COPS Improvements Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for both his confidence and his leadership of our committee, and I also want to thank Bobby Scott, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee.

We are really here for three reasons. We are here because the COPS program has been a singular success. It has been a success because we identified in the 1990s that crime was not a program that only localities could get a handle on, that we had a Federal role. It is a success because it was a singularly democratic, with a small ``d,'' program.

And small towns and big cities throughout all 50 States wound up benefiting from the over 118,000 police officers that were put on the street because of this program. We know, for example, that 82 percent of the grants went to cities with 50,000 people or less. And while cities like mine did very well because there were more police on the beat, we know that there were a large number of very small towns that benefited.

We know, as you can see, that the COPS program provides resources to all 50 States. This wasn't a political program. If you were a police department and you showed a way to get more cops on the street, the Federal Government wasn't going to sit back; they were going to be actively involved. And we know that it was successful. We know it because the Government Accountability Office looked at the connection between police officers and the reduction in crime and found a correlation. We know the University of Nebraska looked at a very similar thing and said, with all the varying elements that go into reducing crime, was the fact that there are over 110,000 new police officers on the street

funded by the COPS program a correlative effect? And the answer was yes.

We are also here for another reason. We are here because crime has started to creep back up. We are starting to see index crimes in cities around the country start to rise again. After years of decline, we are seeing it go up. And we are also here because there is even more law enforcement burden being put on localities and States than arguably any time in American history. Tom Ridge once famously said that homeland security starts in our hometown. And when we were talking about the cuts that were being made to homeland security, we were reminded that actually it is the localities that we are asking to do more and more of these things.

So we are here in acknowledgement that localities need the help. Localities now have to do more than they ever had to do before, and that's why in this program for the first time we are funding T-COPS, cops that are going to be hired to do antiterrorism work.

But particularly the reason that we're here is a third reason, that my colleagues on that side of the aisle eliminated the hiring component. President Bush eliminated the hiring component. This is a visual about how many police officers were hired under the COPS program from 1995 to 2005. This is what has happened under President Bush and under our Republican leadership. This many police officers. Zero. Zero. Zero in Virginia. Zero in South Dakota. Zero in California. The program was eliminated under my Republican friends. And as they stand up here today, and you're going to see them vote in large numbers for this program, they're going to wrap themselves around the idea that they support the COPS program when in fact overwhelmingly it was quite the opposite.

Let me show you the abandonment that's going on in the COPS program. This is the number of cops that were hired in 1998. Look at the decline. Look at how many were hired in 2005 and 2006. So the third reason we are here is we are taking up the gauntlet that was, frankly, laid down, put in a box and sealed away by my Republican friends. They said, you know what? Law enforcement is not a local job, it's a national job, we heard in committee. We heard, oh, the program hasn't worked the way it was intended. The fact of the matter is, had it not been for the Democrats taking over this body, had it not been for the chairmanship of Mr. Conyers, this program would be zeroed out this year, too. You know how I know? Because we've had many years where those of us have stood up trying to change this where we were rebuffed again and again.

Now, I can't say all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We've got many, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) who is an original sponsor of this. But it is stunning to me that anyone can stand up and say that they support this program after supporting this.

In conclusion, I want to thank the chairman and my colleagues for passing this. We're going to ask for a recorded vote, and we're going to watch the large number of folks who helped write bills to zero out the COPS program suddenly embrace the idea that we have to put cops on the street. And I welcome my friends on the other side of the aisle to the cause of providing help for local law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at long last.

Under new Democratic leadership, the Congress will take up my bill, H.R. 1700, to bring the COPS program back from the scrap heap, back from a point where the program's hiring component has been zeroed out, and restore it to be what it proved to be during the Clinton administration: one of the most successful law enforcement programs in the history of the United States.

We are facing a rise in crime in the United States. In a survey of cities large and small, released last month, the Police Executive Research Board found that 71 percent of cities had seen an increase in homicides, 80 percent had seen an increase in robberies, and 67 percent had seen an increase in assaults with guns. Moreover the FBI recently reported that nationwide figures showed that last year, homicides, assaults and other violent offenses grew by 4 percent, and robberies, which are often interpreted as a precursor to more serious crime, jumped by 10 percent.

