[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27065-27066]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 27066]]

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.

                          ____________________