CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
May 23, 1968
Page 14753
GRANTS TO BOTH STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly endorse the provisions of title I of S. 917 that make Federal financial assistance available to both States and local governments, and I urge the members of the Senate to reject the so-called block grant amendment, amendment No. 715.
I believe that title I in its present form is well designed to guarantee the maximum appropriate role for States and local governments in the war against crime. Under the provisions of title I, planning grants and action grants will be available not only to the States, but also to the relatively larger local governments – those having a population of at least 25,000 persons or more. By contrast, under the block grant amendment, all Federal grants would be made solely to the States, under a strict allocation formula, and the States alone would be responsible for distributing the funds to local governments.
Thus, the block grant amendment would impose a rigid requirement of State-dominated planning as the sole means of participation by local governments in the new Federal program. If enacted into law, the amendment will seriously impair our ability to cope with crime at the level where its impact is most obvious and the need for immediate financial assistance to law enforcement is most acute – the level of local government, especially our major metropolitan areas. Yet, it is in precisely these metropolitan areas that the delays and frustrations inherent in the block grant proposal would be mostly strongly felt.
Let me note at the outset that President Johnson is strongly in favor of the present version of title I. In his letter to the majority leader of May 8, 1968, the President declared his strong belief that direct Federal assistance must be made available to both local communities and State Governments. As the President has repeatedly emphasized, crime is a local problem and the machinery of local law enforcement across the Nation must be strengthened before it can carry out its mission effectively.
I would like to comment specifically upon six main weaknesses in the bloc grant amendment.
I. TITLE I DOES NOT BYPASS THE STATES
The present version of title I, we are told, would by-pass the States.
In no sense can it be said that S. 917 by-passes the States. Nothing in the bill prevents direct and immediate Federal financial assistance to the entire range of State-level activities in law enforcement – police, courts, corrections, and crime prevention. Nothing in the bill prevents expansion by State-level agencies into new aspects of law enforcement. Nothing in the bill prevents close and continuing cooperation, coordination, and assistance between State and local governments for the mutual improvements of their law-enforcement systems, either through the formation of a State planning agency or through any other means of joint effort that may be available to State and local governments.
The bloc grant slogan is bottomed on the startling assertion that unless the new Federal program turns over all funds to State governments, with no strings attached, the program will by-pass the States. Nothing could be further from the truth. Title I of S. 917 launches a major new program of Federal financial assistance to improve and strengthen all aspects of our system of law enforcement and criminal justice – Federal, State, and local. Title I is carefully designed to emphasize the essential role that governments at both the State and local level must play if the new program is to succeed in its goal. The only appropriate grant structure for such a new and experimental program is one that retains maximum flexibility for progress on all fronts in the war against crime. In every State, it is for the State and local governments themselves to determine the approach that is most appropriate to attack the problem of crime. Law enforcement methods vary too widely from State to State and from locality to locality to flourish in the straitjacket that will inevitably be imposed by the bloc grant amendment.
II. TITLE I GUARANTEES AN ACTIVE ROLE FOR THE STATES
The second major point I wish to make is that, in fact, the basic provisions of title I guarantee a primary and essential role for the States in the new law-enforcement assistance program. Let me briefly describe the numerous ways that title I both encourages and insures the strong and active participation of the States:
First. The States themselves are clearly eligible for major planning grants and action grants under parts B and C of title I.. States that apply to the administration for a grant on behalf of all local governments in the State will obviously be entitled to high priority in the distribution of funds.
Second. Local jurisdictions with a population of less than 25,000 persons which do not or cannot combine with similar jurisdictions will be eligible for Federal assistance only through grants made to the State in which the jurisdiction is located. In effect, therefore, title I adopts the bloc grant approach with respect to these smaller jurisdictions, and encourages them to cooperate with the State in improving and strengthening their law enforcement systems.
The full impact of this point can be appreciated only when it is realized that in the large majority of the States of our Nation, there are very few cities with a population of more than 25,000 persons. In each of these States, therefore, the States themselves must necessarily play the central role in improving law enforcement, even under the present version of title I.
It is true that, in the United States as a whole, there are more than 40,000 units of general local government. But only an extremely small percentage of these local governments – slightly more than 5 percent – are large enough to meet the 25,000 population cutoff. Therefore, even under the present version of title I, the States themselves will have the sole responsibility for improving law enforcement in over 95 percent of the local governments of the Nation.