Democrats faced a similar challenge in 1993 when asked about the rise in drug-fueled street crime.

Then, Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, answered with the most far reaching and innovative Federal anti-crime initiative ever--the COPS program. It did the most intuitive thing--it hired more than 100,000 beat cops. It worked. It put police in every neighborhood, town and city. Sure, big cities like Chicago and L.A. hired officers with Federal help. But so did small towns like Marengo, IL, and Plano, TX.

Now, as crime rises and we work to combat the new challenges our country faces in the wake of 9/11 the COPS program is again the solution.

The background is this. The COPS program works. A study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office recently stated, ``COPS- funded increases in sworn officers per capita were associated with declines in rates of total index crimes, violent crimes, and property crime.'' According to the study, between 1998 and 2000, COPS hiring grants were responsible for reducing crimes by about 200,000 to 225,000 crimes--one third of which were violent. Studies done by the Brookings Institution, the University of Nebraska, Yale and Georgetown Universities, the University of Maryland, and the Urban Institute-- among others--found similarly that COPS works.

When John Ashcroft spoke about this during his confirmation hearings for Attorney General, he said, ``Let me just say, I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional police, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people would be safer and more secure. We believe the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.'' That is John Ashcroft.

When Tom Ridge was sworn in as the Secretary of Homeland Security, he said homeland security starts in our home towns.

Over the course of the last 5 years, local law enforcement has become deeply involved in homeland security. Big cities have been forced to upgrade not only their equipment and training but also the type of personnel they hire. Some cities have hired officers exclusively to focus on homeland security--police who work to gather intelligence, analyze terror threats, and monitor our most vulnerable targets.

And how have Republicans in Washington responded since coming to office? They have eliminated the program police departments big and small had grown to depend on: COPS Funded at over $1 billion a year at the end of the Clinton administration, President Bush has zeroed out the hiring component of what some believe to have been the most successful law enforcement program in the Nation's history.

The bill we are considering today would restore the COPS program and update to the challenges local law enforcement agencies face in the post 9/11 world.

This bill breathes new life into the COPS program by authorizing $600 million per year for hiring grants, which could fund up to 50,000 new cops on the beat over the next 6 years. And in an effort to make sure that police departments around the country can use this funding as they need--as terrorism becomes a greater burden on their limited budgets-- this bill explicitly enables COPS to provide funding for officers who perform ``intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties.''

The bill also authorizes $350 million per year for COPS technology grants. These grants will allow police agencies to purchase things like laptop computers for patrol cars, crime mapping software, and interoperable communications equipment.

And the bill explicitly enables COPS to use funding for ``Troops to Cops'' programs that help returning veterans find employment as law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Scott, and the Democratic leadership for bring this bill expeditiously to the floor for passage.

I also want to thank Joshua Fay-Hurvitz, Bobby Vassar, Greg Barnes, Mike Volkov, Caroline Lynch, Karas Pattison, Molly Lothamer, and other members of the Democratic, Republican, and Legislative Counsel staffs who have worked so hard to make this day possible.

I urge passage of the COPS Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify some of the mistakes made by the previous speaker, at least the misimpressions left.

One, technology grants cut under the previous Republican Congress; two, alternatives to incarceration cut under the previous Republican administration; three, police officers, I have already talked about, cut.

Just about all of the elements of a comprehensive package were eliminated under the leadership of your party. So if you care about reducing crime, this is a better day than it was a year ago.

And I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the many reasons that the American people have turned the Congress over to Democrats is that we have said, like so many Americans, that we don't want to hear just more talk and rhetoric and posturing; that we want to start to actively solve the problems that people face in communities around this country. And whether it be a sheriff's department of two or three officers, or the NYPD which has some 36,000 officers, after today's vote and after it gets passed in the other body, God willing, and signed by the President, we are going to start to do what we need to do to improve homeland security, to reduce drug crime, to reduce the amount of the day-to-day challenges that people face; to hire more officers to go into schools, to get technology so officers can be out on the beat and doing it more.

