[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10394-10404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     COPS IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2009

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1139) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1139

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``COPS Improvements Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. COPS GRANT IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall 
     carry out grant programs under which the Attorney General 
     makes grants to States, units of local government, Indian 
     tribal governments, other public and private entities, multi-
     jurisdictional or regional consortia, and individuals for the 
     purposes described in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e). 
     Grants under this subsection shall be awarded on a 
     competitive basis.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking the subsection heading text and inserting 
     ``Community Policing and Crime Prevention Grants'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, to increase the 
     number of officers deployed in community-oriented policing'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) award grants to pay for or train officers hired to 
     perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security 
     duties;'';

[[Page 10395]]

       (D) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) award grants to hire school resource officers and to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems to combat 
     crime, gangs, drug activities, and other problems in and 
     around elementary and secondary schools;'';
       (E) by striking paragraph (9);
       (F) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively;
       (G) by striking paragraph (13);
       (H) by redesignating paragraphs (14) through (17) as 
     paragraphs (12) through (15), respectively;
       (I) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (J) in paragraph (15), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
       (K) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) establish and implement innovative programs to 
     reduce and prevent illegal drug manufacturing, distribution, 
     and use, including the manufacturing, distribution, and use 
     of methamphetamine;
       ``(17) hire and rehire civilian forensic analysts and 
     laboratory personnel;
       ``(18) establish criminal gang enforcement task forces, 
     consisting of members of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement authorities (including Federal, State, and local 
     prosecutors), for the coordinated investigation, disruption, 
     apprehension, and prosecution of criminal gangs and offenders 
     involved in local or multi-jurisdictional gang activities; 
     and
       ``(19) award enhancing community policing and crime 
     prevention grants that meet emerging law enforcement 
     needs.'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c);
       (4) by striking subsections (h) and (i);
       (5) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
     subsections (f) through (i), respectively;
       (6) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Troops-to-Cops Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be 
     used to hire former members of the Armed Forces to serve as 
     career law enforcement officers for deployment in community-
     oriented policing, particularly in communities that are 
     adversely affected by a recent military base closing.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, `former member of 
     the Armed Forces' means a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States who has been honorably discharged from the 
     Armed Forces of the United States.
       ``(d) Community Prosecutors Program.--The Attorney General 
     may make grants under subsection (a) to pay for additional 
     community prosecuting programs, including programs that 
     assign prosecutors to--
       ``(1) handle cases from specific geographic areas; and
       ``(2) address counter-terrorism problems, specific violent 
     crime problems (including intensive illegal gang, gun, and 
     drug enforcement) and quality of life initiatives, and 
     localized violent and other crime problems based on needs 
     identified by local law enforcement agencies, community 
     organizations, and others.
       ``(e) Technology Grants.--The Attorney General may make 
     grants under subsection (a) to develop and use new 
     technologies (including interoperable communications 
     technologies, modernized criminal record technology, and 
     forensic technology) to assist State and local law 
     enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their 
     activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime and to 
     train law enforcement officers to use such technologies.'';
       (7) in subsection (f), as so redesignated--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to States, units of 
     local government, Indian tribal governments, and to other 
     public and private entities,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``define for State and 
     local governments, and other public and private entities,'' 
     and inserting ``establish'';
       (C) in the first sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting 
     ``(including regional community policing institutes)'' after 
     ``training centers or facilities''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Exclusivity.--The Office of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services shall be the exclusive component of the 
     Department of Justice to perform the functions and activities 
     specified in this part.'';
       (8) in subsection (g), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``may utilize any component'', and all that follows and 
     inserting ``shall use the Office of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services of the Department of Justice in carrying 
     out this part.'';
       (9) in subsection (h), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (a)'' the first place that 
     term appears and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (b)''; and
       (B) by striking ``in each fiscal year pursuant to 
     subsection (a)'' and inserting ``in each fiscal year for 
     purposes described in paragraph (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (b)'';
       (10) in subsection (i), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``the Federal share shall decrease from 
     year to year for up to 5 years'' and inserting ``unless the 
     Attorney General waives the non-Federal contribution 
     requirement as described in the preceding sentence, the non-
     Federal share of the costs of hiring or rehiring such 
     officers may be less than 25 percent of such costs for any 
     year during the grant period, provided that the non-Federal 
     share of such costs shall not be less than 25 percent in the 
     aggregate for the entire grant period, but the State or local 
     government should make an effort to increase the non-Federal 
     share of such costs during the grant period''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     preceding sentences shall not apply with respect to any 
     program, project, or activity provided by a grant made 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(4).''; and
       (11) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Retention of Additional Officer Positions.--For any 
     grant under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) for hiring 
     or rehiring career law enforcement officers, a grant 
     recipient shall retain each additional law enforcement 
     officer position created under that grant for not less than 
     12 months after the end of the period of that grant, unless 
     the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the retention 
     requirement of such grant.
       ``(k) Treatment of Grant for Hiring Civilian Forensic 
     Analysts and Laboratory Personnel.--A grant awarded under 
     this section for hiring and rehiring of civilian forensic 
     analysts and laboratory personnel (in accordance with 
     paragraph (17) of subsection (b)) shall be subject to the 
     same treatment, limitations, and renewal requirements under 
     this part as grants awarded under this section for hiring and 
     rehiring of career law enforcement personnel (in accordance 
     with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b)).''.
       (b) Applications.--Section 1702 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     unless waived by the Attorney General'' after ``under this 
     part shall''; and
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking ``share of the cost'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``share of the costs during 
     the grant period, how the applicant will maintain the 
     increased hiring level of the law enforcement officers, and 
     how the applicant will eventually assume responsibility for 
     all of the costs for such officers;''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d).
       (c) Renewal of Grants.--Section 1703 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-2) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1703. RENEWAL OF GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     grant made under this part may be renewed, without 
     limitations on the duration of such renewal, to provide 
     additional funds if the Attorney General determines that the 
     funds made available to the recipient were used in a manner 
     required under an approved application and if the recipient 
     can demonstrate significant progress in achieving the 
     objectives of the initial application.
       ``(b) Grants for Hiring.--Grants made under this part for 
     hiring or rehiring additional career law enforcement officers 
     may be renewed for up to 5 years, except that the Attorney 
     General may waive such 5-year limitation for good cause.
       ``(c) No Cost Extensions.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) 
     and (b), the Attorney General may extend a grant period, 
     without limitations as to the duration of such extension, to 
     provide additional time to complete the objectives of the 
     initial grant award.''.
       (d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 1704 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd-3) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``that would, in the absence of Federal 
     funds received under this part, be made available from State 
     or local sources'' and inserting ``that the Attorney General 
     determines would, in the absence of Federal funds received 
     under this part, be made available for the purpose of the 
     grant under this part from State or local sources''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to funds made 
     available under this part by a grant made pursuant to 
     subsection (a) for the purposes described in subsection 
     (b)(4).''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).
       (e) Study of Program Effectiveness.--Section 1705 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd-4) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Study of Program Effectiveness.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall provide for a 
     scientific study of the effectiveness of the programs, 
     projects, and activities funded under this part in reducing 
     crime. Such study shall include identified best practices for 
     community policing that have demonstrated results for 
     building and strengthening the relationship between police 
     departments and the communities such departments serve.
       ``(2) Study.--The Attorney General shall select one or more 
     institutions of higher education, including historically 
     Black colleges and universities, to conduct the study 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Reports.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     the enactment of the COPS Improvements Act of 2009, the 
     institution or institutions selected under paragraph (2) 
     shall report the findings of the study described in paragraph 
     (1) to the Attorney General. Not later than 30 days after the 
     receipt of such report, the Attorney General shall report 
     such findings to the appropriate committees of Congress, 
     along with any recommendations the Attorney General may have 
     relating to the effectiveness of the programs, projects, and 
     activities funded under this part in reducing crime.''.
       (f) Enforcement Actions.--Section 1706 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-5) is 
     amended--

