Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first of all, to express my gratitude to the chairman for crafting a bill which tries to do what we want to do, which is to take seriously the admonition by former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that homeland security starts in our hometowns, and tried to officially get homeland security funds to our neighborhoods.

Congressman Cantor and I were going to be offering an amendment on the floor to address a program that has been funded in the last couple of years, albeit inefficiently, by the Department of Homeland Security, to deal with the problem that local neighborhood nonprofit organizations, churches, synagogues, civic institutions, are being visited by local law enforcement all the time saying, here are the things you need to do to make your institution more hardened for the challenge of homeland security.

Yet, with all the things they are being told to do, unlike a business that can pass along its expenses to stockholders, or unlike a government entity that can raise taxes or make choices on what they want to allocate, these nonprofit organizations really have no way to find the funds for things like security cameras, for emergency escape hatches, for communication devices within their facilities.

The nonprofit Homeland Security grants have done that. They have done it in a relatively efficient way. You haven't read the stories about great waste because they are relatively small amounts of money to pay for the things like I described.

This section of the bill, the administrative section, was where we thought maybe we could take some of the money to allocate for the nonprofit grants. The other body, an earmark, is going to take $20 million and allocate it for that purpose. It's only a $25 million program that we have allocated for the past couple of Congresses. I think that, frankly, the knowledge that this is going to be worked out in conference is comforting.

But we need to realize that one of the things we need to do, and frankly, it's a program that has been administered in a remarkably democratic, with a small D, way. It has been distributed to small towns, big cities, nonprofit organizations. They get visited by local law enforcement: These are the things you do to become more safe. They have gone out and done it. They have made applications to the States that have then funded these programs as they see fit.

We are not going to be offering the amendment, although I am grateful for the bipartisan work that we have done on this. I would like to ask the chairman, as this moves forward to committee, in the interest of time in moving the program forward, I just want to make sure that you are mindful of our concerns about making sure that these nonprofit grants continue to see the light of the day.

I yield to the chairman.

If I could reclaim my time, I would express my gratitude to the chairman and also to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) who has been so helpful with this.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is----

Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to hear so many of my colleagues express their understanding of what happened in the campaign of 2006 and why a majority party on that side turned into a minority party. They are right. Some of it was because of the abject abuse of the earmark process. Some of it was about the abject abuse that resulted in people being indicted and people going to jail.

But that was only part of it. We on this side of the aisle got that message. That is why we have a transparent process that is going to open up all the earmarks to scrutiny. But that was only part of it.

The fact that some commentators have referred to the previous leadership of the party of this House as the most ethically bankrupt in our Nation's history, that was only part of the reason that the American people rejected the Republican mission.

They also rejected it because they ran up the largest deficits in recent memory. They rejected the Republican rule because there was a war that was being prosecuted without any oversight on that side of the aisle. The fact that wages were stagnant and the minimum wage hadn't been raised; that it was more and more difficult for the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class to send their kids to college.

Well, on the Democratic side, we said we are going to work late into the night past the dilatory efforts of our colleagues because we are here to fight for the American people.

You say, one way or another you are going to get your way by doing motion after motion after motion.

I have got to tell you something. It is worth it. It is worth it. This fight is important enough that we are prepared to stand here and try to get a Homeland Security bill to protect the American people. We are prepared to do it. We are prepared to stay here all night for a transparent process that allows us to assess some of these thousands of earmarks submitted by both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, do you know how I know with certitude that we are going to pass this bill to protect the American people by having a Homeland Security bill that is sound? Because we said we were going to make it easier for parents to send their kids to college, and we did it. We said we were going to raise the minimum wage, and we did it. We said we were going to crack down on these oil companies getting tax breaks for doing nothing more than gouging the American people, and we did it. We have done the things the American people have sent us here to do.

The only way that my colleagues on the other side can think from stopping us to achieve the agenda of the American people is every couple of minutes saying, We want to go home. We have worked hard enough. We want to rise.

We are not going anywhere. You can do it again and again and again. And we will wait you out.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, tell them this. We will wait. We will wait because this is too important, if you want to trivialize the process.

I don't blame you for not wanting to debate this bill because the leadership of the previous Congress was shameful. There was no oversight. There was no questioning. There was no sense of what the responsibility is of this Congress. And your vision, or absence thereof, was rejected by the American people.

Now, my colleagues on the other side, the colleagues that my back is facing, are destined to be in the permanent minority because the American people want us to achieve things. We are committed on this side of the aisle to doing it. And if you think that you have problems with this bill, make an amendment to it. Make 10 amendments. Make 30 amendments.

We are going to be here because we believe in something else: Having an open rule to allow you to do this.

Mr. Chairman, we think that more and more it is becoming clear that we have a good portion of this institution that wants to solve these problems in a bipartisan way if we can, and as Democrats alone if we must. But one way or another, if you think, as one of the previous speakers said, ``You are going to do it our way or we are going to keep making motions to rise,'' keep doing it. We are not going anywhere. We are here to fight for the American people for 2 years, and we are not giving up.

