    [Senate Hearing 111-192]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-192

      HELPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 8, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-111-1

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    53-929                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
    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         JON KYL, Arizona
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
                Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                  Nicholas A. Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Wisconsin, prepared statement..................................    36
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      California, prepared statement.................................    37
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the state of Vermont.     1
        prepared statement...........................................    63

                                   WITNESSES

    Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims
      of Crime, Washington, D.C......................................    11
    Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage
      Foundation, Washington, D.C....................................    13
    Ramsey, Charles H., Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police
      Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.........................     6
    Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police
      Department, Burlington, Vermont................................     3
    Schmidt, John R., Esq., Partner, Mayer Brown, former Associate
      Attorney General, Department of Justice, Chicago, Illinois.....     8

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    Responses of David B. Muhlhausen to questions submitted by
      Senator Hatch..................................................    22
    Responses of Charles H. Ramsey to questions submitted by Senator
      Feingold.......................................................    27
    Responses of Michael E. Schirling to questions submitted by
      Senator Feingold...............................................    28
    Responses of John R. Schmidt to questions submitted by Senator
      Feingold.......................................................    31

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal
      Order of Police, Washington, D.C., statement...................    33
    Fox, James P., District Attorney, San Mateo County, California,
      and Chairman of the Board, National District Attorneys
      Association, statement.........................................    46
    Jordan, Anne H., Commissioner of Public Safety, Maine Department
      of Public Safety, Augusta, Maine, letter.......................    62
    Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims
      of Crime, Washington, D.C., statement..........................    65
    Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage
      Foundation, Washington, D.C., statement........................    71
    National Sheriffs' Association, Sheriff David A. Goad, President,
      and Aaron D. Kennard, Executive Director, Alexandria, Virginia,
      letter.........................................................    85
    National Troopers Coalition, Dennis Hallion, Chairman,
      Washington, D.C., letter.......................................    87
    Nee, Thomas J., President, National Association of Police
      Organizations, Alexandria, Virginia, statement.................    88
    Ramsey, Charles H., Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police
      Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement..............    91
    Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police
      Department, Burlington, Vermont, statement.....................    94
    Schmidt, John R., Esq., Partner, Mayer Brown, former Associate
      Attorney General, Department of Justice, Chicago, Illinois,
      statement......................................................   101

      HELPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2009

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., Room
    226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Whitehouse.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
       THE STATE OF VERMONT, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

        Chairman Leahy. Good morning. Thank you for being here. I
    see many people that I know and I've worked with over the
    years. Of course, I'd note that Michael Schirling, the Chief of
    Police of Burlington, Vermont, is here. Burlington is where I
    lived for many years. I was a Prosecutor there, married there
    46 years ago, and raised children there.
        And Commissioner Ramsey, of course, is an old friend and no
    stranger to either myself or this Committee. I'm told,
    Commissioner, that Senator Specter has to be in Pennsylvania
    with President Bush today, and he regrets being unable to
    attend the hearing. Usually Senator Specter and I conduct these
    hearings together, and have for years. Especially having you
    here, he wanted me to extend his regrets for that.
        Later this morning, the President-Elect, President-Elect
    Obama, is going to be speaking about the economic crisis and
    the need for an immediate stimulus package. That is something
    that I think all Republicans and Democrats agree we have to, in
    probably the most severe--certainly the most severe--economic
    period of my lifetime.
        So it's fitting that in the Judiciary Committee's first
    hearing of this new Congress we consider the urgent need for
    more Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement
    during this economic crisis. Families across America find their
    economic security increasingly at risk, and the possibility of
    increased crime during this recession means they may also find
    their day-to-day safety and security are at risk.
        With unemployment on the rise, cities and towns are cutting
    budgets, including critical funding for police. We have to act
    quickly and decisively to shore up State and local law
    enforcement or face reversal of the really great strides we
    made in the '90s at reducing crime.
        The new Congress has appropriately focused on how best to
    turn our economy around and help those most in need, and an
    effective way to protect our citizens and create jobs, that
    begin rebuilding our economy and our communities, with
    confidence, would be to restore Federal support for State and
    local law enforcement, which has been so severely cut during
    the past eight years.
        I know that Congress, in a bipartisan effort, in the
    Clinton administration supported America's law enforcement like
    never before. It helped to put 100,000 new officers on the
    street and we saw an historic decline in crime rates.
        But it stalled when the current administration gutted
    Federal funding for State and local law enforcement, cutting it
    by billions. Whether one is for or against the war in Iraq, the
    idea that we took the money from American law enforcement to
    give the money to law enforcement in Iraq did not make a great
    deal of sense. Iraq has a huge budget surplus; we have a huge
    budget deficit. I think that I would like to see us worry more
    about law enforcement in America than law enforcement in Iraq.
        So we have to act now. We have got to do something to
    reverse the nearly 50 percent reduction in overall funding for
    State and local law enforcement. In fact, if Congress had not
    stepped in, these cuts would have been even greater. There has
    been the gutting of assistance to State and local crime
    prevention programs, even though we know that they do prevent
    crime. Local law enforcement depends on local tax revenues. We
    know those are starting to fall, with the economic downturn.
    Police departments are going to find even further cuts.
        So as crime escalates there are going to be fewer officers
    and resources to protect us, and I think we have to act now. I
    think if we can allow State and local forces to fill vacancies
    and hire new officers and staff, it is going to help to jump-
    start our economy. These are good middle-class jobs for middle-
    class people, and they can be filled immediately. They are
    often jobs where people live in the hardest-hit communities,
    who spend their money close to home.
        So it helps. Supporting State and local law enforcement
    helps economic development in another important way, too. As
    many of our neighbors become safer, property values rise,
    businesses open, they thrive, local economies prosper. If crime
    returns to these newly prosperous neighborhoods, then business,
    homeowners, and the economy suffer. I believe we should restore
    the COPS program and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
    to the levels that worked so effectively in the '90s.
        Crime is not just a big-city issue. As the Judiciary
    Committee heard at hearings in St. Alban's in Rutland, Vermont,
    the drugs and violence long seen in urban areas now plague even
    our most rural and remote communities, and ironically the rural
    and remote communities usually have the least ability to
    respond to it. They don't have the sophisticated task forces.
    They don't have the specialized squads so common in big cities
    and metropolitan areas.
        On the first day of this Congress, I introduced the Rural
    Law Enforcement Assistance Act to ensure that rural communities
    hit hard by crime and by the recession get the help they need.
    I would like to make sure that crime victims are not doubly
    penalized, first by being hit with a crime, and then being
    denied assistance and compensation. We could prevent that by
    doing something that doesn't cost a dime in Federal taxes, and
    that is to raise the cap on the Crime Victims' Fund so that we
    could send more money to the States for crime victims.
