[Senate Hearing 110-303]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-303
RISING CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN
HELPING COMMUNITIES PREVENT AND RESPOND TO VIOLENT CRIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 23, 2007
__________
Serial No. J-110-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-885 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Texas
Todd Hinnen, Chief Counsel
Walt Kuhn, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 1
prepared statement........................................... 100
Feingold, Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin. 11
prepared statement........................................... 131
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California, prepared statement................................. 133
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa. 3
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 178
WITNESSES
Epley, Mark, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C......................... 5
Fox, James Alan, The Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice,
Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts................. 29
Gregory, Rick S., Chief of Police, New Castle County, Delaware... 21
Kamatchus, Ted, President, National Sheriffs' Association,
Marshalltown, Iowa............................................. 16
Laine, Russell B., Second Vice President, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, Algonquin, Illinois........... 26
Nee, Thomas J., President, National Association of Police
Organizations, Boston, Massachusetts........................... 18
Palmer, Hon. Douglas H., Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey, and
President, United States Conference of Mayors, Trenton, New
Jersey......................................................... 23
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Mark Epley to questions submitted by Senators Biden
and Kennedy.................................................... 47
Response of James A. Fox to a question submitted by Senator Biden 77
Response of Rick Gregory to a question submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 79
Responses of Ted Kamatchus to questions submitted by Senators
Biden, Kennedy and Durbin...................................... 80
Responses of Russell Laine to questions submitted by Senators
Durbin and Kennedy............................................. 86
Responses of Thomas Nee to questions submitted by Senators
Kennedy and Durbin............................................. 89
Responses of Douglas Palmer to questions submitted by Senators
Biden, Durbin and Kennedy...................................... 93
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Advancement Project, Constance L. Rice, Los Angeles, California,
letter......................................................... 98
Bakersfield City Council, Bakersfield, California, letter........ 99
Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Lorrain Howerton, Senior Vice
President, Office of Government Relations, Washington, D.C.,
letter......................................................... 102
Bratton, William J., Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police
Department, Los Angeles, California, statement................. 103
Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., policy brief............ 107
California Gang Investigators Association, Wesley D. McBride,
Executive Director, Huntington Beach, California, letter....... 114
California Peace Officers' Association, Paul Cappitelli,
President, Sacramento, California, letter...................... 115
Chicago Sun-Times, December 28, 2006, article.................... 116
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, Sachi A. Hamai,
Executive Officer, Los Angeles, California, letter............. 117
Delaware News Journal, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., May 18,
2007, article.................................................. 118
Dubuque Telegraph Herald, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., article.. 119
Epley, Mark, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement............. 121
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), Art Gordon,
National President, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania, letter........... 130
Fox, James Alan, The Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice,
Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, statement...... 136
Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President,
Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 140
Gregory, Rick S., Chief of Police, New Castle County, Delaware,
statement...................................................... 141
Heck, Mathias H., Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County,
Ohio, statement................................................ 146
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA),
Ray Leyva, National President, San Antonio, Texas, letter...... 157
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Joseph C.
Carter, President, Alexandria, Virginia, letter................ 158
International Association of Women Police (IAWP), Amy Ramsay,
President, Orillia, Ontario, Canada, letter.................... 159
International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, Dennis
Slocumb, International Vice President, Alexandria, Virginia,
letter......................................................... 160
Kamatchus, Ted, President, National Sheriffs' Association,
Marshalltown, Iowa, statement and attachment................... 161
Laine, Russell B., Second Vice President, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, Algonquin, Illinois, statement 167
League of California Cities, Maria Alegria, President, and
Christopher McKenzie, Executive Director, Sacramento,
California, letter............................................. 177
Legal Momentum, Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice-President of Government
Relations, Washington, D.C., letter............................ 180
Major Cities Chiefs Association, Darrel Stephens, President,
Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 185
MENTOR, Karen Nussle, Senior Vice President, Alexandria,
Virginia, letter............................................... 186
National Alliance to End Homelessness, LaKesha Pope, Youth
Program and Policy Analyst, and Richard A. Hooks Wayman, Senior
Youth Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C. letter.................. 187
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
(NAWLEE), Laura Forbes, President, Carver, Massachusetts,
letter......................................................... 189
National Black Police Association, Inc., Ronald E. Hampton,
Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter................... 190
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ),
Hon. Dale R. Koch, Presiding Judge, Multnomah County Circuit
Court, Portland, Oregon, President, National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, statement.................... 191
National Council on Disability, Association of University Centers
on Disabilities, and the National Center for Victims of Crime,
Washington, D.C., joint statement.............................. 195
National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA), Roy Garivey,
President, Las Vegas, Nevada, letter........................... 203
National Major Gang Task Force, Edward L. Cohn, Executive
Director, Indianapolis, Indiana, letter........................ 204
National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC),
Ronald E. Brooks, President, West Covina, California, letter... 205
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
(NOBLE), Jimmie Dotson, National President, Alexandria,
Virginia, letter............................................... 206
National Troopers Coalition (NTC), Dennis Hallion, Chairman,
Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 207
Nee, Thomas J., President, National Association of Police
Organizations, Boston, Massachusetts, statement and attachment. 208
Palmer, Hon. Douglas H., Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey, and
President, United States Conference of Mayors, statement and
attachment..................................................... 214
Passalacqua, Stephan R., Sonoma Country District Attorney, Santa
Rosa, California, letter....................................... 222
Penrod, Gary S., Sheriff, San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department, San Bernardino, California, letter................. 223
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., October
18, 2006, article.............................................. 224
Points of Light Foundation, Howard H. Williams III, Interim CEO
and President, Washington, D.C., letter........................ 226
Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C., report........ 227
Police Foundation, Hubert Williams, President, Washington, D.C.,
letter......................................................... 247
Schwarzenegger, Hon. Arnold, Governor of California, Sacramento,
California, letter............................................. 248
Stalking Resource Center, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., January
26, 2007, article.............................................. 249
The State, Columbia, South Carolina, Senator Joseph R. Biden,
Jr., August 7, 2007, article................................... 250
United States Conference of Mayors, January 24, 2007, article.... 252
USA Today, Washington, D.C., article............................. 255
RISING CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN
HELPING COMMUNITIES PREVENT AND RESPOND TO VIOLENT CRIME
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R.
Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Biden, Kohl, Feingold, and Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Chairman Biden. The hearing will come to order. I welcome
our witnesses today, and let me begin by saying that Senator
Graham, who is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee--we have
a mild little issue on the floor called ``immigration'' we are
debating today, and he has some responsibilities relating to
that legislation. Senator Specter is going to be here. He is
at, I think, the Appropriations Committee. And Senator Grassley
is here. And I am going to make a brief opening statement, and
I would yield then to Senator Grassley, who has an introduction
he would like to make.
Let me begin by saying that I am glad you all could be here
today to address a subject which this Committee, in the 17
years I was the Chairman or Ranking Member, spent most of my
time dealing with, and that is the issue of violent crime in
America and what role, if any, the Federal Government should
have in helping States combat violent crime.
I would like to talk a little bit about that today, but let
me begin by thanking the witnesses and welcome our
distinguished experts. There are some old friends here who have
been working on this issue for a long time, and some new
friends that I hope will be working with me and others over the
next couple months to make some real changes in our funding
mechanisms for local law enforcement.
Last week we observed National Police Week, and it reminded
us all of the sacrifices that are made every single day by
those who are willing to go out there and protect our
communities.
I would like to ask the staff to find out who is banging up
there and tell them they will be arrested. I have a lot of cops
down here.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Biden. And if they do not stop, they are going to
be arrested.
But we meet today against the backdrop of an insidious
resurgence of violent crime in communities across the country.
For the first time in more than a decade, crime is on the
rise. The 2005 Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime
Report found that murders are up 3.4 percent--the largest
percentage increase in 15 years--with 16,692 murders in 2005--
the most since 1998. And I realize it is anecdotal, but you
need only turn on the television in any major metropolitan
area, and it seems as though the murder rate is up beyond that.
Again, we have no statistics beyond 2005 nationally, but I know
in Philadelphia, in Baltimore, in New York City, across the
country as I travel, that is the banner headline in most of the
news reports about murder rates exceeding last year's murder
rates at this point. Again, I want to make it clear. There are
no uniform statistics yet that I have available to me, but it
is a problem.
The report also found that other types of violent crime,
including forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, rose
2.3 percent.
The Police Executive Research Forum's recent study of crime
in 56 cities found that over the past 2 years homicides
increased more than 10 percent nationwide and 20 percent in
major cities. I am troubled, as all of us are, by these trends,
but, quite frankly, I am not surprised. The Federal Government
has taken its focus off of street crime since 9/11, asking law
enforcement to do more with less. And the administration, in my
view--and we are going to hear from an administration witness
in a moment--has understandably dedicated vast Federal
resources to counterterrorism. But it has done it at the
expense of law enforcement, in my view, robbing Peter to pay
Paul. I find absolutely no justification for the $2.1 billion
cut in local law enforcement assistance since 2001,
notwithstanding the need to vastly increase the amount of money
to deal with counterterrorism. There has been sort of a perfect
storm out there. The FBI has necessarily been pulled off a lot
of work it used to do in local law enforcement. The cities and
States have had to cut back as we have eliminated programs.
And, quite frankly, if anyone is likely to find a terrorist, it
is not going to be some brave Special Forces soldier wearing
night vision goggles. It is going to be one of your men or
women, Chief, who are going to be the ones who are going find
the terrorist occupying an empty apartment building that only
that cop walking the beat or riding by in his patrol car is
going to know has been vacant the last 4 years, and all of a
sudden there is a light on up there.
The President has killed the COPS program and drastically
cut the Justice Assistance Grants. And when the program was
announced by former Attorney General Ashcroft, he said, ``It
worked marvelously.'' It worked marvelously, and we are cutting
it? I have never quite fully understood that except for the
ideological notion that the Federal Government should not be
involved in dealing with local law enforcement. They call it
``devolution of Government.'' I call it the ``increase in
violent crime.''
The President has also redirected 1,000 FBI agents from
crime to counterterrorism, as is necessary, and as a result,
violent crime investigations by the FBI are down 60 percent.
have been proposing to increase the FBI by over 1,000 agents
the last 4 years. What are we doing? But this is what we are
going to talk about a little bit today. Fewer police on the
street preventing crime and protecting communities means more
crime, and it is as simple as that. It is not rocket science.
We went through this whole debate during the 1980s and 1990s,
when I was told the Biden crime bill would have no impact
because we never tried it before. We never increased that many
cops before. And we increased cops and violent crime went down.
And so our sheriffs and police officers have done an
extraordinary job in the face of diminishing Federal support,
but they also need help, in my view. We cannot focus on
terrorism at the expense of fighting crime, and that is a false
choice. We can do both. We need not be put in this dilemma of
the false choice of you either fight terrorism or you fight
street crime. We are fully within our capability of doing both.
As my father would say, ``Show me your budget; I will tell you
what you value.'' So I find this argument somewhat--anyway, I
find it difficult to swallow.
It seems to me we have to get back to basics. More than a
decade ago, we faced a similar violent crime crisis, although
the crime rates were much higher. We overcame that crisis by
supporting local law enforcement with the tools and resources
they needed to prevent crime whenever possible and to punish
crime wherever necessary. We passed the most sweeping anti-
crime bill in the history of this Nation and created the
Community Oriented Policing Services Program--the so-called
COPS program. We funded 118,000 local officers. We expanded
community policing across the Nation.
And it worked. Crime rates fell 8 straight years. The
violent crime rate dropped 26 percent; the murder rate dropped
34 percent. The Government Accountability Office has documented
the success of these anti-crime measures, and a recent
Brookings Institution study found that the COPS program was one
of the most cost-effective programs for combating crime. In
fact, the Brookings Institution found that for every dollar
spent on COPS, we save between $6 and $12 for the public
overall.
Today we have several distinguished experts to help us
understand how to best to use Federal resources to reverse
these trends and to help make our communities safer again. A
number of experts have also submitted written testimony which I
will reference during this hearing, and we will submit that
testimony so it is available for the record.
I now invite my good friend and former Chairman of this
Committee, Senator Grassley, to make any opening comments and
introduce a distinguished Iowan who is here to testify.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Thank you. I will not give an opening
statement. I will have to immediately go to serve in my
capacity as lead Republican on the Finance Committee starting
at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Chairman, you are involved in the caucus system in
Iowa, and I will bet you--
Chairman Biden. I have heard of it. I have heard of it.
Senator Grassley. And I will bet you have had people say it
is like running for sheriff.
Chairman Biden. Yes, it is, only it is not as hard.
Senator Grassley. You have one of those 99 Iowa sheriffs
before you. This stern-looking man over here is really quite
friendly. He is President of the Sheriffs' Association
nationally. He is a friend of mine, and he has been a sheriff
for a long time. So I am pleased to welcome to this Committee
again--because I had this opportunity a few weeks ago--Ted
Kamatchus, Sheriff for Marshall County, Iowa, and that is right
in the middle of our State. So you will be going through it
several times, and drive carefully. The staff person that
brought me here today says, ``I got two tickets from him 3
years ago.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Grassley. So he is doing his job, see.
As I said, just a few weeks ago he was here on another
subject, so it is great to see him back. This sheriff is here
today because he is a national leader, as the Sheriffs'
Association National President. But the most important thing
for your testimony is that he has got 30 years' experience in
law enforcement. He is an outspoken advocate for sheriffs
across the country, from border to border, coast to coast. I
have known him a number of years and know him to be a straight
shooter from the standpoint of talking. He tells it like it is.
You may be a straight shooter otherwise, too. Thank God I have
not experienced that.
He relates his practice firsthand, which he has gathered
from fighting crime, and particularly in Iowa, you have heard a
lot about the methamphetamine scourge that we have. He is out
there day in and day out on the front lines witnessing the
devastating effect of this drug on our communities. Hearing
from witnesses like the sheriff with experience and know-how is
essential for us to do our job. As both a sheriff for rural
Iowa and the President of the National Association, he will
provide invaluable insight into the necessity of providing
resources to local law enforcement, including what is always an
issue around here, the Byrne and JAG grant program and the COPS
program.
So on behalf of the Subcommittee, I am happy to welcome
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and,
Ted, we are going to welcome you a little later.
I have had the benefit of meeting with the sheriff, and I
look forward to his testimony.
We now have Mark Epley, who is senior counsel to the Deputy
Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice. He joined
the Justice Department and he is responsible for advising and
assisting the Deputy Attorney General in the formulation and
implementation of the Justice Department budget--which is
always an easy thing to do, right? He also oversees the grants
that the Justice Department makes to the Community Oriented
Policing Program and the Office of Justice Programs and the
Office of Violence Against Women. Prior to becoming senior
counsel, he served as Chief of Staff to the Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs. Before he joined
the Justice Department, Mr. Epley served as general counsel to
the House Armed Services Committee and as counsel to its
Military Personnel Subcommittee. He practiced law at Hunton &
Williams in Richmond, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., before
embarking on his career in public service.
