[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7813-H7817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4999) to control crime by providing law enforcement block
grants, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4999
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Local Government Law
Enforcement Block Grants Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Payment and Use.--
(1) Payment.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance shall pay to each unit of local government which
qualifies for a payment under this Act an amount equal to the
sum of any amounts allocated to such unit under this Act for
each payment period. The Director shall pay such amount from
amounts appropriated to carry out this Act.
(2) Use.--Amounts paid to a unit of local government under
this section shall be used by the unit for reducing crime and
improving public safety, including but not limited to, 1 or
more of the following purposes:
(A)(i) Hiring, training, and employing on a continuing
basis new, additional law enforcement officers and necessary
support personnel.
(ii) Paying overtime to presently employed law enforcement
officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of
increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel.
(iii) Procuring equipment, technology, and other material
directly related to basic law enforcement functions.
(B) Enhancing security measures--
(i) in and around schools; and
(ii) 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.
(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, and programs intended to prevent juvenile
crime.
(D) Establishing or supporting drug courts.
(E) Establishing early intervention and prevention programs
for juveniles to reduce or eliminate crime.
(F) Enhancing the adjudication process of cases involving
violent offenders, including the adjudication process of
cases involving violent juvenile offenders.
(G) Enhancing programs under subpart 1 of part E of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
(H) 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.
(I) 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.
(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``violent offender'' means a person charged
with committing a part I violent crime; and
(B) the term ``drug courts'' means a program that
involves--
(i) continuing judicial supervision over offenders with
substance abuse problems who are not violent offenders; and
(ii) the integrated administration of other sanctions and
services, which shall include--
(I) mandatory periodic testing for the use of controlled
substances or other addictive substances during any period of
supervised release or probation for each participant;
(II) substance abuse treatment for each participant;
(III) probation, or other supervised release involving the
possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration
based on noncompliance with program requirements or failure
to show satisfactory progress; and
(IV) programmatic, offender management, and aftercare
services such as relapse prevention, vocational job training,
job placement, and housing placement.
(b) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, a unit of local government may not expend any of
the funds provided under this Act to purchase, lease, rent,
or otherwise acquire--
(1) tanks or armored personnel carriers;
(2) fixed wing aircraft;
(3) limousines;
(4) real estate;
(5) yachts;
(6) consultants; or
(7) vehicles not primarily used for law enforcement;
unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and
exigent circumstances exist that make the use of funds for
such purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety
and good order in such unit of local government.
(c) Timing of Payments.--The Director shall pay each unit
of local government that has submitted an application under
this Act not later than--
(1) 90 days after the date that the amount is available, or
(2) the first day of the payment period if the unit of
local government has provided the Director with the
assurances required by section 4(c),
whichever is later.
(d) Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director
shall adjust a payment under this Act to a unit of local
government to the extent that a prior payment to the unit of
local government was more or less than the amount required to
be paid.
(2) Considerations.--The Director may increase or decrease
under this subsection a payment to a unit of local government
only if the Director determines the need for the increase or
decrease, or if the unit requests the increase or decrease,
not later than 1 year after the end of the payment period for
which a payment was made.
[[Page H7814]]
(e) Reservation for Adjustment.--The Director may reserve a
percentage of not more than 2 percent of the amount under
this section for a payment period for all units of local
government in a State if the Director considers the reserve
is necessary to ensure the availability of sufficient amounts
to pay adjustments after the final allocation of amounts
among the units of local government in the State.
(f) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
(1) Repayment required.--A unit of local government shall
repay to the Director, by not later than 27 months after
receipt of funds from the Director, any amount that is--
(A) paid to the unit from amounts appropriated under the
authority of this section; and
(B) not expended by the unit within 2 years after receipt
of such funds from the Director.
(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Director shall reduce payment
in future payment periods accordingly.
(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the
Director as repayments under this subsection shall be
deposited in a designated fund for future payments to units
of local government. Any amounts remaining in such designated
fund after 5 years following the enactment of the Local
Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 2000 shall be
applied to the Federal deficit or, if there is no Federal
deficit, to reducing the Federal debt.
