[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 167 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7273-H7279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2112, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2012, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the
Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dicks of Washington moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
2112, be instructed to insist on (1) the highest level of
funding for the ``Federal Highway Administration--Emergency
Relief Program'' account, within the scope of conference and
only for activities consistent with the definition of
``disaster relief' included in the Budget Control Act of
2011, and (2) the highest level of funding within the scope
of conference for the Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) programs.
[[Page H7274]]
{time} 1240
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
The motion instructs conferees to provide funds needed for the
Federal Highway Administration to eliminate the backlog of repairs to
highways, roads and bridges damaged in natural disasters. The motion
also instructs the conferees to fund the Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) programs.
It is not unusual for Congress to appropriate funds to address the
backlog of disaster repairs for highways, bridges and roads. Since
1989, Congress appropriated additional funds to eliminate the emergency
relief backlog on 20 separate occasions.
This motion will put nearly 60,000 construction workers to work
repairing roads and bridges in 37 States. The Federal Highway
Administration needs about $1.76 billion for emergency relief repairs
in States that received a Presidential disaster declaration.
I would remind my colleagues that the Budget Control Act reformed the
process for determining the total amount available for disaster relief
funding. Funding is based on objective criteria. Disasters must be
declared, and the total amount cannot exceed the rolling 10-year
historical average. If conferees provide the highest level of disaster
relief funding within the scope of conference, it will be within that
range. The motion instructs conferees to remain consistent with the
Budget Control Act. And the act makes clear that if disaster relief
funding is within the average, it does not need to be offset.
The motion simply asks the House to honor the agreement on disaster
relief reached in the Budget Control Act.
The motion also instructs the conferees to support the highest level
of funding for COPS within the scope of conference. The House bill, as
reported by the Appropriations Committee back in July, included no
funding for the COPS programs. However, the Budget Control Act provides
a higher discretionary funding total for FY 2012 than the allocation
the committee was working with during the summer. This permits the
House to fund some items that were difficult to provide for in July.
And the COPS programs should be at the top of the list of things to fix
in the CJS bill with a higher allocation.
The House has supported COPS on a bipartisan basis, and it is needed
now more than ever. The economic downturn of the last few years is
straining the resources of State, local and tribal governments across
the country. Public safety agencies have been affected along with
nearly everyone else.
According to the COPS office, nearly 12,000 police officers and
sheriff's deputies will have been laid off by the end of 2011.
Approximately 30,000 law enforcement jobs are unfilled. And an
estimated 28,000 officers and deputies faced week-long furloughs in
2010.
We can't fix all the financial pressures facing local law
enforcement, but we can do something to help stem the tide. This motion
would support the hiring or rehiring of approximately 1,500 police
officers in FY 2012.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on the motion to
instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers other
than myself at this point; so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a tireless advocate for both the
COPS program and our firefighters and for local law enforcement.
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
I want to thank Mr. Dicks for his leadership on this issue. I want to
thank Mr. Rogers for his open-mindedness, as usual, hopefully as we go
into this discussion.
As cochair of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, I want to call
everyone's attention to one of the glaring differences between the bill
the Senate passed earlier this week and the one reported by our own
Appropriations Committee: Funding for our local police officers.
The Senate bill contained $232 million for the COPS office, including
$200 million for COPS hiring. This bill completely eliminated funding
altogether. We're here today to try to rectify that situation.
Mr. Speaker, we know that State and local governments are still
slashing their budgets as a result of the recession. In fact, just last
week the Department of Justice released a sobering report, ``The Impact
of the Economic Downturn on American Police Agencies.'' I think all of
our Members should read it. I want to place this as Exhibit A in my
presentation today, Mr. Speaker, into the Record.
The report revealed that nearly 12,000 law enforcement officers will
lose their job this year alone. Another 30,000 positions remain
unfilled, and 2011 would produce the first national decline in law
enforcement officers in 25 years.
Less cops on the beat means more crime on the streets, plain and
simple. It is a very specific aspect of this particular problem. It's
not going to get better.
I work very closely with my counterpart, Representative Reichert, who
was a sheriff's officer in Washington State, to cochair the Law
Enforcement Caucus. Earlier this year, 115 Members of this body,
Republicans and Democrats, supported these programs in a letter to
appropriators.
It is just not enough, Mr. Speaker, to pat our police officers on the
back. We must support them. The Federal Government has a particular
responsibility, specifically, to debate the issue and look at the issue
of homeland security. They're the first there, our firefighters. If
there's any manmade disaster or act of nature, they show up first
before anybody from the Federal Government.
To see the number of police officers being reduced in this country is
unconscionable, particularly after 9/11. Our crime is rising
specifically in the towns where these police officers have been laid
off, furloughed, demoted--and certainly lack the promotions. The
Federal Government has some responsibility here.
I would also like to place into the Record a very strong statement on
the issue of the matter of crime in our cities and in our towns. I will
make that Exhibit B.
I think the homeland security issue is a critical issue. But let's
bring it back to our own towns. Police departments in the United States
now have put on a list of priorities what they're going to respond to
and what they cannot respond to.
Listen to these. They've stopped responding to motor vehicle thefts
in many towns. They've stopped responding to burglar alarms that go
off. They've stopped responding to non-injury motor vehicle accidents.
