[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S15140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CUTS TO CRIME PREVENTION EFFORTS

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on September 13, 1994, after 6 
years of gridlock, President Clinton signed the toughest, smartest 
crime bill in American history. Rejecting the stale political debates 
that doomed earlier efforts, the Violent Crime Control Act [VCCA] 
offers a balanced approach to fighting crime--one that combines 
policing, prevention, and punishment.
  In 1 year, the VCCA has made a difference. More police are on the 
beat. ``Three strikes and you're out'' is the law of the land. 
Interstate domestic violence, stalking and harassing are Federal 
offenses. Assault weapons can no longer be manufactured. States and 
cities have more resources to build boot camps. Law enforcement 
agencies across America have greater tools to implement drug courts, 
upgrade criminal record histories, and incarcerate violent offenders 
and keep them off the streets.
  If we keep the promises we made to the American people 1 year ago 
when the Crime Act was passed, we will continue to have more police on 
the streets, more prisons to lock up violent offenders, and fewer 
neighborhoods where the streets remain empty and doors stay shut.
  But just as new evidence indicates that violent crime among teenagers 
and young adults is skyrocketing, this Congress seems ready to break 
those promises. Unless we act now to stop young people from choosing a 
life of crime, the beginning of the 21st century could bring levels of 
violent crime to our communities that far exceed what we now 
experience. The programs created by the 1994 Crime Act are a critically 
important component in halting the advance of violence and crime. We 
need to ask at this critical junction: Will we build on the progress in 
the fight against crime, or will we let the ground we have gained slip 
away?
  The crime control priorities funded in the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, 
State, Justice appropriations bill offer the Nation a very mixed 
message in answer to this question. Token programs are saved, but the 
majority of proven and effective crime prevention efforts are slashed 
or eliminated then tossed into a block grant with vague promises of 
being able to achieve similar levels of crime prevention.
  This structure of priorities seems almost hypocritical for a Congress 
that is bent on reducing spending by eliminating waste in inefficiency. 
I share that goal, which is why I believe that crime prevention pays. 
Crime control costs the American people approximately $90 billion a 
year. Only a small amount of funding on crime prevention goes a long 
way in reducing incidences of crime and the costs of crime on our 
society.
  On a positive note, the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Program thankfully survived the slash-and-block 
attacks on crime control. Law enforcement officials have told me of the 
success they have had as a result of these funds. Drug enforcement task 
forces, improved law enforcement technology, the DARE Program, domestic 
violence intervention and countless other valuable antidrug and 
anticrime efforts have been possible, in part, through funding 
available under the Byrne Program. I quote from an officer on the front 
line in my home State of Iowa, ``The assistance we have received by way 
of the Edward Byrne grants has been the key to our approach in fighting 
drug violators.''
  On the other hand, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
[COPS], the cornerstone of the first year of crime fighting efforts, 
was eliminated by the committee. Under this funding bill that came to 
the floor, services provided by the COPS Program would have been forced 
to compete for scare resources with other crime prevention programs 
such as programs for delinquent and at-risk youth, gang resistance 
programs and many other community and school-based initiatives to keep 
kids from turning to a life of crime. The end result of course, would 
be less money for all crime prevention efforts.
  Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the proposal to eliminate the COPS 
Program is the loss of local control. Proponents traditionally argue 
that block grants increase local control. The crime prevention block 
grant proposed in the Commerce, State, Justice funding bill does no 
such thing. This initiative replaces a highly successful program that 
responds to public desire for an increased police presence with a 
program that merely gives money to State governments that may keep up 
to 15 percent before distributing the remainder to local governments. 
Allowed uses for the funding are expanded to include not just 
additional funding for more cops on the beat, but also for procurement 
of equipment and prosecution. This is a significant departure from the 
COPS Program which funneled the funding directly to the local law 
enforcement agencies.
  The COPS Program was created as a Federal-local law enforcement 
partnership, providing grants to local law enforcement agencies to hire 
100,000 new officers. With community policing as its base, the program 
encourages the development of police-citizen cooperation to control 
crime, maintain order and improve the quality of life in America.
  In less than 12 months, this program is ahead of schedule and on 
target in funding one quarter of the 100,000 cops promised to the 
American people. As a block grant under the Commerce, State, Justice 
bill there would be no requirement that even one officer is hired.
  The block grant approach to crime prevention invites the abuse of 
funds the COPS Program was created to eliminate, as well as doing away 
with effective crime prevention programs that worked hand in hand with 
community policing initiatives set up under the COPS Program. The 
priorities delineated in the committee bill were misplaced, creating an 
ineffective response to our Nation's war against crime and a sad 
departure from the successful efforts started under the 1994 Violent 
Crime Control Act. I am happy that the COPS Program was restored during 
floor consideration and would urge my colleagues to continue their 
support for crime prevention efforts throughout the budget 
process.

                          ____________________