There are people making much bigger sacrifices than we are. What we are here to do is to try to honor their sacrifice, honor the things the American people are going through. And that is why the American people turned to a Democratic House; a Democratic Senate; and in a matter of months, a Democratic President of the United States.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my colleagues for their work on the SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill. After extensive conversations with the local transportation authority in New York City, it has become apparent that several changes are necessary in order for very important transportation infrastructure improvements to be implemented in New York City. Included in this bill are a number of projects that will enhance transportation throughout New York City and in my district in particular.

At my urging, the technical corrections bill includes: $1,100,000 for the New York City Department of Transportation to design and rehabilitate roads commonly known as step streets, which connect streets on steep grades, in Bronx County in coordination with my colleagues Mr. Engel, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Serrano; $2,500,000 to design and construct school safety projects in New York City to be used as part of the recently launched Safe Routes to Schools project, spearheaded by the New York City Department of Transportation; $1,300,000 for the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority to install security cameras at the Steinway Street, Broadway, 30th Avenue, and Astoria Boulevard subway stations in Astoria, New York, at the suggestion and urging of New York Assemblyman Michael Gianaris; $100,000 to provide for an independent study of the Newtown Creek oil spill in coordination with my colleague Ms. Velazquez; $500,000 for the New York City Department of Transportation to study and implement transportation improvements in the Breezy Point neighborhood of Queens County; $500,000 for the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority's interagency task force on fencing to fence exposed track along the Long Island Railroad.

These high priority projects will make a considerable contribution to the lives of New York City residents.

Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Mica, Chairman DeFazio, and Mr. Duncan deserve the thanks and appreciation of every Member of this House for their tireless efforts to improve America's transportation system.

I also could not have secured these and other programs within TEA-LU without the help and counsel of individuals here in Washington, and New York City. I would like to thank Joshua Fay-Hurvitz of my staff. I would also like to thank both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Transportation Committee. In particular, I would like to thank Jackie Schmitz and Ward McCarragher of Mr. Oberstar's staff. I would also like to thank Commissioner Iris Weinshall, David Woloch, and Andra Horsch at the New York City Department of Transportation. Additionally, I'd

like to thank Derrick Douglas with the State of New York, and Judy Chesser and Bill Daly with the City of New York. Finally I'd like to thank Lee Sander and Chris Boylan with the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, Mike Weiss at the Federal Highway Administration, and Jessie Torres at the Department of Transportation.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I think that I speak for all of our colleagues and all of us here in paying tribute to the 137,000- some-odd American men and women who are fighting in Iraq, the 25,000 or so that are fighting in Afghanistan. We are here to do what we can to honor them. We are trying to express our patriotism. We are trying to do what we are obligated to do by standing up here.

The notion that it is our patriotic duty, our obligation to sit silent and to do whatever the President thinks is best and blindly walk in that direction, that is not the way to honor the troops that are there. I can imagine the challenges that they face every single day, and would the message going back to them be most appropriate that just as often as they wake up in the deserts of Iraq trying to figure out why people are shooting at them and what they can do to stop it, they should know that every single day we here in Congress are trying to think about ways to make their mission safer and make it more possible for them to accomplish their mission and to extract them as soon as possible. We pray that they are successful. Although I strongly oppose the President's initiative, that I am going to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, I pray that they are successful. I pray we don't lose another life. We want them to be successful. But it is not enough just to be silent and to be prayerful. We also have to act.

Some in this Chamber have objected to this resolution because what it seeks to do is to do two things: one is the thing that I have done already, which is to pay tribute to the troops, something we all share in doing; and two is begin on a path of oversight. It is not surprising at all to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle have such a difficult concept with this idea of doing oversight over something the President proposes. They have done no oversight over how the money has been spent over there, and so as a result, we found out in the first month of the Democratic Congress that a $12 billion pallet of currency was delivered to Iraq and promptly disappeared. We had hearings last week that showed that even Mr. Bremer and officials on the ground from the administration have no idea where $12 billion disappeared to. So it is not surprising that my Republic friends have a difficult time figuring out what it is we are doing here. We are doing oversight, and we are going to do more of it.

We are doing oversight over the equipment that the troops had. This weekend there were stories coming outside of Iraq that Iranian-built armor-piercing projectiles were being used in roadside bombs. It reminded us again that the troops had been sent there without sufficient hardware, without sufficient protective gear, without sufficient armor-plated vehicles to be able to do their job. We are going to do oversight on that as well.

And I have to say that as part of the oversight that we are doing today, we are doing oversight on how the troops are being used. And let us not kid ourselves. The troops have done a remarkable job. They have done just about every single thing we have asked. They brought down a dictator. They set up a trial. They allowed a government to be stood up. They built roads and bridges. They have done an extraordinary job, and we in this House support them in that work.

But now what is their mission? Their mission is essentially to stand in the middle of a shooting match of the worst order. It is not over a patch of land. It is not a shooting match over what a border is going to be. It is not a shooting match even over oil. It is a shooting match of the most ingrained type between Shia and Sunni that goes back hundreds of years. Are our troops going to solve that conflict with 20,000 troops or 40,000 troops? I don't believe so. And even worse, I believe it is an untenable mission to be giving them. They are essentially in a schoolyard where everyone wants to fight.

And I have to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, over and over and over again today I have heard this dynamic being described that if we were to leave or to support this resolution, we would let down our allies, we would embolden our enemies, and we would betray the Iraqi people. In fact, this policy does all of those things. Let us look at it.

