Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and related agencies fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. I want to again congratulate Chairman Hal Rogers on his first bill as subcommittee Chair. Mr. Rogers has done an absolutely excellent job this year as the new chairman of our subcommittee. His performance is all the more impressive in light of the personal tragedy he has recently faced. I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been to have performed his professional duties so well in the face of those circumstances yet Hal Rogers' courage shines through. The people of the Fifth Congressional District of Kentucky are fortunate to have Hal Rogers as their Representative. And we are fortunate to have him as our colleague and chairman of this subcommittee. He has handled this bill with great skill--beginning with very exhaustive hearings which explored the detail of the agency budgets under our jurisdiction. Hal did not waste time chasing simplistic solutions. Instead he pursued the course of a responsible legislator, following a sound, measured approach in writing this bill. He has been assisted by a very capable and dedicated staff, as have I. And I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the professionalism and talent of the staffs on both sides of the aisle for this subcommittee. While I do not agree with every funding level in this bill, there are many areas where the chairman and I see eye to eye: Crime fighting is a top priority for the Nation and this bill is as generous as possible in assisting the Department of Justice in this regard. We have been able to fund new FBI and DEA positions which we added in the bill last year, and for which Chairman Rogers fought so hard. In addition, the bill includes an extremely generous immigration initiative. The approach the chairman has taken attacks the illegal alien program on all fronts--700 new border patrol agents, 400 new inspectors, 945 new detention personnel, and 750 new investigators. Further, funds provided in this bill will allow INS to continue its automation initiatives so that INS agents can perform their duties in a modern world. And, of course, we are all happy that the Byrne Law Enforcement Grant Program is funded. I will be offering an amendment to increase funds for the Byrne Grant Program because it is such an effective tool for local law enforcement. This bill also funds the State Department at levels consistent with proposals to reinvent government. And, finally, I am pleased the subcommittee funded U.S. contributions to the U.N. and international organizations. Having said this, there are areas of this bill where I have grave concerns. In this regard, the budget realities facing the chairman should not go unmentioned. The shortage in this subcommittee's 602-B allocation is directly related to the recently passed budget resolution. The budget resolution is the blueprint for a budget cutting frenzy which is dangerous for our Nation. During Budget Committee considerations I was very distressed to see Members carelessly propose drastic cuts to programs that meant a lot to people, often the less fortunate. They did so without a full analysis of the effect of these cuts on the American people. And these budget resolution guidelines have dictated chairman Rogers' allocation in the appropriations process. So I stand here very uncomfortable about the premise under which we are operating: one that forces our Nation's crime-fighting initiatives, our competitiveness agenda, and our diplomatic functions to compete in less than a zero sums game. And who has been the hardest hit by this exercise? The Commerce Department. Chairman Rogers has acted responsibly by not dismantling the Department in the appropriations process as some illconceived proposals would recommend. However, I do have concerns with cuts in civilian technology programs at NIST and the Fisheries and Ocean Programs at NOAA. I will be offering two amendments to address these important policy issues. Another area of special concern is in the Crime Trust Fund. This bill does not fund the highly effective COPS Program and prevention programs. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. This bill does not fund the COPS Program. We have over 20,000 new police officers, in virtually every congressional district in this country, to whom the Federal Government has committed multiyear funding. The problem is that there is not one red cent in this bill for the COPS Program. Instead, it funds a block grant program which is not even authorized. Nor will it likely be authorized, since the President, Congress, and the American people have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the COPS Program which is already out there getting police onto the streets. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is irresponsible to stop this program midstream--in effect throwing our investment away. I will be offering an amendment to fund the COPS Program in place of the block grant program. Other areas which concern me are: The restriction of funds to exclude postconviction defender organization; The slashed funding and restrictions imposed on the Legal Services Corporation; the conditions placed on the President regarding UN peacekeeping; the cut in funding for international broadcasting; and the large State criminal alien assistance increases, which is a concern I probably hold in the minority in this body. But, as I have stated, the chairman has done well in such an austere context. I offer my personal congratulations to him. And I look forward to working with him to strengthen this bill through the remainder of the appropriations process.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few seconds. I am sorry that the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee did not yield to me. I say to the gentleman, I simply wanted to make a point, Bill, that you made a comment that under the block grant program it was conceivable that you would have more policemen on the beat. That's really the problem with the block grant program. It is also conceivable that you will not have as many policemen on the beat. And the other point is that we already have this tremendous cops program out there, as Mr. Doggett just pointed out, that is working, and that communities have had commitments from the Federal Government that they're going to be funded for 3 years, and under the block grant program that commitment of the Federal Government is going to be undermined. The Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the gentleman's closing remarks that this [[Page H 7639]] amendment takes it away, this amendment indeed takes nothing away; this amendment preserves the COPS program. It keeps the funding going as the Government promised it would keep it going into the outyears. Actually, the bill language takes it away, changes the program in midstream and creates a lot of instability out there. This amendment restores that and keeps the COPS program going. