U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–884 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–889

HOMELAND SECURITY: ASSESSING THE NEEDS

OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 21, 2002

Serial No. J–107–70

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SHARON PROST, Minority Chief Counsel 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

GEORGE ELLARD, Majority Chief Counsel 

RITA LARI, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 1

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................ 51

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 40

Kohl, Hon. Herb, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............................ 41

WITNESSES 

Ferrell, Tommy, First Vice President, National Sheriffs’ Association, Natchez, 

Mississippi ............................................................................................................ 26

Hays, Hon. Patrick Henry, Mayor, Little Rock, Arkansas ................................... 8

Hood, Hon. Glenda E., Mayor, Orlando, Florida ................................................... 13

Johnson, William J., Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations, Washington, D.C ................................................................................. 22

Muhlhausen, David B., Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, Heritage 

Foundation, Washington, D.C ............................................................................. 32

Szczerba, Michael J., Chief of Police, Wilmington Police Department, Wilmington, Delaware ............................................................................................... 19

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert J. Chiaradio, Executive Assistant 

Director, Washington, D.C .................................................................................. 53

Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C ........................................... 57

(1)

HOMELAND SECURITY: ASSESSING THE 

NEEDS OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Chairman BIDEN. The subcommittee will come to order, please. 

I welcome all our witnesses today and will explain what all of them 

know, because it is not the first time some have been here. 

As the subcommittee opens this hearing, our Subcommittee on 

Crime and Drugs, there is a lot unfortunately going on today, so 

some of my colleagues will be in and out. 

Mayor Hood, of Orlando, is going to be here. She is necessarily 

delayed for a few minutes, and I have sought and gained the permission through her staff to be able to begin in her absence. She 

was going to be our lead-off witness. 

Senator Grassley will be here. Senator Grassley has taken an inordinately strong interest in the subject before us. And it is funny, 

but the more things change, the more they remain the same. Twenty-eight years ago, I started off as chairman of this subcommittee 

and now I am chairman of this subcommittee again. So it just goes 

to show that I think it is vitally important, the subject we are 

going to be dealing with today. 

I have an opening statement, and hopefully Senator Grassley 

may be here by then and he will make an opening statement. Then 

we will turn to our witnesses and I will announce the order after 

I introduce each of you. Again, thank you all for being here. 

I called this hearing this afternoon because I wanted to hear 

from the mayors and the men and women in local law enforcement, 

as well as some scholars who have very decided views on the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2003. First, let me point out 

a few things. 

Over the past 8 years, spending on local law enforcement has 

funded close to an additional 114,000 new officers on our streets. 

Now, let me be precise, lest someone immediately corrects me. 

There are probably somewhat in excess—I don’t know the exact 

2

numbers on the chart, but we have roughly 83,000 new shields; 

that is, we are hiring 83,000 new police officers who have a shield. 

The remainder of that comes from what we call the COPS MORE 

program, allowing mayors and others to go out and hire other people to allow a shield, a badge, a sworn police officer to be out on 

the street. The way it has been calculated by the COPS Office and 

by the last two administrations, roughly 114,000 more officers are 

on the street and involved in community policing than were at the 

start of this whole process. 

Over the same period, as you can see from the graph, crime has 

dropped 28 percent overall. Now, again, I know people say because 

I drafted the COPS legislation and what was originally called the 

Biden crime bill—actually, it was originally the Biden-Hatch crime 

bill, until it got to the House of Representatives, and then all of 

a sudden my friends on this side of the aisle, the Republicans, 

didn’t like it anymore and it became the Biden crime bill, although 

we did get seven Republicans to vote for it back in 1994. 

Then President Clinton thought, and I agreed with him, that it 

should be the Clinton crime bill. Then the Democrats lost the election in 1994 and he started calling it the Biden crime bill again, 

and then when he found out how popular it was it became the Clinton crime bill. I think Chief Szczerba can tell you the only place 

where it has always been called the Biden crime bill is Delaware. 

But it doesn’t matter whose crime bill it is. The reason I mention 

it is this: I do have a keen interest, in that I, along with police officers, beginning in 1990 wrote this bill. But I want to say up front 

up here I do not claim that it is totally responsible for that reduction in crime. I don’t believe we could have seen the reduction in 

crime we have seen were it not for the crime bill, but I do not suggest that is the only reason why crime came down. 

So I don’t want to get us into an internecine debate about whether or not COPS is totally responsible for all the decrease in crime, 

but there are two things that are clear. One, there have been authorized 114,000 more police officers to walk the street than were 

walking the street in 1993 locally. Second, crime has dropped 28 

percent. 

The drop in the rates of victimization, or what most people think 

of as violent crime or crimes against individuals, has been even 

more dramatic. From 1994, the year of the passage of the crime 

bill, to the year 2000, the rate of victimization of violent crime—

that is, rape, robbery, assault, and homicide—has dropped a total 

of 46 percent. 

In 1994, if I had said to anybody when we passed that crime bill 

when I was arguing for its passage on the floor—if I had said if 

you vote for this crime bill, crime is going to drop by overall 28 percent and violent crime by 46 percent, I would have thought I was 

certifiable, and I am sure Charlton Heston would have had something to say about it. He is the guy who called this the welfare bill 

for social workers. 

The truth of the matter is it has been astounding, which I would 

note parenthetically goes to show you what you can do when you 

empower people to make their own decisions and let local governments and the people who know what they are doing actually apply 

for this money and actually decide how they want to use it. 

3

In 1994, we made a decision that the Federal Government ought 

to be in the business of encouraging police departments to act and 

to move into the community policing business. We decided then 

that we ought to help police departments get their officers out from 

behind their desks and out of their cars and onto the streets. 

The crime bill kind of reminds me of Social Security. The overhead is incredibly low, the success is very high, and we take it for 

granted. So what is the big deal? I want to remind everybody that 

when we decided to provide—and only one part of the crime was 

COPS; there were three parts. One was prisons, out of a $30 billion 

bill, and the other part was prevention and treatment, prevention 

primarily. 

What we intended to do was to quite frankly figure out, Mr. 

Mayor, how we could leverage you all into doing what was difficult 

to do. Back then, Chief Szczerba was on patrol, probably, but the 

truth of the matter is cops didn’t want to be involved in community 

policing. The reason they didn’t is it is a heck of a lot harder. It 

takes more manpower, it takes more resources, it is more difficult. 

So remember the deal here. The deal was in the original COPS 

bill that in order to get any money to hire a new shield—if you had 

a department of 100 people, to get one federally funded cop, you 

had to put all 101 on the street. You had to commit all 101 to community policing. You couldn’t get one if your department didn’t 

move to community policing. Number two, if you had 100 cops that 

you hired then and your end strength was 100, you couldn’t fire 

one or let one go and add a federally-funded cop. You would get no 

money. 

I got here in 1972 as a 29-year-old kid. I was elected to the 

United States Senate, and I had been a local official and I used to 

go through all those hearings in the country council when the county executive would say or the president of the counsel would say 

we are going to do such-and-such. And I would say, well, how much 

would that cost? And they would say it is not going to cost anything; that is Federal money. I know local officials say they don’t 

say that, but sometimes they do. That is Federal money. 

I remember we had a program called LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The first thing I did got me in 

trouble. The chairman of the subcommittee I now am chairing was 

a fellow named McClellan, from Arkansas, one of the most powerful, toughest guys in the Senate and a fellow Democrat. He was the 

author of the LEAA program and the first major move I made was 

to eliminate the LEAA program, and oh, my Lord, did I hear about 

that. 

But the reason I did it was in the city of Wilmington, as Chief 

Szczerba may remember, the city was, for example, laying off policemen and laying off fireman and hiring them back with Federal 

money. The end result was not one additional cop and not one additional fireman at the end of the day. County officials would say, 

look, we didn’t raise your taxes, but we kept the end strength of 

the police department up. 

So the point to remember here is in the program that has functioned up to now, the one being eliminated, you had to keep the 

end strength of your department up. If you are authorized at 100, 

you had better have 100. If you go down to 90, you don’t get any 

4

Federal money. If you are 5,000 and you go down to 4,999, you 

don’t get any Federal money. That was, if you will, the stick that 

went along with the carrot, and you all did incredibly well. 

Today, over 7 years after passage of the crime bill, the COPS program has awarded $7.4 billion over the period to authorize 

113,900 new officers, 83,000 of whom are on the streets today. The 

reason I say on the streets today is some are still being trained. 

The departments got the money; the cities, the counties, the States 

and the towns got the money and their officer that they hired is 

literally going through the police academy now. They are not all on 

the street yet. 

Now, 86 percent of all law enforcement agencies in the United 

States of America, every single police department, from a 2-person 

police department in a small town to a city with many thousands 

of police as New York has—86 percent of all the police departments 

in America are engaged in what we call community policing. The 

number of community police officers increased by 4,055 from 1997 

to 1999 alone. Last December, this subcommittee held a hearing to 

highlight a new study indicating that the COPS grants had indeed 

reduced crime. These graphs make the point. 

So where do we go from here? The administration has put forward its vision, a big increase for first responders, increases which 

are needed and quite frankly which I support. I introduced a bill 

18 months ago, before 9/11, calling for $1 billion being made available to firefighters for training, local firefighters, for training and 

support. 

I have concerns, however, about whether the panel assembled 

here will actually see any of the money. Now, two of the panelists 

are not going to see any money. If they did, they would be put in 

jail because they are from think tanks, but the truth of the matter 

is I am referring to the mayors and the local officials. 

I am worried that FEMA, which is a fine, fine agency, may not 

be the right agency to fund these homeland security needs. But at 

the same time the administration boasts spending much more 

money for homeland defense—and they should; it is a significant 

increase—they have made huge cuts in local law enforcement programs. They cut two areas that I want to highlight this afternoon. 

Overall, the administration has slashed funds to the men and 

women of law enforcement by about 36 percent from last year. 

First, they want to end the COPS program totally. No dollars are 

included for any new hiring, no dollars are included for school resource officers, and the COPS technology program is cut by twothirds. 

Now, for those in the audience who don’t know what the COPS 

technology program is, that is allowing police officers to have, for 

example, laptops in their cars. One of the things that the chiefs 

and NAPO and FOP and others have taught me over the years is 

when a cop has to go back after making an arrest, minor or major, 

to the station house to bang out the report, it takes time, it takes 

effort. It is clerical, it is necessary, it is important, but no one is 

on the street. 

If that police officer can pull over to the side of the road and take 

out a laptop computer and bang in what he or she needs to bang 

in for that report, the cop is still on the street, still available on 

5

call, and it takes a lot less time. So those are the kinds of things 

we have used these technology programs for, and they cut that by 

two-thirds. 

Enactment of this budget would mean that we cannot put an additional 4,500 new officers on the streets of America next year. We 

could not put more than 1,600 more resource officers into schools 

around the country. 

Now, I want to tell you, in my State—and I don’t know about Arkansas; I suspect it is the same, Mr. Mayor—these school resource 

officers have been a phenomenal hit, like everything else that 

COPS has done. They have had a synergistic impact on things. It 

wasn’t only that they were in a school, in uniform, at a particular 

high school or school to keep the peace. What they found is they 

built relationships with individual students and they built relationships with the community. 

Now, the kid who wouldn’t trust anybody to go up and say, you 

know, Johnny brought a gun to school, or I heard Billy and Molly 

talking about how they are going to take out the cafeteria, or by 

the way I think there is a drug deal going down in the gym, they 

now know there is someone they can trust. They have actually 

built relationships.

I think you are going to see—we have not done them yet—serious studies done showing that where there is a police resource officer in a public school, you have seen that it has an incredible impact not only in increasing the safety in the school, but also impacting upon the kinds of transgressions that occur within those 

schools. Eliminating a program like this which has been critically 

important to the crime drop, I think, would be penny-wise and 

pound-foolish. Frankly, I agree with the Attorney General, who testified not too long ago, when he said that the COPS program has 

been a miraculous success. 

Madam Mayor, welcome. It is great to have you. We have a seat 

right up front for you. We wouldn’t dare start without you. All 

these guys said they were not going to go until you came. Welcome. 

I appreciate your making the effort. 

The second point I want to make is that the administration 

merges a time-honored and tested program, the so-called Byrne 

grants, with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, one 

that was quite frankly more the brain child of my Republican colleagues which I supported that worked very, very well. 

Merging these two things sounds okay until you learn that when 

you merge them, you end up with 20 percent fewer funds than you 

had when they were separate. It reminds me of that old game on 

the boardwalk where the guy has three shells and one pea and he 

moves them all around. Well, the difference in this game is there 

is no pea under the shell. I mean, you combine the two and you 

get 20 percent less money in the name of efficiency, and that is 

represented on the graph we have up here now. 

That would mean fewer crime prevention programs, fewer drug 

courts, which I know in Florida have been an incredible success—

quite frankly, we modeled the national program after Florida—

fewer jail cells, and fewer treatment programs in each of your localities. Mayors and police chiefs around the country are concerned 

6

about these proposals, based on the inquiries I have received, and 

they are facing budget freezes at the same time. 

By the way, let me make it clear I don’t have a single doubt that 

the President of the United States, the Attorney General and the 

entire administration are as opposed to crime and are as dedicated 

to eliminating crime as any administration in the history of the 

United States of America. I don’t have any doubt about that. I 

don’t have any doubt about them being tough on crime. 

What I am arguing with is their tactics. What I am arguing with 

is their strategy on how to deal with crime, and they are radically 

changing the strategy here, the strategy that has worked pretty 

well for the last eight years. 

So at the very time we are changing this strategy, three other 

phenomena are occurring. Every governor in the country is in some 

kind of trouble now economically, not because they are not good 

governors. They are fine governors, but the national economy has 

taken a real hit. 9/11 has put a real hit on the economy, and other 

things I won’t mention because we may disagree on why. But the 

bottom line is, although there are some recovery signs that we are 

coming out of this recession, State budgets are being significantly 

trimmed. My own State is a case in point. City budgets and city 

revenues are down. Business is down, business revenues are down, 

and cities have much more difficulty finding tax bases and resources than even States do. 

The second factor that has occurred at the same time we are 

making these kinds of cuts is that the FBI, which is overwhelmed—if they haven’t already come to you, Chief Szczerba or 

Mayor Hood, or others, they are going to be coming to you saying, 

guess what, we can’t do all we did in your city before; bank robberies aren’t going to be on our watch anymore; interstate car 

thefts are going to have to be a local problem. 

Now, depending on the jurisdiction, the FBI co-jurisdiction—and 

we have been happy to let them exercise it—that jurisdiction has 

ranged from representing anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of the law 

enforcement needs in some communities. The FBI is not going to 

be doing that anymore. 

The last thing—and I need not tell a mayor the size of the city 

of Orlando, but every time we necessarily go on alert as a Nation, 

if she doesn’t keep her cops’ overtime, if she doesn’t make sure everybody is standing ready in the airport at Orlando, which is as big 

as my State just about—I mean, think about this. Think about the 

additional strain on the budgets of the mayors, the governors, and 

the county executives when we go to that red color; we didn’t have 

it before, but when we go to high alert that there may be an attack. 

That has been an incredible strain on your budgets. 

So all of this is being telescoped into one moment here and my 

concern is not only are we not going to fund more cops, but I think 

you are going to have great difficulty in the cities and States maintaining the number of cops you now have over the next couple of 

years. I hope I am wrong about that, I hope I am wrong. 

The Conference of Mayors and the League of Cities, made up of 

local elected officials from both parties, contacted me last month to 

voice their concerns. That is why I scheduled this hearing today so 

the Senate could hear from them directly. So let’s have a discussion 

7

today about programs that are important to the mayors and the 

chiefs. 

How has the COPS program been helpful to you, if it has? How 

does it fit into your new homeland security mission? What will its 

elimination mean for public safety in the future? How have the 

Byrne grants and local law enforcement block grants been used? 

Have they been effective? Should they be merged, should they 

change? Most importantly, what do you need from us so that you 

can keep the crime rates down and meet your new homeland security responsibilities at the same time? 

As I am sure some of the panel are tired of hearing me say, 

crime is like cutting grass; it is like cutting grass. I can cut my 

grass the first good growth it gets and my lawn will look perfect. 

If I don’t cut it for another three weeks, it is going to look like hell. 

The grass grows. 

The idea that we can keep crime rates down as we have and 

keep them at these lower levels or reduce them further by spending 

less money, having fewer cops, having less input, I would respectfully suggest to you is like you cutting your lawn the first day of 

summer and putting your lawn mower away for the rest of the 

summer. The weeds will grow back and you are going to have a forest on your front lawn. That is what is going to happen, in my 

view, if we do not adequately fund law enforcement. 

With that, let me suggest that we move to our witness list. We 

have a very distinguished panel with us this afternoon. First, we 

will hear from the Mayor of North Little Rock, Arkansas, Patrick 

Henry Hays. He has seen the whites of their eyes and he has arrested them. Mayor Hays is here on behalf of the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors. He practiced law in North Little Rock from 1973 to 

1988, when he was elected to his first four-year term as mayor. 

Mayor Hays is now serving his fourth term. As my mother Jean 

Finnegan Biden would say, no purgatory for him, straight to heaven. Four terms as mayor is beyond my capacity. 