What does this policy say to our allies? Well, it says to our allies in Afghanistan we are not going to devote the resources there necessary for you to do the job. This isn't an abstract notion. You can watch it happen every single day. So long as we have 140,000 troops or 130,000 troops in this shooting match largely in Baghdad, we are watching as Afghanistan slips further and further back into the hands of the Taliban.

We have heard, for example, from our so-called ally the Saudis, and what have they said? They have been most telling. They said recently, well, to you, the citizens of the United States, if you pull your troops out, we are going to be forced to put resources in to support our Sunni brethren. So the Saudis have said if the American troops leave, we are going to have to jump in on the side of our Sunni brethren in Baghdad. What does that say? What does that say? That says they will jump into a blood-letting, but they won't come in now to help us stabilize Baghdad. They have argued, essentially, that the only reason they are not involved is our troops are. Some ally. Some message we are sending to our ally Saudi Arabia. What they are saying is, You had better keep your boys dying because otherwise we are going to have to send ours in.

That is exactly what we want. We want them to send they resources in. We want them to take ownership of this.

And the same is true with Egypt and other allies in the region. They have said to us, You had better keep doing what you are doing, Mr. President. We are getting exactly the wrong message.

And I have also heard my colleagues speak frequently today about

emboldening our enemies. Well, it seems like just about anything Democrats propose is emboldening our enemies.

Let us take a closer look at this. Is Iran truly upset about what is going on in Iraq? Are the Iranians truly wringing their hands every day saying, Boy oh boy, I hope the United States does not pull out of there? No. They have never been happier with this existing policy. Their worst elements, their worst Shia elements, are crossing over the border practically at will, joining the fight. The President of the United States himself has said it. I have heard people here on the floor say it. They like this confrontation that is going on. They want it to be like this.

But they are happy for another reason, and I say this particularly to my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are happy because I am truly concerned about the threat that Iran poses not only to the United States but to the world. Do you think we are in a position right now with our military stretched so thin that if we needed to act against Iran, we could? No. Our engagement in Baghdad, adding more and more and more troops, has stretched us thinner and thinner and thinner. And the most happy people in the world are the tyrants in Iran because they know they can get away with just about anything. And if you think I am wrong about that, take a look at the war back last year on the northern border of Israel. Hezbollah felt completely unencumbered, which is essentially, as we all know, an agent of Iran. They felt completely unencumbered again just to attack a democracy in the region because they knew that all of us were stretched entirely too thin to be able to respond. So this notion that we are going to send the wrong message to our enemies is completely wrong.

Do you know what would send the right message to our enemies, I say to my colleagues? You take some of those troops out of Baghdad, you put them on the Iranian border. That is how you send them a message. You get them out of the shooting match, but you keep them in the neighborhood. You keep them right on the border of Iran and you say, We don't need 140,000, but we are going to make sure you don't export any more problems. We are going to seal off the schoolyard.

And, finally, I have heard it said that this will be an abandonment of the Iraqi people. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is no element here that I am more disappointed with, and I think I speak virtually for all of us. Our troops are in there trying to create stability in Iraq, and for some reason, overwhelming numbers of Iraqis say that they think it is okay to shoot at our troops. It is outrageous. It is outrageous. Our troops are in there trying as best they can to build this country, put it back together, and the Iraqi people over and over again are saying, You know what, it is kind of okay when I read stories about snipers shooting at our troops.

The Iraqi people have to have a moment where they confront the reality of the situation. Everyone agrees, I think, and whenever I say that, I hear someone come to the floor and think that everything is going just fine in Iraq, but just about everyone agrees that the Iraqi people themselves ultimately have to take responsibility for their own country.

Are we creating an environment that is more likely to happen or less likely to happen? Well, there is no sign that it is happening; so the de facto response to my own question is that it is not happening. But I would argue that every time we stand up and put additional troops in, we push the Iraqi people further from the point where they have to confront that they have to take control. Might it be messy? Yes. Might it even be bloody? Yes. But one thing is for sure: up to now the Iraqi people have simply said, We are not going to. We don't have to. We have got our boys from the United States of America, and now we have another 20, 30, 40,000 that are going to be rolling into town.

My colleagues, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle complain, and I have to say, present company excluded, it sounded a little like whining most of the day. I have heard, well, we need more choices. I have heard we need more bills. I have heard we need more language. There are going to be plenty of opportunities to confront these issues, but today my colleagues have to confront the choice in front of them. Sometimes in this job you have to say ``yea'' or ``nay.'' And this week what you have to say ``yea'' or ``nay'' on is a resolution that is exquisite in its simplicity. It says two things and two things only. It says we support the troops. We are going to keep them safe. We are going to keep them secure. We are going to do anything that they need to show our support. And, two, we disapprove of the way the President wants to increase the number of troops going there. That is it. You are going to get to vote on other things later on because we are not done. Many of us believe very strongly that we need major tactical changes, and I know Mr. Murtha has a plan. The Blue Dog Caucus has a plan for more transparency. There are going to be plenty of choices. You are going to get oversight.

