COPS Improvements Act of 2009

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009.

Thirty-six States expect to experience significant water shortages by the year 2013. Diminished supplies of water and intense competition for limited resources are forcing local water agencies to make tough decisions on water allocations and limiting access to needed water by businesses and families.

When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River. According to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, each of the eight water shortages over the past 20 years from drought and heat waves resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. The Association of California Water Agencies reported in April of 2008 that California is now losing income and jobs due to the State's water supply crisis.

Over 20 Federal agencies carry out research and development on some aspect of water supply, water quality, or water management. Despite spending millions of dollars on research at each of these agencies, an increase in the number of water shortages and emerging conflicts over water supply suggest that we are still inadequately prepared to address the Nation's water management issue.

A new commitment is necessary to ensure that the United States can meet the water challenges over the next 20 years and onward. As chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, I have tasked the committee with advancing this issue through hearings and with legislation to address technological and strategic deficiencies at the Federal level. Our committee held hearings in 2008 and 2009 to examine the problems associated with dwindling water supplies across the Nation and to receive testimony as to how the Federal Government can help meet these challenges.

I am proud of the bipartisan support and collaboration that resulted in H.R. 1145. Ranking Member Ralph Hall has been a champion of produced water utilization legislation, and this bill incorporates research to pursue the goals established in his bill, H.R. 469. We are happy to accept constructive amendments from other Members of the minority, and the bill was reported out of the committee in a strong bipartisan manner.

H.R. 1145 will coordinate national research and development efforts on water and provide a clear path forward to ensure adequate water supplies for generations to come. This bill will ensure that we have an effective national water strategy that uses Federal research and development dollars efficiently and eliminates redundant programs.

H.R. 1145 has been endorsed by the National Beverage Association, by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Water Innovations Alliance, the National Resource Defense Council, Water Environment Research Foundation, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Food and Water Watch, Water Research Foundation, Alliance Environmental, and Clean Water Action.

In tough economic times, it is imperative that we use every dollar we spend effectively. Coordination of Federal agencies, activities, and strong partnerships with the State, local and tribal governments will ensure that Federal programs are focused on areas of greatest concern and that our efforts are complementary and effective.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

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

Let me again thank Ranking Member Hall for his help in this bill. We have had a number of hearings over the last 2 years. We have had open forums, we have had witnesses that have presented their testimony. He outlined a variety of legitimate concerns that came about at the committee level, such as produced water and getting a better definition. It was a better bill because of his help, and I thank him for that.

Concerning the Public Lands Act, I will just point out, as I had earlier, that the Public Lands Act, which was in the other body, is an implementation legislation, where this is legislation for research.

With that, I now would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) such time as she may consume, again, an important member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I am offering this amendment to make important changes to H.R. 1145. A number of my colleagues joined me in drafting language for this amendment, and I applaud them for their good ideas and collaborative efforts. I want to thank Representatives Adler, Bean, Cardoza, Connolly, Halvorson, Inslee, McCarthy, McCollum, Betsy Markey, Minnick, Moore, Pingree, Polis, Scott and Titus.

H.R. 1145 establishes a planning process for the Federal research and development efforts on water. This amendment clarifies that the plan should be revised and revisited as progress is made on the goals identified in this bill.

The bill, as reported from the committee, contained conflicting information about the length of authorization. This manager's amendment corrects this discrepancy and authorizes the initiative for 5 years.

In addition, this amendment identifies additional external groups that the interagency committee and its coordination office should work with, including consumer-related businesses, water managers, and public-private collaborations.

The amendment also adds a number of new research outcomes for the committee to investigate, including polluted coastal waters, changing patterns of water availability, the impacts of invasive species, the emerging contaminants of concern, such as a variety of other disruptors.

This amendment also provides additional oversight procedures to the initiative to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent in the most effective manner.

These are important additions to H.R. 1145, and I ask my colleagues' support on this amendment.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

Thank you, Mr. Hall. That's a good question. Let me first say that this is a large amendment and we try to deal in a collaborative way in our committee. Unfortunately, everyone doesn't have the privilege to serve on our Science Committee, and there was a lot of interest in this bill. So there were lots of amendments, many of which were incorporated here. As I say, I think we would be better off in a more collaborative way having vetted these. But I think that we have had the opportunity to do that more recently. And let me address your very real legitimate question concerning scaling out this EPA program.

First of all, as I think we all know, 20 or 30 percent of water is lost through various utilities. I was reading a story the other day where several utilities still have wooden pipes from decades back. So this is a voluntary program that would allow the various utilities to ask the EPA to come in and help them with an analysis on how they could be more efficient and save money with their program. So, again, it's voluntary.

