
lay the cornerstone for a safer society, this bill invites waste,
fraud, and increased crime. Rarely has this House had a clearer choice
in the fight against crime. Never has our duty to our constituents been
so clear. Join me in opposing the wasteful, bureaucratic aspects of
H.R. 728 by supporting the Schumer amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise today in strong
support of the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment to maintain the Cops
on the Beat Program.
I have spoken several times now in support of the Cops Program, but
it cannot be emphasized enough: Community policing works.
The COPS Program will put 100,000 police on our streets--police that
are involved in their communities and committed to keeping our families
safe. COPS responds to the demands by the American people that we in
Congress must do something to fight crime and violence. COPS is
supported by virtually every national law enforcement organization.
We must protect one of the strongest weapons we have in fighting
crime: community oriented policing. If we truly want to take back our
streets and improve the quality of life in our cities, police officers
cannot do it alone. Local residents cannot do it alone--they must work
together.
That is exactly what community policing does--it allows police
officers to work together with local community residents to fight
crime.
Now, certain Members of Congress want to eliminate this critical
approach to crime prevention. I strongly oppose any efforts to cut
community policing programs, and I ask my colleagues to take a good
hard look at exactly what community policing does for our towns and
cities.
Community policing works--and it works because it asks the experts to
create crime-fighting strategies. When I say experts, I am not talking
about bureaucrats in Washington offices. When I say experts, I am
talking about the people who actually live in neighborhoods plagued
with crime--and I am talking about the police officers who patrol those
neighborhoods every day.
So when the crime bill says it will put 100,000 new community police
officers on the beat, we must remember that those officers will know
both the neighborhoods they patrol and the people in them.
I personally have seen community policing work. As a city councilman
in San Diego, I have worked hand in hand with neighborhood residents
and community policing teams--and I have personally seen the effect
that this partnership has had on crime. The police officers become real
human beings to the neighborhood residents--and the people who live in
the neighborhoods become real human beings to the police officers there
to protect the peace.
Mr. Chairman, these tactics work. The city of San Diego has
established neighborhood policing teams in even the neighborhoods with
the highest crime rates--and a recent study pointed out that overall
crime has been reduced in the city by 10 percent.
Yes, we need to be tough on crime. We need stiffer penalties, and we
need to make sure that criminals serve the full jail sentences they
deserve. But we also need to work together as communities. And what the
crime bill proved last year was that Congress was serious about
fighting crime and that Congress had enough forethought to make it a
comprehensive fight.
Let's not move backward this week. I ask my colleagues to understand
the central role of community policing in fighting crime. And I ask my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment--and
protecting this effective crime prevention program.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers-Schumer
amendment. We did the right thing in last year's crime bill. We did the
right thing when we created a balance between tough law enforcement
measures, like a sensible version of three-strikes-you're-out--and
crime prevention.
As part of that balance, we did the right thing when passed a law
which wrote into law the goal of putting 100,000 new police officers on
the street. But, as I said last week, this bill, called the ``Taking
Back Our Streets Act,'' will hand the streets back over to violent
crime.
We need to preserve the balance between punishment and prevention.
This is not a Democratic concept. Republican President Bush knew that
prevention is important when he gave one of his Points of Light Award
to a midnight basketball program in Glenarden, MD.
This is what the Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, IN said: ``It's
crucial we have money for prevention. It's a lot better to spend money
on the front end instead of just building a prison cell for them.''
Mayor Helmke is right, and so are his fellow mayors who told a League
of Cities survey what would help them fight their wars on crime. 48.4
percent say that jobs programs would help; 39 percent say that more
cops would help; 30 percent say that recreation would help. Only 8.4
percent say that more prison money would help. But this bill turns its
back on the mayors, and the cops, and the community groups who are
fighting the war on crime.
The Conyers-Schumer amendment makes sense. It restores the money we
voted to provide to States and local governments last year. It
preserves the community-based COPS Program which is working so well in
all of our districts. It maintains the balance between prevention and
tough punishment. It retains flexibility for cities. And, by separating
the grant into two separate funds, prevents police and prevention from
cannibalizing each other.
Don't just listen to me. Before you make this vote, I urge you to
call the police chiefs and mayors in your district. I urge you to
support the Conyers-Schumer amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Conyers-Schumer-Chapman amendment to restore the Cops on the Beat
Program. Just a few short months ago, we were on this floor making a
commitment to the American people to place 100,000 additional law
enforcement officers on the streets of our communities, and to provide
the means to our communities to support important prevention programs
to help give our kids an alternative to drugs and crime.
But, here we are today with a proposal before us to undue our good
efforts. Efforts which have already paid off in community after
community. Four of the five counties within my congressional district
have already benefited from the Cops on the Beat Program, some as
recently as last week. What you are now telling these jurisdictions, is
that they have no guarantee that the support guaranteed under the 1994
bill will continue, to pass unamended, that my communities may be
forced to reduce their police.
Last year's crime bill was funded by a reduction in the Federal work
force. That hits hard in my district. But, my constituents and I
recognized and supported the need for additional police. We are not
willing, however, to
[[Page H1723]] support an effort which will not put cops on the streets
in the towns in my district and in yours. As President Clinton said on
Sunday, he fought to cut the Federal work force for 100,000 police
officers, and nothing less.
Crime is a national problem, and we need a national commitment to the
problem. That is why it is so essential that we do not break our
commitment for police in our communities and on our streets.
Under this Republican proposal, my communities have no guarantee that
while they are dedicating their resources to putting cops on the street
and to effective prevention programs that the community next door or
across the river will be holding to the same standard. In the
Washington area, crime is a regional problem. We must have coordinated
efforts to fight crime. The law we passed did that. The proposal before
us today would replace a guaranteed initiative with a block grant
program with no guarantees at all.
Many mayors around the country support the amendment before us today
to keep intact the Cops on the Beat Program. The mayor of the largest
city in my State, Mayor Kurt Schmoke, has written to me supporting
today's amendment. Mayor Schmoke writes that ``community policing is
the keystone of our crime prevention strategies.'' And, that he is
opposed to the effort before us today to abandon the goal of 100,000
new police officers.
Mayor Ed Rendell of Philadelphia wrote to the Speaker of the House in
support of the Schumer-Conyers amendment. While he supports some of the
improvements in H.R. 728, he states that the ``block grant would be
even more effective if the Congress adopted the concept contained in
the Schumer-Conyers amendment.''
Mr. Chairman, more than half of the police departments in America are
now scheduled to receive police hiring grants. It makes no sense to
stop this successful program in midstream and give the criminals even
more chances to terrorize our neighborhoods and seduce our children
into a life of hopelessness.
We are in a state of national emergency. On this floor today, it is
time to void the contract and pass the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman
amendment and keep the police on the streets.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 235, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--235
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
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
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
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
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--3
Becerra
Crapo
Matsui
{time} 1426
Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. HEFLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mrs. schroeder
Mrs. SCHROEDER. 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 Mrs. Schroeder: Page 4, after line 5,
insert the following:
``(D) Enhancing health care clinic security measures to
protect against violence directed against the free exercise
of constitutional rights, including--
``(i) overtime pay for law enforcement officers;
``(ii) security assessments by law enforcement officers;
``(iii) when recommended by law enforcement officials,
purchases of materials to enhance the physical safety of
clinics, including, bulletproof glass and security cameras.''
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee earlier today,
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will be recognized for
30 minutes in support of her amendment, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will control
the time in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
[[Page H1724]] {time} 1430
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am very sorry we have to do this. I had hoped this would be solved
in my attempt to make this amendment in the committee; we were thwarted
and it was the other side who wanted to make this an issue.
Ladies and gentleman, antichoice violence is on a rampage in this
country, and this is a federally protected right, federally protected
right. But we are asking local law enforcement to protect it, and local
law enforcement has become overwhelmed.
Let me show Members this chart. All the red areas are States where
reproductive clinics have decreased in the last 10 years. Decreased.
And why would they not decrease when people who work in these clinics
have been under siege, and when we have at the desk, and I hope every
one of my colleagues comes to look at every incidence of violence we
could find in each individual State that has been documented just in
the last 2 years, just in the last 2 years. It goes on and on and on
and I would take my full hour or more to read it all.
But this kind of violence is absolutely intolerable, and it seems to
me if we are sending Federal money to localities, the one thing we
should do is say to localities that they will be able to utilize this
money to protect federally protected laws and federally protected
rights.
Think about this. If in the civil rights debates during the 1960's we
were sending block grant money to different cities, but we did not say
to localities that they could use that money to help in civil rights
demonstrations, what an omission. How terrible. And what if we said
that about voting problems that we were so worried about federally?
This is a federally protected right, this is Federal money. Last I
looked, women Federal taxpayers were charged the same as men, and if we
do not put this in here clearly, then I think localities that have been
afraid to stand firm on this will continue to. If we send the money and
we say this is allowed, I think we take those excuses away and
hopefully we begin to turn around the numbers on this chart.
I know the other side is going to stand and say that the amendment
they adopted yesterday by the gentleman from New Mexico takes care of
this, and what is the gentlewoman from Colorado talking about.
Well, they showed their hand yesterday. If Members will look at the
Record from yesterday and look at the distinguished chairman and what
he said, he said that he was backing that amendment because he thought
it would be okay that local officials could do this if they wanted to
do this. And the amendment does not specify family planning clinics, it
kind of says facilities, which is a very broad-based thing.
We must send a much clearer message if America's women think we are
serious about protecting their rights. We have winked at this, we have
ducked, but let me tell you what is happening. The rights that they
have not been able to roll back since Roe versus Wade was adopted,
those rights that they could not roll back they are rolling back in an
entirely different way by tolerating violence, by allowing it to go
unabated as we have in our list, by seeing what is happening across
this country, and that is how they are taking these rights away from
women.
Either we stand here and say this is a right and it is a real right,
and if we are going to send Federal money out to localities they ought
to be told to help, or we do not mean it. So it is choose-up-sides-time
today and I think America's women are going to be listening very
carefully.
What does my amendment do? It says it would allow localities to help
pay overtime for police in guarding these facilities or guarding some
of the doctors and the health-care workers who have been under siege.
Many have been shot, some have died very unfortunately, as Members well
know. It also will allow, if the police think it is necessary, other
additional security measures that they think would help, and would help
them in their job. That to me makes an incredible amount of sense.
This bill does that in re schools, it does that in re all sorts of
other things. You will hear people say well, we should list some things
but not all things. Why are we afraid to say this? Why are we afraid to
say that we ought to be protecting these rights?
Let us grow up and let us stand up and let us say that these billions
of dollars ought to go out there, they ought to be protecting the women
that are sending them to Washington and we ought to get very, very
serious.
I urge every Member to vote for this amendment. And I think that it
is really time that we stop this reign of terror that we have been too
casual about.
I also think it is very important to notice this amendment would
monitor what we are seeing happening now with the Justice Department as
they are meeting with local law enforcement officials trying to end
this reign of terror. They are all telling them they need this kind of
help.
Let us give it to them. Let us give it to them and let us stop the
violence.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we all abhor and condemn the violence against these
clinics. We do not favor anybody committing violence or the kind of
crimes we have seen, including one in my home State where recently we
had somebody convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in the State
for killing somebody at one of these clinics.
But the fact of the matter is the gentlewoman's amendment today, not
the issue, but the amendment is much ado about nothing. The truth of
the matter is that nothing that she is suggesting nor has been debated
on this issue in this bill has anything to do with a binding effect on
the local community in deciding what it is going to do with its moneys.
This is a provision that she would insert into the part of the bill
that is where we have suggested here are possible things, examples of
things you can use your money for, but the preceding language to the
entire section says including but not limited to, allowing maximum
flexibility to the city and county commissioners and local government
units that are going to decide how to spend their money to fight
crime in their communities.
In yesterday's amendment the gentleman from New Mexico made
absolutely sure that law enforcement officials got the message that we
were interested in their making protective statements and doing what
they needed to enhance security measures in and around schools and in
and around any facility or location which is considered by the unit of
local government to have a special risk for incidence of crime.
