Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Let me add in closing that this earmark would be applied against the crime control block grant. We think it is about time we do this. I also mention for the record that the chairman and ranking member of the D.C. Appropriations Committee, Senators Jeffords and Kohl, support that part of the amendment granting $20 million for the District of Columbia Police Force to be utilized by Chief Soulsby, with his consultation, with both Judiciary Committees and both Appropriations Committees.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also note for the Record that Senator Shelby, who worked very hard on the Appropriations Committee, would also like to be added as a cosponsor. I hope other Senators will also be cosponsors. I hope all Senators will vote for this so we can do good for our Nation's Capital while at the same time adding enough funds now for the drug czar's office. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the existing unanimous consent limiting amendments, that I be able to offer the D.C. Police amendment which was originally a part of my drug czar's amendment. The floor manager and several Members expressed their hope that this amendment would not be considered as part of the drug czar's amendment. I understand it has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Kessler, Michael O'Neill, Steven Schlesinger, John Gibbons, and James O'Gara, all detailees from my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk. I think they are 3480 and 3481. They are modifications. I believe they have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. HATCH. Modifications--have they been cleared? They are not cleared? Let me leave them at the desk and see if we can get them cleared.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the modifications be approved.

Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to offer an amendment to establish a fund in the U.S. Treasury to serve as a funding source for carrier compliance under the Communications for Law Enforcement Assistance Act. I understand the concern that is shared by some members of the Appropriations Committee is that creating this fund implies a subsequent obligation to provide funding for carrier compliance. I also understand that this concern is highlighted by fears on the part of some that carrier compliance may cost more than authorized amounts.

Mr. HATCH. No. What we are agreeing to in the colloquy is that in the future 1997 budget and appropriations bills we try to find the money to be able to do this law enforcement work, and my colleagues have said they will work with me.

Mr. HATCH. Because we need to have funding.

Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. HATCH. Right.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, look, all of us want more police on the streets. All of us will support that. On the other hand, we have provided about half of this money to go for the COPS Program, about half the money this administration represented were sufficient to put 100,000 cops on the street, or at least they have been misrepresenting over the last number of years--in the last year and a half, in my opinion. What we also have is about 50 percent of these funds going in a block grant to the communities so they can make their own determination as to what is best for their communities, how best to do it. We provided prohibitions in here so the community cannot just have exotic police approaches, that they have to use funds for the very best law enforcement needs, in the best interests of the community. To me, that makes sense. We help the COPS Program even more than was represented we would do. We help the communities to have a flexibility to be able to do what is best for their communities. If they do not need police personnel, they can then use the money for other law enforcement needs that are very important for the community. In the process, everybody wins. I think what we have to do one of these days, though, is face the music around here in the District of Columbia. I believe we have in some respects some very decent people in that police force, but they are not funded properly. They are not treated properly. We have crime in the streets here in the greatest city in the world. We are not doing what we should do about it. Frankly, this type of an approach just takes away from getting the job done here as well as elsewhere throughout the country. I think it is time for us to wake up and realize that block granting makes sense, that there have been some pretty sorry claims made with regard to the 100,000 cops-on-the-street program. No one opposes hiring new cops. The question is whether we here in Washington should dictate to the local communities what they should or should not do. My colleagues on the other side apparently like that system. I do not. I do not think a majority of people in Congress like that system. The underlying bill represents a compromise. Funding the COPS Program and funding for greater flexibility is that compromise. It seems to me that makes sense. I know that the majority leader is going to move to table this amendment. I hope that a majority of the Members of this body will support that motion to table because we want communities to have the flexibility to be able to do real law enforcement, not just what Washington thinks ought to be the approach for every community in this country. They will have the flexibility under this bill to be able to do policing, if they want to, or partial policing, or whatever they need for law enforcement that is in the best interest of their community. I apologize to my colleague for taking so long. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate, and it is an interesting one. But I rise in support of the compromise language addressing both the local law enforcement block grants and the COPS provision contained in this bill. This bill strikes a good balance between the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995 and the COPS Program. This combination will better support the local communities' law enforcement needs, and it provides funds, guaranteed funds that will be used to hire new police officers. That is the way the bill is written. This proposal--that is the bill, not the amendment before our body-- this bill improves the notion of the current COPS Program. To begin, this program moves us away from the Washington-knows-best philosophy. The proposal returns responsibility and capability to local law enforcement officials: The police chief, the sheriffs, the district attorneys. Further, this compromise program allows just under 50 percent, 47 percent of the funds to be distributed directly to the communities to meet their individual community policing needs and law enforcement needs. This program empowers communities to decide how to best spend these resources. For example, if a community wants to use block grant funds to hire more police to supplement community oriented policing, they may do so. They can use whatever funds come to them. However, if the resources can be used more efficiently by the community, more effectively, by purchasing equipment and doing other matters that are critical to their law enforcement needs, they may do that. I think any reasonable person would say that makes sense. Why thrust upon them a Washington-knows-best philosophy, which is what my colleagues on the other side want to do, and not give the local communities the right to do this? I will tell you why they want to thrust it upon them. Because when we passed the crime bill back in 1994, there was a moral commitment by this administration to put 100,000 police, or cops, on the street. There was $8.8 billion, as I recall, dedicated to that effort in that bill. What this administration did not tell the American people is that $8.8 billion would not put 100,000 cops on the street. They have been claiming credit for that ever since 1994, knowing the funds are not there. There was a formula, pursuant to which they would pay 75 percent, then 50 percent, then 25 percent, then 0 percent--ultimately where the communities had to assume all of the costs of those additional police. I said that they were dissembling, that they were claiming to put 100,000 cops on the street when the moneys were not there to do it. Now it just shows I was 100 percent right. Now they are talking about, ``Oh, we just meant seed money.'' Give me a break. I said back then that it is untruthful for anybody to claim that bill was going to put 100,000 cops on the street with only $8.8 billion attributed to that particular approach. And that is true today. Yet, in every crime speech since that time the President has gotten up and said we are going to put 100,000 cops on the street. Now they have about 24,000. I think Senator Kerry indicated they had maybe 33,000. That is a far cry from 100,000, assuming that their figures are right. And they have hit the brick wall where they do not have the moneys to fully fund 100,000 cops. Now they want to call it seed money. Naturally, some of these communities who want to hire policemen here or there are going to have their hands out to grab whatever money they can. But New York, by the way, which has been used here as an illustration of how crime has come down--I would just like to note that New York City did not receive one cop under the President's COPS Program, not to my knowledge. If they have, I sure do not know about it. Nor did Washington, DC. Everybody knows that I have raised a couple of points about Washington, DC. It is drug capital USA. It is murder capital USA. You cannot walk down the streets and be safe, kids are shot in schools, you are shot in drive-by shootings. Of course that is true in a number of our communities throughout this country. But Washington did not ask for any hiring money. I will tell you why, they did not have the money needed to make the match requirement. They can come back on the other side and say let us give them the money. That is what they said they did back in 1994. The fact was the moneys were not there, except for about 20,000 cops. And the 33,000 that they claim they have are only partially funded under the COPS Program. They are not fully funded. So neither New York City nor Washington, DC, to my knowledge, have participated in this COPS hiring program. They could not afford to put these people on with this seed money that it has suddenly become, rather than the full money that was being promised to them. I said back then it would cost $8 billion a year for each succeeding year to have 100,000 cops on the street, under that formula that was in that bill. And that is true today. The fact is, it has been dissembling to indicate to the American people that they are putting 100,000 cops on the street. Now they are here, trying to, I think, ruin a block grant approach that really would be effective for our local communities, under the guise that they are going to put 100,000 cops on the street. Now it is seed money. I have nothing against putting more police officers out there. I simply believe that the cities should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have cops or whether they want to upgrade technology for crimefighting purposes. For instance, the District of Columbia, which I have been fighting for in trying to make it safe again, does not even have computers that work. They have dial phones, rotary dial phones. In some areas, they do not have police cars, they do not even have the weapons sometimes, in the greatest city in the world. We all ought to be ashamed of that. Let me just say, if the