Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman does not recognize an Abe Lincoln outfit when he sees one. I just want to suggest to the gentleman that product liability crosses State lines and is an entirely different breed of animal than what we are talking about.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend. I am going to try to turn it on. I am willing to accept the thoughts and the pronouncements of the gentleman's leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. I am willing to accept what he says, every jot and tittle. I quote from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] on January 27, at the Capital Hilton, to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, no little group. Here is the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]: If we are going to block grant money for prevention and for police, I want that money to go to you, the cities in this country, not somewhere else. You are the ones on the front lines. You are the people that have got to show results. And I think you are well equipped to try to figure out what to do with the money. I rest my case.

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

Mr. HYDE. But you pick and choose, I say to you, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. HYDE. I would accept that as gospel if you would accept the other things he says as gospel.

Mr. HYDE. How many percentage-wise? How many would you say can be trusted?

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman is saying that, though. Will the gentleman concede he is saying that we cannot trust the local politicians?

Mr. HYDE. The Governors have. I would make one other point: It is not just we Democrats who say we should not be trusting the local politicians.

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman anticipates interruption; is that it?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, but do not misstate.

Mr. HYDE. Not the local police chief.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is overly generous in getting more time for me, and I continue to yield to him.

Mr. HYDE. This gentleman knows they are rushing out the police now before we vote on this, but that is not going to last long.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, but we are not promising them 100,000 policemen, which are not in the cards by anybody's computer. The gentleman knows that. Will you concede that?

Mr. HYDE. I did not say the block grant program expires. These are the gentleman's words.

Mr. HYDE. Of course, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. Well, the city council in Cincinnati thinks just the opposite. There are plenty of municipalities that understand that this is illusory, that in the first year, 25 percent of the cost is going to have to be assumed by the local units of government; by the second year 50 percent; by the third year 75 percent; and by the fourth year it is gone.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Crime Subcommittee. I will not take much time to explain the details. I would rather he would. But I just want to say I as quoted as saying this is the most controversial bill. I want to make it clear that it ought not to be the most controversial bill, but it was treated as such in the Committee on the Judiciary by the furor of the resistance of the minority party in transferring any authority away from Washington, where apparently all wisdom resides, out to local communities. This bill illustrates the philosophical difference between the two parties. Everybody wants to stop crime. Everybody is interested in doing something about the crime problem. But there we diverge. The Democratic Party thinks and acts and believes that Washington, DC, the Federal Government, must dictate down to the most minute detail how these funds are going to be spent, because Daddy knows best. That is a philosophical commitment they have had on welfare and almost every issue--that wisdom trickles down, if you will, one of their favorite phrases, when we talk about economics--from Washington to the local communities. On the other hand, it is our belief, the Republican belief, that local governments know best, that government is best which is closest to the people, which understands the problems that are indeed local. Somebody said once, a famous person, a famous Speaker of this House, ``All politics are local.'' Well, a lot of crimefighting is local. People in Boise, ID, have different problems and different needs than people in New York City or Bangor, ME, or Pensacola, FL. We have a very diverse country. We have diverse communities, and each has different needs. I was--I do not want to say shocked--but I was saddened to hear local government maligned on this floor earlier today, and even by the President, who assumes from the beginning that this is going to be pork, that local government officials are not concerned about local circumstances and fighting crime and adding to public safety. It is our belief that local government officials are honorable people, they have been elected by their constituents, who live very close to them. They want to fight crime, and they can do it more effectively because they have superior knowledge. They are on the scene. Now, it may well be that certain communities need after-school sports programs, tutoring programs, neighborhood watch programs; to put more police in the schools, put metal detectors in the schools, put better weapons in the hands of their police, put more prosecutors in the courtrooms, build boot camps for first-time offenders, build drug courts, put more communities at ease by having community policing. There is an infinite variety of remedies that can be applied to this exacerbating problem, but let us trust the local people to do it. So, to assume in the beginning that they cannot handle it, that they are going to waste it profligately, on pork, is an insult, really. It demeans public officials in the myriad, thousands of cities and towns around this country. We believe that the best government is closest to the people and most responsive to their needs. That ought not to be too tough to understand, but it is indeed a defining issue, one more defining issue between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We trust local government, and I can assure you there are safeguards in this bill, advisory councils which involve the people. That is a great phrase, ``We the People.'' I suggest that these advisory councils that will be looking at this money and looking at how it is spent will be composed of people in the community, law enforcement, education, municipal officials. And, they will see that the money, which, after all, are tax dollars and collected from the same long-suffering taxpayer; whether the money goes to the State or to the Federal Government, it is the same money, is wisely spent. And so to assume in the beginning it is going to be wasted or spent for pork does a great disservice to local governments across this country. I guess not only do we think Washington does not always know best, but we have more faith and trust in local government officials than does the minority party. This is an important bill, a significant bill. It is going to help fight crime. It is going to give the flexibility to local government to meet their situations. The mayor of New York, I was present in a room when he said, ``I don't want any more policemen, I need technical help.'' That may be true in many areas. So let us let them decide, let them spend the money. We will be watching, the community groups will be watching, the advisory councils. If they misstep, it will not go ignored or unacknowledged, and it will be corrected. So I am proud of this bill, I am proud of the work that the gentleman from Florida, Bill McCollum, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, and everybody on our committee has done, and I hope it gets the support of a majority of this House.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. This is an important amendment, it is not really that controversial, and I hope we will all support it.

Mr. HYDE. The State attorney general makes that determination of this anomalous situation.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very much in support of this essential amendment. There is an anomaly where you have a high crime rate city that is within the confines of a county and a shared responsibility for the administration of justice. Cook County is a perfect example, where the city of Chicago under the formula in the bill gets some $30 million, as I understand it, and that is because the crime rate in Chicago is high. However, the housing of the prisoners, the prosecution of the prisoners and all that administration costs belongs to Cook County. So Cook County gets $200,000 and the city of Chicago gets $30 million. Now, justice is served if both Cook County, and I might add the administration of Cook County and the administration of Chicago are very friendly, if both the county and the city apply together and the State attorney general determines that this anomaly exists so there is that protection, then the money is more evenly distributed and appropriately distributed as agreed to between the parties. So this recognizes an anomaly. It is an effort to establish some equity and balance. This situation in Chicago and Cook County obtains in many other places around the country. Frankly, it just makes a more equitable, fair distribution of these essential funds.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his valuable contribution.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] and myself. We both came up with almost the same idea and that was to provide funds to the Attorney General to oversee the compliance with this act by local units of government. And the idea of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] was to make sure that the programs they were overseeing were effective. So we put them both together in one amendment, and this provides that funds will be available to the Attorney General for studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the provisions of this title and assuring compliance with the provisions of this title and for administrative costs to carry out the purposes of this title. The Attorney General shall establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring the activities of grant recipients. Now, not more than 3 percent of the amounts that are appropriated is to go to this fund, but it can be as much as $60 million a year. That $60 million would be given to the Attorney General, as I have said, to assure compliance and the welcome addition of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], effectiveness with the act and to carry out the purposes of the act. The Attorney General must establish and execute an oversight plan, and I would say not because we do not trust local government but to ensure the success of the bill's intent. I think this adds to the oversight requirement of this $10 billion. I think it is a very useful amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] who is the cosponsor of this good amendment.

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