I would also say this is just an authorization. If the EPA does not feel they have the resources to do it, they don't have to without a further appropriation, but I think it will help them, again, utilities on a voluntary basis to use that precious water resource in a more efficient way.

Mr. Chair, let me first again concur with Mr. Hall. This is going to be a continuing process. We will go on to a conference with the Senate at a later date, and all of these issues will be reviewed. We want the best bill possible.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from across the Potomac River, Mr. Connolly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), and I want to thank her for her important contribution to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may need to start our close here. We have no further speakers.

Again, I want to thank Ms. Titus, Ms. Johnson, all the others who helped us put together this manager's amendment.

I certainly want to thank Mr. Hall and his staff as we have gone through, really, the last 2 years with hearings in the committee, with workshops, with a variety of different efforts to hear all and come forth with a good bill on a very important issue.

As I mentioned earlier, there's going to be 40 States for the year 2013 that are going to have a water crisis. We need to address this.

Let me say one final thing about this manager's amendment. It's a little larger than usual. There have been some new, but I think, worthwhile items introduced there. I think they need to continue to be vetted. I don't like to just bring things in off the street.

And I want Mr. Hall to know that as we go through the process that we will continue this discussion if there are any concerns about amendments that were incorporated into this manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

Let me just thank the gentlewoman for her amendment and her leadership on our committee in terms of space and science. This amendment makes our bill a better bill.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will just quickly say thank you to Mr. Hastings for this amendment. I think it is a constructive amendment. I think it may need some fine- tuning so it can fit best into this bill and the constructs of the bill, but it certainly is constructive and certainly something we should do, and we will work with you.

I will be voting for the amendment, and as we go through the process will be trying to work with you to again make it fit into the bill better so we can go into conference.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank you for this constructive amendment. You have been a leader on water issues in California. I know that is a very sensitive issue there, and thank you for helping make a good bill better.

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the gentlelady from Florida for this constructive amendment. I think again this helps to make a good bill better, and I urge support of her amendment.

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

If the gentleman would yield, I would like to thank him for this amendment and offer my support and request that the committee do pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the thrust of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment in terms of trying to stop the duplication of programs to save money. We need to be doing that every day. The irony is that this is what this bill does. This bill looks at the 20 agencies that invest in water research, and it coordinates that so we can get our best bang for the buck. It also helps to do away with that type of duplication.

So, as well-intended as the gentleman is, his amendment, I'm afraid, would be contrary to what he wants to accomplish. It would only slow down the process of this coordination and slow down the process of better utilizing our resources and saving that money. So it really is, again, with the best of intentions, but this amendment, I think, would counter that.

Not being a member of the committee, he did not have the benefit of the hearings that we had, of the roundtable discussions that we had, of all the input that we had, and I think that's the reason that he also might not be aware of the wide endorsements of this bill. This bill is endorsed by the National Beverage Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Water Innovation Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Water Environmental Research Foundation, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, the Food and Water Watch, the Water Research Foundation, and the Alliance for Environmental and Clean Water Action.

Again, we tried to follow his advice and accomplish that, and I think this bill does and has, really, wide and active support. His amendment would only stop that implementation or it would slow it down, which would certainly be counter to his intentions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that, in section 3, paragraph 3, part of the bill says, ``The technical innovation activities to avoid duplications of effort and to ensure optimum use of resources and expertise.''

You said a ``criticism'' of your amendment. I hope you didn't take that as a criticism. Again, I compliment the thrust of your amendment, but we have incorporated that here.

Let me also say that there is a synergy oftentimes also with research. NASA and NOAA may be working on a similar project, but because they're working on something similar, you wouldn't necessarily say that it was duplicative and not useful but, rather, that there was a synergy of working together. In our bill, we specifically say avoiding that duplication.

So, again, I think you have the best of intentions, and I think that we have accomplished those. For that reason, I would have to oppose your amendment because it would stop us from getting on to the work of saving money and of having a program that is so important. There are 40 States in our Nation right now that are facing serious water shortages or droughts or water problems between now and the year 2013.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, let me say to my friend from Arizona, you come at this with the right attitude, and that's what we're trying to do. The purpose of this bill is to not only do away with duplication but also to have these 20 different agencies working in a more effective way. But let me explain, again unintentionally, but the impact of your amendment.

