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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–885 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–303

RISING CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN HELPING COMMUNITIES PREVENT AND RESPOND TO VIOLENT

CRIME

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 23, 2007

Serial No. J–110–39

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

TOM COBURN, Texas 

TODD HINNEN, Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican 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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100

Feingold, Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ...................... 11

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 133

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 3

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 178

WITNESSES 

Epley, Mark, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 5

Fox, James Alan, The Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts ....................................................... 29

Gregory, Rick S., Chief of Police, New Castle County, Delaware ........................ 21

Kamatchus, Ted, President, National Sheriffs’ Association, Marshalltown, 

Iowa ....................................................................................................................... 16

Laine, Russell B., Second Vice President, International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, Algonquin, Illinois ................................................................................ 26

Nee, Thomas J., President, National Association of Police Organizations, Boston, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 18

Palmer, Hon. Douglas H., Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey, and President, United 

States Conference of Mayors, Trenton, New Jersey .......................................... 23

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Mark Epley to questions submitted by Senators Biden and 

Kennedy ................................................................................................................ 47

Response of James A. Fox to a question submitted by Senator Biden ............... 77

Response of Rick Gregory to a question submitted by Senator Kennedy ........... 79

Responses of Ted Kamatchus to questions submitted by Senators Biden, 

Kennedy and Durbin ............................................................................................ 80

Responses of Russell Laine to questions submitted by Senators Durbin and 

Kennedy ................................................................................................................ 86

Responses of Thomas Nee to questions submitted by Senators Kennedy and 

Durbin ................................................................................................................... 89

Responses of Douglas Palmer to questions submitted by Senators Biden, 

Durbin and Kennedy ............................................................................................ 93

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Advancement Project, Constance L. Rice, Los Angeles, California, letter .......... 98

Bakersfield City Council, Bakersfield, California, letter ...................................... 99

Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Lorrain Howerton, Senior Vice President, 

Office of Government Relations, Washington, D.C., letter ............................... 102

Bratton, William J., Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department, Los 

Angeles, California, statement ............................................................................ 103

Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., policy brief .......................................... 107

California Gang Investigators Association, Wesley D. McBride, Executive Director, Huntington Beach, California, letter ...................................................... 114

Page

IV

California Peace Officers’ Association, Paul Cappitelli, President, Sacramento, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 115

Chicago Sun-Times, December 28, 2006, article ................................................... 116

County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, Sachi A. Hamai, Executive 

Officer, Los Angeles, California, letter ............................................................... 117

Delaware News Journal, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., May 18, 2007, article .. 118

Dubuque Telegraph Herald, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., article ..................... 119

Epley, Mark, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement ............................................................ 121

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), Art Gordon, National President, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania, letter ........................................... 130

Fox, James Alan, The Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, statement .................................... 136

Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 140

Gregory, Rick S., Chief of Police, New Castle County, Delaware, statement ..... 141

Heck, Mathias H., Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County, Ohio, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 146

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA), Ray 

Leyva, National President, San Antonio, Texas, letter ..................................... 157

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Joseph C. Carter, President, Alexandria, Virginia, letter ........................................................................ 158

International Association of Women Police (IAWP), Amy Ramsay, President, 

Orillia, Ontario, Canada, letter ........................................................................... 159

International Union of Police Associations, AFL–CIO, Dennis Slocumb, International Vice President, Alexandria, Virginia, letter ........................................ 160

Kamatchus, Ted, President, National Sheriffs’ Association, Marshalltown, 

Iowa, statement and attachment ........................................................................ 161

Laine, Russell B., Second Vice President, International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, Algonquin, Illinois, statement ............................................................. 167

League of California Cities, Maria Alegria, President, and Christopher 

McKenzie, Executive Director, Sacramento, California, letter ......................... 177

Legal Momentum, Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice-President of Government Relations, 

Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... 180

Major Cities Chiefs Association, Darrel Stephens, President, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 185

