Clinton Vows Veto to Save Police Funds : Legislation: President goes on the attack against GOP drive to undercut his anti-crime law on hiring 100,000 new officers. He accuses Republican majority in Congress of ‘playing politics.’

Striking an unusually combative stance toward the Republican-controlled Congress, President Clinton promised Saturday to veto GOP legislation to repeal or undermine his commitment to put 100,000 new police officers on the street.

In his weekly radio address, Clinton accused Republicans of “playing politics” with the safety of communities in the fight against crime, noting that he had cut 100,000 federal jobs to free funds for new police hires.

“Undermining this commitment to law enforcement is not acceptable,” he said. “I didn’t fight to cut 100,000 federal bureaucrats so we could trade them in for an old-fashioned pork-barrel program. I fought to trade 100,000 bureaucrats for 100,000 police officers.”

Clinton’s threat marks only the second time he has explicitly warned he will use the veto to blunt the GOP’s ambitious legislative agenda. If he follows through, it would be Clinton’s first use of his veto power.

In his State of the Union Address, Clinton warned that he would veto any attempt by Congress to repeal a new ban on the commercial sale of certain assault-style weapons. But few insiders had anticipated his vehement opposition to a Republican effort to rewrite last year’s anti-crime act by rescinding the police-hiring provisions and diverting the money into block grants that states could use for various purposes, including new personnel.

A GOP bill authorizing the funding shift is scheduled to be taken up by the House this week.

Clinton’s veto threat came after several days of unexpectedly weak Democratic opposition to a sweeping Republican rewrite of the anti-crime law. In just four days of debate last week, House Republicans succeeded in passing five of seven items endorsed in their “contract with America.” They were approved with substantial support from Democrats, many of whom feared they would be portrayed as soft on crime if they actively opposed the initiatives.

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) hailed what she hoped were signs of “a fighting Bill Clinton.” If the President winds up vetoing the Republican measure, she predicted, Democrats will rally behind him to sustain his action. It requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Republicans hold only 230 of 435 House seats, so they would need to attract at least 60 Democratic votes to override.

The Clinton Administration has already begun to spend funds approved in last year’s anti-crime law and will have obligated even more of the money earmarked for police hires and crime-prevention programs by the time the congressional showdown is resolved. As communities begin to notice the benefits of the 1994 measure, they could rally to support the President against the Republicans.

“It’s a brilliant strategy to pick this to veto,” Schroeder said. “The Administration has got time on their side.”

In the Republican response to the President’s speech on Saturday, GOP Rep. Charles T. Canady of Florida said the proposed rewrite of the 1994 anti-crime act demonstrates that the GOP “will turn the tables on the criminals and . . . put the rights of law-abiding citizens first.” He cited measures passed last week expanding restitution to crime victims, boosting prison-construction funding, toughening sentencing provisions, limiting death-penalty appeals and allowing use of some improperly obtained evidence in court.

Canady defended the GOP’s proposed Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Act of 1995, saying it would “allow local officials--those with the primary responsibility for fighting crime--to decide how crime-fighting funds can be used most effectively in the communities throughout the country.”

Clinton has vowed to protect the 1994 anti-crime law’s $8.8-billion fund for hiring 100,000 police officers and its $4-billion fund for crime-prevention programs, such as school anti-drug campaigns. And $1 billion was set aside for special courts to handle drug charges.

The Republican rewrite would reduce total funding by almost $4 billion and disburse the remainder in the form of block grants to local governments. Republicans have criticized the package of crime-prevention programs as wasteful “pork-barrel” schemes that would not reduce crime.

While handing out less money, the Republican block grant program would allow local governments somewhat greater latitude in spending the money. It could be used to hire police officers, for example, or buy law-enforcement equipment. It also could be used for crime-prevention programs but only if they contribute directly to reducing crime, a more stringent condition than Democrats had set.

Clinton complained that the block grant concept “is basically a blank check that can far too easily be used for things besides police officers.”