Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on the bill under consideration.

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have some examples of transition moments where we acknowledge here in Washington that there are some problems that cross the line between not a purely local problem becoming a national problem. When the COPS program and the crime bill was passed in the mid-1990s, we made an acknowledgment here in Washington that was widely cheered around the country when we said we were going to get off the sidelines in fighting crime, and we were going to go into the business of directly helping States and localities hire police officers. We said the crime was a national challenge as well as a local one. Well, September 11 proved that point again. It reminded us that while there are needs to make sure that our localities are safe, we don't want to substitute control for local police departments. There is a Federal role, and it's hard to dispute, in helping localities defend themselves against terrorism, deal with the challenges of immigration, and, basically, help fight crime. The COPS program that was passed was an unqualified success. It provided police to localities large and small all throughout the country. I like to say that it was a classically democratic, with a small ``d,'' success in that small police departments, 80 percent of all the funds went to the smallest of police departments, and it also went to the big cities. Everyone benefited. Now 110,000 police officers have been hired, and it's time to reauthorize this program, and that's what we are proposing to do here. A similar bill was passed with broad bipartisan support in the last Congress, but, unfortunately, it was too late to pass the other body, and now we are trying to do it again. This is fully funded in President Obama's budget. It's $1.8 billion a year for the total authorization for the COPS program. It will provide 10,000 cops per year for 5 years. It makes improvements over the last program by allowing technology grants for local police departments and also hiring funds for prosecutors so we're not just arresting people but we are making sure that the prosecutions are done expeditiously. We also take some steps to recognize the reality that we have today by allowing funds to be used for police officers expressly on terrorism duty. Also we take something and create the Troops-to-Cops program, which makes sure that troops that come back from the front get priority in hiring. And we also use some innovative programs to make sure that illegal drug manufacturing and distribution, particularly of the methamphetamine problem, are addressed. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. WEINER. It is noteworthy that you point out my chiefs of police. Well, maybe you should ask the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Association of District Attorneys, National Narcotics Officers Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities. These are all people that support the Weiner position, not the King position. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let's get some clarity on the GAO report. The gentleman artfully pulls a line out of it. Let me tell you the conclusion. This is from page 11 of the GAO report. You can follow along with me, I say to the gentleman from Iowa. ``For the years 1998 to 2000, we estimated that the COPS grant expenditures that were associated with the reduction in indexed crimes from their 1993 levels ranged from 200,000 to 225,000 indexed crimes, while one-third of these were violent crimes, two-thirds property crimes.'' That is the GAO. If you want another authority that says that this has worked, you can ask the 381 Members of Congress that voted for it last year. If you want only partisan Republicans, how about John Ashcroft, not someone I am fond of quoting, who said the COPS program is a success. Attorney General Gonzales, every attorney general has said, you know what? The COPS program has been a remarkable success. I say to the gentleman from Iowa, put your money where your mouth is. In the stimulus bill, which I believe you voted against, there was $1 billion for COPS. They are taking the grants now, and contrary to your opening statement, not only will it not take two or three years, they are going to be on the street this year. In Iowa, there have been 110 police departments, large, small, intermediate, that have applied for this stimulus money to hire police under the COPS program.

Mr. WEINER. I haven't raised the challenge yet, and then you will get an opportunity to give a one-word answer. The challenge is this: Are you willing to write to the COPS office at the Justice Department and say please deny these police officers, who you acquaint with the criminals at AIG, and that is a shame and I think goes too far, will you say, don't grant any of these applications to Iowa? We don't need the cops. Our crime is not like crime elsewhere. Or despite the fact that I campaigned about the crimes being committed by illegal and undocumented immigrants, we don't need any further help. Are you prepared to write a letter to the COPS program saying we don't want any money from the COPS stimulus money?