        So, we have people who bring important perspectives to
    this. I have known Chief Schirling of Burlington for many
    years. I knew him long before he was chief. He used to work on
    some of the first high-tech capabilities, with the Internet and
    whatnot, to attack crime in Vermont. One of the reasons he was
    picked as chief is that he was one of the first to understand
    the innovative ways that could be used to face challenges
    today.
        He's been a leader in the fight against crimes against
    children, which is especially important, as a parent and a
    grandparent. Of course, we have, as I mentioned, Commissioner
    Ramsey of Philadelphia here; former Associate Attorney General
    Schmidt, I know very well; Ms. Leary, from the National Center
    for Crime Victims; Mr. Muhlhousen--it is pronounced ``housen'',
    right? Muhlhousen?--from the Heritage Foundation.
        I want to thank others in law enforcement who submitted
    letters and written testimony: the National Association of
    Police Organizations (NAPO); the Fraternal Order of Police;
    National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives; the
    National Troopers Coalition; the National Sheriffs Association.
    Their statements will be placed in the record.
        [The statements appear as a submission for the record.]
        Our first witness, as I said, will be Michael Schirling,
    Chief of the Burlington Police Department since January of
    2008. He previously ran the Burlington Police Department's
    Administrative Services Bureau, the Emergency Management and
    Homeland Security Protective Service Bureau in training and
    recruitment. He joined as a uniformed officer in '93.
        In '99, he helped found the Vermont Internet Crime Task
    Force and has continued as coordinator of the task force ever
    since. He was a State leader in computer forensics, a co-
    founder of the Digital Forensic Technology program at Champlain
    College in Burlington. He received his bachelor's degree in
    Political Science and a Master's of Education Leadership and
    Policy Development from the University of Vermont.
        Chief Schirling, I'm delighted to have you here. It's good
    to see you again. Please go ahead.

    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. SCHIRLING, CHIEF OF POLICE, BURLINGTON
                    POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGTON, VT

        Chief Schirling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure
    to be here. Thank you for the invitation to appear. I'm pleased
    to be here this morning to discuss the challenges confronting
    small cities and rural law enforcement, and how the Federal
    Government can renew its commitment to the safety and vibrancy
    of our communities at this crucial time of economic downturn.
        My written testimony captures the bulk of my thoughts and
    thoughts from other law enforcement leaders in Vermont and in
    the region on these issues. This morning, I'll try to be
    succinct.
        Over the last 10 years, our policing paradigm in Burlington
    has shifted from a response-based model to one embracing the
    core tenets of community policing partnership and problem
    solving, with an eye toward preventing crime and mitigating
    disorder on our streets, in our neighborhoods, and our downtown
    using a variety of methods and employing the resources of a
    host of stakeholders. Many of those initiatives have been
    funded or seeded with Federal support.
        We believe, in addition to traditional law enforcement
    activities, such as enforcement of investigative initiatives,
    that those things are important. Increasingly, law enforcement
    must focus on education and prevention, as well as outreach and
    intervention, in an effort to stem the tide of crime by
    reaching youth, the disenfranchised, and the service-resistant
    at a neighborhood level. Policing is no longer one-dimensional.
        Over the course of this paradigm shift in the last decade,
    we have had a variety of successes: successful neighborhood
    policing, partnerships in parallel justice to support victims,
    community support programs to mediate and do intervention with
    citizens in conflict before it reaches the level of crime,
    partnership in putting mental health workers out on the street
    to mitigate crime and disorder, and extensive partnerships with
    Federal, State, and local agencies on a host of issues, from
    child sexual exploitation to Internet crimes against children
    and drug operations.
        While we've met success using this model, we face a variety
    of continuing challenges, including: the recruitment and
    retention of qualified employees, including police officers;
    shifts in violent crime from larger urban areas to smaller
    cities in rural jurisdictions; stresses created by the
    burgeoning drug trade, not only in illicit drugs, the classic
    drug trade model, but increasing stresses related to the trade
    and trafficking in prescription medication and the ancillary
    crime that goes with that, the increases in robberies at
    convenience stores, pharmacies, car breaks, burglaries, and
    things that support that drug trade; the continuing challenges
    posed by computer and Internet crime and the emerging
    challenges of increasingly mobile devices and the way in which
    they facilitate criminal activity.
        There has been significant progress in our national efforts
    to stem the tide of crime, however, there is much work
    remaining to be done. Increases in violent crime, drug sales,
    and gang activity in some parts of America correspond directly
    to the substantial decline in funding for State, tribal, and
    local law enforcement from the Federal Government.
        The economic recession will have a significant additional
    impact on local and State funding streams, as they are
    stretched to their limit. The economic turmoil has caused
    concern for public safety resources, because maintaining safe
    communities is arguably one of the key elements of economic
    vitality and growth for any community.
        Ensuring that the resources exist for America's 18,000 law
    enforcement agencies and 800,000 police officers to continue to
    combat crime in a successful manner will require a renewed
    commitment to historic funding streams, such as Community
    Oriented Policing, (the COPS program), and awards such as the
    Edward R. Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program.
        Without that renewed assistance, we'll face cuts in
    personnel, inability to fund critical equipment needs, such as
    bullet-proof vests, communications and technology projects,
    reductions in the ability to pay for special operations, drug
    initiatives, traffic safety initiatives, computer and Internet
    crime, an erosion of resources to support victims and survivors
    of crime, and diminishing resources to deal with challenged
    populations, such as those suffering mental illness and
    substance abuse.
        We're doing all we can to protect communities at this
    point. It's essential for law enforcement programs like the
    ones I mentioned, COPS and Byrne, to be fully funded in 2009
    and the years that follow. With your help and our commitment to
    a safer America, we can continue to make great strides.
        I'd just like to thank you once again for the invitation to
    be here today and for taking testimony on this important set of
    issues, and most importantly for your continued leadership and
    assistance on law enforcement matters nationwide.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        I'll tell just one story about Chief Schirling. Recently,
    Bob Mueller, the head of the FBI, was in Burlington. The Chief
    had worked, with others, on a particularly egregious crime we
    had in Vermont, and organizing of the State and local and
    Federal authorities to solve the crime.
        So I brought the Director of the FBI over to the Burlington
    Police Department to meet all the people who worked on the
    crime, and he had followed the crime personally, called me
    different times during the investigation, and he wanted to
    thank everybody for what they did.
        What the Chief did, was find an old photograph, something I
    had totally forgotten about. When I was a Prosecutor, I used to
    go out on the pistol range with the police at least once a year
    and qualify. I still have a pistol range behind my home in
    Vermont. I should tell you, Commissioner, we live way out in
    the country.
