[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