John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. And so, even if we accept, or if the Schiff amendment passes, it does not change the underlying problem that has been raised in We cannot get around it, my colleagues. We have got to face it. We are the Congress. This is where the issue is going to be decided, the rubber hits the road. There is no way we can collapse it into some general language that will include anything and everything and then leave it to the discretion of local officials to pick it up. I say to my colleagues, ``This is the big duck amendment. Whether you like it or don't, it doesn't change the problem that victims of the violence at health clinics need protection, and I urge that we keep this in mind as this debate moves on.''

Mr. CONYERS. As soon as I say this: It has been made clear by the gentleman from Illinois that we are trying to duck whether there will be a direct authority to protect these clinics in this crime bill or whether it will be left in some discretionary pool with a lot of other problems in which they may or may be included. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like it to be made clear that the debate going on now is whether the authority to send in protection should reside at the local level or not, and in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico it resides at the local level. In the discussion with the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], she does not want it to reside, the decision of whether police are to be provided or not for these clinics--she wants it to be specifically in this legislation that reproductive health centers shall be protected. Why? Because that is the focus of where the violence is occurring.

Mr. CONYERS. I hope the gentlewoman will continue to offer the same provision she offered in the committee, because we need to have it clearly discussed and debated on the floor.

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

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] was clearly planning to offer an amendment that would specify that funds may be used to protect reproductive health clinics which have been targeted for violence lately around the country. This amendment appears to be a roundabout way of addressing that concern and a way for Republican Members to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on whether to provide special protection for our abortion clinics. And it will not work, because it fails to specify that Congress recognizes the need to protect the reproductive health centers. That is what is in trouble now.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his recollection of the processes by which this amendment came to the floor. What this could be called is the big duck amendment, because

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a sufficient discussion on the issue. I wanted to flag this problem. I am going to see if it is tracked in the old crime bill. I want to make it clear that this may come back up in conference. I withdraw any of my own personal feelings about it, but let me remind you, relations are not as harmonious as they are reported to be in Cook County and Chicago between the city and the county. I am delighted to hear how well the local governments work together. Unfortunately, I know better across the Nation that there are a lot of places where that is not the case. Also remember, please, that Chicago is not getting the money because they are Chicago. They are getting the money because that is where the crime is. That is where the problem is. The county does have to lock them up and have some prosecutorial responsibility, but Chicago is getting the bulk of the money because the way we have derived the formulas, they are entitled to it. So I want everyone to know that, stay tuned on this. I will withdraw my reluctance about this amendment, because we have one more we would like to get through tonight before we conclude.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, which entity would not get the money if they did not agree? Would they not all be eligible for a certain amount of money anyway?

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, are they not going to work it out anyway? I mean, if the gentleman is not giving them any specific direction, if this is just a hortatory couple of paragraphs, no problem. If there is nothing specific driving them into an agreement, Mr. Chairman, then I feel less reluctant about it. However, Mr. Chairman, what is it we are doing? Are we inviting them to cooperate?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, to give us a little more detail about the language contained.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the more I briefly examine this amendment, the more difficulty I have with it, because it is not clear. Even though we like cities and counties to work together, I began thinking about how in the real world this is going to happen, I mean by us putting an amendment of this kind in. It seems to me that in areas where a city has a large allocation of funds coming by virtue of the fact that there is activity that requires more funding under this bill, and the county has less, forcing the city and county together is going to operate to the detriment of the city. It may be, I would say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], who herself is a former county official, better to let them work these differences out themselves, because it is not clear what we are ordering them to do in the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina won. It is here establishing or supporting drug courts in law enforcement block grants. I say to the gentleman, ``What we want to do, sir, is promote you. You have done a great job. You deserve this. And what you're doing is isolating this out, putting a lot more language around it.'' Remember, this is not a raw experiment any more. It is proven. Attorney General Reno tried it in Florida. Judges tried it in Florida. In Maryland it is working. I want to get this into Michigan. So, what we are trying to say in our own stumbling way is, ``You did great. You have done well. Please accept our promotion on this side of the aisle.''

