[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7476-H7481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1315
                SALUTE TO POLICE OFFICERS IN AUSTIN, TX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is recognized until 2 
p.m.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, thank heavens there are young men and women 
across this country who are willing to dedicate their lives to 
protecting the rest of us, who help to secure us in our neighborhoods 
and our homes, who protect us against crime and violence and crimes of 
property.
  I particularly want to salute and recognize some of the young men and 
women, and I have actually brought pictures of them here today, who 
joined the men and women in blue last Friday night in Austin, TX.
  You will see each of them is actually in a tan or khaki uniform 
because these are their cadet pictures, and on Friday night, they 
graduated from being cadets in the Austin Police Department to serving 
now and are today, as I speak, many of them are out patrolling the 
streets and the sidewalks of the city of Austin, TX, assuring that the 
good citizens of our community can go about their lives and their 
livelihoods without the threat of violent crime.
  Today in this House and throughout this week we are going to have an 
opportunity to back up these young men and women who are out there 
patrolling our streets or to abandon our commitment to them. And it is 
the concept of community policing and the important vote that this 
House will take this week when it takes under consideration the 
appropriations bill for the COPS Program that I wanted to address this 
afternoon.
  You see, this particular class of young men and women is the largest 
class that we have had in Austin, TX, for some time, because it 
includes some 63 young men and women who have dedicated themselves to 
the protection of their neighbors there in central Texas, and the only 
reason that the class can include 63 cadets, now 63 new law enforcement 
officers in Austin, TX, is because of the backup of the Federal 
Government.
  Of course, law enforcement must always be principally a local 
responsibility, and we are fortunate in Austin, TX, to have one of the 
finest law enforcement agencies in this entire country under the 
command of our chief of police, Elizabeth Watson.
  In order to back up that strong local initiative, in recognizing our 
local communities are many times strapped for tax resources, the 
Federal Government can provide some support, not only through an 
occasional speech on the floor of the Congress or from the White House 
but actually by putting dollars where the Federal mouth is, and in this 
case something was done right by this Federal Government and something 
was done right on the floor of this House last September when a new 
crime offensive was approved by the House, over tremendous opposition, 
and that bill was signed into law, and within little more than a month 
of the time that that bill became law late last October, the city of 
Austin learned that it could go out and would have the Federal support, 
the Federal moneys that 25 of these 63 young men and women would be 
paid for through Federal tax dollars through the COPS Program.
  We have had a real interest in Austin, TX, in community policing 
because we realize that getting our law enforcement officers into the 
community, knowing the people in the neighborhoods, backing up 
Neighborhood Watch, backing up crime stoppers, using every tool 
available to involve law enforcement officers with the neighborhoods in 
doing effective community policing was the best way to do something 
about the rising tide of crime that we had faced in Austin, TX.
  So within a month of Congress acting, little more than a month, the 
city of Austin, like communities across this great land, learned that 
there would be Federal dollars to back up local efforts and to add new 
cadets to the training course. Come January of this year, our cadets 
began a very rigorous training that is done right there in Travis 
County, TX.
  Last Friday night they completed that training and are now out 
serving.
  But what an unusual coincidence, I must say, it is this week, just as 
these cadets hit the street and began protecting our citizenry, that we 
are faced with a critical vote that will probably come up tomorrow 
night or Wednesday morning in the Justice Department appropriations, 
and if that bill is approved in the form that is recommended to this 
House for action, we will yield in our support to these young men and 
women. We will be saying to communities across the country that the 
commitment to add 100,000 new law enforcement officers to our Nation's 
streets is a commitment that this Congress does not intend to fulfill.
  I think that would be a serious mistake. That is why I want to draw 
attention to that appropriations bill this afternoon and particularly 
to an amendment that I believe will be offered by our colleague from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], to restore support for the same program 
that has added these young men and women to our streets.
  It is ironic that a group of people, our Republican colleagues who 
refer to themselves frequently at campaign time as law and order 
supporters, would be withdrawing support from the very program that put 
these people on the street.
  You see, the administration backed the initiative here in Congress 
and signed it into law to get 100,000 new police officers on the 
street. But the bill that passed this Congress earlier in the year and 
the appropriations measure, 

[[Page H7477]]
instead of backing up our law enforcement officers, takes away the 
commitment of 100,000 new police and substitutes something that I guess 
you would have to call a blob grant because no longer do we stand by 
our commitment of 100,000 new
 officers. Rather, we say we are going to transfer to the States and 
localities a blob of Federal money that can be used for a variety of 
things.

