Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 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. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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.'' I think this report doesn't support the gentleman's position. The data that I laid out in my opening statement does.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I will yield to the gentleman.

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. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Would the gentleman 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. 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. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains for each side.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would 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. 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 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. 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. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman 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. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield for a brief point?

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. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KING of Iowa. After thorough study and deliberation, the United States Judicial Conference developed draft language that slightly alters time deadlines in 28 statutory provisions that affect court proceedings. This text is incorporated in H.R. 1626, the Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009. These statutory provisions are limited to those that have short time periods, that use a rules method for calculating time periods, that are frequently applied or are otherwise important, and that do not prescribe a method to calculate time. These legislative changes are necessary to account for the effect of amendments to the time computation rules in the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure that are due to take effect on December 1, 2009, unless Congress acts to modify or reject them. The rules amendments simplify the provisions for calculating deadlines and make those rules consistent in each set of the Federal rules. They respond to years of complaints by practitioners that the present rules are confusing and can lead to missing deadlines and to losing important rights. To simplify calculating deadlines, the amended rules count intermediate weekends and holidays for all time periods rather than excluding them for some short time periods and including them for longer time periods. This simple ``days are days'' approach can have the effect of shortening a time period. A large number of statutory time periods could theoretically be affected by the proposed shift in the Federal rules' time-computation approach. However, the number of statutory provisions to which case law has applied the rules' time-computation method is much smaller. An even smaller number of statutes is either frequently used or has time periods that could hopefully be adjusted to avoid inconsistency and confusion when the rules' time-computation method changes. The proposed legislation provides short extensions of short time deadlines in a small number of statutes to offset the effective shortening caused by the new rules approach. Mr. Speaker, the proposed statutory amendments are noncontroversial. They were the subject of extensive study and public comment during the Rules Enabling Act process. They have been vetted by numerous legal and bar organizations, including the Department of Justice. The Judicial Conference, led by District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, Chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, provided bipartisan staff briefings on the need for the legislation. H.R. 1626 addresses obscure but important subject matter that will allow our Federal courts to operate more smoothly. I urge the Members to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I have no more speakers.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will just recognize that the gentleman from New York, in spite of the fury of our previous debate, has significant confidence that I won't close with anything except an endorsement of the passage of the bill. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. It's misstated facts.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?