MENTOR, Karen Nussle, Senior Vice President, Alexandria, Virginia, letter .. 186

National Alliance to End Homelessness, LaKesha Pope, Youth Program and 

Policy Analyst, and Richard A. Hooks Wayman, Senior Youth Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C. letter ............................................................................... 187

National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE), 

Laura Forbes, President, Carver, Massachusetts, letter .................................. 189

National Black Police Association, Inc., Ronald E. Hampton, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................... 190

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), Hon. Dale 

R. Koch, Presiding Judge, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon, President, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 191

National Council on Disability, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, and the National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, D.C., 

joint statement ..................................................................................................... 195

National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA), Roy Garivey, President, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, letter ................................................................................... 203

National Major Gang Task Force, Edward L. Cohn, Executive Director, Indianapolis, Indiana, letter ...................................................................................... 204

National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ Coalition (NNOAC), Ronald E. 

Brooks, President, West Covina, California, letter ........................................... 205

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), 

Jimmie Dotson, National President, Alexandria, Virginia, letter .................... 206

National Troopers Coalition (NTC), Dennis Hallion, Chairman, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 207

Nee, Thomas J., President, National Association of Police Organizations, Boston, Massachusetts, statement and attachment ................................................ 208

Palmer, Hon. Douglas H., Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey, and President, United 

States Conference of Mayors, statement and attachment ................................ 214

Passalacqua, Stephan R., Sonoma Country District Attorney, Santa Rosa, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 222

Page

V

Penrod, Gary S., Sheriff, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, San 

Bernardino, California, letter .............................................................................. 223

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., October 18, 2006, 

article .................................................................................................................... 224

Points of Light Foundation, Howard H. Williams III, Interim CEO and President, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................ 226

Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C., report .............................. 227

Police Foundation, Hubert Williams, President, Washington, D.C., letter ......... 247

Schwarzenegger, Hon. Arnold, Governor of California, Sacramento, California, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 248

Stalking Resource Center, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., January 26, 2007, 

article .................................................................................................................... 249

The State, Columbia, South Carolina, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., August 

7, 2007, article ...................................................................................................... 250

United States Conference of Mayors, January 24, 2007, article ......................... 252

USA Today, Washington, D.C., article ................................................................... 255

(1)

RISING CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES: EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN HELPING 

COMMUNITIES PREVENT AND RESPOND TO 

VIOLENT CRIME 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Biden, Kohl, Feingold, and Grassley. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Chairman BIDEN. The hearing will come to order. I welcome our 

witnesses today, and let me begin by saying that Senator Graham, 

who is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee—we have a mild 

little issue on the floor called ‘‘immigration’’ we are debating today, 

and he has some responsibilities relating to that legislation. Senator Specter is going to be here. He is at, I think, the Appropriations Committee. And Senator Grassley is here. And I am going to 

make a brief opening statement, and I would yield then to Senator 

Grassley, who has an introduction he would like to make. 

Let me begin by saying that I am glad you all could be here 

today to address a subject which this Committee, in the 17 years 

I was the Chairman or Ranking Member, spent most of my time 

dealing with, and that is the issue of violent crime in America and 

what role, if any, the Federal Government should have in helping 

States combat violent crime. 

I would like to talk a little bit about that today, but let me begin 

by thanking the witnesses and welcome our distinguished experts. 

There are some old friends here who have been working on this 

issue for a long time, and some new friends that I hope will be 

working with me and others over the next couple months to make 

some real changes in our funding mechanisms for local law enforcement. 

Last week we observed National Police Week, and it reminded us 

all of the sacrifices that are made every single day by those who 

are willing to go out there and protect our communities. 

I would like to ask the staff to find out who is banging up there 

and tell them they will be arrested. I have a lot of cops down here. 

2

[Laughter.] 

Chairman BIDEN. And if they do not stop, they are going to be 

arrested. 

But we meet today against the backdrop of an insidious resurgence of violent crime in communities across the country. 