We are happy to have you here, Mr. Epley, and we look
forward to your testimony. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MARK EPLEY, SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Epley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee about violent
crime in America and what the Department of Justice is doing to
assist our State and local partners with the prevention and
control of crime.
Due in large measure to the effectiveness and hard work of
State and local law enforcement, violent crime in America
remains near historic lows, according to the 2005 National
Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.
After rising to a dramatic peak in the early 1990s, violent
crime rates in America have declined steadily since. Although
in 2005 there were measurable increases in violent crime--with
regard to homicide, robbery and, to some extent, aggravated
assault, though rape went down--it is important to note that
the rate of violent crime in 2005 is the second-lowest reported
in last 30 years. Only 2004 was lower.
When we examine this data, we do not discern any nationwide
trend. Rather, what we see is that certain crimes in certain
communities are going up. For example, the rate of homicide
nationwide went up 2.4 percent in 2005. The Northeast, however,
experienced a 5.3-percent, the South a 0.8-percent increase,
and the West a 1.7-percent increase.
Likewise, cities of different sizes were affected
differently by crime. Very large cities did not see a change in
their homicide rate. Cities of 100,000 to 250,000 saw a
measurable increase in their homicide rate. And those 250,000
to 500,000 saw a decline. We do not see a particular nationwide
trend, and the data does not point to any particular cause. But
it is important to note, as the Attorney General said last
week, it is difficult to hope when you live in fear of crime.
When you look at the 2005 data, when you look at the 2006
preliminary data, notwithstanding its limitations, you see that
many communities face violent crime challenges, and the
Department is committed to working with those communities to
meet that challenge.
To better understand what is going on with violent crime in
America, the Attorney General asked the Department to go and
visit communities throughout the country, and we did that. We
visited 18 cities around the country, some of which had
experienced increases in violent crime and some decreases, to
understand what works and what the challenges are. And one of
the consistent themes that we heard was the value of Federal-
local partnership. And a specific example of that that was
raised was Project Safe Neighborhoods, an initiative through
which local law enforcement and local prosecutors can refer for
Federal prosecution gun crimes. And through that partnership we
have doubled the number of gun crime prosecutions in the last 6
years when compared to the preceding 6 years.
Another example of partnership is law enforcement task
force activity, like the FBI's Safe Streets Task Force, the
ATF's Violent Crime Impact Teams, the U.S. Marshal Service's
regional fugitive apprehension task forces. Whether partnering
through operations or prosecution, the Department is committed
to growing those relationships, but we appreciate that
partnership on the part of local law enforcement takes
resources. And the President's 2008 budget recognizes that
fact. It seeks $200 million to support the Violent Crimes
Reduction Partnership Initiative. These are funds that would
support multijurisdictional task forces led by local law
enforcement, working with Federal law enforcement, to target
relief to those communities that are facing challenges.
More immediately, the Attorney General announced last week
that the Office of Justice Programs would be investing $125
million through the Byrne discretionary program throughout the
country. And one of the focus areas of that program is
targeting violent crime. We hope that those resources will be
quickly delivered to the field to provide those communities
facing violent crime challenges relief.
Mr. Chairman, the Department is committed to working with
our State and local partners to add value where we can. But it
is important to understand that not all communities are
experiencing crime in the same way. Therefore, it is important
to understand that some communities are affected differently
than others in order to effectively target relief and in order
to partner effectively. And we are committed to doing that.
Thank you.
Chairman Biden. As the old joke goes, therein lies the
problem. You have a fundamentally different view of what is
going on than I do. You know, I kind of view fighting crime
like cutting grass. You go out there and cut your grass this
weekend and it looks great. If you do not cut it for another
week, it looks okay. In 2 weeks, it looks pretty bad. In a
month, it really gets tattered.
Why are you increasing the Byrne grants when you tried to
eliminate them? What epiphany did you guys have?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the
President's request for--
Chairman Biden. You just said you asked for $125 million
for the Byrne grants. Isn't that what you just said to me? I am
sorry. Maybe I misunderstood.
Mr. Epley. You are right, Mr. Chairman. The announcement
the Attorney General made last week was that $125 million of
the Byrne discretionary grant program would be invested across
the country to prevent and control crime.
Chairman Biden. What changed? I mean, you all have been
after eliminating it the last 6 years, so all of a sudden--I
mean, what was the epiphany? What happened to make you realize
you needed to do this?
Mr. Epley. Those funds, Mr. Chairman, were appropriated by
Congress as part of the joint resolution, the 2007--
Chairman Biden. Yes, we consistently do not listen to you.
If you notice, we completely disregard you every year you do
this. So you should not be surprised that we appropriated the
funds. I am wondering why you now--why is the Department--this
is unfair to do this to you. The Attorney General should be
here answering these questions. But do you know why? If you
know. I do not mean to be rude, but do you know why this year
you concluded that you needed that discretionary Byrne grant
money to get out to the States? Was it political pressure?
Mr. Epley. No, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the 2007 money,
the Department is merely seeking to faithfully administer the
funds that Congress appropriated in 2007. And--
Chairman Biden. But do you think we should be? What I am
trying to get at is in the past you have argued this money is
not necessary. You have argued it is not necessary, we do not
need it, and that the States and the cities and localities
could take care of it and you should not be in the business of
doing it. That is the argument you made, the Justice Department
under its past two Attorneys General has made the last 6 years.
And I am wondering why all of a sudden you think that now you
want to faithfully implement this program. Do you think it is
worthwhile? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you think the
Byrne grants are good? Do you think they are necessary?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, I need to speak--as far as looking
forward and the law enforcement investments that the
President's budget seeks to make--
Chairman Biden. Let me just ask you a very specific
question, Mark. And it is OK if you do not know the answer. But
it would be nice to know whether or not you think now the Byrne
grants are important. Do you think they are necessary in order
to fight crime? Or do you still--is the Department doing it
because of the political pressure we have? The reason it
matters, it matters in terms of what we can look forward to and
the kinds of cooperation we are going to get.
So if we had not put the money in, would you guys have put
the money in?
Mr. Epley. The President's 2008 budget request seeks $200
million to support multijurisdictional task forces led by local
law enforcement, and so I think that is the best expression of
the administration's view on how to effectively partner with
State and local law enforcement.
Chairman Biden. Now, you make the case that, you know,
crime varies from locale to locale. That is why I wrote the
COPS bill the way I did, because communities do not have to ask
for it. There is no requirement. We do not have to go in where
crime is not up. I find that it is an interesting thing. Mayors
and county council persons and county executives, they do not
ask for the money. The people who have real problems, they ask
for the money.
I mean, I think the reason why it has gotten such
significant, consistent, positive reviews is it did not mandate
anything. The COPS bill said, gee, if you need cops, go to your
mayor and see if you can get your city council to come up with
their piece of it and the Federal Government will kick in their
piece. So I cannot think of any program--can you think of any
program that better makes the judgment of whether or not
additional law enforcement resources in terms of a shield are
needed than the COPS program? Or do you think you all should
decide that federally?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, based on what we saw in the field
when we visited 18 communities around the country, some of
these communities had experienced an increase in violent crime,
and others a decrease.
Chairman Biden. Right.
Mr. Epley. And we observed a very curious thing, and that
is, in some communities there was both over time, 2000 to 2005,
a decrease in their staffing and a decrease in certain kinds of
violent crime.
On the other hand, there were communities in which there
were increases in their law enforcement staffing, and they
experienced increases in violent crime.
What we took away from that is that there are many factors
that drive violent crime. It might be demographic changes. Some
of the communities pointed to loosely organized gangs or street
crews, increasingly violent juvenile crime, the presence of
illegal guns, demographic changes, re-entering felons. All of
these things contribute to the nature of crime in a given
community.
Chairman Biden. True.
Mr. Epley. And based on what we saw and observed in the
field, the administration's view is that the best way to target
relief to those communities facing violent crime challenges is
to support law enforcement task forces. And essentially that is
an investment in veteran law enforcement for--
Chairman Biden. Why did you cut those task forces then? Or
you just think they are needed now? You are coming back with
$200 million, which is a significantly smaller amount than was
available for these joint task forces. You eliminated the
Violent Crime Strike Forces with the FBI. You wiped those out a
while ago, over my objection, and others' objections. So you
think that that is the best way to target this.
Now, you know, you are beginning to sound like a liberal
Democrat. It took me 10 years to fight the Democrats that there
are only a couple things we know about crime, violent crime.
One, after hundreds of hours of hearings, if there are four
corners at an intersection and a crime is going to be committed
on one of those corners and there are only three cops, it will
be committed where the cop is not. That one we know.
We also know that when people get to be about 40 years old,
they commit fewer violent crimes because it is harder to run
down the street and jump the chain link fence. You know, it
makes it a little more difficult. And so you all are saying
that what you are going to do is at the Federal level, you have
made a judgment, after visiting 18 localities, that, in fact,
there is really no correlation between the amount of resources
in terms of personnel and whether or not there is violent
crime. That is your bottom line, is it not? Is that what you
are saying?
Mr. Epley. I do not know that I--I would not want to say it
is--I would provide a more nuanced--
Chairman Biden. I would like to hear it.
Mr. Epley.--representation, namely, that when we look back
over time, we have law enforcement expenditure data up through
2004 on the dollar amounts spent on police protection by
Federal, State, and local law enforcement. Looking back over
time to 1990, we see that in each year the total amount of
money spent on police protection, adjusted for inflation, has
increased each year.
And so one of the conclusions that one can draw is that
State and local government have raised money and spent it on
police protection consistent with their primary responsibility
with keeping the peace and securing public safety. When we look
at this picture, we see the nature of crime in America--that
is, different crimes going up in different communities. We want
to add value where we can and make measurable--and invest in
things that yield measurable results.
Chairman Biden. Do you think there is any correlation
between the fact that we spend considerably more money
federally which leveraged States' spending more money and the
violent crime rate for roughly 10 years in a row dropping about
8 percent per year? Was there any correlation between the
increase in the Federal resources leveraging State resources
and the drop in violent crime? What do you think? Because this
is a basic, basic, basic disagreement here, and I am trying to
get at the core of where the administration is and where I am,
at least. So is there a correlation? I mean, to what do you
attribute that drop in crime?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, I do not know, but let me tell you
some of the observations that one can draw. One can see that
the rate of violent crime started going south, that is, got
better in the early 1990s--
Chairman Biden. Barely. Barely.
Mr. Epley.--even in advance of--
Chairman Biden. Barely, and we increased funding then,
even. That was before the COPS bill. But we increased Federal
funding over that period, from 1988 to 1992.
Mr. Epley. But even before the Omnibus Crime Control Act
money came out in 1994 and 1995 and so on, we began to see the
violent crime rate going down. There is no doubt about the fact
that over time--
Chairman Biden. Well, let me make the point. There was an
increase in funding commensurate with it going down before we
did the $30 billion crime bill in 1994. From 1988 to 1994, we
increased Federal participation and Federal money into local
law enforcement. And so it was not like we were cutting funding
and crime was going down. We were increasing Federal funding.
We did not increase it nearly as much as we did in 1994, but
beginning in 1995, with the increase, the significant increase
in Federal funding, there was a significant decrease in violent
crime.
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, what certainly you see when you
look at law enforcement expenditures, the rate of crime, and
the number of law enforcement sworn officers on board, you do
see-1995, 1996, and so on--an increase in the number of sworn
law enforcement members as a proportion of population. So that
is something that, when you look at the statistics over time,
you do see a change in that regard.
During the entire period, back starting in 1993 through
2005, you see the rate of violent crime declining.
Notwithstanding changes in the law--
Chairman Biden. Declining less and less and less every
year.
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, I think that statisticians that we
talk to say that at the rate of crime that is now measured, it
is difficult to measure meaningful changes in violent crime.
That is why I think in some communities you actually see the
homicide rate going up but the robbery rate going down, or vice
versa. Typically, that--
Chairman Biden. That has always been the case. You go back
40 years, there has not been a direct correlation that every
crime goes up in every category. There are times when crimes go
up in murder and they drop down in robbery or rape. There are
times when they go up in rape and they drop down in murder. It
is not, at least to the best--I have been doing this for a long
time, and I am using your statistics, and the statistics made
available from the UCR reports, I just find it interesting.
In 2000, we had 708,022 sworn officers, and the recent
report shows that there are 670,000 sworn officers in 2005. But
what I do not get is the argument you are making--I get it. The
argument you are making is that there are other things
unrelated to additional police officers, Byrne grants, law
enforcement block grants, all the things which you have
slashed. There are different things than those things that are
going to be able to impact on keeping the crime rate from
continuing to go up. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Epley. That is right, Mr. Chairman. I think that the
fundamental point that I would like to share as part of this
dialog about how best to respond to violent crime is that
Federal partnership with State and local law enforcement can
add value and that--
Chairman Biden. Yes, but you have slashed that. You have
slashed it dramatically.
Mr. Epley. But, Mr. Chairman, we would argue that the
nature of partnership is not always--the nature and
effectiveness of the partnership is not always measured in
terms of grant dollars, that, Mr. Chairman, Federal law
enforcement task forces like the FBI Safe Streets Task Forces,
the ATF Violent Crime Impact Teams, the Marshals' Fugitive
Apprehension Program, and so on, the aggressive prosecutions
that we have been able to pursue through Project Safe
Neighborhoods, an investment of $1.6 billion in Project Safe
Neighborhoods in terms of training local law enforcement and
prosecutors, designating special AUSAs to prosecute these
crimes--through that partnership we have doubled the number of
gun criminals in prison. And each and every one of those gun
criminals, essentially 35,000 more were prosecuted over the
last 6 years. They were taken out of the community they were
terrorizing and incapacitated from--
Chairman Biden. I am very familiar with it. In 2003 and
2004, you did not want to do that. It was us beating the living
devil out of you to have the U.S. Attorneys take over more of
these gun prosecutions because of the Federal laws we wrote,
because the penalties are so severe. I am the guy that drafted
that legislation, you know, the legislation laying out the
penalties and eliminating parole and probation. I actually sat
in this old place and authored that years ago, and--
Mr. Epley. It has been an effective tool, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biden. Well, anyway, look, I think one of the--I
see my colleague from Wisconsin is here, and I am going to
yield to him in just a moment? I just can assure you of one
thing. If we continue to decrease or keep at the reduced level
of roughly $2 billion a year that is not going from the Federal
Government to local law enforcement, roughly $1 billion a year
for hiring additional officers, you are going to see the
violent crime rate continue to go up. It is a pattern. You
know, Emerson once said, ``Society is like a wave. The wave
moves on, but the particles remain the same.'' God has not made
a new brand of man or woman in a millennia. And the idea that
we are going to be able to keep violent crime down with fewer
officers and fewer resources as populations increase, I find
that to be totally counterintuitive. But we can get back to
that. I have a few more specific questions.
