Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that offers to bolster the COPS program. The hiring count is zeroed out in this bill, and it takes the funds of the National Science Foundation, reduces the NSF not back to the level it was before its deep cuts, but puts it back to where it was in 2004 before those big cuts began.

First, let me say that a consensus is emerging in this House. We have had amendment after amendment that has been offered to take the COPS program back from the scrap heap, back from a point at zero, and try to restore the hiring component.

We saw it done from Census, a proposal to do it from the FBI, and a proposal now to do it from the NSF. Let me be very clear, I think the NSF should be higher than my amendment and higher than the level provided by this House, and I believe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) would both like to have more than they have allocated.

The issue is this: we have reached consensus in Congress that the COPS program should not be zeroed out. We reached that consensus because in the reauthorization for the Justice Department we included a billion dollars to reauthorize the COPS program. We reached consensus yesterday on the floor when overwhelmingly an amendment was adopted to increase the COPS program. We just adopted an amendment to restore funds to the COPS program. The COPS program should not be zeroed out because it has been arguably the most successful Federal law enforcement program ever created, and it is also the most democratic.

I have a map showing cities all around the country and the number of officers that have been funded since 1995 and the level that crime has gone down, whether it be Jackson, Mississippi, 347 officers funded, a crime rate drop of 12 percent; San Antonio, Texas, 100 officers funded, a drop of 9 percent; Boston, Massachusetts, 139 officers funded, a 28 percent crime rate reduction.

Yet in this bill, we zero out the hiring component. It is mysterious why the COPS program has become such a target, but I can tell Members it is not because the program does not work. A broad coalition, bipartisan as we saw yesterday and in the sponsorship of my effort to reauthorize the bill, shows that just about every law enforcement group and just about every Member of this House believes in the COPS program.

This is another demonstration of the same point. Look at how evenly distributed the number of new officers is: Texas, 6,074 police officers on the street. 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.

Yet what we have done, the last 4 years, since September 11, we have had a steady decline in the COPS program to where it is zero. The hiring component is at zero. We are actually taking cops off the street rather than putting them on.

I have complete confidence that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) understand the value of the COPS program. In the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), over $1.1 million has been awarded to add school resource officers. In the district of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), over $26 million in the State of West Virginia.

So what does this amendment do? First of all, before my opponents stand up, let me do the argument for them. The NSF is a valuable agency. We are not saying it is not valuable. We are saying that dramatic increase they are going to get this year be limited to bringing them back to where they were in the 2004 budget before we slashed it down. Not that it should be cut, not that it should be reduced. It should be flatted out, increased rather, but only to the point where it was in 2004 before we had the reduction last year. I think it is fair and reasonable.

We also have to be careful about something else. We are in the unpleasant circumstance of having to take from Peter to pay Paul. But I would argue that Members should listen to the voice of this House. We overwhelmingly reauthorized the COPS program in the Justice Department reauthorization bill. The will of this House is to have a COPS hiring component. Yesterday's amendments showed it.

So before we get into this argument about what is better, science or police, I say they are both very, very important. What is more important, Census or police; they are both very, very important. What is more important, the FBI or the police on the beat; they are both very, very important. This amendment seeks to balance two ideals.