Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax plan is not about helping out struggling families. It is about pandering with promises that will destroy our economy if they are kept. Call me cynical, but I do not think Republicans want to give tax credits for children because they believe in family values but because people with kids are likely to vote. Republicans do not want to let large corporations avoid paying taxes because they think it will boost productivity, but because the people who run those companies are big givers to Republican campaigns. Do not be fooled, America. The price of this pandering will be paid by ordinary working families, the very people Republicans claim to be trying to help. Cutting student loans to pay for tax cuts now will make it harder to send their kids to college. Opening tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations will smother the economy with debt, eroding the living standards of the middle class. Let us cut wasteful spending and balance the budget. But until then, the pandering on tax cuts has got to stop.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the budget deficit, and I have heard comments made back and forth about demagogic conversation, speeches. I ran for Congress because I felt that the Federal budget deficit was out of control and threatening future generations of Americans. We are paying $240 billion a year in interest on the national debt. If you look at projections of Federal spending from now until the year 2002, and 2005 and beyond, it is not easy to see that we are going to bankrupt future generations of Americans. Long-term economic growth will be impossible if we do not get our Federal budget deficit under control, and we must have the courage to act and the courage to make tough choices. Getting the Federal budget deficit under control is not about easy choices, and hear all the talk about tax cuts; those are the easy choices. I had a plan when I got to Congress, my own plan to actually balance the budget. It was not easy to put together. It was put together through a combination of increases in revenues, in cuts, in spending. I have been committed to cutting the deficit since I got to Congress. It is why I got the fourth highest rating in the country from the Concord Coalition on deficit reduction. I believe that the future growth of this country to enjoy the prosperity that this generation has enjoyed hangs in the balance as to whether or not politicians here can make tough choices about how to get our budget deficit under control. One way that we will never get our budget deficit under control is to give tax cuts just when we are beginning to make progress on the deficit. I am fortunate to have been in the U.S. Congress fighting for deficit reduction, and we have seen, for the first time in 3 years--3 years in a row, first time since Harry Truman was President--where the deficit has actually been cut, we have begun to make progress. I voted for a balanced budget amendment, a Democrat voting for a balanced budget amendment. That was the easy part. Anyone can vote for a balanced budget amendment. The difficulty is actually balancing the budget, and there is no way that you can balance the budget by the year 2002 if these ridiculous tax cuts are approved by the Congress. Now the revenue losses to the year 2000 are significant, but the 10- year losses approach $700 billion. It is impossible to balance the budget while providing tax cuts to the tune of $700 billion at the same time, and the irony is everyone in America gets it. People across America do not really think that you can balance the budget by drastically cutting taxes. But what makes this tax cut so tragic is that it cuts the taxes for the wealthiest Americans while enduring a deficit reduction. Let us balance the budget to a plan to make tough choices over the next several years, and all you have to do is look at projected Federal spending to realize that nonsense about cutting discretionary spending, that we can even balance the budget by cutting children further or by cutting education programs. There is not enough discretionary spending in the budget to do it. We need to get real about how we are going to cut this deficit. If the choices were easy, politicians in past years would have done it already. This is about difficult choices, and a bidding war over tax cuts for the middle and upper classes has to be avoided if we are going to confront these issues. The pandering over tax cuts is threatening any chance for deficit reduction. We need to make investments in certain areas, and cutting school lunch programs, and cutting child care, cutting worker retraining, is not the way to prepare future generations to compete. The Carnegie Corp. did a study last year that showed we are not investing nearly enough in children. You do not balance a budget by cutting children and giving tax breaks to those who are the wealthiest in society. The Republicans claim that their tax cut will be fully paid over the next 5 years. Let me tell you they have only come up with enough cuts, $189 billion, to pay for the first 5 years, and $100 billion of those are not even specific. I would hope that we would get real in this discussion. Let us cut taxes and have a debate about cutting taxes after we balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. I do not know why the Republicans in this House do not get it.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, when I hear Newt Gingrich and the rest of the Republican leadership characterize yesterday's vote as historic, it makes me laugh. There was nothing historic about the vote yesterday; in fact, the whole exercise was nothing more than a big political show designed to confuse people into thinking that House Republicans really support term limits. I have always been skeptical of the legislators who claim they are for term limits but have been in office for 15 or 20 years. The best test of any politician's credibility on term limits is whether they are willing to put their careers where their mouths are and limit their own service. Yesterday, when we voted on an immediate term limits amendment, only 54 Republicans were willing to support the bill. Until recently, I had no real proof that the Republican leadership would not work aggressively to pass term limits legislation. Yesterday changed that. The party discipline that the Republicans showed when cutting school lunches or home heating oil for the elderly and working poor was absent on term limits yesterday. If House Republicans really wanted to pass term limits they would have allowed a vote on the Sanford-Deal statute which would have only required a majority vote for passage. As someone who has unconditionally supported term limits for all Members of Congress--including myself--I viewed yesterday's charade as an insult to those of us who really support term limits. Most House Republicans do not really support term limits, they just like to campaign on them. The public should not be fooled by career politicians who claim to be for term limits as long as they do not apply to themselves.