Third. Title I provides an express opportunity for the State Governor or the appropriate State law-enforcement agency to review and comment upon any application for a planning grant or an action grant made by a unit of local government in the State. I am referring specifically here to section 521 of the bill. No grant can be made by the administration to a local government until the comments and criticisms of the State have been received and considered. The comments of the State must deal expressly with the relation of the local government's application and law-enforcement plan to the State plan and State programs, as well as to other local plans and programs in the States. Heavy weight will be given to State evaluations of local grant applications. Obviously, no local application will be funded that flies in the face of the State plan or other relevant local plans. Nor will a local application be funded in cases where the local government has made no substantial effort to coordinate its plan with the State.
A striking example of the potential role of both States and local governments in improving law enforcement is through the development of law enforcement planning committees. In March 1966, the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance in the Department of Justice announced a special grant program under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 to encourage the establishment and development of State-level planning committees in law enforcement and criminal justice. The grant program was initiated in conjunction with studies then under way by the National Crime Commission, which had documented the virtual nonexistence of coordinated and integrated law-enforcement planning at the State level.
The proponents of the block grant amendment have laid a great deal of emphasis on the formation of State planning committees funded by LEA under its special grant program. The initial response of the States to the LEA program was apathetic. In the first 4 months of the program, only two States had received grants to set up their State-level planning committees. By the end of the first 16 months of the LEA program, only 14 additional States had received grants to establish their State committees. As of the present time, more than 2 years after the program began, LEA has funded State planning committees in only 27 States, or slightly more than half of the States. Two other State applications are now pending, and I am informed that five other States have established State planning committees without assistance from LEA.
The experience of LEA under the State planning committee program is still unsatisfactory, however. Even at the present time – more than 2 years after the special grant program began – most State governments, even those with established and functioning planning committees, have developed neither the experience nor the administrative machinery to deal adequately with comprehensive planning for local law enforcement. Indeed, many of these committees still exist largely on paper. Some of the committees originally funded have even gone out of existence. The average times lag between the funding of a committee under an LEA grant and the actual beginning of operations by the committee has been 4 to 6 months. Yet amendment 715, the bloc grant amendment, would require State planning committees to complete their law-enforcement plan within 6 months after they have been funded. As I shall discuss later in more detail, this requirement of the block grant amendment is highly unrealistic.
Specific examples of the difficulties that have faced State planning committees under the LEA program are sobering indeed:
In one State, the State attorney general challenged the Governor's authority to accept planning funds and vowed to carry the battle to the courts.
In another State, the executive director resigned in the face of political pressure to use the committee as a traveling investigative unit in the State.
In some States, the operation of the committee has been delayed, sometimes by as much as a year, by its inability to obtain a full-time director.
In several States, the operations of the committee have been disrupted by partisan conflicts within the committee, or by a change in State administrations. In one State, five members were appointed by the Governor, and five each by the two party leaders in the legislature. The committee went out of existence after 1 year and has just now been replaced.
The formation of State planning committees is clearly a promising development, and one that must be rapidly encouraged under title I of S. 917. At the same time, however, the LEA experience demonstrates the need to retain at least a modicum of flexibility in the grant program to enable grants to be made to local governments as well. We simply cannot place all of our eggs in the State basket.
Equally important, however – and this is a point altogether ignored by the proponents of the block grant amendment – local governments themselves have accumulated extensive experience in recent years with law-enforcement planning committees and crime commissions, especially in the major metropolitan centers.
Strong impetus toward the formation and development of local, metropolitan, and regional planning agencies has come from the large number of Federal grant programs that encourage or require planning on an area-wide basis. For example, section 204 of the Model Cities Act requires that after June 30, 1967, all applications for Federal loans or grants to carry out open-space land projects or to plan or construct certain types of facilities within any metropolitan area must be submitted for review and comment to a designated metropolitan or regional planning agency. The types of facilities named in the act are: hospitals, airports, libraries, water supply and distribution facilities, sewage facilities and waste distribution works, highways, transportation facilities, and water development and land conservation projects. The review and comment provisions of the model cities program are closely analogous to the similar provisions of title I of S. 917, which require State-level review before Federal funds may be made available to local governments under the law-enforcement assistance program.