Mr. WEINER. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, ``reclaiming my time'' is not something I am asking permission for. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope the gentleman did not dislocate his arm patting himself on the back for bringing down crime. Perhaps he should offer a little bit of credit to the 171 officers hired in his district. Do you know why crime went down, I say to the gentleman? Crime went down because there were police officers doing their job, putting their lives on the line every day. And while some people might have been sitting behind a bench feeling very proud of themselves, those police officers deserve our credit and honor. I have now heard two speakers in a row, one who has equated police officers to the AIG criminals and another who said it is not the cops, it is one judge who happened to get elected to Congress. Both of them are wrong. It was a successful piece of legislation. And if the gentleman doesn't think so, maybe he wants to give his 171 police officers to the next speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm not really sure where to begin. First let's start where the statistics came from that 171 police officers and sheriff deputies in the First district were hired. That's the COPS office. Those grants came from your constituents. And I would say to the gentleman, all of those things and all of the moving parts in the criminal justice system, of course, they're very valuable. But why do you dismiss the 171 police officers? Why aren't they valuable? Why aren't they something that's of value? And the gentleman said he wants the taxes reduced here in Washington. He had a chance for that. He voted against the stimulus bill which offered a tax cut to 90 percent of all of his constituents. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. WEINER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 45 seconds.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, in answer to the distinguished gentleman's question, how many is enough, I think 214 for the State of Iowa, going to 110 police departments and agencies. Do you know why I believe that? I believe that because that's the number of applications and that's the number of police officers that small sheriff's departments, you see, it's an average of only two police officers per jurisdiction, has requested of the recovery money that you voted against. I mean, that's how much. Now, you can say that there's no Federal role in policing, and you'd be in a minority. You'd be in a tiny minority. You wouldn't even be in a majority in your own caucus, let alone in your State. But I give credit to my colleagues who stand up on the floor who say there's too many cops. I give credit to my colleagues who have the audacity to stand up on the floor and say, you know what? Everyone wants police officers. They're not so important. Why don't we not hire police officers? I give them credit for that. If you believe there is no Federal role in local law enforcement, you should vote ``no'' on the COPS program. But then, do not be inconsistent. You should make every effort to ensure that Iowa and Texas and the other States don't get this money, don't apply for this, because they obviously disagree with you. The fact of the matter is there is a Federal responsibility for crime. We do have a Federal--there is a Federal role for this. And it's been successful. Now, you can say that it is not the primary or the major. The fact of the matter is the GAO was asked to study a very basic question: Did the COPS program succeed in its objectives in reducing crime? And the answer is, you can read the conclusion. You don't have to pick a line here and a line there. You can read the conclusion. It says that it did. And now we want to make sure that this program lives for five more years. And the gentleman's made a lot--This is a dramatic increase over what we've had in the past. Yes. It was zeroed out in the Bush years. Zero, nada, zippo. Now, despite the fact that John Ashcroft and Gonzalez and police officials and Tom Ridge all said this program was a success, I mean, there is a time, and I have to say to my good friend from Iowa that I enjoy the ideological debates that sometimes go on on our Judiciary Committee and here on the floor. But these are human beings. These are officers of the law who every day put their lives on the line. And what we are saying is we want to help localities ease that burden. And you know, not long ago the National Sheriffs Association weighed in and said that they support this expansion. And not long ago, an organization of police agencies called the Police Executive Research Forum did a survey of its police department membership. 62 percent said they're cutting overtime spending because of the fiscal downturn. A quarter of them said that they're reducing employment through attrition in order to deal with the fiscal downturn. 47 percent of them said that they were discontinuing officer training because of the fiscal downturn. Now, you can say hey, it's not our problem; things go up, things go down. Or you can say we want to help. We want to do something about it. We want to help localities. And I would say to the gentleman that if he is going to go home and do what the gentleman from New Jersey suggests, and pose with police officers and say we honor your service, do more than honor their service. Help them not get laid off. Help keep them on the job. Help expand police departments.