  Under the legislation passed, and as it would be funded as an 
alternative to actually putting law enforcement officers on the street, 
is an incredible amount of new bureaucracy. In this particular case, 
the reason the city of Austin was able to move so fast as communities 
across our country have done so is because all it had to do is file a 
simple application. It did not have to go through the bureaucracy of 
the State of Texas and get that bureaucracy involved in evaluating its 
application. It could come directly to the source of the money, and I 
know that that has been true in other States.
  I see the gentlewoman from Colorado. I am sure you have had that 
experience in Colorado.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Not only have we had that experience, no one can 
believe it is a one-page form. I mean it is a one-page form which is 
historic, I think, in this Federal bureaucracy that we have, and I find 
that my city of Denver has had the same experience yours has had.
  We, first of all, feel very lucky that we live in the country where 
people call the police and call the police with great trust and, if 
fact, want more police because they feel the more police that are 
around, the safer the streets are going to be. You and I could stand 
here and name a lot of other countries where the last thing you might 
want to do is call the police. But here they call the police. They want 
the police.
  In my city of Denver, having police on the beat, having police on the 
street, having police in the neighborhoods has just been a very 
exciting program and has truly remarkably reduced crime in 1 year. We 
saw it go down over 7 percent in 1 year.
  It used to be every year we sat around waiting for those statistics 
to come out, wringing our hands, thinking how much worse is it going to 
get this year. But with these new police officers that we got funded, 
we are beginning to see a turnaround. We want it to go lower, of 
course. Of course, we do.
  But I think what the gentleman is talking about is if we create this 
whole new tier of bureaucracy, if we go back to business as usual with 
the big complex form or if we allow the State to control the funds, we 
are not going to have this direct action, this fast action, this rapid 
action to get help to the cities, and they are the ones that are on the 
front line in most of this.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I really appreciate the gentlewoman's observation 
because while I focused, naturally, on my community in central Texas, 
this is really just an example of what has been happening throughout 
this country.
  As you know, I am new here to Washington. I think it is truly amazing 
from the time that you and others provided the leadership in this 
Congress to pass this bill and then it got signed, over this tremendous 
objection that you had, so many roadblocks and obstacles thrown up by 
what was at that time a Republican minority, the President signed the 
bill in September. By late October, cities across the country know they 
will have money coming, and here, 10 months later, we have across the 
country almost 3,000 new officers that are on the street. That is a 
Federal bureaucracy that was actually working the way it is supposed 
to: lean. It gets its office set up, gets any regulations it needs set 
up, and you actually have under the program that Austin and Denver 
benefited from, already 3,000 new officers; and in our smaller cities 
of under 100,000 there are almost 5,000 new officers under the COPS 
Ahead program; and still under another program of the COPS Fast 
program, which, I believe, is the one actually targeted at the smallest 
communities, there are about 7,000 officers that have come on there.
  So that is the Federal Government for once operating the way it is 
supposed to do: getting a program started and actually getting the 
officers on the beat.
                              {time}  1330