community wants to hire these police with the block grants, give them the right to do so. We can supplement community-oriented policing awards. However, if they find the resources can be more effectively used, they have the flexibility to do it, which seems to me to be quite important. Why do we need flexibility? Take the metropolitan police department in Washington, DC. They have more police officers per capita than any other city in this country--more than any other city. The last thing that the metropolitan police department wants is more police. What they need, in this case, happens to be cars, equipment, bullets, if you will, and they cannot afford them, because we are not block granting the funds to them to be able to do that. The metropolitan police department in Washington, DC, is cannibalizing police cruisers to keep going, and we are talking about playing this phony game of 100,000 cops on the street, which I have called a phony game since 1994. I am the first to say, in some areas, yes, we need more police on the street, but, by gosh, they can do it if they want to. If that is what their needs are, the block grant will enable them to do that. If they do not need that, then they can do these other things like cars, equipment, bullets, if you will. Officers in this town are buying their own bullets. They do not like doing that, but to protect themselves they are doing that. Now that is pathetic. It is time to bring flexibility to our law enforcement assistance programs, and that is what this bill does. When we get the flexibility into the bill, what do we face? People coming to the floor and making arguments for 100,000 cops, who promised us that the moneys were there before, or at least implied that the moneys were there, when I said they were not and they have not been and they will not be, because it is just too much money. I personally resented every speech by some of our national leaders who get up and say, ``We are going to put 100,000 cops on the street,'' knowing that the moneys have not been there, knowing that that formula has not worked and knowing that it is a misrepresentation. I think it is time for Washington to help first and then get the heck out of the way. That is what is wrong around here. We are dictating where these funds should go rather than helping and getting out of the way and letting those law enforcement people who really know what is best for their communities do what needs to be done. This proposal does that, it gives them that flexibility. This block grant proposal helps poorer communities by allowing the hiring of police with less of a financial strain on the community. This is accomplished by containing a lower matching requirement than the COPS Program. During the last floor debate on the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations, my friend and colleague, Senator Biden, stated that nothing in the bill requires that even $1 be used to hire a single new police officer. This compromise satisfies his concern, even though we set aside a considerable amount of money to hire police officers but we block grant the rest in a way that makes sense. This compromise satisfies his concern by funding the COPS Program at the level the President endorsed in the continuing resolution. For those of you who are concerned about the 100,000 additional police on the street, this plan--that is, the one in the bill, not the one that has been offered by my colleague--this plan places your concerns at rest. Although the President's plan does not fully fund 100,000 cops, assuming that the law enforcement block grant earmark for the COPS Program remains at the current 51 percent, more than $3.8 billion will be available for cops awards over the life of the program, assuming money is there under the block grant approach. Using the President's math, the fiscal year 1996 average grant award amount is $45,856. The available funds will provide seed money for more police under the COPS earmark. In other words, according to the President's math, it only costs about $45,856 to put a police officer on the street. We know it cost more than that. To also make it clear, this bill provides especially a paragraph on prohibitive uses. It says: Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, a unit of local government may not expend any of the funds provided under this title to purchase, lease, rent or otherwise acquire (1) armored tanks (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. There are protections in this bill. It costs about $75,000--I have been corrected--to fund a police officer on the street, about $75,000 to fully fund one. This so-called seed money will not fully fund 100,000 police on the street. There is no way that it can. So we have gone from fully funding to seed money now under the guise that we are going to give the people 100,000 police on the street when, in fact, that just simply is not true. Add this to what was awarded in the prior years, if you spend that $3.8 billion over the remaining program life, and with seed money, I suppose you could get to 100,000 cops with a tremendous drain on the local community. But they are going to hire these police anyway. Naturally, they are going to have their hands out if there is a free gift of money from the Federal Government, and that means people they hired anyway are going to get help while other communities who need money for cars, for equipment, for bullets, if you will, or police uniforms cannot get it and cannot do the policing job that they should do. This is even before the flexible portion of the block grant money is expended. We have taken appropriate measures to address concerns about guaranteeing police on the street and also in poorer communities to best determine how best to fight local crime. Why do we always have to go to the