This is a program that, frankly, never should have died. It is a program that I think too many of my friends on the other side just got blood in their eyes over the idea that it was offered under President Clinton, passed under President Clinton and single-handedly brought down crime during those years. That is not a good enough reason. Let us get past that kind of political haze and just realize that sometimes things are successful, even though they are the ideas of someone else.

John Ashcroft dissented on several occasions. He said, ``I think the COPS Program has been successful.'' Alberto Gonzales, someone whom I am not prone to quote very often, has said, ``The COPS Program has been beneficial.'' The Oneida County Executive, the former Mayor of Rome, says, ``This program has made a difference,'' a tiny city. John Ashcroft said when testifying before the House of Representatives, ``It has been one of the most successful programs we have ever worked with.''

This is a bipartisan success, because every once in a while around here we get it right. We design a program with a goal in mind, and in this case it was to get the Federal Government off the sidelines.

There are many in this body who hold this kind of old-fashioned federalist notion that, you know what,

protecting citizenry is something that only localities do. Well, we realize now in the post-9/11 world that has changed.

We are doing something about it, and I commend my colleagues of all stripes for finally joining that bandwagon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, America's State and local law enforcement agencies are on the front lines combating and preventing crime every day. In the last decade, their dedication and service and innovative policing programs have led to a 34 percent decrease in violent crime.

It is unclear, however, whether the $11 billion in COPS grants awarded since 1994 can receive the same credit. Studies have reached inconsistent findings as to the effectiveness of the COPS program in reducing the Nation's rising crime rates.

The COPS program awards grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire or rehire police officers or procure new crime-fighting technology. It is intended to provide short-term Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. It is not intended to assume the funding of State and local police, a duty that lies first and foremost with the States.

The COPS program specifically directs that grant money not be used to supplant State or local funds but, rather, increase the amount of funds for

community policing. In reality, this has proven not to always be the case. Studies show that spending on the COPS program has not led to an increase in the overall spending by local law enforcement but often supplants State and local funds.

The actual number of officers put on the street under this program is also in dispute. Estimates vary from 118,000 to as few as 82,000 additional police officers. The answer to addressing crime in the 21st century is not simply more cops on the street. It is innovative programs, such as multi-jurisdictional task forces designed to target specific types of crimes and neighborhoods plagued by gangs and drugs.

We should look to cities like New York and Los Angeles, who continue to enjoy reduced violent crime rates thanks to smart, effective policing.

To put to rest once and for all conflicting findings about the effectiveness of the COPS program, the committee adopted an amendment directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to conduct an audit of the COPS program to review three areas: first, the effect of the program on the rate of violent crime; second, the degree to which COPS funding recipients contribute State or local funding to law enforcement programs and activities; and, third, any waste, fraud, or abuse within the COPS program.

As introduced, H.R. 1700 reduced the likelihood that community policing would, in fact, some day be funded by America's communities. The bill stripped several provisions from current law that encourage State and local governments to assume a larger share of COPS grants. This is directly contrary to the purpose of the COPS program and would only exacerbate the use of Federal funds to supplant State and local funds.

H.R. 1700 also stripped from current law limits on the duration of COPS grants and instead allowed unlimited grant renewal. This too is directly contrary to the original intent of the COPS program to provide short-term assistance to State, local, and tribal governments to hire additional police officers.

I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle listened to our concerns and supported our changes to preserve the partnership between the Federal Government, State, local, and tribal governments. I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott, and Congressman Weiner for their cooperation.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over and over again we hear on the floor, we hear outside this body the importance of coming together in a bipartisan manner and what we can do to resolve issues for the American people. The unfortunate thing is when we try to do that, as we have done in this bill and we bring this bill in a bipartisan manner, sometimes my friends on the other side of the aisle simply can't take yes for an answer. And when we hear presentations like we just have, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is incumbent

upon me to stand up and just correct some of those facts.

The first thing is that the COPS program has been authorized in the 2005 Department of Justice authorization bill through 2009 for $1.047 billion. All this authorization will do is increase that to $1.15 billion through 2013.