(g) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available under
this Act to units of local government shall not be used to
supplant State or local funds, but shall be used to increase
the amount of funds that would, in the absence of funds made
available under this Act, be made available from State or
local sources.
(h) Matching Funds.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Federal share of a grant received under this Act may not
exceed 90 percent of the costs of a program or proposal
funded under this Act.
(2) Exception for financial hardship.--The Director may
increase the Federal share under paragraph (1) up to 100
percent for a unit of local government upon a showing of
financial hardship by such unit.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
(1) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(2) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(3) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(5) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(b) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not more
than 3 percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated
under subsection (a) for each of the fiscal years 2001
through 2005 shall be available to the Attorney General for
studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the
provisions of this Act, and assuring compliance with the
provisions of this Act and for administrative costs to carry
out the purposes of this Act. The Attorney General shall
establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring the
activities of grant recipients. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.
(c) Technology Assistance.--The Attorney General shall
reserve 1 percent in each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003
of the amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection
(a) for use by the National Institute of Justice in assisting
local units to identify, select, develop, modernize, and
purchase new technologies for use by law enforcement.
(d) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 4. QUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT.
(a) In General.--The Director shall issue regulations
establishing procedures under which a unit of local
government is required to provide notice to the Director
regarding the proposed use of funds made available under this
Act.
(b) Program Review.--The Director shall establish a process
for the ongoing evaluation of projects developed with funds
made available under this Act.
(c) General Requirements for Qualification.--A unit of
local government qualifies for a payment under this Act for a
payment period only if the unit of local government submits
an application to the Director and establishes, to the
satisfaction of the Director, that--
(1) the unit of local government has established a local
advisory board that--
(A) includes, but is not limited to, a representative
from--
(i) the local police department or local sheriff's
department;
(ii) the local prosecutor's office;
(iii) the local court system;
(iv) the local public school system; and
(v) a local nonprofit, educational, religious, or community
group active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or
treatment;
(B) has reviewed the application; and
(C) is designated to make nonbinding recommendations to the
unit of local government for the use of funds received under
this Act;
(2) the chief executive officer of the State has had not
less than 20 days to review and comment on the application
prior to submission to the Director;
(3)(A) the unit of local government will establish a trust
fund in which the government will deposit all payments
received under this Act; and
(B) the unit of local government will use amounts in the
trust fund (including interest) during a period not to exceed
2 years from the date the first grant payment is made to the
unit of local government;
(4) the unit of local government will expend the payments
received in accordance with the laws and procedures that are
applicable to the expenditure of revenues of the unit of
local government;
(5) the unit of local government will use accounting,
audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to guidelines which
shall be prescribed by the Director after consultation with
the Comptroller General and as applicable, amounts received
under this Act shall be audited in compliance with the Single
Audit Act of 1984;
(6) after reasonable notice from the Director or the
Comptroller General to the unit of local government, the unit
of local government will make available to the Director and
the Comptroller General, with the right to inspect, records
that the Director reasonably requires to review compliance
with this Act or that the Comptroller General reasonably
requires to review compliance and operation;
(7) a designated official of the unit of local government
shall make reports the Director reasonably requires, in
addition to the annual reports required under this Act;
(8) the unit of local government will spend the funds made
available under this Act only for the purposes set forth in
section 2(a)(2);
(9) the unit of local government will achieve a net gain in
the number of law enforcement officers who perform
nonadministrative public safety service if such unit uses
funds received under this Act to increase the number of law
enforcement officers as described under subparagraph (A) of
section 2(a)(2);
(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 2(a)(2), or any crime
prevention programs that are established under subparagraphs
(C) and (E) of section 2(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 or program; and
(C) will submit an annual written assessment report to the
Director; and
(11) the unit of local government has established
procedures to give members of the Armed Forces who, on or
after October 1, 1990, were or are selected for involuntary
separation (as described in section 1141 of title 10, United
States Code), approved for separation under section 1174a or
1175 of such title, or retired pursuant to the authority
provided under section 4403 of the Defense Conversion,
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (division
D of Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1293 note), a suitable
preference in the employment of persons as additional law
enforcement officers or support personnel using funds made
available under this Act. The nature and extent of such
employment preference shall be jointly established by the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense. To the extent
practicable, the Director shall endeavor to inform members
who were separated between October 1, 1990, and the date of
the enactment of this section of their eligibility for the
employment preference;
(d) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
(1) In general.--If the Director determines that a unit of
local government has not complied substantially with the
requirements or regulations prescribed under subsections (a)
and (c), the Director shall notify the unit of local
government that if the unit of local government does not take
corrective action within 60 days of such notice, the Director
will withhold additional payments to the unit of local
government for the current and future payment periods until
the Director is satisfied that the unit of local government--
(A) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
(B) will comply with the requirements and regulations
prescribed under subsections (a) and (c).