[[Page 10396]]

       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``REVOCATION OR 
     SUSPENSION OF FUNDING'' and inserting ``ENFORCEMENT 
     ACTIONS''; and
       (2) by striking ``revoke or suspend'' and all that follows 
     and inserting ``take any enforcement action available to the 
     Department of Justice.''.
       (g) Definitions.--Section 1709(1) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8(1)) 
     is amended by inserting ``who is a sworn law enforcement 
     officer'' after ``permanent basis''.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11) 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1,047,119,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009'' and inserting 
     ``1,800,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014''; 
     and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``3 percent may be 
     used for technical assistance under section 1701(d)'' and 
     inserting ``5 percent may be used for technical assistance 
     under section 1701(f)''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Of the funds available for grants under part Q, 
     not less than $1,250,000,000 shall be used for grants for the 
     purposes specified in section 1701(b), not more than 
     $200,000,000 shall be used for grants under section 1701(d), 
     and not more than $350,000,000 shall be used for grants under 
     section 1701(e).''.
       (i) Purposes.--Section 10002 of the Public Safety 
     Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``development'' and 
     inserting ``use''; and
       (2) in the matter following paragraph (4), by striking 
     ``for a period of 6 years''.
       (j) COPS Program Improvements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 109(b) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712h(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by inserting ``, 
     except for the program under part Q of this title'' before 
     the period.
       (2) Law enforcement computer systems.--Section 107 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3712f) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any grant 
     made under part Q of this title.''.
       (k) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall apply with respect to grants awarded 
     under part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.) on or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. REPORT BY INSPECTOR GENERAL REQUIRED.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Justice shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the Public Safety and Community Policing (``COPS ON THE 
     BEAT'') grant program authorized by part Q of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd et seq.), including the elements described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Elements of Report.--The report submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall include information on the following, 
     with respect to the grant program described in such 
     subsection:
       (1) The effect of the program on the rate of violent crime, 
     drug offenses, and other crimes.
       (2) The degree to which State and local governments awarded 
     a grant under the program contribute State and local funds, 
     respectively, for law enforcement programs and activities.
       (3) Any waste, fraud, or abuse within the program.
       (c) Random Sampling Required.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 
     audit and review a random sampling of State and local law 
     enforcement agencies. Such sampling shall include--
       (1) law enforcement agencies of various sizes;
       (2) law enforcement agencies that serve various 
     populations; and
       (3) law enforcement agencies that serve areas of various 
     crime rates.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEINER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous matter on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some examples of transition moments where we 
acknowledge here in Washington that there are some problems that cross 
the line between not a purely local problem becoming a national 
problem.
  When the COPS program and the crime bill was passed in the mid-1990s, 
we made an acknowledgment here in Washington that was widely cheered 
around the country when we said we were going to get off the sidelines 
in fighting crime, and we were going to go into the business of 
directly helping States and localities hire police officers. We said 
the crime was a national challenge as well as a local one.
  Well, September 11 proved that point again. It reminded us that while 
there are needs to make sure that our localities are safe, we don't 
want to substitute control for local police departments.
  There is a Federal role, and it's hard to dispute, in helping 
localities defend themselves against terrorism, deal with the 
challenges of immigration, and, basically, help fight crime.

                              {time}  1630

  The COPS program that was passed was an unqualified success. It 
provided police to localities large and small all throughout the 
country. I like to say that it was a classically democratic, with a 
small ``d,'' success in that small police departments, 80 percent of 
all the funds went to the smallest of police departments, and it also 
went to the big cities. Everyone benefited. Now 110,000 police officers 
have been hired, and it's time to reauthorize this program, and that's 
what we are proposing to do here.
  A similar bill was passed with broad bipartisan support in the last 
Congress, but, unfortunately, it was too late to pass the other body, 
and now we are trying to do it again.
  This is fully funded in President Obama's budget. It's $1.8 billion a 
year for the total authorization for the COPS program. It will provide 
10,000 cops per year for 5 years. It makes improvements over the last 
program by allowing technology grants for local police departments and 
also hiring funds for prosecutors so we're not just arresting people 
but we are making sure that the prosecutions are done expeditiously. We 
also take some steps to recognize the reality that we have today by 
allowing funds to be used for police officers expressly on terrorism 
duty. Also we take something and create the Troops-to-Cops program, 
which makes sure that troops that come back from the front get priority 
in hiring. And we also use some innovative programs to make sure that 
illegal drug manufacturing and distribution, particularly of the 
methamphetamine problem, are addressed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1139, the COPS Improvements Act of 2009, increases 
the authorization for the COPS ON THE BEAT Federal grant program by a 
whopping 72 percent. Why is the question I ask. Are crime rates up 72 
percent? According to the FBI, they are not. Overall crime rates are 
down nationwide.
  In the first 6 months of 2008, violent crime decreased by 3\1/2\ 
percent and property crime decreased by 2\1/2\ percent. From 1997 to 
2006, the violent and property crime rates fell by 22 percent. Clearly, 
the crime rate is not a justification for dramatically increasing the 
expenditure of taxpayer dollars. If crime hasn't increased, why are we 
increasing spending on a law enforcement program that has mixed 
results?
  Both the Justice Department's Inspector General and the Government 
Accountability Office found that thousands of hires funded by the COPS 
program never occurred because law enforcement agencies used COPS 
funding to cover their budget shortfalls, backfilling the holes in 
their budgets rather than putting cops on the street in some cases.
  A 2005 GAO report concluded that factors other than COPS funds 
accounted for the majority of the decline in crime from 1994 until 
2001. The crime rate did drop during this time period. It dropped by 26 
percent, Mr. Speaker, and the COPS program did contribute to this 
decline. It contributed only 1.3 percent of the 26 percent decline. 
That

[[Page 10397]]