Under the terms of the Model Cities Act, the reviewing agency must be "to the greatest practicable extent, composed of or responsible to the elected officials" of the units of local government in the geographic area. The general response of local governments to the review and comment provisions of the Model Cities Act has been good. Several reviewing agencies are actually using the review function as a means of helping their constituent local governments to obtain Federal funds.
As of the end of the recent fiscal year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of the Budget had designated appropriate reviewing agencies for the purposes of the Model Cities Act in approximately three-quarters – 170 of the 237 – “standard metropolitan statistical areas" in the United States. Of the SMSA's with a designated planning agency, approximately two-thirds are single-county areas with a countywide planning agency – either a county planning agency or a city-county planning agency. In many cases, these local planning agencies are already in active operation and are capable of taking on the responsibility of planning for law enforcement and criminal justice in their areas, once the new Federal program under title I comes into operation.
The experience with State and local planning agencies amply demonstrates that nothing will more inhibit the success of the new program than a procrustean determination that only the States are capable of planning to improve law enforcement. The only true solution is to nurture the full potential of both State and local governments.
III. TITLE I ENCOURAGES COOPERATION AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The third major point I would like to make is that title I in its present version actively encourages cooperation and coordination among local law-enforcement agencies. It is specifically designed to discourage the excessive fragmentation and decentralization that characterize so many aspects of our existing law-enforcement system. The 25,000 population cutoff avoids any possibility that the bill will stimulate further decentralization of law enforcement. The cutoff is not intended, however, to be an absolute bar to direct participation in the new grant program by smaller jurisdictions. The bill encourages a city, town, or county that does not by itself have the requisite population to formulate a joint plan or implement an action program with one or more nearby jurisdictions. By specifically authorizing the Administration to make planning grants and action grants to combinations of local jurisdictions, title I encourages coordination in the very areas where the Crime Commission found it most needed and where law enforcement is most disjointed – the small counties and municipalities of the Nation.
In addition, title I specifically directs the Administration to encourage plans which encompass entire metropolitan areas, which coordinate all law-enforcement and criminal justice agencies in the areas, and which take into account all other relevant law-enforcement plans and systems. In this manner, title I promotes the adoption and implementation of law-enforcement plans that cut across artificial geographic and political boundaries and adopt a unified approach to all aspects of the law-enforcement system.
IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The fourth major point I would like to make is one that has become thoroughly familiar to us in the debate on the war against crime. It is that law enforcement in the United States is essentially a local responsibility that must be met by local governments. I hope that I may be excused here if I belabor the local character of law enforcement in this country. Sometimes, however, as the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said:
We need education in the obvious far more than we need investigation in the obscure.
Law enforcement in the United States has traditionally been among the most local of governmental functions. Even the smallest local governments provide at least minimum police services for their citizens. Whatever the role of the States in such areas as education, housing, employment, transportation, or welfare, State involvement in law enforcement has historically been very limited and remains very limited today. In addition, there are legal obstacles in many States to participation by State-level agencies in particular aspects of local law enforcement and criminal justice. The structure of law enforcement in this country thus reflects a fundamental attribute of our democratic society – the existence of local control over law enforcement. The provisions in title I for financial assistance directly to local governments are firmly grounded in this basic feature of our American system of government.
Statistics on the distribution of law enforcement personnel in the United States confirm the essentially local character of law enforcement in this country. According to the National Crime Commission, of the 348,000 full-time State and local police officers in the Nation, 90 percent – 308,000 – are employed by county and municipal police agencies, and only 10 percent – 40,000 – are employed by State police agencies. The number of officers on the New York City police force alone is almost as large as the total number of State law-enforcement officers in all of the States combined. There are more local policemen in Los Angeles County than there are Federal Bureau of Investigation agents for the entire Nation.
Moreover, not all of the 40,000 full-time State police officers have even the legal authority to perform more than highway patrol duties. A major recent study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police of 49 State police agencies in the United States found that the majority of State police agencies are concerned almost solely with highway patrol duties and do not even have broad criminal jurisdiction. Even the recently issued position paper of the Republican coordinating committee clearly recognizes and deplores this major deficiency in the existing law-enforcement effort at the State level.
Statistics on expenditures by State and local governments for the prevention and control of crime also confirm the local character of law enforcement in the United States. Seventy-two percent of the total State and local expenditures for law enforcement are made by local governments. Eighty-six percent of the total expenditures for police and 77 percent of the expenditures for courts are made by local governments. Only in the area of corrections do State expenditures exceed local expenditures, and even here the local contribution is substantial – 35 percent of the total funds expended.
