On the recordJuly 26, 2007
I just want to expand on the excellent debate and the points that have been made in opposition to this amendment. The fact is we are in a period of rising crime. In the last 2 years we have experienced a rise in crime. We are looking at an amendment that proposes an across-the-board cut. The first thing you all need to understand about this amendment is that it is indiscriminate. It doesn't look at what programs are being cut. It doesn't talk about cutting one program more because it's a lower priority or that program less because it's a higher priority, or excluding some programs from being cut because they are a tremendously high priority. My colleague just talked about State and local law enforcement. The previous amendment would have cut the Justice Department by some $681 million. This amendment cuts the Justice Department by $335 million. Those are real dollars and real cuts to law enforcement. Those cuts translate directly to local law enforcement and the people that are actually fighting crime in the streets. What the Federal Government has done to support those folks in the past is given them resources, as the gentleman just described. If you are the sheriff's department in rural America, or you are the chief of police in urban America, or if you are a local law enforcement coordinator, then you are hurt badly by this across-the-board cut amendment.
Source
govinfo.gov