I know it has been years, I say to my colleagues, since you have seen any around here, but you are going to get it. But today what we have is a simple proposition. It is the same proposition that is being discussed in coffee shops, in church socials, in corner stores all around this country, and that is: Do we support what the President is doing by increasing our engagement rather than reducing it? That is what this is about. And all of the foot stamping and all of the complaining and all of the whining, I want another bill, I want different language, I want to deal with something different, I want a hug, well, for the time being this is the choice that you are confronted with.

If you believe that this surge is the right policy, you have a simple vote. You can vote ``no.'' If you believe that you don't want to support the troops, and there is no one like that, you can vote ``no.'' But this resolution is the beginning of finally starting to do what the American people are thirsting for, and that is this Chamber is a place where we stand up and say whether we support these things or not.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I honor the gentleman for his mastery of the numbers. Perhaps you can enlighten me, what is the number of Reserves that are in country now?

If the gentleman will yield for a further question, are there any there doing second or third tours of duty?

If the gentleman will further yield, is it not your view that that has a dramatic toll only those families and communities who are not regular army who are there as Reservists and are being called back tour after tour? You don't think that is stretching those communities thin?

If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman very much. I think what you have just described is a military stretched thin, my friend. I think when you have people in the Reserves doing three tours, that are being taken away from their communities, I think that is a military stretched thin.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this can't possibly be the best they have got. This can't be. I cannot imagine that a party that governed for the last 12- some-odd years, who had a Congress that met less days than the do- nothing Congress, who wasted billions of dollars in the Iraq war doing no oversight, drove up the deficit to record heights, wasted homeland security funds, it can't possibly be that the best that party has is to now devote an afternoon talking about the security arrangements for the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Well, let's talk a little bit about what we have. Putting aside for a moment, which apparently is what the other side wants, putting aside for a moment the bill we are here to debate, which is a way to improve energy programs with existing infrastructure, and I can guarantee my colleagues will be lining up to take advantage of that program, we have, in the first 100 hours of this Congress, raised the minimum wage; we have lowered the cost of people to send their children to college; we have implemented the 9/11 Commission Report. We have moved through an agenda with efficiency to get things done for the American people, and now my colleagues on the other side want to have an argument with the White House over the appropriate arrangements for the Speaker.

Now, look, I am sure that my good friends on the other side are so detached from reality that they think this is what the American people want to work on. This is a party that squandered the leadership that they had. Now the Republic Party is in the minority for the foreseeable future. The Republic Party is so completely bankrupt of any ideas of their own, they have taken to bringing up 3 hours of discussion and a debate between the White House and themselves about what kind of security the Speaker should have.

The Republic Party is the minority party not only for this reason, but this is one of them. And then to make it worse, the Members that the Republic Party sends over can't possibly be the

A team. This can't be the best. This can't be the most articulate, most informed voices of the Republic Party, can it? This is it.

I was in my office and I heard a Member of the Republic Party, and you will correct me, Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong, complaining that he had to sit in a middle seat. No, not a middle seat. Complaining that he had to eat peanuts on his flight. I don't even know what this is about.

Let me tell you what the American people are interested in. They are interested in the idea that, like Damocles' sword, global warming is now hanging over the head of all of us, all of us, Republican or Democratic, even the Republic Party must be concerned about that. We have had thousands of scientists that have reached a consensus----

I will certainly be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, even those members of this panel, these scientists that took a look at global warming, global climate change, 90 percent of them, a record level of consensus, say that human causes are to blame.

We are not going to leave it to the Republic Party to solve this problem. They are in the minority. They are probably in the permanent minority if they are going to spend their time obsessing about security arrangements for the Speaker and disagreeing with the President of the United States' spokesman. But we are. Nancy Pelosi, this party is going to do something about global warming; we are not going to wait for the Republic Party to join in. Just the same way we said we were going to increase the minimum wage, the same way we said we were going to increase safety by implementing the 9/11 Commission Report, the same way we said we were going to reduce college costs for the American middle class and those striving to make it, that is what we are going to do.

You can have this debate all you want about the security arrangements for the Speaker, but we are going to go about doing the job of the American people. That is why the Democratic Party is in charge, not the Republic Party.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New Hampshire for yielding because she of all people understands, coming from New Hampshire, that these issues of global climate change are not something that we can simply choose to do, what the other side is saying, which is ignore them for generations more and just hope for the best.

You were elected, and you came to this House saying that we are going to start getting things done. You said that we are going to reject the frivolous politics of the other side. We are not going to spend our time arguing over what the correct security protocols for the Speaker are going to be. We are going to focus on things that the American people really care about.

And I just want to ask you, has anyone stopped you on the streets in New Hampshire and asked you, expressed concern about global climate change?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?

I thank the gentlelady.

And I would also say that I am sure that we are all very concerned about the security arrangements for the Speaker; and I think we would all agree, we want to do whatever is necessary, the same way none of us had any concerns when Speaker Hastert got the protection.

But frankly, there are people that are working on that right now, and I think, and maybe you do as well; I will ask you. Do you agree with the statement of the White House that this is a silly issue that people are making too much of and that we should get back to the job of the country?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?

I really do want to express my gratitude. The people of New Hampshire are very fortunate to have someone that came to Congress like you did. In your first 43 hours, you voted to raise the minimum wage, something that hadn't been done for years of neglect. You voted to make it less expensive for parents of New Hampshire to send their kids to school. You voted for a responsible continuing resolution that increased spending to put cops on the beat in New Hampshire.