The expenditure figures just quoted highlight one of the most arbitrary requirements of the block grant amendment. According to the specific language of the amendment, 75 percent of the Federal funds granted to a State must be made available to local governments within the State.
The figure of 75 percent was undoubtedly chosen to reflect the average percentage – 72 percent – of expenditures by local governments for law enforcement and criminal justice in the Nation as a whole. But the 72-percent figure, is, of course, only an average. The actual percentage in one or another State varies widely from the average. In California, for example, 88 percent of the total law-enforcement expenditures in the State are made by local governments, and only 12 percent are made by the State. In Vermont, on the other hand, only 52 percent of the total expenditures are by local governments, and 48 percent are by the State. The block grant amendment, with its rigid formula, will inevitably overemphasize State-level activities in some States and under-emphasize them in others. Such a crude and arbitrary approach can serve only to hamstring the new grant program in its efforts to upgrade law enforcement.
The proponents of the block grant amendment, have argued that, although the allocation formula under part C – action grants – requires 85 percent of the action funds to be distributed to State governments, the remaining 15 percent of such funds may be used for grants to local governments. The argument is in error for three principal reasons:
In the first place, it is extremely difficult to read the clear language of amendment 715 as authorizing any Federal grants to be made directly to local governments. Section 302 of the amendment authorizes action grants to be made only to the States for use by State planning agencies. It does not authorize grants to be made directly to local governments. Although amendment 715 retains the hortatory language of section 301(a), stating that the purpose of the action grants is to encourage both States and local governments to improve and strengthen their systems of law enforcement, that language is most easily read as requiring local governments to participate only through the States. Thus, if the 15-percent portion of the action funds is to
be available to local governments, it appears that the language of amendment 715 must itself be amended.
Second, even if 15 percent of the action funds are available for direct grants to local governments, the percentage is too small to permit adequate participation by local governments in the new law-enforcement assistance program. As I have already indicated, the best available figures reveal that, of the total expenditures for law enforcement and criminal justice by State and local governments, 72 percent are by local governments, and only 28 percent are by the States.
Therefore, the 15-percent figure in amendment 715 completely reverses the proper allocation of expenditures between State and local governments.
Third, amendment 715 is also inadequate because it allows no planning funds – not even 15 percent – to be made available directly to local governments. Yet, the need for comprehensive law enforcement planning is most urgent at the level of local government, especially in our major metropolitan areas. To leave local planning solely to the States will seriously impair our ability to wage the war against crime at the level where its impact is most obvious – the level of local government.
V. THE BLOCK GRANT AMENDMENT WILL DISRUPT THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The fifth major point I wish to make is what I conceive to be the essential guiding principle in the development and implementation of title I – that the Federal assistance contemplated by the new grant program must not become the vehicle for disrupting the existing balance of power between State and local law-enforcement agencies in the United States.
The threat to local autonomy under the block grant amendment is far more serious than any "threat" of Federal control under the present version of title I. The block grant approach will give the State Governors enormous leverage over local law enforcement. It will create the dangerous potential for a power play by State officials to gain control over local law enforcement, and thereby transform the entire police function in the United States. No planning grants or action grants are authorized to be made under the present version of title I to any agency of the Federal Government. By contrast, State agencies will receive vast sums of money under the block grant amendment, which can be used to build new and powerful State police forces, capable of threatening the autonomy of local government in the United States in a way that the present version of title I could never do.
At the very least, the block grant amendment will plunge the new Federal program into continuing political controversies and partisan rivalries between State and local governments, between Governors and mayors, between urban areas and rural areas, and between State and local police. I respectfully submit that the Senate should think long and hard before it reverses more than two centuries of tradition of law enforcement in the United States by injecting State governments into this basic area of local responsibility.
These grave dangers can be avoided only by adopting the more neutral approach that is offered in the present version of title I, which recognizes the proper role that must be played by both State and local governments. Title I is a balanced program of law-enforcement assistance. As I have already emphasized, to the extent that State governments are involved in the law-enforcement process – primarily in the area of courts and corrections, but including police as well – the States themselves will obviously be strong applicants for funds under title I. By contrast, the block grant proposal contains the seeds of potential conflict of interest between States as applicants in their own right and States as applicants on behalf of local governments within the State. At the very least, the bloc grant amendment threatens to divert the grant program from its primary emphasis on substantial improvements in all aspects of law enforcement and criminal justice and toward those areas in which the States have greater responsibilities.