For the first time in more than a decade, crime is on the rise. 

The 2005 Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report 

found that murders are up 3.4 percent—the largest percentage increase in 15 years—with 16,692 murders in 2005—the most since 

1998. And I realize it is anecdotal, but you need only turn on the 

television in any major metropolitan area, and it seems as though 

the murder rate is up beyond that. Again, we have no statistics beyond 2005 nationally, but I know in Philadelphia, in Baltimore, in 

New York City, across the country as I travel, that is the banner 

headline in most of the news reports about murder rates exceeding 

last year’s murder rates at this point. Again, I want to make it 

clear. There are no uniform statistics yet that I have available to 

me, but it is a problem. 

The report also found that other types of violent crime, including 

forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, rose 2.3 percent. 

The Police Executive Research Forum’s recent study of crime in 

56 cities found that over the past 2 years homicides increased more 

than 10 percent nationwide and 20 percent in major cities. I am 

troubled, as all of us are, by these trends, but, quite frankly, I am 

not surprised. The Federal Government has taken its focus off of 

street crime since 9/11, asking law enforcement to do more with 

less. And the administration, in my view—and we are going to hear 

from an administration witness in a moment—has understandably 

dedicated vast Federal resources to counterterrorism. But it has 

done it at the expense of law enforcement, in my view, robbing 

Peter to pay Paul. I find absolutely no justification for the $2.1 billion cut in local law enforcement assistance since 2001, notwithstanding the need to vastly increase the amount of money to deal 

with counterterrorism. There has been sort of a perfect storm out 

there. The FBI has necessarily been pulled off a lot of work it used 

to do in local law enforcement. The cities and States have had to 

cut back as we have eliminated programs. And, quite frankly, if 

anyone is likely to find a terrorist, it is not going to be some brave 

Special Forces soldier wearing night vision goggles. It is going to 

be one of your men or women, Chief, who are going to be the ones 

who are going find the terrorist occupying an empty apartment 

building that only that cop walking the beat or riding by in his patrol car is going to know has been vacant the last 4 years, and all 

of a sudden there is a light on up there. 

The President has killed the COPS program and drastically cut 

the Justice Assistance Grants. And when the program was announced by former Attorney General Ashcroft, he said, ‘‘It worked 

marvelously.’’ It worked marvelously, and we are cutting it? I have 

never quite fully understood that except for the ideological notion 

that the Federal Government should not be involved in dealing 

with local law enforcement. They call it ‘‘devolution of Government.’’ I call it the ‘‘increase in violent crime.’’

The President has also redirected 1,000 FBI agents from crime 

to counterterrorism, as is necessary, and as a result, violent crime 

3

investigations by the FBI are down 60 percent. have been proposing to increase the FBI by over 1,000 agents the last 4 years. 

What are we doing? But this is what we are going to talk about 

a little bit today. Fewer police on the street preventing crime and 

protecting communities means more crime, and it is as simple as 

that. It is not rocket science. We went through this whole debate 

during the 1980s and 1990s, when I was told the Biden crime bill 

would have no impact because we never tried it before. We never 

increased that many cops before. And we increased cops and violent crime went down. And so our sheriffs and police officers have 

done an extraordinary job in the face of diminishing Federal support, but they also need help, in my view. We cannot focus on terrorism at the expense of fighting crime, and that is a false choice. 

We can do both. We need not be put in this dilemma of the false 

choice of you either fight terrorism or you fight street crime. We 

are fully within our capability of doing both. As my father would 

say, ‘‘Show me your budget; I will tell you what you value.’’ So I 

find this argument somewhat—anyway, I find it difficult to swallow. 

It seems to me we have to get back to basics. More than a decade 

ago, we faced a similar violent crime crisis, although the crime 

rates were much higher. We overcame that crisis by supporting 

local law enforcement with the tools and resources they needed to 

prevent crime whenever possible and to punish crime wherever 

necessary. We passed the most sweeping anti-crime bill in the history of this Nation and created the Community Oriented Policing 

Services Program—the so-called COPS program. We funded 

118,000 local officers. We expanded community policing across the 

Nation. 