(2) Notice.--Before giving notice under paragraph (1), the
Director shall give the chief executive officer of the unit
of local government reasonable notice and an opportunity for
comment.
(e) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--A unit of local
government qualifies for a payment under this Act for a
payment period only if the unit's expenditures on law
enforcement services (as reported by the Bureau of the
Census) for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in
which the payment period occurs were not less than 90
percent of the unit's expenditures on such services for
the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which
the payment period occurs.
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
(a) State Set-Aside.--
(1) In general.--Of the total amounts appropriated for this
Act for each payment period, the Director shall allocate for
units of local government in each State an amount that bears
the same ratio to such total as the average annual number of
part 1 violent crimes reported by such State to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years
for which such data is available, bears to the number of part
1 violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for such years.
[[Page H7815]]
(2) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall receive not less
than .25 percent of the total amounts appropriated under
section 3 under this subsection for each payment period.
(3) Proportional reduction.--If amounts available to carry
out paragraph (2) for any payment period are insufficient to
pay in full the total payment that any State is otherwise
eligible to receive under paragraph (1) for such period, then
the Director shall reduce payments under paragraph (1) for
such payment period to the extent of such insufficiency.
Reductions under the preceding sentence shall be allocated
among the States (other than States whose payment is
determined under paragraph (2)) in the same proportions as
amounts would be allocated under paragraph (1) without regard
to paragraph (2).
(b) Local Distribution.--
(1) In general.--From the amount reserved for each State
under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate--
(A) among reporting units of local government the reporting
units' share of such reserved amount, and
(B) among nonreporting units of local government the
nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount.
(2) Amounts.--
(A) The reporting units' share of the reserved amount is
the amount equal to the product of such reserved amount
multiplied by the percentage which the population living in
reporting units of local government in the State bears to the
population of all units of local government in the State.
(B) The nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount is
the reserved amount reduced by the reporting units' share of
the reserved amount.
(3) Allocation to each reporting unit.--From the reporting
units' share of the reserved amount for each State under
subsection (a), the Director shall allocate to each reporting
unit of local government an amount which bears the same ratio
to such share as the average annual number of part 1 violent
crimes reported by such unit to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for which
such data is available bears to the number of part 1 violent
crimes reported by all units of local government in the State
in which the unit is located to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for such years.
(4) Allocation to each nonreporting unit.--From the
nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount for each
State under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate to
each nonreporting unit of local government an amount which
bears the same ratio to such share as the average number of
part 1 violent crimes of like governmental units in the same
population class as such unit bears to the average annual
imputed number of part 1 violent crimes of all nonreporting
units in the State for the 3 most recent calendar years.
(5) Limitation on allocations.--A unit of local government
shall not receive an allocation which exceeds 100 percent of
such unit's expenditures on law enforcement services as
reported by the Bureau of the Census for the most recent
fiscal year. Any amount in excess of 100 percent of such
unit's expenditures on law enforcement services shall be
distributed proportionally among units of local government
whose allocation does not exceed 100 percent of expenditures
on law enforcement services.
(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) The term `reporting unit of local government' means any
unit of local government that reported part 1 violent crimes
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most recent
calendar years for which such data is available.
(B) The term `nonreporting unit of local government' means
any unit of local government which is not a reporting unit of
local government.
(C)(i) The term `like governmental units' means any like
unit of local government as defined by the Secretary of
Commerce for general statistical purposes, and means--
(I) all counties are treated as like governmental units;
(II) all cities are treated as like governmental units;
(III) all townships are treated as like governmental units.
