By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
January 11, 2002
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Two law enforcement support organizations are facing off over the sponsorship of a homeland security bill by Sen. Hillary Clinton. But the point of contention is not whether the legislation is acceptable, but whether anything the New York Democrat does can earn the endorsement of the police.
The "Homeland Security Block Grant Act" (S. 1737) would provide $3 billion in block grants to assist communities with the costs of their efforts to battle new terrorist threats. The activities and items the money can be used for include:
- Funding additional law enforcement, fire, and emergency resources, including covering overtime expenses;
- Purchasing and refurbishing personal protective equipment for fire, police, and emergency personnel;
- Acquiring state-of-the-art technology to improve communication;
- Improving cyber and infrastructure security;
- Assisting Local Emergency Planning Committees;
- Improving communication systems; and
- Devising homeland security plans.
"Already, towns and cities in New York, and municipalities across the country, have seen a glimpse of what homeland security's price tag looks like," Clinton said Nov. 28, 2001, when she introduced the bill, "and they are deeply concerned about how they will pay for it."
The National Association of Police Organizations, which represents some 4,000 police unions and their members, has come out in favor of the bill. Representatives of the group appeared on-stage with Clinton at a press conference to promote the legislation.
Bill Johnson, acting executive director of NAPO, says the group tries to evaluate proposals based on the impact they believe a particular bill would have on law enforcement.
"In this case, the legislation is good legislation for police and that's why we support it," he said. "That would be true regardless of who introduced it."
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) says it agrees with the motives of the legislation, but the group is blasting NAPO for publicly supporting Clinton. The 65,000-member organization considers Clinton "anti-cop."
"We support anything that's protective of law enforcement or that helps law enforcement," according to Laura Griffith, federal director for LEAA. "This is a problem specifically with Senator Clinton."
Wednesday, LEAA listed four particular instances when it feels Clinton betrayed her true feelings about law enforcement officers.
"From blaming the Secret Service for the White House 'Filegate' scandal to supporting the pardoning of cop killers, there's no low Hillary won't stoop to when it comes to bashing cops for political gain," said LEAA executive director and retired police officer James Fotis.
LEAA is also critical of Clinton for a campaign trail comment she made in 1999, calling four New York City police officers "murderers" before an investigation into the shooting in which they were involved had been completed.
"As a lawyer, first lady, and a New York senatorial candidate, Clinton was implying that these officers were guilty until proven innocent," Fotis added. "She has a complete disregard and a basic dislike for cops."
The officers were later found not guilty of all charges in the case.
The fourth example of Clinton's alleged anti-police sentiments occurred during her senatorial campaign when she refused to denounce the actions of delegates to the New York State Democratic convention.
The delegates were videotaped spitting on members of the Albany Police Department honor guard as the officers carried flags into the auditorium for a ceremony.
During a benefit concert for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton was booed off the stage by uniformed New York City police officers and fire fighters in the front rows of the audience.
Johnson says the intent of the group's endorsement of S. 1737 is to promote good legislation, not judge personalities. NAPO actually endorsed Clinton's opponent, Republican Rick Lazio, in the 2000 New York Senate race.
"I don't care about her reputation, or what other people say," he said. "We support the legislation that she's introduced, and we're not ashamed of it."
Griffith says NAPO should have looked for someone else to sponsor the proposal.
"If that's their position, that's fine. But I know that groups like ours," she continued, "feel a lot differently, and I think that in a situation like this, we would rather go to our friends."
Griffith also thinks the legislation would have more vocal support from the law enforcement community if Clinton was not the sponsor.
"They only had NAPO in support of that bill," she noted. "It's probably because a lot of law enforcement groups were a little bit concerned about the fact that this is the woman carrying the bill, and she's not someone that we want to be associated with."
Johnson seems to believe LEAA's criticism is petty.
"It's pretty clear that LEAA doesn't like Senator Clinton, on a personal level," he said.
But Griffith says her organization is calling Clinton's actions into question, not her personality.
"We just don't agree with the fact that NAPO turned their backs on law enforcement by standing up with a woman who is clearly anti-cop," she concluded.
