[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     BEREUTER AMENDMENT TO H.R. 728

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 15, 1995
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his 
dissatisfaction with the rule granted for consideration of H.R. 728. 
This rule placed a 10-hour time limit on debate on any amendments. 
According to the rule, preference was to be given to amendment 
preprinted in the Congressional Record. Preference was also given to 
members of the Judiciary Committee, whether their amendments had been 
printed in the Record or not. Over 1 hour and 47 minutes were taken for 
votes, leaving many Members who are not members of the Judiciary 
Committee without an opportunity to offer their amendments. If the time 
for votes had not been included in the 10 hours for debate, many other 
Members would have been able to offer amendments.
  Specifically, this Member tried throughout the day on Tuesday, 
February 14, to offer his amendment No. 22, which was printed in the 
Congressional Record on February 13. A copy of the amendment follows:
Amendment to H.R. 728, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska

       Page 12, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(10) the unit of local government will spend not more 
     than 50 percent of the funds received under this title to 
     purchase law enforcement equipment and hardware, including 
     but not restricted to vehicles, machinery, communications 
     equipment, and computer equipment, that assist law 
     enforcement officials in reducing or preventing crime and 
     improving public safety unless the Attorney General certifies 
     that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist that make 
     the use of more than 50 percent of such funds for such 
     purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety and 
     good order in such unit of local government.

  The Bereuter amendment was simple and straightforward. It would have 
prohibited the use of more than 50 percent of the grant for law 
enforcement equipment and hardware, including but not restricted to 
vehicles, machinery, communications equipment, and computer equipment. 
This amendment also had a waiver provision so that in extraordinary 
circumstances a local government may make a request to the Attorney 
General for an exemption from the 50-percent restriction.
  The 50-percent restriction would be a very minimal requirement. It 
was not unreasonable in any way and would not have imposed a burden or 
hardship on local governments. It is interesting to note that a 1976 
study of the LEAA grants indicates that the percentage of LEAA grants 
spent on equipment from 1969 to 1971 range from 39.2 to 22.2 percent. 
The Bereuter amendment was very generous perhaps to a fault, by 
limiting equipment expenditures to 50 percent.
  The Bereuter amendment would have gone a long way to improve H.R. 728 
by placing greater emphasis on funding for personnel and locally 
supported and locally effective crime programs. This amendment also 
provided some answer and some assurance to those concerned that there 
would be a decrease in the numbers of new cops on the street by 
ensuring that only half of the funds could be used for equipment and 
hardware. This restriction also provided some restraint against 
excesses by local governments.
  The Schumer amendment accept in the Judiciary Committee would not 
have been affected by this amendment. The prohibition on the use of 
grant funds for tanks, limousines, planes, real estate, and yachts 
would have remained in place.
 Another Schumer amendment offered during Floor debate added the 
prohibitions on the use of funds for consultants and for vehicles not 
intended for police use.

  The last general block grant program to fight crime was the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration block grant program in the 
1970's. There were many documented cases of outright abuse and waste of 
taxpayers' funds. During debate on H.R. 728, many examples were given 
and many comparisons were made to that now defunct program. LEAA was 
grately revised in 1979, and eventually eliminated during the Reagan 
administration in 1982.
  This Member has first-hand knowledge of some of the excesses of the 
LEAA grants as a result of his service on the Nebraska State Crime 
Commission from 1969 to 1971. While there were many criticisms of the 
LEAA program, the source of the most flagrant abuses of Federal funds 
was the use of the LEAA grants for crime fighting equipment and 
hardware. For example, LEAA funds were used to purchase a tank in 
Louisiana, an airplane for the personal use of the Governor of Indiana, 
a $2 million prototype that did not work, and $1.3 million fingerprint 
computer never used in the 7 years it was owned by the State of 
Illinois.
  In 1979, the House and Senate prohibited the use of grant funds for 
the purchase of equipment or hardware, except for information and 
telecommunications systems and bullet proof vests. Hardware and 
equipment could only be purchased if the purchase or payments are 
incurred as a incidental and necessary part of an of improvement 
program or project. This allowed an exception for necessary purchases 
but indeed it was a very wide loophole.
  This Member's amendment to H.R. 728 would have allowed local 
communities to use no more than 50 percent of the grant for equipment 
and hardware; this limitation would have precluded the use of a 
disproportionate share of funds for equipment and hardware.
  The Bereuter amendment was necessary to assist in avoiding the 
mistakes made during the existence of the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration. We should have learned those lessons before through the 
LEAA experience, after millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted. We 
have the power to establish a new grant program that effectively fights 
crime, is a formula that would reduce waste and abuse. This Member 
believes it is most unfortunate that this Member was not allowed to 
offer his amendment for a vote. It would have greatly improved the 
block grant program created by H.R. 728 and answered numerous arguments 
that personnel needs like cops on the beat and local attuned prevention 
programs would not be ignored or downgraded.


                          ____________________