Let me yield to my colleague now.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Senator Feingold. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you for chairing this hearing.
I also want to recognize, because we do not do it often
enough, the leadership that the Chairman has had on this issue
of fighting crime and getting this right for his entire career.
There is no one who has been more dedicated to the issue. I
benefit from being able to talk about COPS programs and his
leadership on the Violence Against Women Act every time I am
home. So, Mr. Chairman, I can finally talk about my 15 years in
the Senate--nothing like what you can say--and you maintain the
commitment over time, and I admire you for that very, very
much.
Chairman Biden. Thank you.
Senator Feingold. I would also like to thank all the
witnesses whose expertise is greatly needed at a time when the
Nation is struggling with an increase in violence and crime in
our communities. I would ask that my full statement be included
in the record.
While we all hear about the rising crime rates in cities
across America, one of the cities hardest hit has been
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. According to a report released by the
Police Executive Research Forum, Milwaukee's homicide rates
have increased by 17 percent, robbery rates by 39 percent, and
aggravated assault by 85 percent, all in the past 2 years.
These statistics alone are staggering, but the human toll is
truly heartbreaking.
On Monday, May 14, 2007, 4-year-old Jasmine Owens was shot
and killed by a drive-by shooter. She had been skipping rope in
her front yard.
On Thursday, February 22, 2007, Shaina Mersman was shot and
killed at noon in the middle of a busy shopping area. She was 8
months pregnant, and she died in the middle of the street.
These are but two of the senseless deaths in a list of
names that is far too long. It is my sincere hope that through
hearings like this and legislation such as Senator Biden's COPS
Improvements Act, Senator Feinstein's Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistant Grant Program bill, and my own PRECAUTION
bill, which I am introducing later this week, that we can begin
to address these very real problems.
The PRECAUTION Act recognizes that it is far better to
invest in precautionary measures now than it is to pay later
the costs of crime--a cost borne not only in dollars but in
lives. We have mourned the loss of far too many innocent lives
already. This legislation creates a national commission to
review the range of prevention and intervention programming
available, to identify the most successful strategies out of
that group, and to report on those findings to the criminal
justice community. It creates a targeted grant program through
the National Institute of Justice that will fund promising and
innovative techniques that need Federal dollars to be developed
into more reliable strategies.
In general, the PRECAUTION Act provides resources that will
further the integration of prevention and intervention
strategies into traditional law enforcement practices. I hope
that other members of the Judiciary Committee will join Senator
Specter and me in working to get this modest but important
piece of legislation passed. I also appreciate the support of
Ted Kamatchus, the President of the National Sheriffs'
Association, for my bill, because I believe that utilizing
prevention and intervention strategies is both smart and
necessary.
I would ask the witness to respond. I have mentioned that
Milwaukee has been particularly hard hit by rising crime rates.
What is the Justice Department doing to provide additional help
and resources to Milwaukee?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Feingold, the Department of Justice, we
share your concern about the violent crime challenge that
Milwaukee has been facing. As the Attorney General said last
week, it is difficult to dream dreams when you grow up in a
community that is weighed down with the fear of crime.
As you know, the Department of Justice invested
specifically in Milwaukee $2.5 million for its comprehensive
gang initiative--that $2.5 million, $1 million to prevention
work, $1 million to crime suppression, and half a million
dollars to re-entry prisoner re-entry. One of the most
effective ways to prevent crime is to keep those career
criminals from continuing in a life of crime.
In addition to those funds, specifically targeted to
Milwaukee and actually nine other cities around the country,
the 2007 grant money has begun to be both made available to
communities through solicitations, but then also the formula
money has begun to be pushed out to the field. So, for example,
the Justice Assistance Grant programs that the Department
administers actually have an increase this year, such that
Wisconsin will enjoy a $2.3 million increase in Justice
Assistance Grant money. Milwaukee itself stands to gain about
$400,000 more than last year in Justice Assistance Grants.
In addition to that, Mr. Feingold, the Project Safe
Neighborhoods money for the Eastern District of Wisconsin--a
lot of those dollars will go to work in Milwaukee--will go up
70 percent this year, and likewise, the PSN grants effort,
which is sort of the PSN Task Force effort as against gang
activity, will likewise increase by about 60 percent for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
So we hope through these investments--PSN, PSN Gangs, the
increase in the Justice Assistance Grant program--that
Milwaukee and Wisconsin will have the resources necessary to
suppress violent crime.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate that answer as far as it
goes. Some of it had to do with what has already been done
before. Some of it appears to be forward-looking. But the fact
is that there have been dramatic cuts advocated for some of the
most important Federal grant programs: the COPS program, the
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program. These are important
programs for Milwaukee. In fact, I am told that Milwaukee
received zero dollars in COPS hiring funds last year.
How does that track with the commitment to the problem in
Milwaukee?
Mr. Epley. The COPS hiring program, when it accomplished
its core mission, which was to hire 100,000 sworn law
enforcement officers, the administration began to invest
resources in other priority areas, including Project Safe
Neighborhoods, as a way to target relief to communities facing
violent crime challenges.
I believe 2005 was the last year in which Congress provided
funds for the universal hiring program. It was a small dollar
amount. Maybe the last year for which a substantial amount of
money was 2004. But in large measure, that universal hiring
program has been phased out, both through the administration
budgets that we have put forward, but also through the spending
priorities articulated in the congressional appropriations
acts.
Senator Feingold. I think it is regrettable that that has
been done, but let's work together to try to get the help to
the city that it needs.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Epley. Thank you.
Chairman Biden. Thank you.
Mr. Epley, do we have enough FBI agents? What do you think?
Mr. Epley. I think that the President's 2008 budget
requests resources sufficient to meet the Bureau's mission.
There are always difficult choices to make in a budget when it
is taken as a whole. The FBI has been asked to take on a
significant burden, standing up a bureau within a bureau to do
effective counterterrorism and counterintelligence work. And
standing up that bureau takes resources. They do a lot with a
limited budget.
Chairman Biden. If I gave you money for another 1,000 FBI
agents, could you use them?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, the funds that we--the resources
that the Department seeks, the administration seeks for the
Bureau, are best represented by the President's 2008 budget.
And--
Chairman Biden. Well, you know, in 2006, the FBI brought 34
percent fewer criminal cases to Federal prosecutors than in
2000. The FBI sent prosecutors only 3,500 white-collar crimes
in 2005 compared to 10,000 in 2000. And the FBI pursued 65
percent fewer hate crimes in 2005 than 2002. Director Mueller,
testifying before this Committee at the end of 2006, said that
he has to rededicate 1,000 FBI agents to dealing with the
bureau within a bureau, as you reference it. And my
understanding from very reliable sources, at least in my years
of working with the FBI, is that the FBI asked for more agents
this year and the request was denied.
I have introduced a bill that would allocate $160 million a
year to add 1,000 additional FBI agents dedicated to fighting
crime because, you know, it is kind of fascinating. I do not
know how--it is just fascinating, you know, only Orwellian
Washington-speak that we can talk about cutting 1,000 FBI
agents out of dealing with local law enforcement and say that
you are sending $200 million to deal with local law enforcement
problems, and that somehow we are able to do--it reminds me of
Ed Meese in fighting the crime bill, we can ``do more with
less.''
Now, I assume that means that something else is going on,
that there is no need for these 1,000 agents that were
involved, that have been redirected to terrorism. Is it that
the terrorism money is affecting violent crime in the street.
Is the counterterrorism work of the FBI, you know, impacting
positively on street crime in Milwaukee or Philadelphia or
Wilmington, Delaware? Is that part of the argument?
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what effect--we can
get back to you--the counterterrorism, counterintelligence
investments that have been made post-- 9/11 have had on violent
crime.
Chairman Biden. I can tell you it has not had any, but you
can check it out. Well, look, there used to be those old
movies, all those old B movies, ``Smokey and the Bandit.'' What
we have here is we have ourselves, our communications problem.
You guys view the world of violent crime and the problem that
localities and the Federal Government faces starkly differently
than I do. And the inability to provide the resources that we
were providing and increase the resources because of the
increased strain on the FBI I find very difficult.
Now, I know it is not your job. You are not at OMB. You do
not get to make those hard decisions. But there is a clear
distinction here. You know, for example, just providing a tax
cut--this is above both our pay grades. But just providing a
tax cut for those who make an average of $1.45 million a year,
that is an $85 billion a year expenditure. All I am asking for
is about $2.1 billion out of that for local law enforcement
like we did before.
But there seems to be a sense that--and the argument you
are making--I understand it--is that we really do not need it.
More cops are not really going to make any impact on violent
crime in America. The violent crime problem is much lower than
it has been at any time in recent history, although it has
gone--there has been an uptick. And, therefore, we are
copacetic. Things are going along pretty well right now.
You probably do not have the time, but you might find it
interesting to hang around and hear the testimony of the people
who are about to testify.
For the record, are you at liberty to provide us with the
18 localities you went to and observed to reach your
conclusions that there is nothing needed more than what you
have asked for? Are you prepared to do that?
Mr. Epley. Yes, sir. We can make those communities
available.
Chairman Biden. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Epley. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me just one
moment.
Chairman Biden. Sure.
Mr. Epley. I just want you to know that we do not view it
as copacetic. The fact that certain crimes in certain
communities are going up and many communities are facing a
violent crime challenge, we think that is a serious matter and
that we are looking for ways to most effectively partner with
those communities to make a difference.
Chairman Biden. Well, you know, there is an old expression
attributable to G.K. Chesterton. He said, ``It is not that
Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It has been
found difficult and left untried.''
I would paraphrase the nice rhetorical comment of the
Attorney General saying it is difficult to hope when you live
in fear of crime. I would argue it is difficult to cope with
fewer COPS and it causes crime.
But I thank you for your testimony, and like I said, we
have a fundamental, basic, distinct disagreement. I
fundamentally disagree with the administration. And I am going
to do everything I can to make it difficult for you not to
accept more money.
Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Epley. Thank you.
Chairman Biden. By the way, as you are leaving, one of the
other things is that you talked about the DEA and the FBI. Talk
to your DEA guys about the hiring freeze that is on and tell
them--just, you know, do your own little survey. Go out in the
field and ask them whether or not they think they can cope with
this hiring freeze. The impact of the freeze and the loss of
the positions that exist is expected to amount to 180 fewer
primary drug organizations than we are able to disrupt or
dismantle today and most likely approximately $300 million less
in revenue they will be able to deny drug traffickers. That is
the study that has been done by the DEA.
But, at any rate, you ought to go talk to those guys. You
know, get in the car and ride with them, like I do. I think you
may find it is a little bit different.
Anyway, thank you very much, and I appreciate your being
here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Epley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Biden. Our next panel, Ted has already been
referenced about eight times here, so I do not think I have to
introduce you again, Ted. Tom Nee, the President of the
National Association of Police Organizations. Chief Rick
Gregory, Chief of Police of New Castle County, Delaware. Mayor
Douglas Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey, and the President
of the United States Conference of Mayors. And Chief Russ
Laine, the Vice President of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police. And James Alan Fox, a criminologist from
Northeastern University.
I welcome you all. I will put each of your bios in the
record in the interest of time, but it is a very distinguished
panel. I want you to know I am not being merely parochial,
having the chief of the second largest police organization in
my State here. The New Castle County police and his
predecessors helped draft the Biden crime bill, literally not
figuratively. They were one of the lead agencies and, I would
argue, they have one of the best records in implementing
community policing in the country. That is why I wanted him
here.
I see the mayor is not here yet, so we will proceed, and
when he gets here, if he is coming, we will have him join us at
the table.
Why don't we start in the order in which you were--we will
go left to right, with you, Sheriff, and work our way across to
you, Professor, and then we will get into some questions if we
can. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TED KAMATCHUS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SHERIFFS'
ASSOCIATION, MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA
Sheriff Kamatchus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee. My name is Ted Kamatchus. I am the Sheriff of
Marshall County, Iowa, and the President of the National
Sheriffs' Association. I am pleased to have this opportunity to
appear before you today to express my concerns and what I know
to be the concerns of sheriffs all across the country with the
recent increase in violent crimes coupled with severe
reductions in Federal assistance to State and local agencies.
The essential message that I bring to you today is that the
Federal Government needs to play a larger role in crime
fighting. Together we need a coordinated national attack on
crime, recognizing that there is no single ``silver bullet''
solution. Political rhetoric must not prevail over action. This
is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an ``us'' issue.
It is for the citizens across this country.
As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in our
criminal justice system. In addition to providing traditional
policing within their respective counties, sheriffs also
facilitate local jails and are responsible for protecting and
providing security for the judicial system. Over 99 percent of
the sheriffs are elected and oftentimes serve as the chief law
enforcement officer of their counties. Consequently, they have
a keen understanding of the needs of our criminal justice
system as well as of the local communities which we serve.
In the early 1990s, Congress joined in a partnership with
local law enforcement to provide assistance in Federal funds
for hiring additional officers to put offenders behind bars and
fight the war on drugs. Unfortunately, in recent years, the
Federal Government has strayed from its commitment to fight
crime.
The majority of violent crimes we have recently been
experiencing have been related to drugs and an increase in gang
violence. Sheriffs have not been able to hire the number of
deputies they need to address these issues, and in many
jurisdictions, current levels of staffing only allow peace
officers to respond from one 911 call to another. Stacking
calls is not safe.
For nearly 30 years, Byrne-JAG grants have funded State and
local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs,
substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives,
and many other local crime control and prevention programs. It
has not just been drug task forces. We perceive these programs
as the underpinning of Federal aid for local law enforcement to
address violent crimes. Continued reduction in Byrne funding
will undoubtedly obliterate the successes that we have all
helped to achieve together.
In most States, Byrne-funded drug task forces are the
cornerstone of drug enforcement efforts. These task forces
represent the ideal in law enforcement, pooling limited
resources, sharing intelligence, strategically targeting a
specific problem, and eliminating duplication of efforts.
Moreover, these task forces allow Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and prosecutors to work together and share
intelligence to stem large-scale organized crime. However, most
States have had to scale back on the number of such task
forces.
Also, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the COPS
programs, particularly in the funding for the programs I have
mentioned distributed directly to local law enforcement
agencies--those that can best assess and allocate funds where
they have the most impact. COPS programs assure the quality of
policing services through better training and the highest
technology equipment possible.