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting because last week my friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks], a Republican, sent a letter to all the Members of Congress asking them to come down and join him in a press conference and submit their resignation. I have heard 80 percent of the Republicans support term limits. I thought 80 percent of the Republicans would be at this press conference to submit their resignation in whatever appropriate year it was, whether it was 8 years, 10 years, or 12 years. There were only 8 Members who showed up. Eighty percent of the Republicans are for term limits but only 8 Members showed up to submit their resignation at the appropriate time. Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record an op-ed piece by Speaker Gingrich that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. In the piece, the Speaker called on Democrats to join him in passing term limits. The op-ed piece accurately points out that at least 60 Democrats are needed to vote for term limits passage. Well, I say to the Speaker, I estimate there could be anywhere from 70 to 100 Democrats who will support this amendment. What a golden opportunity to pass term limits today. Seventy to 100 Members. Let us get all of the Republicans behind this amendment and pass it right here because this is the amendment Democrats are willing to support. There is nothing wrong with putting your votes where your principles are. If we have to institute term limits retroactively, then it is worth it to get term limits passed today. I have heard at least 10 different Members on the other side of the aisle declare that Republicans cannot pass term limits on their own, they need the help of the Democrats. This is your opportunity. You have the votes, 70 to 100. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: Turnover Time (By Newt Gingrich) Americans should turn their TV sets to C-SPAN today to witness an important debate. The citizens of the nation can determine for themselves whether their elected representatives trust them to take an increased role in leading this country. The debate is about term limits. Term limits is, at heart, a statement on how our country has been run over a certain period of time and how it should be run in the future. Some might say that the demand for a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits is, like a balanced budget amendment, merely a temporary, impulsive mood on the part of a public frustrated by wasteful, free-spending actions of an arrogant Congress. This would be an incorrect reading of the current sentiment. House Republicans see it differently, and that is why we are as committed to bringing term limits to the House floor for a meaningful debate and vote as we were on Sept. 27, when we signed the Contract With America. House Republicans see the overwhelming public support (nearly 80 percent in some polls) as more than a brief feeling of disgust with government on the part of the American people. Rather we understand what our citizens know in their hearts: This is an America, standing on the doorstep of the 21st century, which no longer needs or desires a class of permanent career politicians who are there to solve each and every problem. Admittedly, this view is a stark contrast to the history of the 20th century. The ``American century'' saw a young country grow to adulthood and accept leadership responsibilities. The 20th century saw two world wars and a Cold War that demanded an America with a strong federal government standing at the ready to keep the world from falling into complete totalitarian rule. Furthermore, a legitimate argument could be made that between the Depression and the civil rights movement, a strong federal government was appropriate at the domestic level as well. Regardless, the American people realize that that time has passed. Today, a professional political class produces inertia. This, understand, is a time when technological and cultural change put a premium on swift response and adaptability to changing circumstance. The current state of the federal government is totally unprepared for this new reality. A 20th century America, almost in a perpetual ``state of war,'' may well have benefited from having seasoned leaders whose experience was essential for the next campaign. But the 21st century America will benefit more from having regular turnover in its elected leaders; the 21st century America will gain insight from the influx of new ideas; the 21st century America will thrive with continual waves of new leaders with fresh alternatives. Upon doing their period of service, these citizen-statesmen will return to their private-sector lives and remain productive resources for their own communities. House Republicans understand this vision of the new America and want to bring it to reality. That is why this week, for the first time ever, the House will vote on a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of members of Congress. It should not come as a surprise that this historic vote is being brought by Republicans. By contrast, the last Democratic speaker joined in a suit against his own state's constituents to challenge a term limits ballot initiative that had passed overwhelmingly. Republicans cannot by themselves executive the will of the American people. A constitutional amendment requires two- thirds support, or 290 House votes. Thus, we will need significant Democratic support. The Republican commitment to seeing term limits pass is shown in the fact that two out of three House Republicans have co-signed at least one term limits bill. Even if every Republican (230)--including those who currently might oppose it on philosophical grounds--voted for term limits, we