In addition, when you see these lines that drop off with the number of cops that are being hired, one of the things that we have heard from the testimony that we've had is twofold. One of the reasons that we had declines in the crime rate was not just because of the numbers of police officers, but more importantly, not just because we sent money, but because throughout the 1990s we had a lot of policies from Republican legislators across the States that did things like abolish parole, that did things like mandatory sentences, that did things like truth-in-sentencing that took criminals off the streets and out of our communities. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if we do that, we reduce violent crime.

The other thing that we heard testimony on is that in New Orleans, when we went to do hearings there, the number of police officers increased and the crime increased. And in New York, the number of police officers decreased and the crime decreased. By the rationale we just heard, one would argue we should have less police officers.

But the testimony was, Mr. Speaker, we do need police officers on the streets. That's why we brought this bill in a bipartisan manner. But it is important that we have smart policing, that we have comprehensive programs. Because if we just dump money at the problem and we don't do that, we're not going to solve the problems that are before us.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately there were members from the Judiciary Committee that worked in a bipartisan manner to bring this bill to the floor. I hope we will pass it.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly thank you for your cooperativeness and support in reaching what we think is a much better bill by the time that it reached the floor than when it started.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to emphasize my support of this legislation and my support of additional police officers, but it is important that we continue to make sure we are separating the facts from some statements that are being made.

Testimony that we have received before the committee strikes a great contrast between different areas in our

country. Sending money alone, even putting cops on the streets alone, will not solve our crime problem. As we mentioned earlier, in New Orleans we had testimony that only 7 percent of the individuals arrested, and this is pre-Katrina, only 7 percent of the individuals arrested ever end up in jail, and the police officers themselves, the police chief, testified how demoralizing that was to crime fighting and police officers there.

That is why a comprehensive approach, looking at more police officers, but also such things as abolishing parole, mandatory sentencing and three-strikes legislation work to help cut down on the crime that we have.

We have also heard testimony from both sides of the aisle about the importance of technology. Many police departments are recognizing across the country that it is not just the quantity of police officers, but it is how they use them. New York came in and testified that what they have done is actually decreased the number of police officers they have, but they have used technology to do it in a smarter way, which has reduced overall crime.

Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation, but let's make sure we are not using the hyperbole, that we are using the facts. It is important to have police. It is important to have them used in a smart, effective and comprehensive manner if we are going to deal with the crime that our communities are so concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to close, I just want to say that I don't think the American people much care whether it is Republicans in charge or Democrats in charge. I think what they really care about is whether or not we are reaching across and trying to forge solutions to the problems they face. That is why I want to compliment the chairman for his bipartisan manner in which he has not only handled working on this bill, but has handled this debate on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was never put on the sidelines. As I have mentioned before, the facts show in 2005 we reauthorized it through 2009 for $1.047 billion.

The key was the DOJ Office of the Inspector General and GAO reports note that thousands of hires funded by COPS never materialized as law enforcement agencies used COPS funding to cover their own budget shortfalls. In fact, they showed that $277 million were misspent funds.

Mr. Speaker, by working together in a bipartisan manner, I think we have crafted a bill that will help in a comprehensive manner continue to put police officers on the streets and continue to allow our local and State enforcement agencies to be able to use technology and smart policing to do what they want us to do, and that is to reach out to form practical solutions of how they deal with crime and the crime that is plaguing their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1700) 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join 102 cosponsors, including a dozen members of the House Judiciary Committee, in supporting this legislation.

During the 1990s, the crime rate for all categories of crime and in all parts of the United States fell dramatically. For example, homicide rates in 2001 plunged 43 percent from their peak in 1991, reaching their lowest level in 35 years.

Now, there are many potential explanations offered regarding the dramatic and unexpected drop in the rate of violent crime during the 1990s. One popular explanation is the Nation's sustained economic growth during the days of the Clinton administration.

But researchers often point to one other explanation: the creation of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services in 1994, the COPS bill; and the subsequent infusion of more than $7.6 billion in grants into State and local law enforcement communities to hire police officers and promote community policing as an effective strategy to prevent crime. The bill before us reinvigorates the COPS crime fighting program in several important respects.