Your amendment would require the administration to determine what research, development and technology innovation programs exist in all States, local and tribal governments. In addition to the 50 States, there are over 500 federally recognized tribes, over 87,000 local government entities, and so compiling this information would be an enormous and expensive undertaking. And the gentleman's amendment is silent as to who would pay for this. In fact, the gentleman's amendment is silent as to whether the State, local or tribal governments would be forced to bear some of the costs of implementing this census.

And let me give you a couple of practical problems here. Let's say there was a tribe somewhere that was spending $1,000 working on a desalinization project. Well, that would preempt a Federal effort that could be much more significant and worthwhile.

Another example would be, for instance, if there was a groundwater extraction issue in central Florida, might be dramatically different from a groundwater issue in central Arizona. But if Florida has a program examining groundwater extraction, the Federal Government would be precluded from doing research which might be relevant and helpful to the people of central Arizona.

So again, I think both of us have the same objective, which is what we try to accomplish in this bill.

I would be happy to yield.

As I read your amendment, it says the President in carrying out the activities under subsection A and B shall ensure that each Federal agency participating the initiative shall not request appropriations for activities that are identified under the section. So I think it is a mandate.

But even if it wasn't, let's take that off the table. Even if it wasn't, it still requires all 50 States, 500 Federal recognized tribes, and 87,000 local government entities to have a census or an inventory. This could be an enormous expense.

Again, I think we're in sync, but let me again remind the gentleman that this bill has been well vetted and it has been endorsed by a number of groups, including the National Beverage Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Water Innovation Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Water and Environmental Research Foundation, the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Food and Water Research Foundation, the Alliance Environmental, and Clean Water Action.

So I think this has been vetted. And, again, I think we're on the same wavelength, but I am afraid that the gentleman's amendment would have unintended consequences in causing a great deal of expense to local governments, State governments and entities all across the country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just say I think two friends can see the same accident and report it differently, both trying to do their best in doing that.

In response to Mr. Shadegg, first of all, in the ``shall,'' the ``shall'' was the President shall not spend any money on this project. So that means nothing could be done there. But, again, the bigger picture is we share the same objective, and that is to try to coordinate this important research to try to do it as economically as possible.

Again, I share that view with him. We tried to accomplish that in this bill, and I am afraid that it would only create additional expense to put so many--87,000 different local governments and agencies through this process of having to inventory whether they are doing anything.

For that reason, I oppose this amendment.

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

(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1139, the COPS Improvements Act of 2009, increases the authorization for the COPS ON THE BEAT Federal grant program by a whopping 72 percent. Why is the question I ask. Are crime rates up 72 percent? According to the FBI, they are not. Overall crime rates are down nationwide.

In the first 6 months of 2008, violent crime decreased by 3\1/2\ percent and property crime decreased by 2\1/2\ percent. From 1997 to 2006, the violent and property crime rates fell by 22 percent. Clearly, the crime rate is not a justification for dramatically increasing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. If crime hasn't increased, why are we increasing spending on a law enforcement program that has mixed results?

Both the Justice Department's Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office found that thousands of hires funded by the COPS program never occurred because law enforcement agencies used COPS funding to cover their budget shortfalls, backfilling the holes in their budgets rather than putting cops on the street in some cases.

A 2005 GAO report concluded that factors other than COPS funds accounted for the majority of the decline in crime from 1994 until 2001. The crime rate did drop during this time period. It dropped by 26 percent, Mr. Speaker, and the COPS program did contribute to this decline. It contributed only 1.3 percent of the 26 percent decline. That 1.3 percent decline only cost the American taxpayers, and I emphasize the word ``only'' satirically, $7 billion. If you do the math on that, it works out to be this: The COPS funding, even though we've had a significant decrease in crime, was only accountable for 5 percent of the reduction in crime, according to the GAO report. That's one-half of the solution, and here we have a 72 percent increase. And if you do the math on the 72 percent increase, the 5 percent solution becomes an 8.6 percent solution presuming all other factors remain the same.

This is not a good return on investment. Perhaps the increase in COPS

spending is designed to generate jobs instead. The majority of cities' budget shortfalls and officer layoffs in police departments around the country are the justification, I think, for spending yet more money that we don't have. The fact is that roughly there is a 2- to 3-year lapse from the time Congress appropriates money to when a police officer actually reaches the street; so money appropriated under this new authorization will not even reach the streets until 2012 or 2013.

Congress just appropriated $1 billion for the COPS program in the economic stimulus bill, and we gave this money to the States with no strings attached, Mr. Speaker. We removed the 25 percent State matching requirement and the cap on grant awards. So this $1 billion will fund fewer than 6,000 police hires. You heard right. According to the Justice Department, we spent $1 billion of taxpayer money to hire fewer than 6,000 police officers. That works out to be $167,000 per officer. We send them a check, and they convert $167,000 into one officer when we take the strings off.