Washington knows best mentality? Why do we always have these arguments out here about, ``By gosh, we're going to earmark and tell them what to do with these funds?'' What is wrong with block granting the funds, as long as we have prohibited uses, which we have expressly written in this bill? What is wrong with block granting the money to them and letting those local communities make their determinations of what is best for them, rather than us telling them what they need? Some communities do need more police. This block grant will help them. They will be able to make that flexible determination. Others do not, and they will not be forced to because of an inflexible approach that I think my colleagues on the other side are asking for. One reason the local law enforcement block grant of 1995 is superior to a cops-exclusive program is flexibility. We provided for flexibility in this bill by allowing local communities to expend funds for all of the following law enforcement purposes: First, for hiring, training, and employing additional law enforcement personnel. So they can do it if they want to. If that is what they need to do, they will have some funds out of this block grant to do it with. Second, paying overtime to presently employed law enforcement officers. Third, procuring equipment and technology directly related to basic law enforcement functions. Fourth, enhancing security measures in and around schools. Fifth, law enforcement crime prevention programs. Sixth, establishing or supporting drug courts. Seventh, enhancing the adjudication process. And, eighth, establishing multijurisdictional task forces, particularly in rural areas. Local law enforcement officials can decide how best to decide to spend the money under the program. More police does not always mean better policing. Oftentimes, necessary procurement is the best option for the community, by far the best law enforcement option in some communities. This program moves us away from the Washington knows best philosophy. We do not let Washington dictate local crimefighting strategies. Washington simply does not know best. Washington does not know best how to solve local problems, especially a problem like crime. The COPS Program dictates to a community how much of their scarce funds they must allocate to combat crime. The COPS More Program promises to supply overtime and supplies to the police departments. However, in practice, only big cities with large police forces can be eligible. This is because COPS More grants require a showing of moving a cop to the street to receive these funds. Smaller communities who are already maximizing their street coverage have difficulty showing more officers can move to the street. Small town forces do not have the extra manpower to put another officer on the street, and rural communities need cars to travel through their districts. The COPS Program determines the number of officers given to communities by the number already on the force. It disregards the crime program. Small crime-riddled communities should be able to receive help, not be penalized because they are small. The COPS Program does not take into account crime when giving out grants. The grants are given to any locality that can afford the matching fund whether the officer is needed or not. The COPS Program does not base the number of officers awarded on crime but rather on the number currently on the force. Cities who applied for four officers because they had one of the highest crime rates in the Nation will be given 1 or 2 officers because the current force has 50 officers. Look, we are not playing games here. We are trying to solve this problem. The block grant gives the local communities the flexibility to solve it in their best interests and their best ways without Washington telling them what to do. What is going on here is the department is paying 75 percent of the salary the first year, 50 percent the second year, 25 percent the third year, and then the local agency has to carry the full load. Based upon a salary of $65,000 to $70,000 a year, for every $75,000 in Federal COPS grants awarded, the community will need to spend $225,000 over the 5-year life of the program to keep a cop on the street. That is one single cop. I want to submit for the Record a statement by the city manager of Sunnyvale, CA, who turned down a COPS grant because they could not afford it. I ask unanimous consent that that statement be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend. Amendment No. 3483

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. We have a couple of amendments. Amendment Nos. 3480 and 3481, As Modified

Mr. HATCH. I am glad to hear that because I thought there was some sort of accusation that Senator Dole had reneged on law enforcement needs. I want to make it clear that not only did he not do that, he has been one of the strongest pro-law enforcement people in his long time in the U.S. Senate, and rightly so, as is his colleague, the Senator from Utah. We both have fought very, very hard. I agree that my colleague, Senator Biden, on the other side, has been a tremendous leader in the war against crime. I have a lot of respect for him. I grieve when we disagree on some of these things. Senator Dole, in particular, opposed the 1994 crime bill because it was not a tough enough law enforcement bill. I was there, too, and I opposed it for that reason as well, although there was much we agreed with in that bill, and we were glad certain parts of it were passed. I commend Senator Biden for his efforts on that bill because there is much in that bill that is good, not the least of which is the Biden-Hatch violence-against-women provisions. Senator Dole believes in real law enforcement, not shallow promises. What I am saying here is, look, it makes sense to give about half of this