        [Laughter.]
        I recall the Director commenting, not so much on my prowess
    with a sidearm, because I did qualify every year with them, but
    the fact that I had hair at the time.
        [Laughter.]
        Commissioner Ramsey was appointed Police Commissioner of
    the Philadelphia Police Department on January 7, 2008. As
    Commissioner, he leads the fourth largest police force in the
    country. Prior to his appointment, he served as Chief of Police
    for Washington, DC's Metropolitan Police Department from '98
    through 2006, longer than any other chief since DC's home rule
    began. He implemented innovative community policing strategies
    and helped lower the crime rate by almost 40 percent. He began
    his career with the Chicago Police Department, where he served
    nearly 30 years in a variety of positions. He holds a
    Bachelor's and Master's degree in Criminal Justice from Lewis
    University. He graduated from the FBI National Academy and the
    National Executive Institute.
        Commissioner, we're delighted to have you here. Please go
    ahead, sir.

         STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, POLICE COMMISSIONER,
       PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

        Commissioner Ramsey. Thank you, and good morning, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the future
    of our Nation's law enforcement agencies at such a critical
    time in our history.
        My testimony here today reflects not just the experience of
    the City of Philadelphia or the Philadelphia Police Department.
    Our experience, especially at this time, is not unique. Federal
    support for municipal police organizations has been declining
    steadily since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001 in
    favor of Homeland Security funding.
        From 2001 until now, local police have received 81 percent
    less financial support, from $2.1 billion to $400 million, for
    initiatives such as additional personnel hiring and technology
    grants. I would submit, however, that this is not an either/or
    proposition, either defend the homeland or fight crime. In
    looking forward, the Federal Government can, and should,
    support local police in both grants for crime reduction and
    Homeland Security.
        At its highest, the Philadelphia Police Department received
    almost $32 million in Federal grants for crime reduction in
    1996. Last year, in 2008, we received $3.5 million in Federal
    funding. Not only do we as local law enforcement agencies share
    a similar history with decreasing Federal investments, but we
    all share the present experience of being in an economic
    recession. No city or State has been spared from this
    recession. Local governments across the country are facing
    extraordinary budget shortfalls, necessitating cut-backs in
    services, programs, and personnel.
        The public safety sector is not immune and the consequences
    for our cities, large and small, are very real. Local police
    agencies are the primary agency in any municipal government for
    preventing, responding to, and reducing crime, violence, and
    terrorism. A strong and economically viable city will have a
    strong, capable, and well-trained local police agency as its
    foundation.
        With cities and States universally scaling back their
    police operations infrastructure, reducing or canceling academy
    classes, cutting back investigation and patrol overtime,
    slowing their financial investment in technology, and
    implementing hiring freezes for sworn and civilian positions,
    all of us--police, local, State, and Federal Government--have a
    stake in ensuring that public safety for the citizens in this
    country is not compromised.
        Providing Federal support to local and State law
    enforcement agencies during this economic downturn is an
    investment in the growth and success of this Nation's future.
    If we are able to build a sustainable future for our cities and
    States--and that is one of the core issues here,
    sustainability--then the Federal Government must partner with
    local police departments in offering dependable and meaningful
    support.
        Criminologists, social scientists, and statisticians have
    rigorously studied policing in this country for over 40 years.
    One area that has received much inquiry is the positive impact
    of targeted policing initiatives through increased personnel in
    particularly crime-ridden areas. I have also been in this
    profession for over 40 years, and based on my experience, the
    most influential deterrent to crime is a highly visible and
    well-trained uniformed patrol division. More personnel not only
    deters those would-be criminals from breaking the law, but
    contribute to a sense of safety and well-being to our law-
    abiding citizens that is intangible and invaluable.
        In Philadelphia in particular, Mayor Michael Nutter and I
    set aggressive goals for the Department in January of 2008 and
    worked diligently to reduce the level of violent crime in the
    city. Homicides in 2008, compared to 2007, decreased by 15
    percent, or 60 fewer homicides; shooting victims, by 11
    percent; and our homicide clearance rate reached 75 percent.
    Those were accomplished by returning more officers and
    specialized units to uniformed patrol in order to increase the
    size of our patrol force.
        In light of the current budget constraints, the
    Philadelphia Police Department will be unable to hire an
    additional 200 officers originally planned in the beginning of
    the 2009 fiscal year. More police equal less crime, a formula
    that, when directed using evidence-based policing principles
    such as targeting hot-spots where violence is
    disproportionately high, is a crime-fighting strategy with
    which I agree.
        Additionally, the Philadelphia Police Department must
    reduce our use of all over-time, while maintaining our progress
    and our presence on the street. Driving down crime in the years
    to come, not just for us but for all local police, will present
    an even greater challenge in this economy.
        Four areas common to all law enforcement agencies have
    emerged as a focal point for Federal support for local police
    over the past 10 years: hiring law enforcement personnel, both
    sworn and key civilians; training and technology grants;
    increasing Homeland Security funds for use locally, such as
    reinstating the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program;
    and increasing flexible grant assistance through the Edward
    Byrne Memorial Justice grants.
        The opportunities afforded to local police agencies via
    Federal grants for personnel hiring through the COPS program
    are so vitally important to all of us now. It is not just sworn
    positions, however, that are in need of effective crime
    fighting. Increasing the number of civilian positions in the
    area of forensic sciences, specifically ballistics, DNA
    analysts and technicians, and intelligence and crime analysts,
    also provides an essential complement to our local policing
    agencies. Bringing these civilian positions in to police
    organizations allows a greater number of officers to be
    redeployed to the street.
        Police hiring grants and law enforcement technology grants,
    totaling $950 million, comprise the cornerstone of the COPS
    Improvement Act of 2007, introduced by Senator Biden with 35
    co-sponsors, including yourself as the Senate Judiciary
    Committee Chair, and Ranking Member Specter, in March of 2007.
        Both IACP, the International Association of Chiefs of
    Police, and the Major City Chiefs endorse this important Act.
    Although the bill did not pass the House of Representatives,
    the funding priorities still remain the same today and would
    provide local police with the much-needed assistance required
    to fight crime successfully.
        Lastly, in considering how the Federal Government can
    partner effectively with local and State police, we should not
    lose sight of one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal,
    that of prevention. Long-term and sustainable solutions to
    crime and violence must include prevention initiatives,
    spanning from early intervention to reentry, and providing
    victim services. Groups such as the National Crime Prevention
    Council, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, the National Center for
    Victims of Crime, work with police departments across the
    country to educate our youth and others to promote healthy and
    viable communities.