Next, we will hear from the past president of the National 

League of Cities, Mayor Glenda Hood, of Orlando, Florida. Mayor 

Hood has been a leader among the mayors and she has served as 

mayor since 1992. Before that, she was a member of the Orlando 

City Council and was president of her own public relations firm. 

Mayor Hood is an Orlando native and a fourth-generation Floridian, which means that she is probably Seminole. I didn’t know 

anybody was around for four generations. It is good to see you 

again, Mayor Hood, and we truly welcome you here. 

Next, we will hear from Chief Michael Szczerba, of the Wilmington Police Department. Chief Szczerba has served in the Patrol Division, the Drug and Organized Crime Divisions, the Community Service Division, and now as chief of our police. He is a lifelong resident of Wilmington. He is a graduate of the high school 

that was the chief competitor of the Catholic high school I went 

to—that is the only reason I didn’t like him at first—I am only joking; that is a joke, Chief—and the University of Delaware, my alma 

mater. Thanks for coming down this afternoon. 

Also on the panel this afternoon will be Bill Johnson, Executive 

Director of the National Association of Police Organizations, NAPO, 

which I would credit more than any other outfit for the crime bill 

8

being passed in the first place, particularly Mr. Scully, who was 

your predecessor. They were instrumental in passing the bill in 

1994. 

Bill, I am glad to have you here today. 

Bill Johnson is a former police officer and prosecutor. He served 

with the old Orchard Branch, Maine, Police Department, and then 

with the Miami, Florida, State’s attorney’s office. Bill is a native 

of Chicago. He received his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his law degree from Georgetown. 

I would like to welcome you, Bill. 

Tommy Ferrell is the sheriff of Adams County, Mississippi. 

Where I come from, notwithstanding the chief, I like the sheriffs 

on my side. The sheriff is the First Vice President of the National 

Sheriffs’ Association. 

People who come from States where they don’t rely on sheriffs 

as much should understand that they are a significant law enforcement element. In many cases, they control the prisons in their 

counties, as well as they do law enforcement duties. 

He will soon be sworn in as president of that organization later 

this year. Chief Ferrell began his law enforcement career in 1969 

and is presently in his third term as sheriff. He also serves as a 

lieutenant colonel in the military police branch of the Army National Guard. 

Thank you for being here, Sheriff. 

Finally, David Muhlhausen is a policy analyst, and a really firstrate one, from the Heritage Foundation. He holds a master’s degree 

in policy sciences from the University of Maryland. This is his second appearance before this subcommittee and I thank him for coming back. We learned a lot from his first appearance. 

So, Mayor Hays, if you will, will you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK HENRY HAYS, MAYOR, LITTLE 

ROCK, AR, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 

Mayor HAYS. Senator, it is good to be with you again, and I 

might add you began my career in 1973. Actually, in 1971 I had 

a chance to come up here from Arkansas and work on the staff of 

John McClellan. I came back in 1972 and was in the Office of General Counsel for LEAA for a summer, and had an opportunity to 

do a little bit of legal work. I think that agency had run its course 

and I think the movement toward its elimination was a wise act 

by Congress. 

Also, what we are doing here now in regard to the continuation 

of the COPS program is extremely important, and I want to thank 

you for calling today’s hearing, as well as Senator Grassley and the 

entire subcommittee. 

Mayors have consistently attached a high priority to preparing 

our cities for the possibility of disasters, both natural and manmade. Now, in the wake of September 11 and the anthrax mailings, 

emergency management planning has been redoubled and there 

have been significant new deployments of public safety resources. 

The Conference of Mayors released a survey which found that 

from September 11, 2001, to the end of 2002, cities will spend an 

additional $2.6 billion on new homeland security priorities, including equipment, overtime, and training. 

9

I might add, Senator, it seems like you have been in city halls 

around the country because of your opening statement reflects a lot 

of what I am going to mirror in my comments. 

Mayors know the importance of public safety and are one hundred percent committed to the homeland war against terrorism, but 

we must forge a new Federal-local partnership to make sure that 

our domestic soldiers—police, fire and emergency workers, and 

other city employees—have the resources to meet this new challenge. This was the message that mayors and police chiefs carried 

to Congress last week, and I again wanted to thank you for participating in our discussions and that press conference that was held 

out in front of the Capitol.

In October of 2001, the Conference of Mayors sponsored a safety 

and security summit, at which we developed a national action plan 

covering transportation security, emergency management, and law 

enforcement. 

I might ask the Senator if we could enter this into the record of 

these proceedings. 

Chairman BIDEN. Yes, both will be entered into the record, if 

that is all right. 

Mayor HAYS. That would be my hope. Thank you, Senator. 

Regarding supporting our first responders, Senator, if I could 

add, at our January 24 White House meeting this year, with over 

300 mayors present, President Bush announced his $3.5 billion 

first responders initiative, which we praised as an important step 

forward. We stated then that we want to work directly with Congress to refine that proposal and to make sure that those dollars 

are provided in the most efficient and effective manner. 

To that end, Senator, it is our belief that funding must be provided directly to the cities and counties as first responders, as you 

said in your opening statement, rather than flowing through the 

States as currently proposed by the administration. As we know, 

dialing 911 does not get you a State trooper. 

Secondly, we must ensure that funding can be used to not only 

prepare for a possible attack, but also to help prevent future attacks. Our police departments must have access to funding, and officer deployments such as overtime should be specifically authorized. 

For example, mayors call for and support the more detailed terrorist alert system unveiled by Governor Ridge, but these alerts 

will continue to require more officers on the streets; in essence, national security being provided by local law enforcement. 

This is why the Conference of Mayors strongly supports legislation being sponsored by Senator Clinton and others to create a 

highly flexible homeland security block grant, the ongoing fight 

against crime, as you talked about, Senator. And let me address 

specifically the kinds of choices that face me. And you indicated in 

your chart that several areas have been cut, but let me add one 

more. 

The public housing drug elimination program, administered by 

HUD, was eliminated last year. My city received $188,000 from our 

housing authority under this grant to operate three precinct stations located in our housing projects. All three now face elimination. This reduction, along with homeland security requirements, 

10

will make me choose between protecting my citizens against a terrorist who may attack my community and those terrorists or criminals who strike my city everyday. 

The worst terrorist to most of us in America is the one who lives 

next door and who, through fear of daily crime, keeps you from living your life. Public safety is achieved by balancing of resources to 

needs, and every community is different. That is why, as we wage 

the new war against terrorism, we must not retreat from the ongoing fight against crime. 

In the 1990s, mayors worked closely with our police chiefs and 

officers to increase public safety, with dramatic results, as indicated by your charts. As of last year, violent crime was estimated 

to be at a 20-year low nationwide. Mayors know that the major factors in this crime reduction were additional officers on the street, 

the deployment of new technology, and a new focus on community 

policing, all of which were greatly assisted by the COPS program 

and local law enforcement block grants. 

Just last week, the Conference of Mayors sponsored an event in 

Baltimore which highlighted a 24-percent crime reduction in that 

city over the past 2 years. Baltimore Mayor O’Malley was emphatic: ‘‘This would not have been possible without the help of Federal resources.’’ You will find similar stories in cities large and 

small all across this Nation. 

But while there have been major reductions, crime is still a 

major issue in many cities and in many neighborhoods within those 

cities. In addition, we know that the key indicators, such as the 

economy and the return of more than 600,000 ex-convicts annually 

to our cities, have led experts to predict an upswing in crime rates. 

Between 1993 and 2000, crime in North Little Rock, as the national average reflects, was down over 27 percent. But last year we 

received a 9-percent increase in our statistics—the largest single 

increase since I have been mayor of our community. 

Many cities want to hire additional officers, move existing officers into the streets, and place new officers in schools. In addition, 

there is a major interest in new crime-fighting technologies. Let me 

add, for example, in Arkansas today our statewide newspaper announced, through Senator Hutchinson and Senator Lincoln, 

$645,043 in COPS grants to police departments in Arkadelphia, Arkansas; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; Stutgart, Arkansas; and the 

White County Sheriff’s Office, to work with schools and community 

organizations against school-related crime. Senator Hutchinson, of 

Arkansas, is quoted as saying ‘‘Every child deserves the ability to 

learn absent the fear of violence.’’

Senator this is why I find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand that OMB is proposing to cut the COPS program by 80 percent and eliminate the block grant program by merging it into the 

State Byrne grant. This comes on top of a 25-percent reduction in 

the local block grant last year. We must ensure that cities have the 

resources needed to fight both the domestic war on terrorism and 

the continuing war against crime. We simply cannot rob Peter to 

pay Paul. 

I want to thank the chairman for sponsoring bipartisan legislation, S. 924, to reauthorize the COPS program, and urge this subVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
11

committee to help us ensure that both COPS and local law enforcement block grants are funded for this year. 

Finally, I might add that we need a new communications system 

between Federal and local public safety officials, with a 24-hour 

threat assessment capability appropriate for sharing intelligence. 

Our discussions with the administration on this point have been 

constructive, but we want to ensure that any institutional barriers 

to greater intelligence-sharing by the Federal Government are addressed. As such, we urge passage of the Federal-Local Enforcement Sharing Partnership Act, S. 1615, which will allow the Federal Government to increase intelligence-sharing with local and 

State governments. 

Senator, in conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee 

for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to continued discussions together as we work together to strengthen our mutual homeland defense. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Hays follows:]

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK HENRY HAYS, MAYOR OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR, ON

BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Good afternoon. I am Patrick Hays, Mayor of North Little Rock, Arkansas. I have 

served as Mayor for over 13 years, starting in January of 1989. I am here today 

on behalf of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, for which I serve as a Trustee and 

member of the Executive Committee. 

I want to thank Chairman Biden for calling today’s hearing, as well as Senator 

Grassley and the entire Subcommittee. 

Mayors have consistently attached a high priority to preparing our cities for the 

possibility of disasters—both natural and man made. 

Now, in the wake of September 11 and the anthrax mailings, emergency management planning has been redoubled, and there have been significant new deployments of public safety resources. 

The Conference of Mayors released a survey which found that from September 11, 

2001 through the end of 2002, cities will spend an additional $2.6 billion on new 

homeland security priorities including equipment, overtime and training. 

Mayors know the importance of public safety and are 100 percent committed to 

the homeland war against terrorism. But we must forge a new federal-local partnership to make sure that our domestic soldiers—police, fire, emergency workers and 

other city employees—have the resources needed for this new challenge. 

This was the message mayors and police chiefs carried to Congress last week, and 

I want to thank Chairman Biden for participating in our discussions. 

In October of 2001 the Conference of Mayors sponsored a Safety and Security 

Summit at which we developed a National Action Plan covering transportation security, emergency management, and law enforcement. 

I ask that our plan be entered into the record, and would like to touch on several 

key points related to law enforcement. 

SUPPORTING OUR FIRST RESPONDERS

First, at a January 24 White House meeting with 300 mayors President Bush announced his $3.5 billion first responders initiative, which we praised as an important step forward. As we stated then, we want to work directly with Congress to 

refine that proposal and make sure that those dollars are provided in the most efficient and effective manner. 

To that end, it is our belief that funding must be provided directly to city and 

county first responders, rather than all flowing through the states as proposed by 

the Administration. 

After all, a 9–1–1 call does not get a state trooper. 

Second, we must ensure that the funding can be used to not only prepare for a 

possible attack, but to also help prevent future attacks. Our police departments 

must have access to the funding, and officer deployments such as overtime should 

be specifically authorized. 

12

For example, mayors called for and support the more detailed terrorism alert system unveiled by Governor Ridge, but these alerts will continue to require more officers on the streets—in essence national security being provided by local law enforcement.

This is why the Conference of Mayors strongly supports legislation being sponsored by Senator Clinton and several other Senators to create a highly flexible 

Homeland Security Block Grant. 

THE ONGOING FIGHT AGAINST CRIME

Let me address specifically the kind of local choices mayors face. 

Last year the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, run through HUD, was 

eliminated. My city received $188,000 from our housing authority under this grant 

to operate three precinct stations located in our housing projects. All three now face 

elimination. 

This reduction, along with homeland security requirements, will make me choose 

between protecting my citizens against a terrorist who may attack my community, 

and those terrorists or criminals which strike my city every day. 

The worst terrorist to most of America is the one who lives next door, and who 

through fear of daily crime keeps you from living your life. 

Public safety is achieved by a balancing of resources to needs, and every community is different. 

That is why as we wage the new war against terrorism, we must not retreat from 

the ongoing fight against crime. 

In the 1990’s, mayors worked closely with our policy chiefs and officers to increase 

public safety—with dramatic results. As of last year, violent crime was estimated 

to be at a 20-year low nationwide. 

Mayors strongly believe that major factors in this crime reduction were additional 

officers on the streets, the deployment of new technology, and a new focus on community policing—all of which were greatly assisted by the COPS program and Local 

Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG). 

Just last week the Conference of Mayors sponsored an event in Baltimore which 

highlighted a 24 percent crime reduction in that city over the past two years. Baltimore Mayor O’Malley is emphatic that this would not have been possible without 

the help of these federal resources, and you would find similar stories in cities large 

and small across the Nation. 

But while there have been major reductions, crime is still a major issue in many 

cities, and in many neighborhoods within cities. 

In addition, we know that key indicators, such as the economy and return of more 

than 600,000 ex-convicts annually to our cities, have led some experts to predict an 

upswing in crime rates. 

Many cities want to hire additional officers, move existing officers onto the 

streets, and place new officers in schools. In addition, there is a major interest in 

new crime fighting technologies. 

That is why we find it counterintuitive that OMB is proposing to cut COPS by 

80 percent and eliminate the block grant by merging it into the state Byrne Grant 

program. This comes on top of a 25 percent reduction in the local block grant last 

year. 

We must ensure that cities have the resources needed to fight both the domestic 

war on terrorism and the continuing war against crime. We simply cannot ‘‘Rob 

Peter to Pay Paul.’’

I want to thank Chairman Biden for sponsoring bi-partisan legislation (S. 924) to 

reauthorize the COPS program, and urge this Subcommittee to help us ensure that 

both COPS and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant are funded this year. 

FEDERAL-LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION

Finally, we need a new communications system between federal and local public 

safety officials with a ‘‘24/7’’ threat assessment capability and appropriate sharing 

of intelligence. 

Our discussions with the Administration on this have been constructive, but we 

want to ensure that any institutional barriers to greater intelligence sharing by the 

federal government are addressed. 

That is why we urge passage of the ‘‘Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act’’ (S. 1615) which would allow the federal government to increase intelligence sharing with local and state governments. 

13

CONCLUSION

I want to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to continued discussions as together we work to strengthen our Nation’s homeland defense.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Pat. 

Mayor Hood, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENDA E. HOOD, ORLANDO, FL, ON 

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 

Mayor HOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to you and members of the subcommittee I want to thank you for giving the National League of Cities an opportunity to testify today. 

Mayor Hays and I work very closely on things between the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors and the League of Cities, so it is always good 

to share things with him. I think we are all aware that we are very 

pleased to have this opportunity because of the sharing of our position on homeland security and the imminent needs of our local law 

enforcement agencies. 

The National League of Cities is the Nation’s oldest national association that represents municipal interests in Washington. NLC’s 

membership includes more than 18,000 cities, and it also has 

135,000 mayors and local elected officials as its members. 

At this time, I would ask that my written testimony be submitted for the record, with any additional letters and statements 

from my colleagues throughout the Nation who express strong bipartisan support for the Community-Oriented Policing Services 

program and the related programs that are extremely vital to our 

local public safety needs for crime prevention, for drug control, for 

technology deployment, for emergency communications, and new 

responsibilities for homeland security. 

Chairman BIDEN. Without objection, it will be placed in the 

record. 

Mayor HOOD. Thank you. 

On behalf of NLC, I would like to express again my gratitude to 

you for introducing Senate bill 924. This reauthorization of the 

Community-Oriented Policing Services program is important to us, 

and to expand its purpose to include special assistance for small 

cities with populations of 50,000 or less and, of course, more funding for police officers hired through the universal hiring program, 

along with community-based prosecution programs and partnerships with schools and faith-based or religiously-affiliated organizations. Your longstanding leadership has certainly showed a commitment to ensuring that communities across the Nation are safe 

and secure, and I think that is everybody’s goal. 

The COPS program and other programs such as the local law enforcement block grant face significant changes in the administration’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposal. Cities need vital funding for 

local public safety needs, and I can’t underline and emphasize that 

enough. The National League of Cities believes it is imperative 

that Congress maintain level funding for these programs. 

Since the COPS program was created in 1994, the Nation has experienced a 28-percent reduction in crime. Similarly, the local law 

enforcement block grant has helped fund numerous successful 

crime prevention programs that serve specific local needs for our 

14

youth, for community organizations, for public safety technology, 

and for overtime pay for police officers in certain situations such 

as September 11. 

The administration has proposed a first responder initiative that 

I know Mayor Hays spoke of, to fund needs for local and State 

emergency preparedness capacities and capabilities against terrorism, such as planning and equipment and training and exercises. This proposal should also address critical needs for crime 

prevention. 