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to reply to the distinguished gentleman from Florida for just 1 minute. He got into at the end of his remarks a little bit of hyperbole about the old way of doing business and all that. Actually the COPS program is very modern, it is very new, it is good thinking. It is an efficient operation, creating efficient relationships between the Federal Government and localities and States across this Nation. It does it in a very direct way, focusing on a very real problem and getting a directly focused program, cops out there on the beat. The gentleman from Florida mentioned organizations who were supporting the community block grant program. Perhaps they are supporting it in the abstract, as a possibility. There are a number of fraternal organizations who support the COPS program and support it strongly. Just to mention a few and not take up very much time, the Fraternal Order of Police support COPS, I say to the distinguished gentleman. The National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the International Union of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Troopers Coalition. The list goes on. I have only gone down through about half of it. There is considerable support out there for this very successful program. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman there is nothing cynical in our efforts at all. We have an ongoing, very successful program supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, major city chiefs, and there is nothing cynical at all about it. As for the jurisdiction of Washington, DC, and its financial problems, it has a waiver, which there is a provision for. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Foglietta], a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like to comment on the appreciation expressed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and myself for our efforts with regard to INS and our funding last year and this year to enhance border enforcement and to work to try to secure our border. We certainly have worked in that regard. Mr. Hunter last year was very much in the forefront of that. I appreciate his kind of remarks, and we appreciate his efforts in that regard. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to title I of H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 appropriate bill for the Department of Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, and related agencies. Mr. Chairman, frankly, this amendment is not the amendment that I wanted to offer at this time. At the full committee, it became apparent, it became apparent in subcommittee, as we were marking it up, but we were not going to put any money on the COPS program, the program that is out there right now working for America, the program that has brought approximately 20,000 police officers to local communities virtually in every congressional district in this country, that is doing a good job, by all accounts, both administratively and substantially in fighting crime on the streets. It became apparent in subcommittee that we were not going to fund the COPS program. Although we had passed it in the crime bill last year. Although the Justice Department has implemented it by any account in a very efficient, effective way, although many communities are relying on it, have spent time, filed their grants, and expect for those grants to be funded for the next three years because they had been granted by the Federal Government, we are not funding it in this bill. So today as it stands, tonight, throughout the country, as the law enforcement community looks at our efforts here, looks at this appropriation bill, looks at title I, the Justice funding, they do not see any funding next year for the COPS program. Recognizing that we were not doing that in subcommittee, I thought about that. How do we posture this so that we take into consideration the interests of the majority now, we take into consideration the fact that earlier in the year they passed a crime bill which repealed in effect the COPS program and substituted a block grant program but also which takes into consideration that block grant program is not law; the COPS program is. How do we handle that? So I came up with an amendment in the alternative, a funding in the alternative. I offered that in full committee. The amendment simply said that we will fund the block program as it is contained in the subcommittee's mark, if the block program becomes law. Because if it becomes law, it in effect replaces the COPS program. But if the block program does not become law, then we will take that same amount of money and fund the COPS program and $233 million out of the fund prevention programs so that police officers and the law enforcement community and the American people would not have to be in this state of insecurity about Federal funding for community policing. That was a reasonable amendment. I almost thought it was bipartisan. I thought it might be accepted, but it was not. It was opposed on a partisan [[Page H 7636]] basis and defeated in the full committee. I went to the Committee on Rules, made the same appeal. Let us fund block grants, if they become law, but let us not not fund the COPS Program in the event that the block program does not become law. Let us tell the police community out there, the American people, let us tell them that we are going to keep this program going in some form. We were denied at the Committee on Rules. Therefore, we are left with the only alternative and that is to strike the funding for the block grant program in this bill and offer an amendment in substitute of that to fund the COPS Program and to fund $233 million in prevention programs. That is where we are tonight. I hope that we pass this amendment, because if we do not go the other way, funding in the alternative, then surely we should let the communities across this country know that this very effective COPS Program is going to be funded into the outyears, that our promise to police agencies, law enforcement across the country, our promise that we are going to fund this COPS Program for 3 years, that that promise is kept. Let me take a moment to speak to the success of the COPS Program, which obviously is the substance, it is the reason it merits continuing funding. The COPS Program was first funded last year in the Commerce, Justice Committee, was funded at $1.3 billion. This funding passes through a variety of grant programs, and jurisdictions of all sizes participated in it. There is the COPS Ahead Program that helps fund officers in larger jurisdictions. There is the COPS Fast Program, that directs funds towards smaller jurisdictions, and there is even a program Troops to Cops that provides funds to jurisdictions which hire former members of our armed services, which ought to be very attractive, particularly when we are downsizing the military. Thus far, Mr. Chairman, we have 20,473 more officers funded under this program that have been authorized by COPS that are out there on the beat. And Mr. Chairman, soon, I believe tomorrow, the Department of Justice will be announcing 3,434 more cops on the beat. I want to assure my colleagues that we are right on schedule with this program. We will see 100,000 more police officers on the beat by the year 2000, if we just fund the program. But the numbers do not tell the whole story. COPS is a popular program. It is popular with chiefs and sheriffs and mayors, as well as rank-and-file officers. COPS grant applications are short; they are simple. They are easy to fill out, one page in many instances. It is virtually an unparalleled administrative success program in the Federal Government. Let us talk about the impact of the COPS Program on crime. During the first half of 1995, homicide rates in America's largest cities, including