And it worked. Crime rates fell 8 straight years. The violent 

crime rate dropped 26 percent; the murder rate dropped 34 percent. The Government Accountability Office has documented the 

success of these anti-crime measures, and a recent Brookings Institution study found that the COPS program was one of the most 

cost-effective programs for combating crime. In fact, the Brookings 

Institution found that for every dollar spent on COPS, we save between $6 and $12 for the public overall. 

Today we have several distinguished experts to help us understand how to best to use Federal resources to reverse these trends 

and to help make our communities safer again. A number of experts have also submitted written testimony which I will reference 

during this hearing, and we will submit that testimony so it is 

available for the record. 

I now invite my good friend and former Chairman of this Committee, Senator Grassley, to make any opening comments and introduce a distinguished Iowan who is here to testify. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. I will not give an opening statement. I will have to immediately go to serve in my capacity as lead 

Republican on the Finance Committee starting at 10 o’clock. 

Mr. Chairman, you are involved in the caucus system in Iowa, 

and I will bet you—

4

Chairman BIDEN. I have heard of it. I have heard of it. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And I will bet you have had people say it is 

like running for sheriff. 

Chairman BIDEN. Yes, it is, only it is not as hard. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You have one of those 99 Iowa sheriffs before 

you. This stern-looking man over here is really quite friendly. He 

is President of the Sheriffs’ Association nationally. He is a friend 

of mine, and he has been a sheriff for a long time. So I am pleased 

to welcome to this Committee again—because I had this opportunity a few weeks ago—Ted Kamatchus, Sheriff for Marshall 

County, Iowa, and that is right in the middle of our State. So you 

will be going through it several times, and drive carefully. The staff 

person that brought me here today says, ‘‘I got two tickets from 

him 3 years ago.’’

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. So he is doing his job, see. 

As I said, just a few weeks ago he was here on another subject, 

so it is great to see him back. This sheriff is here today because 

he is a national leader, as the Sheriffs’ Association National President. But the most important thing for your testimony is that he 

has got 30 years’ experience in law enforcement. He is an outspoken advocate for sheriffs across the country, from border to border, coast to coast. I have known him a number of years and know 

him to be a straight shooter from the standpoint of talking. He tells 

it like it is. You may be a straight shooter otherwise, too. Thank 

God I have not experienced that. 

He relates his practice firsthand, which he has gathered from 

fighting crime, and particularly in Iowa, you have heard a lot about 

the methamphetamine scourge that we have. He is out there day 

in and day out on the front lines witnessing the devastating effect 

of this drug on our communities. Hearing from witnesses like the 

sheriff with experience and know-how is essential for us to do our 

job. As both a sheriff for rural Iowa and the President of the National Association, he will provide invaluable insight into the necessity of providing resources to local law enforcement, including what 

is always an issue around here, the Byrne and JAG grant program 

and the COPS program. 

So on behalf of the Subcommittee, I am happy to welcome you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, 

Ted, we are going to welcome you a little later. 

I have had the benefit of meeting with the sheriff, and I look forward to his testimony. 

We now have Mark Epley, who is senior counsel to the Deputy 

Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice. He joined the 

Justice Department and he is responsible for advising and assisting 

the Deputy Attorney General in the formulation and implementation of the Justice Department budget—which is always an easy 

thing to do, right? He also oversees the grants that the Justice Department makes to the Community Oriented Policing Program and 

the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Violence Against 

Women. Prior to becoming senior counsel, he served as Chief of 

Staff to the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice 

Programs. Before he joined the Justice Department, Mr. Epley 

5

served as general counsel to the House Armed Services Committee 

and as counsel to its Military Personnel Subcommittee. He practiced law at Hunton & Williams in Richmond, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., before embarking on his career in public service. 