money to the communities as seed money to try to help them get police personnel. It does not make sense to say that this is the President's commitment of 100,000 cops, because he made that commitment on the last bill that had $8.8 billion in it, and everybody knew that would not provide for 100,000 police on the streets. Now they are coming and saying with seed money they can get their 100,000 cops. I have said they could not get the 100,000 cops on the basis of what they had done up through the 1994 crime bill. That crime bill did not do that. It talked about it, but it did not, will not, cannot, do it. The President has been going up and down the country talking about his 100,000 cops on the streets bill. The fact is that just simply is not true. I think it is time for the American people to understand that. Republicans, recognizing that it is important to have police on the street and to have flexibility so you can do what needs to be done in the communities, have said, in spite of the fact that the President has, in some respects, demagoged this issue all over the country, knowing the funds are not there, acting like they are and helping the American people to believe they are there when they are not. We have decided to put half of the moneys into the cops on the street program regardless, because we believe in that, too, to the degree that we should do it. That is the degree. But we also put about half of the money into a block grant so those communities have the flexibility to do whatever is in the best needs of their community. That makes sense. I do not understand the argument against it--to just dictate from Washington that you have cops on the streets whether you want them or not, and if you do not want them or cannot use them, you do not get anything out of this bill. I would rather have these police people throughout the country get good things out of this bill that will help them to meet their law enforcement needs in their area than have us wonderful people in the U.S. Senate tell them what they have to have. Sure, some of these communities will have their hands out for anything, and I cannot blame them. Any time you can find money that is just a gift, why not take it? What we want to do is have these moneys go for the purposes they should go for, the best possible, flexible response to crime in this country. This bill does that. I think anybody who says otherwise just does not understand what is in the bill. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think it is a great idea to have cops on the street. Our bill will do that. I think it is an equally great idea to make sure that we block grant some of the funds so the police departments can use them for whatever they need to use them for. Using the New York illustration, there was not one additional policeman put on the streets by the moneys sent to New York. They used the moneys to deploy police people who were already there or to replace police people who they were already capable of paying for. The fact is, there is nothing in this approach of the 100,000 cops on the street that means they have to be additional police people in addition to those that were on the current police forces and were capable of being paid for by the local communities. Be that as it may, I agree with the noble goal of having more police on the streets. I think every Republican does. The problem is, why can our friends on the other side not see the value of allowing some flexibility so that the people who really have to solve these problems in the local communities have some flexibility to do so? The real question is whether we provide funds for cops and cops alone, or whether we permit the funds to be used to meet the needs of the local communities and the local law enforcement agencies. It seems to me that makes sense. It makes every bit of sense that anybody, it seems to me, who thinks seriously about it would agree. If we are going to provide Federal money to local law enforcement agencies, then we should permit those agencies to use the funds as they see fit. We have adequate protections in the bill so they cannot use it for certain exotic reasons that some have criticized in the past. Now, some of those who have criticized LEAA today are the people who supported it the strongest. These are the kind of things that bother me, just a little bit. Unfortunately, this becomes a political exercise rather than what is best for the local communities. It becomes an exercise of Washington telling the local communities what they should and should not do. We know more, I guess, inside the beltway than the people out there who have to face the problems in their respective communities. We all know that is bunk. As a matter of fact, I think it is the most surreal and unreal place on Earth sometimes right here within the beltway. These folks who face those criminal problems day in and day out in the local communities know a lot more what they should use their funds for. We should not be dictating it. We provide half the moneys for cops on the street; we provide about half the money for block grants so they can use them to solve their own individual law enforcement needs, which makes sense. Why should we dictate that every dime has to go for the COPS Program? I agree with the COPS Program to the extent that we have granted it here in this bill, but we also have provided flexibility in this bill that makes a lot of sense, it seems to me. Again, the real question is whether we provide funds for COPS and COPS alone or whether we give the local communities some ability to do the things they think need to be done. The question is whether we fund the COPS Program only and tell the communities like Washington, DC, ``Sorry, we have no money for you,'' or to permit communities to use money for other purposes.