New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, have dropped. That is certainly welcome news. Is it all because of the COPS Program? I do not know. But it is certainly making its contribution. And if it were rising, those who are critics of the COPS Program would probably say, Look, it is failing the crime rate is going up. But the crime rate is not going up. It is going down. The COPS Program is contributing to that. That is a wonderful success, and it is welcome news. In combination with community-based initiatives, this is a terrific program having a terrific impact. A recent article in the Washington Times detailed the successes of community policing efforts in Fort Worth, TX. The article states that since community policing began in Fort Worth, burglaries have gone down by 51 percent, and they started their community policing 4 years ago, grand thefts by 38-percent down, auto thefts by 60-percent down, robberies by 31 percent and aggravated assaults by 56 percent. Mr. Chairman, community policing works. If you vote against this amendment here tonight, there is no guarantee that the COPS program will continue. There is no guarantee that one new officer will make it to the streets of this Nation. If you vote for my amendment, you will ensure that the COPS program continues, that this proven work goes on. Finally, I would like to say a few words about prevention programs, Mr. Chairman. As H.R. 2706 stands, our bill zeros out funds for a number of important prevention programs such as drug courts and assistance for delinquent and at-risk youth. While some of these programs may be eligible for funding under the $2 million local law enforcement block grant, my amendment reserves $233 million specifically for these prevention programs, for these intervention programs. And they are working across the nation. Intervention and community policing, it is a nice combination, Mr. Chairman. By specifically reserving a pool of funds for these programs, I am preventing these programs from having to compete with COPS or other programs for funding. Let me remind my colleagues that there is a large teenage population coming up into crime-prone age, late in this century and early in the next century. Our best defense is to focus right on them, and prevention programs do that, focusing on drug awareness, education programs, and at-risk youth. Mr. Chairman, who knows what we will get for $2 billion on the local law enforcement block grant programs. We will get some good, but in the meantime we will undermine a proven program, one out there that America is depending upon and one out there that is playing its part in reducing crime across this Nation. Let us support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If the gentleman will yield, we have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to our distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules met to consider the rule on this bill, I specifically requested that three amendments be made in order which otherwise would not be in order under the anticipated rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make the House aware of these amendments, and to sensitize the House to the fact that, first, the amendments were not made in order, and second, what I plan to do in the alternative. Mr. Speaker, each one of these amendments spoke to major policy issues, in my opinion, and consequently, merited a rule allowing them to be offered during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State bill. However, they were not. The first would have related to the COPS Program, a program which is now ongoing. It was authorized in last year's crime bill. There are approximately 20,000 police officers, or probably more like 25,000, approaching that anyway, officers out there on the streets across America under the COPS Program. This is a 3-year commitment that the Federal Government has made to these [[Page H 7611]] communities, I am sure, in every single congressional district in the country, and it is a program that is working tremendously well. It is administratively very efficient, and substantively the information we are getting back is very useful and very well received in communities as a concept: community policing. It is a good program in fighting crime. That program is up, it is operating, those policemen are on the street, and the commitment is made. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this bill before us, that program is not funded. Those commitments, under this bill, cannot be made. The program that was funded was the block grant program, which was passed by the majority in the first part of this year. It was anticipated by the majority that the block grant program would replace the COPS Program, even though the COPS Program is operating very well, and it is in midstream. Therefore, what we have is a program that is up and operating, doing well, not being funded in this bill. This new program that is not even authorized; it is simply somebody's legislative initiative at this point, being funded under the bill. That is a problem. That is a problem which I tried to address with an amendment that would fund these programs in the alternative. My amendment that I asked be made in order by the Committee on Rules would have funded the block grant program, if that became law. If the block grant program was not authorized, it would take that money and continue funding the COPS program. Unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order. I, therefore, am going to be forced, as we proceed, to make a motion to strike the block grant funding that is in the bill, and substitute funding for COPS. I would have preferred to proceed in the more bipartisan way. The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, relates to the Byrne Program. I intend to offer an amendment to take just $30 million from the total $50 million incarceration of illegal aliens fund, move it over to the very popular Byrne program; $30 million which will enhance that community funding, community police funding, in the very popular Byrne Grant Program for all of our communities. Again, I requested an amendment which would have enhanced the Byrne grant program significantly by merging it with the total amount available for the incarceration of illegal aliens. That amendment was not approved. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I requested authority under the rule in the Commerce title of the bill to restore funding to the very successful, and think strategically very important Advanced Technology Program. This program was initiated under the Republican administration, the Advanced Technology Program is strategic in the sense that it looks at emerging economies and says that the United States ought to be doing what its counterparts, its competitors around the world are doing: funding technology initiatives. That amendment was not made in order, and under the rule, Mr. Speaker, I can only offer an amendment which strikes restrictive language on ATP, which I plan on doing.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does the gentleman agree or disagree that over 51 percent of the tax cut in the Republican proposal will benefit those Americans making over $100,000 a year?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You do not agree that 51 percent of the tax cuts in the budget proposal benefit those persons making over $100,000 a year?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?