VI. THE BLOCK GRANT AMENDMENT WILL CAUSE SERIOUS DELAYS
The final point that I wish to emphasize is the very serious delays that will result in implementing the new program if the block grant amendment is adopted. Under the specific language of the amendment, a State will be given up to 6 months to apply for a planning grant under part B, and 6 more months to prepare its statewide law enforcement plan that must be filed in order to qualify for action grants under part C. Therefore, up to an entire year may be wasted before substantial action funds can be made available for the benefits of local law enforcement. And, this figure does not even include the further delays that will inevitably result before the States can actually make the action funds they receive available to local law enforcement. In addition, in many States, new statutory or constitutional authority will have to be obtained before State governments are enabled to participate in programs to improve local law enforcement.
Moreover, as I have mentioned, the bloc grant amendment is highly unrealistic in its requirement that a State planning committee must submit a comprehensive law enforcement plan within 6 months after the State has received a planning grant. It is very doubtful that the States will be able to prepare such plans within this 6-month period. The experience of the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance under its State planning committee program has not been promising in this respect. As I have already stated, many of the 27 State committees that have been funded under the LEA program still exist largely on paper. The average time lag between the initial funding of a State planning committee and the beginning of operations by the committee has been 4 to 6 months. Yet amendment numbered 715 requires that the entire State plan must be completed within 6 months. Some State committees funded under the LEA program have been in existence for as long as 2 years without yet having formulated a comprehensive State plan.
The block grant amendment will encourage the formulation of State plans on a crash basis, solely to meet the 6-month time limit and to thereby prevent Federal funds from being made available directly to local governments within the State. The arbitrary time requirement under the block grant amendment is thus likely to foster the production of hasty and ill-conceived law enforcement plans by the States, far removed from the balanced and imaginative planning that can be accomplished under the present version of title I.
In contrast to the lengthy delays inherent in the block grant amendment, the present version of title I permits local governments to obtain planning funds immediately, and to receive action grants as soon as their law-enforcement plans are prepared and submitted. In fact, many local governments have already completed their law-enforcement plans or are now in the process of completing them. These localities are ready to apply for action grants as soon as title I is signed into law.
The present version of title I fully recognizes the essential role that States and local governments together must play if they are to make substantial progress in the war against crime. We must wage a total war against crime, not the limited war that will be fought under the block grant approach. We must preserve the best possible structure for the law-enforcement assistance program -- a structure capable of implementing the great promise and potential of this legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the present version of title I, and to reject the block-grant amendment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland yield?
Mr. TYDINGS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, every mayor and every law-enforcement officer has contacted me concerning the provisions of the bill, and each and every one of them has urged that we support the bill as it now stands and not proliferate another State agency for them to have to go through in order to meet this pressing problem.
I support the Senator's position.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished former Governor from Wyoming, and now a distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HANSEN].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, apparently I have come from the office of chief executive of my State more recently than has my distinguished colleague from the great State of Maine come from his as Governor.
I take a different position on the bill than he does. I believe that if we want to strengthen local law enforcement – and I agree with him that we should – then I say the way to do it is to adopt the amendment proposed by the distinguished minority leader. I think that is the way to do it. That is the way we would do it in Wyoming.
The State of Wyoming cooperates with local law enforcement efforts by assisting with the State highway patrol. I know of no better way to help each State insure better law enforcement than through block grants.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, Mr. President–
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. The municipalities throughout this land are the creatures of the State. From the standpoint of preserving the system of government which the Constitution of the United States envisaged, we should not have the Department of Justice or any branch of the Federal Government dealing directly with the creatures of the State. They should be dealt with through the agency of State governments.
Second, I think it is very unwise to leave the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars to one executive officer. We have seen in recent years the danger of doing that. When an executive officer of the U.S. Government takes charge of the distribution of funds to political subdivisions of the States, he uses the funds to coerce the such subdivisions into acceptance of his ideas.
There are many States in this Union which have fine law enforcement systems. My State has one. I think that the block grant system would enable the States to discharge their duties much better than could the Department of Justice in Washington, which has no acquaintance with the multitude of diverse problems existing throughout the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Carolina has expired.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I move that the motion of the distinguished minority leader be tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Maryland that he must yield back his time before that motion can be made.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Let me say to the Senator from Maryland, why not have a vote on the merits? Why a motion to table?