What the gentlewoman is doing today is trying to modify that further
by specifically saying that she wants us to encourage the local police,
and that is what we would be doing, we are encouraging the local
communities to enhance health care clinic security measures by
specifically naming health care clinics in here to protect against
violence directed against the free exercise of constitutional rights,
including overtime pay for law enforcement officers, security
assessments by law enforcement officers when recommended by law
enforcement officials, purchases of materials to enhance the physical
safety of clinics, including bulletproof glass and security cameras.
I might say there is nothing here lest it be the purchase of these
items of bulletproof glass and security cameras, that are in any way an
expansion of anything in the bill currently. I cannot see any reason
for offering this because the right is there right now to do all of
this, save for the fact that it is inflammatory and it gets a good
debate going on the abortion, choice, life question, and that seems to
be what is going to ensue here today, is a debate on that subject, and
I think that is unfortunate because none of us are opposed to the prime
objective of stopping violence and allowing local police to use
whatever resources in their community, local cities, and counties to
protect a clinic as much as they protect any other structure,
buildings, or community interest that is there.
{time} 1440
But it should be their decision. We should not be in there trying to
specify this particular type of thing, health care clinic, name it, in
the bill. I do not
[[Page H1725]] see any reason to be inflammatory. I find great concern
with the idea of law enforcement deciding they are going to purchase
bulletproof glass and security cameras potentially for a privately
owned building.
We worked with the gentlewoman in committee to make sure if it was a
public clinic or publicly owned building, indeed, certain materials and
equipment could be added and purchased with the moneys in this bill,
but it is contrary to the intent of this bill to have moneys that are
being spent being sent to the local communities to enhance the physical
properties of any privately owned building. It makes no sense at all to
do that. We do not generally do that. We certainly do not want to
encourage that.
Am I to say you cannot do that? Well, obviously we have got a lot of
latitude in the bill. I do not want to put my name on any proposal that
encourages or gives encouragement to a local community to enhance
physical characteristics for security for a private building, whether
that is a health care clinic, whether that is a Wendy's restaurant.
I do not think that is the business of the local community doing
that. I would encourage them not to do it. I do not prohibit them in
the bill from doing it.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, but I also
want to remind the gentleman when I first offered this in committee the
gentleman was receptive to it. It was after we went away for a vote and
there appeared to be a caucus on that that they attempted to fight it.
The gentlewoman hoped that this could be adopted in the committee. I
did not want to make this a big high-water mark, and I salute the
gentleman from Florida, because I know he has been from a State where
there has been incredible violence, and you were very sensitive at that
time. There was a change of mind. I am sorry there was a change of
mind, but I just want to point that out.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I must say I never agreed to this.
You had initially come forward with an idea of putting ``public''
instead of ``private'' clinics in here.
This does not today say anything about public. In addition to that
fact, I recall very distinctly having told you I had reconsidered this,
having thought about it. I thought this was inflammatory and ensuing,
and afterwards an unnecessary debate on abortion clinics that I do not
think needs be addressed. We cover that anyway. We do cover them.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will yield further, I really do not
think it is inflammatory, and I think it is very, very important that
we communicate to local officials who have been hesitant to stand up
and be counted, and I think the gentleman knows that from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I don't impugn the motives of the gentlewoman, but I
definitely do believe that the debate that ensues around this by
carving out all the language and doing things I suggested are not very
acceptable to most of us and encouraging local governments to do it is
in its own right inflammatory.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, on the day the Nation was horrified by
the death of two young women in Massachusetts and the wounding of five
others, we in Connecticut were much more fortunate. The accused
individual who carried out these murders, when he was arrested, was
found to have the name of a Hartford, CT, clinic in his pocket.
Hartford is in my district.
Were we going to be the next ones? We do not know. We have no idea.
We do know we have come to the point now when someone trying to
exercise a constitutional right, might just be by chance be murdered.
We do know also that any town or city that has a clinic in it is
forced to spend additional tax dollars for protection of this clinic.
The police chief in that town needs all the help he can get. The
neighbors that live in an area, want dollars spent for public safety.
The citizens going to that clinic certainly say they have a
constitutional right to protection.
So today, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for putting in this
amendment. I do not think these citizens, these neighbors, these police
chiefs, these individuals exercising their constitutional right are
asking whether it is a public clinic or a private clinic. They are only
asking for protection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Because my name has already come up in this debate, I wanted to speak
as to my amendment yesterday and why I opposed the amendment from the
gentlewoman from Colorado.
First of all, I do want to acknowledge that in some portions of the
country we obviously have had a very serious problem with violence at
reproductive clinics. Everybody knows that. That is not in dispute.
I would like to take it a step further in that I was persuaded last
year that in some localities, in some localities there was a problem
with local law enforcement which could not or did not act adequately to
protect these clinics or to prosecute individuals after violence has
occurred and, therefore, I supported the bill which became law in the
last Congress which made it a Federal offense to have violence at a
reproductive clinic.
I have to add though this is a subject again perhaps for another day.
Based upon what I know of the Justice Department's enforcement of
that act, I have been very disappointed, because the cases that I am
familiar with at least where they prosecuted under this act under
Federal law, there was a simultaneous State prosecution. I do not
understand why the Justice Department would prosecute and use Federal
resources where there is already, in fact, a State prosecution. That is
not the kind of situation we were told necessitated that Federal law.
Nevertheless, coming to this particular bill, H.R. 728, it is
important to emphasize that the operative language is already there.
This is a block grant. The locality can already use these funds to
enhance security at reproductive clinics if that is what they want to
do.
It was suggested in the Committee on the Judiciary that was not good
enough, that we should provide more illustrations, and that is all
these are in illustrations, to local law enforcement to show them what
we are getting at, since we had mentioned schools by way of example to
enhance security. I offered an amendment to H.R. 728 that was accepted
by voice vote yesterday that is proposed as an illustration using the
funds to enhance security measures in and around 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.
So we have made the point in this amendment that local government can
use these funds wherever they have a special risk of crimes. This can
include a reproduction clinic, if that is, indeed, a problem in a
particular area.
But here is what is wrong with the gentlewoman's amendment. These
illustrations are trying to send a message, and the fact of the matter
is, although there is a dreadful problem with violence at some
reproductive clinics, not at all reproductive clinics, and to cite this
as one, as an example, sends a message to local law enforcement that
even if they have a greater threat to people's safety elsewhere in
their community, the Congress thinks they should beef up security at
one particular area even if their crime threat is elsewhere.
That is why the amendment should be defeated.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on
this amendment, because she has made a splendid case on behalf of
protection of a Federal right, a constitutional right, that women have.
[[Page H1726]] But I would like to add to that my thought that this
is also an issue that should concern men, not only because we should be
concerned about protecting women's rights, but also because men are not
safe from this violence. Many of these clinics offer services that are
necessary for men. A man walking into one of these clinics to learn
more about communicable diseases or about reproduction choices for
people in the community or just to accompany someone is a target for
this kind of violence, and so I think, while it is important for us to
stand up today for the rights of women, it is also important and
intelligent for us to admit to the fact that some of the men and women
who stand outside of these clinics and are willing to deal in violence
have directed that violence at men, not only at women.
And so today I stand up on behalf of this amendment, because I
believe it is the right thing to do, because I believe that this
amendment does not interfere with anything that the majority party is
trying to do. On the contrary, it reinforces their rhetoric that they
are concerned about local involvement and local control.
Local control should be aided by us, by allowing and sending this
signal, this clear signal, that these rights must be protected.
This is a unique situation, and unique problems need unique solutions
and approaches.
What the gentlewoman from Colorado has suggested today is an approach
that says that we can all get together and send a signal that this is a
behavior we will not tolerate, not only by law, but that we will also
make the funds available to carry this out.
Support this amendment. It does not interfere with anything you have
in mind.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1450
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with my friend from New York.
The greatest boon to men is abortion. Boy, does that take it off of
their back, does that solve a big problem for them.
I want to make it clear, I do not and I do not know anybody that
condones the vicious murders that have occurred within the last 20
months, 5 of them; vicious, they ought to be prosecuted for murder to
the fullest extent of the law.
They have done incalculable harm to the pro-life movement. There is
nothing pro-life about killing people, even if they are participating
in abortion clinics. So let us get that clear.
Let us also get clear the fact that the Schiff amendment covers this
situation and more because it says enhancing security measures in and
around 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. So this is not about the legal question, this
is about the moral question of abortion.
This is an abortion vote because the gentlewoman from Colorado wishes
to elevate to a position of special status abortion clinics. We do not
call them that. As a matter of fact, we call them health care clinics.
That reminds me of an old Italian saying, though, that, ``You dress the
shepherd in silk, he still smells of the goat.'' What we are talking
about are places where unborn children are destroyed in their mothers'
wombs. And a lot of people are very uncomfortable about that. Some
people are driven to distraction for which the tragedy is compounded
and for which I am sorry. And if protection is needed, they ought to
have it.
But I am unwilling to take abortion mills and give them a special
status over other places where more people are killed more frequently.
Now, I looked at the statistics for 1993, and they give you the
statistics for 1992: 6 lawyers and judges were killed in that year, 7
teachers, elementary teachers, 86 cab drivers--86 cab drivers in this
country. Also, 77 cashiers; fast-food employees, pizza delivery
people--54. Should we have security cameras around convenience stores?
Twelve farmers, eight entertainers, fifty-eight cops. Fifty-eight
cops. Now, bank robbery, let us talk about a Federal nexus; there is
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Interstate Commerce. There
were 18 deaths in that year, the year of 1992. So if we are looking for
where these deaths occurred, single out these places, there are lots of
places to single out more dangerous, more vulnerable than abortion
mills.
Now, I do not understand why anybody would feel comfortable elevating
abortion mills to a place of special status. But some people do. So
that is exactly what this vote is. If you think abortion clinics
deserve to be singled out and to be protected specially over banks,
over cab drivers, over schools, over the police themselves, why, go
ahead and vote for the gentlewoman's bill.
But if you share with me an abhorrence, a condemnation of violence
anywhere and everywhere, it is wrong, it is dead wrong and ought to be
prosecuted. But if your sense of moral imagination encompasses the
violence that goes on in abortion mills, euphemistically called health
care clinics, not too healthy for the unborn, I might say; safe, legal,
and rare. It is not safe for the unborn; it is terminal. Legal, but not
moral and rare, no, not rare, if we keep sanctifying these places.
Now, I suggest that when it comes to protecting rights, there are
more rights that are ignored and left unprotected in the abortion
tragedy than there are protected. I want everybody to be able to
exercise their constitutional right and if indeed the police or the
local authorities think there is going to be violence at an abortion
clinic, send the police there, by all means. But do not, in this
legislation, which is a block grant, which is not categorical, which
says let the local people decide, do not elevate it to a position of a
cathedral-of-compassion abortion mills, where in this country 1,500,000
abortions per year go on. Include them generically, but not
specifically. It is your choice.
I know how I am going to vote.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentlewoman yielding to me, and I appreciate the honesty of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. He has made it very clear that he
thinks people should defeat this because he detests abortion, dislikes
very much what happens in abortion clinics, disagrees that it should be
legal, and therefore resists offering them this protection.
We are not singling out clinics in this bill, in the first place. The
bill that the gentleman's committee brought forward singled out some
places. Schools, he mentioned, they are already mentioned; drug courts
are singled out; other places are singled out. We are not here doing
anything differently than is already done in the bill.
Then the question is, if some things are going to be singled out, why
should clinics where abortions are performed be singled out? The reason
is not to elevate them above other places but to elevate them to the
level that other places now occupy, because of all the places in our
society that have been the victims of violence, abortion clinics have
been the least protected because in many, many areas it is
controversial to do it. The rhetoric of the gentleman from Illinois
proves the point. You do not have people when they talk about
protecting schools, protecting hospitals, protecting courtrooms,
denouncing and vilifying the people to be protected. The gentleman
concedes they should be protected, but he vilifies them and denounces
them. In fact, in other places by people less sophisticated then the
gentleman from Illinois, that becomes an argument against doing it.
The fact is if we follow the gentleman from Illinois and defeat this
amendment because he says it is too pro-abortion, we then create a
situation where we send an ambivalent message to local law enforcement,
we will create a situation in which local people will find this
controversial. We will create a situation in which there will be people
arguing, ``Well, the Congress
[[Page H1727]] voted it down. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee
said terrible things happen in abortion clinics. Don't elevate them.''