1.3 percent decline only cost the American taxpayers, and I emphasize 
the word ``only'' satirically, $7 billion. If you do the math on that, 
it works out to be this: The COPS funding, even though we've had a 
significant decrease in crime, was only accountable for 5 percent of 
the reduction in crime, according to the GAO report. That's one-half of 
the solution, and here we have a 72 percent increase. And if you do the 
math on the 72 percent increase, the 5 percent solution becomes an 8.6 
percent solution presuming all other factors remain the same.
  This is not a good return on investment. Perhaps the increase in COPS 
spending is designed to generate jobs instead. The majority of cities' 
budget shortfalls and officer layoffs in police departments around the 
country are the justification, I think, for spending yet more money 
that we don't have. The fact is that roughly there is a 2- to 3-year 
lapse from the time Congress appropriates money to when a police 
officer actually reaches the street; so money appropriated under this 
new authorization will not even reach the streets until 2012 or 2013.
  Congress just appropriated $1 billion for the COPS program in the 
economic stimulus bill, and we gave this money to the States with no 
strings attached, Mr. Speaker. We removed the 25 percent State matching 
requirement and the cap on grant awards. So this $1 billion will fund 
fewer than 6,000 police hires. You heard right. According to the 
Justice Department, we spent $1 billion of taxpayer money to hire fewer 
than 6,000 police officers. That works out to be $167,000 per officer. 
We send them a check, and they convert $167,000 into one officer when 
we take the strings off.
  If my colleagues in the majority were truly interested in helping 
police departments maximize the number of officers they can hire, they 
would have kept the matching requirement and cap in place; then the $1 
billion would have hired approximately 13,000 officers but not fewer 
than 6,000.
  The COPS program is currently authorized at $1.04 billion, Mr. 
Speaker. Last Congress the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Weiner of New York, 
proposed increasing the authorization by only 10 percent to $1.15 
billion. I say only 10 percent because in today's context, it's 72 
percent. But even that more modest increase was too much for our 
colleagues in the Senate, who rejected such an idea. I would have 
supported this bill on the floor this year if it reauthorized the COPS 
program with the same 10 percent that was offered by the gentleman from 
New York last year. And I supported an amendment in committee offered 
by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) to fund the program at that 
level. But in the last Congress $1.15 billion was good enough; this 
year it's not, for some reason. This year it must be $1.8 billion, 
although the Judiciary Committee had held no hearing, received no 
evidence or testimony for this dramatic increase, which is a proposal 
under suspension before this Congress, Mr. Speaker.
  The bill before us today increases Federal spending without any 
demonstrated need. It's like giving huge bonuses to AIG executives. 
There is no justification rather than an insatiable desire to spend 
taxpayers' money and funnel resources off the backs of the taxpayers in 
America, the workers in America, into the inner cities where these jobs 
would be created at the cost of $167,000 a job by record, and the 
efficiency level that would be increased, taking us from a 5 percent of 
our 26 percent reduction in crime, 5 percent of that coming direct by 
the COPS program now might take it to 8.6 percent at this huge, huge 
cost.
  It's interesting to me to hear the gentleman from New York State that 
they need help at the local level, and I believe I heard him saying 
enforcing local laws but also enforcing immigration laws. So I would be 
also more amenable to this legislation if it were directed to 287(g) 
programs. At least then we'd have a Federal interest and something that 
I think would be helpful to all citizens in this country. But it is 
encouraging to me to hear from the gentleman from New York that we need 
to use Federal money to enforce immigration laws at the local level 
through local officers.
  I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1139, the 
COPS Improvements Act of 2009. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Weiner, 
who understands the significance, the history, the data, and even the 
science of the success of this bill and this law.
  Mr. Speaker, after September 11th, as we as a Nation, as a Congress, 
made a new commitment to homeland security protecting our communities, 
the fact is that for years under the Republican-led Congress, cops 
hiring grants were gutted for more than $1 billion a year in the late 
1990s to only $10 million in fiscal year 2005 and then zeroed out, 
zeroed out. Not only do they want them to be outgunned, Mr. Weiner; 
they want them to be outfunded. That's what they want. They want to 
take pictures with cops, pat them on the back, and not support them.
  As a longtime member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have 
always believed strongly that real homeland security begins in our 
streets, in our communities, and that means funding for our cops. The 
whole purpose of the COPS program was to provide community officers to 
be trained in the streets. Read the legislation. When President Clinton 
created the COPS program in 1994 with the goal of putting 100,000 new 
officers out on the streets, it was met with some skepticism, but today 
it's clear that this program helped turn the tide against crime. In 
fact, the GAO isolated the effect of the COPS program and estimated 
that there was a 2.5 percent decline in the violent crime rate between 
1993 and 2000 because of this program alone. When you think about it, 
that's tens of thousands of violent crimes that weren't committed 
simply because we did the right thing and provided our officers with 
more support on the streets and the proper training.
  So I stand here on behalf of the police officers of this country and 
I stand here on behalf of those folks who work in prosecutors' offices 
all across America. We're going to help you. We are going to make sure 
you have assistance and resources to do the job.
  So three times the current amount and it comes at a time when our 
States and municipalities need it most. In my district alone, 324 
police officers on the streets because of these grants.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
vital bill and pass this legislation.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1139. I 
want to commend my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman 
Weiner, for introducing this bill.
  As I remarked during the committee markup, this bill has special 
significance for me. In 1994, as Attorney General of Puerto Rico, I 
worked alongside the Clinton administration to secure passage of the 
legislation that established the COPS program. As someone whose own 
family has been deeply touched by violent crime, I'm unbending in my 
belief that the most basic human right a government owes to its 
citizens is a right to personal security. The COPS program is rooted in 
this premise.
  Thanks to the COPS program, over $160 million in grants have been 
awarded to law enforcement agencies in Puerto Rico to hire new 
officers, improve school safety, and purchase crime-fighting equipment. 
No statistic, however, can capture the true impact the COPS program has 
made. The numbers of lives saved, crimes prevented, and families spared 
the pain of losing a loved one, these numbers are beyond calculation.
  All we hear from our colleagues from the Republican side are concerns 
about the cost of this bill. Well, all I should say is that if there is 
any cost that is justified, it's the cost of protecting our people. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.

[[Page 10398]]


  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, in response to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, who I believe 
comes here very sincerely and brings himself to this floor for this 
discussion, I hear him say the most important human right is the right 
to personal security. And I would ask if the gentleman from Puerto Rico 
could address the situation as where do human rights come from, if they 
exist at all? Where's the list of human rights that exist?
  I would submit that we don't have any human rights in law. I would 
submit that we have natural rights that come from God that flow through 
the Declaration of Independence and are clearly defined in the 
Constitution itself, but that the idea of human rights just simply 
doesn't exist in law. They exist in the imagination of judges. So the 
gentleman's response from Puerto Rico, although I see he's leaving the 
floor, it may be for a particular reason.
  The other gentleman's comments about the COPS program that today it's 
clear that there has been a 2\1/2\ percent reduction in crime from 1993 
until the year 2000, Mr. Speaker, I have a report here. This is a GAO 
report and I will give you the date in a minute, but it's a current GAO 
report, and I presume it's the same report the gentleman is referring 
to. It says this:
  ``While we find the COPS expenditures led to increases in sworn 
police officers above levels that would have been expected without 
these expenditures and though the increases in sworn officers led to 
declines in crime, we conclude that the COPS grants were not the major 
cause of the decline in crime from 1994 through 2001.''