In many towns, the warrant squads--if you don't know what a warrant
squad is, then you don't know what police departments do day in and day
out. They've minimized, two or three people left to try to find the
folks that have perpetuated crimes in our communities.
They've reported decreases in investigations of property crimes. You
talk about a response when you call the police department. Wait till
you see the response in terms of investigating these particular crimes.
This has all come out under the Justice Department. I'm not making
these numbers up. That's why I submit for the Record the numbers.
{time} 1250
Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker, in saying this has to be a
priority. Protecting the public is our primary priority, and I ask
consideration of what the gentleman from Washington is putting forth
today.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 21, 2011]
In High-Crime Areas, Still Too Few Police
(By Dan Mihalopoulos and Hunter Clauss)
Despite Mayor Rahm Emanuel's highly promoted efforts at
concentrating additional
[[Page H7275]]
police patrols in the city's most dangerous neighborhoods,
many crime-ridden police districts still have fewer officers
patrolling their streets than far safer areas of the city
have, according to recent data obtained by The Chicago News
Cooperative.
The data included officer-assignment data for all 9,400
Chicago police officers, as well as almost 1,000 detectives--
information that the city has steadfastly declined to make
public.
The analysis found that the distribution of patrol officers
among the city's 25 police districts does not correlate to
the places where crime rates are highest.
The 5th police district, which includes the Roseland and
Pullman neighborhoods on the Far South Side, has 266 patrol
officers, four fewer than the 270 officers in the 12th
district on the gentrified Near West Side, the data showed.
But the 5th district experienced 1,049 violent crimes in
the first eight months of this year, while the 12th district
recorded 341 violent incidents during the same period,
according to police department records.
Many predominantly black districts on the South and West
Sides had more than three or four murders, rapes, armed
robberies or assaults for every beat officer assigned to work
within their boundaries during that period.
That contrasted drastically with 10 districts, mostly in
more affluent sections on the North Side, where there were
one or two such crimes for every officer.
Many City Council members and neighborhood activists have
long campaigned for a police department reorganization that
would put more officers in high-crime neighborhoods. Told of
the deployment data analysis, they said the results
vindicated their demands.
``It basically validates the need for redeployment and
reallocation,'' said Alderman Anthony Beale, whose 9th Ward
is largely in the 5th district.
Mr. Beale said this week that he would call for Council
hearings on staffing levels in police districts. He said he
had unsuccessfully sought deployment statistics from the
police for years.
``Putting the most police in the areas with the most
crime--it's just that simple,'' said the Rev. Marshall Hatch,
whose New Mount Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church is in a
West Side police district with the second-lowest proportion
of police officers to violent crimes.
Lt. Maureen Biggane, a spokeswoman for the police
department, said officials were in the process of ``right-
sizing the department'' and had focused initial redeployment
efforts on the highest-crime districts. The debate over how
best to deploy police officers has raged for decades, with
representatives of more tranquil corners of the city
successfully blocking repeated attempts to shift greater
resources away from their neighborhoods to the most violent
districts.
The topic has become especially heated as City Hall's
budget problems have worsened in the past few years. Even
after the planned closing of three district stations, the
police department would remain by far the largest component
of the budget.
Police spending is slated to drop by 4.4 percent in 2012,
to about $1.26 billion out of the total city budget of $6.28
billion.
During economic boom times, former Mayor Richard M. Daley
promised and delivered expansion of the police ranks. When
the city's budget deficits grew, the Daley administration
allowed the police force to dwindle.
In 2008, officials reluctantly confirmed that they had been
forced to renege on Mr. Daley's vow to hire new officers, and
police academy classes ceased training cadets. Retirements
and other attrition quickly drove down the count of sworn
officers on the payroll.
Since his inauguration in May, Mayor Emanuel and his new
police superintendent, Garry McCarthy, have faced reality. In
presenting his 2012 budget-proposal, Mr. Emanuel said he
would delete more than 1,200 perennially unfilled officer
positions from the books ``to end the charade of carrying
hundreds of police officer vacancies without actually hiring
them.''
While acknowledging that they will have a smaller force
than the Daley administration once commanded, Mr. Emanuel and
Mr. McCarthy are as leery as Mr. Daley was of moving officers
from safe neighborhoods to higher-crime areas. Instead, City
Hall's new leaders say they have shifted personnel from the
specialized units that Mr. Daley built up and reassigned them
as beat officers in districts across Chicago.
Mr. Emanuel said he had transferred more than 1,000
officers ``to beat patrols in our neighborhoods,'' removing
them from desk jobs and special units.
``Every police district across our city received additional
officers,'' Mr. Emanuel told aldermen in his budget speech on
Oct. 12. ``Those districts with the most crime got the
biggest increases, as it should be.''
Ms. Biggane, the police spokeswoman, said eight high-crime
districts had benefited from the first redeployment wave,
involving 500 officers, and other parts of the city have
since received additional patrols.
But the Emanuel administration has declined to provide
documentation of those moves. The new administration has
adhered to longstanding policies of the Daley administration,
whose officials denied Freedom of Information Act requests by
contending that public disclosure of documents detailing
officer deployment levels would compromise security.
