I just want to emphasize once again, that our bill, H.R. 728, does not, I repeat, does not strip funding already awarded under last year's cops on the beat program. These local communities will continue to receive every cent already granted to them, including payments for years 2 and 3. That defeats the argument made a few moments ago by the gentleman from California that somehow our bill might jeopardize funds going to hire additional police officers. That is not the case at all. If the local elected decisionmakers in those communities deem it worthwhile to hire additional police officers, they will have maximum authority and latitude to do so under our bill. It is hard to understand that convoluted logic coming from the other side of the aisle during this debate. Here we have Members of the minority suggesting that the Federal Government, the model of fiscal propriety for the rest of the country can best determine how to spend these monies and in fact ought to dictate to State and local officials how these monies be spent. Well, far be it from me and my colleagues on this side of the aisle to impugn the motives of State and local officials. We truly believe they are closer to the crime problems in their communities and far better able to determine the proper community-wide or State wide response to those crime problems.
Frank Riggs: “I just want to emphasize once again, that our bill, H.R. 728, does not, I repeat, does not strip funding already awarded…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of H.R. 728 on local police funding during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
I would reverse the gentleman's argument and ask him if he is suggesting, going back to our home State of California, that in every community where a majority of the electorate supported Proposition 227, that that decision should be…
I am rising tonight to see if I can perhaps shed a little bit more light than heat on the ongoing debate in this House about education priorities. I think I have some credibility on this subject since for the last 2 years in this Congress…
Just for the record, there were three versions, not four, not five, and I do not think there is a need to constantly exaggerate. Just for the record, the City and County of San Francisco is the only such city with this kind of law, this…
I do not see how we can support a policy that... facilitates, furthers illegal drug use and actually... puts us as lawmakers... in the position of... engaging in enabling behavior. And, furthermore, it sends the worst possible message that…