Mr. TYDINGS. If the Senator from Illinois will yield back his time
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland does have the floor.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield to me so that we do not have any misunderstanding. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BROOKE] has an amendment to the amendment. So have I, if this fails. So, let us not move too fast here.
Mr. LAUSCHE. We have been at it for 5 weeks now. [Laughter.]
Mr. DIRKSEN. I know that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BROOKE] wants some time because he contemplates offering an amendment. I do not want to see the Senator foreclosed. Thus, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, is my motion still in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order until all time has been used up.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island will state it.
Mr. PASTORE. How much time is there in existence on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes remaining and the Senator from Maryland 10 minutes remaining.
Who yields time? Time is running.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the block-grant amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is one of the most important that this body will consider. The amendment provides for Federal funds to be channeled through "State planning agencies" created, or designated, by the several States. The State authority would develop a comprehensive plan, allocate grants to local agencies according to this plan, and according to priorities determined by the State planning agency. The comprehensive plans of the States would be reviewed annually by the Federal Law Enforcement Administration.
The block-grant approach to Federal support of local programs has gained increasing support in recent years. Everyone recognizes that the Federal Government has shown itself to be exceedingly talented in raising funds. With this has come increased difficulty for the States as more and more sources of revenue have become "federalized." Although Federal efficiency in revenue collection has grown, Federal effectiveness in supervising the expenditure of funds has suffered.
It has become apparent to experts of all political persuasions that in the important area of supervising the proper use of funds, the State governments have shown themselves to be far more able to get the most for the taxpayer's dollar. Being closer to the people – both geographically and psychologically – State governments are able to translate blueprints into effective action for solving problems with far more skill than the large and cumbersome Federal establishment.
Mr. President, the block-grant approach – based on the foregoing reasoning – has become popular with many persons familiar with the increasingly complicated problems facing Americans. Thus, Congress provided for block grants for supplemental services when it passed the 1967 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act last December. At that time, I offered a block grant amendment to the bill which was narrowly defeated in the Senate, but was later substantially restored by the conference. I urge again that the Members of the Senate consider that in the vote upon this amendment.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am also a former attorney general of my State. I voted with the majority in respect of tabling; and I want very much, if I can, to vote on this block grant question affirmatively.
But I am deeply troubled by this fact: The Senator from Illinois has said, "Do not water it down."
Well, it is watered down. He, himself, watered it down because he recognized the situation. He watered it down by 15 percent. The other body, in the vote of which he spoke, watered it down by 25 percent. If that is the argument to be used, it gets to be a highly technical argument.
The reason why 33⅓ percent is needed, in that order of magnitude, is to deal with the problem of cities which will not necessarily prosper as much as they need. That is where the really burgeoning crime is.
Mr. President, 15 percent will probably be devoted largely to experimental ideas. If I were the Attorney General, that is what I would do. But 33⅓ percent gets to be an appreciable amount and a grant can really be moved to supplement effectively the policing in some of the major cities, which is so badly needed.
The entire concept of block grants in this area is justified. It is not a precedent for me for I have so moved with respect to education, poverty, and other matters. However, with respect to crime, I think it is a State responsibility and that it is uniquely a State responsibility.
As with any program, we should see how well the States do. We put some heavy criteria on them. A good deal of this money will not be used at all if State plans do not adequately satisfy the criteria of the Attorney General. Section 509 of this bill makes that clear.
I appeal to those who feel strongly about the tabling and who have just been defeated. I think if they push this matter to the ultimate point they will lose totally. This is a way in which they can get a fair compromise which gives some consideration to that point of view.
As I have said, I was a law enforcement officer, as was the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BROOKE], and I understand some of the enormous problems of the cities. I see a new program with criteria which might not be met.
I think we would be making a judicious compromise by making it one-third to two-thirds and we can change it later, if necessary. Two-thirds is a very substantial portion and will honor the idea that this program may leave something to be desired and some flexibility would be permitted in the way of two-thirds.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I point out again that we cannot talk about watering it down; it has been watered down. The House of Representatives made it 25 percent, which is generally available, and the author of this amendment himself made it 15 percent.