The Chicago News Cooperative recently obtained a list of
the unit assignments for the 10,300 sworn Chicago police
department employees from a police source who requested
anonymity because the department leaders have declined to
release it.
The records described the unit assignments as of early
October and appeared to reflect the vast majority of the
recent personnel moves ordered by the Emanuel administration.
Most of the detectives were assigned to one of the
department's five area headquarters, while about 2,400 of the
police officers were either assigned directly or detailed to
specialized units, including the narcotics section and the
internal affairs division.
It was impossible to deduce from the data exactly where the
officers in specialized units were working. The list also did
not include supervisors.
The other 7,000 police officers, representing a majority of
the department's sworn members, were each assigned to patrol
beats in one of the 25 districts. The number of officers in
each district ranged from a low of 191 in the 23rd district
to 386 in the 7th district.
A comparison of the beat deployment figures with department
statistics for property crimes and violent crimes in each
district this year shows:
Four districts--the 25th, 8th, 6th and 4th--had higher
ratios of both property crimes and violent crimes per officer
than the citywide average.
The highest ratios of property crimes to beat officer
counts were in the 14th, 8th and 25th districts, each of
which reported at least 15 property crimes per patrol officer
in the year's first eight months.
The lowest proportion of violent crimes to officers was in
the 1st district, which covers downtown Chicago, followed by
the 19th district on the North Side.
The 4th district, in the city's southeast corner, had the
largest gap between staffing level and violence, with 4.05
violent crimes per officer.
The 4th district covers most of the 7th Ward, whose
alderman, Sandi Jackson, praised Mr. Emanuel for adding
officers to areas of greater need, despite tight budget
constraints. But asked about the Chicago News Cooperative
findings, Ms. Jackson replied: ``There is absolutely a
disparity. We are not where we would want to be ideally.''
Some experts say the reaction of aldermen in apparently
underserved districts, though politically astute, would not
lead to the wisest policies for fighting crime.
``It is reasonable and rational to expect that there should
be more officers in areas with more crime,'' said Arthur
Lurigio, a professor of psychology and criminology at Loyola
University. ``But there is no evidence that would necessarily
be the case.''
Mr. Lurigio said saturating areas with officers often
merely pushed criminals to other places that then witnessed a
spike in violence.
Still, the city should deploy its police officers based on
a formula that would account not only for crime rates but
also for average response times to service calls, said Wesley
Skogan, professor of political science at Northwestern
University's Institute for Policy Research.
``This is Chicago, so everybody wants more and nobody wants
to give up officers,'' Mr. Skogan said. ``Emanuel should use
his crisis clout and allocate police resources based on
workload.''
____
The Importance of Community Policing in Tough Financial Times
Many of the cost saving techniques discussed within this
report are directly related to community policing efforts.
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes
organizational strategies, which support the systematic use
of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to
proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise
to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and
fear of crime (COPS Office 2009a). The three tenets of
community policing--community partnerships, organizational
transformation, and problem solving--are of increased
importance when facing budget cuts that reduce the number of
officers on the streets.
Collaborative partnerships to develop solutions to problems
and increase trust in police can be seen in many of the
solutions police agencies are using in light of the economic
downturn. Specifically, the use of volunteers, partnerships
between the police and private agencies, and the use of
social media as a means to communicate effectively with the
community in order to meet their needs, are all examples of
how collaborative partnerships act as a cost-saving tool.
Organizational transformation exists through the alignment
of organizational management, structure, personnel, and
information systems to support community partnerships and
proactive problem solving. From its inception, community
policing's goal is one of forging strong relationships
between law enforcement and the communities they serve. It
aims to redesign the practice of public safety into a
collective, collaborative effort (COPS Office 2009a).
The current economic crisis, which has thwarted many police
activities, requires police agencies to place a greater
emphasis on problem-solving techniques. By engaging in the
proactive and systematic examination of identified problems
and developing and rigorously evaluating effective responses,
they will be able to best use the limited resources that are
available to them.
[[Page H7276]]
Unfortunately, when agencies are forced to make widespread
budget cuts, some have done so by reducing or eliminating
some of their community policing programs. In fact, according
to the MCCA survey, 39 percent of respondents who have
reduced budgets stated that those budgets cuts were made to
their community policing efforts (MCCA 2011).
Herein lies one of the major fallacies as it relates to
community policing. Community policing should not be viewed
as a particular program within a department, but rather as a
department-wide philosophy. Programs are typically initiated
as a response to a specific problem, in which only a small
portion of the organization is involved and once the problem
has been addressed the program is dissolved (Trojanowicz and
Bucqueroux 1994). Instead, community policing must be
understood as a philosophy that promotes the systematic use
of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively
address the conditions within a community that are cause for
public concerns over crime and social disorder issues
(Melekian 2011d).
Community policing is an organizational strategy. It can be
used to govern the way police services are delivered,
recognizing the police officer as an organizer of resources
in pursuit of public safety rather than someone designated to
perform specific tasks (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1994).