        Federal funding that provides inter-governmental
    cooperation and assistance between local law enforcement
    agencies, prevention, and service organizations will go a long
    way toward making us all safer in the future.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Commissioner Ramsey appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Commissioner. As I said before,
    it's good to see you again.
        John Schmidt is currently a partner at the law firm of
    Mayer Brown in Chicago, Illinois. He specializes in large-scale
    government transactions and litigation. But where I knew him
    before that was when he served as Associate Attorney General in
    the Department of Justice from 1994 to 1997. He oversaw the
    implementation of the 1994 crime bill and the then-new COPS
    program. We worked closely together, as many Senators on both
    sides of the aisle did, during that time.
        He received his Bachelor's degree from Harvard College, his
    J.D. from Harvard Law School, and we're glad to have you here,
    Mr. Schmidt. Please go ahead.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN R. SCHMIDT, PARTNER, MAYER BROWN CHICAGO, IL
     FORMER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be
    here. I really commend you for holding a hearing on this
    subject. I believe very strongly that unless Congress provides
    substantial assistance now to State and local law enforcement
    in this country, we are going to see a real decline in the size
    of police forces across this country, and that in turn is going
    to produce a significant increase in crime and violence, and as
    you indicated in your opening remarks, I think a roll-back and
    a regression from the enormous progress we made over the last
    15 years in bringing safety to communities across this country.
        As you indicated, my own particular involvement with
    Federal assistance for local law enforcement came about in
    1994, when Congress passed the crime bill, as you indicated,
    with a lot of hard work from a lot of people on this Committee
    on both sides of the aisle. A key element of that was the COPS
    program, to put 100,000 additional officers into communities in
    this country, and the Attorney General and the President asked
    me to take responsibility for that program.
        I think that program is a very useful precedent, as you
    think about what can and should happen now. It not only showed
    how effective Federal assistance can be, it showed how quickly
    the impact can be felt. To give you an idea of how quickly we
    moved in 1994, after the bill was passed by Congress, before
    the President had even signed the bill, I had a meeting with a
    delegation from the U.S. Conference of Mayors in which we
    agreed that if they would tell us then how many officers they
    were prepared to begin hiring and training, we would tell them
    then the level of funding they could be assured of receiving.
    That was a minimum level; they could come back later.
        We did that, and the result of that was that, within a
    matter of weeks after the signing of that bill, we had officers
    across the country into training academies. I think if Congress
    provides assistance of that kind today, there will be a similar
    reaction among local law enforcement, because I think in many
    ways the need is arguably even greater today.
        In '94, we had a situation where we had communities all
    across the country, with absolutely intolerable levels of crime
    and violence, and we had to increase police forces very
    substantially to enable police to work with communities and
    bring that level of violence down. We did that over the '90s.
    By the end of that decade, we had increased sworn officers in
    this country by over 100,000 officers, most of them funded
    initially with Federal money. As you indicated, crime rates had
    come way down.
        From that point on, there has been essentially no Federal
    funding available for increased hiring. Fortunately, the
    condition of the economy in this country was such that those
    communities were overwhelmingly able to keep those higher
    levels of police force in place and they were able to fund them
    on an ongoing basis. So since the end of the '90s there's been
    no significant increase overall, but we've had relative
    stability in the level of police forces.
        We then had one very important thing happen: we had 9/11,
    which put huge additional burdens on State and local law
    enforcement. So I think even with those stable levels of force,
    we came into this current period of economic crisis with law
    enforcement under real strain.
        But what we are now seeing are real declines in the size of
    police forces. It's taking the form of not filling vacancies,
    and beyond that it's taking the form of outright lay-offs. I'll
    give you my home City of Chicago as a good example. Chicago, as
    Chief Ramsey, as I call him, knows well, is a city that really
    prides itself on support for its police department. The last
    thing any mayor wants to do is stand up and say, I'm reducing
    the size of the Chicago Police Department. That is, in fact,
    what has happened.
        The mayor's budget for 2009, passed very reluctantly by the
    city council, achieves a balanced budget in the face of
    severely declining revenues only by slowing down on the filling
    of vacancies. The total number of vacancies was over 400 at the
    end of last year. Turnover is going to continue. They're going
    to fill only 200. Chicago, I don't think, is in the worst
    shape.
        The worst example I've heard about is Pontiac, Michigan,
    where the economic decline is such that they've actually had to
    reduce their police force by over 50 percent, and they are
    experiencing a dramatic increase in crime rates. But it's not
    geographically limited. I saw a story the other day about
    Sacramento, California which had managed--and they were sort of
    priding themselves--to come up with money to fill 11 vacancies
    in the police department, but they had 98 vacancies, over 10
    percent of the police department.
        So I think across this country we are seeing now, on an
    accelerating basis, a decline in the size of police forces.
    That, in turn, is going to result in an increase in crime and
    violence. No one can predict precisely what that increase is
    going to be. It obviously will vary from place to place, just
    as in the '90s the impact of increasing the size of police
    forces was felt at varying levels. But it will be real and I
    think it does present a real risk that we will see, nationwide,
    a falling away from the progress that we've made.
        To me, the answer is pretty straightforward. I would see a
    need for Congress to provide funding to enable police
    departments across the country to fill vacancies, to hire back
    previously laid off officers. I set out in my statement some
    ways that I think that probably needs to be done now that
    differ a little from the way it was done in the '90s, the most
    significant of which is, I don't think the limits that we put
    on COPS grants back in the '90s, which were a maximum of
    $30,000 per officer, per year, and no more than 80 percent of
    the total cost, would work at this point. Those worked in the
    '90s, even though they meant we weren't providing anywhere
    close to the full cost in a lot of places. But that worked
    because localities had the ability to make up the difference.
        I think at this point, to make it work in the current
    economic crisis, you need to provide full funding for some
    period of time, although I think you still have to limit it. I
    think localities will still have to hire on the assumption
    that, within some period of time, such as three years, they
    would have to assume the cost of those officers.
        But I think that can be done, and I set out some numbers.
    The numbers are, in one sense, huge. On the other hand, in
    comparison to the amounts we are spending on other elements, or
    proposing to spend, of economic stimulus, it seems to me they
    are more than justified.
        I would just conclude by saying one word about economic
    stimulus. It seems to me that, from the standpoint of economic
    stimulus, providing money to put additional police officers on
    payrolls in communities across this country, is about as good
    as it can get. I mean, construction projects are great, but
    only 30, 40 percent of that money goes into direct labor. Here,
    every dollar goes to pay the salaries of officers who live and
    work across the country.