We have heard time and time again that ``homeland security
begins with hometown security.'' Yet vital programs such as
Byrne and COPS that provide the necessary resources to ensure
that hometown security have both been cut drastically, and the
hiring initiatives for COPS have been zeroed out in most recent
years. It is of no surprise to those in the law enforcement
community that since law enforcement programs have been
depleted, the crime rate has been rising. We urge this Congress
to restore funds for the important public safety programs of
Byrne and COPS. We want that $1.1 billion for Byrne and the
$1.15 billion for COPS. We would also like to express our
thanks to you, Senator Biden, and also to Senator Feinstein for
taking a leadership role in their efforts to restore funding
for these two essential law enforcement programs.
In addition to highlighting the importance of the Byrne and
COPS programs, I would also like to urge the Senate to take
action on some measures that we believe will assist local law
enforcement in helping to address violent crime. The National
Sheriffs' Association has endorsed the Gang Abatement and
Prevention Act aimed at increasing and enhancing law
enforcement resources committed to investigation and
prosecution of violent gangs; the Second Chance Act which would
begin to address the Nation's escalating recidivism rates; and
the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act, cosponsored by
my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, which would facilitate
the use of electronic methamphetamine precursor logbook systems
in order to help States crack down on domestic meth production;
and, as was earlier mentioned, the PRECAUTION Act. We heard
earlier from Senator Feingold, and early in his statement, he
indicated that it will provide guidance in a direct and
accessible format to State and local law enforcement to ensure
that the criminal justice community is investing its limited
resources in the most cost-effective way possible.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that over 20 sheriffs
from border States were in Washington about a month ago, and we
are really concerned about this border initiative. The
immigration problem that we are seeing and the border security
are major, major issues for us. It is more than just an issue
of immigration. It is an issue of proliferation of drug
cartels, drugs, and actually the movement of contraband, which
are drugs, weapons, and people. We need something done about
that, and we ask that you hear those sheriffs, because they are
there every day on the borders fighting to help the Federal
Government.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you
and express my concerns. I hope I have conveyed to you the dire
situation that sheriffs are faced with across this country and
how critical Byrne and COPS programs are to us. The strain
caused by limited funds for law enforcement programs in the
face of increasing violence and drug abuse in our communities
should be a major inducement for Government and law enforcement
alike to share the responsibility for keeping our communities
safe. I ask for your full consideration on my comments today,
and I know that through your commitment and the efforts
together we can make our communities safer.
I want to thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Kamatchus appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Biden. Thank you very much, Sheriff.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. NEE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Nee. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Thomas Nee.
I am a police officer in the city of Boston. I serve as the
President of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association.
Chairman Biden. I thought you were from Selma, Alabama,
with that accent.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nee. Not with this accent, sir.
Chairman Biden. Welcome.
Mr. Nee. I also have the honor of serving as the President
of the National Association of Police Organizations,
representing 238,000 sworn law enforcement officers throughout
the United States.
This morning, in my testimony, as police officers, as corny
as it sounds, we have a duty to serve and protect. As the men
and women on the front lines to enforce the law, we have a
right, really, and a need for the Federal Government to stand
beside us and support us in those efforts in our communities.
That is why I am here today on behalf of America's law
enforcement community speaking to you today. America's State
and local law enforcement are being disregarded by the current
administration. They are being passed over for critical funding
to assist them in performing their roles in combating and
responding to crime and urban terrorism.
There are three issues that I will address this morning
that are of increasing concern to us at NAPO and our
membership: the decrease in funding for vital Department of
Justice State and local law enforcement assistance programs
witnessed over the past several years; the additional duties
taken on by local law enforcement agencies in the post-9/11
era; and finally, the recent increase in crime rates
experienced by communities nationwide. These issues are
interrelated and cannot be separated, particularly when
addressing the issue of rising crime in the United States.
The COPS program, together with the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant program and the Byrne Memorial Fund, gave State and
local law enforcement the necessary funding to truly assist
their efforts in keeping our Nation's communities safe. These
justice assistance programs have contributed countless
resources to help us combat and fight crime. I would also like
to point out, Mr. Chairman, that those funds simply were not
for hiring. They were also for retention, which is an important
component of it, and with your support these Federal grant
programs can be restored.
With the support of these Federal grant programs, community
policing has been a dominant force behind the dramatic
reduction in crime this Nation has witnessed over the past 13
years. In 2000, violent crime rates were at their lowest level
in 30 years, particularly in our major cities. More police
officers patrolling the streets not only provide greater police
presence in our communities but also increase police knowledge
of crime as well, thus allowing local law enforcement to do its
job in its communities.
A key factor in the implementation and success of community
policing has been the Federal support through funding and
resources to State and local law enforcement agencies. It is
not a coincidence that community policing was at its best and
national crime rates were at their lowest when Federal support
for programs such as COPS, the Byrne grant, and LLEBG was at
its highest. And it is also no coincidence that the steep
reduction in Federal support for these programs corresponds
with the increases in violent crime rates nationwide.
Listening to the earlier testimony, I have an absolute
positive, fundamental disconnect with what was represented by
the administration because we have captured a small sample of
what is going on in the country and some of our samplings in
some of the major cities.
A December 2001 study by researchers at the University of
Nebraska at Omaha found that the COPS program is directly
linked to the historic drop in U.S. crime rates in the 1990s.
The ``More Cops = Less Crime'' statistical analysis produced by
you, Mr. Chairman, together with Congressman Weiner, gives
further evidence to the link between the COPS grants and the
decreases in crime from 1995 to 2000.
According to the ``More Cops = Less Crime'' evaluation, the
effects of the COPS grants from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year
1999 on violent crime during that 1995-2000 period were
substantial. Approximately $2 billion was provided nationally
in hiring grants and over $3.6 million was provided in
innovative grants to cities with populations over 10,000.
Nationwide, police departments in these cities reported that
occurrences of violent crimes decreased by well over 150,000
between 1995 and 2000.
Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, received $23.5 million in
COPS hiring grants and $2.34 million in COPS innovative grants.
Phoenix law enforcement estimates that these funds helped
reduce reports of violent crime by over 1,500 incidents and
reduced overall crime by 7,679 incidents. Los Angeles,
California, received nearly $194 million in COPS grants and
$2.3 million in COPS innovative grants between fiscal year 1994
through 1999. And during this time, violent crimes were reduced
by 10,500 incidents and overall crime in the city by 53,435
incidents.
Phoenix, Arizona, law enforcement agencies have had to
redeploy their officers and resources to infrastructure
protection such as water treatment facilities, Arizona Public
Service power stations, airports, among other infrastructure.
More importantly, they seem to have a pair of handcuffs on them
with the immigration problem down there. Phoenix has seen
record increases in violent crime. Again, to show the
disconnect between the administration and what we are
experiencing on the street, in 2005-06 the city saw a nearly 5-
percent increase in violent crime rates, including a 4.5-
percent rise in homicides and an over 6--percent rise in
aggravated assault. In 2004 through 2006, Phoenix law
enforcement saw an astounding 12-percent increase in homicides
and an almost 20-percent increase in aggravated assault over a
2-year period.
Los Angeles, California, has seen a substantial amount of
resources shifted to homeland security details also. Hundreds
of law enforcement officers have been assigned to terrorism
prevention issues to protect infrastructure, terrorism task
forces, and counterterrorism duties. Although L.A. has seen a
decrease in the overall level of violent crimes, including
murder, it has seen significant increases in gang-related
homicides and violent murders.
In New York City, the city has lost over 4,000 policemen
absent from the streets of New York since 1999, and that is up
to and including the 9/11 era. After 9/11, the city added an
additional 1,000 police officers to counterterrorism
activities. So that is 5,000 policemen missing from the streets
of New York City, and that is not even comprehensible in our
world.
In Boston, my home city, the Boston miracle, as it was
called, in the 1990s, it was a national model for policing
around the country. Recently, we have seen an increase and a
spike in violence. Between 2004 and 2006, reported homicides
alone increased nearly 23 percent in the city of Boston--the
highest homicide rate the city has seen in 11 years. In 2004 to
2006, we have seen a 10-percent rise in robberies and a
staggering 37-percent rise in aggravated assaults involving
firearms.
Mr. Chairman, I can add more testimony from Houston, Texas,
their statistical analysis; Detroit, Michigan. I do not know
where the administration is sampling, sir, but we are
experiencing it in the street, and we represent most of the
major cities in the country, the rank-and-file line officers.
We have our problems today.
The biggest problem of all is I think what the chiefs will
share with you as well as the rank-and-file testimony here
today. It will be in our major cities around the country post-
9/11. We have experienced anywhere from 15 to 18 percent of our
staffing is missing from the streets, and I agree with you, Mr.
Chairman, as we have in the past. If you do not cover all four
corners of the blocks, the genie is out of the bottle. And we
can have all the task forces we want and all the prosecution
methods behind it, but that is after we lose. That comes in at
the eleventh hour, and that is not a good thing. We are
suffering right now out here in the streets. We are doing our
very best to keep the borders of this country safe, and we need
the efforts of the United States Federal Government to complete
the task at hand.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nee appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Biden. I think they spent most of the time down in
Crawford getting the crime statistics. I do not know.
I should not be so flippant because this is such a serious
subject.
Before we go to you, Colonel, I just want to point out one
thing, just for the record. If you take a look at the crime
statistics--I just want this to be in the record. Let me find
them here. Take a look at the crime statistics. Let us assume
that what is stated is true. The number of crimes committed in
the year 2006, whether they are up or down, they are still way
beyond what a civilized society should be accepting. So this
premise that as long as--and I will submit that for the record.
This premise that as long as it is not really going back up
above what it was pre-- crime bill that somehow things are OK
is, I find, a preposterous notion. The first primary function
of Government is to keep folks safe so they can walk the
streets.
I thought I had them right at hand. I apologize for the
intervention, but I will submit them for the record so that we
know just how high the low is. It is still very high.
Chief, welcome. And, by the way, I might add I am being
very parochial here. We have a whole bunch of what I
facetiously refer to as ``my guys'' here. We have the Chief of
Dover, Delaware, Smyrna, Delaware, South Bethany, Delaware
State Police, the Delaware Police Chiefs Council, the
Lieutenant of New Castle County, and Corporal Trinidad, who
speaks for all of them when they need to be spoken for. I
welcome you all here today, and I hope I get a chance to spend
a little time with you.
But, again, I am not just being parochial when I do that, I
say to my friend from Wisconsin. These are the folks that
helped write that first bill. They really did. This one did not
come out of--no one handed it down. And, by the way, NAPO was
the single biggest help at the time when we started this thing
off. Thank you for your continued support.
No more advertising. Chief, fire away.
STATEMENT OF RICK S. GREGORY, CHIEF OF POLICE, NEW CASTLE
COUNTY, DELAWARE
Chief Gregory. Good morning, sir, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here with you this morning and the
distinguished members of your panel and Committee and also my
fellow law enforcement professionals. I am the Chief of Police
for New Castle County. I have been there since the last day of
September in 2006. It is the second largest agency in the State
of Delaware and, as you mentioned, a pioneer agency in
community policing in the State of Delaware.
Our agency consists of 364 officers, We cover about 426
square miles with about 450,000 citizens. During 2006, our
officers responded to or handled approximately 162,000 calls
for service. For the year 2007, we will surpass that mark
considering that we have already handled some 82,000 calls for
service.
Recently, we have become predominantly a call-driven or
911-driven agency. The bulk of our time is responding from one
911 call to the next. This is not effective community policing,
as you know. In our agency and in our county, we are seeing a
level of violence such as the armed robbery of a pizza delivery
person as a commonplace criminal act. From 2005 to 2006, we saw
a 38-percent increase in these types of robberies. This type of
crime has made violence impersonal and second nature to many
offenders. People are shot for reasons for simply being on the
wrong side of the street or for saying the wrong things, and we
must curb this growing trend. While doing so, we have to also
realize that we are going to be doing it with less Federal
resources unless we can have some help.
A recent article in USA Today entitled ``Youth Gangs
Contribute to Rising Crime Rates,'' May 15, 2007, stated,
``increasing violence among teenagers and other youths appears
to have contributed to a nationwide crime spike.'' This trend
is only the beginning of what we sure believe is going to be an
increase for the future.
We in Delaware, and specifically New Castle County, are not
immune from the national trend. Last summer one of our
communities was bombarded with gang violence that eventually
led to a full-scale brawl between rival gangs. One was on one
side of the street and one was on the other side of the street,
not realizing they were rival gang members until they began
communicating with hand signals that led to a brawl. One person
was shot, one person was stabbed, one was killed. Twelve
subjects were arrested for this battle, and of those twelve--
and this is the alarming part--six of them were juveniles. When
considering this homicide and the comments from the USA Today
article, we try to remember that we are discussing juveniles
with weapons. Firearms in the hands of adults are deadly, but
consider firearms in the hands of an immature gangster wannabe
at the ripe age of 13. It is astounding.
The successful investigation of this case and ultimate
prosecution was, in large part, due to the expertise offered by
our federally funded gang officer. The Federal funding for this
officer from the Edward Byrne Memorial Fund allows us to
dedicate an officer to the growing problem of gangs and gang
violence. Additionally, Federal money spent on the community
crime intervention program allows us to dedicate a Spanish-
speaking officer to a specific area that is troubled with the
problems of Hispanic gang influences. Together these officers
provide invaluable intelligence on our gangs. Communities
without Federal funding have difficult dealing with these types
of problems.
Many of these juveniles, as we know, start their life as
delinquency runaways. From 2002 until 2006, our agency saw a
22-percent increase in the number of juvenile runaways. This,
in effect, is a 22-percent increase in the number of kids
primed for recruiting by gangs and the gang culture.
One initiative that is working very effectively in Delaware
is the Safe Streets program, a collaborative effort involving
the four largest police agencies and the Department of
Corrections. Combined Federal money in support of this program
is close to $1 million. Money spent on ventures such as this
are truly effective weapons in the everyday battle to reduce or
contain violent crime. Expanded measures in this regard remove
repeat offenders from our communities and free up time for our
officers to return to the job of community policing.
With that, I come with a request that the expansion of
programs such as Safe Streets, gang officers, and community
crime intervention officers. Allowing a small number of
officers to have a magnified and directed impact on communities
that are most needing of our help will make an impact. In
addition, their efforts serve to rid the communities of repeat
offenders, which frees up the officer on the street to spend
more time in their communities working to break this increasing
cycle of violence. While these positions are of great value,
their longevity is limited due to the funding source. Byrne
money, which funds these positions, is an excellent resource,
but it is not a suitable device for hiring officers. COPS
money, as you well know, with its 3-year hiring grant is a
better funding source for stability reasons. Federal money
spent on these proven successful endeavors is money well spent
on the security of our communities.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for
allowing me to come today. I want to thank you also for the
leadership that you have proven time and time again. I am not
new to community policing. I am new to the area. But I can tell
you that nationally we appreciate your leadership and support
in what we do.