would still be 60 votes shy of passage in the House. Yet, fewer than two dozen members of the Democratic Caucus have signed on to any of the term limit proposals so far suggested--including those sponsored by Democrats. Our Democratic president has continually opposed term limits even though his own home state of Arkansas overwhelmingly passed a term limits initiative in 1992. The opposition of the president and the majority of congressional Democrats is unfortunate. We hope they will consider the time and reassess their position (as, in fact, several Republicans have). As a new millennium approaches, people pause to reflect upon their communal rights and responsibilities. At the end of the 19th century, the movement began for the direct election of United States senators. It took 20 years, but eventually the people's will was fulfilled in the 17th Amendment. A constitutional limitation on congressional terms is no less significant. This vote says to the American people that this is their country. It says to our citizens that they are entrusted with greater control. The people must now work harder to run their country; it's no longer ``autopilot'' votes for entrenched incumbents. Term limits will stimulate voter interest and, therefore, voter participation. House Republicans are committed. If a term limits amendment does not pass this year, subsequent Republican-lead Congresses will introduce a bill until one eventually passes. We invite our friends on the Democratic aisle to join us in ending the political careerism of the past to cast the first important vote for the new realities of the 21st century. Vote for term limits.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a supporter of term limits, and I have to say, P.T. Barnum launched the Greatest Show on Earth with the idea that a sucker is born every minute. Well, it looks like the circus is coming to town a little early, because the Republican Party is applying that same philosophy to term limits. In the Big Top we call the Capitol, there are Members of Congress who promise lower taxes, higher defense spending, and a balanced budget all at the same time. Now, these career politicians say that they support term limits, only if they are not retroactive and do not have a chance of passing. The long and the short of it is they support term limits as long as there is no chance that their own terms might be limited. I have news for the political contortionists of Newt's three-ring circus, the voters are not as dumb as you think. They believed you when you ran on the Contract With America and said you were not interested in a career in Washington and would limit your term in office. They know the House would pass the Sanford-Deal term-limits statute if it were put to an up-or-down vote today, and when you go home and tell them that you were for term limits, they will know that it was just a show. Let me also make it clear I hear a lot of Republicans blaming Democrats in case term limits does not pass. The Democrats did not run on the Contract With America. Democrats did not say that there is a revolution in this country and term limits will be the cornerstone. The Republicans did. And now there is too much party discipline to get one of the term- limits bills passed. Well, look, party discipline was not a problem when it came to cutting school lunches or preventing Congress from passing real lobbyist reform. So we all know the Republican leadership can get the votes when they want to. The American people who support term limits are about to find out the dirty little secret around here: The vast majority of Republicans support term limits, but only if it does not apply to them.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate and hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle criticize Democrats because of their retroactive proposal, let us make it very, very clear. My Democratic colleagues are not the ones who ran for Congress on the Contract With America all around the country talking about the need to bring in term limits. My Democratic colleagues were honest about it; they did not run on term limits. They have a proposal to put forward and if the Republicans are serious about term limits, we could pass a retroactive term limits bill. It is also amusing to see the Republican leadership who worked so hard on party loyalty and so many other issues in the first so-called 100 days of this contract, to see where are they now in terms of demanding that party loyalty when it comes to determining which proposal to vote for. If some of the Republican leadership had the same interest, the same zeal, the same compassion to get at nutrition programs, for example, to get at some of the other Head Start programs, if they felt just as strongly about term limits as they have in some of these other devastating cuts, we would have term limits here this week.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of term limits. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. This rule proves to me that the Republican leadership has no intention of passing term limits this week. You see, the Republicans promised the American people a vote on term limits in the Contract With America. But ever since the elections, they have approached the pending term limits vote just like Goldilocks tested her porridge in the bears' cabin. Some of them do not like 6 year limits--this porridge is too hot. Some of them do not like 12 year limits--this porridge is too cold. Well guess what, Republicans, it will not take the American people very long to figure out that you did not try very hard to find an option that was just right for everyone. Instead, you crafted a confusing, repetitive rule, that would divide the votes enough to sabotage final passage. You might as well stop the debate now. Because term limits cannot pass under this rule, so why bother with the charade? Get with it. There are Members of the Republican Party who do not want term limits. It is all a big joke to pass the Contract With America.