        As I was indicating, I think it can happen very fast and
    have an impact that would be felt very fast. It seems to me
    something that you should do, and I urge you to do it and would
    be eager to provide any further help I could on how you develop
    the best means to do it and make it happen as quickly as
    possible.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Well, as you know, I followed this very
    closely during the time when the program began, not only
    because of my own interest as a member of this Committee, but
    my past experience in law enforcement. I watched it not only in
    my own State,--we're a border State. We have a lot of problems
    because of transshipping, through Vermont from metropolitan
    areas, drugs and other things.
        But I have also seen it around the country. We've held
    hearings in other parts of the country, where I've dealt with
    police agencies throughout the Nation. It's one of those
    government programs that actually works. I agree with you that
    we may make some adjustments for today's economy and today's
    economic restrictions, but the basic concept still works.
        Mary Lou Leary is currently the executive director of the
    National Center for Victims of Crime, where she's served since
    2004; again, no stranger to this Committee. She's worked with
    us on a lot of legislation and been extraordinarily helpful in
    doing that.
        She previously served as the U.S. Attorney for the District
    of Columbia, as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the
    Office of Justice Programs. As a leader of the Office of
    Justice Programs, she oversaw the Department of Justice's
    Office for Victims of Crime and the Office of Violence Against
    Women. She previously served as the Acting Director of
    Community Oriented Policing Services at the Department. She
    earned her Bachelor's degree in English literature in Syracuse,
    her Master's in Education at Ohio State University, her law
    degree at Northeastern University School of Law.
        Ms. Leary, it's good to see you again. Thank you for being
    here.

     STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL
               CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Leary. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chairman Leahy
    and Senator Whitehouse. I am the executive director of the
    National Center for Victims of Crime. For over 20 years, the
    National Center for Victims of Crime has worked in a variety of
    ways to make sure that victims have the rights, the resources,
    and the respect that they need to recover from crime and
    rebuild their lives.
        We want to thank this Committee for giving us the
    opportunity to speak this morning to the important issue of the
    need to fully fund victim services and local law enforcement
    response to crime in our communities. For the past eight years,
    the issue of crime in our communities has been sorely neglected
    at the Federal level. As important as homeland security is, the
    safety of our neighborhoods is just as critical to domestic
    tranquillity. We hope that this hearing will encourage the
    incoming administration, and Congress as a whole, to refocus
    attention on this issue.
        I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about the
    increase in victimization that we are seeing across this
    country. Is there a relationship between the economic downturn
    and rates of victimization? Well, there's always a time lag
    before the official statistics, like the UCR, would reflect any
    such relationship. But we do know that, according to the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors in a 2008 study, we are seeing an increase
    in crime as a result of worsening economic conditions. That
    report was issued in May of 2008. Things have only gotten a lot
    worse since that time.
        But regardless of how direct the correlation may be between
    economic downturn and increase in crime, during the past year,
    victim service professionals across this country have seen a
    very clear increase in victimization and victim need, coupled
    with significantly reduced funding to respond to this crisis.
        At the National Center alone, we've seen a 25 percent
    increase in calls to our National Crime Victim Help Line. Hot-
    lines and crisis lines across the country are seeing similar
    increases, as job losses and economic stress factor into
    increased violence in our homes and in our communities.
        You know, we recently polled the members of the National
    Center to find out what was happening in their communities.
    What they told us can only be described as a crisis in the
    Nation's ability to respond to crime. I'd like to share a
    couple of their responses with you.
        First of all, 92 percent reported an increase in
    victimization in the last year--robberies, property crimes,
    domestic violence--and many of them also mention that there's
    an increase in violence accompanying this crime, so it's not
    just a robbery, it's a robbery with a dreadful beating.
        Some of the comments we received are listed in my
    testimony, things like, ``I've seen my victim base double in
    the past year.'' ``We've had a 143 percent increase from 2005
    to 2007,'' ``a 34 percent increase in victim services'' in a
    domestic violence shelter. But many of them also told us that
    victims are requiring more services and many different kinds of
    services, things they haven't seen before.
        For instance, because of the increased cost of living and
    rising unemployment, victims are requiring much longer stays in
    emergency shelters. Nearly 90 percent of the respondents to our
    survey told us that they believe that this increased demand for
    victim services was linked to economic conditions, based on
    what they heard from the victims.
        The link between financial stress, alcohol use and
    violence, increased requests for victim compensation because
    victims--many of them no longer have insurance to cover crime-
    related losses, or they're folks who used to be treated at,
    say, senior centers, mental health centers, and other programs
    that have been down-sized or closed.
        At the same time, victim service providers across this
    country are totally strapped for funding. Especially, we heard
    from service providers in rural areas, where victims face
    really unique challenges with access to services, compromised
    privacy in a small community, and services that are actually
    having to close their doors because of funding.
        In the rural area, one prosecutor told us, ``if our victim
    services program goes away, there will be no one in this county
    to help victims of crime.'' How can we address this crisis?
        I'll just say, briefly, that we understand budgets are
    tight, but we believe that smart investments by this Congress
    can help save millions of dollars that would otherwise be lost
    as a result of harm suffered by victims of crime, and at the
    same time could significantly improve services to victims.
        Very briefly, I would say, number one, in our view, the
    very best way for Congress to support a more effective response
    to victims is through releasing additional VOCA funds. You all
    know what the VOCA fund is and how critically important it is,
    but please note that for the past several years there's been a
    cap on these funds, hovering around $625 million. But last year
    it was decreased. At the same time, the balance of the fund has
    grown to $1.9 billion. About $896 million was collected in FY
    '08 alone. That's the third largest amount deposited in one
    year in the entire history of the VOCA fund. There are
    indications that FY '09 will be another record year.
        Therefore, Congress can easily, we submit, release
    additional VOCA funds with no impact on the overall budget
    figures and no fear of draining the fund. Another important
    source of funding is VAWA. We urge Congress to fully fund those
    programs that were authorized in 2005 and have yet to receive
    their authorized funding: Advocates for Youth, Access to
    Justice for Youth, Sexual Assault Services Program, and the
    Expanded Services for Rural Victims Program. They are
    authorized but not appropriated at the levels that they
    desperately need.
        The Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. We urge Congress to
    look seriously at that. It's the most flexible and innovative
    grant program out there to help communities address the needs
    not just of law enforcement, but prosecution, defense,
    specialized courts, and, in our view, very importantly, victim
    services.
        My testimony lists several examples of very innovative uses
    of Byrne grant funding that has directly improved services to
    victims or improved access for victims to justice.
        In sum, demand for victim services is up. Critical services
    are being cut and Congress can, and should, make a difference.