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, in 
my locality we were very fortunate also in that we are one of four 
areas in the country where they have experimented with something called 
Project Pat. As my colleague knows, Attorney General Reno had been a 
local law enforcement officer, so she understands these layers of 
bureaucracy, and, when my district kind of exploded in crime, she was 
very sympathetic and said, ``Let me try and get the State, the Federal 
Government, and the city government in the same room, and let them be 
planning from all agencies, all agencies of all levels, to make sure 
there isn't duplication, that they can respond rapidly, and they can 
really get funds out quickly to wherever there appears to be a 
problem,'' and, believe me, that has worked tremendously, too. We had a 
very quiet summer in Denver because of that type of response, whereas 
the summer before had been a great tragic one of day after day no one 
wanting to watch the news because if it bleeds, it leads, and there was 
a whole lot of bleeding, and it was almost the entire news hour.
  So what I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is worried 
about and what I am worried about is what we are apt to see when we 
take up this appropriations bill is really undoing the ability of the 
Federal Government to do that, that they are going to strike these 
funds, take away the sugar, and take away the ability to come forward 
with this very distinguished new group that you are so proud of. This 
is the new group that just graduated in Austin.
  Mr. DOGGETT. This is just Friday night, and ironically they will 
begin their service this week on the very week that our Republican 
colleagues proposed to just pull away this entire commitment to 100,000 
new police officers across the street. Twenty-five of these young men 
and women were funded through Federal dollars, and you know you have 
raised, as you so often do here on the floor of Congress, a very 
important point in referring to Attorney General Janet Reno and her 
experience in law enforcement because when I have talked, not just to 
these young men and women, but to our existing Austin Police Department 
officers, to law enforcement organizations around the country, I do not 
find any law enforcement experts coming forward and saying, ``Junk this 
program that is actually providing us support.''
  Rather I find them agreeing with our chief of police in Austin, 
Elizabeth Watson, and I know the gentlewoman will be pleased to know 
that our leader in the law enforcement office in Austin is a woman who 
is doing an outstanding job in law enforcement. She said that these 
neighborhood enforcement teams that have been packed up with Federal 
dollars will really make a difference, and she is saying the same thing 
I am sure you hear in Denver, that I have heard from the various law 
enforcement organizations that have come before the committee on which 
you serve that have come here for press conferences here at the Capitol 
saying, ``Please continue to lend us the support; this program works,'' 
but for some unfortunate partisan political reasons, just as this 
program begins to get the law enforcement officers on the street, our 
Republican colleagues want to jerk the rug out from under this program.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, if the gentleman would yield, I think that is 
exactly what is happening, and unfortunately I hope by the end of the 
week what we are worried about has not come true.
  But my police chief, David Rochard, is wonderful. He is very 
distinguished. He is in the National Cities or the Great Cities Police 
Chiefs League. I met with him a couple of weeks ago, and he was very 
distressed. He said this is the first group, meaning the new leadership 
in this Congress, that would not meet with the chiefs from the large 
cities in America. They have been banging on the door. Usually they say 
everybody is trying to get a hold of the police chiefs, and I would 
think you would want to talk to the police chiefs first. They are on 
the front line, they are the ones having to deal with this rising 
crime, and, if we are going to try to do something for them, we ought 
to ask them what would work the best, 