As NLC’s current president Mayor Karen Anderson, of 

Minnetonka, Minnesota, whom you met with last week, Mr. Chairman, has stated, ‘‘There is more to homeland security than protecting against a terrorist attack. We need to work together to 

strengthen our homeland defenses and assess other long-term 

needs that will strengthen our communities.’’

Mayor Anderson goes on to say, ‘‘Let’s make sure we don’t rob 

Peter to pay Paul in fiscal year 2003 or beyond. Let’s work together 

to find the right balance that takes into account the importance of 

investing in our cities and towns.’’

In this regard, the National League of Cities supports continued 

funding for community policing and the local law enforcement block 

grant. These programs should not be eliminated, especially when 

cities and towns of all sizes are facing severe budget constraints. 

To the extent that the local law enforcement block grant and 

Byrne grant may be consolidated, it is critical that as many dollars 

as possible are sent to the local level, with as much flexibility as 

possible. These programs directly impact both local hometown security and national homeland security priorities. Again, I believe this 

is everyone’s goal. 

I don’t have any props for you today, but I do have a lot of great 

examples, and I am going to start with my own city of Orlando. In 

Orlando, 103 police officers have been hired through the COPS program. The COPS technology program has funded 86 mobile data 

terminals and 13 specialized laptops to increase efficiency and to 

decrease response times in our community. 

If overall COPS funding were reduced, I would be unable to put 

the officers on the streets as quickly as our growth needs demand 

that I do. I may even be put in the situation to reduce other fundamental public services to continue the community policing and 

crime prevention initiatives that have fostered that significant decrease in crime in my city. This is truly unacceptable, not only to 

my city but to all cities, especially when a majority of local and 

State budgets are in decline in many ways. 

Let me give you another example in my own State of Florida, the 

city of Pembroke Pines. They have used the COPS funding for several initiatives to increase patrols around schools and businesses, 

to expand bicycle patrols to increase community contact with officers, to establish a community affairs unit, and to ensure more effective prosecution of cases through an enhanced records management system. 

Mayor Alex Fekete stated that these initiatives would not have 

been possible without the financial impetus provided by the COPS 

grant awards. Any reduction, in Mayor’s Fekete’s mind, to the 

15

COPS program in fiscal year 2003 could curtail further capabilities 

of his city to expand its community policing initiatives. 

Another example is the city of Wichita, which has hired 125 police officers through the COPS program, and has experienced more 

than a 22-percent decline in crime since 1994. Former NLC president and mayor of Wichita, Bob Knight, stated that neighborhood 

associations and crime prevention partnerships have grown from 

only 8 to more than 80 since 1995. 

‘‘Community policing officers have played a significant role in 

bringing citizens together to identify safety and security issues,’’ 

says Mayor Knight. He also says that the result has been the development of neighborhood associations that can form partnerships 

with businesses, with churches, with non-profit organizations, with 

governments, and with educational institutions to identify solutions 

for positive change. 

His superintendent of public schools, Winston Brooks, noted that 

students and staff benefit daily from school resource officers who 

provide law-related educational programs, informal counseling sessions, mentoring and tutoring, and assistance with school safety 

and crisis response planning. 

Another example is Mayor John DeStefano, whom you met with 

last week as well, from New Haven, Connecticut. He says he has 

experienced significant declines in all of the Part I crimes in his 

city since 1994. Homicides are down 42 percent, robberies have decreased by 33 percent, and motor vehicle thefts have declined by 

more than 59 percent. He noted that any loss of dollars for both 

technology and other competitive grants would negatively impact 

the city’s police department, thereby preventing expanded partnerships with community groups and impeding the overall problemsolving capacity within his city. 

‘‘The proposed changes in the COPS would have a negative effect 

on our crime statistics,’’ Police Chief Melvin Wearing, of New 

Haven, says. He says, ‘‘We have seen continued decreases since the 

program’s inception, and we have been able to maintain those 

lower numbers as a result.’’

In the city of Hayward, California, they have implemented several crime prevention initiatives through the COPS program, including a successful community collaboration with neighborhood 

groups and other non-profit organizations. The Hayward Police Department also acquired 100 laptop computers, a new management 

information system, property and mapping modules, and network 

connection to State and Federal law enforcement networks through 

the technology component of the COPS program. 

‘‘If funding were reduced or eliminated, progress could be slowed 

significantly,’’ according to council member Olden Henson. ‘‘Our 

ability to grow and adapt to the changing needs of our community 

would be negatively impacted without COPS-funded initiatives,’’ he 

goes on to say. 

The COPS program has also been vital in preventing the proliferation of gang activity and methamphetamine manufacturing 

and trafficking in the city of Watertown, South Dakota. Their 

mayor, Brenda Barger, says, ‘‘By hampering these two ills in the 

community, we have managed to prevent the collateral effects, such 

as robbery, assault, and other crimes.’’ ‘‘Since we have hired the 

16

additional officers,’’ she says, ‘‘we have enhanced crime prevention 

efforts by adding bike patrols, crime-free multi-housing initiatives, 

a school resource officer, a very effective accident reduction program, and recruitment of community-oriented officers through 

COPS training for supervisors.’’

‘‘On a day-to-day basis,’’ Mayor Barger says, ‘‘officers have more 

time to interact and assimilate with the community they serve. I 

feel that our policing style has contributed greatly to the quality 

of life in our community. The result of elimination would be rather 

obvious, and it would be obvious very quickly. Programs would 

have to be cut. Crime would again begin to increase. Quality of life 

in the community would decline.’’

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think these are just a few examples that 

represent the thousands of successful crime prevention initiatives 

that have been funded by the COPS program. Our country, especially now, needs community policing. It is something that we all 

believe in and it is something that we have all depended upon. 

The best way to ensure domestic safety is through continued 

community partnerships, through problem-solving and enhanced 

communication that COPS indeed has facilitated since 1994. Full 

funding for COPS and other public safety programs must continue 

to be a cornerstone in effective law enforcement over the next several years as we face those many domestic challenges that lie 

ahead. 

I greatly appreciate your leadership on this issue, and on behalf 

of NLC thank you. We certainly look forward to working with you 

and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as the fiscal 

year 2003 budget process moves forward to ensure full funding for 

local public safety programs. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BIDEN. Mayor, thank you very much. I am going to 

come back to questions, but out of curiosity, has Orlando’s population shrunk since you have been mayor? 

Mayor HOOD. No. 

Chairman BIDEN. Has it grown? 

Mayor HOOD. Yes. 

Chairman BIDEN. Most cities, particularly larger cities, but all 

cities, end up being the repository for an increasingly large number 

of dependent people; that is, people with lower incomes, people dependent on various programs to make their minimum subsistence. 

Have you had any change in the make-up of your city that way, 

or is it the same? Have those living at the poverty level or below 

the poverty level increased or decreased? Do you know, off the top 

of your head? 

Mayor HOOD. Slight fluctuations, but nothing major. 

Chairman BIDEN. Yes. 

Mayor HOOD. Of course, in our situation we have over 40 million 

visitors a year. So that is kind of a phenomenon that we have that 

many other cities don’t have. 

Chairman BIDEN. Which was the third thing I was going to ask 

you. Nonetheless, your crime rate went down? 

Mayor HOOD. Yes. 

Chairman BIDEN. Astounding. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Hood follows:]

17

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GLENDA E. HOOD, MAYOR OF ORLANDO, FL, ON

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

Chairman Biden and Members of the Subcommittee, the National League of Cities (NLC) is pleased to have this opportunity to share its position on homeland security and the imminent needs of our local law enforcement agencies. I am Glenda 

Hood, Mayor of Orlando, Florida, and Past President of the National League of Cities. 

The National League of Cities is the nation’s oldest national association representing municipal interests in Washington. NLC’s membership includes more 

than 18,000 cities and towns across the country, with over 135,000 mayors and local 

elected officials. 

At this time, I ask that my written testimony be submitted for the record with 

additional letters and statements from my colleagues throughout the nation who express strong bipartisan support for the Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS) program and related programs that are extremely vital to local public safety 

needs for crime prevention, drug control, technology deployment, emergency communications, and new responsibilities for homeland security. 

On behalf of NLC, I would like to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, 

for introducing S. 924, the PROTECTION ACT (Providing Reliable Officers, Technology, Education, Community Prosecutors, and Training In Our Neighborhoods 

Act) to reauthorize the Community Oriented Policing Services Program and expand 

its purpose to include special assistance for small cities with populations of 50,000 

or less; more funding for retention of police officers hired through the Universal Hiring Program; community-based prosecution programs; and partnerships with schools 

and religiously-affiliated organizations. Your long-standing leadership on this issue 

clearly shows your commitment to ensuring that communities across the nation are 

safe and secure. 

As you know, the COPS program, and other programs such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, face significant changes in the Administration’s fiscal year 

2003 budget proposal. Cities need vital funding for local public safety needs. The 

National League of Cities believes it is imperative that Congress maintain level 

funding for these programs. 

Since the COPS program was created in 1994, the nation has experienced a 28 

percent reduction in crime. Similarly, the Local Law Enforcement Block grant has 

helped fund numerous successful crime prevention programs that serve specific local 

needs for youth, community organizations, public safety technology and overtime 

pay for police officers in certain situations such as September 11. 

The Administration has proposed a First Responder Initiative to fund needs for 

local and state emergency preparedness capabilities against terrorism—such as 

planning, equipment, training and exercises. This proposal should also address critical needs for crime prevention. 

As NLC’s current President, Mayor Karen Anderson of Minnetonka, Minnesota, 

has stated, ‘‘There’s more to homeland security than protecting against a terrorist 

attack. We need to work together to strengthen our homeland defenses and assess 

other long-term needs that will strengthen our communities. Let’s make sure we 

don’t rob Peter to pay Paul in FY 2003 or beyond. Let’s work together to find the 

right balance that takes into account the importance of investing in our cities and 

towns.’’

In this regard, NLC supports continued funding for community policing and the 

Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. These programs should not be eliminated, especially when cities and towns of all sizes are facing severe budget constraints because of the recession and unforeseen consequences of the September 11 terrorist 

attacks. To the extent the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and Byrne Grant 

are consolidated, it is critical that as many dollars as possible are sent to the local 

levels with as much flexibility as possible. These programs directly impact both local 

hometown security and national homeland security priorities. 

For example, the proposed changes in the COPS program would eliminate funding 

for hiring and retention of police officers, school resource officers, and targeted crime 

prevention grant programs for small communities. 

In my City of Orlando, 103 police officers have been hired through the COPS program. The COPS technology program, Making Officer Redeployment Effective, has 

funded 86 mobile data terminals and 13 specialized laptops to increase efficiency 

and decrease response times. If overall COPS funding were reduced, I would be unable to put officers on the streets as quickly as our growth needs demand; and I 

may be put in the position to reduce other fundamental public services to continue 

the community policing and crime prevention initiatives that have fostered a signifiVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
18

cant decrease in crime. This is unacceptable to our cities, especially when a majority 

of local and state budgets are in a serious decline. 

The City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, has used COPS funding for several initiatives to increase patrols around schools and businesses; expand bicycle patrols to increase community contact with officers; establish a Community Affairs Unit; and ensure more effective prosecution of cases through an enhanced records management 

system. Mayor Alex Fekete stated that these initiatives would not have been possible without the financial impetus provided by the COPS grant awards. Any reduction of the COPS Program in FY 2003 could curtail any further capabilities of the 

City to expand its community policing initiatives.

The City of Wichita has hired 125 police officers through the COPS program, and 

has experienced more than a 22 percent decline in crime since 1994. Former NLC 

President and Mayor of Wichita, Bob Knight, stated that neighborhood associations 

and crime prevention partnerships have grown from only eight to more than eighty 

since 1995. ‘‘Community policing officers have played a significant role in brining 

citizens together to identify safety and security issues. The result has been the development of neighborhood associations that can form partnerships with businesses, 

churches, non-profit agencies, government, and educational institutions to identify 

solutions for positive change.’’

Winston Brooks, Superintendent of Wichita Public Schools, noted that students 

and staff benefit daily from school resource officers who provide law related educational programs, informal counseling, mentoring, tutoring, and assistance with 

school safety and crisis response planning. 

The City of New Haven, Connecticut, has experienced significant declines in all 

Part I crimes since 1994. For example, homicides are down by 42 percent; robberies 

have decreased by 33 percent; and motor vehicle thefts have declined by more than 

59 percent. NLC First Vice President and Mayor John DeStefano noted that the loss 

of dollars for both technology and other competitive grants would negatively impact 

the City’s police department, preventing expanded partnerships with community 

groups and impeding the overall problem-solving capacity. The proposed changes in 

the COPS program would have a ‘‘negative effect on our crime statistics,’’ Police 

Chief Melvin Wearing stated. ‘‘We have seen continued decreases since the program’s inception, and we have been able to maintain the lower numbers.’’

The City of Hayward, California, has implemented several crime prevention initiatives through the COPS program including a successful Community Collaborative 

with neighborhood groups and other non-profit organizations. The Hayward Police 

Department also acquired 100 laptop computers, a new management information 

system, property and mapping modules, and a network connection to state and federal law enforcement networks through the technology components of the COPS program. ‘‘If funding were reduced or eliminated, progress could be slowed significantly, 

according to Councilmember Olden Henson. ‘‘Our ability to grow and adapt to the 

changing needs of our community would be negatively impacted without COPSfunded initiatives.’’

The COPS program has been vital in preventing the proliferation of gang activity, 

and methamphetamines manufacturing and trafficking in the City of Watertown, 

South Dakota. ‘‘By hampering these two ills in our community, we have managed 

to prevent the collateral effects such as robbery, assault, and other crimes,’’ said 

Mayor Brenda Barger. ‘‘Since we have hired the additional officers, we have enhanced crime prevention efforts by adding bike patrols, crime free multi-housing initiatives, a school resource officer, a very effective accident reduction program, and 

recruitment of community oriented officers through COPS training for supervisors. 

‘‘On a day-to-day basis, the officers have more time to interact and assimilate with 

the community they serve,’’ Mayor Barger continued. ‘‘I feel that our policing style 

has contributed greatly to the quality of life in our community. The result of elimination would be obvious rather quickly. Programs would have to be cut. Crime 

would again begin to increase. Quality of life in the community would decline.’’

Mr. Chairman, these examples represent the thousands of successful crime prevention initiatives funded by the COPS program. The country—especially now—

needs community policing. The best way to ensure domestic safety is through the 

continued community partnerships, problem solving, and enhanced communication 

that COPS has facilitated since 1994. Full funding for COPS and other public safety 

programs must continue to be a cornerstone in effective law enforcement over the 

next several years as we face the domestic challengers ahead. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I greatly appreciate your leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with you and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as the fiscal year 2003 budget process moves forward to ensure full funding for local public safety programs. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that the Subcommittee may have at the appropriate time. 

19

Thank you.

Chairman BIDEN. Chief Szczerba, welcome. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. SZCZERBA, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

WILMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILMINGTON, DE 

Chief SZCZERBA. Good afternoon, Senator. I was a little uneasy 

speaking here today, after you lined me up with mayors, I don’t 

know what Mayor Baker is going to think when I get back home. 

Chairman BIDEN. You will be fine. 

Chief SZCZERBA. I would like to thank you for inviting me here 

to speak today on this very important issue. 

For the record, my name is Chief Michael Szczerba. I am the 

chief in the city of Wilmington, Delaware. I haven’t brought any 

props either today, but I did bring along with me my deputy chief, 

Inspector James Wright. 

Chairman BIDEN. Inspector, welcome. 

Chief SZCZERBA. Like the sheriff, he is also a lieutenant colonel 

in our Delaware National Guard. Hopefully, this time next year I 

will address him as ‘‘colonel.’’

The Wilmington Department of Police has an authorized 

strength of 289 officers. We are tasked with the job of policing a 

city of about 14 square miles. We have a residential population of 

75,000 people, and that number probably doubles during our business hours. 

In 1996, the city of Wilmington experienced once of its worst economic downturns in recent history. This crisis affected every aspect 

of the city’s budget, including that of the police department. 

Through retirement incentives and attrition, the Department of Police in Wilmington reached an all-time low in staffing, with the 

numbers plummeting to 221 officers. And I would emphasize that 

was 221 officers on paper. 

Along with this decrease in manpower, the city experienced one 

of the most catastrophic increases in gun violence to date. In 1996, 

we saw a record number of 108 shootings and 21 homicides in a 

city that prior to that never saw more than 40 shootings or 12 

homicides annually. Our city was under siege, and staffing was so 

low that neighboring police agencies offered their personnel and resources to help the city combat this growing epidemic. 

Through the Biden crime law—and that is how we know it in 

Delaware still—the Department of Police was able to hire 28 officers through the use of Federal funds. These Federal funds replaced resources that our city just did not have. The assistance 

from the Biden crime law, as we call it in Delaware, did not end 

there. On October 3, you and then-Mayor James Sills, and Police 

Chief Michael Boykin announced a comprehensive crime-fighting 

plan, dubbed Operation Quiet Storm, which was based on strategies employed in other large cities nationally that had reduced 

crime rates significantly. 

Operation Quiet Storm was designed to storm five identified 

crime hot spots with local law enforcement resources working in 

concert with Federal law enforcement agencies to attack the problems of gangs, guns, and drugs. With numbers back to its authorized strength, the Wilmington Department of Police acted as the 

20

lead agency in this effort, resulting in cutting the amount of shootings in half and decreasing homicides by 40 percent. 