    You have the tools already in VAWA, in VOCA, the COPS office,
    the Byrne grants, and funding for at-risk youth. We urge you to
    use those tools and use them swiftly. Victims of crime across
    this country are counting on you.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        David Muhlhousen is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage
    Foundation at the Center for Data Analysis. Dr. Muhlhousen has
    testified before Congress on several occasions about law
    enforcement grant programs, particularly the COPS program. He
    obviously has a different view than some of the witnesses we've
    heard today.
        He received a Ph.D. in Public Policy from the University of
    Maryland, Baltimore County, and his Bachelor's degree in
    Political Science and Justice Studies from Frostburg State
    University. He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Public
    Policy at George Mason University.
        Please go ahead, Dr. Muhlhousen.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, Ph.D. SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,
                THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Dr. Muhlhousen. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhousen. I
    am a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at
    the Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
    Specter, and the rest of the Committee for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        The views I express in this testimony are my own and should
    not be construed as representing any official position of the
    Heritage Foundation.
        While Congress is developing legislation intended to
    stimulate the economy, interest groups are lining up for their
    share of what is rapidly becoming a political Christmas tree.
    In keeping with this theme, Congress may add funding for the
    Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to the economic
    stimulus package.
        My testimony will focus on six points. First, COPS
    encourages local officials to shift accountability for funding
    local police departments toward the Federal Government. A prime
    example is the City of Boston. Boston accepted millions of
    dollars to hire additional police officers. As part of the
    condition to receive the grants, Boston was supposed to retain
    these officers after the grants expired. Once the grants
    expired, Boston's mayor downsized the city's police force, and
    then the mayor blamed the Federal Government for not providing
    additional funds to maintain staffing levels.
        Second, adding COPS funding to the economic stimulus
    package will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. A
    study by Professor Steven Miller of the University of Nevada,
    Las Vegas found that increased funding for intergovernmental
    transfers and total expenditures for transportation and public
    safety to be negatively associated with economic growth on the
    State level.
        Third, increased government reduces economic growth.
    Government spending crowds out private spending, especially
    private sector investment spending that would have elevated
    productivity. Government spending infused into the economy must
    first be taxed or borrowed out of the private sector. This
    transfer can only be efficient if the government spends the
    money more effectively than the private sector, an unlikely
    scenario. Numerous studies demonstrate that the increased size
    of government reduces economic growth.
        Fourth, claims of a forthcoming violent crime epidemic are
    overstated. Overall, America is a much safer place compared to
    15 years ago. The most recent National Crime Victimization
    Survey found that rates for every major violent crime and
    property crime were at, or near, the lowest levels recorded
    since 1973.
        Fifth, COPS has an extensive record of poor performance. A
    Heritage Foundation evaluation of COPS grants, using data from
    1990 to 1999 for 58 large cities, found that the grants had
    little to no effect on crime. The hiring grants failed to have
    a statistically measurable impact on murder, rape, assault,
    burglary, larceny, and auto theft rates. Although the hiring
    grants were associated with a slight decrease in robberies, the
    meager effect suggests that additional funding will do little
    to reduce crime.
        In addition, the evaluation found that COPS grants were
    used to supplant local police spending. This finding is
    supported by multiple audits by the Justice Department's
    Inspector General. The Inspector General found that cities
    failed to hire the number of officers required and did not
    comply with other grant conditions.
        In Washington, DC, the police department was awarded almost
    $11 million in Moore grants to redeploy 521 officers from
    administrative duties to community policing. When the Inspector
    General asked for a list of redeployed officers, the list
    included only 53 officers. Of the 53, one was deceased, 10 were
    retired, and 13 no longer worked for the department.
        Sixth, combatting ordinary street crime is the principal
    responsibility of State and local governments. If Congress
    wants to aid in the fight against crime, it should limit itself
    to unique rolls that only the Federal Government can play. The
    Federal Government should not become a crutch on which local
    law enforcement becomes dependent.
        The inclusion of COPS funding in the economic stimulus
    package will not assist in an economic recovery, nor will it
    make a substantial contribution to the reduction in crime.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Muhlhousen appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Doctor. Incidentally,
    Senator Feinstein asked that her statement be placed in the
    record, and will be.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Kohl regrets he can't be here
    today. He's introducing the COPS Improvements Act this morning.
    I'm happy to be an original co-sponsor of that Act.
        Incidentally, Dr. Muhlhousen, could I just ask you--and
    you've been very consistent in your feelings on this matter.
    Have you ever taken a position on the hundreds of millions--
    even billions--that we spend on police departments in Iraq? Are
    you in favor or opposed to that?
        Dr. Muhlhousen. It's not really an issue that I've studied.
    While I wish we have tremendous success in Iraq and I hope that
    we can turn that country around, that's an issue that I would
    defer to other Heritage experts.
        Chairman Leahy. I would just note parenthetically that, of
    the huge amounts of money that have gone there, we found, in
    many instances, the police departments end up shooting each
    other. We've had thousands upon thousands of firearms sent over
    there and we can't even find where they are, until they're used
    against Americans. Yet, that's been an unlimited amount of
    money that we spent on those law enforcement. My point being
    only that I wish we'd spend as much time worrying about law
    enforcement in the United States as we do law enforcement in
    Iraq.
        Chief Schirling, one of the reasons I wanted you here,
    aside from our own personal and professional association, is
    that I worry not only about large cities, as we all do, but
    about small cities and towns like Burlington. That's why I held
    the two hearings I've had in the past year in Vermont--Senator
    Specter was there for one of those--and why I introduced the
    Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, directly aimed at
    staffing for rural--staffing and training for rural law
    enforcement officers.
        You describe the cuts you expect to make in the coming
    year, given the economic downturn. You mentioned cutting
    officer staff, delaying the purchase of new communications
    equipment, bullet-proof vests, and so on. If we were to
    increase Federal COPS and Byrne grant funding, including a
    rural law enforcement assistance grant funding, first, would
    that help you avoid these painful cuts? Would you be able to
    use the money, virtually immediately?
        Chief Schirling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The short answer
    is yes. Not only at our department, but in other rural agencies
    throughout Vermont and the region, I think that money could be
    used almost immediately to stem the tide of cuts in officers
    and key support personnel and technology programs, and a host
    of other possible initiatives, to include training.
        I think it's important to note that, as we look at creative
    crime prevention and crime-fighting strategies, that some
    agencies may be looking to fund critical support positions, as
    Commissioner Ramsey indicated. There are key civilian positions
    that can help get officers back on the street out of
    administrative assignments, or bolster what officers do, or
    bolster the support that officers have and essentially act as a
    force multiplier.
