Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a member of our subcommittee. (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who really has become quite an expert on these issues while bringing his law enforcement background to the debate.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with the chairman of our subcommittee to present the conference report on H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriation bill. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for the open and interactive way in which he has allowed us to deal with this legislation in this bipartisan way. I want to congratulate him on his first conference report, and his efforts in bringing it to the floor. I would like to think that I could congratulate him in the sense that we are going to be all done, but I do not think that is the case. I think we will be seeing this bill again after a Presidential veto. Mr. Speaker, in many respects this is a good bill, and I support the lion's share of it. It is below the total level of discretionary spending provided last year. That was a goal that I think everybody embraced. Law enforcement funding, Mr. Speaker, is a very important part of this bill, as the chairman said. Funding for Federal law enforcement activities and for Federal support of State and local law enforcement has been significantly increased. The Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, receives $2.4 billion in excess of last year's funding, with the Violent Crime Trust Fund being increased by over $1.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, this robust funding for law enforcement includes money for 200 new FBI positions, plus significant amounts of money for new equipment and facilities and for support of these new positions. It includes funding for 30 new Drug Enforcement Administration agents, with new equipment and mobile enforcement teams to support those important new hires. Mr. Speaker, amazingly, this legislation provides for a total of 3,000, let me repeat that for my colleagues and anyone who is listening, for 3,000 new positions at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including 800 new border patrol agents and 400 new inspectors, and corresponding support personnel. Mr. Speaker, in the law enforcement area this bill provides $175 million, full funding, as the chairman indicated, for the Violence Against Women Act programs, and it includes $535 million for the Byrne Grant Program, a very popular, very effective, local law enforcement grant program. Mr. Speaker, this bill is adequate in my view in other areas. The Economic Development Administration is funded at the House level, and I think it is appropriate at this time to give special recognition to our chairman. In representing his district from Kentucky, and I my district from West Virginia, we appreciate how important the Economic Development Administration is to areas that are experiencing economic hardship. That agency has reached out and is broadening its portfolio and addressing the concerns of economically distressed areas as a result of military spending displacements. NOAA is funded, Mr. Speaker, at $80 million above the House level. I consider that to be a good thing. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, several departments and agencies are severely underfunded in this bill. The committee's allocation in my view is as much as $500 million short. In fact, virtually every other part of this bill has been reduced from last year. The Department of Commerce's funding level of $3.4 billion is $600 million less than last year. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, in my view, this conference agreement zeros out the highly effective Advanced Technology Program. It is tragic from the standpoint that I think substantively the ATP program is extremely important to our strategic activities to be competitive economically into the future as we compete with the world's economy. But also, Mr. Speaker, I think we should point out in this bill that zero funding the ATP program makes us renege on grants that we have already granted to some 400 companies. I do not think that action speaks very well. The State Department and its related agencies are reduced by $800 million below last year. That is too low. We are advised they are going to limp along with that. That cannot continue--that kind of treatment of the State Department. And many other related agencies, such as the Legal Services Corporation, are reduced dramatically. Peacekeeping functions, Mr. Speaker, are so underfunded, almost ignored, that we expect to be dealing with a $1 billion plus deficit next year to meet our international peacekeeping obligations. Mr. Speaker, many of these underfunded or zeroed out programs are extremely important parts of President Clinton's economic revitalization initiatives or his foreign policy initiatives, or simply our commitments to ensure that the disadvantaged receive legal services. It is clear from the President's statements that any or all of them may cause him to veto this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, the President is committed to veto this bill because funding of the COPS program as a block grant program jeopardizes the 26,000 cops already on the beat. But, more importantly, and probably because we will get beyond that jeopardy, it makes impossible his commitment, a very fundamental part of his campaign and a very fundamental part of his law enforcement crime fighting initiative, to achieve the goal of putting 100,000 new police officers on the beat by the end of fiscal year 2000. Mr. Speaker, this is a program that is working, and it need not be fixed simply because it was not invented by the majority. It was President Clinton's program. The first year, from last year's 1995 fiscal year funding, we have put almost 26,000 new policemen on the beat. The first year met 25 percent of the goal. In the second year, the lowest estimates and projections are that we will put another 24,000 or 25,000 policemen on the beat if we get funding for the COPS program. That is 50,000 new policemen on the beat in the first 2 years of a 6-year program where the President promised to have 100,000 by the end of the century. We are far ahead of schedule on this program. There is no legitimate criticism of the so-called COPS program. In my mind the block granting of this program is an effort to undermine a program that is already working. The President has indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this item is nonnegotiable, and I expect it to be the subject of the motion of recommit on this conference report. In addition, because the bill enacts by reference certain provisions of H.R. 728, the formula for States to receive the block grant funds provided in this bill is heavily skewed toward those States with high populations and high crime rates. Smaller States, rural areas that are getting the job done, are disadvantaged in this bill. Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains 31 pages of legislation in a bill that only has 78 pages in total. The issues addressed by these three legislative proposals are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. These items include a major legislative rewrite of the Truth in Sentencing initiative grants, prison litigation reform and Legal Services Corporation. All these provisions amend current law and have impacts that are not clearly defined, despite the claims of the Committee on the Judiciary. The reasons they have ended up in this appropriations bill are unclear to me, because as far as I know, we still have a Committee on the Judiciary with an especially competent chairman and ranking member, and I see no reason why an appropriations bill should contain such extensive authorizing language. Members may in fact be surprised by the impacts some of this language will have on the distribution of prison grant funds for their States. Preliminary information, for instance, from the Justice Department, indicates that some States that are currently eligible for prison grants will not be eligible for Truth In Sentencing incentive grants. While some of these States may become eligible for general prison grant funds, the amount of the funds available for this purpose has been reduced substantially from what it could have been under current law. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that in a bill as large and diverse as this one, there will always be things that we agree with and things that we do not. We all know it will be vetoed. I intend to work closely with the gentleman [[Page H 14099]] from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman, when that time comes, to adjust the things that need to be adjusted to get a signable bill. I believe that is his desire. It is certainly mine. We must advance the process here today and get closer to that goal. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute, and I ask the gentleman from Kentucky, if this continues, would he mind yielding 1 minute so we can straighten this out? I think it is an important point.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLauro Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Specifically, I strongly oppose dismantling the community policing initiative. This is one crime fighting program that works, as the ranking member said earlier. This bill will not guarantee that even one new police officer would be put on the beat. The streets of my district are safer today because of community policing. Neighborhoods are safer because we put more police officers on the beat. The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations made a comment before that said that this program does not work in inner-cities. That is wrong. It does work in inner-cities. In 1990, my hometown of New Haven, CT, an inner-city, had the unfortunate distinction of having the highest crime rate of any city in the State of Connecticut. Then police and community leaders came together and implemented a community policing program. Three years later, New Haven has a much prouder distinction, and that is of a crime-fighting innovator. Crime has been reduced by 7 percent in the first year of the program and by 10 percent in the second year. In fact, New Haven's community policing program has become a model for the Nation. In my district, 41 new police officers are already on the job in 10 municipalities as a result of the COPS initiative to put 100,000 new police officers on our Nation's streets. Mr. Speaker, the results are in. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for the first 3 months of 1995, aggravated assault is down by 40 percent, robbery is down by 21 percent, and murder is down by 5 percent. In February of 1996, because of COPS grants, my district is expected to put an additional 20 police officers on the beat in New Haven. Make no mistake about it. A ``yes'' vote on this conference report today is a vote to take cops off of the streets. Vote ``no'' on this conference report. It is, in fact, wrong to end this program that has worked in our Nation's cities, inner-cities and rural communities.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the distinguished----

