[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.
  

                          ____________________