Eva M. Clayton: “I rise in support of the Watt amendment, and I find it absurd that accountability or how you plan to address crime is…”

“I rise in support of the Watt amendment, and I find it absurd that accountability or how you plan to address crime is asking any State too much. It is, indeed, for the very reason we are appropriating these monies that this amendment makes abundantly good sense. It simply says that there should be an assessment by the applicants themselves so as to how they propose, indeed, that crime can go down. Second, statistical data is always helpful in determining if in fact you have been effective. So, to suggest that a State could not be accountable when they make an application seems absurd. It flies in the face of reality and certainly flies in the face of logic of this Member. I would assume that this is simply to suggest that States who have a commitment to address the issue of crime are willing to say how they propose to do it in their assessment. These are the methods and this is the strategy. Further, they would be required to give statistical data showing that they indeed shall be successful in using that money. Accountability is what is at the back of this issue, simply saying we are not throwing money and we are also asking them to be responsible, and I think most States would be responsible.”