If my colleagues in the majority were truly interested in helping police departments maximize the number of officers they can hire, they would have kept the matching requirement and cap in place; then the $1 billion would have hired approximately 13,000 officers but not fewer than 6,000.

The COPS program is currently authorized at $1.04 billion, Mr. Speaker. Last Congress the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Weiner of New York, proposed increasing the authorization by only 10 percent to $1.15 billion. I say only 10 percent because in today's context, it's 72 percent. But even that more modest increase was too much for our colleagues in the Senate, who rejected such an idea. I would have supported this bill on the floor this year if it reauthorized the COPS program with the same 10 percent that was offered by the gentleman from New York last year. And I supported an amendment in committee offered by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) to fund the program at that level. But in the last Congress $1.15 billion was good enough; this year it's not, for some reason. This year it must be $1.8 billion, although the Judiciary Committee had held no hearing, received no evidence or testimony for this dramatic increase, which is a proposal under suspension before this Congress, Mr. Speaker.

The bill before us today increases Federal spending without any demonstrated need. It's like giving huge bonuses to AIG executives. There is no justification rather than an insatiable desire to spend taxpayers' money and funnel resources off the backs of the taxpayers in America, the workers in America, into the inner cities where these jobs would be created at the cost of $167,000 a job by record, and the efficiency level that would be increased, taking us from a 5 percent of our 26 percent reduction in crime, 5 percent of that coming direct by the COPS program now might take it to 8.6 percent at this huge, huge cost.

It's interesting to me to hear the gentleman from New York State that they need help at the local level, and I believe I heard him saying enforcing local laws but also enforcing immigration laws. So I would be also more amenable to this legislation if it were directed to 287(g) programs. At least then we'd have a Federal interest and something that I think would be helpful to all citizens in this country. But it is encouraging to me to hear from the gentleman from New York that we need to use Federal money to enforce immigration laws at the local level through local officers.

I oppose this legislation.

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

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

First, in response to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, who I believe comes here very sincerely and brings himself to this floor for this discussion, I hear him say the most important human right is the right to personal security. And I would ask if the gentleman from Puerto Rico could address the situation as where do human rights come from, if they exist at all? Where's the list of human rights that exist?

I would submit that we don't have any human rights in law. I would submit that we have natural rights that come from God that flow through the Declaration of Independence and are clearly defined in the Constitution itself, but that the idea of human rights just simply doesn't exist in law. They exist in the imagination of judges. So the gentleman's response from Puerto Rico, although I see he's leaving the floor, it may be for a particular reason.

The other gentleman's comments about the COPS program that today it's clear that there has been a 2\1/2\ percent reduction in crime from 1993 until the year 2000, Mr. Speaker, I have a report here. This is a GAO report and I will give you the date in a minute, but it's a current GAO report, and I presume it's the same report the gentleman is referring to. It says this:

``While we find the COPS expenditures led to increases in sworn police officers above levels that would have been expected without these expenditures and though the increases in sworn officers led to declines in crime, we conclude that the COPS grants were not the major cause of the decline in crime from 1994 through 2001.''

I think this report doesn't support the gentleman's position. The data that I laid out in my opening statement does.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I will concede the gentleman's point, to a degree. And the point is this, that there has been a minimal decline in crime. But this report, by the way, for the record is October 2005, and I don't think it contradicts the statement that I made in my opening statement. But 5 percent of the decline in crime is attributable to COPS, and that is a study I have identified.

If we appropriate an additional 72 percent, one could calculate you could have of that decline in crime, 8.6 percent of that might be attributable to COPS.

I would then at this point, Mr. Speaker, reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to write that to your chiefs of police. This is a nationwide piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to this October 2005 study since I think there has been some confusing verbiage that has emerged here with a regard to a number of different studies. I don't think I have heard anyone actually directly rebut the study that I have referenced, but I want to just go back to the concise language.

It says, it concludes, ``COPS grants were not the major cause of the decline in crime from 1994 through 2001.'' I find nothing in this report or any report that says that COPS grants are the major cause of the decline in even violent crime, although they were a contributing factor, and I stipulated those contributing factors.

Another point is I didn't equate any AIG executives as criminals. In fact, I voted against that bill that sought to reach back. It was a mistake made by Congress and people were looking for cover. That is what that was about. I opposed both components of that. I will continue to do so. In fact, I defended that they be able to keep those bonuses, because Congress made a huge mistake and we shouldn't interfere with the relationship between employers and employees.