In an article in The Police Chief, COPS Office Director
Melekian articulates the importance of the community policing
philosophy in the face of the current economic climate. He
argues that the downturn in the economy has affected the
country in ways that could not have been predicted even 5
years ago. The enhancement of community policing and the
myriad of social outreach programs that have been employed by
local law enforcement were initially brought about in large
measure by the combination of federal grant dollars and
readily available local funding sources. That financial
foundation is now in serious jeopardy in many local
jurisdictions.
Melekian further highlights how some have made the argument
that these economic challenges may compel us to abandon
community policing because we simply cannot afford it
(Melekian 2011d). However, experience has shown that
community policing is a more cost-effective way of utilizing
available resources than simple traditional policing
practices, for a number of reasons. Primarily, community
participation in crime-prevention amplifies the amount of
available resources, while community partnerships used to
address problem solving provides a more efficient
distribution of combined police and community resources than
simply reactive policing program models (Brown 1989).
The Importance of Community Policing in a Recession
Concord, Massachusetts--Deputy Police Chief Barry Neal has
utilized the proactive approach of community policing to
prevent crime and reduce victimization. ``We recognize that
we can't solve problems alone, we need to engage the
community and work in partnership with them,'' he said. ``It
gives us direct daily face-to-face contact between the
community and the officers, and also gives us the ability to
prevent problems from occurring instead of reacting to them''
(Ball 2009).
Albuquerque, New Mexico--Chief Schultz of Albuquerque is
having officers develop partnerships with retailers to
address shoplifters and boosters. The Police Department has
experienced a 20 percent reduction in their workforce and is
developing partnerships with retailers with the goal of
sharing information in order to link petty crimes together to
prosecute larger and stronger cases and get repeat offenders
off the street. In addition, they are offering rewards to
housekeepers at hotels to report the accumulation of large
amounts of merchandise, which can often be found in hotel
rooms (Stelter 2011).
Kansas City, Missouri--``When we talk in Kansas City about
`doing something different,' a mention of community policing
usually follows. And surely, the thought of police officers
working hand in hand with neighborhood folks is enticing. But
successful, citywide community policing would require a
culture change for a police department that places more faith
in arrest statistics than relationships as a crime-fighting
tool. [In looking for a new police chief, Kansas City]
believes a chief who finds a way to make it acceptable,
indeed desirable, for officers to connect with citizens and
help solve problems will be the start of the change that
everyone talks about'' (Shelly 2011).
Conclusion
In 2008, the entire country was introduced to the largest
fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. Many who have
worked in the field for decades have never seen an economic
situation that has affected law enforcement like the one our
country currently faces. As cities and counties across
America are experiencing a downturn in local revenues, the
effects on public safety budgets have been significant.
Americans are faced with a new economic reality, in which
they are challenged to develop new and innovative ways to
leverage resources and maximize productivity in the face of
diminishing financial means. Police agencies have not escaped
the effects of shrinking revenues. In fact, the economic
challenges facing many Americans are amplified when it comes
to public safety.
To compensate for shrinking budgets, many individuals focus
on what can be sacrificed from their normal lifestyle in
order to offset the reduction in available spending. Families
may forego their annual summer vacation, or choose to only
shop in discount stores rather than their favorite department
stores. However, law enforcement agencies face the more
difficult and ever important task of maintaining the same
quality of service that they always have provided despite a
severe reduction in available resources. Therefore, to
successfully deliver the high levels of community protection
and emergency responsiveness communities depend on, law
enforcement agencies must develop new and innovative
techniques to address the needs of their communities in cost-
effective and sustainable ways.
The recognition and acceptance of this new economic reality
is more important than ever in developing strategic
management practices to ensure the effective and efficient
delivery of police services. Never before has the law
enforcement community experienced such significant cuts to
operating budgets and available resources. Rather than
continuing to provide services through traditional means in
hopes that the economy will return to pre-recession levels,
police nationwide are shifting, adapting, and redeveloping
the ways in which they do their job--to ensure the highest
levels of public safety.
In every corner of the United States, state, local, and
tribal police departments are being forced to lay off
officers and civilian staff, or modify their operations as a
result of budget cuts. Over the last 2 years, many agencies
have experienced considerable affects from budget
constrictions, including mandatory furloughs and hiring
freezes, which have resulted in significant reductions in
staffing levels never experienced before. Indeed, American
law enforcement is changing, and the effects are likely to
last over the next 5 to 10 years, if not longer.
While the exact nature of how these changes will take place
is unclear, the data within this report suggest that changes
may occur on several fronts. First, there may be greater
application of ``force-multiplier'' technologies such as
closed-circuit TVs, automated emergency dispatch systems,
video teleconferencing equipment, and social media usage.
Utilization of technologies such as these has the ability
to provide law enforcement agencies with a way to maximize
available information while alleviating the need for an
immediate response.
Another fundamental alteration that has been seen in
delivery of police services as a result of the changing
economy is the increased application of non-sworn
individuals--both as employees and as volunteers. More and
more police agencies have begun to shift some of the
responsibilities that have traditionally been performed by
sworn staff to civilian personnel as a means to mitigate
payroll costs and maintain staffing levels. Further, some
agencies have even engaged citizen volunteers to help
alleviate the strain on police work loads. Such approaches
can provide sworn staff with more time to focus on pressing
and time-sensitive issues that can only be successfully
managed by a law enforcement officer.