You have, frankly, in your first several weeks here in the House, done more than your predecessors did for years and years because they were focused on issues like this on the other side. And I want to thank you for your service.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Certainly.

Well, I have got to tell you something. I don't recall there being an open rule when we had the original vote on the war; do you, sir?

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

I recall we were given an up-or-down vote without any opportunity for alternatives on the original war in Iraq, and I think we are going to have eight votes, and we have accepted this amendment, eight votes on various amendments to this bill. I think the lady doth protest too much.

I don't have any control over that. I think the gentleman is in scant position to protest when he himself was part of the leadership that said we couldn't have an open rule when we originally voted on this thing.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I have only been here a few terms. We are operating under an open rule, is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I think it is a reasonable expectation, when we have open rules in the future and we are all done debating security arrangements for the Speaker, I do not know what our colleagues are going to be talking about. I mean, they had months and months and months of leadership in the Republic Party to generate virtually nothing but standstill. Many of the people that are here on the floor from the Republic Party were shot down continually when they came to the floor trying to cut out wasteful spending. More wasteful spending happened under their leadership than, frankly, anytime in history.

The Republic Party showed such an inability to govern this country that they were vanquished into the minority arguably for the foreseeable future. The Republic Party was repudiated, but this is how they want to use their debate time, on a measure that we have accepted, on what protection to provide the Speaker.

I doubt very much, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the American people are tuning in with rapt attention to see how we are going to provide security to the Speaker. But if that is really what they think we should be having this debate about, I for one, Mr. Tierney, disagree. I think we should be figuring out how to do the people's business. We have already lowered their cost of college. We have increased the minimum wage. We have put an ethics plan into place. We have shown again and again we are doing the business of the American people; and the Republic Party seems, based on this debate, to be obsessed with how we provide security for the Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, let me just say your eloquent explanation of this amendment, perhaps you weren't here for all the discussion. We accept the amendment.

If I could just further answer your question, because you asked a good question about the schedule; the gentleman asked a good question about the schedule. I just want, on behalf of all of us on this side of the aisle, to express our apologies for making you all work so hard. It wasn't our intention to inconvenience anybody. We are just trying to get the people's work done.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the President and the Republican Congress drastically cut funding for the highly successful COPS program. In 1999 Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for the COPS program, and funding has plummeted since. The President has zeroed out this program every year since taking office and Congress gave no funding for COPS in either fiscal year 2006, or in the House-passed SSJC bill for fiscal year 2007. While the Office of Justice Programs, Community Oriented Policing Services account referenced in section 20901 of the continuing resolution today includes other worthy programs, is it your preference that the additional funding be used for enhancement grants which can be used to hire additional police?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call upon my colleagues to address the very real threat to the security of rail passengers in America. I am a supporter of the 9/11 Commission Bill and commend the Speaker and Chairman Thompson for their leadership in at long last implementing the basic reforms directed by the 9/11 Commission.

But the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were but a first step. Since the Commission completed its work, the evolution of terrorism has continued in countries around our planet, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the vulnerabilities that we face in this Nation--particularly those vulnerabilities that are being routinely targeted by terrorists in other parts of the world. Most notably, as demonstrated by the bombings in Madrid in 2004, London in 2005, and Mumbai in 2006--the passenger rail and transit system in this country is a high-risk target and we must address this critical security need immediately.

We rightfully have devoted extensive efforts towards securing aviation, but now it is time to devote significant resources towards one of this country's most vital economic assets.

Each weekday, there are 11.3 million passengers using some form of rail and mass transit. That's more than 5 times as many people taking air passenger trips. At New York's Penn Station alone--there are over half a million people passing through; that is more passengers than at our two busiest air hubs--Chicago and Atlanta--combined. And yet, on average, we have spent $9 per air passenger compared to 1 penny per rail and mass transit passenger.

The Secretary of Homeland Security often states that it is the management of risk and not the elimination of risk that is the core principle for DHS--and the management of risk requires the prioritization of risk based on three key components: threat, vulnerability, and consequence.

Passenger rail facilities have a high passenger density, which creates the potential for a spectacular attack that is intended to instill fear--we know this is what our enemies look for when planning attacks. We know that they have already mounted vicious attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai over the last 3 years, and even before 9/ 11--in Paris and Tokyo. This threat is real, it is serious, and it is not going away.

We also know that if anything were to happen to disrupt our passenger rail system, the economic consequences and impacts on our way of life would be devastating.

Finally, we know that most of our major passenger rail facilities are old, in some cases falling apart, lack modern security enhancements built into the station design, and would be unable to recover quickly from even a minor attack. They have not been retrofitted, reinforced, or rebuilt in ways consistent with today's threat environment.

Thus, our passenger rail system is clearly at a high risk based on all three components--threat, vulnerability, and consequence. And this risk must be managed better.

Now some people argue that because the rail system in our country is open and dynamic and therefore impossible to secure like other parts of the transportation system, that we should not spend a lot of money trying--that it becomes a ``slippery slope.'' To the contrary, to do nothing in the face of such demonstrated high risk is irresponsible.