Mr. Speaker, what I am having trouble getting my mind around is the image of data analysis that has emerged as I listened to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner. He has argued all this data as to why we need to increase the COPS grant by 72 percent.

It surely couldn't be because police departments want more Federal funding. It surely couldn't be because they want to build empires. It surely couldn't be because crime has gone up. No one has said crime has gone up. In fact, it has gone down. Violent crime, nonviolent crime, has all gone down.

So what is this? Is this Mr. Weiner sitting in a loft somewhere analyzing data, divining away, maybe from the emanation from numbers, maybe it was something heretofore unimaginable, but calculating that we need to take another $1 billion into COPS, which we did, this Congress did, and now reach for an additional 72 percent, Mr. Speaker?

I cannot quite get that image fixed in my mind, that Mr. Weiner independently reached a conclusion off of data that would support this great big growth in COPS funding. There has to be something else. I don't think it has been clear. But I think the gentleman from Texas does understand this, and I hope he can illuminate us.

I would be happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I would reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, it's curious to me now that I find the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), I guess it's a matter of public record, is a cosponsor of the legislation. I have two gentlemen here on the floor of the House of Representatives that, theoretically, at least, shaped this legislation and this policy that weren't satisfied with an additional $1 billion in previous legislation, but had to bring forward an expansion of the 72 percent increase, this 72 percent increase.

And again, the image of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) or the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) calculating out the data to conclude, and I'd ask the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), before he leaves the floor, I'd be real happy to hear from him and yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, if he could tell me how many police officers are enough, per capita, for 100,000, say, citizens. What is the average in the Nation? What is enough? How does a person arrive at this requested 72 percent increase of $1 billion tossed into this, $167,000 a job, 100 percent federally funded, no copayment, completely grants, and presuming the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is right, and some, if not all these jobs will actually be in uniform on the streets within a year. But what is an appropriate number of police officers? What's your goal? Is there such a thing as too many police officers? That's really my question.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I didn't ask the gentleman for some opinion of wanting more police officers. I recognize that if one's in uniform defending the streets in this country, that you're always going to want more help. I can't imagine a Police Department saying I don't need another officer, and I can't imagine a local jurisdiction, the taxation at a local jurisdiction saying no, we'd rather tax at home than we would at the Federal Government. I don't have a police chief saying to me that they want to reject the Federal funding and they want to tax their local citizens. And I've never known anyone that didn't need more help in what they were doing.

My question to the gentleman was, out of 100,000 people, how many police officers should we have? What is optimum? How many are too many? And if the gentleman can answer that specifically, then I'd like to hear it. And if not, I hope you wouldn't ask me to yield.

But do you have a specific answer?

I would yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Reclaiming my time, I oppose this legislation for the reasons that I have said. It's an outrageous growth in Federal spending. It is a transfer out of the pockets of the taxpayers into the inner cities, the jurisdictions that would be the biggest beneficiaries of this. And everyone in government is going to have the instinct to try to grow their empire, Mr. Speaker. And we don't have data that says what is the optimum number. We don't have even the admission that there's such a thing as too many government employees in any category. And I would not either submit that too many police officers would be the first category that I'd want to reduce in government. It is not.

We need to be prudent. We need to be responsible. I'm looking at a national debt and a national deficit and a budget that has grown to be a $9.3 trillion deficit out of this President's budget, $9.3 trillion. That's all the corn we can raise in Iowa for the next thousand years, just to deal with President Obama's deficit. And if we are going to retire the debt, it's everything since the time of Christ, Mr. Speaker.

I oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to ask if it was his intention to infer erroneously that I had said that there are too many cops.

Will the gentleman yield for a brief point?

I thank the gentleman.

I appreciate the opportunity to make the point that asking a question, which is what I asked, which was ``how many are too many?'' does not infer a position by any form of logic that I know of.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

I would be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, ``reclaiming my time'' is not something I am asking permission for.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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.

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.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 45 seconds.

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. Speaker, I reserve.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

I yield back my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act is the Science and Technology Committee's response to a lot of recommendations that were made by the country's top scientists on water research and development.

Our water supply is of vital importance to the health and well-being of our Nation, and this bill, as passed out of the committee and the good work that was done in the committee, demonstrates an effort on both sides to address concerns over water research.

No State is immune to water problems, whether there is too little of it or an overabundance of it. Yet in the last quarter century, our knowledge of water resources has been based on research that was conducted in the middle of the last century. While I support the concept behind the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act, issues remain that need to be further addressed.