        So, for example, if you deploy social service
    practitioners, substance abuse clinicians, or mental health
    practitioners in certain areas, you may be able to manage
    problems without using the resources of a police officer and
    allow that police officer to focus on standard investigations
    and crime prevention types of activities. So there are a
    variety of things that would be helpful, and I think many of
    them could be implemented fairly quickly.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, it's interesting. Marcelle and I are
    in Burlington several times a month, as you know, and have been
    talking to different police officers and those who work in your
    department and surrounding departments. They live in the area.
    They have an effect in the area, homes in the area. Is it over-
    simplistic to say, if you cut these positions, it has an
    economic adverse effect, but if you add these positions it has
    an economic positive effect?
        Chief Schirling. I don't think that's an over-
    simplification. I think that makes perfect sense. Any job that
    you add--the economists, at least in the Vermont area, indicate
    a single job created actually supports upwards of 10 ancillary
    jobs in service industries, grocery stores, convenience stores,
    gas stations, and things like that.
        So every job has an impact. As important as that direct
    impact, is the need, I think, to make sure that the climate for
    economic growth is a good one. So a safe community, someplace
    that people want to come and vacation, spend their dollars,
    visit relatives, or even move to, is critical in the overall
    goal of growing our economy, not only locally, but regionally
    and nationally.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, in fact, in that regard, to pull it
    into a much larger area, in Philadelphia--what is the
    population of Philadelphia, Commissioner, approximately?
        Commissioner Ramsey. It's about 1.6 million.
        Chairman Leahy. So it's about two and a half times the size
    of the population of our whole State. You described in your
    testimony how the City of Philadelphia, back in the mid-1990s,
    received more than $30 million a year in Federal funding. Last
    year, you received about a tenth of that amount. If the money
    was restored, would you be able to hire more police officers,
    and would that have a direct effect on crime and the safety of
    your community?
        Commissioner Ramsey. Yes, sir. Last year, we were very
    successful in fighting crime in Philadelphia, but we are
    nowhere near where we ought to be in terms of levels of crime
    in the city. Even after redeploying numerous officers back to
    street duty, really tracking activity using every tool we had
    available to us, we were able to have a decrease in crime.
        But additional personnel would certainly be beneficial and
    allow us to push the rates down even further. Just like Chief
    Schirling mentioned, the safer the community, the more likely
    you're going to have businesses invest, the more likely you're
    going to have increased tourism, and the like.
        But I'd also like to mention that one of the problems we
    have is being able to hire qualified civilians in certain key
    areas, like in our forensic sciences, intelligence analysts,
    crime analysts, and the like. It would be good if this would
    include that, not just sworn hiring, because a lot of times we
    find ourselves having to either backfill those positions with
    sworn or outsource the work, which is an added expense, and so
    forth.
        So we even--in my testimony, which I shortened for the sake
    of time, one of the suggestions we made is to provide an
    educational subsidy for people interested in pursuing college-
    level or advanced degrees in the study of forensic sciences and
    criminology, intelligence, crime analysis, and the like. We can
    encourage young people to get involved in a career in law
    enforcement not just on the sworn side, but there are other
    areas that we equally are in need of help.
        Chairman Leahy. And I think you find those non-sworn
    officers, the technicians and all, that's a significant change
    from when you were first a police officer, and a significant
    difference.
        Commissioner Ramsey. It is.
         Chairman Leahy. One of the advantages in this Committee,
    is we've had so many people, so many members of the Committee
    who've had past experience in law enforcement before they came
    here to the Senate. One of those, of course, is Senator
    Whitehouse of Rhode Island, former U.S. Attorney, former
    Attorney General of his State. I have gone over my time, and I
    yield to Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I welcome the witnesses here. I'd love to ask a question of
    Chief Schirling and Commissioner Ramsey, based on your on-the-
    ground public safety experience in your communities.
        We have seen an enormous amount of money spent in this
    country in recent years on a whole variety of programs
    catalogued under the sort of political heading ``homeland
    security''. I think that we've done that at great expense to,
    what I would call, ``hometown security''. I'd love to have you
    give me your kind of from-the-ground evaluation of how you feel
    the availability is of terror-related funding to the public
    safety threat from terror that you see in your communities and
    compare that equation to the availability of funding and
    support for hometown security and protection from crime,
    compared to the public safety problems of crime in your
    communities.
        I mean, there were, what, 17,000 people murdered the last
    year we have numbers for, 2007, murdered or died by
    manslaughter in this country, and yet we seem to be robbing
    that public--nothing against protecting this country from
    terrorism, but when you do so by robbing hometown security at
    the expense of homeland security--in Rhode Island we see sort
    of, you know, these remarkable grants for--I mean, I'm
    exaggerating and making this up a little bit, but basically,
    you know, underwater vehicles--armored underwater vehicles with
    sonar cannons that you can get through homeland security for a
    land-bound municipality, but the COPS program, the Byrne grant
    program, proven programs, slashed 90 percent, endeavor to be
    eliminated by the Bush administration.
        And I'll let you answer that question, but before I do, I
    just want to--one of the reasons that I ask it, is that there
    seems to me to be a very strong--what an economist would call
    externality involved here, and that is that by emphasizing
    homeland security, an administration can emphasize the terror
    threat, and by emphasizing the terror threat can emphasize the
    wartime nature of a presidency, and by emphasizing the wartime
    nature of a presidency, can build in the inherent public
    support for a wartime president.
        That is a political fact going back decades and
    generations. If that's your goal, you're really doing something
    political, not something from a public safety perspective. But
    it could be an important political goal if your agenda, as a
    president, is to do things that are deeply unpopular with the
    American public, harm the American public, supports special
    interests, and need cover in order to be done. So that's my
    sort of political overview.
        I'm not going to make you comment on that. I might get you
    in trouble if I asked you to comment on that. But the
    underlying part, in terms of the balance between terror support
    versus the terror public safety threat in your communities and
    how that's working out compared to the crime and public safety
    hometown security support, versus that public safety threat to
    the people you are responsible for protecting.
        Chief Schirling. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I
    appreciate the pass on the comment on the political side of
    things. From our perspective, I think to contrast homeland
    security versus hometown security, there's been an absence of
    funding--an almost complete absence of funding--in our area for
    local law enforcement and hometown security in a steadily
    declining line since 9/11, and simultaneously a steadily
    increasing line in funding related to homeland security
    initiatives. And certainly not to diminish the importance of
    homeland security initiatives, but they do appear to be out of
    balance, from our perspective.
        To suggest that you pour resources into homeland security
    without hitting the 18,000 law enforcement agencies and
    increasing their ability to detect crime, apprehend offenders,
    and provide services to their communities, you're missing a
    piece of that puzzle. Early on in the homeland security
    funding, I think there was more--a little more of an eye toward
    providing those types of resources to local law enforcement,
    but that quickly waned.