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to ask the distinguished chairman if he would engage me, please? I am curious. If we have two States here who, under the block grant program the gentleman is asserting, can get a considerable amount, a higher amount, of money, what is the base amount for COPS and for the block grant program that the gentleman is comparing? Is that the same amount of money?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time so I can just get to the point, if we are dealing with the same absolute dollar amount, COPS compared to block grant, the gentleman has sighted a pattern in two States where the State he is asserting is almost getting twice as much money under a block grant program; is that true----

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will have to conclude by making my point. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to finish this statement. My point, Mr. Speaker, is, if we are dealing with the same base number, if the block grant program is yielding up considerably more amounts of money, then we have to be dealing with a larger base, and the chairman has indicated here, if I am understanding him, that he is comparing the 1995 funding level, which I understand is $1.3 billion with the 1996 funding level, which is something like $1.9 billion. That would explain the discrepancy. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I think that explains the discrepancy with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], and I am sure under his program Michigan is going to get the same amount as Kentucky.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the hardworking and distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the distinguished gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. [Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.]

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I understand, Mr. Speaker. See, I am trying to understand if we are dealing from the same base number; then the gentleman has either picked two States who, under the formula, miraculously get twice as much money in a block grant program out of the same pot of money, or else there are a lot of States out there that are going to get a lot less money under the block grant program. One or the other? See what I mean?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For 1996, so the gentleman is comparing last year's dollar volume with this year's dollar volume.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, please; $1.9 billion for what year?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have opposed the two recently passed continuing resolutions. I oppose them for fundamentally the same reason that the President is forced to be in opposition. It is really very simple. They are not clean. Tacked on to them are requirements to negotiate upon terms that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is proposing: a 7-year balanced budget period, along with offensive economic assumptions. Mr. Speaker, the reason that is offensive to the President, the reason that that is offensive, is because it requires cutting too deeply programs that are particularly important to the President, like cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and veterans. [[Page H 13330]] With regard to the limited continuing resolution before us today, Mr. Speaker, several minutes ago the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations moved a unanimous consent request that: All projects and activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Border Patrol be included. Mr. Speaker, that unanimous consent request was not accepted. Although law enforcement agencies have been granted a general exemption from the governmentwide furlough, there are a significant number of FBI and DEA agents who are not working. According to the Department of Justice, approximately 25 percent of the FBI and the DEA personnel have been furloughed. This equates to approximately 25,000 people, Mr. Speaker, who are not currently functioning in our front- line law enforcement agencies. The granting of this request would have enabled these people to return to work and thereby ensure that 100 percent of our law enforcement personnel would be on this job at this time. While I am not aware, as I have indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, the law enforcement officials on the front line are not at work, we need a team out there, and it is too bad that the continuing resolution could not have included these critical functions.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.