                              {time}  1645

  I think this report doesn't support the gentleman's position. The 
data that I laid out in my opening statement does.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. First of all, that is a total report. There have been 
many reports on the effectiveness of the COPS program, not just that 
one. But the accuracy of that report is not being questioned by me by 
any stretch of the imagination.
  It is a contributing factor to the decline in violent--violent--
crimes. That is what we are talking about. There is a very basic 
difference between the stealing of an automobile and a violent crime of 
armed robbery, for instance. When you break down the crimes, sir, you 
will see that this had a very effective part.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I will concede the gentleman's 
point, to a degree. And the point is this, that there has been a 
minimal decline in crime. But this report, by the way, for the record 
is October 2005, and I don't think it contradicts the statement that I 
made in my opening statement. But 5 percent of the decline in crime is 
attributable to COPS, and that is a study I have identified.
  If we appropriate an additional 72 percent, one could calculate you 
could have of that decline in crime, 8.6 percent of that might be 
attributable to COPS.
  I would then at this point, Mr. Speaker, reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First let's get some clarity on the GAO report. The gentleman 
artfully pulls a line out of it. Let me tell you the conclusion. This 
is from page 11 of the GAO report. You can follow along with me, I say 
to the gentleman from Iowa.
  ``For the years 1998 to 2000, we estimated that the COPS grant 
expenditures that were associated with the reduction in indexed crimes 
from their 1993 levels ranged from 200,000 to 225,000 indexed crimes, 
while one-third of these were violent crimes, two-thirds property 
crimes.''
  That is the GAO. If you want another authority that says that this 
has worked, you can ask the 381 Members of Congress that voted for it 
last year. If you want only partisan Republicans, how about John 
Ashcroft, not someone I am fond of quoting, who said the COPS program 
is a success. Attorney General Gonzales, every attorney general has 
said, you know what? The COPS program has been a remarkable success.
  I say to the gentleman from Iowa, put your money where your mouth is. 
In the stimulus bill, which I believe you voted against, there was $1 
billion for COPS. They are taking the grants now, and contrary to your 
opening statement, not only will it not take two or three years, they 
are going to be on the street this year.
  In Iowa, there have been 110 police departments, large, small, 
intermediate, that have applied for this stimulus money to hire police 
under the COPS program.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I haven't raised the challenge yet, and then you will get 
an opportunity to give a one-word answer.
  The challenge is this: Are you willing to write to the COPS office at 
the Justice Department and say please deny these police officers, who 
you acquaint with the criminals at AIG, and that is a shame and I think 
goes too far, will you say, don't grant any of these applications to 
Iowa? We don't need the cops. Our crime is not like crime elsewhere. Or 
despite the fact that I campaigned about the crimes being committed by 
illegal and undocumented immigrants, we don't need any further help.
  Are you prepared to write a letter to the COPS program saying we 
don't want any money from the COPS stimulus money?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to write that to your chiefs of 
police. This is a nationwide piece of legislation.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, ``reclaiming my time'' is not 
something I am asking permission for.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both gentlemen will suspend.
  Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WEINER. It is noteworthy that you point out my chiefs of police. 
Well, maybe you should ask the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Association of 
District Attorneys, National Narcotics Officers Association, U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities. These are all people 
that support the Weiner position, not the King position.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, where but Washington would there be such an 
atmosphere of arrogance that when in the nineties there was a drop in 
the crime rate we would start lauding ourselves and saying we did that 
here in Washington?
  Let me tell you who did that. I know in Texas they raised taxes. They 
built more prisons. They elected judges like me. We started having 
longer sentences, juries worked longer and harder, law enforcement 
worked longer and harder through the nineties. They brought more people 
to justice. There were more trials. People went from serving just a 
month on a year in many cases to serving one-third, one-half or more of 
their sentences before they were paroled, and many much longer than 
that. We were keeping people longer.
  There was a 1,000 case backlog in my one district court, but because 
of the hard work of hundreds of people, that got cut by 80 percent, 
even though the number of cases rose each year. It wasn't Washington 
that got that accomplished.
  That is why the report from the GAO says a 1.3 percent decline in 
overall crime rate could be attributed to the COPS grants. And when you 
consider what my friend Mr. King pointed out,

[[Page 10399]]