We are happy to have you here, Mr. Epley, and we look forward 

to your testimony. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MARK EPLEY, SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee about violent crime in 

America and what the Department of Justice is doing to assist our 

State and local partners with the prevention and control of crime. 

Due in large measure to the effectiveness and hard work of State 

and local law enforcement, violent crime in America remains near 

historic lows, according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization 

Survey and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. After rising to a dramatic peak in the early 1990s, violent crime rates in America have 

declined steadily since. Although in 2005 there were measurable 

increases in violent crime—with regard to homicide, robbery and, 

to some extent, aggravated assault, though rape went down—it is 

important to note that the rate of violent crime in 2005 is the second-lowest reported in last 30 years. Only 2004 was lower. 

When we examine this data, we do not discern any nationwide 

trend. Rather, what we see is that certain crimes in certain communities are going up. For example, the rate of homicide nationwide went up 2.4 percent in 2005. The Northeast, however, experienced a 5.3-percent, the South a 0.8-percent increase, and the West 

a 1.7-percent increase. 

Likewise, cities of different sizes were affected differently by 

crime. Very large cities did not see a change in their homicide rate. 

Cities of 100,000 to 250,000 saw a measurable increase in their 

homicide rate. And those 250,000 to 500,000 saw a decline. We do 

not see a particular nationwide trend, and the data does not point 

to any particular cause. But it is important to note, as the Attorney 

General said last week, it is difficult to hope when you live in fear 

of crime. 

When you look at the 2005 data, when you look at the 2006 preliminary data, notwithstanding its limitations, you see that many 

communities face violent crime challenges, and the Department is 

committed to working with those communities to meet that challenge. 

To better understand what is going on with violent crime in 

America, the Attorney General asked the Department to go and 

visit communities throughout the country, and we did that. We visited 18 cities around the country, some of which had experienced 

increases in violent crime and some decreases, to understand what 

works and what the challenges are. And one of the consistent 

themes that we heard was the value of Federal-local partnership. 

And a specific example of that that was raised was Project Safe 

Neighborhoods, an initiative through which local law enforcement 

and local prosecutors can refer for Federal prosecution gun crimes. 

And through that partnership we have doubled the number of gun 

6

crime prosecutions in the last 6 years when compared to the preceding 6 years. 

Another example of partnership is law enforcement task force activity, like the FBI’s Safe Streets Task Force, the ATF’s Violent 

Crime Impact Teams, the U.S. Marshal Service’s regional fugitive 

apprehension task forces. Whether partnering through operations 

or prosecution, the Department is committed to growing those relationships, but we appreciate that partnership on the part of local 

law enforcement takes resources. And the President’s 2008 budget 

recognizes that fact. It seeks $200 million to support the Violent 

Crimes Reduction Partnership Initiative. These are funds that 

would support multijurisdictional task forces led by local law enforcement, working with Federal law enforcement, to target relief 

to those communities that are facing challenges. 

More immediately, the Attorney General announced last week that the Office of Justice Programs would be investing $125 million 

through the Byrne discretionary program throughout the country. 

And one of the focus areas of that program is targeting violent 

crime. We hope that those resources will be quickly delivered to the 

field to provide those communities facing violent crime challenges 

relief. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department is committed to working with our 

State and local partners to add value where we can. But it is important to understand that not all communities are experiencing 

crime in the same way. Therefore, it is important to understand 

that some communities are affected differently than others in order 

to effectively target relief and in order to partner effectively. And 

we are committed to doing that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BIDEN. As the old joke goes, therein lies the problem. 

You have a fundamentally different view of what is going on than 

I do. You know, I kind of view fighting crime like cutting grass. 

You go out there and cut your grass this weekend and it looks 

great. If you do not cut it for another week, it looks okay. In 2 

weeks, it looks pretty bad. In a month, it really gets tattered. 

