[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1743-H1744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPROVAL OF BLOCK GRANT APPROACH NOTED IN WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL

  (Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, it is not often I find myself in agreement 
with the editorial page of the Washington Post, but today's Post shows 
rare insight and good sense when it says the President should not veto 
the crime bill that is on the floor because of the block grant program.
  The Post recognizes that the President's 100,000 cop program was a 
fraud, saying that ``almost immediately * * * 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.''
  In other words, it would never have fulfilled its promise of 100,000 
new police officers.
  The editorial then goes on to make the case for allowing local 
communities more flexibility in using Federal 
[[Page H1744]] funds, asking, ``What's wrong with letting them use 
Federal funds for less expensive but still effective programs rather 
than for costly hiring?''
  Precisely. So I urge the President to heed the Post's advice and sign 
the bill when it reaches his desk.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the Post editorial for the Record, as follows:
               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 14, 1995]

                        Block Grants for Crime?

       The House moved yesterday to consideration of the last in 
     the current series of crime bills--a couple have been 
     postponed until the spring--promised in the ``Contract With 
     America.'' This one has drawn the heaviest fire from the 
     administration, including a threat by President Clinton that 
     he will veto the measure if it passes in its current form. 
     The bill would substantially change the law enacted only last 
     fall by eliminating three sets of grant programs: $8.8 
     billion for hiring new police; $1 billion for drug courts; 
     and $4 billion for social programs of various sorts designed 
     to prevent crime. In their stead, the Republicans would 
     authorize a $10 billion program of block grants to local 
     authorities to be used for the general purpose of reducing 
     crime and improving public safety. The president 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 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. There's a lot of 
     hypocrisy in the debate, with Republicans, who put all sorts 
     of restrictions on the use of prison construction money, 
     claiming that local authorities should be given complete 
     discretion here, and Democrats citing horror stories about 
     the misuse of Law Enforcement Assistance Act grants made to 
     communities 20 years ago, when they were in control of 
     Congress.
       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. And if some towns don't have matching funds 
     available, what's wrong with letting them use federal funds 
     for less expensive but still effective programs rather than 
     for costly hiring? It is true that any federal grants program 
     ought to be monitored for abuse and that some spending--for 
     the purchase of aircraft, for example, or even for research--
     could be prohibited. 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.
     

                          ____________________