(ii) Similar rules shall apply to other types of
governmental units.
(D) The term `same population class' means a like unit
within the same population category as another like unit with
the categories determined as follows:
(i) 0 through 9,999.
(ii) 10,000 through 49,999.
(iii) 50,000 through 149,999.
(iv) 150,000 through 299,999.
(v) 300,000 or more.
(7) Local governments with allocations of less than
$10,000.--If under paragraph (3) or (4) a unit of local
government is allotted less than $10,000 for the payment
period, the amount allotted shall be transferred to the chief
executive officer of the State who shall distribute such
funds among State police departments that provide law
enforcement services to units of local government and units
of local government whose allotment is less than such amount
in a manner which reduces crime and improves public safety.
(8) Special rules.--
(A) If a unit of local government in a State that has been
incorporated since the date of the collection of the data
used by the Director in making allocations pursuant to this
section, such unit shall be treated as a nonreporting unit of
local government for purposes of this subsection.
(B) If a unit of local government in the State has been
annexed since the date of the collection of the data used by
the Director in making allocations pursuant to this section,
the Director shall pay the amount that would have been
allocated to such unit of local government to the unit of
local government that annexed it.
(9) Resolution of disparate allocations.--(A)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if--
(i) the attorney general of a State certifies that a unit
of local government under the jurisdiction of the State bears
more than 50 percent of the costs of prosecution or
incarceration that arise with respect to part 1 violent
crimes reported by a specified geographically constituent
unit of local government, and
(ii) but for this paragraph, the amount of funds allocated
under this section to--
(I) any one such specified geographically constituent unit
of local government exceeds 200 percent of the amount
allocated to the unit of local government certified pursuant
to clause (i), or
(II) more than one such specified geographically
constituent unit of local government (excluding units of
local government referred to subclause I and in paragraph
(7)), exceeds 400 percent of the amount allocated to the unit
of local government certified pursuant to clause (i) and the
attorney general of the State determines that such allocation
is likely to threaten the efficient administration of
justice,
then in order to qualify for payment under this Act, the unit
of local government certified pursuant to clause (i),
together with any such specified geographically constituent
units of local government described in clause (ii), shall
submit to the Director a joint application for the aggregate
of funds allocated to such units of local government. Such
application shall specify the amount of such funds that are
to be distributed to each of the units of local government
and the purposes for which such funds are to be used. The
units of local government involved may establish a joint
local advisory board for the purposes of carrying out this
paragraph.
(B) In this paragraph, the term ``geographically
constituent unit of local government'' means a unit of local
government that has jurisdiction over areas located within
the boundaries of an area over which a unit of local
government certified pursuant to clause (i) has jurisdiction.
(c) Unavailability and Inaccuracy of Information.--
(1) Data for states.--For purposes of this section, if data
regarding part 1 violent crimes in any State for the 3 most
recent calendar years is unavailable or substantially
inaccurate, the Director shall utilize the best available
comparable data regarding the number of violent crimes for
such years for such State for the purposes of allocation of
any funds under this Act.
(2) Possible inaccuracy of data 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 for
such unit of local government.
SEC. 6. UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR.
Funds or a portion of funds allocated under this Act may be
utilized to contract with private, nonprofit entities or
community-based organizations to carry out the purposes
specified under section 2(a)(2).
SEC. 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
(a) In General.--A unit of local government expending
payments under this Act shall hold not less than 1 public
hearing on the proposed use of the payment from the Director
in relation to its entire budget.
(b) Views.--At the hearing, persons shall be given an
opportunity to provide written and oral views to the unit of
local government authority responsible for enacting the
budget and to ask questions about the entire budget and the
relation of the payment from the Director to the entire
budget.
(c) Time and Place.--The unit of local government shall
hold the hearing at a time and place that allows and
encourages public attendance and participation.
SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
The administrative provisions of part H of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, shall apply to
this Act and for purposes of this section any reference in
such provisions to title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall be deemed to be a reference to
this Act.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``unit of local government'' means--
(A) a county, township, city, or political subdivision of a
county, township, or city, that is a unit of local government
as determined by the Secretary of Commerce for general
statistical purposes; and
(B) the District of Columbia and the recognized governing
body of an Indian tribe or Alaskan Native village that
carries out substantial governmental duties and powers.