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This is a actually a very, very good amendment to a very bad bill. We have been doing a lousy job in this country of holding people accountable when they have children. Mr. Chairman, as a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I prosecuted a case, the first criminal enforcement case in child support in Massachusetts under the revised statute. It was a defendant who was married, lived in Lowell, MA. This defendant took off to New York. He had 7 children at home. The bank began foreclosure procedures because the wife could not make payments. He was living in New York City, on 52d Street, and he had a place in the Caribbean. The child support enforcement division in Massachusetts could not get at any of the assets. We could do a much, much better job of collecting child support. State agencies do not have the ability to do long-arm statutes, go out and collect these assets. We could save $32 to $35 billion if we could just collect child support. By the way, 90 percent of the money that is owed in child support in this country is men who owe women child support. I cannot help but think that if 90 percent of the money was women who owed men, this system would have found out a way to collect these payments. This bill is part of a bill I supported and sponsored. It is long overdue. I would hope we could get something done to increase the effort to hold people accountable when they have children. We are doing a lousy job at it now. Massachusetts, as my colleague indicated, is a leader in this area.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are for cutting spending and cutting the deficit, but do we really have to start with children? There has been a lot of discussion about how much the Republican plan would cut the School Lunch Program. So when I went home this weekend, I went right to the source. I had lunch with the students at the Dutile Elementary School in Billerica, MA. They filled me in on the missing details. According to school administrators, the Republican plan would cut $210,000 a year from the Billerica school lunch program which means that 600 students who now get free or reduced lunches will have to find some other way to make up the difference. Chicken sandwiches and carrot sticks may not seem like much to some Members of Congress who are used to dining out with lobbyists at Morton's eating thick, juicy steaks. But for the kids at the Dutile Elementary School, school lunch is often the only way to get through their day. There are plenty of places to cut spending on entitlements that will not hurt kids, but instead of cutting the wealthy by closing corporate welfare tax breaks, the Republican plan takes money away from low- income school children and hands it over to people making $100,000 a year.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the $26.5 million rescission from the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). As cochair of the Congressional Manufacturing Task Force, I have had the opportunity to hear and see first hand the success of the Manufacturing Technology Centers. When Congressman Bob Franks and I formed this Task Force we did so because we saw a need to develop new ways in which government could stimulate continued manufacturing productivity as well as reform policies that undermine the vitality of the industrial sector. The MEP helps do just this. This rescission would undermine this emerging nationwide network of extension centers--co-funded by state and local governments--that provide small and mid-sized manufacturers with technical assistance as they upgrade their operations to boost competitiveness and retain or create new jobs. This program has showed a rate of return of 7 to 1 for the federal government's investment, with concrete benefits in increased sales, cost savings and jobs for small manufacturers. It is a valuable program. Relative to our foreign competitors, the United States has few established mechanisms to move technologies innovations into plants and to ensure their adaptation into production processes. The MEP program is one of them. This rescission will drastically reduce the effectiveness of the program. While the United States is still the world's leader in research and development, other countries like Japan and Germany are not that far behind us. Other nations have incorporated traditional business assistance services such as marketing, training and managerial support activities into their technology transfer delivery system to great advantage. Meanwhile in the U.S., some sources say it takes up to 55 years from the time a new manufacturing technology comes out of the laboratory until it reaches 90 percent of the U.S. companies that could use it. Programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership are helping America stay competitive in the changing global markets. Let's not destroy that by passing this rescission.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker before we start on a rampage of spending cuts, I thought we might like to consider the following multiple choice question: If you were trying to pay for over $1 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, would you, A, cut funding from nutrition programs for pregnant women and infants; B, eliminate funding for low-income fuel assistance for older Americans and working families; C, take money away from low-income students trying to work to pay for a decent education; or D, all of the above? If you answered D, you should have no problem with the Republican leadership's rescission bill. But before we even start debating the specifics, let us get the facts straight. There are plenty of other places to cut welfare spending. Just take a good look at some of the special subsidies we give to animal damage control programs, tobacco giants, and corporate welfare. Do not be fooled by the Republican leadership's cosmetic attempt to use the balanced budget as an excuse to cut these programs. It is a sham, because it has nothing to do with deficit reduction. it is all about taking money away from people who need it and giving it to people who do not.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that when that money was cut in committee, it did not take into account future enrollment figures. It did not take into account increases in food prices. They is why it is a cut. And how we can sit here and cut school lunches at a time when the same individuals who had an opportunity to cut lobbyists from paying meals for Members of Congress voted against it? The same Members who would vote to take away the school nutrition programs can be seen on a Tuesday or a Wednesday or a Thursday at the Capital Grill or at Morton's or La Colline or other restaurants around this Capitol having a free lunch paid for by lobbyists. It is a big thick steak. Let us put that money back into the nutrition program and stop cutting around the issues. We are neglecting children in this country. Let us make investments where we ought to be making them.