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

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding again. Of course, the gentleman understands the difference between leaving this in a block grant where it competes against an infinite number of others; the question is whether he feels convinced of the importance of this so as to lift it out of this infinite multitude of permissible items in the block grant to give it a life of its own. It would still, I say to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], still be optional; it would still not be mandatory to anybody. But it would be rewarding a program that works. And that to me is the important comments that were made by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] that make it so important that we pass this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if I have ever seen a piece of legislation that might be a candidate for a veto, I think the block grant is it. I think replacing 100,000 policemen on the street and a prevention program that works versus a $10 billion giveaway with no guarantees that takes $2.5 billion out of prevention is the wrong way to go and is likely to run into great difficulty with the Clinton administration. The amendment that I am going to offer with my colleague from New York and many other Members supporting would effectively strike the block grant program, replace it with the bipartisan police and prevention package that we had in the last bill and won the support of Governors, mayors and, yes, law enforcement officials at the local level. So rather than cutting the authorized amount to $10 billion, it would fully authorize the two packages at $12.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, if I've ever seen a candidate for a veto, this block grant is it. It replaces 100,000 cops on the street and prevention programs that work, with a $10 billion givaway that has no guarantees to cut crime. Our amendment would effectively strike the block grant, and replace it with the bipartisan cops and prevention package, that has won support among Governors, mayors, law enforcement officers. Rather than cutting the authorized amount to $10 billion, it would fully authorize the two packages at $12.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, interestingly after all is said and done in this debate, three things remain clear: First, the Republican majority has not told us how this block grant differs from LEAA in the 1970's. What specific guarantees exist in the text of this bill to ensure against the enormous waste we experienced with LEAA? Second, not only has the Republican majority refused to tell us how this differs from the failure of LEAA, it has refused to identify any experience that is more compelling than the date of the authorized prevention programs. They have not responded to the empirical data-- such as the California study, the data on drug courts, or early childhood intervention--all of which show us the promise of these programs; Third, the Republican block grant will not guarantee a single new police officer. Our amendment here will guarantee the promise of both 100,000 new cops and smart programs that ultimately reduce tax expenditures rather than waste them. This is a choice between making every American safer by putting 20 percent more police on our streets--or putting every American's pocketbook at risk with a 100-percent federally funded giveaway of $10 billion. A choice of a prevention package written on the past 20 years of experience at the local level, or a block grant that failed 20 years ago. Let's forward in the 1990's with programs that we know will work.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strenuous opposition to the measure before us. Before I get into some other remarks, let me just respond about the new-found trust that the majority party has in local government. We trust local government as well. as a matter of fact, we not only trust them, we listen to them. And when we listen to them, we listen to the policemen that they say we do not trust, the policemen that we are listening to in the Fraternal Order of Police, who say that the crime bill that divided out the prevention program from the Cops on the Beat Program was the way to go. The international Brotherhood of Police Officers, their chiefs and police officers, saw that the 1994 crime bill created a community police program of 100,000 policemen. That was what they wanted to do. The Major Cities Chiefs representatives, we just talked to them only an hour ago, and they again are here urging that we turn down this proposal that the Republican majority has dreamed up. The National Association of Police Officials, police organizations, with Bob Colley, a 30-year police officer from Detroit, are all testifying 100 percent on behalf of the 1994 crime bill: namely a return to community police as a separate program and not put it into a block grant with prevention, so that we may not end up with the Hobson's choice of either prevention or police. The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers are strongly in support of the modification that we will shortly offer to keep 100,000 community police in a separate position. This shows we do not just trust our local government, we hear them and we trust them and listen to them and then act on that premise. So the police officers organizations--and they represent the rank- and-file policemen and police chiefs--are for the proposal which we will shortly offer to restore 100,000 policemen in a separate program. The Sheriffs Association, the National Sheriffs Association, have our support, the Police Executive, the Police Executives Research Forum, has our support. former police chief Hubert Williams, of the Police Foundation, has our support. There are eight police organizations, foundations, brotherhoods, all supporting the plan that we will shortly bring to restore the fundamental provisions in the 1994 crime bill that will create 100,000 community policemen. Funds for 17,000 new police have already been certified by the Attorney General and will shortly be on the beat, if they are not already. Now, the Republican majority has replaced a prevention and COPS Program that we know works, with a 1970-style revenue sharing program that we know that experience. It did not work. This is the pork program that we do not want to have put into law. Why are we doing this? The 1994 bill is only a few months old, it is working fine; let us continue and not create the incredible confusion that will result from having to pull it. The Republican program is $10 billion worth of pork, and it will end up, I predict, in getting very few cops, very little for prevention programs, no guarantees for crime reduction, no money for the programs that mayors and community leaders tell us are needed to reduce crime, no accountability. Mr. Chairman, this is a $10 billion taxpayer giveaway that we are being asked to support; the formlessness of the block grant program is begging to be abused. We know the program will fail, because of our experience with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Program, which did not work 35 years ago. The Members of this body should make no mistake, this block grant formula is nearly identical to the failure structure of the 1970's program. And what did it bring us? Well, at one university a $300,000 study to assess the need for a looseleaf encyclopedia on law enforcement; in one State, the purchase of aircraft used by the Governor and his family primarily for traveling. In another area, a national accounting firm was paid $27,000 for a government manual that we later found already existed. Mr. Chairman, it is a boon for consultants who, by the way, got one- third of the funds according to these surveys. We have boondoggle after boondoggle that makes us know that the police chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police Officers, the foundations, organizations, are all correct. We need to return to a separate category of community police, and that is what we propose to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.