Rail and transit authorities have made efforts to improve security. However, authorities are having a difficult time identifying resources that can be used for capital improvements. In fact, between 2001 and 2003 over $1.7 billion was spent on security efforts for rail and transit by state and local authorities, but 75 percent was used just for overtime and other labor-intensive security operating expenses. While these measures are a key part of securing open facilities like rail stations, their costs leave very little money for the much needed capital investments in security.

The American Public Transportation Association estimated that it cost State and local transportation authorities nearly $1 million a day during the 36 days of high alert status after the July 2005 London bombings--and this number does not even include the costs incurred in the additional efforts of New York and New Jersey's random searches.

No matter what we may have planned, the fact is that we will end up devoting tremendous resources should there be a rail attack. I would rather see us be strategic in our investments than be reactive every time a new threat is evident. Targeted investments in capital security enhancements at our most critical, high-risk locations will serve us during normal and heightened alerts and can possibly reduce our operating costs by leveraging the capability of people on the scene.

The Federal Government does not have to do this alone. We constantly hear about the importance of public-private partnerships, yet we have few positive examples to point at. The rail system has the opportunity to leverage the investments of private developers who seek to benefit from transit-oriented development. As we address capital security investments in passenger rail facilities, Congress should acknowledge and even encourage these public-private partnerships by providing a way for private developers to be guaranteed that the Federal Government's commitment to long-term projects is real. The current homeland security annual grant cycle is a road block for these larger projects, and it is critical to our Nation's security and fiscal well-being that we take advantage of such investment opportunities as they arise.

From 9/11 through 2005 we have spent approximately $20 billion on aviation security, but only $500 million on rail and transit security. We can and must do better than this. I call on my colleagues to join me in this Congress to address the critical issue of capital investments in our rail passenger security.

After Madrid and London, we can have no more excuses.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lantos and the sponsor of the legislation.

Look, I fundamentally believe, and I have said for some time that aid to the Palestinians has not achieved any of our foreign policy goals. It hasn't been accountable, it hasn't gotten us a more peaceful administration there, and fundamentally I believe that it doesn't achieve what we seek to do in foreign aid.

I commend the sponsors of the legislation. I agree with both of them that this doesn't go far enough. It allows far too many loopholes. Among other things, it permits the PLO, the last vestige in the throes of the terrorist organization that passed, to continue to have a mission in New York City, in my hometown.

Let us not forget that we have provided $1.5 billion dollars in U.S. assistance to Gaza and the West Bank. We always lead this debate with our hearts rather than our heads. When Wye River was signed, the United States said its citizens and taxpayers will put dollars on the barrelhead. When Oslo was signed, we said we will put dollars on the barrelhead.

Invariably, we the American people, are very generous in trying to live up to the aspirations we have for that region, despite the fact that every single time it proves to be for naught.

So I believe that this is a very important first step. But I also think it is important that people understand that democratization in the territories is a good thing. I agree with President Bush that having democracies and free, open elections are good things. But they have consequences.

Many people argue in that part of the world that because we had used foreign aid in support of so many organizations of Fattah, the Palestinian people were impelled to vote for Hamas.

When you have a campaign based on the idea that we are going to continue terrorism, we are going to refuse to acknowledge the existence of our neighbors and the voters vote for that administration, there are consequences. One of the consequences is that the American people say we are not going to be involved.

I also cannot take the floor at this moment without speaking particularly to one critic of note of late. Being a former President of the United States gives you a vaunted place in American and world life to be someone who speaks about the important issues of the day. Unfortunately, former President Carter has turned into a polemist on this issue and an irresponsible one to say the least.

In recent appearances on television, he has gone so far, as to refer to the ``Jewish lobby'' as the reason we are not aiding Hamas and not doing more in the Middle East. He has had the audacity to suggest in a recent television appearance there has not been any Hamas terrorist attacks since 2004, ignoring the daily barrage of rockets coming into the south of Israel since Hamas took over. The missiles are being lobbed at schools and at hospitals.

I believe that there is a responsibility that former President Carter has, and he dishonors himself and dishonors the role of former Presidents by continuing this polemic screed. We in this body and Americans who want there to be peace in the Middle East, overwhelmingly support a two-state solution. However, voters in that part of the world voted for terrorists. They have to understand there are ramifications.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as editorial pages are abuse with discussion about the tragic and sad events in the Middle East, and some people at coffee shops and at street corners around our country are asking some very basic questions about the conflict in that region and why it has reached the place that it has.

I have heard some on this floor raise what are really foundational questions to make it possible to understand the conflict and the challenge facing Israel in their battle against Hamas on one front, Hezbollah on the other front, and their two nation sponsors, Iran and Syria.

One question that frequently gets asked is how come we can't just let diplomacy take hold? And it is true. Whenever there are missiles flying, whenever there are guns ablaze, it is, by very definition, a failure of diplomacy. And it has never been the first choice of either the United States or Israel in that part of the world to choose violence.

If you look through the entire scope of the Israeli lifespan, their entire existence has been marked with them extending their hand and saying yes to proposed diplomatic solutions to the conflict there, and their Arab nations saying no.

In 1947, even before the nation was born, there was the famous partition plan that would have made Israel a fraction of what it is today, surrounded by enemy Arab countries. It was the Arabs that said no, not the Israelis.