Some agencies have had to drastically change their methods
for handling non-emergency situations and administrative
duties. Many police agencies are no longer able to dispatch
an officer to every call for service. Instead, more often
police managers are forced to direct their resources to focus
on situations which pose the most threat to public safety.
For example, some agencies are no longer able send officers
to collect crime reports for cases that don't involve
suspects, or dispatch patrol officers to every non-emergency/
non-injury service call. The primary focus on law enforcement
is protecting the safety of their communities. Therefore,
agencies experiencing limited resources must adjust their
approach to focus in on situations that are an immediate
threat to public safety.
A more drastic change that is being seen as a result of the
economic downturn is the increase in the number of agencies
combining efforts and resources through consolidation, shared
services, and regionalization. When agencies are faced with
maintaining services levels with less and less, collaborating
or combining agency's efforts often is the only way to
maximize available resources, training, and information.
As this report has shown, the recent economic downturn has
placed serious constraints on police budgets and severely
diminished the availability of resources. As an additional
step to help compensate for declining resources, many
departments have also begun collecting and disseminating
crime data in real-time via new technology. This has allowed
for the effective management and strategic deployment of
resources to focus on specific problems as they develop. With
the increased use of technology and information-sharing
policies being institutionalized throughout many police
departments nationwide, it has become essential that the
collection of national census data relating to law
enforcement agencies be collected with the same urgency.
It is crucial for policy makers to create proactive,
aggressive, and productive problem-solving strategies based
on relevant and current data. However, the delay in the
current methods of data collection and dissemination makes it
difficult to present an accurate picture of the state of
police agencies as things happen. In turn, a true
understanding of the challenges confronting law enforcement
agencies as seen through comprehensive analysis takes time
and resources. It will be important for federal partners to
collaborate on a way to collectively participate in data
collection efforts in the future that will increase the
availability of up-to-date data, and its analysis and
dissemination. By
[[Page H7277]]
collecting data more frequently and comprehensively, policy
makers and government agencies will be able to adjust and
realign their strategic goals to provide relevant assistance
where law enforcement agencies need it most.
Institutionalization of the community policing philosophy
is vital to the ability of law enforcement agencies to
succeed and thrive in the current economic climate. Agencies
must systematically use partnerships and problem-solving
techniques to proactively address the problems that their
communities are facing. Development and enhancement of
symbiotic relationships between police and the communities
they serve is key to ensuring community safety.
It is clear that the challenges facing America as a result
of the economic decline that began in 2008 have been
significant. Law enforcement communities are facing a new
reality in American policing--one that requires a shift in
the methods they use to uphold levels of service while
dealing with ever shrinking budgets. However, the importance
of maintaining and expanding community policing practices
during this time of economic hardship is paramount. Research
and feedback from the field indicate that community policing
is a successful practice in both small and large agencies
with significant public safety problems. Thankfully, many of
the law enforcement agencies in the United States already
practice community policing, and more are coming to recognize
the value of community partnerships in this time of limited
resources.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Transportation, HUD
Subcommittee, Mr. Olver.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees.
This motion would instruct the conferees to provide adequate funding to
the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief program in order
to eliminate the backlog of repairs needed as a result of hurricanes,
earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters.
Since the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934, Congress has repeatedly
recognized the need to provide assistance to States when unanticipated
disasters occur without conditioning the support on cuts to other
programs.
Currently, there is roughly $1.75 billion in emergency relief backlog
covering disasters in 37 States. The 2012 year has been an unusually
active one for natural disasters, and 33 States have experienced
declared disasters totaling $1.4 billion since the beginning of this
year alone.
This includes $50 million in repairs that are needed in my State,
Massachusetts, due to tornadoes in the spring and damage from Hurricane
Irene; $42 million needed by Iowa to repair damage from Missouri River
spring floods; and $100 million in Ohio due to severe rainfalls in the
early spring.
Mr. Speaker, as we have done 20 times since 1989 during both
Republican and Democratic Congresses, we have a responsibility to our
neighbors to provide them funding needed to address their emergency
relief needs.
Mr. Speaker, the chart I have in my hand references those 20 acts of
Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
the motion to instruct conferees.
EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 1989-PRESENT
[Excludes $100 million annual authorization under 23 U.S.C.-125]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Trust
Public Law Date signed Title Fund General Fund Purpose Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------PL 101-130................. 10/26/1989 Fiscal Year 1990 $1,000,000,000 ................. September 1989 Waived 23 U.S.C.
Dire Emergency Hurricane Hugo and 120(f) [now
Supplemental to October 17, 1989 120(e)] by
Meet the Needs of Loma Prieta extending the 100%
Natural Disasters Earthquake. Federal share from
of National 90 days \1\ to 180
Significance. days and extending
this to all
projects
(emergency and
permanent
repairs). Waived
the $100 million
State cap.
PL 102-368....................... 9/18/1992 Supplemental $30,000,000 ................. Hurricane Andrew, none-
appropriations for Hurricane Iniki,
Fiscal Year 1992. and Typhoon Omar.
PL 103-75........................ 1/5/1993 Emergency $175,000,000 ................. Midwest floods of none-
supplemental 1993 and other
appropriations for disasters.
relief from the
major, widespread
flooding in the
Midwest for the
fiscal year ending
September 30, 1993.