I hope the friends of recent efforts in this area on both sides support the amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, the former Governor of his State.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, as between giving the power of the distribution of funds under this bill to the Attorney General of the United States and the separate Governors of the different States, I propose that the power be given to the Governors. I say that on the basis of my belief that the Governors are more intimately informed about the problems of law enforcement within their States.
Aside from the political aspects of the issue of whether the Governors will be dominated by politics or the Department of Justice will be dominated by politics, I take no position.
I am opposed to centralism. If centralism is to continue in the future as it has in the past, we will have a monolithic Government in the United States. The basis of our strength as a Government has been not centralism but Government divided among 50 States of the Nation. Thus, I propose that in whatever we do it shall be against centralizing the power of Government in a few people in Washington. Distribute the power as widely as it can be distributed. Distribute it to the Governors of the 50 States. Do not put it in one man, the head of the Department of Justice. When you put it in 50 men, you are more likely to achieve a composite judgment that will be fair to all the people of the Nation.
If all of the power is put in one man, the head of the Department of Justice, I respectfully submit that he is likely to be dominated by political motivations and, with that domination, justice will not be done.
I have spoken in a sort of ambiguous way about the Department of Justice. Now I wish to speak more directly.
The head of the Department of Justice of the United States in everything he has done indicates that he has been motivated by political considerations.
We have on the Mall what has been euphoniously identified as "Resurrection City." My understanding is that today 125 members of this hallowed, sacred city, have established themselves in the Rayburn Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 2 additional minutes?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator. They were told to move. They refused to move. The time will come when Resurrection City will have to be abandoned. The Interior Department was of the belief that we would escape trouble by allowing them to bring their habitations to the Mall. They did not dare face up to the problem. They felt: Let them be there temporarily and the time will come when they will obediently and supinely move out. That time has not come. It will come, but I state with the greatest belief in the positiveness of my judgment that when they are told to move out they will not do it, and then will come the crucial period of what our Government will do. Do not give to one man, the Attorney General of the United States, the power to distribute these moneys. Do not give him that great force, that he shall decide. Give it to 50 men, the Governors of the 50 States.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I strongly support the provisions of S. 917 which would provide financial assistance to State and local governments to improve law enforcement systems in the United States. The Federal Government is in many cases the best and sometimes the only source of large revenues through which great national programs can be financed.
Small cities also need help. I respectfully disagree with the amendment of the senior Senator from Massachusetts which would greatly restrict the funds that can go to the smaller cities. I point out that Cambridge, Md., has had riot after riot, and perhaps more violence and burning than any other place in the Nation. Yet with money going to only the big cities, countless tens of thousands of communities in the United States would be denied any benefit from the bill whatever.
For many years rivers and harbors projects, agricultural price supports, unemployment insurance, and airport and highway construction have been financed largely out of Federal funds. In recent times, Federal aid for medical care and education have been adopted in large part because adequate funds simply do not exist in some or all of our States.
Our crisis in law enforcement today is partly a result of the financial strain which many cities and States work under. The job of the cop on the beat has seldom been rewarding, but in recent times, particularly in large cities, it has become an extremely dangerous job and the recruitment and retention of well-qualified police officers has been a full time pursuit.
In order to get the kind of men we want in our police forces, more money must be made available to State and local governments. I congratulate our Judiciary Committee for reporting a bill which will go far to establish new progressive programs locally, financed in part by the Federal Government.
I am deeply committed to the policy of local law enforcement. I think it would be a tragic mistake for our local law enforcement officers and leaders to surrender the local autonomy of police power to any form or fashion of a national police force. I am glad to see the provisions in this bill for the cooperation between the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and State and local police authorities.
I believe that both the Federal and State governments can benefit through mutual assistance and advisement. There has been a great deal of cooperation between Federal and State law enforcement agencies in the past. I am sure that title I of S. 917 will strengthen the relationship while preserving respective areas of police authority.
I cannot conceive of conditions where Congress would wisely invade the prerogatives of local police authority on a permanent basis. In times of extreme difficulty, such as a riot, the executive authority of the State is always able to call in the State National Guard for duty. If a situation is out of control, the State may request Federal assistance; but we should never go further than that.
The monstrous nature of a police state or a big brother peering into and controlling the lives of private citizens is too well and too frequently exemplified in other nations for America to permit the growth of such a totally foreign concept of law enforcement in this great free Nation.