it took 166,000 Federal dollars to get one policeman? Man, we would be 
better off if we had a program that said, you know, for every dollar of 
local taxes or State taxes that are raised to go in law enforcement, we 
will cut the Federal taxes, because I can promise you the States and 
the local governments can do a whole lot more efficient job than hiring 
law enforcement for $166,000 apiece.
  That is where the difference was made. It wasn't made in Washington. 
It was made by the hard-working law enforcement officers and court 
officials back in the States and local governments.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hope the gentleman did not dislocate his arm patting himself on the 
back for bringing down crime. Perhaps he should offer a little bit of 
credit to the 171 officers hired in his district.
  Do you know why crime went down, I say to the gentleman? Crime went 
down because there were police officers doing their job, putting their 
lives on the line every day. And while some people might have been 
sitting behind a bench feeling very proud of themselves, those police 
officers deserve our credit and honor.
  I have now heard two speakers in a row, one who has equated police 
officers to the AIG criminals and another who said it is not the cops, 
it is one judge who happened to get elected to Congress. Both of them 
are wrong. It was a successful piece of legislation. And if the 
gentleman doesn't think so, maybe he wants to give his 171 police 
officers to the next speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for 
the time.
  It is interesting to hear my good friend from Texas speak on the 
basis of lowering crime in one part of the State for lowering crime in 
all parts of the State. Coming from the fourth largest city in the 
Nation, let me suggest to him that we have ready evidence that COPS ON 
THE BEAT in fact are probably as constructive or more constructive than 
the lock-them-up, throw-away-the-key concept. It is interesting as well 
that I heard my good friend mention and support raising taxes. I have 
never heard him support and celebrate the idea of raising taxes.
  We did build a lot of prisons in Texas. It gave us the name of being 
renowned for locking up more people than probably a lot of nations 
around the world. I don't know, however, how effective you could argue 
that was without strong law enforcement.
  Law enforcement provides for the prevention of crime. That is why I 
am a strong supporter of the COPS ON THE BEAT program, and particularly 
glad that in March our Attorney General through the administration 
offered $1 billion to our police departments across America to ensure 
that there would be stimulus dollars being used for the COPS grants.
  We note that in the 1990s crime did go down, and whatever the GAO 
study says that is confusing, it is clear that in 1998 and 2000, the 
hiring grants are responsible for reducing crimes by about 200,000 to 
250,000 crimes, one-third of which are violent.
  Mr. Speaker, in the backdrop of the loss of lives of several of our 
law enforcement officers from California to the east coast, this is no 
time to bash police. This is a time to join in and support small 
departments, large departments, medium-sized departments who are 
supporting the idea of the COPS reauthorization. I want to thank Mr. 
Weiner for his leadership.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 45 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  We offered in the committee an amendment that would allow us to study 
the best practices so that we could help departments utilize these COPs 
grants in an effective way. In the 18th Congressional District, some 
$56,857,000 in grants were awarded and 875 additional police officers 
and sheriffs deputies were welcomed into the 18th Congressional 
District. Ten local and State law enforcement agencies in our 
congressional district were beneficies of these. We have more 
constables and sheriffs and police departments, $2 million was added to 
provide for 19 school resource officers, and $9 million was awarded for 
crime fighting technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the COPS reauthorization bill is the right way to go. We 
cannot have a criminal prevention system that does not have preventive 
law enforcement. That is what we get with the COPS program. I rise to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1139, the Community 
Oriented Policy Services (COPS) Improvement Act of 2009. I would also 
like to thank Representative Weiner of New York for introducting this 
important legislation. This legislation was introduced last Congress 
and I was a co-sponsor last term. I uge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  The COPS program was designed to help bring about fundamental changes 
in policing by drawing officers closer to the citizens they protect. 
And, in scores of communities across the nation, the COPS program did 
just that.
  The idea of community policing is to get away from the traditional 
``call and response'' model, in which officers run from one emergency 
call to the next. It involves sending officers into the streets and 
into the neighborhoods to build relationships with residents, identify 
the sources of crime problems, and solve them before they get worse. 
The success of the COPS approach to policing is dependent upon the 
relationships built between the police and the members of the 
communities they serve.
  Since 1995, COPS has awarded more than $10 billion to advance 
community policing, including grants awarded to more than 13,300 state, 
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to fund the hiring and 
redeployment of nearly 117,700 officers. In addition to funding law 
enforcement positions, the Office of Community Policing Services has 
been the catalyst for innovations in community policing and broad 
implementation of effective law enforcement strategy. Presently, 
departments that employ community policing serve 87 percent of American 
communities.
  On March 16, 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 
the Department of Justice will be accepting applications for $1 billion 
in Recovery Act Funds for the COPS program. Approximately 5,500 law 
enforcement officer jobs will be created or saved in law enforcement 
agencies across the country through funding provided by the Department 
of Justice.
  Recently, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1, 
included $4 billion in Department of Justice grant funding to enhance 
state, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts, including the hiring 
of new police officers, to combat violence against women, and to fight 
against internet crimes against children.
  Similar to Edward Byrne Justice Act Grant (JAG) awards, Recovery Act 
funds that are authorized for COPS can also be used to hire new 
officers or rehire recently laid off officers, fill unfunded vacancies 
and help prevent scheduled layoffs within law enforcement agencies.
  COPS funds are allocated directly to the local level governments and 
law enforcement agencies and provide a three-year period of funding.
  Specifically, H.R. 1139, the ``COPS Improvements Act of 2009,'' 
reinvigorates the COPS program's ability to accomplish its critical 
mission by establishing three grant programs: (1) the Troops-to-Cops 
Program, (2) the Community Prosecutors Program, and (3) the Technology 
Grants Program. The Troops-to-Cops Program would fund the hiring of 
former members of the Armed Forces to serve as law enforcement officers 
in community-oriented policing, particularly in communities adversely 
affected by recent military base closings.
  The Community Prosecutors Program would authorize the Attorney 
General to make grants for additional community prosecuting programs 
that would, for example, assign prosecutors to pursue cases from 
specific geographic areas and to deal with localized violent crime, 
among other crimes.
  The Technology Grants Program would authorize the Attorney General to 
make grants to develop and use new technologies to assist State and 
local law enforcement agencies reorient some of their efforts from 
reacting to crime to preventing crime.
  The investment in COPS through the Recovery Act although crucial is a 
one-time investment limited to the purpose of hiring officers. The 
reauthorization of COPS is necessary for the program to continue past 
the investment of the Recovery Act.

[[Page 10400]]

  Reauthorization is also necessary so that the COPS program can 
include the innovative aspects of the program as explained above.
  The Houston area has made great strides in reducing crime. I am 
confident that with programs like COPS Houston can better combat crime.


                            CRIME STATISTICS

  According to Houston Police Department statistics: Violent crimes
  Violent crimes in Houston increased less than 1 percent in 2008 
compared with 2007.
  Homicides dropped by 16 percent.
  The number of homicides dropped from 353 in 2007 to 295 last year.
  Sexual assaults increased more than 8 percent from 2007.
  Aggravated assaults increased at 9.1 percent.
  Domestic violence
  Of the 1,092 additional aggravated assault cases in 2008, more than 
half were reports of domestic violence.
  Nonviolent crimes
  Nonviolent crimes declined more than 10 percent in 2008.
  Property thefts dropped by more than 10 percent.
  Auto thefts decreased last year, dropping more than 21 percent to 
15,214, down from 19,465 in 2007.
  While Houston has made great strides in combating crime, more must be 
done to ensure the safety of Houstonians in their communities and their 
respective neighborhoods. I believe that the COPS program will be of 
benefit to the people of the 18th Congressional District as well as 
other communities in Texas and in communities around the United States.
  To date, $56,857,827 in COPS grants were awarded to law enforcement 
agencies in the 18th District of Texas. COPS grants have funded 875 
additional police officers and sheriff's deputies to engage in 
community policing activities, including crime prevention, in the 18th 
District. 10 local and state law enforcement agencies in the 18th 
District have directly benefitted from funding made available through 
the COPS Office. $2,091,064 has been awarded to add 19 school resources 
officers to improve safety for students, teachers, and administrators 
in primary and secondary schools throughout the 18th Congressional 
District. $9,026,291 has been awarded for crime-fighting technologies. 
This funding has allowed officers to spend more time on the streets of 
the 18th Congressional District of Texas fighting and preventing crime 
through timesaving technology, information-sharing systems, and 
improved communications equipment.

                               AMENDMENT

  The COPS program was designed to help bring about fundamental changes 
in policing by drawing officers closer to the citizens they protect. 
And, in scores of communities across the nation, the COPS program did 
just that.
  The idea of community policing is to get away from the traditional 
``call and response'' model, in which officers run from one emergency 
call to the next. It involves sending officers into the streets and 
into the neighborhoods to build relationships with residents, identify 
the sources of crime problems, and solve them before they get worse. 
The success of the COPS approach to policing is dependent upon the 
relationships built between the police and the members of the 
communities they serve.
  Because the success of the COPS approach to policing is dependent 
upon the relationships built between the police and the members of the 
community it served, I offered an amendment at the Judiciary Committee 
markup. My amendment was accepted and was included within this 
legislation.
  H.R. 1139 requires that the Attorney General shall provide for a 
scientific study of the effectiveness of the programs, projects, and 
activities funded under this Act in reducing crime. The study is to be 
completed within four years of enactment of this bill.
  My amendment, which was accepted at the Judiciary Committee markup, 
specifically requires that
  ``Such study shall include identified best practices for community 
policing that have demonstrated results in building and strengthening 
the relationships between police departments and the communities such 
departments serve.''
  The requirement that the study identify ``best practices'' in 
community policing is important because the enumeration of these best 
practices will serve as an unequivocal benchmark by which the successes 
of the COPS program can be measured.
  These ``best practices'' would establish bright line rules to analyze 
community policing and the derogation of which will require re-tooling 
and adjustment of the community policing measures involved. Moreover, 
the Attorney General is in the best position to complete this study and 
certainly is in the best position to determine what constitutes 
``good'' community policing. My amendment would support and strengthen 
the development of good community policing methods.
  I believe that H.R. 1139 is strengthened with the inclusion of my 
language. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                         Amendment to H.R. 1139