PL 103-211....................... 1/25/1994 Making emergency $1,665,000,000 ................. January 1994 Waived 23 U.S.C.
supplemental Northridge 120(e) by
appropriations for earthquake in extending the 100%
the fiscal year Southern California Federal share from
ending September and other disasters 90 days to 180
30, 1994, and for including an days and extending
other purposes. additional $315 this to all
million for the projects
Loma Prieta (emergency and
Earthquake. permanent repairs)
related to the
Northridge
earthquake. Waived
the $100 million
per State cap for
the Northridge
earthquake.
PL 104-134....................... 4/26/1996 Making $300,000,000 ................. January 1996 Waived the $100
appropriations for flooding in the Mid- million per state
fiscal year 1996 to Atlantic, cap for the
make a further down Northeast, and January 1996
payment toward a Northwest States flooding in the
balanced budget, and other disasters. Mid-Atlantic and
and for other Northwest States.--
purposes. -----
PL104-208........................ 9/28/1996 Making Omnibus $82,000,000 ................. Hurricanes Fran and none
Consolidated Hortense and for
Appropriations for other disasters.
Fiscal Year 1997-.
PL 105-18........................ 6/12/1997 1997 Emergency $650,000,000 ................. For an additional Waived the $100
Supplemental amount for the million per State
Appropriations Act Emergency Relief cap for the
for Recovery From Program for December 1996 and
Natural Disasters emergency expenses January 1987
and for Overseas resulting from flooding in the
Peacekeeping flooding and other western States.
Efforts, Including natural disasters-.
Those in Bosnia..
PL 105-174....................... 5/1/1998 1998 Supplemental $259,000,000 ................. For an additional Waived the $100
Appropriations and amount for the million per State
Rescissions Act. Emergency Relief cap for projects
Program for resulting from
emergency expenses flooding during
resulting from the fall of 1997
floods and other through the winter
natural disasters. of 1998 in
California
PL 106-346....................... 10/23/2000 Department of $720,000,000 ................. For an additional none
Transportation and amount for the
Related Agencies Emergency Relief
Appropriations, Program for
2001-. emergency expenses
resulting from
floods and other
natural disasters---
.
PL 107-117....................... 1/10/2002 Department of $100,000,000 ................. For emergency none
Defense and expenses to respond
Emergency to the September
Supplemental 11, 2001, terrorist
Appropriations for attacks on the
Recovery from and United States, for
Response to ``Miscellaneous
Terrorist Attacks Appropriations,''
on the United including the
States Act, 2002. operation and
construction of
ferries and ferry
facilities---.
$75,000,000 ................. For emergency none
expenses to respond
to the September
11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the
United States, for
the ``Emergency
Relief Program,''as
authorized by
section 125 of
title 23, United
States Code.
PL 107-206....................... 8/2/2002 2002 Supplemental $167,000,000 ................. For an additional Waived 23 U.S.C.
Appropriations Act amount for 120(e) or projects
for Further ``Emergency Relief resulting from the
Recovery from and Program,'' as 2001 NYC WTC
Response to authorized by 23 terrorist attacks
Terrorist Attacks U.S.C. 125, for by allowing all
on the United emergency expenses projects to be
States. to respond to the eligible at 100%
September 11, 2001, without any time
terrorist attacks limit. Waived the
on New York City. $100 million per
State cap for such
projects.-
$98,000,000 ................. For an additional none
amount for the
``Emergency Relief
Program,'' as
authorized by
section 125 of
title 23, United
States Code.
PL 108-324....................... 10/13/2004 Military $1,202,000,000 ................. 2004 Hurricanes Waives the $100
Construction Charley, Frances, million per State
Appropriations and Gaston, Ivan, and cap for projects
Emergency Hurricane Jeanne, as arising from
Supplemental authorized by 23 Hurricanes
Appropriations Act, U.S.C. 125. Charley, Frances,
2005. Ivan, and Jeanne.-
PL 108-447....................... 12/8/2004 Consolidated $741,000,000 ................. For an additional none
Appropriations Act, amount for the
2005. ``Emergency Relief
Program'' as
authorized under
section 125 of
title 23, United
States Code.-.
PL 109-148....................... 12/30/2005 Department of ................. $2,750,000,000 Hurricanes Katrina, Waived 23 U.S.C.
Defense, Emergency Rita, and Wilma.. 120(e) for
Supplemental Hurricanes
Appropriations to Katrina, Rita, and
Address Hurricanes Wilma. Waived the
in the Gulf of $100 million per
Mexico, and State cap for
Pandemic Influenza Hurricanes Dennis,
Act, 2006---. Katrina, Rita or
Wilma and for the
2004-2005 winter
storms in the
State of
California.-
[[Page H7278]]
PL 109-234....................... 6/15/2006 Emergency ................. $702,362,500 For an additional Waived the $100
Supplemental amount as million per State
Appropriations Act authorized under 23 cap for Hurricane
for Defense, the U.S.C. 125, for Dennis and for the
Global War on expenses identified 2004-2005 winter
Terror, and under ``Formal storms in the
Hurricane Recovery, Requests'' in the State of
2006. Federal Highway California.-
Administration
table entitled
``Emergency Relief
Program Fund''
Requests--updated
06/06/06.