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the regulatory impact analysis provisions in H.R. 926. In 1993, Representative Bob Franks and I established the first ever congressional manufacturing task force. We traveled around the country to hold hearings what they needed to maintain competitiveness. Each time we held a hearing, each time we met with small businesses, we heard the same thing. Overlapping, burdensome regulations are killing manufacturers ability to stay competitive and have created the perception of Government hostile to business. Last year, the Federal Register issued over 69,000 pages of new regulations--the third highest total ever. Congress must act to change this. By requiring regulators to assess the impact of new regulations, we will streamline--not eliminate--regulations so they are more effective. The goal is to cause regulators and regulated parties to have full knowledge of the likely impact of a regulatory action before it is made final.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, is this not something? They did it when they were in power, so we can do it. They did it, so we can do it. Let us get serious. Here we are creating a commission to spend money to figure out how we are going to spend more money. We pass a balanced budget amendment, we talk about downsizing Government, we talk about reinventing Government. And what are we doing here today? Let us create a political commission, because we do not want to do our jobs. We in Congress do not want to do our jobs on the Committee on National Security. We do not want to hold the Secretary of Defense back. Get real, If we are going to cut the size of Government, we cannot begin to create more commissions, created by politicians to appoint politicians to have more partisan rhetoric. National security is more important than partisan politics. This commission is a joke and everyone in the country knows it.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan helped produce a consensus for higher defense spending and a landslide victory for the GOP in 1980. But instead of concentrating on the ability to fight terrorism and conventional wars, Ronald Reagan used his mandate for a stronger military indiscriminately. He poured billions into strategic nuclear weapons and space-based missile defenses designed for all-out war against the Soviet Union, and instead of focusing on improving the combat capability of conventional and special operations forces, Reagan chose to fund expensive and complex new weapons programs based on unproven technology. The result was a larger military that required unsustainable levels of resources, and the country is still dealing with the consequences of that debt. Today, once again, the Republicans are doing little to address legitimate concerns about the readiness of our troops. Instead, they are proposing massive increases in defense spending to field super- sophisticated weapons, including space-based defenses designed for the cold war. I call on my Republican colleagues to stop and think about what the country's real defense needs may be. We need the best trained and equipped soldiers in the world, not another 30-50 billion dollar's worth of work on star wars systems that wouldn't work even if they addressed a real threat. Let us not make the same mistake twice and dig our country deeper into debt.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, earlier this year two people were gunned down in cold blood and three were wounded at a family planning clinic in Brookline, MA. The suspected killer, John Salvi, is unrepentant, and he has been hailed as a hero by some antiabortion extremists. Outside of his holding cell in Virginia activists were chanting, John, we love you. Thank you for what you did. When we look at the statistics for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or talk to the staff of Planned Parenthood in our districts, we will see that the Brookline incident is not an isolated case of violence. Family planning centers across this country have become targets of an orchestrated campaign of arson, vandalism, and sniper attack, and our districts are no exception. The threat is so serious that the Justice Department released security tips for clinics in response to the Brookline shootings, advising staffers to circle around the block once before going home to see if anyone is following them. Clinic staffs are advised to check all packages for oily stains or peculiar odors of almonds or shoe polish. They are living in a war zone, for daring to protect a legally protected constitutional right for American women. This amendment is not about abortion. It is about terrorism. It does not matter if one is pro-life or pro-choice or Democratic or Republican. If you believe in standing up to terrorists, vote for the Schroeder amendment. gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we really should not be here having this debate. We have to work out the time here and the time there. Frankly, just last September Congress settled a 6-year debate over crime policy by passing legislation that combined the best elements of punishment and prevention. The package President Clinton signed into law will put 100,000 more cops on the streets, build more prisons, fund educational and recreational programs, and provide alternatives to crime for young people, demand tougher sentences for violent offenders. And a bipartisan majority of the House and the other body concluded, after so much time of arguing, that the time was at hand for action. As Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Republican and member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said, ``If the President deserves the credit, so be it, let us put aside politics and take a stand against violent crime.'' That is exactly what Congress did. Now this new Republican Congress wants to radically change this bill, driven by focus groups, political polls. Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, as a former first deputy assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, who managed a caseload of 13,000 criminal cases a year, fighting crime is serious business. You do not fight crime by reading political polls or looking at focus groups or getting elected to political office. That does not make one law enforcement professional. In order to fight crime you have to study and know what works and what does not work. I had 54 cities and towns in Middlesex County, where I was the first assistant. I worked with every police department and local officials all over that county. You know what? Some of them knew something about what the cutting edge of fighting crime was, and others did not. What do we do in this crime bill, the Attorney General, the President, and Congress got the experts on how to fight law enforcement together. And all the evidence is overwhelming that community policing works if community policing is done correctly, by forging the partnerships required to be formed. It works. In my home city of Lowell, MA, the police chief there instituted a community policing program. And after 1 year of community policing, they issued a report that is very specific about what the effect of community policing is in that community. Now, this is not a political poll, it is not a focus group. This police chief did not stick his finger in the wind and say what is going to work in the next election. These are facts, what works and what does not. The facts show that in 1 year of community policing, burglaries are down by 34 percent. The facts show that residential burglaries are down 32 percent. The facts say that business burglaries are down by 41 percent. The facts show that larcenies are down by 23 percent. And the facts show that car thefts in that community are down by 20 percent. You want to know what a police chief said who instituted community policing? That police chief said that what we accomplished in Lowell, MA, should serve as a model for the rest of the country because it works. So what we ought to be doing is taking a program that works and making it a national model by instituting this program all over the country. I hear debate on the floor over the last couple of days about what a county commissioner might want, is what the city council might want, someone elected to this or to that. Fighting institute programs that work, and community policing works. And to go backward to another era of providing block grants to local communities to use however they decide, when we know the evidence is clear that 33 percent of those moneys are likely to be used for administrative costs. We know the evidence is clear that a high percentage of that money will be used for pork and waste in programs that do not work. This is what works: community policing. It will work all over America. In just a very short time ago, all of us agreed in a bipartisan way. But now, because of quick sound bites and a political campaign and focus groups and political maneuvering, we are going to step backward rather than forward. We should not be debating this bill at all today. We are debating a bill tomorrow on national security that is, frankly, something we ought to have more time on.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, we should not have to have this debate, because fighting crime is a bipartisan issue; it is not an issue that should be pitting Democrats against Republicans or having Republicans concerned because President Clinton got too much credit in the last campaign. Let us take this program that works and let it be implemented all over America, and let Republicans and Democrats alike stand up and say we created a program that worked, that reduced crime. This is what we ought to be looking at, hard cold facts, not sticking our fingers into the political wind to determine what people might think.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, last September the President signed the most comprehensive, toughest, smartest crime bill in the history of this institution. It is a crime bill that put better than $10 billion to build new prisons and combined community policing, 100,000 new police officers with prevention programs that work. It has bipartisan support at that time, Republicans and Democrats signing on, Members of the other body, prominent Republicans signing on. It was a bipartisan bill. But, unfortunately for some people in this institution, the President apparently got too much credit for that bill. So now we have a new bill. This bill has a Republican label on it. It attempts to throw all the money from community policing into block grants and hope that county commissioners and school committee members and hope that city councils and local officials somehow become law enforcement professionals and spend the money the right way. Even though we have a history from 1968 where 33 percent of that money went to administrative costs, we are going to tinker and change this crime bill to take away the label of a Democratic bill or a President Clinton bill. Before I got to Congress, I was the first assistant district attorney in Middlesex County. Our office managed 13,000 criminal cases a year. I want to tell my colleagues, fighting crime is serious business. You do not fight crime by taking a political poll. You do not fight crime by listening to a focus group. And you do not fight crime by signing on to a document that is put together by political strategists. It is very serious business. The 100,000 new police officers on the streets, and the previous speaker talker about local governments having to match the money. Ladies and gentlemen, 95 percent of the crimes in this country are prosecuted and enforced by local government. In spite of any rhetoric or any spin you want to put on it, the Congress does not fight the majority of crimes in this country. Ninety-five percent of them are local district attorneys, local States attorneys offices and local police departments. They have that responsibility. This bill seeks to take some funds and get them focused on community policing, because, guess what? Community policing works. There have been studies over a period of 6 years, and I know from my own experiences as a former prosecutor, community policing works. Community policing is the most effective cutting edge law enforcement tool that we have. Yet because of politics, partisan politics, it appears we want to tinker with that process. It is working in my home city of Lowell, MA, where we have seen in 1 year 13 additional community police officers opening up a precinct station in the city which has resulted in reducing crime dramatically, 20 to 40 percent. Now, the new Republican majority