Since then, we have had the Oslo Accord, where the Israelis acknowledged the PLO as a partner for peace and were obviously burned; the Wye River Accord; the Camp David Accord with Egypt, which thankfully, still stands today; Camp David II, which was a concession of virtually everything that the Palestinians asked for in exchange for peace, and that was met with violence.

We also should note that when they left Gaza on their southern border, left the parts to the Palestinians, that is the very spot that is now being used to launch missiles, Katusha rockets by the dozens, against their citizens.

When they left Lebanon after occupying it because so many missiles were flying from Lebanon into their northern border, they left to come into compliance with the U.N. resolution and to set up universally and internationally accepted border that now Hezbollah has breached in Lebanon.

So it is true diplomacy is the better option. But in every single circumstance where diplomacy was pursued by the Israelis, with the help of the United States, it has been her terrorist neighbors, her Arab neighbors, who have said diplomacy is not what we want; we want Israel not to exist. And that, by the way, still today is what Hamas has made their creed, Hezbollah has made their mission, supported by Syria and Iran.

We have also heard a couple of times something that I wholeheartedly agree with, that there are many in Lebanon who are completely innocent in this. There are.

Frankly, my good friend, Mr. LaHood, mentioned this during the debate on the floor on the resolution supporting Israel. It is true there is no group more innocent and more persecuted in that part of the world than the Lebanese Christians, who have been persecuted by their fellow Lebanese. There are many people in Lebanon who just want to live and be free, but they have been overrun by Syria and then by Hezbollah.

But you are not an innocent victim of this if you go to bed at night with a Hezbollah rocket tucked under your bed. You are not an innocent victim if you went out and voted for Hezbollah to make them part of your government. You are not an innocent victim when you make Hezbollah part of the ministry in Lebanon. You cannot lay down with dogs and expect not to get up with fleas.

The government of Lebanon has chosen to make partnership with Hezbollah, so when Hezbollah crossed an international border and takes prisoners, when they lob missiles into Haifa, the Lebanese government, unfortunately, has to decide which side they are on, and up to now they have said they are on the side of Hezbollah.

The final thing I have heard is, from time to time, some, and it is even supporters of Israel, say, you know what, this is a difficult time since September 11. Maybe our true concern should not be about what goes on in Israel. Maybe it should be just worrying about the United States and our interests.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, when the United States goes out and fights against terrorism around the world, arguably they have one ally. It is not our feckless friends in Europe. It is not the French. It is not even the British. Our only ally, who every single day is fighting terrorism, is Israel. When they fight against Hezbollah, they are fighting against the organization that was the number one terrorist organization killing Americans before September 11.

That has to be part of our understanding. When Israel's soldiers go and fight and die against terrorists, they are fighting a war for all of us.

So as we watch the newspapers and try to understand what is going on, we have got to understand diplomacy was tried by the Israelis, over and over and over again, and it will be tried again. We have got to understand that those in Lebanon, there are some innocent victims, but there are many people guilty as well. And we have to understand that when Israel fights for its freedom, it fights on behalf of the United States as well.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday the House of Representatives lost one of its own and New York City lost a great civil servant when Congressman Thomas J. Manton died at the age of 73.

Mr. Manton embodied the American dream and his story is one of integrity, hard work and dedication to community service.

The most important lesson we learn from our former colleague is that you don't have to be born into a political or influential family, nor do you have to have lots of money to succeed in politics. Mr. Manton's formula for success was honesty and coalition building.

His parents, Thomas Manton and Margaret Manton emigrated from Ireland in search of a better life. On November 3, 1932, they had their first and only son, Thomas J. Manton in a Manhattan hospital.

Mr. Manton's father supported the family working as a plasterer and the family moved from Manhattan to the borough of Queens where Mr. Manton lived until he passed away.

Mr. Manton demonstrated his commitment to public service very early on hen he served our country as a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps.

Upon returning, he worked his way through law school, serving the city as a police officer with the New York Police Department.

In the same spirit of service he was elected to the New York City Council and served there for 14 years.

In 1984, the voters from the 7th Congressional District chose Mr. Manton, to represent their interests in Washington. He served with distinction on the Commerce Committee and as Co-Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs.

As the son of immigrants, Mr. Manton never forgot what makes this country great. As Chairman of the Queens Democratic Party, he embraced the growing diversity in Queens and recruited candidates of all ethnicities, including from the Asian and Hispanic communities.

Mr. Manton maintained his position as District Leader for the Anoroc Democratic Club in his home district until the day that he died, which further demonstrates his commitment to being accessible to the public and the value he placed on being in touch with the community.

Over 2 million people are lucky enough to call the borough of Queens home. Queens is an exceptional borough largely because of Thomas J. Manton, and we can all only hope to do what he did--leave the world a better place than we found it.

I, with the entire City of New York, mourn the loss of the honorable and distinguished Congressman Thomas J. Manton and send my heartfelt condolences to his beloved wife Diane, their four children, and four grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Ramstad and other Members of this body. It is very simple. It takes perhaps the single most important anticrime program of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, the COPS program, and restores the hiring component, which is the portion of the program that puts cops on the beat.

It has been zeroed out in this budget. We are not going to restore it completely to its authorized level, but we at least are trying to put a little more funding in that would allow us to hire about 6,500 additional cops.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the COPS program, this is perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``D,'' program, anticrime program Congress ever envisioned, from coast to coast, State by State. West Virginia got 692 officers, Virginia got 2,400 officers, Texas got 600, big towns, small cities, all across the country.