Mr. WEINER. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. WEINER. Well, actually you mean imply. The answer to the question is, yes. You clearly did suggest that you know what--how many is too many, you said. I mean, I don't want to get the--I don't know how you get someone to say exactly what you said. But you said how many is too many? And the answer is very clear. The police departments in Iowa disagree with the Member from Iowa, and so do I. I believe--if I can just conclude, I believe that this is a program that works. You know, we don't have a lot of them in the Federal Government. We have some that work. This one, on a broad bipartisan way Members have said that, you know, this has been a success. You can go to any police department in your district, and forgive me for not having the number at my fingertips, and say hey, has the COPS program helped you reduce crime? See what they say. See what these 110 police agencies in Iowa say. Ask them. Say, has this program been successful? And they'll say yes. And they'll say something else. They'll say please, help us keep this local agency a success story moving forward. And if the gentleman doesn't believe that we should have a Federal role, by all means, he should vote ``no,'' but I do believe that overwhelmingly we do, and what we're trying to do here is to keep up with the times and say, you know what? If you've got to cut things on the local level now, you won't have the need to cut law enforcement. Ask people in any townhall meeting in Iowa or anywhere else if they think it's a good idea if we protect law enforcement funding with all the challenges that we have today. Let me conclude with this final thought.

Mr. WEINER. Let me just finish this because this is now more than one time that this has been quoted incorrectly. There is a GAO report from June 3, 2005. Make sure we put this up on our Web site. You can go to house.gov/weiner, anyone who wants to. It's the Government Accountability Office. They'll tell you that it worked. I'll be glad to yield.

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, generally speaking, I think the lady doth protest too much. When someone says, ``How many is too many?'' they don't mean that they want more. They mean that they want less. If you want to withdraw that comment, I would if I were you because I'm concerned. I think most of the citizens of Iowa--and I represent Brooklyn and Queens, so maybe I don't speak for the people of Iowa, but I do know 110 police departments, sheriff's departments and agencies in Iowa have applied for the first billion dollar grant. By the way, there's $8 billion worth of applications for that billion dollars. It's clearly a demand. So it's not your colleagues who are saying it. It's not Congress who is saying it. It's not the cops' office. Those police officers and those sheriff's offices are voting with their pens. They're saying, ``Please, help us. Don't listen to our Congressman. Listen to the Congressman from Brooklyn and Queens. Please expand this program.''

Mr. WEINER. I yield back my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1626) to make technical amendments to laws containing time periods affecting judicial proceedings.

Mr. WEINER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act changes the court filing deadlines in a number of statutes so that they correspond with new Federal court rules that are scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2009. Cosponsors of this bill include the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers; as well as the full committee ranking member, Lamar Smith; the Courts Subcommittee chairman, Hank Johnson; and the Courts Subcommittee ranking member, Howard Coble. As anyone who has practiced law knows, calculating court deadlines can be extremely confusing. Even experienced lawyers have to expend considerable time and effort determining deadlines for filing. This can be especially problematic when there is a holiday or a deadline falls on the weekend. Calculating deadlines is also complicated by the fact that the Federal court rules for banking, civil and criminal proceedings currently do not use one standard method for determining time periods. Unfortunately, because of the confusion and discrepancies involved with calculating deadlines under the current system, parties can too easily lose their right to their day in court because of procedural mistakes, regardless of the merits of the case. The Judicial Conference has sent Congress amended rules for calculating these deadlines. The new rules are easier to understand and apply, and are also the same across the board. Under the new rules, deadlines will not fall on weekends, and every calendar day will be counted when calculating deadlines--a commonsense ``days are days'' approach. The new rules will also standardize deadline calculation for very short time periods, taking weekends into account. This bill complements the Judicial Conference's rules package by changing the deadlines in several important statutes so that the statutes match up with the Judicial Conference's rule changes. The bill is widely supported by judges and by the lawyers who practice before them in court. It will help ensure that courts are able to reach the merits of the cases before them rather than having to dismiss them due to an inadvertently missed deadline filing. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my colleague: Do you have any more speakers?

Mr. WEINER. In that case, I just want to offer my thanks to all of the Members and the staff who worked on this bill, including Talia Wenzel, who did a great job working on this and who wrote my opening remarks. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back my time.