This is just one example of the impact that the crime law has 

had on local law enforcement agencies. Speaking specifically for the 

city of Wilmington, the funds procured through the local law enforcement block grant provided by the crime law has allowed the 

Wilmington Department of Police to increase its services to the city 

of Wilmington by increasing current programs and reinstituting 

programs that had been cut due to budget constraints. 

For example, as a result, we were able to expand our K–9 unit 

from 6 to 10 officers. Our crime prevention unit, which instills community-oriented policing, suffered from budget cuts, yet remains a 

constant request from our residents and our business folks. That 

was re-funded and is now providing an invaluable service to help 

people take proactive steps to protect themselves. 

We have increased our computer systems and our forensic technology, including the purchasing of an IBIS system, or Ceasefire. 

Wilmington is only one of about 20 sites in 12 States throughout 

the country to have this sophisticated, computerized, digitized 

weapon and bullet identification system. The system is designed to 

cease the escalating and alarming number of gun-related crimes 

and homicides in Wilmington and other cities throughout the country, and it has had a positive impact on our investigative techniques. 

One of the best aspects of the local law enforcement block grant 

is allowing the Department of Police to institute anti-drug patrols 

in areas that have been torn apart by the scourge of drugs. 

As the climate in this country has changed, attention must be 

placed on homeland security. However, homeland security has a 

two-pronged definition, the first being the most obvious, and that 

is taking measures to ensure that the tragedies that affected this 

country never occur again. 

The second is providing the security of those who live day to day 

in our cities and communities. The onus of that security falls on 

us in local law enforcement. The Biden crime law has made it possible for us to allow the quality of life in all of our cities and communities to increase, as the national crime trends have decreased. 

In these hard times where some communities like the city of Wilmington are reaching economic hardships, homeland security 

comes in the form of our front-line officers, who rely in part on the 

resources provided by the COPS office. I fear that if these resources 

are restricted, history will repeat itself. I fear that police manpower 

will decrease, allowing gun violence to increase and terrorists that 

take the form of drug dealers will flourish. 

If this occurs, the quality of life in our communities, the real infrastructure of this country, will decrease greatly, undoing all the 

good that this crime law has done, as well as the hard work of all 

police officers in this country. 

I have provided a copy of what I have spoken on today for the 

record. It is also provided on disk, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Szczerba follows:]

Good afternoon Senators and Chairman Biden. I would like to thank you, Chairman Biden, for inviting me here to speak today on this very important issue. My 

21

name is Chief Michael J. Szczerba, Chief of the Wilmington Department of Police 

in the State of Delaware. Accompanying me is my Deputy Chief, Inspector James 

Wright. The Department of Police has an authorized strength of 289 sworn Officers, 

tasked with policing a city of 14 square miles, and a residential population of 75,000 

people, with that number doubling during business hours. In 1996, the City of Wilmington experienced one of its worst economic downturn in recent times. The crisis 

affected every aspect of the City’s budget, including that of the Police Department. 

Through retirement incentives and attrition, the Department of Police reached an 

all time low of staffing, with numbers plummeting to 221 sworn Officers. Along with 

this decrease in manpower, the City experienced the most catastrophic increase in 

gun violence to date. 1996 saw a record number 108 shootings and 21 homicides in 

a city that prior to that year never saw more than 40 shootings and 12 homicides 

annually. Our city was under siege, and staffing was so low that neighboring Police 

Agencies offered their personnel and resources to help Wilmington combat this 

growing epidemic. 

Through the Biden Crime Law, the Department of Police was able to hire 28 Officers through the use of federal funds. These federal funds replaced resources that 

our city just did not have. But assistance from the Biden Crime Law, as we affectionately call it in Delaware, did not end there. On October 3, 1997, Senator Biden, 

then Wilmington Mayor James H. Sills, Jr., and then Police Chief Michael Boykin 

announced a comprehensive crime-fighting plan, dubbed ‘‘Operation Quiet Storm,’’ 

which was based on strategies employed in other large cities nationally that had reduced crime rates significantly. ‘‘Operation Quiet Storm’’ was designed to storm five 

identified crime hot spots with local law enforcement resources working in concert 

with federal law enforcement agencies to attack the problems of gangs, guns and 

drugs. With numbers now back to its authorized strength, the Wilmington Department of Police acted as the lead agency in this joint effort, resulting in cutting the 

amount of shootings in half, and decreasing homicides by 40 percent. 

This is just one but important example of the impact that the Biden Crime Law 

has had on local law enforcement agencies. Speaking specifically for the City of Wilmington, the funds procured through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant provided by the Biden Crime Law has allowed the Wilmington Department of Police 

to increase its services to the citizens of the City of Wilmington by increasing current programs and reinstituting programs that had been cut due to budget restraints. As a result, we were able to expand our K–9 Unit from 6 Officers to 10 

Officers. Our Crime Prevention Unit, which instills Community Oriented Policing, 

suffered from budget cuts yet remained a constant request of residents, was refunded and is now providing an invaluable service to help people take proactive 

steps to protect themselves. We have increased our computer systems and our forensic technology, including the purchasing of the IBIS system, or ‘‘Ceasefire’’. Wilmington is one of only about 20 sites in 12 states throughout the country to have 

this sophisticated, computerized, digitized weapon and bullet identification system. 

This system is designed to cease the escalating and alarming number of gun-related 

crimes and homicides in Wilmington and other cities throughout this country, and 

it has had a positive impact on investigative techniques. One of the best aspects of 

the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant is it allowing the Department of Police to 

institute Anti-Drug Patrols in areas that had been torn apart by the scourge of 

drugs. 

As the climate in this country has changed, attention must be placed on Homeland Security. However, Homeland Security has a two-pronged definition. The first 

being the most obvious . . . taking measures to ensure that the tragedies that affected this country never occur again. The second is providing the security of those 

who live day to day in our cities and communities. The onus of that security falls 

on those of us in local law enforcement. The Biden Crime Law has made it possible 

for us to allow the quality of life in all of our cities and communities to increase 

as national crime trends have decreased. In these hard times where some communities, like the City of Wilmington, are reaching economic hardships, that Homeland 

Security which comes in the form of our frontline Police Officers, relies in part, on 

the resources provided by the Cops Office. I fear that if these resources are restricted, history will repeat itself. I fear that Police manpower will decrease, allowing gun violence to increase and the terrorists that take the form of drug dealers 

will flourish. If this occurs, the quality of life of our communities, the real infrastructure of this country, will decrease exponentially, undoing all the good that the 

Biden Crime Law has done as well the hard work of the Police Officers in this country.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Chief. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

22

Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before your subcommittee today. I have also provided copies of my written testimony and would respectfully ask at 

the outset that it be included. 

Chairman BIDEN. It will be placed in the record in full. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, and to your committee, on behalf of the 220,000 

rank-and-file police officers from all across the United States, I 

would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on our 

Nation’s homeland defense and the needs of local law enforcement. 

The National Association of Police Organizations, or NAPO, is 

surprised and is frankly truly concerned about the administration’s 

proposed fiscal year 2003 budget and its intended future, or lack 

thereof, for the Community-Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, 

program presented administered by the United States Department 

of Justice. 

Today, I would like to discuss three paramount concerns that 

NAPO has regarding the administration’s proposed budget and its 

effects. These are: the future of the COPS program, the grant funds 

overseen presently by the Office of Justice Assistance, and the status of State and local law enforcement in the war on terrorism in 

light of the administration’s proposed movement of supervision of 

Federal assistance from the Department of Justice to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

Created by the 1994 crime bill, as you well know, the COPS Office has funded the hiring of over 110,000 police officers in more 

than 11,000 communities across the United States. In addition, it 

has contributed countless resources, including enhanced crimefighting technology and the development of innovative partnerships 

with communities, to fight crime. 

Both the public and Congress recognized the benefits of putting 

more cops on the streets. These benefits have been further demonstrated more recently in the 2001 study at the University of Nebraska authored by Dr. Jihong Zhao which correlated the steady 

decline of violent crime throughout the United States over the last 

few years with the success of the COPS program. In fact, the 

charts that your staff has provided today demonstrate the same 

thing. This study was presented to the Subcommittee on Crime at 

a hearing held on December 5, 2001. 

Despite the tremendous impact this program has had throughout 

the country, the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2003 would 

effectively gut the COPS program and end the instrumental practice of adding new officers to the street. As you have pointed out, 

Mr. Chairman, it is very similar to cutting the grass one time and 

then sitting back and saying, well, I don’t need the lawnmower 

anymore, except in this case what the administration, with all due 

respect, is doing is not putting it in the garage. They are throwing 

away the lawnmower and giving the money for a new one to the 

neighbor who has never seen one or knows what it is used for. 

23

NAPO represents the police forces of some of our Nation’s largest 

cities. Therefore, we researched in preparation for today’s hearing 

what effect the termination of the COPS program would have on 

the needs of some of these local law enforcement agencies. 

Since 1994, the city of Los Angeles has been awarded funding for 

the new hiring or redeployment of more than 3,700 officers, put on 

its streets. 

Chairman BIDEN. An additional 3,700. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, yes, above and beyond what they had, more than 3,700. In funding, this has been just over $298 million 

allocated to meet the requested technology and hiring needs of Los 

Angeles’ local law enforcement. 

Over the same period, Miami-Dade County has benefitted from 

the addition of more than 1,100 new or redirected officers and the 

allocation of over $84 million for hiring and technological needs. 

The city of Chicago has gained more than 1,500 new officers and over $104 million, and the city of New York has benefitted from the 

addition of more than 7,300 new officers on the streets and over 

$529 million in needed improvements funding. These cities have 

also all seen a directly correlated and substantial reduction in 

crime since the mid-1990s. 

I would just point out that in New York City, that figure of more 

than 7,300 is about 18 percent of their force. They have got about 

39,000 sworn officers. About 18 percent of those are COPS officers, 

thanks to the bill that you authored. 

As you also have pointed out today, in a time when our country 

is necessarily focused on homeland defense, we believe the COPS 

program just be an intrinsic part of any defense plan because it has 

a proven effect on crime reduction. This is why COPS is of such 

importance now. It will help protect our communities by increasing, 

and more often maintaining, the needed police presence on our 

streets, while public safety services are stretched and redefined to 

confront the ever-changing threat of terrorism. 

Our national president, Tom Scotto, who is a New York City detective whom you know and many members of the committee know, 

was telling me just this morning that it has not just been since 

September 11, but since then it has been unrelenting and continuous drain upon every aspect of law enforcement in that city. 

Immediately, in the aftermath of the morning of September 11 

and through to today, all the other sites, such as the Statue of Liberty, the UN Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, the various tunnels, 

the power plants, the water plants, are now designated sites that 

law enforcement has to cover in a way that they didn’t have to before. The fact that manpower must be diverted to these new sites 

takes other cops off the street from their regular duties. 

A second concern NAPO has regarding the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2003 budget is the changes called for in the block 

grant and Byrne State and local law enforcement assistance grants, 

which are presently run by the Department of Justice’s Office of 

Justice Assistance. These two grant programs have had a positive 

effect in strengthening law enforcement’s ability to reduce crime 

and fund programs that make a difference in the community. 

The administration has proposed consolidating these two grant 

programs along with other smaller programs into a new justice asVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
24

sistance grant program. While the block grants and Byrne received 

a combined funding of over $1 billion in fiscal year 2001, the new 

condensed grant program would be funded at a much smaller dollar level, while being asked at the same time to cover more outlets. 

The outcome will be less available funds to assist local law enforcement at a time when public safety budgets are being overrun by 

new national security concerns. 

A third major concern that NAPO has over the administration’s 

proposed budget is the movement of monies and supervision from 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Please do not understand 

this as an overly negative criticism of FEMA. FEMA can provide 

a valuable service to communities beaten down by disaster and can 

assist in their quick rehabilitation. 

But NAPO’s concern consists in the fact that in this new war on 

terrorism, the administration wishes to move police interests from 

a body that has fostered 30 years of working relations with local 

police to a body that has never dealt with the needs of police before. As President Lincoln said, during wartime you don’t change 

your horse midstream. It would be foolish to invite an internecine 

bureaucratic power struggle in the midst of an ongoing shooting 

war. 

While the needs of police officers as first responders are similar 

in some ways to fire and emergency services, they are vastly different in other ways. An agency like the Department of Justice, 

with 30 years of hard-won experience on what police need and how 

best to allocate it to them, should not be displaced by an agency 

with whom law enforcement has no such prior experience. We 

would be very disappointed if law enforcement lost such a great 

tool in its fight against crime. 

Our concerns are three-fold, then, when we look at the administration’s proposed budget: the future of the COPS program, the future of the grant funding, and the need to keep the Department of 

Justice as the agency of record for the needs of law enforcement. 

Our country has entered a time of challenge, but it is not a time 

of insurmountable crisis. Now is when the tools that have proven 

to be so effective have to be brought out, and even enhanced, so 

that the job we face as a Nation can be done, and done right the 

first time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

TESTIMONY BY WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, members of the Senate Subcommittee, My name 

is William J. Johnson and I am the Executive Director of the National Association 

of Police Organizations. NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from 

across the United States that serves here in Washington, DC to advance the interests of America’s law enforcement through legislative and legal advocacy. 

On behalf of 220,000 rank-and-file police officers from across the United States, 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on our Nation’s homeland defense and the needs of law enforcement. NAPO is surprised and truly concerned about the Administration’s proposed 2003 fiscal budget and its intended future for the Community Oriented Policing Service program (COPS), administered by 

the Department of Justice. 

Today, I will discuss three paramount concerns NAPO has on the Administration’s proposed budget. These are the future of the COPS program. The beneficial 

25

grant funds overseen by the Office of Justice Assistance and the status of state and 

local law enforcement in the war on terrorism in light of the Administration’s proposed movement of supervision from the Department of Justice to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

Created by the 1994 Crime bill, the COPS Office has funded the hiring of over 

110,000 police officers in 11,300 communities. In addition, it has contributed countless resources, including enhanced crime-fighting technology and the development of 

innovative partnerships with communities to fight crime. 

Both the public and Congress recognize the benefits of putting more cops on the 

street. As it has been often and rightly said, once you’ve finished cutting the grass, 

you don’t throw away the lawn mower. 

These benefits have been further demonstrated in the 2001 study by the University of Nebraska, authored by Dr. Jihong Zhao, which correlated the steady decline 

of violent crime over the last few years with the success of this program. This study 

was presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Crime hearing held on December 5, 

2001. 

Despite the tremendous impact this program has had throughout the country the 

Administration’s proposed FY 2003 budget would effectively gut the COPS program 

and end the instrumental practice of adding new officers to the streets. 

As NAPO represents the police forces of some of our nation’s largest cities, we researched what effect the termination of the COPS program would have on the needs 

of some of NAPO’s local law enforcement agencies. 

Per current information from the COPS office, since 1944 the City of Los Angeles 

has been awarded funding for the new hiring or redeployment of 3,731 officers to 

protect its streets. In funding, this has been just over 298 million dollars allocated 

to meet the requested technology and hiring needs of Los Angeles local law enforcement. Over the same period, the City of Miami has benefited from the addition of 

1,184 new or redirected officers and the allocation of over 84 million dollars for hiring and technological needs. The City of Chicago has gained 1,593 Officers and over 

104 million dollars and the City of New York has benefited from the addition of 

7,356 officers to the street and over 529 million dollars in needed improvements 

funding. These cities have also seen a directly related and substantial reduction in 

crime since the mid 1990’s 

These figures represent what has already been allocated and we can only hope 

that these fundings are protected from proposed changes. More importantly these 

figures demonstrate that the future needs for these cities will no longer be addressed if the COPS program is dissolved.

In a time when our country is necessarily focused on homeland defense, we believe the COPS program must be an intrinsic part of any defense plan because it 

has a proven effect on crime reduction. This is why COPS is of such importance 

now. It will help protect our communities by increasing, and more often maintaining, the needed police presence on our streets while public safety services are 

stretched and re-defined to confront the ever changing threat of terrorism. 

A second concern NAPO has over the Administrations proposed FY 2003 budget 

are the changes called for to the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program and 

the Byrne State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grants, which are run by 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Assistance. These two block grants 

have had a historically positive effect in strengthening law enforcement’s ability to 

reduce crime and fund programs that make a difference in the community. 

The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program has supported police by facilitating the hiring and training of new officers, paying overtime and procuring needed 

equipment and technology. LLEBG Funds also go to enhancing school safety, supporting drug courts, securing violent crime convictions, enhancing community policing and defraying the costs of officer insurances. 

LLEBG funding commenced in 1996 and awarded over 450 million dollars in 

FY2001. Since its inception the grant has provided two and one half billion dollars 

in needed support to local law enforcement, money we could not have done without. 

Much like the LLEGB, the Byrne Grant has awarded monies to assist educational 

and training programs for criminal justice personnel and has provided for technical 

assistance to state and local law enforcement. The Byrne Grant awarded over 524 

million dollars in FY2001 and has provided over five and one half billion dollars 

since 1990. 