I am still convinced that several provisions of H.R. 1145 may duplicate provisions found in H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, specifically the SECURE Water Act. We have to be mindful to ensure that these two bills complement each other and do not create additional bureaucratic burdens on water research efforts.

In addition to the concerns of repetitious Federal efforts, I am cognizant that the complex responsibility for developing and managing the Nation's water resources are shared between Federal, State, local, even tribal and private interests. Several Federal water laws have recognized States as having primacy over the allocation and use of water. This notion has been further reinforced by Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, we have to be very careful not to undermine the historical responsibility of State and local governments on managing their water resources. It is vitally important that the authorities given in this bill do not supersede or replicate efforts of these at the levels that I have just laid out.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the vague nature and description of the ``National Water Census'' in this bill may be a step toward federalizing groundwater, surface water, and other water resources normally managed by State and local entities. To that end, we offered and passed an amendment in committee to ensure State, local and tribal participation in coordination efforts. Previous efforts to organize water research and management have been generalized in what they call ``top-down'' agendas, with little or no participation from the States or local levels. The intent of this amendment was to encourage a true dialogue between the levels of government.

I am pleased that the chairman included language in the bill expanding the Energy-Intensive Industries Program established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to include ``research to develop water-efficient technologies that increase energy efficiency, including utilization of impaired water sources in production.''

During the full committee markup, questions were posed about the definition of ``impaired waters.'' These questions sought to clarify that impaired waters included water extracted during oil and gas exploration and production, also known as produced water. I applaud this effort and note that as a potentially significant source of water, the language of this bill should be interpreted to be inclusive of all sources of nonpotable water.

As we move forward with today's debate on H.R. 1145, I would like to commend the many Members who offered amendments in order to attempt to make this a better bill. However, there are several amendments that give me some concern. I am very hopeful that today's debate will address any apprehension and allow us to move the bill forward.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise today to speak about this amendment offered by the chairman of my committee, Mr. Gordon, and I may want to ask the chairman a question or so about it.

There are a lot of provisions in the manager's amendment that I support. I support the emphasis of ensuring a role for institutions of higher education. I support the provision that calls for the National Water Research and Assessment Plan to be updated every 4 years, to guarantee that the plan evolves with the growing body of knowledge garnered through our water research efforts, and I also support including the list of regional outcomes, the development of tools to assist local water resource managers.

There are several things that I had some problems about. One, as to whether or not it was necessary to enhance the research outcome number 9, ``Improvement of hydrologic prediction models and their applications'' with the following addition: ``including spatial and temporal variation in natural supply, watershed hydrology, human and ecological demand, and infrastructure.'' But I think we discussed those pretty well in committee and with some interest on how these additions make the research outcome better, but I'm convinced that they do.

I guess I would just ask the chairman, how can you ensure that this pilot program that we have set up in here would not change into a burdensome regulatory requirement that's pushed off on the States or tribal units or some of those?

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, history has indicated to me in my long time working with the chairman, I know that as this bill moves through the Senate, we'll be working together on these things through conference and address the concerns that we have raised.

We support the committee, and I thank the chairman for his discussion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Although I don't necessarily oppose the amendment, I do have a statement.

Mr. Chairman, I actually rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Kosmas of Florida.

The amendment simply directs the agencies under the interagency committee to assess the impacts of natural disasters on water resources.

We know that national disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and all of that can have a very significant effect on water levels and cause major disruptions in local communities.

In my home State of Texas, we have recently seen the extremes of way too much water in the form of hurricanes and too little, many times in the form of droughts.

It's important that we achieve a better understanding of the impacts of these natural disasters on water resources so that local managers and State officials can plan and manage for future use and economic growth. It simply makes sense that we coordinate efforts at the local, State and national level to achieve these ends.

I have long been a proponent of this type of coordination. During the 109th Congress, I sponsored a bill to create the National Integrated Drought Information System, and I am proud to say the program is currently up and running. NIDIS coordinates and integrates observations so that local water managers can better plan and can better predict for future uses.

While our Nation will always face natural disasters of one form or another, we can do more to mitigate the effects through careful study and careful planning. The gentlelady's amendment moves in that direction, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Washington's amendment. Potential reservoirs and new hydropower should continue to play a major part in our water and energy supplies.

As areas of the country struggle with water shortages or increasing demands on the water supply, we have to be willing to be creative in the ways we address water use and water storage problems. This is a thoughtful amendment and an improvement to the bill. I commend Mr. Hastings for his leadership on this effort.