Abortion clinics are singled out, not in this bill but by those who
commit violence against them.
There is an organized interstate national campaign of some crazy and
vicious people to go after the clinics. Many people oppose that, on
both sides of the issue of abortion. But there is an undeniably
consistent attack.
In my own home district, two people murdered, police officers under
strain. What we are saying is we want no uncertainty. We do not want
people who share the gentleman's detestation of abortion to say, unlike
him because he makes distinctions as a distinguished lawyer, ``Well,
maybe they shouldn't get it. Maybe Congress didn't want it.''
If you had come with a clean block grant bill, you would have a
consistent argument.
But having done these exceptions yourselves, the only argument for
not including the clinics now, which is the subject of violence, is the
argument made by the gentleman from Illinois, which is a dislike of
what happens.
The point is very clear: If you want to ensure maximum protection for
innocent providers, then it is important to put this into the bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 30 seconds to me.
I just want to respond to the gentleman who mentioned my name. I did
not vilify anybody. If his attention span were not distracted today, he
would find that I do not vilify anybody. I vilify the act of abortion,
I vilify the fact that it occurs, bloodily occurs, against defenseless,
unborn children, but I do not vilify people who engage in that--I pray
for them.
{time} 1500
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, despite the protestations to the author of
this amendment that it is not her intention to engage in hyperbole, her
words, which are used frequently by those in favor of abortion, such as
using reign of terror, clearly are designed to inflame. Rather than
present a chart, as the gentlewoman could have, that listed whatever
information it is that she would want to portray and depict in the form
of a chart, what we have is a map of the United States of America
splashed with red all across it. Red is a color designed deliberately
to invoke passion.
This is not simply another amendment to a bill designed to enhance
the measures that we desire. What is at stake here, and what is really
at issue here, Mr. Chairman, is not an effort to fine tune a bill
talking about block grants to the States to ensure that the local law
enforcement communities have the tools that they need, but it is, as
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] so eloquently has indicated,
another not so thinly veiled effort to raise and interject into the
debate on a crime bill the issue of abortion.
It is a shame; I say, Mr. Chairman, a shame that we have to engage in
this debate over, and over, and over again. It has no place here.
Clearly it has no place here in light of the fact that the gentleman
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] offered an amendment last evening which
was adopted, not on a recorded vote, but by voice, which I say clearly,
Mr. Chairman, encompasses what the gentlewoman says she is trying to
get at here, and that is to ensure that there are no impediments in the
block grants that are contemplated by H.R. 728 to allow local law
enforcement officials, if they believe, and they certainly have an
interest in ensuring the protection of all citizens in their community,
if they believe there is an imminent threat at any institution, at any
facility. Then the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Schiff] makes very clear, if it was not before and I believe it
was before, but this amendment makes very clear that what the
gentlewoman is after here is covered, is contemplated and would be
addressed on the block grant program.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am left with no other conclusion than that
is not the desire of the gentlewoman from Colorado, but rather one in a
series of efforts to raise the level of abortion beyond and over and
above other legitimate issues.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Barr], if red incites passion, he has on a red boutonniere.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman, in red, from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the escalating levels
of violence directed at reproductive health facilities around the
Nation. That is the shame. The violence has been elevated by the
extremists, the radical right wing, not this debate.
The tragic murders in Brookline last December were just the latest
and most horrible in a series of violent incidents that have left five
Americans dead and nine wounded.
Every day reproductive health clinics and the doctors who staff them
are subject to harassment and intimidation. In the last year alone over
half of all reproductive health clinics in the United States
experienced a violent incident. There have been literally hundreds of
arson and chemical attacks and bomb threats against clinics around the
Nation.
This nationwide terror campaign is clearly designed to undermine the
constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. We must respond.
The Schroeder amendment would help address this problem by allowing
local law enforcement to use a portion of their block grant to enhance
the security of reproductive health clinics within their jurisdictions.
Make no mistake: The Schroeder amendment would help save the lives of
doctors and their patients.
To those who say that reproductive health clinics should accept
routine violence as a cost of doing business, we say that organized
terrorism and murder must never become routine in the United States.
Before my colleagues cast this vote I urge them to consider the
hundreds of doctors in this Nation who wear bulletproof vests to work
every day. I urge them to think of the millions of American women who
receive their basic medical care from reproductive health clinics every
year. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't turn your backs on them. They are
our daughters, mothers, sisters, wives. They are in danger, and they
need our help.''
Mr. Chairman, a vote against the Schroeder amendment is a vote
against protecting doctors and women. Let us help put the network of
pro-life violence out of business. Let us pass the Schroeder amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, this issue gets down to several basic things,
and I do not think there is one in this Chamber that disagrees that
violence in any form anywhere should not be tolerated. We do not want
to tolerate it; we want to deal with it. In this legislation we are
trying to provide control and flexibility to law enforcement
authorities at the local level.
Now I happen to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] yesterday which talked about schools and other
facilities. I think amendments such as the gentlewoman from Colorado's
and others' can be made on specifics. But what I do not want to have
happen as a result of this legislative history is that law enforcement
authorities feel that we are only concerned about schools or we are
only concerned about health clinics.
So, regardless of whether this particular amendment passes or is
defeated, a group of us, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley], the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], myself, the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Molinari], feel that we have to broaden the enhancing security measures
section to say something like in and around schools, religious
institutions, medical and health facilities including research
facilities, housing complexes, shelters for women and children, or any
other
[[Page H1728]] facilities or surroundings where a threat to law and
order exists. We do not claim to be exhaustive, but we do claim to be a
little more general in nature. We do not say the Protestant, Catholic,
Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist schools, but what we try to do is cover
some of those areas where we all know there have been unconstitutional
violations of rights, and our concern is that where the threat of
violence or other unlawful criminal activities, or in the opinion of
State or local law enforcement authority requires the use of these
funds for personnel, materials or other security measures, that may be
construed as fulfilling the purposes of this act, they can order them
used.
I am worried that the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is too
specific on the limits. It mentions overtime and some materials, but
not all possibilities. Our amendment is more comprehensive.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my colleagues, the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], should be supported by
every Member of this body regardless of their view about abortion,
because this amendment is not about abortion, its about preventing
crime, crimes like the 1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn, or the December
1994 murders of Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols. The level of
violence and terror against law-abiding health professionals is not
abating. One of the people I represent, Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, is
one of those on a reported list targeted for assassination by the
extreme antiabortion groups at large in this country. We need more
effective law enforcement to prevent the continuation of this kind of
campaign of terror.
Members of the House should make it absolutely clear today that they
do not support this kind of terror activity. This amendment is not
about abortion. It is about taking action to prevent crime, to prevent
murder and to prevent vigilantism in this country.
The amendment offered by Congresswoman Schroeder should be supported
by every Member of this body, regardless of their position on abortion.
Because this amendment isn't about abortion. It's about making clear
that law enforcement can use the money in this bill to prevent crimes.
Crimes like the 1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn, who was shot to death
in March 1993 at the Women's Medical Services Clinic in Pensacola, FL.
Crimes like the shooting of Dr. George Tiller in August 1993 at the
Women's Health Care Services Clinic in Wichita, KS.
Or the murder of Dr. John Bayard Britton and James H. Barrett and the
wounding of June Barrett in July 1994 at the Ladies Center in
Pensacola, FL.
Or the December 1994 murders of Shannon Lowney, a receptionist at
Planned Parenthood and Leanne Nichols at the Pre-term Clinic, both in
Brookline, MA.
The level of violence and terror against law-abiding health
professionals is not abating. One of the people I represent, Dr. Warren
Hern from Boulder, was 1 of 12 doctors reportedly targeted for
assassination by an extremist antiabortion group. We need more
effective law enforcement action to prevent continuation of this
campaign of terror.
A civil society depends on its citizens abiding by the rules.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. For those who disagree with the
law, there are ways to try to change it. When those who are unable to
change laws through lawful means decide to overturn the will of the
majority--to take the law into their own hands--we need to call in the
police. A civil society can't tolerate campaigns of intimidation,
violence, and murder.
The money in this bill is supposed to be given to States for law
enforcement. States can decide how to best use it to combat crime. The
amendment offered by Congresswoman Schroeder will make sure that there
is no confusion that the law enforcement funds in this bill can be used
for overtime pay for law enforcement officers, security assessments,
and when, recommended by law enforcement officials, the purchase of
materials to enhance the physical safety of clinics.
Members of the House should make clear today that they do not support
the campaign of terror against health professionals and health clinics.
This amendment is not about abortion. It's about taking a stand against
violence, murder, and vigilantism.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in all the rhetoric we have
heard today sometimes its easy to forget the real intent of the bill
that is before us, the bill that we are debating. It is actually pretty
simple. We want to let the local people decide how to spend their law
enforcement dollars in the best way they can to defend all of the
people, to protect all of the neighborhoods.
In the communities it is the police officer, it is the school board
member, and it is the community activist who best knows where safety
priorities lie. They are the ones who will be making recommendations in
this bill on how to spend the funds under the bill. The original bill
sets this function up. The question is:
``Do we ignore that fact and dictate to communities what their
priorities are on protecting their citizens?''
{time} 1510
That seems to be the thinking behind this amendment. The gentlewoman
from Colorado says we cannot trust our local law enforcement and
leaders. We must tell them to put their officers around abortion
clinics or other types of bullet proof glass or security measures.
So instead of cleaning up gang ridden neighborhoods or protecting
vulnerable citizens like our seniors, the locals are stuck with
something passed down from Congress. Instead of us in our area being
able to move people, law enforcement, into areas now starting to be
over taken by gangs, we would be told to prioritize to give an elevated
status to abortion clinics.
Let us not have any mistake here. There are already local laws on
vandalism. There are local laws and State laws on violence and against
trespass. Police officers are already required to enforce those laws.
We should do nothing to weaken the ability of local governments to
defend their citizens.
In conclusion, you either trust the people that elected the locals,
your voters, or you say you did not have enough common sense to elect
local folks that can make the decisions. I believe the local folks can
make the decisions, and Congress does not have a clue.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder
amendment to allow local law enforcement officials to use funding under
this bill to enhance safety at health care clinics, and I congratulate
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for her leadership on
this issue. It is perfectly appropriate, and it is one of the reasons
we are here as people who serve in this institution at the Federal
level; it is appropriate that the anticrime bill should help law
enforcement agencies better protect patients when they seek medical
care, including reproductive health care.
After the tragic events of the past few months where health care
providers have been attacked and murdered, who can doubt the need for
this amendment? Indeed, this amendment is the necessary next step to
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that we passed in this
body last year. We have traveled a long road to enact that measure. Now
let us make sure that the promise of that new law can be realized. We
need to do everything that we can to ensure women have access to the
health care that they need, access free from threats, intimidation, or
harassment, violence or even murder.
That is a proper role for a Member of Congress. It is outrageous that
woman and health care providers fear for their safety and that of their
families when they seek or provide constitutionally protected
reproductive health services.
The opponents of this amendment believe it is unnecessary. They
believe the language we adopted yesterday is sufficient to protect all
facilities, including health facilities, threatened by crime or
violence. I disagree. We must send a strong message to local
communities that we will help them enhance health car clinic security.
So today, let us put teeth in that law we passed last year. Let us
help local law enforcement agencies stop the killing, the violence and
the fear-mongering. Let us pass the Schroeder amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
[[Page H1729]] Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, and I
think you drew the distinction that the other side is not drawing. That
is that this is a constitutional American right that is being
criminally attacked, and this is trying to get resources to the local
level. That is why it is different than the average shopping mall and
other places where we want to help, too. But this should be done.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the committee.
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, before I get started, I want to first of all associate
myself with the remarks of the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and also point out
very clearly that this debate should not be framed in any shape or form
as endorsing violence outside abortion clinics or any other place, for
that matter.
But I see beyond the rhetoric of this debate two very real problems
with this amendment, and I want to point them out for my colleagues who
will look beyond again the rhetoric of the debate on abortion and
whether you are for or against it.