Why are you increasing the Byrne grants when you tried to 

eliminate them? What epiphany did you guys have? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the President’s 

request for—

Chairman BIDEN. You just said you asked for $125 million for 

the Byrne grants. Isn’t that what you just said to me? I am sorry. 

Maybe I misunderstood. 

Mr. EPLEY. You are right, Mr. Chairman. The announcement the 

Attorney General made last week was that $125 million of the 

Byrne discretionary grant program would be invested across the 

country to prevent and control crime. 

Chairman BIDEN. What changed? I mean, you all have been after 

eliminating it the last 6 years, so all of a sudden—I mean, what 

was the epiphany? What happened to make you realize you needed 

to do this? 

Mr. EPLEY. Those funds, Mr. Chairman, were appropriated by 

Congress as part of the joint resolution, the 2007—

Chairman BIDEN. Yes, we consistently do not listen to you. If you 

notice, we completely disregard you every year you do this. So you 

7

should not be surprised that we appropriated the funds. I am wondering why you now—why is the Department—this is unfair to do 

this to you. The Attorney General should be here answering these 

questions. But do you know why? If you know. I do not mean to 

be rude, but do you know why this year you concluded that you 

needed that discretionary Byrne grant money to get out to the 

States? Was it political pressure? 

Mr. EPLEY. No, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the 2007 money, 

the Department is merely seeking to faithfully administer the 

funds that Congress appropriated in 2007. And—

Chairman BIDEN. But do you think we should be? What I am trying to get at is in the past you have argued this money is not necessary. You have argued it is not necessary, we do not need it, and 

that the States and the cities and localities could take care of it 

and you should not be in the business of doing it. That is the argument you made, the Justice Department under its past two Attorneys General has made the last 6 years. And I am wondering why 

all of a sudden you think that now you want to faithfully implement this program. Do you think it is worthwhile? Do you think 

it is a good thing? Do you think the Byrne grants are good? Do you 

think they are necessary? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, I need to speak—as far as looking forward and the law enforcement investments that the President’s 

budget seeks to make—

Chairman BIDEN. Let me just ask you a very specific question, 

Mark. And it is OK if you do not know the answer. But it would 

be nice to know whether or not you think now the Byrne grants 

are important. Do you think they are necessary in order to fight 

crime? Or do you still—is the Department doing it because of the 

political pressure we have? The reason it matters, it matters in 

terms of what we can look forward to and the kinds of cooperation 

we are going to get. 

So if we had not put the money in, would you guys have put the 

money in? 

Mr. EPLEY. The President’s 2008 budget request seeks $200 million to support multijurisdictional task forces led by local law enforcement, and so I think that is the best expression of the administration’s view on how to effectively partner with State and local 

law enforcement. 

Chairman BIDEN. Now, you make the case that, you know, crime 

varies from locale to locale. That is why I wrote the COPS bill the 

way I did, because communities do not have to ask for it. There is 

no requirement. We do not have to go in where crime is not up. 

I find that it is an interesting thing. Mayors and county council 

persons and county executives, they do not ask for the money. The 

people who have real problems, they ask for the money. 

I mean, I think the reason why it has gotten such significant, 

consistent, positive reviews is it did not mandate anything. The 

COPS bill said, gee, if you need cops, go to your mayor and see if 

you can get your city council to come up with their piece of it and 

the Federal Government will kick in their piece. So I cannot think 

of any program—can you think of any program that better makes 

the judgment of whether or not additional law enforcement reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:30 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 040885 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40885.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8

sources in terms of a shield are needed than the COPS program? 

Or do you think you all should decide that federally? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, based on what we saw in the field 

when we visited 18 communities around the country, some of these 

communities had experienced an increase in violent crime, and others a decrease. 

Chairman BIDEN. Right. 

Mr. EPLEY. And we observed a very curious thing, and that is, 

in some communities there was both over time, 2000 to 2005, a decrease in their staffing and a decrease in certain kinds of violent 

crime. 