The Administration has proposed consolidating these two grant programs, along 

with other smaller programs, into a new Justice Assistance Grant Program. While 

LLEGB and Byrne received a combined funding of over one billion dollars in FY 

2001, this new condensed grant program would be funded at a smaller 800 million 

dollar level while being asked to cover more outlets. The outcome will be less availVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
26

able funds to assist law enforcement in a time when public safety budgets are being 

overrun by new national security concerns. 

A third concern NAPO’s has over the Administrations proposed FY 2003 budget 

is the movement of monies and supervision from the Department of Justice and Office of Justice Programs to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Please do 

not misunderstand this as an overly negative criticism. FEMA can provide a valuable service to communities beaten down by disaster and can assist in their quick 

rehabilitation. 

NAPO’s concern consists in the fact that in this new war on terrorism, the Administration wishes to move police interests from a body that has fostered 30 years of 

working relations to a body that has never dealt with the needs of police before. As 

President Lincoln said, during wartime you don’t change your horse in mid stream. 

Further, we would say, you don’t cut the grass once and then give away your lawn 

mower to a neighbor who doesn’t know what it’s for or how to use it. 

While the needs of police officers as first responders are similar in some ways to 

fire and Emergency Service, they are vastly different in other ways. An agency who 

has developed 30 years of knowledge on what police need and how best to allocate 

it to them should not be sidelined by an agency with whom law enforcement has 

had no prior experience. We would be very disappointed if law enforcement lost such 

a great tool in its fight against crime. 

Senators, our concerns are three fold when we look at the Administration’s proposed budget: The future of the COPS program; the future of beneficial grant funding; and the need to keep the Department of Justice as the agency of record for the 

needs of law enforcement. Our country has entered a time of challenge but it is not 

a time of insurmountable crises. Now is when the tools that have proven to be effective have to be brought out and even enhanced so the job can be done and done 

right the first time. I want to thank Chairman Biden and the Subcommittee members for this opportunity to voice the concerns of America’s police and I respectfully 

request that my remarks be included in the record.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Bill. 

Sheriff. 

STATEMENT OF TOMMY FERRELL, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, NATCHEZ, MS 

Sheriff FERRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, appreciate the 

opportunity and thank you for the invitation today. 

I am Sheriff Tommy Ferrell, from Adams County, Mississippi, 

and I appear before you as the first vice president of the National 

Sheriffs’ Association. 

Chairman BIDEN. Sheriff, out of curiosity—I know your State—

where is your county in the State, north, south? 

Sheriff FERRELL. Down in the extreme southwest, right on the 

Mississippi-Louisiana border. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Sheriff FERRELL. And I invite you to visit. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, my daughter is down in New Orleans, 

just across the river there. I may need your help. We may have to 

invade New Orleans before it is over. 

Sheriff FERRELL. I think we can take care of that, Senator. 

Chairman BIDEN. She is at Tulane University. 

Sheriff FERRELL. Good luck, sir. [Laughter.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Believe me, I understand. She is a junior. 

Thank God, she is doing well, but I don’t think she is going to come 

home. Maybe she won’t come home. She is going to be bringing 

home somebody who talks like you and I am going to have to learn 

to speak southern all over again. Jim Eastland taught me and I am 

trying to learn again. 

Sheriff FERRELL. Please don’t take offense, sir, but if she finishes 

in New Orleans, she won’t talk like she is from Delaware. 

27

Chairman BIDEN. That is exactly right. [Laughter.] 

Sheriff FERRELL. We are glad to have her in our area. 

Chairman BIDEN. So am I. I am glad to have her there. 

Sheriff FERRELL. I am here representing the sheriffs of the 

United States. I am the first vice president, and I will be sworn as 

president of the National Sheriffs’ Association in June. 

The National Sheriffs’ Association is surprised and deeply concerned about the proposal by OMB to eliminate the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, at the U.S. Justice Department, and to 

shift these responsibilities to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, FEMA. 

This is a time when the American people need continuity and coordination, not the disruption of unnecessary reorganization. For 

this reason, I appear before you today to add the voice of the Nation’s sheriffs to other law enforcement organizations that likewise 

oppose this OMB proposal. While we appreciate the efforts of OMB 

to consolidate functions and enhance efficiency, this proposal would 

unintentionally undermine the efforts of American law enforcement. 

I will submit for the record a formal resolution adopted by the 

National Sheriffs Association earlier this month in which we set 

forth the reasons for our opposition to the proposed reorganization.

Let me explain the reasons for our opposition to the OMB proposal. 

Experience with counter-terrorism: Sheriffs have worked with 

the Department of Justice on funding for anti-crime efforts since 

the Safe Streets Crime Act of 1968. Over these 34 years, the Department of Justice has established expertise that cannot be replicated by an agency that is new to law enforcement. Nothing more 

needs to be said other than it is apparent that there is no substitute for these 34 years of relationships and experience. 

Contradiction of the PATRIOT Act: The sheriffs of our Nation applaud your courage and leadership in passing the PATRIOT, but 

we are confused by the OMB proposal, since it seems to repeal sections of the PATRIOT Act even before some of those provisions 

have been implemented. 

For example, the OMB proposal seems to rewrite sections 1005 

and 1014, which direct the Attorney General, not FEMA, to make 

grants to sheriffs for first responders, terrorism prevention, and 

anti-terrorism training. Law enforcement responds to a deadly 

threat, not FEMA. Look at the record of terrorist attacks around 

the globe. Terrorists attack with automatic weapons, bombs, and 

often take hostages. Side by side with Federal law enforcement, we 

will face the terrorists most probably with deadly weapons. 

We will never ask nor can we expect our fire, EMS, or health 

personnel to face gunfire, explosives, or other deadly assaults. This 

is the job sheriffs and police, and it is ours alone. Once the threat 

has been addressed and public safety has been restored, only then 

is it possible to turn over the same to the FEMA agency. To do anything else would be contrary to a sheriff’s oath of office and contrary to the laws of the States. To subordinate our crisis response 

to FEMA would compromise the statutory obligation of law enforcement officials to protect their communities. 

28

Mr. Chairman, the House Subcommittee on Crime said it best in 

recognizing that this is the reality of both policy and practice 

across the Nation. They said, ‘‘The committee is concerned that 

FEMA is not the appropriate agency for these responsibilities. A 

terrorist attack is a criminal event, not a natural disaster.’’

The FEMA role is limited to consequences management. The prevention, detention, and apprehension of terrorists are law enforcement functions, and it is not appropriate for training and coordination to be assigned to the FEMA regime, where there are no such 

responsibilities. If there were to be another terrorist attack, responding to the immediate crisis would be law enforcement’s responsibility. Sheriffs and chiefs of police are shocked that OMB 

would propose that FEMA should assume responsibility in these 

areas where there is neither experience nor the legal authority for 

them to even act. 

Perhaps more confusing is the contradiction of the January 2001 

United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan, known as the CONPLAN, which states 

that crisis management is predominantly a law enforcement function, and includes measures to identify, acquire, and plan the use 

of resources needed to anticipate and/or resolve a threat or act of 

terrorism. 

In a terrorist incident, a crisis management response may include traditional law enforcement missions, such as intelligence, 

surveillance, tactical operations, negotiations, forensics, investigations, as well as technical support missions such as agent identification, search, render safe procedures, transfer and disposal, and 

limited decontamination. In addition to traditional law enforcement 

missions, crisis management also includes assurance of public 

health and safety. 

The contradiction of the presidential decision directives: Presidential Decision Directives 39, 62 and 63 direct the Attorney General, not FEMA, to assume lead responsibility for the Federal Government. It is the United States Department of Justice, not FEMA, 

that serves as the central agency in a crisis. That is what our local 

laws now reflect and that is how our personnel have been trained. 

The Nation’s sheriffs and police have established operational 

agreements with ODP and the FBI at the Department of Justice, 

and we should not be asked to scrap all of our policies, plans, and 

all of our agreements so that we can work under authority of an 

agency that has no law enforcement role. 

Disruption of the current programs threatens the public. Last 

year, the Senate increased funding for the ODP from $250 million 

to $650 million, and we are now engaged in the planning for the 

allocation of these funds to law enforcement. Just as we are 

launching these new programs, OMB would have us terminate the 

effort and move everything over to FEMA. The disruption that such 

a shift would cause is nothing less than catastrophic at a time 

when the safety of the American people is at risk. 

As elected sheriffs sworn to protect the public, we cannot support 

a recommendation that may cause enormous disruption and a potential interruption during this period of unprecedented threats to 

public safety in America. The Department of Justice should be commended. The National Sheriffs’ Association believes that the ConVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
29

gress should commend the Attorney General, the FBI, and the ODP 

for a job well done, and not consider the transfer of their duties to 

agencies that lack the experience, training, and authority to get the 

job done. 

As directed by Congress, the Department of Justice has worked 

with all 50 States on preparedness plans, and I am advised that 

44 have been received. Relying upon decades of experience with review and approval of such State plans, ODP has already approved 

40 of these State strategy documents. 

I asked the Department of Justice to provide me with a listing 

of what they have done to assist law enforcement and first responders, and I am pleased to submit these figures for the record, 

which is part of the testimony. 

Chairman BIDEN. Without objection, they will be submitted. 

Sheriff FERRELL. At this time of national crisis, sheriffs want to 

support the efforts of the President and Governor Ridge. However, 

we cannot support the OMB recommendation to remove the Office 

of Domestic Preparedness from the United States Department of 

Justice and transfer this function to FEMA. 

While this plan may appear to serve the interests of efficiency, 

it fails to recognize the reality of law enforcement responsibilities 

at the time of a terrorist attack. This sort of force consolidation can 

only lead to confusion, and that is not what our Nation needs right 

now. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you and I am prepared to answer the committee’s questions at this 

time on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Ferrell follows:]

TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF TOMMY FERRELL, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, I am Sheriff Tommy Ferrell from Adams County, Mississippi and 

I appear before you as First Vice President of the National Sheriffs’ Association. I 

will take office as President in June. 

The National Sheriffs’ Association is surprised and deeply concerned about the 

proposal by OMB to eliminate the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) at the 

U.S. Department of Justice, and to shift these responsibilities to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

This is a time when the American people need continuity and coordination, not 

the disruption of unnecessary reorganzation. For this reason, I appear before you 

today to add the voice of the Nation’s Sheriffs to other law enforcement organizations that likewise oppose this OMB proposal. While we appreciate the efforts to 

OMB to consolidate functions and enhance efficiency, this proposal would unintentionally undermine the efforts of American law enforcement. 

I will submit for the record a formal resolution adopted by the National Sheriffs’ 

Association earlier this month, in which we set forth the reasons for our opposition 

to the proposed reorganization. 

Let me explain each of the reasons for our opposition to the OMB proposal: 

Experience With Counterterrorism: Sheriffs have worked with the Department of 

Justice on funding for anti-crime efforts since the Safe Streets Act of 1968. Over 

these 34 years, the Department of Justice has established expertise that cannot be 

replicated by an agency that is new to law enforcement. Nothing more need be said 

here, as it is apparent that there is no substitute for these 34 years of relationships 

and experience. 

Contradiction of the Patriot Act: The Sheriffs of our Nation applaud your courage 

and leadership in passing the Patriot Act. But we are confused by the OMB proposal, since it seems to repeal sections of the Patriot Act even before some of those 

provisions have been implemented. For example, the OMB proposal seems to reVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
30

1 House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime. ‘‘Amended Views and Estimates’’ 2 January 2001 United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan 

write Sections 1005 and 1014, which direct the Attorney General, not FEMA, to 

make grants to Sheriffs for first responders, terrorism prevention and anti-terrorism 

training. 

Law Enforcement Responds to a Deadly Threat, Not FEMA Agencies: Look at the 

record of terrorist attacks around the globe. Terrorists attack with automatic weapons, bombs, and often take hostages. Side-by-side with Federal law enforcement, we 

will face the terrorists, most probably with deadly weapons. We will never ask nor 

can we expect our Fire, EMS or Health personnel to face gunfire, explosives or other 

deadly assaults. That is the job of sheriffs and police, and it is ours alone. Once the 

threat has been addressed and public safety has been restored, only then it is possible to turn over the scene to the FEMA agencies. To do anything else would be 

contrary to a Sheriff’s oath of office and contrary to the laws of the States. To subordinate our crisis response to FEMA would compromise the statutory obligation of 

law enforcement officials to protect their communities. Mr. Chairman, the House 

Subcommittee on Crime said it best in recognizing that this is the realty of both 

policy and practices across the Nation. They said that, ‘‘The Committee is concerned 

that FEMA is not the appropriate agency for these responsibilities. A terrorist attack is a criminal event, not a natural disaster.’’ 1

FEMA Role is Limited to Consequences Management: The prevention, detection 

and apprehension of terrorists are law enforcement functions, and it is not appropriate for training and coordination to be assigned to the FEMA regime, where 

there are no such responsibilities. If there were to be another terrorist attack, responding to the immediate crisis would be a law enforcement responsibility. Sheriffs 

and Chiefs of Police are shocked that OMB would propose that FEMA should assume responsibility in these areas, where there is neither experience nor legal authority to act. Perhaps most confusing is the contradiction of the January 2001 

United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations 

Plan, known as the CONPLAN, which states: ‘‘Crisis management is predominantly 

a law enforcement function and includes measures to identify, acquire, and plan the 

use of resources needed to anticipate, prevent, and/or resolve a threat or act of terrorism. In a terrorist incident, a crisis management response may include traditional law enforcement missions, such as intelligence, surveillance, tactical operations, negotiations, forensics, and investigations, as well as technical support missions, such as agent identification, search, render safe procedures, transfer and disposal, and limited decontamination. In addition to the traditional law enforcement 

missions, crisis management also includes assurance of public health and safety.’’ 2

Contradiction of Presidential Decision Directives: Presidential Decision Directives 

39, 62 and 63 direct the Attorney General, not FEMA, to assume lead responsibility 

for the Federal Government. It is the U.S. Department of Justice, and not FEMA, 

that serves as the central agency in a crisis. This is what our local laws now reflect 

and this is how our personnel have been trained. The Nation’s Sheriffs and Police 

have established operational agreements with ODP and the FBI at the Department 

of Justice, and we should not be asked to scrap all of our policies, plans, and agreements so that we can work under the authority of an agency that has no law enforcement role. 

Disruption of Current Programs Threatens the Public: Last year, the House increased the funding for the ODP from $250 Million to $650 Million, and we are now 

engaged in the planning for allocation of these funds to law enforcement. Just as 

we are launching these new programs, OMB would have us terminate the effort and 

move everything over to FEMA. The disruption that such a shift would cause is 

nothing less than catastrophic at a time when the safety of the American people is 

at risk. As elected Sheriffs sworn to protect the public, we cannot support a recommendation that may cause enormous disruption and a potential interruption during this period of unprecedented threats to public safety in America. 

Department of Justice Should be Commended: The National Sheriffs’ Association 

believes that Congress should commend the Attorney General, the FBI and ODP for 

a job well done, and not consider the transfer of their duties to agencies that lack 

the experience, training and authority to get the job done. As directed by Congress, 

the Department of Justice has worked with all 50 states on preparedness plans, and 

I am advised that 44 have been received. Relying upon decades of experience with 

review and approval of such State plans, ODP has already approved 40 of these 

State Strategy documents. I asked the Department of Justice to provide me with 

31

a listing of what they have done to assist law enforcement and first responders, and 

I am pleased to submit these figures for the record.

Equipment 

ODP has made $607.04 million dollars available to state and local jurisdictions 

for the procurement of specialized WMD equipment. ODP developed a Pre-positioned Equipment Program (PEP) to strategically locate emergency response equipment around the nation for response to terrorist incidents. 

Training 

From FY97 through FY01, ODP has trained over 96,600 state and local emergency responders from more than 1,548 different jurisdictions. 

A total of 33 training courses are offered through ODP including a range of specialized courses, from basic awareness to discipline-specific advanced level training 

and directed toward a variety of disciplines including fire, hazardous materials, law 

enforcement, emergency medical services, public health, emergency management, 

and public works. 

At its Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) in Anniston, Alabama, ODP operates the nation’s only state and local live agent training facility, where emergency 

responders can test their skills in a live contaminated environment. 

Working in partnership with the Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office/

Technical Support Working Group and the FEMA Emergency Education Network 

(EENET), ODP provides regular awareness level training to the emergency response 

community through two satellite broadcast programs: Consequence Management 

News, Equipment and Training (CoMNET) and Live Response. 

Exercises 

In May 2000, ODP National Exercise Program conducted the Top Officials 

(TOPOFF) exercise, the largest Federal, state and local full-scale exercise that simulated chemical, biological and radiological attacks around the country. ODP has 

begun planning for the Congressional mandated TOPOFF II Full-Scale exercise, to 

be conducted in the spring of 2003. 

A total of 93 exercises have been conducted by ODP to date. It is estimated that 

ODP will complete 220 exercises in FY02; including the NLDDP Program Exercises. 

Working with the Department of Energy, ODP has established a Center for Exercise Excellence at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), creating a national WMD exercisetraining program, which assists state and local emergency response agencies with 

the planning and conduct of domestic preparedness exercises. 