This measure, first of all, clearly duplicates the amendment that was
offered by our colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff],
yesterday. It duplicates it in the sense that it talks about facilities
that are public, and clearly the local law enforcement officials have
an interest in protecting the security of such institutions.
Second, I see more of an alarming problem, in that this Schroeder
amendment goes beyond the Schiff amendment in that it seems to give
authority, as the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has pointed out, to use public
funds to go into a private business, if you will, and put bullet proof
glass, security cameras or whatever. As I understand it, that is how I
read that.
Certainly, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] so eloquently
pointed out, there are other environments where murders are committed
at a higher rate, and we are not authorized by law to spend public
funds to put bullet proof glass in taxicabs or convenience stores that
are robbed. I think one a night somebody is killed in those somewhere
around the country.
Those particular issues, the fact that it duplicates the Schiff
amendment and its seeks to authorize public funds in the private
institutions, really bother me also.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. In the Schiff amendment, it does not say public
facilities. It is exactly the same as mine.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon
[Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder
amendment. The violence and lawlessness surrounding these health
clinics is getting out of hand and it must be stopped. I can speak from
a personal experience because in the State of Oregon, an antiabortion
group has created what they call a deadly dozen list.
On that list are 12 physicians. The escalating harassment that I will
show as a result of this list is a coordinated effort, and it is led by
extremists. Of that list of 12 doctors who are practicing legal
medicine, three are in my home city, five of those doctors have already
been either shot at or they have been shot.
This is extremism of the worst kind, because these extremists do not
respect the law of the land. And it is fine for Members on this floor
to talk about how concerned they are. But this amendment makes us put
our money where our mouths are.
We must vote to protect our own constituents who are patients and
doctors. They are exercising their constitutional rights. This will
help our police forces do the job that they want to do, and this will
mean that the women of this country can go to those health clinics
without fear of violence.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment because I believe that the block grant format that
governs the expenditure of these funds clearly allows communities to
expend funds for the purposes encompassed in the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Colorado.
On the other hand, I think her concern that we have not sufficiently
addressed the problem of the kind of violence that is occurring at this
time in our history around health clinics in certain communities is
well taken.
Later my colleague, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley], will
introduce an amendment that not only goes to the violence around
medical facilities, but the violence that has plagued some health
research facilities, that sometimes is a threat to shelters for abused
women and things like that. That is a more comprehensive amendment that
addresses the kind of violence that occurs at, in a sense, institutions
that have become lightning rods in communities.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I hope the gentlewoman looks at what we did do in
committee. One of the good things we did was we had added language that
would allow money to go to help with domestic violence, violence
against women, and so forth, but we did not do this specifically. The
thing that I worry about is when you look at that map, what we need is
a clear message to localities to make them feel empowered to move on
this.
So I really think that we listed everything, except we did not want
to say the women's reproductive health care clinics. That was not
listed specifically, and that is all we are trying to do in here, is
give it the same leverage we are giving everything else.
So I think you will find most of the things that you listed would be
covered. We just want this one to be specifically listed, because it is
a Federal right and it did seem to be ignored.
{time} 1520
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Certainly it is true that we have done a
lot of good work on the issue of violence against women. It is not my
understanding that there is a specific listing in this bill that
addresses those kinds of institutions, and I think, we think that our
amendment will be far more specific and cover the concerns that the
gentlewoman has brought forward.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
(Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, earlier this year two people
were gunned down in cold blood and three were wounded at a family
planning clinic in Brookline, MA. The suspected killer, John Salvi, is
unrepentant, and he has been hailed as a hero by some antiabortion
extremists. Outside of his holding cell in Virginia activists were
chanting, John, we love you. Thank you for what you did.
When we look at the statistics for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, or talk to the staff of Planned Parenthood in our districts,
we will see that the Brookline incident is not an isolated case of
violence. Family planning centers across this country have become
targets of an orchestrated campaign of arson, vandalism, and sniper
attack, and our districts are no exception.
The threat is so serious that the Justice Department released
security tips for clinics in response to the Brookline shootings,
advising staffers to circle around the block once before going home to
see if anyone is following them.
Clinic staffs are advised to check all packages for oily stains or
peculiar odors of almonds or shoe polish. They are living in a war
zone, for daring to protect a legally protected constitutional right
for American women.
This amendment is not about abortion. It is about terrorism. It does
not matter if one is pro-life or pro-choice or Democratic or
Republican. If you believe in standing up to terrorists, vote for the
Schroeder amendment.
[[Page H1730]] Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that violence is terrible. And to
the best of my knowledge any time it is invoked unlawfully, it involves
a violation of constitutional rights.
I am concerned about this amendment, and I speak in opposition to it.
I think it is overly specific. I think it is restrictive of local and
State authority and, frankly, I do not think it deals with the full
spectrum of violence that needs to be addressed.
Where is the language about schools? Where is the language about
religious institutions and hate crimes? Where is the language about
public housing complexes and the terrible crimes that have been taking
place in those areas? What about shelters for abused women or other
facilities?
I think that the issue before us is adopting language that will be
less restrictive in terms of the violence and interference with
constitutional rights that it seeks to prevent and, furthermore,
providing the broadest possible discretion to State and local law
enforcement authority to take the preventive measures and actions that
they feel are necessary.
On principle, I have had a great deal of difficulty supporting the
issue of an expanding Federal involvement in the area of crime. To the
extent that we are going to do so, I would rather see legislation that
will empower State and local law enforcement authority to act on the
broadest possible level and give them as much discretion as possible.
On that basis, on the defeat of this amendment, we will be offering a
substitute amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]
Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. In a time when pro-life advocates seem to have taken it upon
themselves to play God, this legislation could not be needed more. Five
murders in Massachusetts, a bombing in Virginia, a violent assault on a
doctor and his escort in Florida, a murder of a respected specialist in
Florida--the list goes on and on.
These are just a few of the examples of the violence that takes place
daily in family planning clinics all over this country. This amendment
would help in preventing these terrorist assaults from occurring.
Now, some critics on the other side of the aisle might say that this
amendment, itself, violates their first amendment rights to free speech
and picketing. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I read
the first amendment, it did not state that Americans had the right to
burn, bomb, murder, and assault.
It strikes me as ironic, that these pro-life terrorists, whose soul
purpose is to save a life, can so easily justify their reasons for
taking one away. It is truly baffling. What most people don't know, is
that these clinics are used mostly by women for mammograms, breast
checks, pap smears, family planning information, and a whole range of
services.
Mr. Chairman, pro-life extremists have left us no choice. These
measures must be taken so that women all across the United States can
take advantage of what is their constitutional right. I urge Members to
vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Molinari].
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Let me state as quickly as possible that I commend the gentlewoman
from Colorado for doing all she can to focus our energies and our
attention in using this crime bill debate to zero in on those areas of
our Nation that need additional police protection and perhaps a
consciousness raising of all our American community. And clearly,
health care clinics hits the top of that list.
However, I do believe that in discussing that, in listing health care
clinics and medical facilities, that we do make a mistake in not
serving to expand that to include other areas like schools, as already
in there, religious institutions, additional medical and health
facilities, as my colleague from Connecticut mentioned, where valuable
medical research oftentimes takes place and is plagued by random
violence. Shelters that in some ways in the language are covered, but
we need to get more specific to say that we need police protection in
areas surrounding where shelters are for children of child abuse and
women of domestic abuse.
We do need to focus. We do need to expand. We need to make sure that
this crime bill sends a message to health care clinics and then beyond.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished ranking member of the
committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] for bringing this matter to the attention of the
House.
I am speaking on this matter because I believe it is a civil rights
matter as well. The Republican block grant sweeps the threat to
doctors, clinics, nurses, and women who choose to elect their right to
choice under the table. This brings it out.
I am hoping that regardless of where Members fall on the question of
abortion, that this protection will be specifically delineated in the
crime bill that comes out of this House.
I think it is time that we bring the protection of the law to all of
the people. The medical profession is now being terrorized out of doing
their job. There are doctors now that are afraid to work in these
clinics because they know their life and their families are threatened.
Let us support their civil rights and all of ours at the same time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker remaining, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
{time} 1530
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a previous speaker has said, it is a
shame we have to raise the debate on abortion over and over and over
again. The gentleman is right. It is a shame, but it is necessary. A
constitutional right is not a right if it cannot be exercised.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which I strongly
supported, Mr. Chairman, was intended to guarantee the right to choose,
but the resources to secure that right are lagging. That is why we need
the Schroeder amendment.
The Schroeder amendment allows local law enforcement block grant
funding to be used to increase security at our country's reproductive
health care clinics. The amendment does not stand in the way of
flexibility, it simply permits local law enforcement to allocate the
necessary resources to stop violence at these clinics. In my
congressional district, OB-GYN physicians who perform legal abortions
have called on me to help stop the violence. By passing the Schroeder
amendment today, we will take a critical step toward protecting these
doctors, their families, their patients.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Schroeder amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
[[Page H1731]]
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], for offering this amendment. Time and
again she proves why she is a national treasure in protecting the
safety and welfare of women, children, and families.
Throughout the week we have been talking about fighting violent
crime, Mr. Chairman. I think murder would fall into that category. Roe
versus Wade was handed down 22 years ago, but over the past 23 months,
five people have been killed and countless others injured at abortion
clinics.
Mr. Chairman, anti-choice extremists are attempting to accomplish
through intimidation and terrorism what they cannot accomplish in a
court of law. As a result, the constitutionally protected right to
choose is being eroded away. A large majority of the American people
support a woman's right to choose, but the right to choose is
meaningless without the access to choose. In 83 percent of the counties
across America, Mr. Chairman, not a single physician is willing to
provide abortion services. Why? Because they fear for their very lives.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of whether we are pro-choice or
anti-choice, it is a question of whether we are pro-violence or anti-
violence. It is a question of whether we truly believe in law
enforcement, or only enforcement of the laws we agree with. Support
this amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder
amendment. There are some Members in Congress who are pro-choice, and I
am one of them. There are others who are anti-choice, but there should
be no Member of Congress who is tolerating the kind of outrageous
violence that is taking place all across this country against doctors,
nurses, and personnel in clinics that are performing abortions.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is terribly important because it sends
a signal to the entire country that the U.S. Congress will not tolerate
for one moment the calculated and organized reign of terror which is
existing today against those people who are helping women take
advantage of their constitutional rights to choose abortion. That is
what this issue is about.
Let us send a message loud and clear, Mr. Chairman, throughout this
country that we will not accept this violence, and we will protect a
woman's right to choose.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a new member of the
committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment
sponsored by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] because,
Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of pro-choice, it is not a
question of one's religious beliefs.
It is, unfortunately, a question of murder; of individuals who are
not protected as they go about their responsibilities and their
business in this Nation. It is just simply a reaffirmation that what is
done at women's health clinics is legal. It is constitutionally legal.
Yet, we have two young dead women. We have doctors who have lost their
lives.
That, in fact, raises a question of being able to ask ``Do we have a
real crime bill, or do we have a make-shift paperweight, fearful of
doing what is right?''
In October 1993, an arson and bombing attempt, West Loop Clinic,
Houston, TX; July 1, 1993, bomb threat to North Park Medical Group;
March 1993, chemical tear gas attack on Dallas Medical Ladies Pavilion;
February 15, 1993, arson destroyed a reproductive services clinic.
Mr. Chairman, we need to have the kind of support that the
Constitution gives. I support the Schroeder amendment. Let us vote for
liberty and freedom.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, let me compliment the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for introducing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me talk about it from two perspectives, one as
author of the clinic access bill, which is now law, and second, as an
active person on this crime bill.
Mr. Chairman, they say ``Why do we need to mention the clinics
specifically?'' They say ``Why not schools, why not housing projects?''
I have heard all sorts of things.
I will tell the Members why. There is one specific reason. It has
nothing to do with pro-choice, pro-life, et cetera. It is because there
is a concerted effort in certain localities, in all the hearings we
held in the Subcommittee on Crime in the last 2 years, there is a
concerted effort by some localities not to protect these clinics. There
is a concerted political attack that says ``Don't protect them.''
That is not true in 90 percent of America. In 90 percent of America,
or 95, the localities are protecting them. It is a constitutional
right. However, in some they are not.