(2) The term ``payment period'' means each 1-year period
beginning on October 1 of any
[[Page H7816]]
year in which a grant under this Act is awarded.
(3) The term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.
(4) The term ``juvenile'' means an individual who is 17
years of age or younger.
(5) The term ``part 1 violent crimes'' means murder and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.
(6) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the Bureau
of Justice Assistance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
General Leave
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 4999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Local Government Law Enforcement Act of 2000
represents an important step by this Congress to assist local
governments throughout the country as they confront crime. In stark
contrast to the 1994 Crime Act, it does so without prescribing the
specific programs localities must implement in order to receive
funding.
This bill provides resources to localities to respond to their unique
crime problems with their own unique solutions.
The text of H.R. 4999 is nearly identical to the reauthorization
passed by the House of Representatives in February of 1995. There are
two differences between this bill and the previous reauthorization.
First of all, the previous reauthorization as passed sought to repeal
the COPS program. This bill does not do that.
{time} 1645
It authorizes the block grants without in any way affecting the COPS.
That is one difference. The second difference is that under the
previous reauthorization and this bill, both include a 10 percent local
match requirement, whereby the Federal share may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a program proposed funding under the act. However, only
H.R. 4999 includes a waiver exception in cases of financial hardship.
Therefore, a unit can have its matching requirement waived upon a
showing of financial hardship.
We should make no mistake that this bill will provide money for our
law enforcement fighting efforts with greater flexibility to the vast
majority of localities throughout America. Those who argue that this
money will be wasted are completely wrong. This is not a grant program
for police chiefs like the old Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration. This is a grant program that assists communities in
addressing their crime problems. It does so through a highly visible
process involving all the major law enforcement, judicial and private
sector voices in the community. There is a role for the Federal
Government to assist the States in the fight against crime, but such
assistance must appreciate that the problems vary from State to State
and community to community. We must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach,
even as we reject micromanagement support from Washington that comes at
the expense of flexibility.
The act leaves to local governments the decisions regarding what
their funding priorities should be. It neither requires that funds be
spent on police officers nor on prevention programs. It leaves that
decision to local governments who understand their crime problems far
better than we do. Under this bill, localities can fund police on the
beat or prevention activities or anything in between. The act simply
requires that those funds be used to reduce crime and improve public
safety.
I will not go through all the different sections of the bill, Mr.
Speaker; but I believe that the Local Government Law Enforcement Act is
an important way for the Federal Government to assist localities in
dealing with crime without getting in their way. It is a rejection of
the ``Washington knows best'' mind-set and it provides more resources
for the counties, cities, and towns of America to develop homegrown
solutions to their unique crime problems.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to express my support for H.R. 4999 but
also to express my disappointment that the bill under consideration on
the floor today is being considered without committee consideration.
Among the constructive purposes authorized in the bill are the hiring,
training, and equipping of police and other law enforcement personnel
and the establishment of crime prevention, early intervention, and drug
court programs. The bill specifically contains prohibitions on buying
things like tanks, airplanes, yachts, and limousines which could have
been purchased under some of the former programs that the gentleman
from Arkansas referenced.
While I support the reauthorization contained in the bill, I had
hoped that we would be looking at a program at the committee level
along with other important law enforcement programs such as the
Community Oriented Policing Services program, better known as the COPS
program. The COPS program has been very successful and considered to be
a vital contributor to the success of local communities in bringing
down the crime rate all across the country.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime introduced an authorization bill for
the COPS program which had the support of the administration and a
significant number of other Members of the House. I know that the law
enforcement community which strongly supports the Weiner bill would
have preferred to see both of these matters taken up in committee with
both coming to the floor for an authorization based on a full
assessment of their value to the local communities. Unfortunately, that
did not happen and here we are with just this part of the bill.
But before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would want to thank the gentleman
from Arkansas for accommodating the concerns of the gentleman from Guam
(Mr. Underwood) involving the formula for the appropriation.