PL 110-28........................ 5/25/2007 U.S. Troop ................. $871,022,000 For an additional Waived the $100
Readiness, amount for the million per State
Veterans' Care,- Emergency Relief cap for the 2005-
Katrina Recovery, Program as 2006 winter storms
and Iraq authorized under in the State of
Accountability section 125 of California.-
Appropriations Act, title 23, U.S.C.-.
2007.
PL 110-161....................... 2/26/2007 Consolidated ................. $195,000,000 For replacement of I- PL 110-56 waived 23
Appropriations Act, 35W bridge in U.S.C. 120(e) and
2008-. Minneapolis, lifted the $100
Minnesota as million per State
authorized in cap for the I-35W
Public Law 110-56.-. bridge
replacement.-
PL110-329........................ 9/30/2008 Consolidated ................. $850,000,000- For an additional PL 110-329 lifted
Security, Disaster amount as the $100 million
Assistance, and authorized under per State cap for
Continuing section 125 of Hurricanes Gustav
Appropriations Act, title 23, United and Ike.
2009. States Code..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total from GF................ .............. .................... ................. $5,368,384,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total from HTF 1989-present-. .............. .................... $7,264,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The time limit for eligibility of emergency repair work [currently 23 U.S.C. 120(e)] was increased from 90 days to 180 days in 1998 (TEA-21).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science
Subcommittee, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman from Washington State, who's the
ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, and I thank our
chairman, Chairman Rogers. I'm very pleased that we are having a motion
to instruct and that actually we're moving appropriation bills.
I rise in support of the gentleman from Washington's motion to
instruct, particularly in support of additional disaster relief and
also the COPS program.
It's critically important that we continue the national declining
crime rates, and because of the layoffs or dismissals of over 12,000
police officers and the fact that we have over 30,000 law enforcement
jobs that are unfilled today in our country, we see in many cities now
a rising level of criminal activity.
I want to mention that in Paterson, New Jersey, we heard from the
gentleman who used to be mayor of Paterson that they've had to lay off
125 police officers, a fourth of the police force there, and they've
experienced a 15 percent increase in crime. And I think that one could
draw a correlation between these two. In Flint, Michigan, the police
force has been cut by two-thirds over the last 3 years, and its murder
rate is higher than that of Baghdad. Last January, Camden, New Jersey,
was cut by 163 officers, 44 percent of the total force.
It's critically important that we understand the direct nexus between
the Federal effort which began many years ago to put cops on the street
and to assist local officers and the dramatic declines that we've seen
for more than a decade now in criminal activity in our country, and I
would hope that this motion to instruct would inform all of the
conferees how important this is in addition to the disaster relief.
When we call 911, we want to be calling for a police officer, not
dialing for a prayer.
So we need real help, and the conferees will have an opportunity to
adjust the figures hopefully in line with what we want as an ideal. If
we can fund police officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can fund them
in Flint, Paterson, and in Camden, New Jersey, and in other cities
similarly situated.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have further
speakers?
Mr. DICKS. I have one additional speaker, and then I will close very
briefly.
I have the right to close, I believe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch), a very distinguished Member of the Congress and a person whose
State has been very hard-hit by disasters, and we're going to do
everything we can to work to assist him on this important endeavor.
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, on August 28 of this August, Hurricane Irene left a path
of destruction from the Carolinas to Vermont. The districts of 55 of
our colleagues were hit and hit hard. And that storm did damage without
regard to partisan affiliation or income distribution. If you were in
the path of that storm, you suffered.
The 55 Members of Congress who were affected by it created the
Hurricane Irene Coalition, Republicans and Democrats, and we are united
in the single goal of getting the aid to our people back home that they
need to get back on their feet.
Hurricane Irene, Mr. Speaker, saved its greatest fury to the end,
when it descended upon Vermont. It was the biggest damaging storm that
we've had in 100 years. We lost 700 homes of hardworking Vermonters,
many of whom had no flood insurance, 260 roads and 30 bridges were
impassable, 13 communities were entirely cut off.
The good news was that the Vermont response is extraordinary. People
came together. They started a school on the town green in Pittsfield
when they were unable to go north or south because the road was cut
off. Then when the main artery was reopened so school buses could pass
but they couldn't get out on their road, they got their chainsaws out
and cut a half-mile path through the woods so the kids could get to
school. That's the kind of spirit that we find in our districts, and
I'm very proud of Vermont, and all of our colleagues are as well.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to express a statement of gratitude. I've
had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Rogers. I've had the opportunity
to visit with Mr. Latham, with Mr. Olver, with Mr. Kingston, with Mr.
Dicks, with Mr. Cantor, where they've given me the opportunity to tell
them the specific story of Vermont and hear my request that Vermont be
treated as Vermonters have treated others.
I rise in support of this motion to instruct so that this Congress
can do what it's always done. It's come forward to help people in this
country who have been on the bad end of a tough storm.
{time} 1300
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is the gentleman from Washington prepared to
close?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, I am prepared to close and to yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2012 bill will
encourage the conferees to consider and support several funding items
as they negotiate the final agreement on this three-pack of bills.