I would argue to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that in those cases it
is more important to specifically delineate a clinic and show law
enforcement officers and others that this is perfectly acceptable,
since there is a campaign of attack against them, since there is
political resistance against them, than it would be anywhere else.
There is no resistance, there is no mass movement, that says ``Do not
protect housing projects.'' There is no mass movement that says ``Do
not protect schools.'' There are not people sitting in front and
blockading animal clinics, even at this day. However, there is a
concerted movement here. That is why we need this language.
I would urge support for the Schroeder amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I end where I began, looking at this
chart.
Mr. Chairman, the right to have access to family planning clinics is
a Federal right. It is a constitutional right.
Mr. Chairman, I feel badly if we have violence outside clinics, but
we are not protecting bunny rabbits federally. We are trying to do it
federally, but not at the constitutional level. Besides, we do not see
a huge national conspiracy around this.
We see all sorts of tap dancing around this issue, where nobody wants
to really do the real thing, which is this amendment, and put it on-
line.
What have we heard? We have heard, first of all, that some people do
not like my amendment because it does not have the word ``public'' in
it, and they are all saying they like the amendment of the gentleman
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
However, the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico does not have
``public'' in it, either. It says ``In and around any other facility or
location.'' They say ``facility or location,'' but they do not want to
say ``a clinic.''
We know they can go to facilities or locations. That is what the
block grant is about. It is to help localities fight generic crime.
However, where we are really behind is supporting on this federally
protected right that women have missed. Women know that if there is a
right without a remedy, there is no right.
What we are seeing here is we are losing this right, because even
though they cannot attack it head on, because they are afraid Americans
would roll it back, they have found another way to wink at it. That is
by allowing people who are taking the law into their own hands, by
people who are intimidating, who are targeting violence, and I cannot
believe that this body is not willing to deal with that.
[[Page H1732]] {time} 1540
All you have to do is put these words in, that a locality can use
some of the funds to help protect women's reproductive health clinics
that are under siege.
Please, please support this amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time on this
side to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, every day inside abortion clinics throughout America,
babies are dismembered and chemically poisoned and their mothers
wounded emotionally and sometimes physically. Each and every day 4,000
children are killed by abortionists. I hate violence, Mr. Chairman,
whether it be violence against unborn babies or the violence that is
visited upon their mothers.
Even though I detest what they do, I nonetheless deplore any violence
against abortionists.
Members might recall that I authored the FACE substitute last year
that would have imposed very stiff Federal penalties against anyone who
uses force or threatens to use force against abortionists, clinic
personnel, or pro-lifers.
But let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, abortion mills are not
privileged entities. They are not privileged characters. The purposes
that are delineated in H.R. 728 relate to police who will serve the
entire community, schools that also provide a basic service to a larger
community, drug courts and neighborhood watch programs.
Abortion clinics, abortion mills, despicable as they are, are private
facilities. 7-Eleven stores, grocery stores, and other private
operations have a much greater exposure to violent activities than
abortion mills. The statistics bear that out. My friend from Illinois
and others have pointed this out during this debate. Abortion mills
make millions of dollars. They don't necessarily need a huge Federal
subsidy. Yet, and I want to make this very clear, under the terms of
the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] which was
adopted yesterday, local law enforcement officials could enhance
security measures around any facility, including an abortion mill, if
the proper outpatients deemed to have a special risk for incidents of
crime. If we are not singling out banks with their very high risk and
grocery stores and, as has been pointed out, even taxicab drivers for
special protection, I would submit it is entirely inappropriate to
single out abortion mills for this kind of treatment. Special risks are
going to vary from community to community. It runs counter to the
purpose of this legislation to start itemizing, having a higher order,
a pecking order, if you will, and to say that some private facilities
should receive public funding and others should not. That ought to be
left to the local level.
I urge defeat of the Schroeder amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 266, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
AYES--164
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klug
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Porter
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--266
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
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
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--4
Becerra
Crapo
de la Garza
Matsui
{time} 1600
Mr. WILSON and Mr. GILMAN 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. hoke
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the amendment been printed in the Record?
[[Page H1733]] Mr. HOKE. No, it has not, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: Beginning on page 3, strike
line 8 and all that follows through page 4, line 10, and
insert the following:
``(B) Enhancing security measures--
``(i) in and around a school, religious institution,
medical or health facility (including a research facility),
housing complex, shelter, or other facility or surroundings
where a threat to law and order exists; and
``(ii) if the threat of violence or other unlawful or
criminal activity, in the opinion of law enforcement
officials, requires the use of funds under this title for
personnel, materials, or other security measures to carry out
the purposes of this title.
``(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, programs intended to prevent
juvenile crime, and drug abuse resistance education.
Mr. HOKE (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?
Mr. VOLKMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, do we have
a copy of the amendment on this side? Do we have more than one? I would
like to take a look at it. It may perhaps preclude an amendment I had
planned to offer, and I would like to see it.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
Longley].
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear to all of us that
violence of any sort must be and should be condemned, and condemned in
the strongest possible terms, and if we are going to deal with violence
in this country, let us deal with it on a basis that is consistent with
the interests of all Americans, including other problems that relate to
violence.
I mentioned earlier in my opposition to the Schroeder amendment the
fact that we have had a tendency in this country, in this city to
attempt to micromanage on every detail on the State and local level.
Mr. Chairman, we need language that will deal with violence in any
form and maximize the authority of State and local authorities to deal
with it on a basis that is consistent.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there are at
least on our side of the aisle about seven Members who have amendments
who wish to offer amendments this evening, and the time limitation for
45 minutes is in effect.
I do not know how many amendments our colleagues on this side of the
aisle have. The gentleman from Nebraska has one.
Is there some way we can get a proportion of time divided so each
individual who has an amendment at least can state what he or she
wishes to offer, and then perhaps we could roll the votes on all of
these at the end of the time limit?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would be willing to entertain any proper
agreement from both sides in that regard. There are some limits to what
the Committee of the Whole can order, and certainly the Chair is not
going to unilaterally impose that decision.
Mr. BONIOR. Further requesting a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman,
I would just suggest to my friends on this side and this side of the
aisle that in fairness to everyone who has an amendment, if we could
split the time equally and then roll the votes at the end for those
votes that are ordered, we might have a fair process here.
I do not know. I have not frankly even talked to my dear colleague
from Detroit about this.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have nine
amendments including one----
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Is this on my time, or is
this a parliamentary inquiry?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio does have the time. The
gentleman from Michigan made a parliamentary inquiry and was recognized
for that purpose.
Does the gentleman no longer yield time for that purpose?
Mr. HOKE. No. I do not. I reclaim my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reclaims his time.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I further yield to the gentleman from Maine
[Mr. Longley].
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a minute ago, violence of
any sort is and should be condemned, but I think we are making a grave
mistake if we take one form of violence and attempt to exalt it over
other forms. We need to deal with all forms of violence.
I am certainly sympathetic to the issues concerning the health
clinics and the violence and the threats of violence that have taken
place. I would submit in States, and particularly my own State, the
threats are being dealt with effectively and in a manner that does not
polarize the issue, and it involves those who support pro-choice as
well as those who are pro-life.
The language we are offering seeks to include violence that might
involve schools, religious institutions, medical and health facilities,
but also housing complexes, shelters, particularly shelters that might
house abused women or any other facilities or surroundings where a
threat to law and order exists.
And so we have designed language that is deliberately broad and
encompassing to any threat to law and order or the constitutional
rights of men and women in this country.
And, secondarily, that where that threat exists, that if in the
opinion of State or local enforcement authority that funds within the
bill may be provided for personnel, materials, or other security
measures, that may be construed as fulfilling the purposes of this act.
We do not seek to limit the language to any particular item. We want
to provide as much authority on a broad basis to State and local
authorities to use these funds in a manner that will accomplish the
purposes of the act.
{time} 1610
And I want to come back to a point that I made earlier. I am going to
be supporting H.R. 728, but on a reservation; that reservation being
that when the Federal Government is having the financial problems that
it is having, particularly the threat to Social Security funds and
other major responsibilities of the Federal Government, I have a hard
time seeing how we are continuing to further a Federal extension of
authority into areas of State and local law enforcement.
But if we are going to do it, let us do it on a basis that is broad,
but also a basis that provides as much discretion as possible to local
and State authorities.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, did I understand that the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
Longley] is offering this as an amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. It is an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Hoke].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Ohio offering
what the gentleman from Maine was talking about as an amendment, and
that is the language we have in front of us? If so, then I am really
kind of amused by this because the people on the other side of the
aisle first of all said my amendment was not needed because the Schiff
amendment, from New Mexico, covered everything, it was terrific. Then
they voted against my amendment, and now they have come with an
amendment that is my amendment. I mean it basically is talking about
women's health clinics. So terrific, they threw some other things in I
guess kind of a deflection to try to make it look like it is even more
generic.
[[Page H1734]] I think the women's health clinic is absolutely
essential to have in there, as they have in there, have because it is a
Federal constitutional right that is eroded. But I find this really
very, very interesting, and it is fascinating how they are trying to
tap/dance around this.
I think it is very confusing. I think it is a shame everybody could
not have just voted for the amendment we have in front of us. As I read
the two amendments, there is absolutely no difference except they threw
a couple of more things in. I find that quite astounding.
amendment offered by mr. volkmer as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. hoke
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: Page 6, line 10, strike
``or'',
Page 6, line 11, insert ``or'' after ``yachts;'' and
Page 6, after line 11, insert ``(6) any police or security
for abortion clinics.''
Mr. VOLKMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the substitute amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I
probably will not object, but this is the first we have heard of a
substitute.
Mr. VOLKMER. No, the gentleman has had it at the desk, right over
there. If the gentleman will yield, the staff has had it for the last
15 or 20 minutes. It is not named as a substitute. It is named as my
amendment. It looks like I will not be able to offer it as an
amendment, so I am offering it as a substitute.
Mr. DeLAY. Has this been cleared with the leadership?
Mr. VOLKMER. With whose leadership, Mr. Chairman? You mean I have to
ask? Come on, now.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has the time. Did
the gentleman from Texas object?
Mr. DeLAY. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue reporting the substitute amendment.
The Clerk completed the reading of the amendment offered as a
substitute.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved on the amendment.
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have been
beating around the bush on an issue that the majority does not want to
address. And that is, should funds be used to protect, give security,
police officers and everything else, to thwart pickets who are pro-life
trying to inform people who are going to have abortions at these
clinics that they should not be able to have those abortions?
We had this fight last year when we had the fight over the access to
the abortion clinics bill. As one who strongly opposed that bill and
feels that it should be repealed, I feel this is wrong to have in this
bill an attempt by the majority to fund police officers and security so
that people who picket these clinics will end up in jail. And therefore
this amendment just says that none of these funds can be used to
provide security police for the abortion clinics.
This is strictly, I think, a proper thing to do. I would hope that
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Hoke] would accept the amendment. I believe by doing this we are
going to preserve more lives of the unborn than anything else we have
done so far and anything you can do in this bill. Because what I think
you are going to do in this bill is you are going to help provide
abortions and get rid of a bunch of unborn children.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I would be glad to yield.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman taking out the very part that I have
been trying to get in? Is that what the gentleman is doing? They
finally come around to our side, and what is the gentleman doing?
Mr. VOLKMER. Basically, I am saying the opposite of what the
gentlewoman is saying.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is exactly what I thought the gentleman was
saying. So, in other words, the gentleman wants to get some of this
money go to help protect these reproductive clinics, and what the
gentleman is saying is he wants to amend it so that it covers
everything but that.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is right.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. So the gentleman is trying to gut their amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. I am not trying to gut their amendment. I am offering a
substitute. I am trying to be straightforward about the whole issue,
not beat around the bush.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is being perfectly clear.
Mr. VOLKMER. I mean, they have been all day long beating around the
bush. They are acting like nobody is really going to go for these
abortion clinics, we are not going to help them out at law. We are not
going to do anything to help them out.
Of course, really, it does, but we really we do not want to say so in
the bill. And you would be surprised how many Members I have talked to
who, when I tell them there is funds in here to provide security for
abortion clinics, I hear, ``Oh, no, that is not in here. That is a Pat
Schroeder amendment. Pat Schroeder is going to do that.''