[[Page H7478]]
and, as he said during the crime bill, they were consulted constantly 
by the administration and by the then majority in Congress. But they 
have not been able to break through the door and get into to see anyone 
here. Not only have they not been asked, they cannot get in when they 
ask to get in.
  He also was very upset; as my colleague knows, last week we saw this 
body cut back severely the funds that were to go for the violence 
against women, and again America's police chiefs have been saying young 
people are learning violence in a classroom, in their living room. They 
are learning it right at home, and they need that violence against 
women money to put in the hot line, to have more shelters, to do 
training of judges and police officers as to how to treat this and to 
get at that. Well, of course, that got gutted last week, and if this 
week you go after the police officers that we are now getting out on 
the street, we used ours through community policing, and I assume, I am 
not sure that is what Austin is----
  Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed we do, and you make such a vital point about the 
Violence Against Women Act portion of this. If I understand this same 
bill, it essentially eliminated all of the funding for the excellent 
work that you and your colleagues did last year in establishing a 
violence against women portion, a tremendous portion and a tremendous 
advance in this same piece of legislation, and about the only thing 
they left in the appropriation was the hotline for women who are abused 
and are the victims of violence to call in, and so the question that we 
have here today is whether, when they call in, there will be a law 
enforcement officer there to meet their calls along with the 
counselors, and our battered-women centers, and groups that work 
against violence, but will there be a law enforcement officer, or will 
all of the support for Federal support for law enforcement officers be 
pulled away and denied to
 communities across this country to support women who are the victims 
of violence and people across our society that suffer from either 
physical violence or crimes of property.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, if the gentleman would further yield, I am so 
glad you stood up and are talking about this.
  You were not here in the last term, but in the last term the Violence 
Against Women Act passed 411 to zero, 411 to zero. Now it is hard to 
get a larger mandate than that, even though the crime bill was a lot 
closer, but 411 to zero, and 1 year later the new majority feels 
perfectly able to go in and gut it even though many of them voted for 
it, and I think you are going to find exactly the same thing with 
police officers.
  Show me a person who would not like to have more police officers in 
their neighborhood. They would. And we had a long 2-year dialog about 
this with Attorney General Reno, with police chiefs and everybody. They 
said this is now the money could be used the best. So we got going, we 
fast-forwarded, we made the form simple, and we did have some moderate 
Republicans join us. That is how we got the bill out of here finally. 
We were all excited, and now they have done to that--or they appear to 
be going to do to that what they did to the Violence Against Women Act 
last week, so I am so pleased that the gentleman is down here pointing 
this out.
  Let us hope, if anyone is watching, it will be, Wake up America; no 
one is really safe. You think everyone is against crime, but they may 
not be for funding anything or really helping communities trying to 
fight crime.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentlewoman for that observation and would 
add one other aspect of this, that seeing our colleague from California 
[Mr. Miller] here, I know it is particularly important in California, 
but it is important in San Antonio, TX, as well, and that is that under 
this cops program one of the programs that is very important is the 
Troops to Cops Program. That is taking people who are leaving our 
military, who have obtained training in security as military police and 
other aspects of the military and channeling their skills into law 
enforcement and particularly in parts of our country that have had 
recent base closings. I would think there would be particular support 
for this Troops to Cops Program, and what an extraordinarily ill-timed 
initiative by our Republican colleagues to come in and gut this cops 
program at the very time that it could turn to those who will be 
leaving some of our military bases and help them get on the streets to 
make our--they have done a great job in protecting our national 
security, but now they can help us with our neighborhood security.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for taking 
this time to call attention to the concerns we have about the 
appropriations bills that come to the floor and the reduction of the 
cops portion of that bill.
  I represent two communities in my district that were among--had among 
the highest crime rates in California, and unfortunately one of them 
had among the highest homicide rates in the State of California. But of 
those communities qualified for Federal moneys to expand their police 
forces, to expand the cops on the beat or to participate in the Cops on 
the Beat Program. Both of them used it for the purposes of community 
policing, along with the sheriff's agency in one of the countries that 
I represent, but in these two communities I have traveled with the 
police during the day, talked to the officers on the best, and seen a 
remarkable, remarkable change in attitude as this money has allowed the 
police departments to expand into the communities.
  In one case in Vallejo, CA, they have used them for a bicycle patrol 
within the commercial districts, and helping out the transit districts 
as large numbers of young people get out of school during a particular 
time during the day, and also used them for evening drug patrols, and 
drug activity has plummeted, the homicide rate is down considerably. 
They have been able to literally ride down and capture more individuals 
engaged in drug-related activity because they have been able to move 
along the railroad tracks, over hill, over dale, and also, as they 
point out, to very often surprise drug deals because they are just not 
cognizant that these bicycles coming down the road are police officers. 
In Richmond, CA, they have used the officers on the beat again to make 
it safer for retail businesses to have people shop on foot, to come 
back downtown, to participate in the community. They have used it to 
patrol the housing projects, again bringing about a reduction in 
criminal activity. They have also related very strongly that they 
have--this money and this cops program has allowed them to spend 
additional time with some of the gang-related activities that we have 
experienced in both of these communities, and in one of the communities 
we have again seen a reduction in the gang violence.
  This summer so far has been much different than the summer a year ago 
and a year and a half ago, and we hope that we will be able to continue 
that effort. Of course now the mayors of those cities and the city 
councils are concerned that either they are going to renege on these 
contracts for cops on the beat or they will not have the availability 
to try and reapply should that funding be available beyond the contract 
period.
  We should not, we should not, diminish the success that we have, and 
we should not yank away these resources from the communities, whether 
it is in Austin, or in Colorado, in Boulder and Denver, elsewhere where 
I think we have shared these kind of experiences. The returns are just 
now starting to come in as these communities have been able to 
participate in this program, and for the Republicans now, almost what 
seems like almost spite because of the success of this program, because 
this program, I think, was successful for the administration, but they 
thought it up, they executed it, they got the money on the street, that 
now there is some desire just to whack this money, and it is going to 
be a terrible blow to the local law enforcement, certainly to community 
policing in many, many communities that desperately need this money and 
really do not have the wherewithal to replace it, and I want to commend 
the gentleman and thank him for taking this time and the gentlewoman 
from Colorado for participating in this.