[The prepared statement of Chief Gregory appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Biden. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor, you have a job most of us up here would not take
on a bet, the most difficult job in America. I really do think
being the mayor of a major city is the epicenter of requiring
political skill. I am flattered you are here. We had a chance
to talk when we spoke to the National Mayors Conference, and
your input and the input of your colleagues is vitally
important here, and I am delighted you would take the time to
be here. I know you have got a lot of other things to do, but
thank you very, very much for being here. I am anxious to hear
what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS H. PALMER, MAYOR, TRENTON, NEW
JERSEY, AND PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mayor Palmer. Thank you, Senator, and it is a pleasure for
me to be here. My name is Douglas Palmer. I am the mayor of
Trenton, New Jersey, and I have the honor of being the
President of The United States Conference of Mayors, whose
membership represents 80 percent of the population of the
United States of America. We also want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for coming to our January meeting and discussing our
ten-point plan, one point of which we are talking about, the
COPS program, strong cities, strong families, for a strong
America. And quite frankly, you cannot have strong cities if
you do not have safe cities.
As you were talking to Mark Epley--and he seems like a nice
enough fellow. I had the opportunity to serve on a few panels
with him. And I was just realizing as you were grilling him--I
mean talking to him, President Bush does not pay him enough
money for what he has to do. And, actually, what he has to do
is really go against logical thinking in what we see the trends
are.
We want to also thank you for your leadership, and I know
President Clinton talks about the Clinton crime bill, and he
certainly was a large part in that. But we also know that it is
the Biden crime bill that helps put us on the right track.
You know, a little over 400 days ago, while I was in Los
Angeles with Attorney General Gonzales at an event talking
about crime, my police director got a call. It was a Friday
afternoon, a lovely spring afternoon. I think it was the 1st of
April. And he got a call, because we had experienced some gang
violence and retaliation earlier in the week that a 7-year-old
girl by the name of Tajhanique Lee, while riding her bike, what
every young child should be doing on a nice warm spring day,
was caught up in the crossfire of two rival gangs, and this
beautiful young girl was shot in the face. Fortunately, God
spared her life, and she is still a beautiful young lady. But I
had the task, like many of my colleagues, mayors and police
chiefs--and I am really honored to be with these individuals--
to talk to her mother about 2 hours after it happened in the
hospital. Far too often, mayors have to make these calls.
Mayors have to go to the funerals of law enforcement people, of
law-- abiding citizens and children far too often. We certainly
are on the front lines.
I would ask Mark--and I know he left, but I would like him
to come to Trenton. If he thinks things are copacetic, the
status quo is acceptable, I plead with him to come to the city
of Trenton where we have seen a reduction in crime, almost 27
percent, but an increase in homicides directly attributable to
drugs, illegal guns, and gangs. Our homicide rates go up, as I
think these individuals can tell you, fueled by guns, illegal
guns in the hands of criminals, and drugs, which is a part of
that, and gangs.
While we have reduced crime, the fear level is as high as
ever. It is not American to be afraid to sit out on your porch
in the afternoon. It is not American to have your children not
use a park that we have paid for because it is not safe. This
is just not American.
We also see that this is attributable in part because of
the rise in juvenile crime. We see a culture today that is
almost a subculture, and we see young people very willing to
join gangs, to be lured into gangs, use illegal weapons and to
shoot each other. It is just astonishing to me that the
administration would think that because certain areas in this
country are not experiencing an increase in violent crime that
everything is OK. It is almost like if you have heart problems,
do not take any medicine, wait until you have the heart attack.
Well, we need medicine. We need the kind of support that
you have had and shown over the years. We urge Senate passage
of the COPS reauthorization bill sponsored by yourself, urge
passage of your Second Chance Act to help with prisoner re-
entry, which is critically important. And the U.S. Conference
of Mayors has endorsed Senator Feinstein's Gang Abatement and
Prevention Act of 2007 and urge passage. And, of course, the
COPS and the Byrne block grants should be fully funded this
year.
You cannot have homeland security and not have hometown
security. And the point you made was very well taken. We do
need 1,000 more FBI agents because our police will tell you
that when they used to have the partnership with the Federal
Government to have FBI work with them on these very serious
cases, now they are fighting counterterrorism. And that is
fine. But we need additional FBI agents to come and work with
our local law enforcement to help federally put these bad guys
away.
We truly need this Federal partnership. When we see school
violence is on the rise, we know our police have to use more
resources there. And what is also troubling for us without a
Federal partnership is that the police--and they will tell you,
and mayors will tell you--we will have to spend whatever we
have to make our citizens safe, and that means a lot of times
using resources that we would have for parks, for economic
development, for senior citizen programs, for things that are
the lifeblood of a city, that help sustain a city, that help
make cities livable, we have to take those moneys away for law
enforcement because our Federal partners are not at the table
with us.
So we urge that through your leadership this be done. It is
unfortunate that the administration--I hope somebody from the
administration is here to listen to these individuals whose
officers put their lives on the line each and every day, whose
mayors fight the good fight each and every day. But like in
everything else, we need a Federal partner. This is a Federal
responses needed in a partnership to deal with this problem. It
has worked in the past, and we know with the resources that it
will work for all of us in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Palmer appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Biden. Mr. Mayor, I am going to place in the
record, by the way, for each one of you your bios and what I
had prepared for you. But I must say you have done a remarkable
job. I know Trenton relatively well. I know New Jersey pretty
well. And with all due respect, Mr. Mayor, not every mayor in
America is making the choices you have made. You are making
some tough choices between, figuratively speaking, street
lights and cops. And you are making them for cops. But a lot of
other mayors are not either able to or think they should make
those choices, and it is truly remarkable that you are running
against the trend here because your crime rate is down. Your
crime rate is down.
But one of the things that caused me to draft that
legislation back in the early 1990s was the thing that
frightened people the most is the randomness of crime. The
randomness. All the studies that we have done and read and all
the hundreds of hours of hearings, most people thought they
could protect themselves against being victimized by putting
themselves in a position where they avoided the bad
neighborhood, the bank teller, the ATM machine at midnight,
walking in a certain--they thought they could do that. But what
happens in your city and every other city, and the nature of
the change in the crime, demonstrates once again it is totally
random. There is nothing you can do in many cases to give
yourself the sense that you are out of harm's way. It is not
just avoiding ``the bad neighborhood.''
So, anyway, I just wanted to state for the record that I
think your leadership of the National Conference of Mayors has
been remarkable. But, more importantly, your day-to-day hands-
on leadership in Trenton, New Jersey, has been remarkable. And
I just want to note that for the record. And I am sure my
Republican colleagues, if they were here, would say the exact
same thing. It has been remarkable.
Mayor Palmer. Well, Senator, I just would like to say our
homicide rate is up, though. Our regular--
Chairman Biden. I know that. But your overall crime-- but
my point is that is what is happening all over. What is
happening all over is you see these trends. The homicide rate
is up, gun crimes are up. You also find gangs are up. MS-13 is
becoming visible. It is a little bit like when-- Ted will
remember--15 years ago--that is not true--17 years ago, I was
in Iowa--having nothing to do with what Senator Grassley
referenced of running for President--as a United States Senator
in Iowa and warning that ice was coming, methamphetamine was on
its way, and how it was coming and wrote a very extensive
report.
And you look around the corner, juvenile crime is up. I
would argue one of the reasons juvenile crime is up is because
community policing is down, because school resource officers
are not available any longer, because the gang initiatives have
been cut, because when you make choices, you have got to make
very hard choices in the allocation of these moneys.
So I do understand certain aspects of crime are up, but
overall it has been remarkable what you have done in the face
of these significant cuts. Chief, welcome. It is great to have
you here.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. LAINE, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, ALGONQUIN,
ILLINOIS
Chief Laine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and
good morning,
Senator Kohl. My name is Russell Laine, and I serve as the
Chief of Police in Algonquin, Illinois. For those of you
unfamiliar with the area, Algonquin is a community of
approximately 33,000 located about 40 miles northwest of
Chicago.
I am here today as the Vice President of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police representing over 20,000 law
enforcement executives throughout the world. I am pleased to be
here to discuss the challenges currently confronting the U.S.
law enforcement community and our need for an increased level
of support from the Federal Government.
In the United States, there are more than 18,000 law
enforcement agencies and well over 700,000 officers who patrol
our State highways and the streets of our communities each and
every day. During the past 15 years, these officers, and the
law enforcement agencies they serve, have made tremendous
strides in reducing the level of crime and violence in our
communities. This has been accomplished in part because these
officers have an intimate knowledge of their communities and
because they have developed close relationships with the
citizens they serve.
Yet despite the best efforts of our Nation's law
enforcement officers, the disturbing truth is that each year in
the United States, well over a million of our fellow citizens
are victims of violent crime. Unfortunately, in the last 2
years we have seen a steady increase in the rate of violent
crime in the United States. According to the Uniform Crime
Report, violent crime rose at a rate of 2.5 percent during
2005. To put that in perspective, that is an additional 31,479
victims.
Unfortunately, this increase in the crime rate appears to
be accelerating. For the first 6 months of 2006, the crime rate
rose at a rate of 3.7 percent, when compared to the same
timeframe in 2005. If this rate holds for the final 6 months--
and I am sorry to say that I believe it will--it will mean that
an additional 47,000 Americans will find themselves as victims.
While there are many different theories as to why violent
crime is increasing in these communities, after years of often
double-digit declines, there is one fact that we all can agree
on: no one is immune from crime. What were once considered
``urban'' problems--drug addiction, drug distribution, violent
crime, gangs, and poverty--have migrated to suburban and even
rural communities. Gangs, guns and drugs are everywhere.
In many ways, my hometown of Algonquin typifies the
problems that are plaguing many American communities.
Traditionally, the Algonquin Police Department has not had to
deal with the same level of crime and violence that has
confronted larger communities and cities. For example, nearly
22 years ago when I first arrived in Algonquin, the pressing
issues facing the department were dealing with curfew
violations, traffic issues, parking issues, and stray cows and
horses that wandered onto main thoroughfare.
Today, that thoroughfare is an eight-lane highway, and the
Algonquin Police Department is dealing with more dangerous
criminals who are committing increasingly violent crimes. For
example, Algonquin just experienced a rather infamous first in
the history of our community: our first drive-by shooting.
In years past gang activity within Algonquin could be
accurately described as local youth wannabes who thought they
were acting cool and seeking an identity for themselves, and
sometimes we had the random contacts with hard-core gang
members from other towns who were merely passing through
Algonquin going from one community to another. Today there is
an active gang presence within our community, and the attendant
violence is increasing both in frequency and intensity.
I think it is safe to say that the days of worrying about
stray cows are over.
And it is not just gang-related and other violent crimes
that are on the increase. We are witnessing a rise in property
crimes and, like many communities around the country, a new
wave of financial and identity crimes.
Another example of this chilling trend in the Midwest is a
new drug called ``cheez,'' a mix of black heroin and Tylenol.
It is mostly sold to minors and is becoming available in the
high schools. As you can imagine, responding to and
investigating all of these crimes is labor intensive and a
time-consuming process.
Unfortunately, our ability to do this is becoming
increasingly strained. To be blunt, our resources are stretched
to the limit. As a result, we have not been able to add the
additional officers that would allow us to combat these
criminals aggressively. We have not been able to take advantage
of necessary training that would leave our officers better
prepared to confront the new breed of criminals operating in
our community. And we have not been able to acquire the
sophisticated technology to help us in our crime fighting and
which is available to the bad guys.
It is telling that this increase in violent crime, drug
sales, and gang activity in America corresponds directly to the
substantial decline in funding for State, tribal, and local law
enforcement from the Federal Government assistance programs.
I will not use my time here this morning to enter into a
prolonged discussion of the current budget situation, but I
would ask that I be able to submit a copy of the IACP's Budget
Analysis for the record.
Chairman Biden. Without objection, it will be placed in the
record.
Chief Laine. Thank you.
I do believe it is important to note that when compared to
the fiscal year 2002 funding level of $3.8 billion, the
administration's fiscal year 2008 proposal represents a
reduction of more than $3.2 billion, or 85 percent, and,
unfortunately, no program has been hit harder over the last
several years than the COPS program.
These cuts are particularly troubling because the IACP
believes that the COPS program played an integral role in our
ability to reduce crime rates in the past. By providing law
enforcement agencies with the necessary resources, training,
and assistance, the COPS program has become an invaluable ally
to State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies. It is
this fact that makes the current situation completely
unacceptable, not only to the Nation's entire law enforcement
community, but also to the citizens we are sworn to protect
from both crime and terrorism. It is an undisputed reality:
State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies are on the
front line of effective terrorism prevention. If you recall
earlier, it was brought up that--the question was whether
terrorism affects violent crime on the street. I would suggest
that what really happens, it is the work that the men and women
in law enforcement do on the street in their communities and
the State highways that really affects how effective we are on
terrorism.
We willingly accept the new responsibilities in combating
terrorism, but our ability to continue with traditional
policing is our best weapon against terrorism. For this we need
your assistance.
State, tribal, and local law enforcement are doing all that
we can to protect our communities from increasing crime rates
and the specter of terrorism, but we cannot do it alone. We
need the full support and assistance of the Federal Government.
That is why programs like the COPS program and the Byrne-JAG
program have been so successful and so popular in the state and
local law enforcement community. And that is why it is so
essential for these programs to be fully funded in fiscal year
2008 and the years that follow.
Unfortunately, as the IACP Budget Analysis makes clear, the
reductions these critical programs have suffered in recent
years and the cuts contained in the proposed fiscal year 2008
budget have the potential certainty to cripple the capabilities
of law enforcement agencies nationwide and force many
departments to take officers off the streets, eliminate the
promise of vital communications between agencies during a major
public safety emergency or natural disaster--all leading to
more crime and more violence in our hometowns and, ultimately,
less security for our homeland.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our
comments today, and I also appreciate your leadership in our
efforts. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Laine appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Biden. Thanks, Chief.
Professor, great to have you as the clean-up hitter here,
seriously.
STATEMENT OF JAMES ALAN FOX, THE LIPMAN FAMILY PROFESSOR OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Fox. Thank you very much. I am pleased to be here today
alongside these law enforcement representatives from
communities around the country.
Now, I do not work the streets like these brave men. I live
and work in the city of Boston, though. I do actually patrol
the halls of the campus, a 31-year veteran of the lecture
halls. I live and work in Boston, and Boston, of course, is a
city that has grappled with a disturbing increase in gun
violence, especially related to youth and gang activity, as
Officer Nee has described.