Well, folks, no. The money is already in here for it, it is there.
All the gentlewoman from Colorado is trying to do is to say let us
focus on it. Let us focus on it.
That is what my amendment does. Now, do you want to provide security
for abortion clinics, or do you not? That is the substitute, folks. I
hope the gentleman from Ohio will let us vote on it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] continue his
point of order?
point of order
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order that the
substitute is not germane. The Hoke amendment provided for specific
purposes for which the funds in the bill can be used, whereas the
Volkmer amendment only provides for prohibitions for which the funds
cannot be used. Therefore it is not germane, and I insist on the point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri wish to be heard?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the substitute is in order because it does
provide for an amendment to a proper section of the bill that is at the
present time before the House, just as the gentleman's amendment is
before the House. It does not have to be just to his amendment. It can
be to other sections of the bill just as well.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gunderson). Does any other Member desire to be
heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is ready to rule.
In response to the point made by the gentleman from Missouri, the
test of the germaneness is the relationship of his amendment to the
amendment before the committee at the time, not to the underlying bill.
With regard to the point of order raised by the gentleman from Ohio, a
substitute addressing prohibited uses of funds is not germane to an
amendment addressing permissible uses elsewhere in the bill, based on
the precedents of the House.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
The amendment, therefore, is out of order.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the minority is bound and
determined that they are not going to vote on this issue because they
know that with the timeframe that we have left and the number of
amendments we have left--and I am not on the Committee on the
Judiciary--they just do not want to vote on this issue.
It is very clear to me that they want to run and hide from the
question of providing security for abortion clinics. They do not want
to save these unborn children, there is no question about it. There is
no question in my mind that
[[Page H1735]] they are willing to let them go, let them die, and not
even vote on this amendment.
{time} 1620
So, Mr. Chairman, if I have time before the time runs out, I will
offer the amendment that is in order by itself to the bill, and if I do
not have time and they will not give me any time, that tells me that
they really do not want to take up this amendment at all. They are
scared to death of it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my friend, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], I think he is making, in my judgment, a
mistake. I think what he is doing is sequestering again abortion
facilities and saying they are different from other places.
Under our bill, if the local authorities see that the peace is going
to be disturbed, there is a threat to the peace, no matter what the
place is or what it does, they have a right to send police there to
protect the public safety. If it is an abortion clinic or not, if it is
a church, they have a right to protect the public safety. I believe
that is their constitutional duty, and the gentleman knows how I feel
about abortion clinics. But people have a right to exercise their
constitutional right.
Now I suggest to the gentleman that we do not need any more
amendments. The Schiff amendment is in place, and it says the local
authorities may send police or protective devices or whatever is
required wherever they see a threat to public safety, and that ought to
cover the abortion question, the bank question, the convenience store
and the school.
So, I wish the gentleman would not elevate out of the mainstream
abortion clinics because they do not deserve it, and I think the
gentleman is doing the same thing the gentlewoman did, only in a
negative way.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. To be honest with my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, I am
quite disappointed from the gentleman from Illinois because I well
remember last year, as we debated the access to clinics bill, and we
were on the same side on that issue.
Mr. HYDE. Sure.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, we were opposed to that bill that
basically is not doing anything different from what they are doing
right here. There is no difference.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman let me reclaim my time?
Whenever there is a threat to public safety, if it is in the lobby of
a church, if it is around an abortion clinic, if it is in my home, I
want law enforcement to be there to protect innocent people.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the
gentleman: I thought I heard him say because we had the Schiff
amendment we did not need any further amendments on this subject.
Is the gentleman then opposing the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, I am.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is going to vote against
the Hoke amendment?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir. I hope there is no doubt in the gentleman's mind.
Affirmative, yes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. I was razzle-
dazzled there for a minute.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. Of course I yield to my comrade in arms, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I am a little disappointed because I see
this fight as the same fight. I do not see a difference between the
two, and perhaps later on we can discuss the distinction between the
access bill of last year and what we are doing here.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, we cannot protect people who violate the law,
no matter what their motives are. I say, ``You may not do evil that
good may result, and violence has to be stopped whether it's in front
of abortion clinics or somewhere else.''
Mr. VOLKMER. This is the question, whether they are going to use
Federal tax dollars for the purpose of assisting and protecting the
clinics. That is what it amounts to. Last year we passed a bit that
protected----
Mr. HYDE. That is the law, though. That is the law unfortunately. The
gentleman and I voted against it, but it is the law, and the gentleman
and I are sworn to uphold the law.
Mr. VOLKMER. Wait a minute now. I do not want to get into this too
far, but we do have the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has spoken
in Roe versus Wade, and that is a law that I sure ``ain't'' going to
follow, and I want the gentleman to understand that.
Mr. HYDE. Well, I am going to resist it. I am going to say it may be
the law, but it is not good morality, and its lousy policy, but it is
the law, and we are sworn to uphold the law. But let us fight to
reverse it.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], and in
regard to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, I would say that I
have a very strong record in support of women having the right to make
decisions for themselves and strongly supported the clinic access bill.
But I think this bill, which is a bill that provides money to local
towns and cities to fight crime at the local level, ought to be as
broad as possible and yet at the same time make absolutely clear that
communities have the right to use these funds to target their resources
at any institution that for whatever reason may be under particular
pressure or fire.
In recent years it has been abortion clinics. In preceding years in
my communities it was synagogues in certain towns. In other times there
have been medical research facilities that have been the targets of
bombing and terrorist activities.
So, I think it is very appropriate that we enlarge the underlying
bill that mentions school to also include a number of other types of
facilities that sometimes do require the mobilization of specific
resources to repeal threats of violence that emanate from vicious,
hateful beliefs and feelings, but represent an extraordinary threat to
both the people and the facilities.
So Mr. Chairman, this amendment does say in and around a school,
religious institution, medical or health facility, including a research
facility, a housing complex, a shelter, because certainly shelters for
abused women, if they become known, can become the target of exactly
the kind of violence that we have seen develop around abortion clinics
and other facilities that are surrounding where a threat to law and
order exists, and then it explicitly allows, and this is the point of
the preceding gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment. She fears, if we
do not specifically use resources, that local elected officials will
feel reluctant to use Federal tax dollars for these purposes since we
do not allow, for example, the use of Federal tax dollars to provide
perfectly legal medical procedures for Medicaid recipients.
So this bill does very clearly say that, if there is a threat of
violence, or unlawful or criminal activity in the opinion of the law
enforcement officials and local people, that the money can be used for
personnel, materials, security measures to carry out the purposes of
this act.
I think it is a good, solid amendment. I think its a thoughtful
response. It is an effort on the part of many who believe that abortion
should not be seen and abortion violence should not be seen as singular
and unique, but that kind of violence that communities have a right to
respond to.
So I am proud to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. I think it is a strong addition to the bill. It
enlarges on the Schiff amendment in a responsible way, and I urge
Members' support of it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H1736]] The vote was taken by electronic device, and there
were--ayes 206, noes 225, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
AYES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Armey
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Martini
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--225
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
de la Garza
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Tucker
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--3
Becerra
Crapo
Matsui
{time} 1647
Messrs. KASICH, LaHOOD, KIM, TALENT, and THORNBERRY changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LEWIS of Georgia, WELLER, GILCHREST, GILMAN, LAZIO of New
York, and SHAW changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1650
Amendments Offered by Mr. McCollum
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments and ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, have the amendments been printed in the
Record?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments, not designate
them.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. McCollum: Page 18, line 4, insert
``State police departments that provide law enforcement
services to units of local government and'' after ``among''.
Page 4, after line 19, insert the following:
``(G) Establishing cooperative task forces between
adjoining units of local government to work cooperatively to
prevent and combat criminal activity, particularly criminal
activity that is exacerbated by drug or gang-related
involvement.
Page 4, after line 19, insert the following:
``(G) Establishing a multijurisdictional task force,
particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement
officials representing units of local government, that works
with Federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control
crime.
Page 12, line 4, strike ``and''.
Page 12, line 7, strike ``101(a)(2),'' and insert
``101(a)(2); and''.
Page 12, after line 7, insert the following:
``(10) the unit of local government--
``(A) has an adequate process to assess the impact of any
enhancement of a school security measure that is undertaken
under subparagraph (b) of section 101(a)(2), or any crime
prevention programs that are established under subparagraphs
(C) and (E) of section 101(a)(2), on the incidence of crime
in the geographic area where the enhancement is undertaken or
the program is established;
``(B) Will conduct such an assessment with respect to each
such enhancement of program; and
``(C) will submit an annual written assessment report to
the Director.
Page 18, strike line 23 through ``poses'' on line 24, and
insert the following:
``(c) Unavailability and Inaccuracy of Information.--
``(1) Data for states.--For purposes''.
Page 19, after line 4, add the following new paragraph:
``(2) Possible inaccuracy of date for units of local
government.--In addition to the provisions of paragraph (1),
if the Director believes that the reported rate of part 1
violent crimes for a unit of local government is inaccurate,
the Director shall--
``(A) investigate the methodology used by such unit to
determine the accuracy of the submitted data; and
``(B) when necessary, use the best available comparable
data regarding the number of violent crimes for such years of
such unit of local government.
Page 8, line 13, after the period, insert the following
language:
``Any amounts remaining in such designated fund after 5
years following the enactment hereof shall be applied to the
federal deficit or, if there is no federal deficit, to
reducing the federal debt.''
Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask
the gentleman from Florida what amendments these are that are being
presented.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, these are the amendments of the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] dealing with State police departments
being provided the opportunity to get some of the money in this from
the smaller community program moneys
[[Page H1737]] that may go back to the States on the reverter clause;
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Kennelly] adding an additional cooperative task force; the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] establishing a
multijurisdictional task force as one, again, of the illustrative areas
where the money can be spent in both cases; the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] with regard to assessing the impact
of the enhancement of security measures under this bill by the local
unit of government. It is all in the assessment amendment, with no
mandatory nature of it.
There is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]
dealing with the accuracy of data, so we know we give discretion to the
director to determine if the data is accurate that we are basing the
grants on.
There is the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] about the reversion of the moneys in here to cover the deficit.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I
would like to comment that it appears that these will be the last
amendments that will be permitted to this bill under the rule, so that
the rest of us who have amendments pending will not be able to offer
those amendments and have them considered in this House. That is
because of this type of rule.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, under my
reservation of objection I would point out to the House that there has
been little or no opportunity for Members of the House who are not
members of the Committee on the Judiciary to offer amendments to this
legislation if they are not members of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I think that is quite inappropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman under my reservation of
objection, the distinguished chairman, for whom I have great respect,
it is my understanding that he is not including my amendment printed in
the Record, amendment No. 22.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the answer is that is correct, simply because, to be honest, I disagree
with the amendment.
However, as the gentleman knows, the time constraints out here were
eaten up by the determination of a lot of Members to talk on two or
three of these abortion-related amendments, and it was not, of course,
our intent that that occur.
Mr. BEREUTER. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out to the gentleman that under my reservation, I
can object to the unanimous-consent request that all of these
amendments the gentleman has listed are not read here on the House
floor, and exhaust the amount of time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield under his
reservation of objection?
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, would my colleague, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] entertain a motion allowing the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 1 minute to offer his amendment,
and letting the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]
receive 1 minute to offer her amendment?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield under his reservation, I would prefer not to allow any more
time for any other amendments. There are a lot of Members who wish to
offer them. The clock is running. With all due respect to everybody
concerned, there are other amendments that we would like to have had.
Mr. BEREUTER. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I
think given the time considerations, I would say to the chairman, this
Member does not think he was well treated by the process that was
established here.
However, I want this process to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to have an
opportunity to offer his amendment, so I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving my right to
object, I am not going to object, except I hope that after this display
with the very able gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] being shut
out, and others, no one will ever again describe this cockamamie 10-
hour thing as an open rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I just simply want to point out to the gentleman that even
members of the committee have also been denied the right to offer
amendments, and that during the course of debate on the rule itself we
pointed out the insanity of including in the debate time the time for
votes, which has consumed about 2 to 3 hours of the debate time that
the other side has told the American people we have, and that the same
kind of process is being built into the next rule for the bill that is
coming forward tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense on this bill, it makes no sense on
any other bill, and I am hopeful that the majority will come to its
senses and quit describing these rules as open rules, when in fact
there are at least 20 or 25 Members around who still desire to offer
worthy amendments and engage in debate.