On the other hand, there were communities in which there were 

increases in their law enforcement staffing, and they experienced 

increases in violent crime. 

What we took away from that is that there are many factors that 

drive violent crime. It might be demographic changes. Some of the 

communities pointed to loosely organized gangs or street crews, increasingly violent juvenile crime, the presence of illegal guns, demographic changes, re-entering felons. All of these things contribute to the nature of crime in a given community. 

Chairman BIDEN. True. 

Mr. EPLEY. And based on what we saw and observed in the field, 

the administration’s view is that the best way to target relief to 

those communities facing violent crime challenges is to support law 

enforcement task forces. And essentially that is an investment in 

veteran law enforcement for—

Chairman BIDEN. Why did you cut those task forces then? Or you just think they are needed now? You are coming back with $200 

million, which is a significantly smaller amount than was available 

for these joint task forces. You eliminated the Violent Crime Strike 

Forces with the FBI. You wiped those out a while ago, over my objection, and others’ objections. So you think that that is the best 

way to target this. 

Now, you know, you are beginning to sound like a liberal Democrat. It took me 10 years to fight the Democrats that there are only 

a couple things we know about crime, violent crime. One, after 

hundreds of hours of hearings, if there are four corners at an intersection and a crime is going to be committed on one of those corners and there are only three cops, it will be committed where the 

cop is not. That one we know. 

We also know that when people get to be about 40 years old, they 

commit fewer violent crimes because it is harder to run down the 

street and jump the chain link fence. You know, it makes it a little 

more difficult. And so you all are saying that what you are going 

to do is at the Federal level, you have made a judgment, after visiting 18 localities, that, in fact, there is really no correlation between the amount of resources in terms of personnel and whether 

or not there is violent crime. That is your bottom line, is it not? 

Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. EPLEY. I do not know that I—I would not want to say it is—

I would provide a more nuanced—

Chairman BIDEN. I would like to hear it. 

Mr. EPLEY.—representation, namely, that when we look back 

over time, we have law enforcement expenditure data up through 

9

2004 on the dollar amounts spent on police protection by Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement. Looking back over time to 1990, 

we see that in each year the total amount of money spent on police 

protection, adjusted for inflation, has increased each year. 

And so one of the conclusions that one can draw is that State 

and local government have raised money and spent it on police protection consistent with their primary responsibility with keeping 

the peace and securing public safety. When we look at this picture, 

we see the nature of crime in America—that is, different crimes 

going up in different communities. We want to add value where we 

can and make measurable—and invest in things that yield measurable results. 

Chairman BIDEN. Do you think there is any correlation between 

the fact that we spend considerably more money federally which leveraged States’ spending more money and the violent crime rate for 

roughly 10 years in a row dropping about 8 percent per year? Was 

there any correlation between the increase in the Federal resources 

leveraging State resources and the drop in violent crime? What do 

you think? Because this is a basic, basic, basic disagreement here, 

and I am trying to get at the core of where the administration is 

and where I am, at least. So is there a correlation? I mean, to what 

do you attribute that drop in crime? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know, but let me tell you 

some of the observations that one can draw. One can see that the 

rate of violent crime started going south, that is, got better in the 

early 1990s—

Chairman BIDEN. Barely. Barely. 

Mr. EPLEY.—even in advance of—

Chairman BIDEN. Barely, and we increased funding then, even. 

That was before the COPS bill. But we increased Federal funding 

over that period, from 1988 to 1992. 