[[Page H7479]]

  Mr. DOGGETT. I appreciate your comments. As you know, one of the 
really good points about this program is, if you have a community of 
100,000 or less, the entire application process is filling out one 
piece of paper and sending it directly to Washington. And what a 
contrast, as the gentleman knows, between that effective program and 
this new block grant program that the Republicans want to substitute. I 
note particularly, and I think this could have a particularly negative 
effect in California, that under their block grant program the Governor 
of the State has not less than 45 days to review and comment on the 
application. That is not true under existing law. Your cities found out 
within 45 days of the President signing the law that the money was on 
the way. I do not know in California if Governor Wilson would even have 
time to look at the application since he is off and about the country.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, yes, we would 
not want to do that with an absentee Governor like we have now, but 
more importantly, our communities were able to take their 
circumstances, their crime rate, their concern about youth gang 
activities, and in the city of Richmond, the city of Vallejo, that have 
been suffering under increasing crime rates, they were able to take 
that situation, make this application, and very quickly determine 
whether or not they would be qualified for the first- or second-round 
grants that were made, and the fact of the matter is the money is now 
in the police department where it belongs, it is not being argued about 
within the city council over some other kind of way they can sneak out 
that block-grant money and use it for some other purposes.
                              {time}  1345

  It is in the police department, it is being directed at crime, and 
the results are coming in in terms of a diminishing crime rate in two 
communities, both Vallejo, CA, and Richmond, CA, that were having a 
real rough time fighting crime. They do not need the Governor's 
involvement. They do not need Congress' involvement. What they need is 
communications between the Justice Department and their own situation 
and a quick determination of whether or not they quality or not.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield, that is one of the 
things my communities have been very excited about. They have never 
seen such customer service relations as on this. One-page form, goes 
immediately, you put in a coupon and get an electronic transfer of the 
funds to your own bank. It is up and going.
  I am a little fascinated that if this works so well, and if this is 
what the police chiefs want, and if it is so tremendously user 
friendly, why is everybody out to kill it this week?
  Mr. DOGGETT. It is really extraordinary. I know the gentlewoman 
served on the committee that reviewed some of this legislation. Did the 
gentlewoman hear any good reason advanced for why a program that is 
putting young men and women like this on streets across this country, 
why we should pull the rug out from under that program and say that we 
need the Pete Wilsons and the George Bushes and the Governors and the 
State bureaucracies suddenly getting in the way of a program that takes 
money directly from Washington and puts it onto the streets and 
sidewalks of our communities across the country?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, if the gentleman will yield, no, I did not hear 
any good response to that. Obviously, there are certain people who are 
totally into the punishment mode rather than prevention. I think the 
American people would much prefer a crime that is prevented.
  Now, if it happens, then, yes, they are into punishment. But this was 
seen more as on the prevention side and they thought that that was 
soft, warm, fuzzy. I do not think so. I think the American people would 
much prefer a tough prevention program with cops on the beat and cops 
on the street. That is what they want to see. We got that, but for 
those who are still trying to say the Federal Government's role is only 
in prisons and only after they have been caught, we are in trouble.
  I think one of the things we have all found is, first of all, block 
grants are not going to work well for any of our States, because if 
your population is growing, the funding is going to be on your old 
population. So some State is going to get your money where the people 
have left and moved into your State.
  The next thing you are going to see is that people are going to try 
and knock this out. When cities start getting into trouble with crime, 
then the city starts getting hurt economically. The more it hurts 
economically, the less it has of its own money to get more police 
officers. So this is a way to help them get police officers, get back 
on their feet economically, and get people not worried about the crime 
rate and moving back in.
  If you take this all away, we are back to where we were. Once 
communities get on that slippery slope of rising crime, they can be in 
real trouble and you can end up with an abandoned city.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The genesis of this program was this was 
about putting police officer resources on the street, not about 
initiating a debate in city councils or boards of supervisors and the 
State legislature about what to do with a block grant form of money. 
This was about getting officers on the street to deal with the 
community.
  I would suggest that our Republican colleagues ought to spend some 
time riding with these officers, walking with these officers, visiting 
the communities, talking to the merchants who for the first time feel 
comfortable in their communities because they know that these officers 
are around and about.
  Many people lament the loss of community, the way it used to be. 
Well, the way it used to be was the people knew the police officers on 
the beat. They trusted them, they knew them, they could report activity 
to them. That, once again, in the communities I represent is returning. 
When I went around and talked to the merchants in Richmond, when I went 
around in Vallejo and talked to the merchants, they said yes, now they 
knew that sometime during the day this officer would be there. They 
felt free to talk to them. to say gee, there are these groups 
congregating on the corner, causing trouble, could you do this, look 
into it, do that. That is how we police our communities.
  I think the point was that is what this was directed at. The block 
grant suggested there is some greater law enforcement decision to be 
made out there, and that we will let that open debate and let 
communities do what they wanted. The fact of the matter is what local 
communities wanted were officers, police personnel, on the streets. If 
they think this is warm and fuzzy, they ought to talk to the criminals 
that have been run down by community police officers in the commission 
of an act of crime and brought to justice. That was not very warm and 
fuzzy, but they were available, where in the past they have not been.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Or as you wisely suggest, to simply ride with, to walk 
on the beat with, our law enforcement officers. When I have done that, 
I have had the same experience as the gentleman from California. You 
talk to the young man or woman who is out there on the beat, standing 
between us and violent crime, protecting our businesses, protecting our 
neighborhoods and our families and their dwellings. They are not 
interested in having to get immersed in city politics. They sure do not 
want to have to go to the governor and ask if more police is okay. They 
do not care whether Republicans or Democrats or President Clinton or 
President somebody else takes credit. They just need help.
  What this piece of legislation that we will vote on tomorrow night 
does is it pulls that help away and says we will not stand with them 
against crime. We are going to immerse them in the very kind of 
politics that they asked not to be immersed in, instead of backing them 
up and lending them the support they need to protect communities, 
whether it is in California, Colorado, or Austin, TX, or anywhere else 
in this great land.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. One of the ways it worked in my community, which has 
been wonderful, is the police have opened a neighborhood office. All 
the merchants and local people are invited in. The community gets a 
dinner. It just opens up the whole community, and they have done a much 
better job of catching criminals. If you look at 