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Regular order is demanded.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am reserving the right to
object.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve the right to object after
a demand for the regular order.
Without objection, the request of the gentleman from Florida to
dispense with the reading is agreed to.
There was no objection.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Reed-Wynn-
Baldacci-Sanders amendment. Crime is not just an urban issue, it is a
rural issue as well. And in the State of Vermont when people in small
towns and villages need help they rely on the Vermont State Police to
come to their assistance. There are no local police.
Under the bill as it is written, moneys are allocated to
municipalities under a formula. If a town's grant is less than $10,000
then that money goes instead to the Governor. He or she is then
supposed to distribute that money to local communities but cannot use
it for State police protection of those towns.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would correct this problem. Under the
amendment the Governor would be able to use the multiple small grants
that come to him or her to fund the law enforcement activities of the
State police.
I would like to have seen local police and State police be equally
eligible for funding under this bill but I believe that this amendment
provides some equity to small communities. This amendment also
recognizes the dedication and bravery of State police officers in
Vermont and across the nation.
I also want to express my appreciation to Representative Reed. It is
always a pleasure to work with him.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, many communities are faced with growing
gang and drug-related violence. In these communities our constituents
live in fear under the shadow of gang-related violence, not just in our
cities. Often local law enforcement officials do not have the necessary
resources to address the drug and gang problems that plague their
communities. What often happens if a community is fortunate and the
problem is bad enough, a Federal task force will begin. However, this
is expensive, time consuming, and can be a drain on resources. My
amendment will offer local law enforcement another option to combat
gang and drug-related violence under the law enforcement block grant.
My amendment would allow local communities to form a partnership by
pooling their resources together to form a task force designed to
combat drug and gang related crimes.
In my hometown of Hartford, the gang problem has continued to
escalate. Last year a record number of murders were committed in the
city, capped off by a killing spree over New Year's weekend during
which five people were murdered and several others wounded by gunfire.
It is times like these that the additional resources which a regional
task force
[[Page H1738]] could provide would be beneficial for local communities
to fight crime.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the majority has reviewed
this amendment and is willing to accept this language.
I thank the gentleman from Florida and I thank the gentleman from
Michigan for their cooperation, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule and the time limit set by that rule, no
further amendments are in order.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 193, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 127]
AYES--237
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
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
Cox
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
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
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
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
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--4
Becerra
Crapo
Ensign
Matsui
{time} 1713
Mr. DOOLEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MICA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlelady from Colorado which would specifically single
out the protection of women's health clinics as a use of these block
grant funds. This bill would give communities the needed flexibility to
deal with crime without Washington telling them how to do it. This
amendment does not improve the bill. It is unnecessary and redundant.
This debate is not about whether this bill would allow funds to be
used to protect women's health facilities. It already does and that is
not in dispute. I strongly support protecting areas such as women's
health clinics where people are threatened by senseless acts of
violence. Those on the other side of the aisle know full well that the
amendment offered yesterday by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Schiff], which passed with overwhelming support, adequately addresses
in general terms the issue of violence at women's health clinics, as
well as at women's shelters, religious organizations, political
organizations, and any other facility or location considered to be
especially at risk to crime. I understand that there will also be an
amendment later today offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke],
which I plan to support, that further highlights these general areas
without focusing on only one. It is unnecessary and redundant to single
out one single area. This is not good legislation.
We are about the Nation's business here. We here are engaged in a
debate about the role of the Federal Government in fighting crime. This
amendment is redundant and gets us off of focusing on the real issue
for this legislation, the crime that plagues our Nation. Although I
support a woman's right to choose, I do not support singling out this
issue in a bill designed to allow localities who best understand crime
determine how to address it.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to
H.R. 728. There is no question that the epidemic of violent crime in
America is one of the most serious concerns of all of our
constituents--in inner cities, in suburbs, and in rural regions.
Certainly, we must continue to strengthen our criminal justice system
and require personal accountability on the part of the criminal. Strong
measures must be taken to deter would-be criminals and to punish repeat
offenders severely and swiftly. As an example, last week, I supported
two bills passed by the House that strengthen the death penalty by
limiting habeas corpus appeals and that ensure that evidence obtained
in good faith is admissible in court. Congress plays an important and
appropriate role in clarifying the application of these rights under
the U.S. Constitution. I believe Congress must continue to act
aggressively to combat crime wherever appropriate.
I feel, however, that H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement
Block Grant Act of 1995, is bad policy in light of the Federal
Government's limited role in fighting crime and in light of the very
serious debt crisis in our country. I simply cannot justify spending
$10 billion that the Federal Government does
[[Page H1739]] not have for a function that truly is the responsibility
of State and local governments. It seems clear to me that a more
appropriate approach would be to free up more State and local dollars
to allow them to fight crime.
That is why I have taken the lead on relieving States and localities
of the burden of unfunded Federal mandates, that currently cost State
and local governments tens of billions of dollars a year. That money
could otherwise be used for essential services, including more
community policing.
Asking taxpayers to send their dollars to Washington to be
redistributed to local law enforcement agencies, through a political
process and after administrative costs are incurred, makes little
sense. Local communities should raise local dollars to meet what has
always been viewed as a local responsibility.
Furthermore, the pressures on the Federal budget today are greater
than ever before. With the commitment shown by passing a balanced
budget amendment, Congress should be scrutinizing existing Federal
programs to cut spending, not increase it as H.R. 728 does. If H.R. 728
passes, I assure my colleagues that I and others concerned about our
crippling national debt will scrutinize the appropriations bills for
this and all other legislation in order to make the cuts necessary to
limit annual budget deficits so we can start to reduce the national
debt.
For these reasons and because of my opposition to imposing Federal
mandates on State and local governments, I also opposed H.R. 667, the
Violent Criminal Incarceration Act.
Each local community has unique crime problems. Last week, Congress
exercised its appropriate role by passing legislation clearly within
its purview. I fear that efforts by the Federal Government, like H.R.
728, to assert control in areas that, under our Constitution, are
clearly left to State and local law enforcement officials, will result
in politicizing the crime issue, too much Federal control and an
unjustified increase in our budget deficit. If this occurs, our
constituents, our communities, our families, will be the ones who pay
the price.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill,
H.R. 728. This bill undermines the focus of our crime fighting efforts
in last year's crime bill--putting more police on America's streets.
Mr. Chairman, under the crime bill passed last year grants for nearly
17,000 new officers have been awarded in 4 months. The speed of this
process is remarkable. Simplicity is the key to the success of the
current program, and I believe the downfall of the bill under
consideration. Under last year's bill police chiefs and sheriffs in
North Dakota had to fill out a one-page application to get funding for
an additional officer and supply the DOJ with salary and benefit
information.
This is in stark contrast to the bill under consideration where local
communities must put together an advisory board made up of
representatives from the police department, local prosecutor's office,
local court system, local public school system and a local nonprofit,
educational, religious or community group active in crime prevention or
drug use prevention or treatment. The board must review the
application, hold a public hearing on proposed use of funds, establish
a trust fund to deposit Federal payments, utilize federally proscribed
accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures regarding the funds, provide
records to the DOJ for compliance review purposes, and finally make
reports as required by DOJ in addition to the annual reports required
under the act.
So what's been done here is a dramatic change in the process. Under
the guise of local flexibility, the authors of this bill have taken a
one page application for small jurisdictions, thrown it out the window
and created a bureaucratic nightmare. Under a similar block grant
program known as law enforcement assistance administration, a review
found that one-third of all Federal funds were used to hire
consultants. This newly created bureaucratic maze leads me to conclude
a similar situation will emerge under this bill.
What further concerns me is that the formula in H.R. 728
disadvantages rural areas like North Dakota. Last year's crime bill
recognized the fact that crime is growing at a faster rate in rural
America than in the rest of the country. It contained specific language
requiring that at least half of the money be reserved for jurisdiction
under 150,000 in population. This bill contains no such provision, and
in fact, is likely to considerably reduce North Dakota's share of crime
fighting funds.
What's more, H.R. 728 provides no waiver provisions for the local
match. While I believe a local match is good policy, there are some
communities that will find even in the 10 percent match now included in
H.R. 728 to be prohibitive. Under the current program, the Attorney
General is provided with the authority to waive wholly or in part the
local match requirement. The omission of this authority in H.R. 728
strikes another direct hit to rural America.
In my estimation, North Dakota is a net loser under H.R. 728, as are
the great majority of congressional districts across this country.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 728.
It represents a departure from what has been argued from the other side
of the aisle--give the people what they want. Last year's anticrime
bill has provided nearly 8,000 communities, rural to urban and large to
small, funds to hire 14,622 new police officers through the COPS
program. These communities have submitted COPS requests because
community-oriented policing has been shown to work to make
neighborhoods safer. The American people do not want Congress to
dismantle this much needed 4-month-old program by absorbing it into a
giant block grant, without targeted allocations.
The National Association of Police Organizations has stated its
strong belief that unless funds are given directly to law enforcement
agencies for police hiring, the funds will be diverted elsewhere. The
National Sheriffs' Association and Law Enforcement Steering Committee,
which represents 450,000 law enforcement officers nationally, echoes
NAPO's sentiments. The Police Executive Research Forum opposes H.R. 728
because it fails to require that funds be spent on community policing
and will force police organizations to compete with every other
community group or service agency that has some relation to public
safety. H.R. 728 clearly symbolizes a ``pass the buck'' approach which
will not ensure that Federal funds will go toward crime control and
turns a deaf ear to local law enforcement experts.
H.R. 728 is also sending an appalling negative message to our young
people by depleting funding for crime prevention programs. The get-
tough crime provisions that have passed, in addition to this atrocious
piece of legislation, are telling the youth of America that we will
lock them up and punish them after they commit a crime, but we will
deny that they need help before the crime occurs. Scientific research
has demonstrated time and time again that violence is a learned
behavior that can be stopped or reversed if caught early enough
(Journal of the American Medical Association). Many of our children are
taught to hurt others early in their lives because they are bombarded
with messages in the media or through school that desensitize them to
violence. Crime prevention programs in last year's anticrime bill have
given our young people much-needed alternatives to violence.
Proponents of H.R. 728 allege that funds could be used for youth
crime prevention programs, but the bill includes no such guarantees.
Without these measures of accountability, crime prevention programs
will disappear. Looking at actual trends, funds for prevention have
taken a back seat to other local budgetary demands. More than half of
all States did not plan to spend any money granted through the Byrne
Law
Enforcement Program on crime prevention (Bureau of Justice
Assistance). We must work hard to change these archaic attitudes with
which we treat crime; we address the outcomes--murders, assaults,
rapes, robberies--and not the causes of crime.
H.R. 728 also lacks cost effectiveness. It costs $29,600 a year to
keep one teenager in detention, according to the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Justice Department. Much-
debated midnight basketball programs, which were praised as one of
President Bush's Thousand Points of Light, cost roughly $3,000 to
$4,000 per year and have led to reductions in crime rates. Such
thriving antigang, drug treatment, after school, community service, and
urban recreation programs entail a much smaller cost and substantially
help our youth to rebuild their lives--in stark contrast to
nonintervention, after-the-fact, punitive actions that come too late.
It is unforgiveable to ignore the need for community investments that
help our troubled youth in their struggle toward a decent life.
We cannot abandon another generation to the menancing hazards they
inevitably encounter through life on the streets. One of every six
suspects arrested in this country for murder, rape, robbery or assault
is under the age of 18, and a large portion of their victims are other
juveniles (FBI). Juvenile arrests for violent crime increased 50
percent from 1987 to 1991, twice the increase for persons 18 years-of-
age and older (National Center for Policy Analysis). These are the
Nation's children crying out for help!
It is a shame that we live in the greatest country on Earth, and yet
we ignore the fact that violence is an American problem that starts
with disgraceful conditions in which we allow our young people to live.