Technical assistance 

ODP has reconstituted the Domestic Preparedness Help line, a non-emergency, 

toll-free, 1–800 number resource available for use by state and local emergency responders. The Help line provides general information on the characteristics and control of WMD materials, technical information on response equipment, mitigation 

techniques, ODP programs and services, and available Federal assets. 

Partnering with the U.S. Army’s Pine Bluff Arsenal, ODP offers mobile technical 

assistance teams that provide on-site assistance and training to ODP grantees with 

the calibration, operation and maintenance of WMD response equipment. 

Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program 

ODP is responsible for completing the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program that was transferred from DoD, effective December 21, 2000. As of 

January 31, 2002, ODP has completed: 

22 Biological Weapons Tabletop Exercises (BW TTX); 

6 Chemical Weapons Full Scale Exercises (CWFSE); 

All NLDDP final 15 cities Initial Meetings; 

13 of 15 Senior Officials Workshops for the remaining cities; 

12 of 15 Program Implementation Meetings for NLD cities 106–120; and 

36 training courses for 8 of the final 15 NLD cities. 

CONCLUSION

At this time of national crisis, Sheriffs want to support the efforts of the President 

and Governor Ridge. However, we cannot support the OMB recommendation to remove the Office of Domestic Preparedness from the U.S. Department of Justice and 

transfer this function to FEMA. While this plan may appear to serve the interests 

of efficiency, it fails to recognize the reality of law enforcement responsibilities at 

the time of a terrorist attack. This sort of forced consolidation can only lead to confusion, and that is not what our Nation needs right now. 

32

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and I am prepared to answer the Committee’s questions on this issue.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Sheriff, for a very thorough statement. 

Last but not least, Mr. Muhlhausen, thank you very much for 

being here again. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, POLICY ANALYST, 

CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you, Chairman Biden. 

Mr. Chairman, my name is David Muhlhausen. I am a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, specializing in crime policy and 

program valuation. In beginning my testimony, I must stress that 

the views I express are entirely my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. With that understanding, I am honored to be asked by the 

Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs to testify today on the needs of 

local law enforcement for homeland defense. 

The September 11 terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center 

and the Pentagon reshaped Federal priorities to efforts that 

strengthen the Government’s ability to protect Americans from terrorism. To improve anti-terrorism programs, Congress has shifted 

dollars away from wasteful, unproven or demonstrably ineffective 

programs. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Bush administration has proposed three 

major changes to current assistance to local law enforcement. First, 

the administration plans to eliminate COPS hiring grants. This 

proposal is a good idea. Even with the best of intentions, COPS has 

not been a successful program when its performance has been 

measured by rigorous standards of social science research. 

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis conducted 

an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the COPS program. 

After accounting for local law enforcement expenditures and other 

socio-economic factors on a yearly basis, the analysis found that 

COPS hiring and redeployment grants have no statistically significant effect on reducing violent crime rates. 

The administration’s second proposal intends to consolidate local 

law enforcement block grants and Byrne formula grants into a single $800 million initiative called the Justice Assistance Grants Program. The administration aims to implement the Justice Assistance Grants Program with a greater emphasis on measuring the 

performance of the program. The consolidation of duplicate programs and the plan to measure performance are also sound public 

policies. 

A third proposal from the administration is a request for $3.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to improve 

preparedness of first responders when terrorist attacks occur. 

Many members of the local law enforcement community are concerned that FEMA normally responds only after a destructive act 

has occurred. 

Currently, FEMA is not an agency well-suited to provide Federal 

assistance to law enforcement to protect against terrorism. Funding for law enforcement needs to be proactive, as well as reactive. 

33

Not only will law enforcement be called upon to respond to terrorist 

acts, but the police are also expected to uncover and stop terrorist 

plots. 

For this reason, Congress has set aside a portion of the $3.5 billion in FEMA grants for funding to help local law enforcement acquire the necessary skills and tools to prevent and respond to terrorism. These grants should be administered by the Department of 

Justice. 

Funding could be used to help local law enforcement and the 

Federal Government develop a reciprocal relationship to share intelligence on suspected terrorist activities. In addition, the funding 

could assist local law enforcement agencies to conduct threat assessments and implement strategies to safeguard vulnerable targets. 

From a policy standpoint, the administration’s position on COPS, 

LLEBG, and Byrne grants is found. However, using FEMA to administer what amounts to local law enforcement grants is not. Congress should seriously reconsider the administration’s plan to administer anti-terrorism grants to law enforcement through FEMA. 

Given the Nation’s continuing vulnerability to future terrorist attacks, the Federal Government has the responsibility to assist local 

law enforcement in their efforts to detect, prevent, and respond to 

terrorism. A far better policy would be for Congress to transfer a 

portion of the administration’s FEMA funding request to the Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement in the prevention of terrorism. 

Senator I have submitted a copy of my written testimony to the 

subcommittee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen follows:]

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR DATA

ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman, my name is David Muhlhausen. I am a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation specializing in crime policy and program evaluation. In beginning 

my testimony I must emphasize that the views I express are entirely my own, and 

should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. With that understanding, I am honored to be asked by the Subcommittee 

on Crime and Drugs, to testify today on assessing the needs of local law enforcement for homeland defense. 

The September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 

reshaped federal priorities to efforts that strengthen the government’s ability to protect Americans from terrorism. To improve anti-terrorism programs, the Administration and Congress first should shift dollars away from wasteful, unproven, or demonstrably ineffective programs. 

Second, Congress should recognize many crime programs deal with problems or 

functions that lie within the expertise, the jurisdiction, and the constitutional responsibilities of state and local governments. Therefore, these problems should be 

addressed by state and local officials. 

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BUDGET PROPOSAL

For fiscal year 2003, the Bush Administration has proposed three major changes 

to the federal government’s funding for state and local law enforcement. First, the 

Administration plans to eliminate Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

grants for the hiring of additional police officers. This proposed is a good idea. Even 

with the best of intentions, COPS has not been a successful program when its performance has been measured by rigorous standards of social science research. COPS 

was intended to reduce crime by putting 100,000 additional officers on America’s 

streets. Research by The Heritage Foundation, U.S. Department of Justice, and the 

General Accounting Office have all found that COPS failed to come close to the 

34

100,000 additional officer goal. Despite funding of $8 billion between fiscal years 

1994 to 2000, a 2000 report titled National Evaluation of the COPS Program, by 

the DOJ, estimates that the number of officers that COPS placed on the streets 

would, at most, peak at around 57,000 by 2001. 

The Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis conducted an independent 

analysis of the effectiveness of the COPS program in 2001. After accounting for 

state and local law enforcement expenditures and other socioeconomic factors on a 

yearly basis, the analysis found that COPS grants for the hiring of additional police 

officers as well as grants for redeployment—the Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) grants—have no statistically significant effect on reducing the rates of 

violent crime. 

The Administration’s second proposal intends to consolidate Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) and Byrne formula grants into one $800 million program called the Justice Assistance Grants (JAG). In the past, these programs have 

duplicated each other. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there is 

virtually no evidence that these grants have been effective in reducing crime and 

they lack adequate measures of performance. The Administration aims to implement the JAG program with a greater emphasis on measuring performance. The 

consolidation of these duplicative grants and the plan to measure performance are 

also sound public policies. 

A third proposal from the Administration is a request for $3.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to improve the preparedness of state 

and local first responders (police, firemen, and other emergency personnel) to respond to terrorism. These grants would fund programs that make responses to terrorist acts of mass destruction more efficient and coordinated. The funds will be 

used to improve communication, training, and technology. 

Many members of the law enforcement community are concerned that FEMA normally responds only after a destructive act has occurred. Currently, FEMA is not 

an agency well suited to provide federal assistance to law enforcement for protecting 

against terrorism. Funding for law enforcement needs to be proactive, as well as reactive. Not only will law enforcement be called upon to respond to terrorist acts, but 

the police are also expected to uncover and stop terrorist plots. As Sheriff John Cary 

Bittick, President of the National Sheriffs’ Association, recently testified before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, 

‘‘We will never ask nor can we expect our Fire, EMS, or Health personnel to face 

gunfire, explosives, or other deadly assaults. That is the job of police and sheriffs, 

and it is ours alone.’’

This is a sound observation. It is the responsibility of law enforcement to detect, 

prevent, and respond to terrorism. For this reason, Congress should set aside a portion of the $3.5 billion in FEMA grants to help state and local law enforcement acquire the necessary skills and tools to prevent and respond to terrorism. The Department of Justice (DOJ) should administer these grants for multiple purposes. 

Funding could be used to help local law enforcement and the federal government 

develop a reciprocal relationship to share intelligence on suspected terrorist activities. Training to give local law enforcement the tools to identify and stop terrorist 

activities could be funded by the grants. In addition, the funding could assist local 

law enforcement conduct threat assessments and implement strategies to safeguard 

vulnerable targets. 

In any case, to enhance the value of every dollar spent on behalf of the taxpayers, 

the Administration should continue to review and reduce funding for ineffective 

grant programs, and continue the consolidation of duplicative programs into single 

grant programs. 

WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO

As a general policy, Congress should always end funding for unproductive programs and consolidate duplicative programs. When viewed from this policy standpoint, the Administration’s position on COPS, LLEBG, and Byrne grants is sound. 

However, using FEMA to administer what amounts to law enforcement grants is 

not. Congress should seriously reconsider the Administration’s plan to administer 

anti-terrorism grants to law enforcement through FEMA. Given the nation’s continuing susceptibility to future terrorist attacks, the federal government has the responsibility to assist state and local law enforcement in their efforts to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorism. FEMA’s traditionally reactive approach to disasters 

is not well suited for the needs of law enforcement in responding to prospective terrorist threats. A far better policy would be for Congress to transfer a portion of the 

Administration’s FEMA funding request to DOJ. Congress should keep in mind during these budget deliberations the importance of reviewing and reorienting its priorVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
35

ities. Especially after pouring billions of dollars in unproven programs through the 

years. 

The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational organization operating under Section 501(C)(3). It is privately supported, and receives no 

funds from any government at any level, nor does it perform any government or 

other contract work. 

The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the United 

States. During 2001, it had more than 200,000 individual, foundation, and corporate 

supporters representing every state in the U.S. Its 2001 contributions came from the 

following sources:

Percent 

Individuals ....................................................................................................... 60.93

Foundations ...................................................................................................... 27.02

Corporations ..................................................................................................... 7.61

Investment Income .......................................................................................... 1.60

Publication Sales and Other ........................................................................... 2.84

The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation with less than 

3.5% of its 2001 income. The Heritage Foundation’s books are audited annually by 

the national accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche. A list of major donors is available 

from The Heritage Foundation upon request. 

Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals discussing their 

own independent research. The views expressed are their own, and do not reflect 

an institutional position for The Heritage Foundation or its board of trustees.

Chairman BIDEN. Well, thank you very much, David. 

I failed to mention earlier that Senator Grassley, who very much 

wanted to be here, is a member of the Budget Committee. As you 

have been reading in the newspaper, there is one heck of a hullabaloo going on in the Budget Committee, trying to figure out how 

we put 10 pounds in a 5-pound bag here and what priorities we set. 

I am almost positive he would rather be here right now than 

there, but he is on that committee and it looks like he is not going 

to be able to get away. They are actually marking up the budget 

resolution right now. That is Senate jargon for meaning they are 

deciding what they are going to submit to the United States Senate, to the floor. So I apologize, and particularly to you, David, 

since he asked very much that you be here as one of the witnesses. 

There is going to be a vote starting fairly soon. I know that a 

couple of you have time constraints, so maybe I will ask you questions first, those whom I know have a time constraint. I am going 

to wait until about three minutes left in this—you know, we are 

like Pavlov’s dogs; when those lights go on and those buzzers happen, we have to move. I will need about three minutes to get to 

the floor. That will finish the one vote. I will vote for the second 

one and come back. So the bottom line is I will be gone probably 

about 12 minutes. 

For those of you whom I haven’t had a chance to ask questions 

in the next 12 minutes could hang around a little bit—and I will 

understand if you can’t because I have already trespassed on your 

time and some of you have come a long distance. 

Chief, I know your presence is required by the mayor at six 

o’clock tonight back in Wilmington, so maybe I can begin with you. 

Without giving me any number—if you have a number, I would appreciate it, but has your requirement to have more cops on the 

street, if this is the case, increased since 9/11, since the terrorist 

attacks? 

I mean, what happens when nationally the United States Government, through initially the Attorney General—now, it will be 

36

through Governor Ridge—says that we have information believing 

there may be a terrorist attack on the United States, without any 

specificity as to where it may be? What happens to your police department when those—and they have happened, I guess, three or 

four times since then—what happens? 

Chief SZCZERBA. We are about to the highest heightened state of 

alert that we can be, and I don’t think the city of Wilmington is 

any different from any other city, small or large, throughout the 

country. 

Chairman BIDEN. You have a port, correct, that you have to deal 

with? 

Chief SZCZERBA. That is correct. We have a port. We have, I believe, the sixth busiest Amtrak station in the country, which you 

are well familiar with. We have other vulnerable sites that we have 

to monitor since then. And it is not only in staffing, but it has 

caused us to now have cameras set up and monitoring some areas 

which we never monitored before. 

Chairman BIDEN. Has that put additional strains on your budget 

when you go to the city council? I am not trying to lead you. I give 

you my word, I am trying to figure this out. 

Do you need more money to do the same job now because you 

have increased responsibilities as a practical matter, or can you get 

by on the same amount of money you have had if you are just going 

to do the same job you did last year? 

Chief SZCZERBA. We could not get by on the same amount because we are going to fall behind. We have to address the homeland security issues, but like I stated in my prepared remarks, we 

also have the terrorists that are on our street corners on a daily 

basis that we also have to deal with. 

Chairman BIDEN. One last question for you, Chief. You have 

been on the force a while. And maybe you can’t answer this. It may 

be an unfair question, but I am going to ask it to you anyway and 

if you don’t want to answer it, you don’t have to. 

Do you have any indication from the city council or the mayor’s 

office for the upcoming budget that you might have to trim your 

budget if there is not a continuation of the COPS program and the 

same amount of money for the block grants and the Byrne grants? 

Maybe you can tell me about the budget prospects, as you see 

them. Assuming the President’s budget goes through, what do you 

envision? What kind of budget are you going to have to submit to 

the mayor? 

Chief SZCZERBA. A strained budget. Not releasing any information because the mayor will be making his budget address tonight, 

but we would be facing not cuts, but it is a cut in the sense that 

in this next fiscal year I had anticipated having an academy class. 

That may be frozen right now. 

Chairman BIDEN. By academy class you mean continuing to add 

police to your department? 

Chief SZCZERBA. That is correct, to keep us up to our authorized 

strength, which is 289. 

Chairman BIDEN. Because you have retirees? 

Chief SZCZERBA. Yes, and by my request we would be adding 7 

to that 289. But I know that won’t happen, so I have to strike a 

mid-ground here to where I can maintain what I have. And to face 

37

a freeze, I am afraid that we would be taking steps back to what 

I demonstrated we faced in 1996 and I do not want to see that happen. 

Chairman BIDEN. Before you have to leave to catch the four 

o’clock train, I want to ask this question to everyone, as well. Are 

any of you opposing spending more money just in the aggregate to 

deal with helping first responders in terms of firefighters, ambulances and the like? 

You are not arguing that they shouldn’t get more help, are you? 

Can you speak to that? Do you think the fire department, for example, in the city of Wilmington needs more assistance? 

Chief SZCZERBA. Yes, I do. 

Chairman BIDEN. Gentlemen, do any of you want to speak to 

that? Mr. Muhlhausen? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Chairman Biden, I think that, in general, to 

prepare for terrorist attacks and the consequences, there is a Federal role in this area for first responders. So I don’t think it is a 

debate about cutting funding for first responders, but I think that 

law enforcement plays a unique role. Not only do they have to respond after something has occurred, but they are also called in to 

prevent things, to stop things from happening. So FEMA is not the 

agency that is well-suited for that. 

Chairman BIDEN. I will ask the mayors because you have the difficult responsibility of both of those departments. Assuming it 

wasn’t taken out of your police departments, I assume you would 

welcome money for the training of and the equipping of your fire 

departments, your ambulances, and the EMS teams that go in. Is 

that correct? 

Mayor HAYS. Senator, because of the downturn in the economy, 

I know my budget is flat this year. I wasn’t able to support any 

raises at this point for any of our municipal employees. As such, 

what I am having to do is when I have the $188,000 that is being 

taken away because of the housing authority grant, I am having 

to make those kinds of choices and reallocate forces. I am having 

to acquire equipment because of 9/11 that I didn’t have to have. I 

am having to prioritize some of the directions that some of my officers are having to go. 

I have got the largest arena in central Arkansas, and as such we 

are obviously concerned about the gathering of 18,000 people at one 

time. My city has a hydroelectric facility, and again we are concerned about any potential terrorist act on that. 

The one word that I have been able to use at least at this point 

in terms of responding to those needs is overtime, and that has had 

a severe impact on my budget. I might add that when I took office 

in 1989, the police department’s budget in North Little Rock was 

a little over $6 million. Right now, it is a little over $16 million, 

and that is a 175-percent increase. 