                  Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       Page 11, line 7, insert after ``crime.'' the following: 
     ``Such study shall include identified best practices for 
     community policing that have demonstrated results for 
     building and strengthening the relationship between police 
     departments and the communities such departments serve.''.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will go back to this October 2005 study since I think 
there has been some confusing verbiage that has emerged here with a 
regard to a number of different studies. I don't think I have heard 
anyone actually directly rebut the study that I have referenced, but I 
want to just go back to the concise language.
  It says, it concludes, ``COPS grants were not the major cause of the 
decline in crime from 1994 through 2001.'' I find nothing in this 
report or any report that says that COPS grants are the major cause of 
the decline in even violent crime, although they were a contributing 
factor, and I stipulated those contributing factors.
  Another point is I didn't equate any AIG executives as criminals. In 
fact, I voted against that bill that sought to reach back. It was a 
mistake made by Congress and people were looking for cover. That is 
what that was about. I opposed both components of that. I will continue 
to do so. In fact, I defended that they be able to keep those bonuses, 
because Congress made a huge mistake and we shouldn't interfere with 
the relationship between employers and employees.
  Mr. Speaker, what I am having trouble getting my mind around is the 
image of data analysis that has emerged as I listened to the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Weiner. He has argued all this data as to why we 
need to increase the COPS grant by 72 percent.
  It surely couldn't be because police departments want more Federal 
funding. It surely couldn't be because they want to build empires. It 
surely couldn't be because crime has gone up. No one has said crime has 
gone up. In fact, it has gone down. Violent crime, nonviolent crime, 
has all gone down.
  So what is this? Is this Mr. Weiner sitting in a loft somewhere 
analyzing data, divining away, maybe from the emanation from numbers, 
maybe it was something heretofore unimaginable, but calculating that we 
need to take another $1 billion into COPS, which we did, this Congress 
did, and now reach for an additional 72 percent, Mr. Speaker?
  I cannot quite get that image fixed in my mind, that Mr. Weiner 
independently reached a conclusion off of data that would support this 
great big growth in COPS funding. There has to be something else. I 
don't think it has been clear. But I think the gentleman from Texas 
does understand this, and I hope he can illuminate us.
  I would be happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, to say that we may want to pat ourselves on 
the back sitting behind the bench, I didn't ask for the words to be 
taken down. I don't believe they quite violate the rule.

                              {time}  1700

  But I can tell you what sitting behind the bench did for those years. 
It gave me a great vantage point to see what was doing good and what 
wasn't.
  Now, I never kept a jury past 3 a.m., so I can't say I kept anybody 
all night. But I can tell you that the prosecutors, the defense 
attorneys, the law enforcement people, the parole boards, the 
confinement officials, the taxpayers that kept coming up with more and 
more money, they did an incredible job. They worked incredibly hard. 
They didn't get paid enough.
  And I know the gentleman has referred to 170 or so law enforcement in 
my district that were added. And I

[[Page 10401]]

really do need to get to the background information and figure out 
exactly where all those people were and for whom the Federal Government 
is taking credit for hiring.
  But, you know, obviously the local governments had to take over that 
share, and so it was an incentive to start hiring more people. But the 
audit indicates that, looking at only 3 percent of the COPS grants, 
Federal auditors have alleged $277 million in misspent funds. The 
studies have shown that spending on the COPS program has not led to an 
increase in the overall spending by local law enforcement, so it hasn't 
increased law enforcement spending. That's what the studies show.
  So if the overall spending on law enforcement programs, even with the 
additional Federal increase, has not increased law enforcement 
spending, then it's pretty clear that the money spent here did not do 
the trick of reducing crime. It came from lots of other sources.
  And I come back to my original point. There is nobody that does a 
more efficient job than the local governments and the State governments 
in addressing these problems, because once that money comes through 
Washington, it is incredible the slice that this place takes out of the 
money before they send it back, whether it's education, whether it's 
law enforcement, whatever it is. And if we could come to a bipartisan 
agreement that would say, for every dollar you raise local and State 
taxes, we're going to reduce your Federal taxes, I think we could then 
hit that increase in law enforcement that obviously both sides want to 
see. It's just that that would be far more efficient. It would get to 
the people back in the State and localities who are really doing the 
job and from which my vantage on the bench allowed me to see, not pat 
myself on the back, but to see who was doing the job, and not 
bureaucrats up here in Washington talking a good game. That's where the 
difference is made and that's where we can help.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm not really sure where to begin. First let's start where the 
statistics came from that 171 police officers and sheriff deputies in 
the First district were hired. That's the COPS office. Those grants 
came from your constituents.
  And I would say to the gentleman, all of those things and all of the 
moving parts in the criminal justice system, of course, they're very 
valuable. But why do you dismiss the 171 police officers? Why aren't 
they valuable? Why aren't they something that's of value?
  And the gentleman said he wants the taxes reduced here in Washington. 
He had a chance for that. He voted against the stimulus bill which 
offered a tax cut to 90 percent of all of his constituents.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, during the break, the director of police in 
Memphis, Tennessee, Director Larry Godwin, called me. He called me to 
thank me for the COPS bill. He called me to thank me because he was 
going to hire 125 policemen in the next fiscal year and 125 in the 
following fiscal year and those would be hired because of COPS monies 
that were in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  Director Godwin and I have known each other for a long time because I 
started my career as the attorney for the Memphis Police Department, 
attended International Association of Chiefs of Police meetings, and 
know that the patrol is a deterrent to crime. Patrol is the first way 
to stop crime.
  These COPS programs hire more policemen, put them on the street, and 
oftentimes in innovative community policing activities.
  The Afro American Police Association, Lieutenant Curry, and others 
have talked to me about community policing and how it helps my 
community reduce crime.
  My Mayor, Willie Harrington, has asked me to come to Washington and 
work to get more COPS money and help him with putting more cops on the 
street; and that was one of the first things I wanted to do here. I'm a 
cosponsor of this bill. I am a proud supporter of it, and voted for the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act because crime is a serious issue all over 
this country.
  We support policemen in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to support 
policemen all over this country and protect our citizens from crime.
  The crime rate is going up. And by supporting this COPS bill you can 
make a difference. You can keep citizens alive and reduce crime. This 
is an effective deterrent to crime. It's what the policemen on the 
street tell me. It's why the Office of the United States Mayors has 
endorsed this bill.
  I rely on the United States Mayors, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, my cops on the street, and my experience as a police 
legal advisor.
  And I appreciate Mr. Weiner for bringing this bill, and I'm proud to 
be a sponsor, and urge this House to pass it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains for each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa has 3\1/2\ minutes. 
The gentleman from New York has 7\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would reserve.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it's curious to me now that I find the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), I guess it's a matter of public record, is a 
cosponsor of the legislation. I have two gentlemen here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives that, theoretically, at least, shaped this 
legislation and this policy that weren't satisfied with an additional 
$1 billion in previous legislation, but had to bring forward an 
expansion of the 72 percent increase, this 72 percent increase.
  And again, the image of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) or 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) calculating out the data to 
conclude, and I'd ask the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), before 
he leaves the floor, I'd be real happy to hear from him and yield to 
the gentleman from Tennessee, if he could tell me how many police 
officers are enough, per capita, for 100,000, say, citizens. What is 
the average in the Nation? What is enough? How does a person arrive at 
this requested 72 percent increase of $1 billion tossed into this, 
$167,000 a job, 100 percent federally funded, no copayment, completely 
grants, and presuming the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is 
right, and some, if not all these jobs will actually be in uniform on 
the streets within a year. But what is an appropriate number of police 
officers? What's your goal? Is there such a thing as too many police 
officers? That's really my question.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I depend on my mayor, my police director and 
the citizens of my community who have e-mailed me and told me, we want 
more policemen; we want more deterrent. We need a safer community and a 
neighborhood. We want our children safe. We want our old people safe, 
and I'll respond to them. That's the number of policemen that we need 
is enough to satisfy my mayor.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I didn't ask the 
gentleman for some opinion of wanting more police officers. I recognize 
that if one's in uniform defending the streets in this country, that 
you're always going to want more help. I can't imagine a Police 
Department saying I don't need another officer, and I can't imagine a 
local jurisdiction, the taxation at a local jurisdiction saying no, 
we'd rather tax at home than we would at the Federal Government. I 
don't have a police chief saying to me that they want to reject the 
Federal funding and they want to tax their local citizens. And I've 
never known anyone that didn't need more help in what they were doing.
  My question to the gentleman was, out of 100,000 people, how many 
police officers should we have? What is optimum? How many are too many? 
And if the gentleman can answer that specifically, then I'd like to 
hear it. And if