While I believe that this motion is unnecessary, I am willing to accept
the gentleman's motion as it does address some important issues that
will be considered by the conferees. As we move forward, I expect the
ranking member and myself to work together to negotiate these issues,
and therefore, today, I can accept this motion.
First, if approved, this motion would express the House's support for
funding for the COPS program within the Department of Justice.
While local law enforcement is primarily a State and local
responsibility, there is strong bipartisan support for a variety of
Federal programs that help
[[Page H7279]]
first responders, including the COPS program for State and local
police.
The Commerce/Justice/Science bill has historically included a range
of programs to strengthen local law enforcement, including Byrne
grants, State Criminal Alien Assistance, Juvenile Accountability,
programs to combat violence against women, and COPS programs. COPS has
not only supported the hiring and rehiring of new officers, but it has
also allowed local police departments to modernize their technology and
to address the enforcement and cleanup challenges of the meth epidemic.
However, we must make these funding decisions very carefully to avoid
adverse impacts. State and local budgets are often incapable of
sustaining new first responder positions when Federal money runs out,
and this risk is especially high given the current economic challenges
in our local communities.
Second, this motion encourages the conferees to support funding for
the Highway Emergency Relief Program, commonly referred to as the ``ER
Program.''
This program is authorized, and provides States with funds to repair
eligible roads damaged by disasters and catastrophic events. This
program was created to rebuild after disasters and get businesses and
everyday life back up and running. Unfortunately, in 2011, the total
amount of eligible disaster-stricken roads exceeded the level of
available ER funds. It's important that we now provide the appropriate
level of funding to ensure that States and communities receive the
legitimate assistance that they are relying upon.
Mr. Speaker, again, while I don't think this motion is necessary, I
will accept it, and I look forward to working with both sides on these
important issues in order to come up with a satisfactory solution.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the chairman for his commitment this
year to return to regular order. I wish we could have finished all 12
bills, but we at least got six of them done. I just want to thank him
and his staff and the staff of the minority for working together in a
collegial way.
I think it's important for the American people to know that the
Appropriations Committee here is working together on a bipartisan
basis. Now, we may have differences on economic theory and everything
else, but we are committed to getting these bills passed and bringing
as many as we can to the floor. I hope that, next year, we can start a
little earlier and get the budget resolution and move these bills. I
would love to see us in the second session of this Congress get all 12
bills to the floor where the Members can offer their amendments. I
think that still should be our goal and objective.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for those words.
He is exactly right. He and I started out this year both new to our
jobs on the committee; but determined, we agreed with each other and
committed to each other that we would work together to try to restore
the regular order that used to prevail on these appropriations bills,
where we had heated debate but collegial debate, realizing that we have
to finally come to some agreement on these bills that keep the
government going. We don't have the luxury of failing. The gentleman
has been a great partner in this work all year long, and I look forward
to the rest of the work.
Now, on this year's bills, the 2012 bills that we're working on now,
it is my hope and ambition--I know you share this with me--that we
finish these bills before the end of this calendar year.
Mr. DICKS. Absolutely, we are determined to do that. I'm glad to see
that the other body is actually bringing some of these minibuses to the
floor and allowing their Members to have a vote. I think we may have
inspired them.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That would take some doing.
Nevertheless, I agree with you. I'm tickled to death to see the
Senate is finally acting. They only passed one bill, up until 2 days
ago, of the 12. We've passed six through the House, and have sent them
over there without a response until now.
I want to finish the 2012 bills right away so that we can begin work
in January on the 2013 bills and so that we'll have plenty of time to
do them one by one, which is the regular order and what we all want to
see happen. I know that's my goal and ambition, and I know the
gentleman shares that.
Mr. DICKS. I concur with what you've said, and I concur with the
direction we're going in. I just hope we can do a little better and
finish the job next year. It has been done before. It's not impossible.
We also have to think about the impact of these bills on the economy
and the country. That's very important as well.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We were sidelined a good part of this year
from our regular business with H.R. 1. We inherited a House that had
not passed an appropriations bill for fiscal '11, so we spent the first
5 months or so of the year trying to pass a bill to fund that current
year, fiscal '11.
Mr. DICKS. Your point is that that's why it's so important to finish
these in 2011, before the end of the calendar year, so we don't have to
waste time next year in finishing the job.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Exactly.
Nevertheless, it held us up for 5 months and kept us from doing our
chores for fiscal '12. Then came along the debt ceiling increase
debate, which took weeks and sucked all of the air out of everything
else, so we were prevented on the committee from doing our regular
chores.
As the gentleman says, we want to finish these bills for fiscal '12
so that finally, in fiscal '13, we can have a real clean year, taking
each bill one by one.
Mr. DICKS. Speaking of a clean year, let's try to get rid of as many
of those riders as we can, Mr. Chairman. You know it's the right thing
to do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. By the way, in closing, we're going to
conference with the Senate on these three bills this afternoon--as a
matter of fact, at 5 o'clock. That's the first time that there has been
a House-Senate appropriations conference in years. So, between us and
the Senate, we are achieving something almost historic here, and that
is going to conference with the Senate, which used to be a routine
thing, and we hope to restore that idea.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________