We have been fighting crime for those 13 years and have made 

successes with the partnerships that we have had with Washington. We are about at the end of our rope when it comes to additional resources. The COPS program, the grants and the partnerships we have had with Washington help us go forward, but they 

are not going forward at the pace that we need to. We started with 

38

24 sworn officers through the COPS program. Right now, 17 of 

those 24 are funded by the city. 

Chairman BIDEN. You picked them up, in other words. 

Mayor HAYS. We picked them up. 

Chairman BIDEN. That is how the program was designed to 

work. The first three years, basically we would do it. The last two 

years, you have got to commit to keep them two years. Then after 

that, you all are in a position of whether you can keep them. You 

are entitled, under the deal made, to let them go and not lose additional help from the Federal Government, because that was the 

deal. You didn’t have to keep them forever. We hoped you would. 

Mayor Hood, what kind of strain is it going to place on you? 

Mayor HOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think related to what just stated, 

last week I shared with you that the last thing I am going to do 

is take police officers off the street. It is very important, when we 

have made that commitment to our citizens, that we make a commitment when we took those grant dollars up front to sustain them 

over a period of time. That is my philosophy. 

I work off of a public safety master plan and a multi-year cycle, 

and this year I have been able to, since 9/11, advance an additional 

$1.5 million for additional public safety personnel needs. I project 

that with my new budget which I introduced to the council this 

summer that there will be an additional $2.5 million need for public safety personnel. That is above and beyond what I would have 

normally advanced through my public safety master planning. 

We are also responsible for and have a unit of our police personnel at our international airport. Of course, there are lots of fluctuations going on right now with the federalization of certain employees at certain checkpoints, and when the National Guard 

leaves how long they will or won’t stay. So that is going to be an 

issue that comes up as well. 

Chairman BIDEN. If they leave, is the airport physically within 

your jurisdiction? 

Mayor HOOD. Yes, it is, but we have adequate personnel at this 

point in time. 

Chairman BIDEN. I know you do. I just want to make sure I understand. 

Mayor HOOD. We may need to add more there, although we are 

reimbursed for that through our aviation authority.

As far as some of the things that we have been doing since 9/

11, if there is an additional need that arises in the community, certainly you can kick in mutual aid agreements. You work at fullshift configurations a lot of time or go to the overtime situation. 

Chairman BIDEN. But what do you have to cut, Madam Mayor? 

I would like to think if I were a mayor—and I don’t like to think 

about being a mayor; it is a real job, it is a tough job. 

But all kidding aside, you have made the decision I hope I would 

make, which is the last thing I am going to cut is law enforcement. 

Mayor HOOD. Right. 

Chairman BIDEN. Are you raising taxes? 

Mayor HOOD. No. I actually lowered taxes. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, what gives? 

Mayor HOOD. Well, I am in the fortunate situation right now 

that I have additional tax revenues coming in because I have 

39

grown my city through annexation and through population increases. 

Chairman BIDEN. I see. 

Mayor HOOD. But at the same time, I haven’t determined yet if 

there is anything that has to be cut back. 

Chairman BIDEN. I see. 

Mayor HOOD. I think what you do is you look for a new business 

model. You look for more partnerships with the private sector and 

the non-profit sector. That is a new way of doing business. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, can I ask you a question? You represent, 

representing the League here, how many thousand mayors and 

municipalities? 

Mayor HOOD. There are about 135,000 members that we have in 

the National League of Cities. 

Chairman BIDEN. Now, I know you can speak for——

Mayor HOOD. No, but many of them are in situations where they 

are going to have to make very difficult choices. And while I can’t 

give you specific examples from city to city and mayor to mayor, 

I know that that is something that they have been concerned 

about, that they are going to have to make some of those tough 

choices. 

Chairman BIDEN. From everything I have heard—and I am going 

to get in trouble, me being a Democrat and you being a Republican, 

but you have been a heck of a mayor. I am not being solicitous. 

Your reputation procedes you here, so I am not being solicitous. 

If you had to guess, and maybe you don’t want to, if these cuts 

are sustained and for the next three years we don’t have any of 

this COPS money and we go from, on the COPS side of the equation, COPS and Byrne, et cetera—the Justice Department right 

now has disbursed roughly $3.5 billion to localities for law enforcement-related activities over the last year. But it is being cut to 2, 

so there is about a $1.5 billion cut. These are rough numbers. 

Assuming that kind of cut is sustained for the next several years, 

would you envision there being the same number of local law enforcement officers represented by your constituency, meaning the 

League of Cities, or is it likely that that number will decrease? 

Mayor HOOD. I think by just some of the examples I have shared 

in my testimony and from other conversations and discussions I 

have had with my colleagues that many of them feel that they 

would have to not only make some difficult decisions as far as 

other vital services having to be cut back, but also perhaps the situation, yes, of having to pull officers. 

Chairman BIDEN. The truth of the matter is——

Mayor HOOD. And especially small cities. 

Chairman BIDEN. Yes, and that is where the rubber hits the 

road. 

You are not a small city, Pat, but you are not the size of Orlando. 

What is your population again? 

Mayor HAYS. Sixty thousand, Senator. 

Chairman BIDEN. Sixty thousand. 

Mayor HAYS. Yes. What you would probably find me doing is I 

am not going to get in a position where I have to cut officers, and 

so I am going to do everything I can. Now, I may be in a situation 

where I have to look to take some of my school resource officers out 

40

of the campus. The city pays 100 percent of their salary and I may 

have to take some and reallocate them from some of the neighborhood programs that we have in terms of how we have dispensed 

our police department in four different areas in our city. 

I am going to meet the need. I am not going to cut my police department, but I may have to reallocate it, and that will cause, in 

my opinion, long-term damage to the quality of life in my community. 

Chairman BIDEN. I have about 60 seconds to get over there and 

vote. I do want to raise some questions of you, Sheriff, if I may, 

as well. And, Mr. Muhlhausen, I want to talk to you about this notion of devolution of government and the responsibility of the Federal Government, to the extent it exists, and where and why. And, 

Bill, I would like to ask you some questions about the additional 

responsibilities you have. 

Again, I do not in any way question the good intentions of the 

administration in making this shift, but I do question the judgment. And I wonder if you all are willing to give me some insight, 

to the extent that you have divined it, as to why we are moving 

this way. I mean, what do we expect to have happen? 

Chief, with all due respect, I would like you to leave because the 

mayor will be very upset with me if his chief is not there when he 

submits his budget. To walk to the train station it will take you 

about 11 minutes. You have 20. Not that I have any authority over 

you, but I would like you to go because the mayor is a close friend 

of mine and I don’t want to get in trouble with the mayor. But I 

thank you for coming down here. Thank you very much. 

Chief SZCZERBA. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman BIDEN. With your permission, if you are willing to 

wait about 12 minutes, I am going to recess the hearing, to be absolutely certain for 15 minutes. We will reconvene here at five minutes of four, and I promise I will not keep you very long after that, 

if you are willing to wait. Thank you all very much. 

We will recess for 15 minutes. 

[The subcommittee stood in recess from 3:40 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.] 

Chairman BIDEN. We will come back to order. I apologize. There 

was more than one vote. 

At any rate, I understand both of our mayors had to leave and 

I will submit several questions to them in writing. 

I would ask unanimous consent that additional statements be 

put in the record. Senator Grassley’s statement, Senator Kohl’s, 

and the Police Executive Research Forum will be entered into the 

record at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, HOMELAND DEFENSE: ASSESSING

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on how the Administration’s 

budget will address the needs of local law enforcement. This hearing is particularly 

timely in light of the homeland defense mission that local law enforcement is now 

faced with. Of course, local law enforcement has always been the first line of defense 

against any crime, and as September 11th demonstrated, they are also the first to 

rush into harms way. 

Because of the increased focus on homeland security, I conducted two working 

meetings last November in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. I met with Iowa first responders to discuss their preparedness for responding to terrorists incidents and to 

41

learn how the federal government could better meet first responder needs. In these 

meetings, the various police offices present told me that to be fully prepared to respond to a terrorist incident, they would have to have additional funds for technology, communications equipment, and training. 

They also informed me that the complex network of agencies offering resources, 

each with duplicative training and funding missions, has created a great deal of confusion for those trying to obtain assistance. These law enforcement and other first 

responders asked that the federal government provide a streamlined and simple 

grant process, and that there be more flexibility in how they can spend law enforcement funding. To give them what they need, the various local law enforcement funding programs have to be adjusted. The President’s budget purports to do this by 

merging funding programs that have duplicative functions, and cutting or eliminating those programs that are inefficient or ineffective. 

We’re here today to discuss what impact the proposed cuts and mergers in the 

President’s budget will have on local law enforcement funding. As many of you may 

know, I’m a strong proponent of good government, regardless of party politics. As 

such, I generally favor combining grant programs that administer the same type of 

grants. In addition to ending duplicative funding, I also support the elimination of 

funding programs that have already accomplished their goals, or on the other hand, 

are so inefficient or ineffective that they will never accomplish their goals. I also 

support the transferring of grant administration responsibilities from one office or 

agency to another—but only when it makes sense to do so. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. I’m glad to see that Mr. David 

Muhlhausen of the Heritage Foundation could be with us again today. Mr. 

Muhlhausen, who is no stranger to this Committee, has recently published a paper 

on the very topic that we are discussing today. It is also good to have Sheriff Tom 

Ferrell from Adams County, Mississippi, here with us. Sheriff Ferrell is the incoming President of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and would like to testify 

about the NSA’s concerns over the transferring of the Office of Domestic Preparedness from the Department of Justice to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

I have heard similar concerns from other law enforcement organizations and also 

from law enforcement officers back in Iowa. Because of the many objections that I 

have heard regarding this transfer, I am eager to hear Sheriff Ferrell’s testimony, 

as well as the testimony from the other fine witnesses. 

Chairman Biden, thank you again for holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kohl follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today on the COPS program. 

Since 1994, COPS has become an indispensable part of our ongoing fight against 

crime. When we ask law enforcement officers in Wisconsin how we can help them 

do their jobs and protect our communities, they consistently cite the COPS program 

as the most beneficial use of federal money. We have received countless requests 

for community police—from small towns with only two or three officers to the largest cities in Wisconsin. Police departments and sheriffs’ offices throughout the state 

have benefitted from the 1,340 new officers in Wisconsin since the program began. 

Some choose to spend their time debating whether the COPS program is responsible for the consistently decreasing crime rate. A recent study found that a one dollar increase in hiring grants per resident has led to a corresponding decline of 5.26 

violent crimes and 21.63 property crimes per 100,000 people. The few opponents of 

the program quarrel with those statistics. While that is an interesting academic discussion, we know what the police and sheriffs in our communities tell us—that 

COPS has made a tremendous difference. 

Unfortunately, trouble lies ahead. The program’s authorization has ended an the 

Administration has chosen to eviscerate the program. Frankly, we just do not understand this decision. After all, there is widespread support for the program. Last 

month, the Attorney General of the United States testified before the Appropriations 

Committee that the COPS program is one of the most successful government programs he could recall. The program works. The police organizations want it. Our 

communities need it. It is irresponsible to end it. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to think about what comes next. Of course we should reauthorize the program for 50,000 new officers as you have proposed and a majority 

of the Senate has supported. And we should insist that funds directed to local law 

enforcement be targeted to hire new community police officers and school resource 

officers and to improve technology. 

42

We must realize that the COPS program is more important today than ever before. To maintain our successes in the fight against crime in a law enforcement environment teeming with momentous new challengers, the COPS program is essential. Federal officers are more focused on terrorist threats, leaving local law enforcement with enhanced responsibilities. More will be expected of state and local law 

enforcement, and we must continue to help them. 

The safety of our communities depends upon it. Thank you.

Chairman BIDEN. Gentlemen, let me begin by getting at, if I 

may, from the perspective of all three of you, and starting with 

you, Bill, what do you think the $3.5 billion that the administration is proposing be under the jurisdiction of FEMA for homeland—

what do you think that means? 

I mean, as I read the initiative, it says that none of the funds 

can be used for personnel expenses, including new hiring or overtime costs. It says that none of the funds can be allocated directly 

to any local jurisdiction, and it says that the funds require a 25-

percent match contribution by the States, whereas the $635 million 

that all of you have spoken to that exists under the Justice Department now for the same purposes goes to the first responders in the 

States, administered by the Justice Department, without a match. 

I know none of you like this distribution, but try to be as frank 

with me about what you think they think this allocation is going 

to—I mean, how is this going to work, in your mind? You have 

stated your concerns. You must be concerned because of how you 

think it is going to function. Talk to me about that piece. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, and specifically the impact of that functioning will be on America’s police. I think that it is clear that the 

administration’s proposal is not a transfer of the COPS program or 

a COPS-like program to FEMA. It is completely doing away with 

COPS and it is simply transferring money at the same time to 

FEMA. 

As other speakers and as you have indicated, clearly FEMA has 

an important job to do, and first responders in the medical services 

and fire services have a very important job to do. But as one of the 

other speakers also indicated, when you call 911 you don’t hope for 

a clean-up. You are not looking for someone to clean up and decontaminate something next week. You want someone who is willing 

to come in and do whatever is necessary, even at the cost of their 

own life sometimes, to solve the problem that is here right now in 

an emergency. 

In addressing it more specifically, I think as you indicated, the 

proposals that are out there are not long on specifics, although they 

may be in terms of what the money cannot be used for. Things 

such as preparedness or making plans or generically improving 

technology or communications sound good, but in reality there is 

nothing that is going to force FEMA to either put new police on the 

street or to maintain the police that are already out there who 

have been hired and funded with the assistance of the Federal Government. 

Chairman BIDEN. Let me talk about for a moment—and I want 

you all to respond to all of this, if you can, so we can have more 

of a conversation here. Under last year’s budget, within the Justice 

Department, there was $651,494,000 made available through the 

Justice Department for what they used to categorize as counter-terrorism programs. 

43

Let me read what some of those are: the Nunn-Lugar response 

program, integrated training and technical assistance, Fort McClellan; domestic preparedness consortium, equipment acquisition 

grant program; situational exercises; research and development; 

bomb technology equipment program; virtual medical campus; 

Dartmouth Institute; Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute; 

NYU Center for Catastrophic Preparedness and Response; pre-positioned equipment. 

Now, that was issued through the Justice Department. Some of 

that went directly to police forces. Some of that training went directly to police forces and others went to firefighters. They are the 

kinds of things, when we talk about preparedness, to meet a terrorist act. 

Let me back up. When Senator Nunn was here, he and I introduced legislation dealing with the circumstances, if any, under 

which posse comitatus could be waived and you could call in the 

United States Army. 

For those who are listening, posse comitatus is a very good principle in law. It says that there is no national police force, so you 

can’t have the Army or the Navy or the Marines making arrests. 

That is the job of law enforcement. 

We realized as we started to focus on this six years ago that you 

had problems like the prospect of a nuclear weapon being pre-positioned for detonation, the problem of a biological or chemical weapon being employed. Right now, the only people in the world who 

are really equipped, and not even fully equipped to deal with this 

are the military. You all don’t have the training, the sheriffs or the 

police, to do it. 

So we were trying to figure out, while we train first responders, 

including law enforcement, to identify the problem and to deal with 

it, there may be circumstances in which we may have to bring in 

the nuclear boys from the United States military to deactivate a 

bomb that is sitting in a tunnel, you know, like the science fiction 

movies you see where it is counting down. 

We worked out a deal where they could only use force in self-defense and they would do it in conjunction with the police going in, 

but they could come in; they could be called in. Now, that is different than what is obviously a fire. You have airplanes hitting 

buildings, called the World Trade Towers, and then coming down. 

Obviously, you have to call the fire service, and the police responded as well at the same time. 

But I assume you guys are talking about in terms of your responsibilities those many terrorist possibilities that literally have nothing to do with a fire being started or an accident occurring, but 

people who are armed, people who have weapons, people who have 

bombs strapped to them, people who have sarin gas in their 

backpacks, et cetera. 

So has anyone explained to you from the administration how you 

all would be in on this deal for the $3.5 billion? Have they indicated to you, Sheriff—have they said anything to you? Have you 

had any briefings? 

Sheriff FERRELL. I spoke personally with Governor Ridge when 

he came to address our conference a few ago, and of course the 

topic continued on into the conference room. It was explained to me 

44

by Governor Ridge that it was the position of the administration 

that in their effort to try to draw us all under FEMA, it was their 

plan to have an existing program, if you will, that includes all of 

the services, not only the responders, but law enforcement, to have 

it all in one location, under one house or under one roof, so it could 

be administered by someone in charge of the consequence management, I call it. 

You alluded there a second ago about guns and bombs and what 

not. We in law enforcement don’t feel it is correct procedure to put 

our friends in the other response agencies in harm’s way. We respond to problems with guns and bombs and dangers and lifethreatening situations all over the United States in the police and 

sheriff’s business probably 100,000 times a day. We don’t want to 

see our brothers in the fire business or in EMS be subjected—that 

is not their training and that is not what they were designed to do. 

You mentioned FEMA. FEMA does not have a traditional law enforcement role. Not only do they not have a law enforcement role, 

but there has been no effort from FEMA extended to law enforcement to this point in time. 