First, it establishes hiring grants for community policing officers, anti-terror officers, and school resource officers. It also reauthorizes ``Troops-to-COPS'' grants to hire former members of the Armed Forces in particular as career law enforcement officers. And it also authorizes a ``Community Prosecutors Program'' to pay for community prosecuting programs, including those that assign prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic areas or to address counter- terrorism and related problems.

Finally, it authorizes ``Technology Grants'' to State and local law enforcement agencies to help them refocus some of their activities from reacting to crime to preventing it. Crime prevention has now come back into vogue.

So this legislation, because of its long and successful prior experience, has been endorsed by key law enforcement groups: the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National League of Cities.

I am proud to indicate their strong support for this measure, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support to a bill whose restoration is more than deserved.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California, Diane Watson.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this measure, Mr. Weiner of New York, whose confidence I have so much of this afternoon, notwithstanding that there are eight other speakers, because of his persevering commitment to reinstituting this community policing bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to play good cop in this because I want to commend those Republicans who are going to vote for this measure for joining us. Look, it doesn't matter when you come on board. It's that your thoughtfulness in helping us craft a bipartisan bill was exceedingly important, and I personally am indebted to you for that.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Eddie Bernice Johnson has supported this bill from its inception, and so I recognize the gentlelady from Dallas, Texas, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the chairman from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield one-quarter of a minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened here today is very important in terms of developing a justice system that will operate at a very fundamental and basic level, the police level. It doesn't correct the lack of prosecution that has been raised by the gentleman from Virginia. It doesn't correct many parts of the justice system that we on the committee plan to go into. But I think there is a unanimity on both sides of the aisle for restoring a very important community program that has justified itself, and it is in that spirit that I want to commend everyone on both sides of the aisle for their important work that they have done in beginning to restore the program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New York, Anthony Weiner, whose perseverance has led us to the floor here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvements Act.

This program, begun under President Clinton, has invested over $12 billion to add officers to the Nation's streets and schools, enhance crime-fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, provide training and technical assistance, administer grant programs, and advance community policing. Since President Bush has taken office, he has done everything he could to cut or eliminate funding for this worthwhile program.

In the Third District of Florida alone, over $89,420,196 in COPS grants were awarded to law enforcement agencies: COPS grants have funded 1,192 additional police officers and sheriffs deputies to engage in community policing activities, including crime prevention, in the 3rd District; 24 local and State law enforcement agencies in the 3rd District have directly benefited from funding made available through the COPS Office; $6,187,466 has been awarded to add 52 school resources officers to improve safety for students, teachers, and administrators in primary and secondary schools throughout the 3rd District; and $10,780,628 has been awarded for crime-fighting technologies. This funding has allowed officers to spend more time on the streets of the 3rd District of Florida fighting and preventing crime through timesaving technology, information-sharing systems, and improved communications equipment.

My district is not alone. The COPS program has helped districts across the Nation by reducing crime and making communities safer for residents to live their lives.

Earlier this session, I introduced a resolution urging increased funding for both the COPS program and the Weed and Seed program, which is an innovative, comprehensive, multiagency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community revitalization. Both these programs go together--community policing and community revitalization.

I am submitting for the record a letter from the city of Orlando in support of this bill.

I urge support for the COPS program, safer communities and this bill.

City of Orlando,

Orlando, FL, May 15, 2007.

Hon. Corrine Brown,

U.S. Representative,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Brown: I am writing on behalf of the

City of Orlando to advise you of our strong support for H.R.

1700, the ``COPS Improvements Act of 2007''.

In 1994, Congress established the Office for Community

Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and, in the decade that

followed, our nation experienced a significant drop in crime

rates. A large part of this success was the nation's

commitment to community oriented policing, particularly it's

hiring component, which helped get more officers on the beat.

This approach was validated by a Government Accountability

Office (GAO) study of the COPS program, which stated that:

``COPS-funded increases in sworn officers per capita were

associated with declines in the rates of total index crimes,

violent crimes, and property crime.''

