```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6675-S6676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       MORE POLICE ON THE STREETS

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to continue my 
discussion of the crime bill that I intend to introduce this Wednesday.
  As I previously pointed out, there are really two basic questions 
that we need to address in the area of crime whenever we try to 
determine whether a crime bill is good or whether it is not good, 
whether it does the job or whether it does not do the job.
  The first question is: What is the proper role of the Federal 
Government in fighting crime in this country? The second is: What 
really works in law enforcement? What matters? What does not matter?
  Last Wednesday, I discussed these issues with specific reference to 
crimefighting technology. The conclusion I reached was that we have an 
outstanding technology base in this country that does a great deal and 
will continue to do a great deal to help us catch criminals.
  Technology, Mr. President, does in fact matter. But we need the 
Federal Government to be more proactive, more proactive in getting the 
States on line with this technology. Having a terrific national 
criminal record system or a huge DNA database or an automated 
fingerprint system or huge DNA database for convicted sex offenders in 
Washington, DC, is great; it is nice. But it will not do much good if 
the police officer in Hamilton, OH, or Middletown, OH, or Cleveland, 
OH, cannot tap into it, cannot put the information in, and cannot get 
the information back out.
  My legislation would bring these local police departments on line. It 
would help them to contribute to and benefit from the emerging 
nationwide crimefighting database.
  On this past Thursday, I discussed what we have to do to get armed 
career criminals off the streets, those who terrorize us, terrorize 
their fellow citizens with a gun. I talked about a program called 
Project Triggerlock that targeted gun criminals for Federal 
prosecution. My legislation would bring back Project Triggerlock and 
toughen the laws on gun crimes in many other significant ways. We have 
to get these armed criminals off the streets.
  On Friday, I talked about the long neglected needs of crime victims. 
In too many ways, our legal system treats criminals like victims and 
victims like criminals. We have to stop that. My legislation contains a 
number of provisions that would make the system much more receptive to 
the rights and the needs of crime victims.
  Today, I would like to turn to another item. I would like to talk 
about [[Page S6676]] what we can do to put more police officers on the 
street, and to put more police officers into our highest crime areas. 
Make no mistake, the evidence is clear, putting a police officer on a 
street corner in a dangerous neighborhood will reduce crime. We are 
looking for what really works, and putting police officers on the 
streets is a proven strategy that works. It is a plain fact, if you put 
a police officer on the street, crime will go down.
  The President is right in this respect, and he is to be commended for 
understanding that there is, in fact, a direct or actually inverse 
relationship between the number of law enforcement officers who are 
deployed correctly in the neighborhood and the amount of crime that 
exists in that neighborhood.
  That is why the President last year asked for $8.8 billion in Federal 
funding for police officers. We do need more police; he is correct. 
Police officers deployed correctly matter. They do make a difference.
  But, Mr. President, I believe that we can improve on President 
Clinton's plan, and there are three major shortcomings I believe that 
exist in the President's plan that we ought to address in the Senate. 
Let me list them:
  First, the administration's plan spreads the $8.8 billion far too 
thin. It does not target the funding for police officers to the most 
crime-ridden areas where the funding is most needed. Instead, it spends 
money on extra police officers even--even--in extremely low-crime 
areas. That just does not make sense.
  Second, the administration is not paying for the full cost of the 
extra police officers. The Clinton proposal pays for only 75 percent of 
the police officers and asks local communities to come up with the 
remaining 25 percent.
  Third, the Clinton plan provides the money for only--only, Mr. 
President--3 years.
  I think that these problems I have just listed with the Clinton 
administration proposal can be fixed fairly easily. As part of the 
comprehensive crime legislation I intend to introduce on Wednesday, I 
will be including my proposals on how we should fix these problems, and 
here is what I propose:
  First, I propose to pay for the police officers and to pay for them 
in full, 100 percent. Under my proposal, we will send $5 billion over a 
period of time to the local communities for new police officers. Those 
police officers will be fully funded 100 percent, not just 75 percent, 
as envisioned in the Clinton plan.
  Second, we will fund these police officers for 5 years; 5 years, not 
3 years, as envisioned by the Clinton proposal.
  Third, and probably most significant, my proposal will target these 
funds where they are needed the most. Under the Clinton plan, really 
crime-threatened communities are deprived of the full contingent of 
police officers they really need. For example, under the administration 
proposal, a high-crime community, such as Chicago, has received 300 
police officers so far, and those 300 are not even fully funded. They 
are funded at 75 percent. My legislation would put 2,100 new police 
officers on the streets of Chicago and would pay for them in full.
  I can cite example after example. Let me just give one from my home 
State. Youngstown, OH, is another city with a very serious crime 
problem. Under the Clinton plan, it has received a total of 10 new 
police officers. I think, however, to make a real difference in a crime 
area, we need to do better than that. Under the formula that is 
contained in the bill that I will introduce on Wednesday, there would 
be a total of 58 new police officers on the streets of Youngstown. We 
would go from 10 under the Clinton plan to 58 under my plan, and the 
way we are able to do that is because we are targeting the money to go 
to the areas where the crime is the worst. It only makes sense that 
when we are dealing with scarce Federal dollars, those Federal dollars 
should be targeted specifically to the areas where our citizens are 
most in danger.
  My proposal would put the dollars for police officers where police 
officers are needed the most. We are targeting the 250 most crime-
infested cities in America. We will succeed in getting those police 
officers on the street. In a community brutalized by rampant crime, the 
police officer is truly an ambassador of law and order. The police 
officer is a living, breathing confirmation of America's resolve to 
defend civilization from those who want to turn our country into a 
wasteland of stealing, raping, and killing.
  The police officer is a soldier of justice, and like any other 
soldier, the police officer, to be most effective, needs to be sent 
where the enemy is. The enemy is anyone who does a drive-by shooting or 
rapes someone or commits any other kind of brutal act.
  Mr. President, anyone who watches TV or reads the papers knows where 
the enemy really is. My bill would make sure that the police officers 
are deployed where they are needed the most. My bill would pay for them 
in full.
  This is what it will take. This is what it will take if we are 
serious about taking back our streets.
  The American people are, quite frankly, losing patience with violent 
crime. They are losing patience with the syndrome that my distinguished 
colleague, the senior Senator from New York, calls defining deviancy 
down.
  There is a consensus out here, Mr. President, that we will not allow 
our country to become a place where violent crime is considered normal. 
I think that putting these police officers on the street--and paying 
for them in full--will be a major symbol of our national resolve.
  My legislation, Mr. President, would spend $5 billion on these police 
officers, target them where they are needed the most, and pay for these 
police officers in full.
  The Clinton administration plan included $8.8 billion as partial 
payment for police officers, with their deployment of police officers 
being spread throughout the country and spread among many, many areas 
where crime is not that serious.
  Tomorrow, Mr. President, I will discuss what we can do with this 
extra $3.8 billion, and specifically how we can use block grants to 
give local communities the flexibility they need to use that $3.8 
billion as effectively as possible. And then on Wednesday of this week, 
Mr. President, I will be introducing my comprehensive crime bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  

                          ____________________
```