[[Page H7480]]
the bottom line, one of the reasons there is a lot of crime is a lot of 
people got away with it.
  Well, if you have them there and you have eyes and ears and people 
know where to call and know it is right nearby in their neighborhood, 
boy, that stops the nonsense. And our biggest problem has been people
 wanting more, more, more. We cannot get enough fast enough.

  I am sure they are going to be stunned to find out that we may vote 
this out tomorrow, that this may be voted out, because, listen, they do 
not have R's on their shirts. There is no R for Republican, no D for 
Democrat, no C for Clinton. They are police officers. They are out 
there to protect the community.
  The gentleman was talking a little earlier about the Troops to Cops. 
That was in my committee. I worked very hard to get that amendment 
through and cosponsored it. What a waste. Some of these young people 
have already been perfectly trained. They just need a little extra 
training and they are ready to go on the civilian side. It is a win-win 
for the taxpayer. You paid for their military training. You may as well 
transfer it to the civilian side and keep it going.
  I think there were so many things we were starting to make headway 
on, and I do not care, the people in my district do not care, whether 
it is Republicans or Democrats. Their No. 1 issue is get crime under 
control and stop the killing and stop the terror. This is the best way.
  They are not saying what we want is get as many prisons as you can 
shoehorn in here and let us stuff everybody in prison. Yes, if you 
catch people, they want them to go to prison, but they much prefer 
preventing it in the first instance, so they are free to walk around on 
the streets and enjoy the community that they used to be able to enjoy.
  So I think your bringing this to the floor is absolutely essential. I 
cannot wait to see what they come up with as a reason to kill this 
program. I know we will all be listening intently.
  Mr. DOGGETT. The gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from 
California have both referenced prevention. I also wonder whether 
anyone is trying to undermine this cops program has ever discussed 
prevention with young men and women like this or with their older peers 
who are out there and have served our community, in some cases for 
decades.
  I know, for example, that in my community of Austin, TX, you 
mentioned this community meeting, last year we had a real problem in 
one neighborhood particularly, it has unfortunately affected a great 
deal of our community, with youth violence. So
 instead of looking only at the question of violence, our forward 
looking police department under Chief Watson sees leadership.