has ignored facts about prevention programs, because they have found political profit in labeling them ``pork.'' Apparently if you have the right sound bite, you can label prevention programs pork and it works politically. And after considering all of the information available, like studies, for example, law enforcement studies, I have a hard time figuring out why the new majority is so insistent on pushing this bill. It is bad for efforts to fight crime, it is a bad bill. I suspect the Republicans are feeling boxed in by the promises they made in the Contract With America. Their crime bill, like much of the contract's agenda, was drafted based on polls and focus groups. But, friends, what sounds good during a campaign and what makes sense in fighting crime for America, are two very different things. I know from experience. Republicans, like Gov. Bill Weld from Massachusetts, a former prosecutor, strongly supported this crime bill. The Republican DA in Suffolk County, Ralph Martin, strongly supports the Democratic crime bill, the Clinton crime bill. And I believe that a majority of Republican Members know it as well. A major test of the Republican Party's ability to govern will be their willingness to admit that many of their campaign promises are unworkable. And to forge a consensus on what to do about it, judging from their work on crime offer the last couple of days, reality has yet to sink in. I urge my colleagues to take the data that is available from law enforcement professionals all across the country and not to tinker with this crime bill, to put in the prevention programs that work. What we face this week is serious business. Let us not tinker with this bill and hope the President is going to veto it. Let us take care of the business right here.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, before I got elected to Congress, I was the first assistant district attorney in Middlesex county. We had 13,000 criminal cases a year. Fighting crime is serious business. It requires a two pronged approach: One is priority prosecution to remove those individuals, the worst offenders, from society and put them away for as long as you can get them away. The challenge we face in law enforcement is what are we going to do with the majority of the people who remain? There are countless examples from all over the country of priority prosecution programs. When they mix prevention programs and get police officers involved with thee school and open up schools for kids to provide prevention programs, it works. It is working in the city of Lowell, where crime prevention programs have resulted in dramatically lowering gang violence in that city. Crime prevention programs have worked in Summerville, MA, dramatically decreasing the rates of crime. Fighting crime is not a political issue, it should not be partisan. It what we passed 4 months ago. It was the best crime initiative that ever came from this Congress. And now we are getting involved in partisan politics. It works. Let us keep it.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you. The 23 percent figure that you mentioned is consistent with the figures here that are up in the first year of community policing in the city of Lowell. For example, burglaries, down 34 percent; residential burglaries, down 32 percent; business burglaries, and what could be more important in terms of fostering economic development and business growth, down 41 percent; larcenies, down 23 percent. In car thefts in the city of Lowell, they are down 20 percent as a result of community policing. And these are not my figures. They do not come from a political pollster. They do not come from a political group in Washington. They come from the police chief of city of Lowell, MA, a law enforcement professional with years of experience in fighting crime, in a very, very difficult city to fight crime. When I was a first assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, the first five homicides I attend, and we used to in our office, the first assistant would have to go to a homicide scene to determine what experts needed to come in to investigate a murder, to basically head up that investigation and make sure it was conducted properly. The first five homicides that I attended in the first few months, three of them were in Lowell, MA. So this is an area really that has been plagued by difficulties in fighting crime. And the statistics that you mentioned are consistent right in this community, dramatic increases in crime in the eighties and into the early nineties. These figures I think speak for themselves, and they are consistent with my colleagues' experiences as well. The other thing that I think is important to mention is what community policing is all about. Because sometimes people hear the term and really do not understand what makes community policing work and what actually happens when a community undertakes a competent community policing program. I know from the rhetoric I have heard on the floor of the House of Representatives, it appears to me a lot of Members of Congress do not know what community policing is all about. I was wondering if you could, given your 12 years of experience, relate what community experience is all about and your experience with it.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the issue that we are dealing with in the Congress this week and early into next week, the issue of the crime bill. Just last September President Clinton signed the most comprehensive, effective, tough crime bill in the history of this country. It was a crime bill that was tough on repeat offenders. It was a crime bill that made a significant contribution to building more prisons across this country, $10 billion. It was also a bill that put 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America. But I want to talk about two parts of that bill because two important sections of that bill are in serious jeopardy over the next several days in the Congress of the United States; that is, sections of the bill that require and fund 100,000 new police officers across America, partially funded by the Federal Government, community policing. Let me just say that as a former first assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, one of the largest counties in the country, and having had the experience of overseeing a caseload of over 13,000 criminal cases a year, and having had the experience of working