You know, they say that misery loves company. Well, for
whatever consolation it is--and I am not sure it is any
consolation--Boston has lots of miserable company, based on the
crime statistics that we have for 2005 and the preliminaries
for 2006 and some other reports, such as the PERF report.
Just about a year ago, I was here to testify for the
Democratic Policy Committee of the House about specifically the
issue of the cuts in the COPS program and Byrne program, and
what is interesting is if you look at the decline in police
resources, it has not been across the board. Since 2000, the
number of police officers per capita in cities, large cities,
the 58 cities, the largest American cities, has been a 10-
percent decline. The rest of the Nation, there has been no
change at all. So it is the cities that have seen this big
downturn. And, of course, it is the cities where we are seeing
the big increases in gangs, guns, and violence and homicides.
Now, you also, Mr. Chairman, pointed out that it is not
only the decline in resources that we are robbing Peter to pay
for Paul, to use your phrase. I think it is more--not just
robbing. We are robbing, raping, and murdering Peter to pay for
Paul, the shift in resources from hometown security to homeland
security. And I think to understand why this has happened, you
have to consider who is at risk for these different types of
criminal, terrorism versus street violence.
The people most at risk for terrorism, of course, are the
wealthy, the powerful, those who commute on the airlines, those
who work in our financial hubs. The people who are most at risk
for ordinary street violence are poor. They live in certain
sections of D.C. and Baltimore and Newark. And when you really
look at the numbers, you know, it is tragic, the thousands of
deaths that occurred on 9/11. But many more people are gunned
down every year in America in ordinary street violence than
what happened in 9/11. And I do not want to weigh one death
against another, but again, the people who are at risk for the
kinds of tragedy we see every year are poor and powerless, and
that is where we are seeing the problem.
What is particularly disconcerting--I do not want to get
too political about this, but I know that President Bush was
discussed earlier and the fact that he was making cuts. It was
so disingenuous. He was running for re-election, standing
shoulder to shoulder with New York's finest at the same time
cutting the Federal budgets for law enforcement that was
supporting New York City.
The other thing about it is I know people want tax cuts.
You mentioned tax cuts. A few hundred extra dollars in your
pocket is not very much consolation if you are staring down the
wrong end of a gun.
The thing about all these cuts is we may wake up someday
and decide, gee, you know, maybe we should not have cut all
that money, all the COPS money, it was so successful, we made a
mistake. Well, you cannot just flip the switch and return the
staffing in quick form. It takes time to recruit. It takes time
to train. It takes time to provide those new recruits with
experience. So it is unfortunate that we did this, and we are
going to have to get back to the--turn the clock back.
Now, I am here not so much to talk about policing, because
certainly we have heard that. Smart crime fighting involves a
balanced between enforcement, from community policing to
identifying illegal gun markets; treatment, from drug rehab on
demand to prisoner re-entry services; as well as crime
prevention, from family support programs to summer jobs for
high-risk youth. Regrettably, the prevention approach has at
times been disparaged as a waste of money, it is worthless, it
is soft on crime. Yet this cynical perspective reflects gross
misunderstanding of the process and goals of prevention and a
selective examination of the evaluation outcomes. Simply put,
prevention programs can work; good prevention programs that are
well implemented and well funded do work.
Too often, prevention initiatives are implemented on a
shoestring, a very short shoestring, with a brief window of
opportunity to show results. It is a recipe for failure.
Now, I am going to talk about five principles of crime
prevention and violence prevention that are really critical to
this investment.
First of all, no program is successful all the time and for
all individuals. No matter what the initiative, there will be
failures. Rather than focusing on the failures, as the media
likes to do--those ``bad news bearers,'' I call them--the goal
should be a reasonable reduction in offending rates. In light
of the enormous social and administrative costs and human tolls
and suffering associated with each criminal act, even modest
gains are worthwhile.
Secondy, prevention should have an emphasis on the prefix--
on the prefix ``pre'' as in prevention. The greatest
opportunity for positive impact comes with a focus on
children--those who are young and impressionable and will be
impressed with what a teacher, a preacher, or some other
authority figure has to say. Youngsters, as we know, are often
drawn to gang activity. It is actually for positive reasons.
They are drawn to gangs because of the camaraderie, the
respect, the status, the excitement, the protection. Our
challenge is to find other ways, alternative means that
youngsters could derive the same kinds of need fulfillment in
programs that foster positive development.
Third, patience is much more than a virtue. It is an
essential requirement. Prevention is not a short-term strategy.
Unfortunately, many prevention programs are given short windows
in which to show progress, and they are often terminated before
the final results are in.
Fourth, prevention should take a multifaceted approach.
There are many points of intervention for successful crime
prevention. I do support the gang abatement program, but we
should also look for promising programs for young children.
Several proven and promising strategies are directed at at--
risk youth, at families with young children. Rather than assail
young mothers who are unable to deal with their children, we
need to assist them in trying to raise healthy children. In
addition, we have school-based initiatives that enhance well-
being of large numbers of children. Behavioral skills training
at the elementary school level, anti-bullying curricula at the
middle school level. We know about the connection between
bullying and later offending. Peer mediation and after-school
programs targeted at the prime time for juvenile crime. All
these things have payoff far greater than the investment.
Fifth, and finally, prevention is significantly cost--
effective. Virtually all assessments of crime prevention
confirm the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of prison time. It is, however, a political reality that
sound investments in prevention take years to reap the
benefits. It takes bold leaders like you to earmark funds today
for tomorrow's success, maybe 4, 8, 10 years down the road,
when perhaps your successor will reap the benefits and derive
pleasure.
So, to conclude here, the recent upturn in youth violence
was anticipated years ago. As you know, I have been here
several times to talk about demographics and other factors, and
even while the rates of crime were dropping in the 1990s,
criminologists like myself warned about the potential for
another wave of youth and gang violence. This not-so-perfect
storm combining the growth in the number of at-risk kids and
cuts in social and educational programs, we were so complacent,
we cut the anti-gang programs because we did not think gangs
were a problem anymore. And like your grass analogy, it comes
right back.
The encouraging news, though, is that the crime problem is
not out of control, at least by contrast to the early 1990s
when the Nation's murder rate was twice what it is today. It is
not surprising that a small bounce-back will happen, but let
this small upturn serve as a thunderous wake-up call that crime
prevention, police funding, and dealing with illegal guns need
to be priorities once again.
At this juncture, we can look toward immediate solutions
like the gang abatement program and easy access to illegal
firearms--approaches that depend heavily on police personnel,
intelligence, and deployment. But at the same time, we must
maintain a long-range view toward the future. The choice is
ours: Either pay for the programs now or pray for the victims
later.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Biden. Thank you very much. I am going to yield to
my colleague, Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you so much, Senator Biden, and,
gentlemen, it is good to have you here today. Am I hearing from
all of you that the most important thing we need to do is to
increase funding for the programs that we all know or feel work
well? Is that the major thing that we are hearing here this
morning, that it is the lack of funding that is causing the
upsurge in crime in our communities, lack of Federal funding?
Mr. Fox. It is juvenile justice funding, the OJJDP, lack of
COPS funding. It is basically the idea that we thought we had
solved the crime problem. You know, crime rates went down for 8
straight years, and we said, Hey, we do not need to spend money
on crime fighting anymore, let's pay attention to other really
important things like who is going to win ``American Idol'' or
something.
But we really got complacent. We took our focus off the
crime issue. You do not solve the crime problem. You do not
solve the gang issue. You only control them. And so long as you
are dealing with it, you are seeing success, and we had success
and we said, oh, let's move the money elsewhere.
You know, the one thing about youth is that we have a new
group of teenagers every 5 years. You know, we did a great job
in the 1990s in Boston and elsewhere in investing in those kids
and making sure that they were not as violent as their
predecessors, that they saw alternatives to joining gangs. But
now we have a new group of kids, and they are too young--they
do not know what it was like in 1990 when joining a gang could
mean an early grave. They were like 2 years old. And so we cut
back on the anti-gang initiatives in Boston and elsewhere, and
lo and behold, that is where they are going again.
So you have to keep on working at it, and because we are
seeing success, we should redouble our efforts, not cut them.
Senator Kohl. Is the prevalence of guns on the street a
major, major issue here? Does anybody want to say anything
beyond what is commonly said about guns? Is the prevalence of
guns--do we need stronger gun laws? Do we need just stronger
enforcement?
Mayor Palmer. You know, I think we need stronger
enforcement. There is no doubt about that. We need to enforce
the laws that are already on the books. But we also need to
aggressively go after straw purchases. In New Jersey, in my
city, Trenton, New Jersey has very strict gun laws, but 5
minutes from Trenton across the Delaware Bridge and into
Pennsylvania, their laws are much more, in my estimation,
lenient, where an individual can buy hundreds of guns and then
sell them illegally, you know, to gang bangers in the cities.
So I think that we have to close the gun show loophole. We
have to go after straw purchases. And we have to make sure that
people that commit crimes with guns, that they go to jail and
not be out.
One of the things that was just remarkable to me,
unbelievable to me, was just about 2 months ago we had a press
conference because the police finally arrested a person who was
allegedly involved in two homicides, gang-- related homicides.
This individual was out on bail--and this is the court system,
too. But this individual was out on bail, committed two
murders, and he was out on bail after having shot a cop three
times. How could this guy be out on bail?
So there is a whole disparity there as well, but certainly
illegal guns are a focus. Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Menino and
other mayors are working with mayors against illegal guns,
fighting the good fight. But we need to look at, you know, the
Tiahrt amendment and those kinds of things as well, and go
after these straw purchasers and make committing crimes with a
gun as serious if it is happening in a poor neighborhood as it
would be in an affluent one.
Senator Kohl. Before I ask you, Mr. Fox, are you saying,
Mayor, that the issue of guns, who has them, how they get them,
whether it is legal or illegal, and then what we do with people
once they are convicted of gun crimes in terms of
incarceration, is among other things central to this whole
discussion we are having here today?
Mayor Palmer. Yes, absolutely. I had the experience of
going with Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Street from Philadelphia, and
some Philadelphia councilmen to Harrisburg last September to
talk about an idea of one gun a month. I met with Democrat and
Republican State Senators. They almost laughed us out of the
room and said, no, that is not going to happen, you are wasting
our time if you are talking about one gun a month. And if you
are married, that is like two guns a month, 24 in a year. And
they said, no, I just bought three guns this weekend.
And so they did not even want to put an amendment so that
if you lost your gun or it was stolen to report it. They said
no, we are not even reporting lost or stolen guns. You know
what happens. People buy guns legally, sell them illegally, and
if you go to trace it back, they say, well, now that this gun
was involved in a crime, we found it was yours, oh, I lost that
gun, or it was stolen. Well, if you report it when it happens,
then that is a way of tracing it, too.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Fox?
Mr. Fox. I can put some of the onus here on the Congress
and some of your colleagues. You know, in the last couple of
years, it has been kind of disturbing to see some of the change
in terms of the posture of the Congress toward guns. And I do
not blame the NRA. You know, they have a right to have their
opinion. But what I am concerned about is how so many Members
of Congress seem to be willing to pass things like the immunity
law, the gun immunity law that--you know, when they talked
about tort reform 4 years ago in a campaign, who knew that is
what they meant, that they would just protect the gun industry.
I understand the logic of the debate on the other side, but
so many of the advances that have been made in terms of guns in
this country have been with the threat of lawsuits.
Second, the whole area of gun tracing and efforts in
Congress to trim and curtail the extent to which police
departments can use gun tracing efforts, we know--you know, I
have done a lot of work at the Brady Center, and we know that
these rogue dealers, that 1 percent of the gun dealers are
responsible for over half the guns used in crimes every year.
We need to be able to identify these people.
Boy, if there was a liquor store where all the 14-year--
olds are going to buy beer, we would do something about that
liquor store.
And I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea about
prosecuting gun crimes, but let's also keep in mind that so
much of the increase we have seen is in kids carrying guns.
They do not really care, many of them, about what the criminal
justice system might do. They are carrying guns because they
feel they need it to survive. You know, the criminal justice
system, the Federal Government can just take a number and wait
in this line with all the other people out to get them. So they
feel they need the gun to live, and whatever prosecution there
is--they may not even be aware of what the Federal Government
is doing--is not a priority.
So we need to find out the process by which the guns are
getting into this illegal market, and investigate it and deal
with it, and deal with the rogue dealers.
Senator Kohl. Anybody disagree with that or want to offer
additional comments on this issue, gun availability? Crimes
committed with guns and people not being sufficiently long
incarcerated?
Sheriff Kamatchus. If I might just make a comment on it, I
own well over 100 firearms, and I have been a competitive
shooter for a long time. And I am a firm believer in the fact
that the old adage that guns do not commit crimes, people do.
But I also am a firm believer in what was said earlier in the
fact that you have to have strong, just--you know, we have to
commit these individuals to a facility so they cannot get back
out so quickly. We have to make sure that the individuals who
perpetrate the crimes are handled harshly so that if there is
any potential for a deterrent factor in that, it is real, it is
not talked about.
Recently, in a neighboring county to mine, we had some
young teens at a party, and one young gentleman simply walked
up--and this case is still active, so I do not want to get into
it too much, but walked up and pulled a gun and shot another
kid right in the head, in rural Iowa. Dropped him right there.
And I know the family that had the loss personally.
The bottom line on it is that we need to do something with
those type of people so that those young individuals who are
coming up that was mentioned earlier who do not have an
understanding of what it is like to be involved with gangs or
such, that those individuals have a better understanding of
what can happen to them if they perpetrate those crimes.
So, you know, I just want to make sure that we do not end
up in a situation here where we evolve it into the banning of
weapons or something that is so restricting that we do not have
firearms anymore. That is just what I want to make sure is
said.
Senator Kohl. Oh, yes. No question about it. Your comment
is--Mr. Nee?
Mr. Nee. You know, it is the unlawful guns that we have the
problem with up there in New England, firsthand knowledge. I
can give you by way of example, the other night, Thursday
night--I am certain Professor Fox could add. Within a ten-
square-block radius, within an hour and a half of time, we
seized nine illegal guns on the street. Three were used in acts
of violence; the rest were seized through aggressive police
tactics that night because of the many shootings that we had
that night.
But I firmly believe being, again, a sportsman, somebody
who enjoys that way of life, being around firearms for the past
29 years of my life, I am not afraid of them. I believe that
there has to be an understanding, and they do have a lawful
purpose. But it is uniformity in gun laws in the United States
that has to be brought in line. You can go to a neighboring
State, and I see some of these places popping up now where they
are teaching kids to shoot AKs. They have got to be 21 years
old, and they are up there taking tactical training and courses
where they are not licensed, there is no understanding, and
then they get into these underground railroads with these
firearms that are coming up out of some of the communities in
other parts of the country. And we are lacking right now the
ability to track and trace these underground networks of guns
that are coming out of other parts of the country.