I am not opposed to the amendment, I recommend its passage, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think this amendment is very important to ensure that we assess water supply and water needs for communities and we keep in mind the industries and businesses that employ the folks in these communities.

We don't believe the bill should be about pitting one water user against another, but rather it should help to ensure enough water for all users by focusing on new methods and technologies for conservation and efficiency.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise not in opposition, but to make a statement about the amendment.

I have some question about it, but I don't think I have a question I want to propound to you because we have discussed it. And your amendment would add to the growing list of research outcomes, the improvement of understanding of competing water supply uses and how different uses interact with each other and impact each other. And I know you understand that, and we've discussed it.

I would ask whether or not it means using water for irrigation is competing with industrial uses or the ecosystem management, like releasing large volumes of water from dams competing with the use of water for electricity generation or recreational activities. And we've had some of that at Lake Texoma in my district.

But as we go through and this goes on to the Senate and we have conference committees, and I know you've always been willing to explain your position, and we'll work together on that.

So I'm satisfied with the bill, and I would hope that we pass the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not oppose it.

I have some reservations about it, but they're reservations I think that we can work as it goes through and on through the conference committee. I appreciate this amendment, and I do not object to the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Actually, this amendment seeks, as the gentleman has expressed, to return us to the original purpose of the bill by focusing on the duplication that exists among Federal agencies involved in water research efforts and attempting to streamline these efforts. I think we always have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars as we work through legislation up here.

I support the amendment because I believe it's a good amendment, and it's looking after the taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition. Though I'm not totally opposed to it, I'd like to make a statement.

Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the purpose of the National Water Research and Development Initiative was to streamline, organize and coordinate Federal water research and development efforts. Although I support the underlying premise of the gentleman's amendment, I think it's duplicative of legislation we've already passed.

A little more than 2 months ago, this body passed H.R. 631, the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Act offered by Mr. Matheson of Utah under a suspension of the rules by a voice vote. Because this Matheson bill has not been passed by the Senate, I think we can work through this bill, and I withhold any opposition to this amendment with the understanding that I already know the gentleman, and have worked with him for a lot of years. I know we can work through any problems that we have with it.

So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Shadegg of Arizona. The amendment requires the interagency committee to identify areas of duplication, and I don't like that word ``duplication'' at all. And it recommends to the President ways to avoid such duplication. The amendment also calls on the President to ensure the Federal agencies do not pursue activities already being conducted by States, localities, and tribal units.

And duplication spawns red tape, and the best example of red tape I can think of is Wilbur and Orville Wright's first airplane was a page- and-a-half handwritten contract, and the Osprey, the tilt wing that is one of the most modern airplanes today, just the paperwork on that weighs around 20,000 pounds. That's how bad red tape can actually get.

I think it's a commonsense amendment here that carries out the underlying goal of the bill. One of the main purposes behind creating the interagency program was to reduce duplication across agencies thereby streamlining efforts and saving taxpayers dollars. It makes no sense in these economic times for fellow agencies to duplicate effort in Washington and makes even less sense for them to duplicate activities already taking place in our States and local communities.

I commend the gentleman in offering the amendment, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Moore of Wisconsin. This amendment requires the interagency committee to assess the role of Federal water research funding in helping to develop scientists and engineers at colleges and universities.

One of the goals of the Water Research Initiative is to facilitate technology transfer, communication, and opportunities for exchange with nongovernmental organizations, such as institutions of higher education. Developing collaborative opportunities with colleges and universities will hopefully increase the quality of the research and development of water solutions, but also spur students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math careers, and we are very much in favor of that.

It is vital for the future success and competitiveness of our Nation that we encourage more and more students to pursue these exciting fields. We know that more and more nations are graduating large numbers of scientists and engineers. If we are to remain the leader in innovation and entrepreneurial development, then we need to invest in the young men and women who will design and build tomorrow's solutions.

Representative Moore's amendment simply requires that we examine how water research funding is helping to meet our science and engineering education needs. I support the gentlelady's intent and her amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for the time.

It is interesting to hear my good friend from Texas speak on the basis of lowering crime in one part of the State for lowering crime in all parts of the State. Coming from the fourth largest city in the Nation, let me suggest to him that we have ready evidence that COPS ON THE BEAT in fact are probably as constructive or more constructive than the lock-them-up, throw-away-the-key concept. It is interesting as well that I heard my good friend mention and support raising taxes. I have never heard him support and celebrate the idea of raising taxes.

We did build a lot of prisons in Texas. It gave us the name of being renowned for locking up more people than probably a lot of nations around the world. I don't know, however, how effective you could argue that was without strong law enforcement.

