John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. That is correct. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, continuing the time that is left under the original agreement.

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. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I will control the time, Mr. Chairman.

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. 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.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CONYERS. That is why we have measures brought to the floor. We go through the committee hearings, we go through the markup, then we come to the floor and then you say, ``Well, perhaps there is something to matches and we'll put one in. So, look, this is a new position you have arrived at. I am happy about it. I have no objection to it. I just wanted to point out that I had not heard about it before, and it was printed in the Record and offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. So, so be it. I think it is an appropriate time to do it. We probably will not have any other chance to debate.

Mr. CONYERS. You do not recall yourself saying somewhere along the line that communities could not afford the police grants because there was a matching requirement?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. argued against matching on my side of the aisle but this one was not one of them. I argued against the fact that the police grant program, there was not nearly enough money out there because it cost $60,000 a year instead of $20,000 or $25,000 to be able to put a police officer on the street. But I never argued against a match.

Mr. CONYERS. After hearing all your rhetoric against matching, I am glad that we at least have a point of agreement here. I guess that means that all of the discussion and debate against matching funds in the crime bill was not as important or valid as I thought you were making it.

Mr. CONYERS. So did we.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. After hearing that we were against block grants 4 months ago on the majority side, we are now enthusiastically for block grants. All during the hearings and markup of this bill, you were against any matches in the Committee on the Judiciary, and now out of nowhere comes an amendment printed by the chairman of the subcommittee no less but offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a 10-percent match. Is there any rationale that we may employ to account for where this miraculous change of opinion has come about? You have quite a few positions on these matters that seem to be changing the more we examine this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment. The gentleman is attempting to reimpose some needed structure to the completely unmanageable and formless way the block grant programs are structured, so I commend the gentleman. I think we will accept it unanimously on this side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. In addition, of course, this combines police grants, so what we are having now is a choice between every kind of prevention and nonprevention you ever imagined, plus the opportunity to not use police because there is not a separate category for community policing. I support the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a great idea. We will take care of that, because it is true that sometimes community organizations do end up in a consulting capacity, and that is the last thing in our minds to in any way limit or inhibit their working under the provisions of this bill. With that, I indicate my support for the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I was going to give some more examples and make some more arguments, but at the conclusion of the comments of the gentleman from Florida, I am going to save them, because we are prepared to accept the amendment at this time. I commend the gentleman. We already have several items included. It was thought that consultants ought to be added, and I think the gentleman may want to indicate how we might even qualify that further. I yield to him at this point.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman]. This is a provision that is used in other parts of the law already, and it tracks it. I think it is very important that we use this for giving suitable preference in the employment of persons as additional law enforcement officers, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and hope it will be unanimously agreed to.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, on our side, we are delighted that the cooperation has been worked out between the chairman and the gentleman from Virginia. We are delighted to accept the amendment.