[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 195 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18296-S18297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     THE COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations conference report.
  When this bill was adopted by the Senate on September 29, it 
maintained the Community Oriented Policing Services Program [COPS] by 
eliminating the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Block Grant 
Program, reinstated the Legal Services Corporation, and fully funded 
the Violence 

[[Page S 18297]]
Against Women Act. Now this appropriations bill returns to the Senate 
reflecting the wishes of the House at the expense of the Senate. The 
COPS Program has been eliminated by the re-instatement of the State and 
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Block Grant Program, the Legal 
Services Corporation will receive approximately $60 million less than 
the Senate had agreed upon, and the Violence Against Women Act will 
also receive approximately $40 million less than what the Senate agreed 
upon.
  As we all know, the COPS Program has proven to be successful. In one 
year, since the program's inception, New Mexico has received over 180 
officers from the COPS Program. All parts of New Mexico have been 
awarded officer positions. From the Aztec Police Department in the 
north and Sunland Park in the South, to Quay County in the east and 
Laguna Pueblo in the west, all have felt the impact of this program.
  The COPS Program is different from the block grant contained in the 
conference report because it emphasizes the concept of community 
policing. It gets officers out into the community preventing crimes 
rather than reacting to crimes once they have been committed.
  Mr. President, I understand that the language in this appropriations 
bill would allow a community to use the block grant money to hire 
secretaries, buy a radar gun or buy a floodlight for a local jail. The 
law enforcement community is against this broad approach. The sentiment 
is best summed up by Donald L. Cahill, the chairman of the national 
legislative committee for the Fraternal Order of Police, who testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February on the block grant 
type proposal. He stated:

       This broader category opens the door to using these funds 
     for numerous purposes other than hiring police officers--such 
     as hiring prosecutors or judges, buying equipment, lighting 
     streets, or whatever. These are all worthwhile--but they 
     won't arrest a single criminal.

  The bottom line is to place more officers on the street and the COPS 
program has proven to be successful. That is why the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National Troopers' 
Coalition support the COPS Program.
  To quote Mr. Cahill again, ``Police are the answer for today and 
prevention is the answer for tomorrow.''
  If the Senate agrees to fund the Violence Against Women Act at the 
figure contained in the conference report, the Senate is stating that 
this program is not as strong a priority as it was on September 29.
  If given the resources, this act has the potential to demonstrate 
that the Federal Government can make a real difference when dealing 
with violence against women. Through prosecution, outreach, and 
education, the Federal Government has assumed the responsibility of a 
full partner in this cause.
  In summary, our communities will suffer the direct affects of these 
misaligned priorities.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few additional minutes to 
discuss some other areas of the conference report that have led me to 
oppose the bill.
  I want to preface my comments with a reminder to those who are 
earnestly committed to the future economic well-being of our Nation and 
our citizens. Balancing the budget is certainly a goal I support; this 
cause does make sense, but that goal alone is not enough to secure a 
robust and healthy economic future for our country. How we cut, what we 
cut matters a great deal. As many of you know, I have watched rather 
incredulously as aid to dependent children, student loans, Medicare and 
Medicaid, the earned income tax credit have been slashed and attacked 
in this Chamber as we proceed, without missing a beat, to provide 
nearly $800 million on 129 military construction projects above the 
Pentagon's request, above what the President of the United States 
proposed was necessary to maintain the national security interests of 
the country. We are making tough decisions that affect people's lives 
and impact the ability of so many who are hard-working, low income 
Americans to keep their families together, keep food on the table, and 
have a chance at getting their children into colleges.
  What we cut matters, and I am opposed to the decimation of our 
Nation's technology programs. Our firms are at a distinct disadvantage 
to firms in Germany, France, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and in nearly 
all industrialized nations when it comes to making the investments 
required to match what foreign government-industry partnerships provide 
for pre-competitive technology support. We have achieved laudable and 
significant results from the Technology Reinvestment Program, the 
Advanced Technology Program, and the Manufacturing Extension Program. 
While we cut programs, even eliminate some--the Office of Technology 
Assessment, for example, no longer exists--the Japanese Government 
despite its budget and economic problems is going to double its 
research and development expenditures by the year 2000. Our technology 
programs are not corporate welfare; these have been programs that have 
helped trigger the competitive rebound of our Nation's firms and that 
have helped small and medium-sized firms benefit from national 
technology programs and projects, that would have otherwise been the 
exclusive privilege of larger firms with the contacts, resources, and 
infrastructure to cooperate with national laboratories.
  This Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill is a disturbing 
ideological exercise that threatens the health of our future economy. 
The technology programs of the Department of Commerce help to expand 
our economy, help Americans compete in the global marketplace, and help 
to generate high-quality, high-wage jobs that our workers need. Many 
say that the reason that the Advanced Technology Program is being 
eliminated is that the projects did not earn any political ownership. 
This is a sad commentary on our judgment of what is important and not 
important as we make decisions in our budget-cutting efforts. As Leslie 
Helm of the Los Angeles Times wrote on November 26, 1995:

       The Advanced Technology Program . . . works because 
     projects are proposed by industry and companies are required 
     to match government money on their own.

  This is an example of how we should be leveraging the taxpayer's 
dollar, getting more from government investments than we otherwise 
would achieve. The ATP was created during the Bush administration and 
had strong bipartisan support, support that such a promising, 
successful program should have today.
  I also cannot support this bill because of the sharp reduction for 
the National Information Infrastructure Grants Program. The NII Program 
assists hospitals, schools, libraries, and local governments in 
procuring advanced communications equipment to provide better health 
care, education, and local government services. The conference report 
eliminates funding for the GLOBE Program, which promotes knowledge of 
science and the environment in our schools. And although it remains 
anemically funded, I think that the reductions in this bill for the 
Manufacturing Extension Program are wrong-headed and continue the trend 
of undermining our Nation's best efforts in decades at partnering with 
industry to maintain our national technological competitiveness both in 
the commercial and national defense sectors.
  We need to bias our spending toward those projects that produce real 
growth in our economy. Growth generates jobs, better incomes, and a 
higher standard of living for our citizens.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I must strongly oppose this bill 
and urge the President to veto it.

                          ____________________