The National League of Cities conference last year stated that the
homicide rates for young men in the United States are between 4 to 73
times homicide rates for young men in any other developed nation. We
acknowledged this problem and proved that we wanted to solve it through
prevention programs in last year's anticrime bill. H.R. 728 would force
us to backpedal on the valuable progress we have made thus far.
The Community Schools Youth Services and Supervision Program is
working to make
[[Page H1740]] schools centers of community life. This program
encourages schools to become safe places where children and their
families can participate after school, in the evening and on weekends,
in such programs as academic enhancement, recreational activities and
mentoring. H.R. 728 would exterminate this program.
The Family and Community Endeavors Program awards competitive
matching grants to local education agencies or community-based
organizations toward academic and social improvement of children at-
risk for committing violence. H.R. 728 would decimate funds for this
program.
The Gang Resistance Education and Training Program [GREAT] is a
cooperative program through which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms has trained more than a thousand officers in 44 States as gang
resistance instructors. This program has been in place since 1992. H.R.
728 would drastically reduce its funding.
These are only a sample of programs H.R. 728 would put on the
chopping block. The bill does not make sense. It is wrong to fold COPS
and crime prevention funding into a single block grant with no
accountability measures. H.R. 728 must be defeated because it fails to
help our law enforcement officers, our youth and our children.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, had I been permitted to offer this
amendment under this restrictive rule, I would have proposed this
amendment to H.R. 728, which would acknowledge the special relationship
that the Federal Government has with the more than SSO Indian Tribes in
this country. The bill as written would inappropriately turn over
control and funding of vital law enforcement programs to States, or in
other circumstances, force tribes to directly compete with local
governments for funding. My amendment would prevent this from
happening.
Amendment to H.R. 728 Offered by Mr. Richardson
1. Section 101(f)(3) of the Bill is amended by inserting
the words ``and tribal'' following the word ``local'', by
striking the period at the end of the sentence, and adding
the following: ``, and the director shall take into account
the extraordinary need for law enforcement assistance in
Indian country.''
2. Section 104(b)(7) of the Bill is amended by inserting
after the word ``local'' the words ``and tribal'' in the
title.
3. Section 104(b)(7) of the Bill is further amended by
adding after the period the following: ``If an allocation to
an Indian tribal governments under paragraphs (3) or (4) is
less than 10,000 dollars for the payment period, the amounts
allotted shall be returned to the Director who shall
distribute such funds among Indian tribes whose allotment is
less than such amount in a manner which reduces crime and
improves public safety.''
1. Section 102 of the Bill is amended by adding the
following subsection:
``(d) Indian Tribe Allocation.--In view of the
extraordinary need for law enforcement assistance in Indian
country, an appropriate amount of funds available under this
Act shall be made available by the Attorney General for
direct grants to Indian tribal governments to carry out the
purposes of this Act.''
4. Section 108(1)(B) of the Bill is amended by striking all
that follows, except the period, after the phrase ``District
of Columbia''
5. Section 108 of the Bill is further amended by adding the
following new paragraphs at the end of subsection (a):
``(7) The term ``Indian tribal government'' means the
recognized governing body of an Indian tribe that carries out
substantial governmental duties and powers.
``(8) The term ``Indian tribe'' means a tribe, band,
pueblo, nation, or other organized group or community of
Indians, including an Alaskan Native village (as defined in,
or established under, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.)), that is recognized as eligible
for the special programs and services provided by the United
States to Indians because of their status as Indians and
because of the United States trust responsibility to Indian
tribes.''
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gunderson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 728), to
control crime by providing law enforcement block grants, pursuant to
House Resolution 79, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONYERS. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conyers moves to recommit H.R. 728 back to the
Committee on the Judiciary and report back forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 4, after line 5, insert the following:
``(D) 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) Assistance for Delinquent and At-Risk Youth under
subtitle G.
``(ii) Urban Recreation and At-Risk Youth subtitle O which
made amendments to the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978.
``(iii) Gang Resistance and Education Training under
subtitle X.''
Page 6, after line 24, insert the following (and
redesignate any subsequent subsections accordingly):
``(C) Prevention Set-Aside for Youth.--Of the amounts to be
appropriated under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall
allocate $100,000,000 of such funds for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2000 to carry out the purposes of subparagraph
(D) of section 101(a)(2).
Page 9, after line 2, insert the following (and redesignate
any subsequent subsections accordingly):
``(b) Reservation for Byrne Programs.--The Attorney General
shall reserve such sums as may be necessary of the amounts
authorized under this section in each fiscal year to ensure
that not less than $450,000,000 is available to carry out the
programs under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986.
Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long and difficult bill,
due to very restrictive rules. I offer this motion to recommit that
combines the provisions of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], which targets youth programs, assistance for delinquents at risk
and urban recreation programs, as well as the provision of the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for $400 million a year under the
Byrne grant for funds for crime reduction purposes.
I yield briefly to them to make their comments, but on a really
personal note I want to thank my colleagues on this side who have
cooperated under great duress to the Chair. I personnally apologize to
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], my colleague from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt], and members of the committee who I know had
amendments pending: the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the gentlewoman from Oregon
[Ms. Furse], who all had amendments that we were eager to have debated
and under the restrictions we were not able to permit them, as well as
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
{time} 1720
Ladies and gentlemen, this motion to recommit provides us with a
great opportunity to bring the kinds of improvements to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] very much for your leadership.
When the people were hungry in France, Marie Antoinette said, ``Let
them eat cake.'' When the children of our country are fighting against
the siege of gang violence and gang solicitation, we are telling them
that that is OK.
[[Page H1741]] I simply ask that the amendment be considered by this
body that speaks to the issue of the high numbers of gang violence
incidences and the many cities, some 79 in the United States, who show
an increase in gang activity.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the rest of my colleagues. But my
heart goes out when babies are thrown outside of buildings because of
gang initiation rites, when driveby shootings take our young children
away from us. Yet we can stand here and resist promoting $500 million
simply for gang-resistance programs, for children at risk and keeping
our parks open. It is documented that in 110 jurisdictions reporting
gangs, the survey found over a 12-month period there were 249,329 gang
members. There were 4,881 gangs, 46,359 gang-related crimes, and a
staggering 1,072 gang-related homicides.
What more do we need to say to give a mere $500 million to emphasize,
unlike Marie Antoinette, to give them cake, we are going to give them
food and substance to provide for them a life, an opportunity, a
future. Where are we today when we tell our children it is all right to
be subject to the gangs and driveby shootings?
Mr. Speaker, I ask for support, that we truly give support to our
children.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, in this motion to recommit, we are asking
that $450 million each year for the life of this crime bill be made
available for the Byrne grants. The Byrne grants, for those of you who
were not here last year, is very popular. It is 22 programs that States
use to do crime prevention, crime enforcement, projects throughout
their States.
In the bill we currently have, the current crime bill, there is $580
million; fiscal year next year, fiscal year 1996, that goes to $130
million, a 300 percent decrease in 1 year.
Every major law enforcement group tells you you cannot fight crime in
1 year. It takes more than 1 year. We will unstabilize funding over 5
years.
You wanted flexibility so the locals can do what they want. It is
right here, $450 million grant in the Byrne grants that gives you the
flexibility you sought for the last few days.
Last year when there was some question whether or not Byrne grants
would continue, we put together a letter in a bipartisan spirit, 153
Members signed that letter, 47 on that side of the aisle, including the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who said, ``Keep the Byrne
grants, keep them authorized at $450 million.''
That is what we are asking to do in this motion to recommit.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I first learned of the critical
role that Byrne funding plays in rural law enforcement when sheriffs
and police chiefs from my district came to Washington last year to
participate in the development of the crime bill. In a meeting which I
set up between them and Attorney General Reno, they expressed their
concern over the fact that funding for the Byrne program had been
gutted.
The Attorney General listened and, due to her efforts and those of
myself and many of my colleagues, Byrne funding was not just restored;
it was significantly increased.
Byrne funding is important to local law enforcement around the
country. But rural America is particularly dependent on it for
participation in Federal law enforcement assistance programs. Without
it, Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo Counties in my district would have to do
away with their narcotics task forces, leaving these communities wide
open to drugs and the violence that accompanies this persistent
problem. This amendment will help ensure that rural communities
continue to get the attention and resources that they need--that they
are not left behind.
Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Jackson-Lee amendment and the motion to recommit.
It amazes me that the same Members of this body who are so intent on
spending billions of the taxpayer's dollars to construct new prisons,
want to eliminate the modest amount of funding we made available for
youth crime prevention programs.
Mr. Chairman, the truth is that crime prevention programs make a
serious impact on crime in our streets.
Whenever I talk to the mayors, police chiefs, community activists,
and kids from the cities and towns in my district, crime is always an
issue. And time and time again, they tell me of another prevention
program that is working, another program that stops crime before it
starts.
I can speak from experience about one program in particular in 1993,
the Boston Police Department was the first major east coast police
department to become involved in GREAT, the Gang Prevention Program.
In the 1993-94 school year, Boston police youth service officers
taught the GREAT curriculum to over 10,000 seventh graders in 117
schools across the city.
That is over 10,000 young people who received a clear message about
how to stay away from gangs and gang related violence. This year, with
the help of funds from the crime bill, Boston will be able to expand
this successful program.
My constituents are not interested in tough talk or sound bite public
policy. They want anti-crime programs that are going to get rid of
gangs, stop violence, and give their children the opportunities they
need to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the GREAT Program does.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The time of the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, everybody in this body
really likes the Byrne grants, wants to protect the Byrne grants. I
want to assure the Members they are protected under existing law. The
legislation we passed today or are passing today in no way erodes the
authorization or the opportunity to appropriate money for the Byrne
grants that is currently in law. We are very happy and pleased to be
able to report that fact.
However, what the gentleman wants to do in part, and it is only part
of this motion to recommit, is to reserve more money even still for the
Byrne grants in the out years than is so under present law, which will
eat into the total amount of money available for the local communities
under this bill by considerable amounts.
The appropriate way to deal with the Byrne grants in the out years,
if the gentleman is correct, and he probably is, that we ought to deal
with them in the future with adding more authorizations, is for the
Committee on the Judiciary to produce that future authorization as
separate authorization and not affect the grant moneys going to local
communities.
So I would oppose this amendment for that reason had it been brought
up in the regular course of affairs anyway.
The thing that really is bad or worse by far is the provision the
gentlewoman from Texas has offered that is part of this motion to
recommit. I want everybody to understand that she would set aside over
the next 5 years $500 million of the money which is involved in this
bill today that is currently going out to the local cities and counties
to spend as they want; she would set aside $500 million for three at-
risk youth programs that are already in law. There are 266 at-risk
youth grant programs today already in the Federal Government under
somebody's jurisdiction; 266 already exist either in the Departments of
Justice or the Department of Education or somewhere else in our
Government, and including these three programs, she singled out. Why
should we set aside a specific amount of money for these programs today
when we have not set aside money for anything else?
The very essence of this bill that we are debating today is the
essence of saying to the cities and counties essentially we think you
know best how to fight crime. If you want to devote some of your
resources to some of these at-risk youth programs, that is fine, go
ahead and do that, but that should be your decision, because what is
good, again, in Seattle, WA, may not be good in Key West, FL, or
upstate New York or wherever.
This is important and a very important thing that we do not want to
do in this bill. So I must urge a no vote on this motion to recommit,
because it undermines the very basic principle of this crime bill,
which is a local grant provision to let the local communities decide
for themselves how to spend the money under this bill, whether it is
for more cops or whether it is for prevention programs and which
prevention programs. That should be left to be a local decision not
decided here today, and the amendment which is part of this motion to
recommit and the very essence of it is a bad amendment.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H1742]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 247, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 128]
AYES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
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
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--247
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
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
Dreier
Duncan
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
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
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
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
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
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--3
Becerra
Crapo
Matsui
{time} 1744
Mr. LINDER and Mr. PAYNE of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 192, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No 129]
AYES--238
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
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
Cox
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
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
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
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
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
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
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Bonior
Borski
[[Page H1743]] Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOT VOTING--5
Becerra
Crapo
Matsui
Reynolds
Torricelli
{time} 1801
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________