On the recordFebruary 13, 1995
Just briefly, frankly I would have preferred that in every case localities would have to get together and put together a comprehensive plan in order to get any money. But that is not what this amendment does. It is a very narrow amendment that I actually wish would go further, that basically says when the city gets more than 200 percent of what the county has, you are going to have a problem. If those cities utilize that for police, the administration of justice will be impaired. In the case of smaller cities, it would be 400 percent. So I think this is targeted to a problem. Perhaps it is not the perfect solution, but it is the solution we were able to come up with. It is only when the counties bear the cost of prosecution and incarceration. So I still think it resolves a problem that will be created by the bill absent this or something like this, because in the end both the cities, the counties and the citizens want the bad guys to be arrested and then prosecuted, and unless we have something like this, the prosecution then may suffer.
Source
govinfo.gov




