[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 153 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13151-S13152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCIENCE-STATE-JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Senate approved the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2862, the Science-State-Justice
appropriations bill. I voted for this legislation because it provides
critical funding for the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. However, I rise to explain that I am voting
for this bill reluctantly because I feel that some of the funding
priorities set forth in the bill will leave our communities more
vulnerable to terrorist attacks traditional crime. In particular, this
bill continues the wrongheaded trend of slashing Federal funding for
State and local law enforcement and important criminal justice
programs. This bill slashes funding for the Justice Assistance Grant
and the COPS Program. And, for the first time, the Congress has decided
to zero out the COPS hiring Program. I believe that this decision is a
terrible mistake on so many levels, and I fear that our Nation's
citizens will be less safe from traditional crime and terrorism as a
result. Further, the bill slashes Federal assistance for the effective
and cost-efficient drug court program by an astounding 75 percent.
Back in 1994 when we passed the legislation that created the COPS
Program, our crime rates were at all-time highs. At that time, we made
a commitment to our State and local law enforcement partners. During
those years, we invested roughly $2.1 billion for State and local law
enforcement each year and substantially upgraded our ability to combat
crime. We added over 100,000 officers to patrol our neighborhoods, and
we expanded crime prevention programs such as community policing
programs across the Nation. What was the ultimate result? Crime rates
for violent crime, murder and rape were all reduced, and today they
remain at all-time lows. Many law enforcement experts and local
officials credit the COPS Program for helping to achieve these results.
In fact, no one, to my knowledge, with law enforcement expertise has
argued otherwise. The International Association of Chiefs of Police,
the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the
National Association of Police Organizations, and other local law
enforcement groups all support the COPS Program. Attorney General
Ashcroft has stated that the COPS Program was a miraculous success, and
Attorney General Gonzalez stated that the COPS Program put officers on
the street and we reduced crime. Moreover, a recent report by the
Government Accountability Office concluded that COPS hiring grants had
an impact on reducing crime rates.
Why would the Congress eliminate a program that is strongly supported
by local law enforcement officials and has been proven effective by
statisticians at the Government Accountability Office? Well, it has its
basis in ideology. Some of my Republican colleagues argue that local
crime is a local problem and the Federal Government should not be
funding these local efforts. I completely disagree. How can it be a
local responsibility when roughly 60 percent of all the crimes
committed in America relate to drugs, abuse of drugs, and the sale and
trafficking of illicit drugs? These drugs are smuggled across our
national borders from State to State and city to city by sophisticated
drug cartels and street gangs. How does a local sheriff prevent drugs
that start out in a foreign country from being trafficked into his or
her county? How does a police chief prevent the recruitment of local
kids into international street gangs? In my opinion, crime is a
national problem, and it requires a national response. The COPS Program
demonstrated the Federal Government's commitment to approach crime as a
national problem--and it worked.
I would also point out that State and local law enforcement forms our
first line of defense against terrorism. Homeland security experts have
pointed out the value that community policing programs can have in
combating terrorism. This only makes sense--it is the local officer who
knows the neighborhood who will be able to provide the types
information necessary to help infiltrate a local terror cell. In
addition, it will be a local officer walking the beat who happens to
catch a suspect trying to pump sarin gas into the local mall air-
conditioning ducts. It won't be a brave Special Forces agent with night
vision goggles; it will be a local cop walking the beat. In this era of
uncertainty, we need to be providing more support for our local police
agencies to help make their efforts against terrorism and crime as
robust as possible.
And by cutting the drug court program--one of the most effective
programs to reduce substance abuse in the criminal population--we are
sending a devastating message to the 16,000 individuals that graduate
from drug courts each year. We are telling them that we don't care that
diversion programs are successful at helping people overcome addiction
to reenter society as productive citizens, holding down jobs, and
regaining custody of their children. We are sending a message that we
would prefer to revert to the bad old days of locking up nonviolent
drug offenders in prisons where most will get no drug treatment and
they will most likely just sink deeper into a life of crime.
And what message are we sending to the 70,000 people currently
enrolled in drug courts who are working hard to live sober, crime-free
lives? By slashing funding for the drug court program we are telling
them that we are not invested in their recovery and we are putting
their future in drug court programs in jeopardy.
It makes absolutely no sense to me that we are cutting this cost-
effective program by 75 percent. By enrolling nonviolent drug offenders
in drug courts, States save an enormous amount of money. One study
showed that California's drug courts save the State $18 million a year.
Another study showed that every dollar spent on a drug court program
saves the city of Dallas, TX, $9.43 over a 40 month period. It is
inconceivable to me that we would choose to cut this program. The
[[Page S13152]]
National Association of Drug Court Professionals estimates that our
actions here today will result in more than 13,000 individuals losing
access to drug court services. These 13,000 people will likely continue
their lives of crime and drugs and being a threat to public safety
instead of getting enrolled in a tough-love program that will help them
to turn their lives around and get sober. It is truly a tragedy.
It is my opinion that we found a winning formula when we made the
decision to invest in our State and local law enforcement partners and
smart on crime initiatives in the nineties, and I believe that we are
making a terrible mistake when we reduce funding for them. There is no
greater responsibility of the Federal Government than the protection of
its citizens. This is true whether the threat comes from international
terrorist or from a thug down the street, and I strongly believe that
we are taking the wrong approach when we cut funding for our State and
local law enforcement partners. Sheriff Ted Sexton, the president of
the National Sheriffs Association, got it right when he stated that
``cuts of this magnitude will seriously inhibit our ability to protect
our communities and secure the homeland.'' And, the president of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police was correct in pointing
out that ``demanding that we play a central role in our Nation's
homeland security efforts, while at the same time cutting the resources
we need to do our job, is both hypocritical and irresponsible.'' I hope
that the Republican-led Congress and President Bush will heed the call
of these brave men and women and fully fund these critical programs
next year.
____________________