This bill zeroes out the COPS program. What we seek to do is to authorize an additional 6,000 or so police officers. The offset that we seek is in the space exploration, the Mars program. We do not zero it out by any stretch of the imagination. We still ensure a large increase in it, about a 10 percent increase.

But this would be a way to take this single crime fighting program, and, frankly, an antiterrorism program, and breathe some life into it. We have already said in this body that we believe the COPS program should live. We reauthorized it. Now this is an effort to put some funds in.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all of the discussion about China, I am curious, is the crime rate high in China? Is the crime rate high on Mars? No one is saying to zero out the program. I am saying give it a 10 percent increase.

It is completed.

Apparently, the gentleman from Florida is unfamiliar with the rhetorical question which is so commonly used in New York and frequently in Washington.

Florida got 7,400 police officers under the COPS program. The COPS program was reauthorized in this body for additional hiring. We reauthorized it.

Now I am saying, put a few dollars in there. And I am not saying, do not go to Mars; I am not saying, do not go to the Moon. How about this? Let's make a deal. Let's have a 10 percent increase in that program that is so important. That is a pretty healthy increase. And if we do that, then we do not go from 7,400 cops in Florida to what the bill proposes, which is zero cops in Florida. That is what voting against the Weiner-Ramstad amendment would propose.

We are saying that this is a successful program. When Tom Ridge said that homeland security starts in our home towns, when John Ashcroft said this has been a remarkable program, you know, frankly, it has been a bipartisan, across-the-board success. We have reauthorized it in this body. All I am saying is, breathe new life in it.

I would just remind the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, that large increase that you described still is zeroing out, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, the hiring component.

What the Department of Justice has done is put a whole lot of programs in this one line. The hiring component is zero, none, kaput, despite the fact that we reauthorized.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just acknowledge that I agree with much of what the gentleman says, except the part about us gutting anything.

What we did is we took the space exploration program and limited the increase to 10 percent. We by no means cut it to last year's level. We by no means slashed it to the bone. What we did is we took a program that grew the most and said, we are going go allow it to grow only 10 percent in the alternative.

I want to point out the program that did get slashed to the bone, which was the COPS hiring component. You know, if you have a COPS program which put 117,000 police officers on the street and you say, we are going to reauthorize it but we are not going to provide any funding to do the hiring component, then we are going to start seeing what we are seeing now, which is, nationwide the seven index crimes are starting to creep up again.

We saw the single best Federal program against crime perhaps in history was the COPS program, and despite the protestations of some of the folks who were here at the time, it was distributed throughout the country. Now the COPS department at Justice in the hands of the Republican party fervently says, you know what, having a COPS program without having hiring in it is like having no COPS program at all.

Also, in the reauthorization, we acknowledged in a bipartisan way some of the weaknesses of the program. Some departments said, you know what, the way it was structured was too limited. They wanted flexibility. We acknowledged that. The chairman, to his credit, and this House, to its credit, overwhelmingly reauthorized that program, but it is a hollow victory if we have the COPS program and no money.

So the offset admittedly is not ideal. I think you and the gentleman from Virginia do yeoman's duty each year trying to squeeze more and more into a smaller bag.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Let me conclude by saying that I have been listening to what has been said, and I think I have got a compromise we can all accept.

What if we pass an amendment that increases the number of COPS by 6,500? There are none in the bill now. We make it 6,500, and we still give a $300 million plus up, an increase of 10 percent in the President's moon and Mars initiative, give an increase in space exploration and COPS program? Sound like a deal?

Well, this is the amendment. That is what the Weiner-Ramstad amendment does. It gives an increase to both. This notion that we are eviscerating a program is just not true. We are taking a program and giving it a 10 percent increase and funding another program that has done this much good around the country. This is the number of police officers around the country.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I disagree with very little of what has been said on both sides. I think the chairman and ranking member have done a remarkable job balancing the equities, but it is simply not fair that the COPS program gets zero.

To keep saying that State and local enforcement has got additional funds, let us not forget that we authorized the COPS program at $1 billion. This amendment doesn't seek to fund it at that level, but it seeks to put some money in.

And if you think we are going to lose the edge in space exploration because

we have the audacity to give it a 10 percent increase this year, I just disagree. It is a matter of trying to find a way that we can do both.

We do not gut the space program. We give it a 10 percent increase with the Weiner amendment. But what we do is we make sure that we don't have this. This is what the bill presently has in the number of new cops under the COPS program. None. Zip. Zero.

Crime rates around the country are creeping back up. I heard at least one gentleman over there say, at least he is being honest, he believes that cops deserve no credit for the reduction in crime. It is an unusual position to take. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Associations, and every law enforcement group nationwide supports the Weiner amendment.

What we are seeking to do here is to say, you know what, we can't in the Federal Government be at the sidelines in the fight against crime. We need to be in the game. We need to participate.

The COPS program was a success. Congressman Sensenbrenner said it. Attorney General Ashcroft said, and I quote, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people would be safer.''

He is right. I am sure if he were here today he would say support the Weiner amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

On that I request a recorded vote.