        The other, almost intangible factor, is--there's actually
    two. One, that as government, around homeland security, has
    grown, there have been requirements placed on local law
    enforcement, especially those that have transportation
    infrastructure to secure, like an international airport that we
    have, that drain resources without providing enough support.
    There's some support, but not enough support to provide those
    services.
        And the other thing that's happening, is in various
    locations around the country we're actually having difficulty
    recruiting qualified officers, in some instances because we're
    in competition with Federal agencies who are in significant
    pushes to hire agents and security folks. TSA, Air Marshals,
    has expanded by thousands of a percent. The FBI started a
    hiring push earlier this week. I'll take a moment to mention
    for Director Mueller that I mean to send him a no-poaching sign
    in the mail.
        [Laughter.]
        I'll get to that. Thank you. So I think that's our
    perspective.
        Senator Whitehouse. Commissioner Ramsey.
        Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I agree with Chief Schirling. I
    think that when the homeland security issue developed in 2002,
    the funding was siphoned off of the COPS funding into homeland
    security. In my opinion, it's not an either/or proposition: you
    have to do both, and you have to do both equally well. We did
    pick up additional responsibilities. I happened to be the chief
    here in Washington at the time. Obviously, this was a city that
    was of great concern when it comes to homeland security, and a
    lot of our resources went into that.
        But on a daily basis, people and communities are concerned
    with daily crime: burglaries, robberies, thefts. In
    Philadelphia last year, we had 330 homicides. Not a single
    homicide was committed by Bin Laden or anyone associated with
    Al Qaeda. So when you think about what really is driving crime
    in our cities right now, what is scaring people right now, it
    is crime, regular crime.
        I also need to mention, however, that we've been very
    fortunate that we've not had anything happen over the past few
    years. If terrorism is going to take hold in this country,
    they're going to use existing criminal networks in order to
    support themselves. There will be drug trafficking rings, the
    smuggling of cigarettes, all kinds of things that are illegal,
    to subsidize their activities here in the United States.
        So it's very important that we pay attention to both and
    that we identify the potential nexus between what looks like a
    burglary ring and what potentially could be something that has
    implications that go far beyond just your typical auto theft or
    burglary ring. So I think that one of the problems that I saw
    early on with homeland security funding, there were no controls
    over the spending and there was not any real accountability for
    the States or the local municipalities. A lot of money, in my
    opinion, was wasted. People were going out, buying stuff that
    they did not need. There was no accountability in the sense of
    understanding what the return on the investment would be.
        Now, that continues to be a problem, to an extent. So any
    new funding, there needs to really be some careful
    consideration and thought as to how that money is going to be
    used and what's expected of the municipality that receives that
    funding. I think that's only right, otherwise we're just
    throwing money at a problem and not necessarily getting any
    benefit as a result of it.
        We've got to learn to work more in terms of regional
    cooperation. Now, that's taken huge leaps since 9/11, I know,
    certainly here in the Washington area, around Philadelphia, and
    other areas where police departments are working together like
    they've never worked before, and I think we've got to continue
    to push and drive that, to make sure that information systems
    are compatible, we can actually share information.
        The gap that exists between Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement in terms of information sharing is better than it
    was, but it's not where it really needs to be. You've still got
    a lot of issues with classification of materials and who has
    access to what, who needs to know what, and that sort of thing.
    So it's pretty complicated. Part of this, we need to sit down
    and really think of ways in which we can improve those, and at
    the same time provide funding that's going to really give you
    the maximum return on your investment.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman Leahy.
        Chairman Leahy. The coordination. Commissioner, the need
    for better coordination. Your colleague, as Commissioner in New
    York City, has raised--somebody I've known also for years--the
    same issue. It is sometimes hard to break down those barriers,
    but we're going to have to do it. It's probably easier on a
    small scale in rural and small cities and towns.
        Chief Schirling has been very involved, but this involved
    everybody. We've had the chief of police at the University of
    Vermont, the chief of police at the various departments
    throughout Chittenden County, where he is, the sheriffs'
    departments, and the Federal authorities have worked together.
    But there, you know everybody on a very personal basis. You see
    them every day at the grocery store, church, wherever else. But
    we've got to start doing a better job of breaking that down. I
    was concerned about some of the problems over the years in New
    York City, similar problems in some other big cities; I know
    Mr. Schmidt, when he was at Department of Justice, one of the
    things he talked about a lot.
        Ms. Leary, when you talk about the Crime Victims Fund,
    which, as you know, is something I've worked--the former
    Chairman of this Committee, Joe Biden, who is soon to leave the
    Senate for another job, worked so hard on, as did, again,
    members on both sides of the aisle. For those who don't
    understand it, the Victims of Crime Act Fund, that's funded
    through penalties and fines from Federal offenders. It doesn't
    come out of taxpayer money. But it's been capped annually, so
    in recent years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been
    collected, but not allowed to be used to help victims. Do you
    think we should be raising those caps? I realize that's kind of
    a leading, easy question. But tell me about what happens.
        Ms. Leary. No. Absolutely. I would urge Congress to raise
    that cap. Another way to describe it, is release more of the
    funds that are available. These are not taxpayer dollars. This
    money comes directly from fines and assessments on offenders
    and it is designated for the purpose of serving the needs of
    victims throughout the country. Because there have been very
    robust collections, and my goodness, when you read the
    newspaper every day, you can only anticipate that '09 will be a
    real bonus year for the VOCA fund because of all these
    negotiated settlements.
        It seems rather foolish to have all that money available,
    it's supposed to be serving victims, and it's being held back.
    I strongly urge Congress to release more of those funds, to
    raise that cap and really--the problems that are faced by
    victims and victim service providers are at a crisis
    proportion. Victims of crime are really kind of the hidden
    citizens in this country.
        What people don't really understand is that a vast majority
    of them never make it into the criminal justice system, so you
    can't say, oh, let the prosecutors take care of them, let the
    police take care of them. Most of them never get there, and
    they are relying on that little victim service provider in the
    church basement in rural Vermont to help them recover and
    rebuild.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        As you can tell, we have a dozen hearings going on today,
    including confirmation hearings. Everybody is around in
    different areas. I'm going to put into the record a statement
    by Senator Feingold regarding this hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. We'll leave the record open to all of you
    if there are things you want to add, either to your own answers
    or to the answers of others. The record will be kept open so
    you can do that. If you review your testimony--this is not a
    ``gotcha'' kind of hearing. If you review your testimony and
    say, I should have added this, there will be provision to do
    that.
        With that, unless somebody has anything they wish to add,
    we'll stand in recess.
        [No response].
        [Whereupon, at **************** the Committee was
    adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3929.083