I want to just point out a few things that I think perhaps make the Hughes substitute the more reasonable result in this particular instance. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida, because I think what he has attempted to do is good. But I am afraid he has missed the mark. I would like to share with my colleagues some of the reasons I believe that, as we examine on a line-by-line basis the amendment. But first, I say to my colleagues from Texas, Texas cannot qualify for funding under the provisions of this State because just like the gentleman from New York, we are told in Texas that we do not have the ability to comply where we could not do this. But that said, that is not the reason I think that we should defeat the amendment. First, I would say as compared to the Chapman amendment, this requires a much larger State matching grant, which makes it more difficult for the States. There is nothing in this amendment that recognizes the high crime States and sends more of the funds to those States with a greater problem. And this is something I think that is very important.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the merits of an amendment related to state funding and crime.
Share
More from Jim Chapman
Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear that the basic thrust of the crime bill under consideration in the House of Representatives based from a policy standpoint has two prongs: The first and very important is prevention. The legislation that…
before my election to the House of Representatives in 1985, I served for two terms, 8 years, as the district attorney for the Eighth Judicial District in Texas. During that 8-year period of time, I had an up close and personal look at…
America needs truth in sentencing. In the avalanche of legislation that has been introduced this year to address the issue of crime in America, one bill which my colleague, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and I have introduced will…