with 54 cities and towns and 54 different police departments across that Middlesex County, I can tell you that community policing is a cutting edge of what works in law enforcement. It is not an accident that we have for the time an Attorney General with vast experience in the front lines of the fight against crime. This attorney general knows what it is about to manage a case load, knows what it is about to work with police departments, and knows what fighting crime in tough areas is all about. And that is why I believe we have seen this smart, tough, effective crime bill passed into law. Community policing has worked all over America, and I want to talk for a minute about my hometown, the city of Lowell, MA, where 13 additional police officers and a commitment made by the Federal Government, and a commitment, by the way, made by the Republican Governor of Massachusetts, Governor Weld, a former prosecutor who also understands that community policing works. Because of that commitment, the city of Lowell has been able to form community partnerships using the Community Policing Program. Community partnerships are the hallmark of police and community oriented proposals. During the last year the Lowell Police Department under the leadership of Police Chief Educate Davis has opened up new community policing precincts in different sections of the city of Lowell, Lower Belvidere, Back Central Street, Lower Highlands. They have established a Team Lowell to go developed a van plan, getting contributions from toll booths all over the city, to help form their partnership between the school department and the police department. They have a community response team with inspection services. During the first year they have been able to close down more than 150 buildings which are identified as drug houses or identified as structures that were not rehabilitatible. With the special units, the community response team has been responsible for over 350 arrests. We have had school visits by precinct officers into the community, visiting the schools, forming partnerships with educators and students and guidance counselors. We have established flag football leagues, where police officers donate their time, working with youths in the community. They also have a street worker program basketball league working in the city of Lowell, again forming that partnership, and a DARE summer camp has also provided leadership in the area of cutting drug use among youths. Just this past week the police chief in Lowell came out with a report showing the city of Lowell crime trends as a result of community policing in that city. The results are very, very important. These results show how community policing has actually worked in one particular city, Lowell, MA. These results are not the results of a political opinion poll. They are not the results of focus groups. They are not the results are putting one's finger into the political wind to determine what is popular one week or another. Because as I watched the Republican rhetoric coming on the other side of this issue, I see a lack of real understanding of what makes law enforcement ticks, about what works in law enforcement. But I see a lot of good political posturing. What really concerns me is I see a feeling that many Republicans on the other side of the aisle who supported this crime bill 4 months ago, 5 months ago, supported it on the floor of the House, now are coming in with a new proposal that would not guarantee one community police officer. They allow communities all kinds of discretion to determine whether they want to purchase fax machines, limousines, new police vehicles, with no requirements at all that they engage in a community policing program that has worked. What seems to be ignored is the fact that these statistics show that community policing works. And there is nothing that could be more dangerous than for us to back out of our commitments that we have made to communities all over America to participate in a 3-year plan to fund community police departments across this country. But that is what is at risk. And I think it is really unfortunate as a person who has had some experience with crime to watch the rhetoric in the Congress. Many Members of Congress who have a lot to say on quick sound bites about crime have never been in a courtroom, have never prosecuted a case, have never put one criminal in jail, ever. But they have become so-called experts in law enforcement, so-called experts in what the future trends are in this country and what works and what does not. And that is bad news for America, because fighting crime is serious business. You do not learn how to fight crime by reading a political poll or looking at a focus group or determining shifts in the political winds. Fighting crime is serious business.

Mr. MEEHAN. I would be glad to yield to my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who I might add has done tremendous work on the task force on crime and has 12 years experience as a police officer in Michigan. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush certainly was a supporter of midnight basketball; so during that period of time it was not so much of a partisan issue. I think if more people had the experience, those who served had the experience of watching a community, as I did, with 10, 12, 15 home invasions, rapes, robberies, home invasions over a very brief period of time, and watched the devastation that occasioned, and then watch a community-based prosecution program by the district attorney, Tom Riley, an effective district attorney, implemented in a community, and you watch home invasions dramatically decline, there is nothing more rewarding to a prosecutor, to a police officer, than to watch those home invasions develop the strategy that works and see them stop. There is nothing that could be more rewarding to any law enforcement professional but to see the results of professional law enforcement. I cannot help but believe if more Members in this body, whether they be Democrat or Republican, had that experience and saw the devastation that crime causes firsthand when you are called to a home to see that devastation and to see the difference when you implement a community policing program that works, we would not be having this discussion here tonight. I think we would all be better off, the country would be better off. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.