  One of the things they did about crime was to set up a job fair, to 
actually pull in local businesses to a high school, not far from this 
community. I went out to that job fair and there were young people 
coming out the doors, and there were some business people who I am sure 
instead of having someone who might come in and shoplift, someone who 
might some day because of drugs be burglarizing their establishment, 
they found a willing worker. Because if we provide some of these young 
people hope and we provide them opportunity, and if they begin to 
recognize that the men and women who go through cadet school and put on 
their blue uniform and go out to defend us are on our side, they are 
not the enemy, they are there working in the community with community 
police stations, with community prevention programs that work to try to 
prevent crime, that try to deter crime, and in turn, of course, 
unfortunately, when that does not work to a prison system to back them 
up, which we need. But if we rely only on the steel bars, we cannot 
build the prisons fast enough to fulfill the need of our community for 
security.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman and just say 
we found at least some of the officers have been more involved in 
community policing than just their shift work. We find them involved 
with the young people they work with in an official capacity during the 
day, on the weekends, and on their own time developing programs of 
community service for these people, completely voluntary, only 
recreational activities.
  This summer, at the end of the summer, we will for the second time 
have a police officer-inspired program in which young people have done 
service in their community and will be treated to a field trip. It is a 
huge event in a community that is very poor, lives in public housing, 
but by having all of the kids participate throughout the summer and 
stay engaged, this officer has put together the resources to then take 
them on a field trip of recreation and fun, something that we would 
have never seen because of the walls that are traditionally being built 
between the community and law enforcement.
  But now, because of her involvement in this community on a day-to-day 
basis, walking, talking to
 their mothers, their fathers, and other young people in the community, 
we now see this kind of relationship being built which we think long 
term will help law enforcement. As these young people grow up, it will 
also build some confidence in law enforcement by these young people 
because they will know these officers personally, and we like to 
believe that will continue. But for the first time we are now seeing a 
downward trend in crime in our communities.

  I hope we can defeat these efforts to take away this funding.
  Mr. DOGGETT. In attempting to do that, let me bring to the attention 
of the House one other aspect of this cops program, and that is 
something called cops more.
  Again, it is ironic that this very week, probably by midweek, the 
administration, the Department of Justice, will be announcing cops more 
grants. Hopefully, the city of Austin will be one of those and cities 
across this country. That is money that does allow some flexibility.
  It will, for example, provide Federal dollars, again, directly to the 
city of Austin, to other communities, to allow some of our law 
enforcement officers that are now tied up with paperwork and other 
duties within the station to be replaced with civilian workers so that 
those skilled law enforcement officers can be out on the street. It 
will allow for the paying of overtime when our police officers are 
stretched to the limits at times and have to have overtime. It will 
allow for certain equipment to be purchased to facilitate police 
communications and other activities on the street.
  So the cops program, as the Congress approved it last year, has the 
necessary flexibility already not only to get 100,000 police officers 
on the street, but to give them the tools that they need to be 
effective. Not politics, but real law enforcement tools, and that 
program will be announcing grants across America this week.
  Yet, unfortunately, it is that very program that the House will 
undermine and destroy tomorrow night, unless we are able to get an 
amendment on changing the appropriations bill as it has been 
recommended and keep the support for our local law enforcement 
agencies.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will yield further, let me thank him 
one more time for so very
 articulately laying out what our choices are going to be this week.

  Let me end the way I began. I feel so fortunate to live in a country 
where people call the police, are not afraid of the police, and see the 
police as their friend, and they really want us to help fund more of 
them to help bring our communities back to the way they were. Just as 
we were beginning to get that going, we do not want to see the rug 
pulled out from under us. Thank you so much.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentlewoman for her observations and 
comments.
  I would just close in saying that crime is not like the weather. 
There is something that we can do about it. The ``something'' this week 
in the House is to stand behind the men and women who just graduated 
from the academy in Austin, TX, that are out there because of Federal 
dollars, and keep that program going, backing up our law enforcement 
agencies, not substituting some weird blob grant program, but standing 
behind the men and women who are protecting our neighborhoods, our 
homes and businesses, doing something about crime with a program that 

[[Page H7481]]
works today, right now. Keep that program and defeat this reactionary 
change that has been proposed.


                          ____________________