You know, I watched the gun purchase program that we used
up in Boston several years ago. No one was turning in the guns
we were looking for. They were turning in black powder muskets
and things, you know, things that were prehistoric, for sake of
a better term.
But, you know, these guns are still being used, and just to
a slight degree I would disagree with the Professor in this
sense, that these guns are not used just to keep kids alive. A
lot of these guns are being used in aggressive acts of
violence. What is extremely disturbing to me is up in Boston
proper--and I am hearing it from a lot of the major cities--a
lot of these kids today have no fear of taking up arms against
an armed police department, an armed officer. And if the
country--if people do not get that, if they are willing to take
up arms against a uniformed officer, trained, they have no
problem taking it up against the rest of society. That message
has got to be sent with firm, swift convictions,
incarcerations. The message has got to be clear. We can blame
the guns all we want. It is the kids behind the guns that are
using these things. Again, like you said, nine guns within 90
minutes of a ten-square-block radius part of the city. It was
very disturbing to the policemen involved, and we are finding
it more and more common that these young gang members are
taking firearms up against our police officers, our colleagues
around the country. And it is very disturbing to me.
Mayor Palmer. And I would say you need a comprehensive
approach. The U.S. Conference of Mayors understands that. You
need job training, re-entry is very important, drug treatment,
housing when people get out, and all those things. But you have
to make--police will tell you. What is really disturbing is
before, if you were getting robbed, you would say, OK, stick
'em up; here, here is everything, I am not arguing with you,
here is everything I have. And they shoot you anyway. Why? That
is a sociological thing, because they are mad--
Mr. Fox. Eliminate the witness.
Mayor Palmer. Well, no, they will shoot you in the butt.
They will not kill you, maybe, but they are mad. They are just
mad because you have it and I do not and I had to get it.
So we need to do more in the prevention, education, and
those things, but we also have to send a strong message, and I
am--look, I never thought in my days I would be so conservative
on this issue, as tough as I am on crime, but I know what it is
doing to innocent people. But you have got to make sure these
juveniles that shoot somebody, you got to lock them up for a
long time so they get it out of their system, and when they are
in jail, then you give them programs and try to help turn them
around, because these kids have no fear using guns. They see it
on videos. They see it on TV, MTV, and they think it is cool.
To get bones, being in the gang, they make you shoot somebody.
That has got to stop. You have to make these kids afraid if
they get caught shooting a gun or having a gun that they are
going to jail.
Then we have to rehabilitate them when we fail before that.
But it is just like why do teenage--no, I might get a little
over my bounds here, but it is like why did teenage pregnancy
at one point go down? It was because teenagers were starting to
use condoms. Why were they using condoms? Because they were
scared to death at the time of getting AIDS, because they
thought, if I get AIDS, I am going to die. So they got scared
and they started wearing condoms.
Now, I know that is an overgeneralization, but you have got
to make kids scared, teenagers, juveniles, scared to be in a
gang, scared to use a gun because of the consequences. How we
do that is up for debate, but we have got to scare them
straight, in my opinion.
Mr. Fox. You know, it is interesting--you mentioned the
media. What is interesting is that so many kids will hold guns,
because they see it on TV, it looked really cool, like sideways
or upside down. Actually, you know, do not tell them this, but
it is actually not good in terms of their accuracy. The gun can
actually jam. But it looks good because that is what they see
on TV.
But I wanted to say something. You know, I used to write
for a rather conservative newspaper, the Herald. I used to
write a column, and anytime you say anything about guns, you
get deluged with, you know, pro-NRA people. I did not know they
had so much time on their hands. They are always cleaning their
weapons. But they certainly have time to write me.
I think it is very possible to be in favor of things like
gun tracing and against the immunity law, yet respect the right
of decent, law-abiding people that own guns. No one--I will not
say no one, but so many people who are gun control freaks, I
guess, we have no problem with people owning guns, so long as
they use them right. And we are only looking to try to break
down and interdict the illegal gun markets, and trying to do
that is not--you know, the slippery slope and all that kind of
garbage, there is no slippery slope. We are only interested in
finding guns that are illegal, how do people purchase them. No
one here is interested in trying to deprive law-abiding
citizens of their guns.
And it is not a panacea. The one gun a month, let's keep in
mind that Virginia has one gun a month, and that is why Mr. Cho
down at Virginia Tech had to wait a month to buy his second
weapon. And I know in Massachusetts they talk about one gun a
month. It is a small piece of the puzzle. We need, I agree,
something comprehensive, something national, because every
State is as weak as the weakest link in the chain. But we can
indeed focus on dealing with illegal guns and respect the
rights of gun owners. I wish we were all on the same page here.
We should be. But for some reason, everyone wants to get
painted into corners, like you are either against them or you
are for them.
Chairman Biden. Thank you very much, Senator.
I would like to pursue--and I know your time is valuable,
but if you would give me a few more minutes, I would like to
pursue a couple things here, more in sort of a generic sense
here, before we get into specifics.
I am making this statement to invite response, and, look,
as my colleagues from Delaware can tell you, I always say I am
a United States Senator, I am used to not being taken
seriously, so I really do want your critical comments, if you
disagree with the assertions, the broad assertions I am going
to make.
For 17 years, I chaired this Committee and/or was the
Ranking Member, and it took a long time to get a consensus
between then the Chairman or Ranking Member, Strom Thurmond,
and Joe Biden, which was an interesting combination at that
time. And all through the 1970s and all through the 1980s, we
had this constant, ongoing fight about, on the one side, what
we have to do is look at the source of crime and deal with that
because there is not much you can do in dealing with crime once
it occurs; and the other side was hang 'em high, make the
penalties tougher, put people in jail longer.
And it took a long time to get what I thought was a
consensus that from police to social workers agreed on. And
that was there are three pieces of this puzzle. One piece,
which is very important and could have real payback and was
cheaper if you invested in it, was prevention. The other point
was the apprehension of the bad guys. And the third point was
incarceration of the bad guys.
And so the original crime bill, which caused me so much
trouble and took literally 6 years to get done, it is the first
time we combined all three of those things. And that bill said
three things--and it equally distributed the money. It was a
$30 billion bill--and, by the way, this is not a pride of
authorship thing. This is trying to get a sense of what seems
to me to be happening, and I would like you to comment on it.
And so we reached this sort of grand compromise, something
we never really tried before: one, the Federal Government had a
significant responsibility to deal with local crime, the reason
being, Mr. Mayor, you can do everything right, but if we do not
control cocaine coming out of Afghanistan, if we do not control
cocaine coming out of Colombia, heroin coming out of Colombia
and parts of Venezuela, coming through the port in Trenton, you
cannot do much. There is nothing you can do about our porous
borders and all the drugs that are coming through those
borders, no matter how good you are.
And so it seems to me there is a Federal responsibility. We
went through this fight. The Federal Government has a
responsibility, even though the ultimate local responsibility
is the crime committed on the street, that is literally local.
But all the factors that go into why that crime was committed,
a lot of it had to do with the failure of Federal policy.
So we fought through this whole thing about whether or not
the Federal Government has a role in dealing with local crime.
And the second thing we fought through was how you get my
conservative friends, who wanted tougher enforcement, and my
liberal friends, who wanted more prevention, whether it is drug
rehab or whether it is after-school programs or a whole range
of other things, how you get them on the same page. And it
really was a tortuous undertaking. It took 6 years to get it
done.
And the third part--the part that nobody really liked--was
providing more money to States to build prisons, because as the
great Senator from the State of Maryland, Senator Mathias,
pointed out when I authored the bill that became the Sentencing
Commission, he said it is going to cause more people to go to
jail, and he was right. It is. And we can argue whether the
Sentencing Commission--but it had an effect. It had an effect
at least while you are in jail. The only thing we do know is if
you are in jail behind bars, you are not committing crime in
the streets. You may be committing crimes in jail, but you are
not committing them on the street.
And so the one thing I was not able to get done in that
bill was to deal with what Senator Specter and I are trying to
do now, and that is, invest money in reintegrating people back
into society when they get out of the prison--housing, jobs,
drug programs, because all of you know drugs are rampant in
prisons right now. If you are not addicted, you might get
addicted in prison.
And so we had this thing, and the formula seemed to work.
We seemed to have arrived at a consensus, Democrats and
Republicans, that there was some Federal responsibility. You
needed to do all three pieces in order to impact on crime. And
it was not just cops, more cops. It related to prevention, and
it related to incarceration.
Now, at the Federal level, we did the things you are
looking for, Mr. Mayor. Use a gun in the commission of a crime,
you go to jail. Bingo, you go to jail. You do not pass go. You
go to jail. Most of your States do not do that. I say ``your
States.'' Most States do not do that.
We also suggested that there is no probation or parole in
the sense that you look out there, and we did not know what
caused recidivism, we did not know what the measure was, so I
admit, I am responsible for it, and I sometimes wonder whether
I was right, Professor, saying same time for the same crime,
you know, and you go to jail. Or if it is not jail, if that is
not the sentence, whatever that crime is.
Now, here is my dilemma, what I really do not understand. I
am wondering whether--I would ask from the police enforcement
officer's standpoint and from an elected official's standpoint
and then from a criminologist's standpoint. What happened? What
happened that would lead anyone to believe that that formula
was not a legitimate formula? When that formula, the
combination of all those things was employed, when money was
put behind it, States took advantage of it, crime actually went
down at the very time those in the crime-committing years were
going up. So what happened? What kind of discussions took place
in the squad room, you know, over the last 10 years to say we
have got this under control? What happened with--you know, did
mayors and elected officials say this is not our biggest
problem now? Did criminologists conclude this formula is not
the proper formula?
That is what I would like to talk about, because it seems
almost like--you know, they talk about the Know--Nothing Party
in the 1880s. It is kind of like we have become anti-
intellectual here, that, you know, the facts seem so obvious to
me, and yet there is this consensus among many people,
including my colleagues in Congress. You know, look, that
formula does not work anymore, or that formula is not
necessary.
What is going on? Ted, did you want to make a comment?
Sheriff Kamatchus. Well, it baffles me as much as anyone in
this room and anyone who is listening or watching this today.
Being a sheriff, I am a peace officer, but I am also a 20-year
veteran of the political field. I have been elected five times.
So I have to also balance that whole issue of the utilization
of the taxpayers' money probably a little bit more because in 4
years I may not have a job.
But I have to tell you something. I am baffled as much as
you are, and the reason I am baffled as much as you are is
because look at who is at this table, and then think back into
the 1990s and who was at the table. And what happened then was
the proverbial squeaky wheel got the grease, and maybe we as
organizations, maybe you as--I will call you the father of this
COPS program, and more. Maybe we got complacent and quit
squeaking. Maybe we got quiet because--and that allowed the
people, for whatever reason who are opposed to it, to turn
around and beat the drum about the success. And they became
louder. And somewhere along the line, they began robbing from
Peter to pay Paul, as you said.
It does not make sense to me either. You know, the COPS
program was not perfect. It had its flaws. But, you know, a
neat thing about the program was it was self--healing. When we
could not hire people quick enough and train them quick enough,
we shifted funds. And when we arrested a bunch of people and we
could not prosecute them quick enough, we shifted funds. And
then all of a sudden when we needed technology, we shifted
funds. And that is the positive thing about the COPS program.
And I think what happened was it became so easy to shift
those funds and so successful that it became more the norm, the
standard, if you will.
I do not know what the answer is other than to say that I
hope your colleagues--I hope that they look at this panel and
they look at what is going to happen in the months ahead and
they hear us. And I look back to the same argument that
happened in the 1990s. And if there are some experts out there
who walk the street like we do who are opposed to this and who
have got a better answer than we do, I would like to have them
come up. I have traveled across this country. I have been to 38
States in the last 11 months. I have driven a car from State to
State. I have talked to people in small rural Kansas, all the
way to Orlando, Florida, and L.A. and all over. And I do not
see anybody against this, the funding.
So to answer your question, I do not know. It has to be the
fact that we have not beat the drum loud enough, and maybe we
should take the blame for that. But I am here to tell you, you
can see today, and you are going to hear more of it, we are
going to beat the drum, sir, and we are going to stand with you
on that issue.
Chairman Biden. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Palmer. I will say something that is obvious to
everyone. Before I was a mayor, I was African-American. Or in
my day I was a Negro, I guess, in the 1950s. And after I am
mayor, I will be an African-American male as well. And it is
very troubling as an African-American--take away being an
elected official, a mayor--to see so many African-Americans and
Latinos and poor people incarcerated. It breaks my heart that
we would have to choose between prison and school. And I think,
Senator, the question you ask is a good one, but it goes beyond
your Committee. It talks to what we are dealing with in terms
of race and racism and poverty. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who
is the mayor of the great city of Los Angeles, and Kwame
Kilpatrick of Detroit and Francis Slay of St. Louis and others
are on a task force about poverty within the United States
Conference of Mayors. Poverty is at the root of all of these
things, and poverty has to be addressed--how we look at
poverty, how we get people out of the cycle of poverty, how we
make sure that we have health benefits and those kinds of
things, how we look at early childhood education, how we look
at after--school programs, how we look at growing our economy
in a green way that will produce more jobs. I mean, it goes
beyond this Committee.
And I think what has happened is the squeaky wheel does get
the grease, but we have to recognize that in order to have
strong cities, strong families, and a strong America, you are
going to have to deal with the issue of race, racism, poverty,
and getting our economy back on the right track, and that we
are all our brother's keepers.
You reap what you sow. You cannot have people living in
abject poverty concentrated in cities and other areas, poor
education systems without the resources needed to get the best
teachers in the most challenging situations, you cannot
continue to have drugs and those things happen, you cannot
continue to have single parents and that whole moral issue, you
cannot abandon kids and have people live in poverty and have
drugs and illegal guns and expect that these individuals are
going to grow up and be good. They are not. It requires a total
comprehensive response, a total comprehensive commitment on
behalf of all Americans--liberal, conservative, Democrat,
Republican, Independent--in order to address it.
So what we are talking about here is just the tip of the
iceberg, but in order to do what really needs to be done, we
need, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the mayors across
this country, we need a whole comprehensive not only plan, but
we need a new vision and a real commitment for America that
says we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper.
Chairman Biden. You know, Mr. Mayor--and before I go to
you, Professor, and I am anxious to hear what you have to say,
but this is on point. The irony was, in all those hearings--and
literally probably a thousand hours of hearings I held in the
1980s and early 1990s--one of the things that we did in this
Committee and through the crime bill was actually try, to be
very blunt about it, to embarrass the rest of society into
dealing, through the crime bill, with things that really were
not within the purview of the crime bill.