[[Page 10402]]

not, I hope you wouldn't ask me to yield.
  But do you have a specific answer?
  I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. It's not as simple as math. But I know this: There were 
funds that were voted for Iraq that I voted against to protect the 
people in Baghdad. I want to protect the people in Memphis, Tennessee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I oppose this legislation for 
the reasons that I have said. It's an outrageous growth in Federal 
spending. It is a transfer out of the pockets of the taxpayers into the 
inner cities, the jurisdictions that would be the biggest beneficiaries 
of this. And everyone in government is going to have the instinct to 
try to grow their empire, Mr. Speaker. And we don't have data that says 
what is the optimum number. We don't have even the admission that 
there's such a thing as too many government employees in any category. 
And I would not either submit that too many police officers would be 
the first category that I'd want to reduce in government. It is not.
  We need to be prudent. We need to be responsible. I'm looking at a 
national debt and a national deficit and a budget that has grown to be 
a $9.3 trillion deficit out of this President's budget, $9.3 trillion. 
That's all the corn we can raise in Iowa for the next thousand years, 
just to deal with President Obama's deficit. And if we are going to 
retire the debt, it's everything since the time of Christ, Mr. Speaker.
  I oppose this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, in answer to the distinguished gentleman's question, how many 
is enough, I think 214 for the State of Iowa, going to 110 police 
departments and agencies. Do you know why I believe that? I believe 
that because that's the number of applications and that's the number of 
police officers that small sheriff's departments, you see, it's an 
average of only two police officers per jurisdiction, has requested of 
the recovery money that you voted against. I mean, that's how much.
  Now, you can say that there's no Federal role in policing, and you'd 
be in a minority. You'd be in a tiny minority. You wouldn't even be in 
a majority in your own caucus, let alone in your State.
  But I give credit to my colleagues who stand up on the floor who say 
there's too many cops. I give credit to my colleagues who have the 
audacity to stand up on the floor and say, you know what? Everyone 
wants police officers. They're not so important. Why don't we not hire 
police officers? I give them credit for that.
  If you believe there is no Federal role in local law enforcement, you 
should vote ``no'' on the COPS program. But then, do not be 
inconsistent. You should make every effort to ensure that Iowa and 
Texas and the other States don't get this money, don't apply for this, 
because they obviously disagree with you.
  The fact of the matter is there is a Federal responsibility for 
crime. We do have a Federal--there is a Federal role for this. And it's 
been successful.
  Now, you can say that it is not the primary or the major. The fact of 
the matter is the GAO was asked to study a very basic question: Did the 
COPS program succeed in its objectives in reducing crime? And the 
answer is, you can read the conclusion. You don't have to pick a line 
here and a line there. You can read the conclusion. It says that it 
did. And now we want to make sure that this program lives for five more 
years.
  And the gentleman's made a lot--This is a dramatic increase over what 
we've had in the past. Yes. It was zeroed out in the Bush years. Zero, 
nada, zippo.
  Now, despite the fact that John Ashcroft and Gonzalez and police 
officials and Tom Ridge all said this program was a success, I mean, 
there is a time, and I have to say to my good friend from Iowa that I 
enjoy the ideological debates that sometimes go on on our Judiciary 
Committee and here on the floor. But these are human beings. These are 
officers of the law who every day put their lives on the line. And what 
we are saying is we want to help localities ease that burden.
  And you know, not long ago the National Sheriffs Association weighed 
in and said that they support this expansion. And not long ago, an 
organization of police agencies called the Police Executive Research 
Forum did a survey of its police department membership. 62 percent said 
they're cutting overtime spending because of the fiscal downturn. A 
quarter of them said that they're reducing employment through attrition 
in order to deal with the fiscal downturn. 47 percent of them said that 
they were discontinuing officer training because of the fiscal 
downturn.
  Now, you can say hey, it's not our problem; things go up, things go 
down. Or you can say we want to help. We want to do something about it. 
We want to help localities.
  And I would say to the gentleman that if he is going to go home and 
do what the gentleman from New Jersey suggests, and pose with police 
officers and say we honor your service, do more than honor their 
service. Help them not get laid off. Help keep them on the job. Help 
expand police departments.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to 
ask if it was his intention to infer erroneously that I had said that 
there are too many cops.
  Mr. WEINER. Well, actually you mean imply. The answer to the question 
is, yes. You clearly did suggest that you know what--how many is too 
many, you said. I mean, I don't want to get the--I don't know how you 
get someone to say exactly what you said. But you said how many is too 
many? And the answer is very clear. The police departments in Iowa 
disagree with the Member from Iowa, and so do I. I believe--if I can 
just conclude, I believe that this is a program that works. You know, 
we don't have a lot of them in the Federal Government. We have some 
that work. This one, on a broad bipartisan way Members have said that, 
you know, this has been a success.
  You can go to any police department in your district, and forgive me 
for not having the number at my fingertips, and say hey, has the COPS 
program helped you reduce crime? See what they say. See what these 110 
police agencies in Iowa say. Ask them. Say, has this program been 
successful? And they'll say yes. And they'll say something else. 
They'll say please, help us keep this local agency a success story 
moving forward.