Now, after years of historically low crime rates, we are

seeing a disturbing new trend--a jump in violent crimes in

our City as well as in many of our nation's large and medium-

sized cities. Just as the decrease in crime was directly

related to an increased focus on hiring law enforcement

officers at the state and local level, the more recent

increase in certain crimes can be directly related to the

loss of Federal funds supporting state and local law

enforcement. This legislation will reinstitute the COPS

program--a program we all know to be effective--and is needed

now more than ever.

Specifically, this bill will establish the Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services as a distinct entity

within the U. S. Department of Justice and will reauthorize

hiring programs for three specific purposes--community

policing officers, local counterterrorism officers, and

school resource officers. The bill also reauthorizes funds

for technology grants and community prosecutors. The COPS

program and the community policing approach are, and should

continue to be, an important part of our national crime-

fighting strategy.

Your commitment to reducing crime and your recognition of

the important role local law enforcement plays throughout the

nation is commendable. Be assured that the City of Orlando

will do our part in the fight against crime and, given the

proper resources, we can keep Orlando one of the safest

cities in the nation.

Sincerely,

Buddy Dyer,

Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the COPS Improvements Act of 2007. I want to congratulate Chairman Conyers, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Keller for bringing this bill forward.

My written statement talks all about the importance of adding a police officer school, resources officers and things of that nature. I want to talk about an aspect of the bill that I am particularly excited about, and that is the technology grants contained in the bill.

The police departments in my district were recently notified that the backbone radio system that we basically spent millions of dollars on a number of years ago is now going to become obsolete in 2011 because the manufacturer is no longer going to make the spare parts. In the small communities that I represent, it means a bill of $10 million. The technology upgrades in this particular piece of legislation are going to give my communities the opportunity to bid for grants that hopefully will replace that radio system and make our community safer.

Secondly, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, I have heard from most of the school districts in my district that we need to build on the success of the last COPS bill where 225 school resource officers were added to the schools in the State of Ohio. And they are excited again about the opportunity to add new school resource officers in the schools to make them safer for all of the students in our school system and across the country.

So again I want to congratulate the sponsors of this legislation. And I thank Mr. Forbes for yielding.

I rise today to speak in support of the COPS Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, when I meet with law enforcement officials across my district, their biggest concern is that Washington keeps asking them to do more with less, especially in the aftermath of 9-11. Each year, they beg me to adequately fund the COPS program and to reinstate the hiring portion.

In my State of Ohio, the COPS program has been a godsend:

It has funded nearly 3,800 additional cops and deputies.

It has infused about 640 departments across Ohio with more than $227 million in Federal help.

More than 225 school resource officers have been added to Ohio.

More than $55 million has gone to Ohio departments to improve crime- fighting technologies.

In my district alone, in the Akron-Cleveland area, nearly $20 million has gone to local departments and 285 officers have been added to streets and schools in my district.

I met with about 50 police chiefs throughout my district early last month to tout this bill, and share the news that it was coming. They are thrilled with this legislation. Many departments in my district were able to add officers thanks to the COPS program, and they have kept them on their payrolls.

They have patiently waited for us to beef up the COPS program, especially as violent crime experiences an uptick. They want and need the Federal Government to help fund cops on the beat, new cops in schools, and they are thrilled that $350 million will be available for competitive grants to pay for laptop computers, radios, cameras, and all the technological marvels our police departments must have and can barely afford.

My police chiefs in Lake County recently found out that they have to replace their entire radio system because the manufacturer will no longer be able to repair or replace them.

My chiefs are thrilled that this bill recognizes the importance of school officers. They spoke of the need to keep schools safe, and the bond that develops with students so students can feel safe to confide in them. These school officers serve as mentors, friends and protectors--they are worth their weight in gold. It's a small investment to make.

In the days following the shootings at Virginia Tech, I heard from many school districts pleading that funding be made available for school resource officers. This bill will allow law enforcement to partner with the schools. I also heard from the Ohio School Resource Officers Association in the aftermath of Virginia Tech. They say passage of the COPS Improvement Act can't happen fast enough. The Senate passed it in March, and I am proud that the House will today.

This is great legislation. It's a good value for taxpayers. We ask our police to protect our homes, our businesses and our schools and for too long we've asked them to do it on the cheap.