For example, in the prevention program, I put in money for
after-school programs. That should not be coming from the
criminal side. That should be coming from the education side of
the equation. We put in $20 million, which was a small amount
then, for Boys and Girls Clubs, because we found that studies
done on public housing projects that had them and did not have
them, there was a 33 percent less crime rate, arrest rate, of
folks, the same economic circumstance, same inner-city
circumstance, where there was a Boys and Girls Club in the
basement of a public housing project.
So what we tried to do--and you have hit on what I was
trying to get at. What we tried to do through the crime bill,
as a weak read and weak vehicle, was to get a change in
attitude about the overall point you are making. How can we
have in this society a circumstance where the one thing every
cop here will tell you, you see a direct correlation between
truancy and juvenile delinquency. As the professor pointed out,
I remember when I wrote a report 20 years ago saying everybody
thinks most violent crime occurs in the deep of the night. It
occurs between the time the kids get out of school and before
their parents come home, including rape, including other
violent crimes.
And so what we tried to do was put in initiatives that were
designed to deal with--for example, we know if you start kid in
a troubled neighborhood in school at age 3, they have got
something like--do not hold me to the exact number; I do not
have it in front of me--something like a 70-percent better
chance of finishing school than if you start them at age 6 in
school. I mean, these are things we know.
But I just want to make it clear to you all, I do not see
adding cops as the answer. I see adding cops as the bridge
here, as the dam, because the irony is--and I want to say this
with the police officers here--they will be the first one to
tell you, give them a chance to have full-blown treatment
programs in their communities. Give them a chance to have full-
blown after-school programs. Give them a chance to have full-
blown early education programs. Give them a chance to have
full-blown summer work programs versus adding 10 percent more
cops. They will take the former, not the latter.
Mr. Fox. In fact, the organization Fight Crime, Invest in
Kids that you know of--they are centered here in D.C. It is an
organization of crime victims and police officers and
prosecutors. It has polled police officers and police personnel
and supervisors and chiefs. Overwhelmingly, the belief is that
the best way to solve the crime problem is not with more cops
but prevention.
May I respond to your question?
Chairman Biden. Yes, sure. Professor, you are allowed.
Professors are allowed to do that. Fire away.
Mr. Fox. It was a great question about what happened to
those three parts to the stool in the crime bill. It had a
balance, the crime bill, and, by the way I remember even there
was money in there for dance programs, because not every kid
was looking for midnight basketball. Some kids were looking for
dance and music and art.
Let me take each of the three. In the prevention area,
there was $9 billion of prevention money in the 1993 crime
bill, and then what happened is the 1994 takeover of Congress.
I do not want to make this too political, but it really is. You
know, the Contract With America. ``Prevention'' is now a bad
word, a dirty word.
I remember, for example, that Vice President Gore was
supposed to be coming up to Boston for a conference and give a
talk to criminologists about prevention. Canceled right after
the election. Cannot talk about prevention.
I was on several committees for President Clinton, and I
remember his frustration about how although $9 billion was
authorized for prevention, what started to happen after 1994 is
a lot of that money was moving away from prevention. There was
this whole belief that, oh, it is all midnight basketball. Of
course, most of it--that was sort of the rallying cry. It was
all midnight basketball, and it was silly. Most of it was not
midnight basketball, and the basketball was not even at
midnight. It was in the after-- school hours. It just got sort
of a bad name, and the administration, frankly, did not want to
talk about prevention.
In fact, I was working with Rahm Emanuel, who was the chief
domestic policy adviser, and he said to me, ``If we can push
one prevention program, what would it be?'' And that is, in
fact, when I talked to Rahm about the after-school program, the
fact that 49 percent of juvenile crimes occur between 2 and 8,
and that led to the 21st Century Schools Initiative, and you
may remember that the President in the State of the Union
address in the late 1990s sort of advocated for after-school
programs. So you basically could not talk about prevention
because there was this belief that prevention is just soft on
crime.
Policing. Again, political. I know that you had a strong
hand in the crime bill. Let's also recall that President
Clinton campaigned on this idea of 100,000 cops. And when the
new--
Chairman Biden. Let's get it straight. He did not adopt the
crime bill until September, and he had a very good idea. He had
a good idea. He called me on the phone and said, ``How many
cops will your bill buy?'' I said, ``A hundred thousand.'' And
he was very smart. He said, ``Why don't you call it the 100,000
COPS program?'' That was the totality of the commitment.
Mr. Fox. OK.
Chairman Biden. Keep going.
Mr. Fox. But he did sort of talk about it, and it would
seem that when the new President came in, you distance yourself
from one of the pet projects or ideas of the previous
administration, and I think that part of it was playing
politics with protection and the fact that that was such--that
was the last administration, and you throw out the last
administration, and you sort of change the equation.
Finally, in this whole area about corrections, I remember
talking with Adam Walinsky, who you know is heavily behind the
Police Corps idea. We were talking about the fact that so many
more Americans were going to prison. We had 2 million Americans
behind bars, and the idea was that people were not thinking
about what is going to happen when these people eventually get
out down the road. It was, like, well, we will deal with that
bridge when we come to that. That was the bridge to the 21st
century. Well, that bridge is here, and it is as firm and
fortified as the Ted Williams tunnel in Boston, which, of
course, as you may know, is falling apart.
What happened is we did not take--we said let's put them in
prison, but let's ignore them once they are there. Citizens
said, I do not want to spend my tax dollars on education
programs for inmates. I cannot afford to send my own kid to
college. Why should I be spending money for education for
inmates? They did not want to spend money for job training or
other skills for inmates. And so we just basically housed them.
It is great now that we are deciding that re-entry programs
are critical, because they are now all getting out, but the
process begins not the day they are released from prison, but
the day they go into prison.
So I think also, besides having re-entry programs, we have
to do something more about rehabilitation programs in prison,
which, again, do work, but we are kind of shortsighted there.
Chairman Biden. Well, the reason I ask the question is I
think there has been a fundamental philosophical change that
took place over the last 6 to 8 years, and it did begin in
1994, although it was not successful, and that was that, first
of all, this is a State responsibility, not a Federal
responsibility, the devolution of government argument, the
neoconservative notion to devolve power to local government.
The second thing I think that happened is that there is
this emphasis on sort of a self-improvement as if somehow kids
in the ghetto can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and
make it out.
And, third, there was this fundamental shift, Mr. Mayor,
from any focus on cities and the problem about cities. We just
walked away--housing, every other aspect of what you deal with.
And so I guess the reason I ask the question is mainly for
the record, because I think as we begin to try to rebuild--what
I think the public is ready to do. I think the public is ready
to go back and look at this comprehensively again. I do not
think they are afraid. I think they get it. I think that the
election in 2006, having nothing to do with the partisan
notion, but every once in a while, the American public closes a
chapter on a political philosophy. They closed the chapter.
They closed the chapter on the New Deal in 1980. They closed
the chapter on compassionate conservatism in 2006. They are
waiting for us to construct a new paradigm, as they love to say
here in Washington.
And so what I would like to do, as a prelude to this
question, and you do not have to answer it here, but I have
``redrafted'' a comprehensive crime bill that I would like to
get to you all. I know it is a whole lot of work to go through
it and read it. You know, I understand I am asking a lot. But I
would like you to take a look at it and get your eyes on it and
give me an honest assessment of whether or not you think I am
barking up the right tree here, number one.
Second, I do think there is a change. Whether or not the
change would be enough for us to be able to do something in 20
months, I do not know. When I reintroduced the new crime bill
to add 50,000 cops, a new COPS bill, we were able to get the
money for it in the budget. Both the House and the Senate
passed the bill that I introduced, passed the resolution
authorizing the Budget Committee to spend money on it. Now we
have got to go back and fight it through the Appropriations
Committee. But there is a $1.15 billion per year for each of
the next 5 years for hiring cops.
I want to make it clear for the record, I do not see that
as the end. I do not see that--but we have to begin to rebuild
this sort of dike.
The last point I will raise here is one of the things that
has disappointed me the most--and I have to take blame for it--
is I am the guy years ago that crafted the drug czar
legislation, the idea of getting one person in charge of all
the Federal agencies, cooperating with the States and the
cities about the drug problem. One of the reasons for that was
to force the Federal Government to look around the corner, to
look down the road and anticipate what was likely to come, like
we did with ice, what used to be called ice, then meth. And one
of the things I somehow think we have missed--and I need your
help. I need your help. In particular, I need help from cops.
They expect mayors to be enlightened. They expect
criminologists to get it right. They expect you guys only to be
asking for--I mean, when I say today that cops helped me write
the prevention money into the crime bill, people look at me
like I am lying. That was a cop idea. That was cops. Your
predecessor as President of the Sheriffs, your predecessor as
President of NAPO, your predecessor, the predecessor of the
Chiefs, FOP. They were the ones who insisted on the money, and
that is the only reason it got done, because you all showed up
in people's offices wearing your uniforms, and you said we not
only want more cops, we want the money for prevention in here.
You know, I do not know what--because I do not do this
every day like I used to because I am now the guy that does
Foreign Relations, foreign policy stuff. It used to be the
statistic, Professor, was a drug addict, meaning someone who
consumed a controlled substance more than 3 times a week out
there, committed on average 154 crimes a year, some of which
related to just purchasing the drugs, others related to getting
the money to get the drug.
When they put him in drug treatment programs and you just
kept them there for 6 months, what happened is you found that
dropped down to about 22 crimes per year. Even if it was wasted
time, it was cheaper than prison. It was cheaper than hiring
more cops to figure out how to solve 125 of those crimes a
year--if my numbers are correct. I used to know them off the
top of my head.
But the bottom line here, and somehow the thing that
disturbs me the most about this is you guys see what is coming.
You guys see what the professor said is that you had these
teenagers 15 years ago who got into a system whereby we gave
them some help, they ended up not being--or 10 years ago. But
now you have got a whole new cadre coming up, and they did not
hear of any of this stuff.
And so it just disturbs me, and it--I do not know, it
disappoints me that somehow we can so quickly forget the basic
lessons we learned just 10 years ago. I wish old Ronald Reagan
were around because he was the guy that coined, at least in the
political context, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' This
thing wasn't broke, but we have got to fix it.
And so what I have done here--and I am not going to keep
you--I have half a dozen specific questions that I would like
to submit to you, and over the next couple weeks, if you get a
chance, I would like you to respond to them for the record. But
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the fact that you
uniformed officers are talking not just about more cops, and,
Mr. Mayor, that you have, along with your fellow mayors,
pointed out that--I mean, one of the senior colleagues on this
Committee sits right here, Ted Kennedy, who has helped me and
been a leader in this area, points out that one of the
significant correlations that has occurred now is the increased
dropout rates. The increased dropout rates in major cities in
America have fueled this crime surge, that the idea we are just
going to have more cops and think we are going to do something
fundamental about this without dealing with the dropout rate,
without figuring out these kids we are just dumping like a
bucket on a front-end loader, you know, onto the street is, I
think, very, very shortsighted. So hopefully--I do not want
to--you have never heard me use the phrase ``war on crime'' or
``war on drugs.'' It is a daily battle every day. There is no
such thing as a ``war on crime.''
But there are incremental things we can start to do right
now to stem what is the reverse of a trend. The reverse of the
trend for 10 years was crime was going down. We had ourselves
in a situation where things were getting a little better. And
now it is starting to tick back up, and I think that is just
like a little bit of--you know, being at a dike where there is
a little bit of a leak and a small hole. That hole is going to
get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And we are going
to be right back to the flood we had in 1989 in terms of crime.
So I want to submit three things to you all: a copy of the
COPS bill that has been authorized, at least in terms of
funding in the budget, not done yet but I will need help on it.
And I may very well be asking you all to come up in uniforms
again. You know, you all have an effect when you show up in
uniforms. I mean, you really do. You really do. That is what
happened last time, if you remember. You kept marching up here
and going into offices, you know, people get the message.
Secondly, I would like you to take a look at this
comprehensive piece of legislation I have put together, have
not introduced yet, and I genuinely am inviting constructive
criticism of it and things you think should change. It is
working off of a template that I think would work, but it may
change.
And, third, I am going to, especially with you, Mr. Mayor,
if I may, as the President of the Conference of Mayors, lay out
some matters that do not relate to the criminal justice system
that I believe impact significantly on the criminal justice
system, to see if we can get your input, because this time I
think there has to be companion legislation introduced as well
to re-engage the public in the debate about things we know, if
we do, if we spend the money on, they work. And I think it is
pretty important we change--my conservative friends love this
word--the paradigm. We have got to change the paradigm here.
You have got to invest money to save money. You have got to
invest money to save money.
If we can do something to keep your kids in Trenton in
school through grade 12, the cost savings for the expenditure
needed to do that is astronomical. It is a factor of 10 or 12.
A kid drops out of school in ninth grade, the cost associated
with that kid dropping out is gigantic. And so we have got to
change the debate, like we did last time. We changed the debate
so it was not liberal-- conservative. It was practical, when we
put all three of these things together.
I think you have got to change the debate. Mr. Mayor, I am
going to, with your permission, submit ideas not all of which
are original to me by any stretch of the imagination, but ones
that I think that maybe we can get a--when we get the mayors
and the cops, we get the sheriffs and the county executives, we
get the local people sitting down, again, and working out some
basically grand compromise here as to how we should be spending
what is not a lot of money relative to a several trillion
dollar budget, but it is important to do it.
Anyway, I cannot thank you all enough. I promised I would
have you out by 12 and it is 1 minute after. I have breached my
promise. I apologize. But I thank you very much. I know how
busy you are, and unless any of you want to make a closing
comment, I would--yes, Professor.
Mr. Fox. Professors always like to have a closing comment.
I am glad that you mentioned that about other things we can do.
You know, we have changed the way that we run our schools. We
have gotten rid of all the extracurriculars. We do not want to
pay the money. Also, we are so focused on test scores, some
kids are dropping out because they just cannot--they are not
going to make it to graduation, other kids because we have
taken away from school all the things that gave them a sense of
pride, satisfaction, and maybe even enjoyment of school, the
music and drama. We need to put these things back into the
curriculum because it will keep kids engaged. And I know that
is not crime fighting, but in the long run it is. I will
address that in my comments.
Chairman Biden. I would ask you--I was just reminded by
staff. The statements of Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein
will be entered in the record as if read. They both offer their
apologies. They are in other committees. I do not want you to
think that lack of participation here is a lack of interest.
There is a real interest here. I think there is a resurgence,
Mr. Mayor. I think we are finally getting it again. I hope that
is what it is. If it is not, we are in deep trouble. We are in
deep trouble if it is not.
I thank you all. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]