Inadvertently, the bill that we were to bring to the floor had an
outdated allocation for Guam, but the bill before us now includes the
updated allocation. Thanks to the alertness and effectiveness of the
gentleman from Guam, we were able to correct this oversight.
Mr. Speaker, although the bill does not contain the COPS program, I
support the bill because it includes authorization for valuable,
effective crime prevention initiatives which will be developed on the
local level. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments
in support of this legislation. I also just wanted to remark that the
gentleman from Virginia has certainly been an ardent worker in the
issues of crime, both in his work on the subcommittee but also I have
attended numerous hearings across the country with him and he has
certainly devoted himself to this issue. The gentleman raised the issue
of the COPS program, Community Oriented Policing Services program. We
have held hearings in committee. It is true that we have not moved
forward the bill to reauthorize his program, but as the gentleman
knows, there has been some concern expressed about the effectiveness of
the program. It was originally planned as a program with a fixed end to
it. And so I think it is appropriate, just expressing my view, that at
this juncture we wait until the next administration, wherever that
might take us, to see exactly where we are going to go on that
particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), who has done an extraordinary job in
pushing this legislation. Without his leadership
[[Page H7817]]
on this issue, I do not think we would be here today talking about
this.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) for yielding me this time, and I certainly thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his support of this. I also
want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for all the
work that he has done on this and the Subcommittee on Crime and the
staff there that has done a lot of work on this.
As it stands right now, we have had a program similar to this
instituted; it has been through the appropriations. We have never had
it fully authorized. We passed a bill similar to this or it was passed
in Congress before I was here, at least on the House but never on the
Senate side. So we are hoping very much that we can get this bill fully
authorized, fully passed to authorize this program with the appropriate
changes that have been made here.
First of all, it allocates $2 billion a year for the fiscal years
2001 through 2005. We also understand as far as the improvements, they
have already been mentioned, these as far as providing block grants
back to local law enforcement agencies, it ensures that those
communities, those poor communities that are not able to meet that
match requirement previously will not be precluded from getting these
block grants because of a waiver that we have instituted. I know this
is going to be particularly helpful for our State of Kentucky. We have
several communities that may need certain items for safety or police
officers or other crime prevention programs, and yet they may not be
able to meet that 10 percent match sometimes. So in those hardship
cases, they are able to receive this grant which previously was
unavailable to them. We are glad that that change was able to be
instituted.
Why have we had so much emphasis on crime? I am glad to say that over
the last 8 years we have seen a decrease in crime in this country, but
if we look back as early as 1960, from 1960 or 1964 up to 1991, 1992,
we had a 600 percent increase in crime in this country, a tremendous
increase in crime. Seventy to 80 percent of all families were affected
by crime, many types of crimes. Certainly it has affected our region.
I reference an article we had recently in Lexington, Kentucky, where
we have particular needs. I think it points out the diversity of
communities and the diverse needs communities have where it says the
crime in Lexington increased in 1999 and that probably happened in
other communities around the country. We can see from the diversity of
problems that we have across the Nation that a plan that implements
just a one-size-fits-all is not best for particular communities.
I think, clearly, the Federal Government certainly has a role; but
the best crime prevention needs to come locally where they understand
the particular problems that they have. That is what makes this program
so effective and really so popular among law enforcement agencies and
other institutions that work to prevent and reduce crime.
In Kentucky, we have already received $4.2 million in grants from
this program. Almost $1 million has gone to our State police in
Kentucky. Over half a million has gone to my district alone. In these
we have used funds to hire police and to pay overtime. We have used the
funds to purchase other law enforcement equipment and increased the
technology that allows them to more effectively prevent and detect
crimes. And we have used it to establish crime prevention programs that
otherwise would not be able to be afforded or be available for the
communities. So it is very important.
I am certainly pleased that we have a tremendous amount of bipartisan
support on this bill, the approach to reduce crime by ensuring that we
provide flexibility to local law enforcement agencies and organizations
and that we understand that we can bring certainly the priority of
crime prevention from the Federal level but many of the decisions need
to be made at the local level to ensure that we do effectively fight
crime, reduce crime in this country, and make this a safer Nation for
all people. I encourage everyone to vote for this bill.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4999, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________