                              {time}  1715

  And if the gentleman doesn't believe that we should have a Federal 
role, by all means, he should vote ``no,'' but I do believe that 
overwhelmingly we do, and what we're trying to do here is to keep up 
with the times and say, you know what? If you've got to cut things on 
the local level now, you won't have the need to cut law enforcement. 
Ask people in any townhall meeting in Iowa or anywhere else if they 
think it's a good idea if we protect law enforcement funding with all 
the challenges that we have today. Let me conclude with this final 
thought.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield for a brief point?
  Mr. WEINER. Let me just finish this because this is now more than one 
time that this has been quoted incorrectly.
  There is a GAO report from June 3, 2005. Make sure we put this up on 
our Web site. You can go to house.gov/weiner, anyone who wants to. It's 
the Government Accountability Office. They'll tell you that it worked.
  I'll be glad to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman.
  I appreciate the opportunity to make the point that asking a 
question, which is what I asked, which was ``how many are too many?'' 
does not infer a position by any form of logic that I know of.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, generally speaking, I think the lady 
doth protest too much. When someone

[[Page 10403]]

says, ``How many is too many?'' they don't mean that they want more. 
They mean that they want less. If you want to withdraw that comment, I 
would if I were you because I'm concerned.
  I think most of the citizens of Iowa--and I represent Brooklyn and 
Queens, so maybe I don't speak for the people of Iowa, but I do know 
110 police departments, sheriff's departments and agencies in Iowa have 
applied for the first billion dollar grant. By the way, there's $8 
billion worth of applications for that billion dollars. It's clearly a 
demand. So it's not your colleagues who are saying it. It's not 
Congress who is saying it. It's not the cops' office. Those police 
officers and those sheriff's offices are voting with their pens. 
They're saying, ``Please, help us. Don't listen to our Congressman. 
Listen to the Congressman from Brooklyn and Queens. Please expand this 
program.''
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Weiner for his 
outstanding work on this bill.
  In 1994, the COPS program changed the way we fight crime in this 
country, by giving local jurisdictions the support needed to put more 
than 100,000 new officers on the street.
  The results were clear: a nationwide drop in crime, and safer streets 
in our rural and urban areas alike.
  The COPS program is needed now more than ever. States, counties, and 
cities struggling to balance their budgets have made cuts to law 
enforcement programs even as the threat of terrorism has put new 
burdens on our first responders, and recent news reports show violent 
crime in our cities is again on the rise.
  This bill will help us face those problems, by putting thousands more 
officers where they can do the most good: on the streets of our 
communities.
  I am a Co-Chairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus, which was founded 
to advocate for the law enforcement community, ensure our law 
enforcement officers are provided the resources they need and build on 
key programs--such as COPS--to keep our communities safe.
  The COPS program is a proven concept that has the full support of the 
law enforcement community, and this bill will improve the program by 
expanding the utility of grants and increasing its authorization amount 
level by nearly $800 million.
  I thank the Chairman and the Committee for their work on this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend from 
New York (Mr. Weiner) and his involvement in getting this bill to the 
floor today. I am pleased to support its passage, and am proud to be 
the lead Republican on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, not to date myself, but the Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS) program was established the year I had the privilege of 
being elected to this body, in 1994, by the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act (the '94 Crime Act).
  The COPS program has aged better than me, enabling more officers to 
be hired, contributing to lower crime rates than would otherwise be the 
case, and increasing the technology and equipment available to our law 
enforcement officers to do the job we ask of them. According to the 
Department of Justice, the COPS program has helped state, local and 
tribal governments hire more than 117,000 officers and has awarded more 
than $11.4 billion to over 13,000 law enforcement agencies across the 
United States. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated 
that COPS funding contributed a 2.5% decline in the violent crime rate 
between 1993 and 2000. In my own district, nearly 300 officers have 
been hired since the program started. Statewide, the COPS program has 
funded more than 3,700 officers and sheriff's deputies, more than 225 
school resource officers, and has provided more than $55 million in 
technology grants for departments. It's hard to argue with fighting 
crime, lowering crime rates, hiring trained officers in our local 
communities, and providing equipment and technology upgrades otherwise 
not available to cash-strapped communities.
  As my colleagues know, the recent stimulus bill contained $1 billion 
to hire or rehire laid-off officers. Some may say: Why are you 
authorizing this program again when you just gave it a considerable 
amount of money in the stimulus bill?
  Mr. Speaker, last week was the deadline for departments to apply for 
a slice of that stimulus money to hire officers. The COPS office tells 
me that the $1 billion in the stimulus bill will pay for 5,500 new 
police positions nationwide. The COPS Hiring Recovery program--the 
stimulus program--received applications from a staggering 7,200 
departments nationwide! That's $8.4 billion in requests for 40,000 
officers. Again, the stimulus program contained $1 billion and will 
fund just 5,500 officers. So, when the funding is doled out, 
departments in every corner of the country are going to be greatly 
disappointed because more than 34,000 of the officers requested will 
not be funded.
  Also, the COPS office tells me that the vast majority of applications 
for the stimulus funding were for new officer positions, not to replace 
laid-off officers, so clearly there is a need for this program. To give 
you some perspective on the number of applications just received by the 
COPS office, when the program started in the mid-1990s, the office 
received about 6,000 applications. When the application period ended 
last week, there were 7,200 applications, so clearly police departments 
are in need and the COPS office is swamped.
  Mr. Speaker, this popular community policing program will reauthorize 
through Fiscal Year 2014 the COPS program. I am pleased to see it 
includes Mr. Weiner's Troops-to-Cops Program, which would fund the 
hiring of former members of the Armed Forces to serve as law 
enforcement officers in community-oriented policing, particularly in 
communities adversely affected by military base closings. It also 
includes technology grants and authorizes up to $350 million a year for 
grants to departments to obtain or upgrade technology and equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, the COPS program has advanced community policing in all 
jurisdictions across the United States by enabling law enforcement to 
hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community 
policing, purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies, and 
develop and test policing strategies. You'd be hard pressed to find a 
program that is better liked by the law enforcement community and city 
officials. More importantly, the COPS program is well run and an 
effective use of taxpayer money. I urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important public 
safety legislation.
  The Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program is one of 
the most successful law enforcement support programs ever initiated by 
the federal government. As the National Association of Police 
Organizations noted in their April 21 letter to me on this bill, ``With 
the support of the COPS Program, community policing has been a dominant 
force behind the dramatic reduction in crime this nation has witnessed 
over the past 13 years.'' It's also clear that our communities are 
desperate to see this program properly funded, after eight years of 
neglect.
  NAPO noted in their letter to me that in the last month, the COPS 
Program office received over 7,200 applications for the COPS Hiring 
Recovery Program (CHRP) grant funding contained in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the ``stimulus bill.'' Those 7,200 
applications amounted to a request for funds to hire 40,000 more 
officers nationwide. Yet the $1 billion CHRP contained in the stimulus 
bill would allow local communities to hire only 5,000 to 6,000 new 
police. For New Jersey, previous COPS funding has meant an additional 
628 police officers and/or sheriff deputies were walking the beat in 
the local communities of my Congressional district. Further, 33 school 
resource officers were hired to ensure that our children's schools are 
safe. H.R. 1139 would raise the CHRP authorization level to $1.25 
billion, allowing state and local law enforcement to hire more 
officers. Based on historical funding data, this bill would allow New 
Jersey alone to hire more than 2,000 additional police, and those would 
be welcome reinforcements for our current law enforcement officers who 
are working to improve the quality of life in communities across New 
Jersey.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good and much needed bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. WEINER. I yield back my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1139, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

[[Page 10404]]



                          ____________________