Chairman BIDEN. I got a chance to speak to your guys and 

women as well, and they seemed pretty adamant about this. What 

kind of responses have you gotten from the administration to 

your—‘‘pleas’’ may be the wrong word—your concerns? I mean, 

what do they tell you? 

Sheriff FERRELL. Again, speaking from a personal benefit of 

meeting face to face with Governor Ridge, we have not had much 

communication with the administration on that level. The only 

thing we have heard is the plan that has come forward, the same 

thing that you have seen in the form of the budget, with no contact 

from FEMA and very little contact from the administration. 

Now, the administration has attempted in our last conference a 

few weeks ago to break the ice and to at least make contact, to 

start a dialogue, and that was the statement made by the governor 

at our meeting then to try to have a dialogue so we can start somewhere with law enforcement and the administration. That has been 

our last contact. 

Chairman BIDEN. I have been trying to figure out how to avoid 

a fight on this. I am not looking for a fight. What I am looking for 

is somebody from the administration to come up here and tell us—

Governor Ridge, preferably, because he is the guy making the decision, apparently; he is the guy under whose umbrella this is going 

to fall—answer some specific questions for us, because maybe we 

can work this out. 

All of us want to make sure that firefighters get additional help 

and get additional training. But even with the limitation on personnel, I have met with the firefighters and the firefighters are 

upset about this, not about the shift to FEMA, but what this 

means. What they say is, hey, look, because of the additional calls 

on our time as it relates to terrorism, we need more personnel, we 

need more people, we need more firefighters to help us in this effort. 

It takes me back to you, Bill, and then I want to get to you, 

David, about this devolution issue. Since you represent so many 

big-city police forces, what has been your experience when money 

45

and plans are deposited at the State level with the governor? What 

has been your experience as to whether or not your needs, representing an awful lot of major cities—you are in L.A., right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman BIDEN. Are you in New York as well? 

Mr. JOHNSON. All of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, Boston, Providence. 

Chairman BIDEN. So you have the biggest outfits in the country? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman BIDEN. What has been your experience when whatever 

the program is that is designed to help law enforcement starts its 

distribution in the State capital? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Clearly that the funds are diluted from the top 

down. Number one, just by the nature of government—and nothing 

against the governors or the State officials, but of necessity not as 

many dollars will reach the local level. 

Number two, the monies that do reach the local level, because 

they are being directed from the state capital, will not be as effectively or efficiently applied simply because there is a lack of knowledge. In the mining business, you would say that the knowledge is 

at the face, at the coal face where the miners are actually working. 

In the police business, it is the actual cop on the street or the 

firefighter riding the back of the truck who knows what is needed. 

Therefore, it is the local officials, it is the chiefs, it is the sheriffs, 

it is the union officials, it is the representatives of the actual workers who are doing it and the local mayors who know what is going 

on in the communities because that is where they live and that is 

who they serve. 

Chairman BIDEN. Sheriff, what a lot of people around the country don’t fully comprehend is that in some States the most powerful 

law enforcement entity in terms of influence in the State are the 

sheriffs. What has been your experience from that position? The 

Mississippi sheriffs are a pretty powerful political force, I mean, in 

a positive way, being able to make their views known. 

If all this money, whether it is through FEMA or whomever, goes 

directly to the governor and then it is decided by the State legislature where it goes, how have you usually fared? 

Sheriff FERRELL. I agree with what Bill just mentioned. Even 

from a local level of the sheriff’s position, the money is diluted. 

When it reaches the State level, it is almost non-existent. 

As you well know, or may not know—you mentioned the office 

of sheriff in the United States, and in a lot of places it is different. 

In my area of the country, it is a constitutionally-elected office, a 

very powerful office, and he is known as the chief law enforcement 

agent of his county. Because of that position, that puts him in direct competition not only politically with the State administration, 

but also professionally with, in my part of the country, most State 

police agencies, if they exist, or departments of public safety that 

are the pet children of the governor or the State government, and 

rightfully so. That is his area of responsibility. So because of that, 

when money is funneled down through the State level, that is 

where it goes. 

I can speak for a large range of sheriffs throughout the United 

States, especially your Midwestern sheriffs, your West Coast sherVerDate Dec 13 2002 11:25 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 085884 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A884.XXX A884
46

iffs, almost all except along the East Coast area, and that occurs 

when the money goes to the government. One of the best things 

that ever occurred to law enforcement was when the direction or 

the funnel of money was arranged like it was through DOJ. It 

came directly to the law enforcement agency. That eliminated those 

problems there. 

Chairman BIDEN. When we wrote the COPS bill, that is exactly 

why we did it that way. 

Sheriff FERRELL. You had one chart that depicted a reduced rate. 

I could predict that that chart is very low in its estimate. It could 

probably take away as much as 50 to 75 percent, unless it is mandated by the Congress. Most of those monies would not make it to 

the local level.

I have to tell you a quick story, and I said I wasn’t going to say 

this, but it occurred yesterday in preparation for this trip. 

Chairman BIDEN. That is all right. Take your time. 

Sheriff FERRELL. I had to make a quick trip to the rural county 

next door to me, one of the most rural counties in the State of Mississippi. The sheriff has two officers and himself to patrol the entire county. He has some cities that don’t have a police department. 

We had a quick lunch and I told him I was coming to Washington, and he said, well, I want you to tell those people in Washington one thing for me, Sheriff, that if they do away with the 

LLEBG or they do away with the Byrne formula or if they do away 

with any of the grants—one of those two officers in his county is 

a COPS-funded position, and that is the epitome of the entire program for rural America, when you see a sheriff that is pleading to 

not cut off his funding, or his law enforcement capability is ended. 

That just occurred yesterday, so I told him I would tell that story 

when I got to Washington. 

Chairman BIDEN. By the way, that has been my experience. One 

of the criticisms of the Heritage Foundation is that it gets spread 

out all over, but I think it is one of its greatest strengths, quite 

frankly. 

As you and I talked about before, a kid growing up in New Orleans is less likely to be introduced to methamphetamine today than 

a kid in that rural county in Mississippi you just talked about with 

a sheriff and a deputy or two deputies. 

Sheriff FERRELL. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BIDEN. The drug problem has moved to rural America 

because there is the least resistance there, because you guys in the 

big cities have done an increasingly better job. It is just like 

squeezing a balloon, a water balloon; you know, it goes out in other 

directions. 

I would like to talk about devolution for a second. I think I understand the distinction here, David. The Heritage Foundation has 

been very straightforward and has been one of the leaders in trying 

to get us to change the paradigm in this city, and has been a very 

strong and articulate proponent of the devolution of government. 

I know you know all this, but that is moving power and resources 

and responsibility—not always resources—moving responsibility to 

where it belongs. One of the strongest objections that I have had 

from the outset, and it is intellectually justifiable, is that the reason a lot of folks originally didn’t vote for the COPS program, a lot 

47

of my Republicans friends didn’t vote it, is not because they weren’t 

concerned about fighting crime, but they thought that is a 

quintessentially local responsibility. 

Therefore, for a lot of reasons, including civil liberties and civil 

rights, but also for just pure structural reasons, the Federal Government shouldn’t be helping buy a badge at the local level, even 

though the Federal Government doesn’t control that, other than 

saying it must be community policing. 

Now, the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks with some 

very serious minds bouncing around in there have argued that in 

order to make Government more efficient and the way it is supposed to function, there should be fewer powers granted to and 

fewer responsibilities, in effect, taken by the Federal Government. 

Whoever is best suited to exercise the responsibility should exercise 

it, including paying for it. 

I detected, and maybe I am making more out of this than I should, that that rationale does not apply to the $3.5 billion related 

to homeland defense, not related to who administers it. We agree 

on FEMA versus Justice, but you would be willing to let Justice administer the bulk of that. 

What is the rationale of why that is not the same as the COPS 

program as it relates to devolution? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I believe it boils down to the Federal Government has a responsibility to help localities face certain dangers, 

like weapons of mass destruction, certain things that are so dangerous to our way of life that the Federal Government can provide 

a role and help with providing technology, training, and those sorts 

of things. 

Where the difference comes in with, say, funding officer salaries 

and paying for the traditional roles of local governments—I take 

the view of James Madison in Federalist No. 54 that protecting life, 

liberty and property are suited best to local governments. 

Chairman BIDEN. Yes. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I believe that we are increasingly moving toward more Federal role, more Federal interference. I am afraid 

that one day, for instance, if your bill, S. 924, becomes law, it is 

going to do away with the responsibility of agencies of permanently 

funding their own officers, and it wouldn’t stop. 

Chairman BIDEN. That is a legitimate concern. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I am worried that one day every police officer 

in our country is going to be a Federal employee, and I think we 

need to be concerned about that. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, at a minimum, I assume you are worried 

that if they are not a Federal employee, they are being paid for by 

Federal dollars. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. 

Chairman BIDEN. But the ultimate worry would be that they become a Federal employee. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. 

Chairman BIDEN. Again, we have a philosophical disagreement, 

but I respect that view. I assume, then, that because dealing with 

terrorism, particularly foreign-based terrorist activity, is 

quintessentially a Federal responsibility—or to put it another way, 

no matter how good the State of Mississippi was, no matter how 

48

wonderful the State of Delaware was, no matter how competent the 

State of California is, it does not have the capability to, in fact, 

deal with terrorism by infiltrating organizations over in Afghanistan, Paris, Germany, or whatever. It doesn’t have that reach, correct? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I believe we are in common agreement on 

that. 

Chairman BIDEN. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood 

it. I am not being critical of it. I disagree with it. Just so you 

know—and someday maybe we can have a cup of coffee—the reason why I think that local law enforcement, in fact, warrants the 

kind of Federal help I have been proposing and continue to propose 

is that no matter how well the State of Mississippi does its job, it 

can’t deal with the drug problem. It can’t secure the borders of the 

United States. It cannot set national drug policy. It cannot deal 

with immigration, migration and mitigation. About 60 percent of 

all the crime is directly related to that.

I am not asking for a debate now. I just want you to understand 

where I—I respect the view you have articulated. This is getting 

a little esoteric, isn’t it, guys? And I know a guy from Brown and 

Georgetown has no trouble following all this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am liking this, Senator. I am liking this. 

Chairman BIDEN. The bottom line of all this is that I am worried 

about at this point, Sheriff—and I also say to NAPO and all the 

police organizations, the very practical problem that much of what 

you are going to be required to do in every sheriff’s department, 

every law enforcement officer in the country, is aggravated by the 

increasingly looming threat of international terrorist activity, let 

alone domestic terrorists, as in Oklahoma City. 

I don’t want you to become like school teachers. We expect our 

school teachers to teach our kids to read, write, add, subtract, be 

good citizens, understand what home life is about, pray, and a 

whole range of other things when they come from families that 

have that primary responsibility and they don’t exercise that responsibility. 

I am a little worried here that while we are trying to train a 

sheriff, Sheriff, in your county on how to recognize and distinguish 

between cyanide put in a bus terminal or on a bus and sarin gas, 

or we are trying to teach you to be able to distinguish between 

what constitutes a smallpox attack versus a chicken pox outbreak, 

or while we are trying to teach you as first responders to understand and be able to determine the nature of the problem you are 

responding to, you have got to be trained to do that. 

It is going to take a lot of time and a lot of money and a lot of 

effort, and we should be doing it, but who is going to be stopping 

the cat burglar? Who is going to be the guy and the woman out 

there dealing with the chop shops that are taking the stuff across 

Mississippi, into New Orleans, to have that new Mustang chopped 

up in 17 different pieces and made five times as valuable? 

That is the concern I have, even if you were able to, through the 

$3.5 billion administered through homeland security, get the fair 

share and even if it was going to get down to your level. 

49

Do you guys talk about it that way? I am not, again, trying to 

put words in your mouth, but I sit here and I think how do you 

do all that at once. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Clearly, I think if we can imagine for a minute 

that the attacks on September 11 never happened, and it didn’t 

happen and we were still sitting here today talking about the administration’s proposed 2003 budget, we would still say it is a bad 

idea. With all due respect to the administration, it is a bad idea 

because we still need cops, both cops in terms of the individual 

man and woman on the street, and COPS, in the capital letters, 

the Department of Justice program that funds it. We would still 

need it. 

The fact is September 11 did happen and we are at risk of something similar happening again, because America, like the cop on 

the street, is a target for bad guys around the world. America as 

a nation is hated for the same reason individual cops are hated in 

our country, because we stand up for what is right. We have got 

courage and we have helped out other peoples and other nations 

throughout history. Even when we were a new Nation, we did it 

and we were hated for it. So that threat is not going to go away. 

We still need police, and we need the resources that only the 

Federal Government can provide for our entire Nation. The knowledge of how to apply the resources is at the local level, and the 

COPS program under the Department of Justice has already proven itself to be a great partnership for America and America’s police. 

Sheriff FERRELL. Crisis management versus consequence management. That is as simple as we can get. Even when there is a 

crisis that calls for assistance that you mentioned, Senator, continues on at a level that still affects us in our mission in a tremendous fashion. But it is going to be hard to convince those that are 

trying to promote this program through OMB that this is not the 

direction to go. It is like I like to say in a lot of my presentations, 

if it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it. In this case, it ain’t broke. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, let me conclude. I am going to, with your 

permission, submit only a couple of questions in writing rather 

than keep you here. 

As will come as no surprise to Bill, and maybe not you, Sheriff, 

or you, David—I don’t know—I have a really close relationship 

with firefighters. My State is one of those States, Sheriff—and it 

is going to sound strange coming from a Senator looking at Mississippi—we are one of the most rural States in America. Our largest city is 83,000 people. The next largest city is about 31,000 people, and then it falls off the cliff after that. 

My State is one of those few States in America where we only 

have one paid fire department in the State. By the way, we are not 

the smallest State. We are the fifth smallest in population. We 

have a little over 800,000 people and one paid fire service. We have 

a totally professional fire service, all-volunteer, except for the city 

of Wilmington and parts of Dover. 

In talking to the firefighters, they are wondering how this is all 

going to work, too, because if it all goes to the State level, in a 

State like mine how does it get where? Who gets trained? 

50

In those rural communities which have fire departments that are 

totally professional, how do they get trained in this stuff, unless 

you conclude that terrorist acts aren’t going to happen in rural 

communities, which I think is unlikely? 

So I will make a prediction to you all that the one thing the entire panel agreed on is that FEMA shouldn’t run the whole show 

here, and I predict to you that FEMA will not turn the whole show 

before this is over. It is my hope—and if anyone from the administration is here, I issue an invitation to the administration to come 

and explain to us and try to work this out with us, because no one 

that I know is trying to say we should not spend more money to 

deal with training police officers, ambulance drivers, EMS people 

generally, firefighters, et cetera, in the art of dealing with terrorist 

threats that they have yet to become accustomed to. 

So I want to make it clear that the measure for me is if the net 

Federal commitment is increased, and by whatever name, whatever 

program we want to call it, we allow localities to be able to directly 

make a plea for their needs, including personnel, then they count 

me in on the deal. I am ready to figure out how to deal with it. 

But absent that, I am not. 

So, Sheriff, you probably came the longest distance, so I appreciate your willingness to be here. 

Sheriff FERRELL. Thank you. 

Chairman BIDEN. And I appreciate, by the way, the sheriffs organization supporting my other legislation that we have to extend the 

COPS program. We didn’t talk about that today and that wasn’t 

the purpose today, but I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it. 

David, you are always welcome here. I mean it sincerely. It is 

presumptuous of me to say you are bright as heck. You make 

straightforward arguments, and I sincerely say you add to the debate and the discussion here. And your view is shared by many of 

my colleagues here, many of my colleagues. With that, I would like 

again to thank you all. 

Tell old Scotto I don’t have cuffs on my pants, okay? That is an 

inside joke. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand, and I will give him the message. 

Chairman BIDEN. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the committee files.]

51


Insert offset folio 170 here 85884A.026
52


Insert offset folio 171 here 85884A.027
53


Insert offset folio 172 here 85884A.028
54


Insert offset folio 173 here 85884A.029
55


Insert offset folio 174 here 85884A.030
56


Insert offset folio 175/300 here 85884A.031
57


Insert offset folio 124 here 85884A.001
58


Insert offset folio 125 here 85884A.002
59


Insert offset folio 126 here 85884A.003
60


Insert offset folio 127 here 85884A.004
61


Insert offset folio 128 here 85884A.005
62


Insert offset folio 129 here 85884A.006
63


Insert offset folio 130 here 85884A.007
64


Insert offset folio 131 here 85884A.008
65


Insert offset folio 132 here 85884A.009
66


Insert offset folio 133 here 85884A.010
67


Insert offset folio 134 here 85884A.011
68


Insert offset folio 135 here 85884A.012
69


Insert offset folio 136 here 85884A.013
70


Insert offset folio 137 here 85884A.014
71


Insert offset folio 138 here 85884A.015
72


Insert offset folio 139 here 85884A.016
73


Insert offset folio 140 here 85884A.017
74


Insert offset folio 141 here 85884A.018
75


Insert offset folio 142 here 85884A.020
76


Insert offset folio 143 here 85884A.021
77


Insert offset folio 144 here 85884A.022
78


Insert offset folio 145 here 85884A.023
79


Insert offset folio 146 here 85884A.024
80


Insert offset folio 147 here 85884A.025