We are living in a time of turmoil. To those of us who have experienced the sadness and deprivation caused by national depression or world war, the attitude of some of our people today is impossible to understand. The spread of violence indicates not only dissatisfaction with social and economic problems, but a reckless desire to bring havoc upon innocent citizens, businessmen, private homes, and American life generally.
Some say that the irresponsible arsonist or looter has nothing to lose by throwing a brick, lighting a fire, or stealing a suit of clothes. They are dead wrong. They have everything to lose. Reason and patience and common understanding will be overwhelmed by fear and hatred if blind violence against society continues. Absolutely nothing can be gained by such lawlessness.
Our great national effort to achieve social and economic justice for all of our citizens will grind to a tragic halt if reckless, lawless behavior continues.
The hungry will not be fed, the ignorant will not be educated, the downtrodden will not be lifted up if our local, State, and National Governments have to spend all their time fighting fires and arresting looters. There could be no greater tragedy for our Nation than to put to the acid test the ability and willingness of the Government to put down riot or insurrection.
America does not want martial law; it is as alien to our concept as nazism or communism. But we will have it if the only alternative is rioting, burning, and looting. We must not be backed to the wall to make that cruel choice.
We must maintain an orderly society and resolve our domestic problems. We must have the patience, fortitude, and willingness to achieve that objective. The improvement of our local police forces by providing better training, better education, and the most modern methods of criminology and penology is a vitally important part of that effort.
If Americans know that they will be protected, that there will be a cop on the beat, they will be willing to come out from behind locked doors and speak to their neighbors.
If the hoodlum knows that he goes to jail if he throws a brick through a window, the incidence of crime and violence will diminish. The peculiar attraction of civil disobedience will fade in the minds of many young people who do not understand its grave consequences.
We must re-create the atmosphere where people are able to walk the streets of our cities and towns. If we accomplish that, the willingness of Americans to visit with their neighbors near and far and to lend a helping hand will once again characterize our American way of life.
I appreciate the time and effort which the Senate has devoted to the consideration of this legislation. I know the needs of our State and local law-enforcement agencies to restore law and order in our cities and across the Nation. I firmly and wholeheartedly support responsible proposals to accomplish that great objective.
At the same time, we should carefully consider the wisdom of any proposal which may contravene ancient traditions of freedom in our private lives or which will lead to disunity or inconsistency in the State or Federal laws which govern our Nation. The American people are too dedicated to our free and democratic traditions to ignore the implications and consequences of such proposals.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would prefer to see title I remain as it is. However, in light of the vote taken a few moments ago, it is clear that it will be changed. In light of that fact, I support the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, it is interesting that those who bemoan centralism in Washington so often argue for it in State capitals at the expense of local governments. I have listened to the argument this afternoon and have been impressed by one thing above all; namely, that so much of the argument is not addressed to the bill as now written.
Earlier this week, we adopted a population limitation which would control the dividing line between State-controlled programs and local-controlled programs. As a result of that amendment, under the bill as now written, in title I as it stands, 95 percent of local government in this country will get assistance only through State governments. But, what we are talking about, with the Dirksen amendment, is the other 5 percent. That other 5 percent, Mr. President, includes those large metropolitan population areas of this country where the problem exists. Anyone reading the newspapers for the past 2 years knows that it exists there, and exists in a form which brooks no delay.
Thus, Mr. President, what we would be doing in 5 percent of the communities which are the object of the Dirksen amendment, would be to take control away from them at a time when they need it, in a field where they have demonstrated the capacity to work, and in a field where they now have the responsibility because of the failure of the States to act.
Mr. President, this builds in delays, if we leave the responsibility to the States. Under the block grant amendment, a State will have 6 months to apply for a planning grant and 6 more months to produce a statewide plan to qualify for action grants.
So that will mean an entire year which may be wasted before substantial funds will be available to law-enforcement agencies in those areas where it is most needed, we are told by the sponsors of the bill, now.
We are asked to make the federal system work, not only at the Federal level, not only at the State level but also at the local level. It is there that we need participation by local citizens, participation by local leaders, participation by local political institutions; and in these great metropolitan areas the responsibility for law enforcement now rests in local leaders and in local government. The Dirksen amendment would now by-pass those institutions in the areas where the great problems now exist.
It is for these reasons that I wholeheartedly endorse the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BROOKE], not as a substitute for title I as it stands now – because I would prefer that – but as a preferable alternative to the Dirksen amendment.