Law enforcement provides for the prevention of crime. That is why I am a strong supporter of the COPS ON THE BEAT program, and particularly glad that in March our Attorney General through the administration offered $1 billion to our police departments across America to ensure that there would be stimulus dollars being used for the COPS grants.

We note that in the 1990s crime did go down, and whatever the GAO study says that is confusing, it is clear that in 1998 and 2000, the hiring grants are responsible for reducing crimes by about 200,000 to 250,000 crimes, one-third of which are violent.

Mr. Speaker, in the backdrop of the loss of lives of several of our law enforcement officers from California to the east coast, this is no time to bash police. This is a time to join in and support small departments, large departments, medium-sized departments who are supporting the idea of the COPS reauthorization. I want to thank Mr. Weiner for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman.

We offered in the committee an amendment that would allow us to study the best practices so that we could help departments utilize these COPs grants in an effective way. In the 18th Congressional District, some $56,857,000 in grants were awarded and 875 additional police officers and sheriffs deputies were welcomed into the 18th Congressional District. Ten local and State law enforcement agencies in our congressional district were beneficies of these. We have more constables and sheriffs and police departments, $2 million was added to provide for 19 school resource officers, and $9 million was awarded for crime fighting technologies.

Mr. Speaker, the COPS reauthorization bill is the right way to go. We cannot have a criminal prevention system that does not have preventive law enforcement. That is what we get with the COPS program. I rise to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1139, the Community Oriented Policy Services (COPS) Improvement Act of 2009. I would also like to thank Representative Weiner of New York for introducting this important legislation. This legislation was introduced last Congress and I was a co-sponsor last term. I uge my colleagues to support this bill.

The COPS program was designed to help bring about fundamental changes in policing by drawing officers closer to the citizens they protect. And, in scores of communities across the nation, the COPS program did just that.

The idea of community policing is to get away from the traditional ``call and response'' model, in which officers run from one emergency call to the next. It involves sending officers into the streets and into the neighborhoods to build relationships with residents, identify the sources of crime problems, and solve them before they get worse. The success of the COPS approach to policing is dependent upon the relationships built between the police and the members of the communities they serve.

Since 1995, COPS has awarded more than $10 billion to advance community policing, including grants awarded to more than 13,300 state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to fund the hiring and redeployment of nearly 117,700 officers. In addition to funding law enforcement positions, the Office of Community Policing Services has been the catalyst for innovations in community policing and broad implementation of effective law enforcement strategy. Presently, departments that employ community policing serve 87 percent of American communities.

On March 16, 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice will be accepting applications for $1 billion in Recovery Act Funds for the COPS program. Approximately 5,500 law enforcement officer jobs will be created or saved in law enforcement agencies across the country through funding provided by the Department of Justice.

Recently, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1, included $4 billion in Department of Justice grant funding to enhance state, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts, including the hiring of new police officers, to combat violence against women, and to fight against internet crimes against children.

Similar to Edward Byrne Justice Act Grant (JAG) awards, Recovery Act funds that are authorized for COPS can also be used to hire new officers or rehire recently laid off officers, fill unfunded vacancies and help prevent scheduled layoffs within law enforcement agencies.

COPS funds are allocated directly to the local level governments and law enforcement agencies and provide a three-year period of funding.

Specifically, H.R. 1139, the ``COPS Improvements Act of 2009,'' reinvigorates the COPS program's ability to accomplish its critical mission by establishing three grant programs: (1) the Troops-to-Cops Program, (2) the Community Prosecutors Program, and (3) the Technology Grants Program. The Troops-to-Cops Program would fund the hiring of former members of the Armed Forces to serve as law enforcement officers in community-oriented policing, particularly in communities adversely affected by recent military base closings.

The Community Prosecutors Program would authorize the Attorney General to make grants for additional community prosecuting programs that would, for example, assign prosecutors to pursue cases from specific geographic areas and to deal with localized violent crime, among other crimes.

The Technology Grants Program would authorize the Attorney General to make grants to develop and use new technologies to assist State and local law enforcement agencies reorient some of their efforts from reacting to crime to preventing crime.

The investment in COPS through the Recovery Act although crucial is a one-time investment limited to the purpose of hiring officers. The reauthorization of COPS is necessary for the program to continue past the investment of the Recovery Act.

Reauthorization is also necessary so that the COPS program can include the innovative aspects of the program as explained above.

The Houston area has made great strides in reducing crime. I am confident that with programs like COPS Houston can better combat crime.