Mr. EPLEY. But even before the Omnibus Crime Control Act 

money came out in 1994 and 1995 and so on, we began to see the 

violent crime rate going down. There is no doubt about the fact 

that over time—

Chairman BIDEN. Well, let me make the point. There was an increase in funding commensurate with it going down before we did 

the $30 billion crime bill in 1994. From 1988 to 1994, we increased 

Federal participation and Federal money into local law enforcement. And so it was not like we were cutting funding and crime 

was going down. We were increasing Federal funding. We did not 

increase it nearly as much as we did in 1994, but beginning in 

1995, with the increase, the significant increase in Federal funding, 

there was a significant decrease in violent crime. 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, what certainly you see when you look 

at law enforcement expenditures, the rate of crime, and the number of law enforcement sworn officers on board, you do see-1995, 

1996, and so on—an increase in the number of sworn law enforcement members as a proportion of population. So that is something 

that, when you look at the statistics over time, you do see a change 

in that regard. 

During the entire period, back starting in 1993 through 2005, 

you see the rate of violent crime declining. 

Notwithstanding changes in the law—

10

Chairman BIDEN. Declining less and less and less every year. 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that statisticians that we talk 

to say that at the rate of crime that is now measured, it is difficult 

to measure meaningful changes in violent crime. That is why I 

think in some communities you actually see the homicide rate 

going up but the robbery rate going down, or vice versa. Typically, 

that—

Chairman BIDEN. That has always been the case. You go back 40 

years, there has not been a direct correlation that every crime goes 

up in every category. There are times when crimes go up in murder 

and they drop down in robbery or rape. There are times when they 

go up in rape and they drop down in murder. It is not, at least to 

the best—I have been doing this for a long time, and I am using 

your statistics, and the statistics made available from the UCR reports, I just find it interesting. 

In 2000, we had 708,022 sworn officers, and the recent report 

shows that there are 670,000 sworn officers in 2005. But what I do 

not get is the argument you are making—I get it. The argument 

you are making is that there are other things unrelated to additional police officers, Byrne grants, law enforcement block grants, 

all the things which you have slashed. There are different things 

than those things that are going to be able to impact on keeping 

the crime rate from continuing to go up. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. EPLEY. That is right, Mr. Chairman. I think that the fundamental point that I would like to share as part of this dialog about 

how best to respond to violent crime is that Federal partnership 

with State and local law enforcement can add value and that—

Chairman BIDEN. Yes, but you have slashed that. You have 

slashed it dramatically. 

Mr. EPLEY. But, Mr. Chairman, we would argue that the nature 

of partnership is not always—the nature and effectiveness of the 

partnership is not always measured in terms of grant dollars, that, 

Mr. Chairman, Federal law enforcement task forces like the FBI 

Safe Streets Task Forces, the ATF Violent Crime Impact Teams, 

the Marshals’ Fugitive Apprehension Program, and so on, the aggressive prosecutions that we have been able to pursue through 

Project Safe Neighborhoods, an investment of $1.6 billion in Project 

Safe Neighborhoods in terms of training local law enforcement and 

prosecutors, designating special AUSAs to prosecute these crimes—

through that partnership we have doubled the number of gun 

criminals in prison. And each and every one of those gun criminals, 

essentially 35,000 more were prosecuted over the last 6 years. They 

were taken out of the community they were terrorizing and incapacitated from—

Chairman BIDEN. I am very familiar with it. In 2003 and 2004, 

you did not want to do that. It was us beating the living devil out 

of you to have the U.S. Attorneys take over more of these gun prosecutions because of the Federal laws we wrote, because the penalties are so severe. I am the guy that drafted that legislation, you 

know, the legislation laying out the penalties and eliminating parole and probation. I actually sat in this old place and authored 

that years ago, and—

Mr. EPLEY. It has been an effective tool, Mr. Chairman. 

11

Chairman BIDEN. Well, anyway, look, I think one of the—I see 

my colleague from Wisconsin is here, and I am going to yield to 

him in just a moment? I just can assure you of one thing. If we 

continue to decrease or keep at the reduced level of roughly $2 billion a year that is not going from the Federal Government to local 

law enforcement, roughly $1 billion a year for hiring additional officers, you are going to see the violent crime rate continue to go up. 

It is a pattern. You know, Emerson once said, ‘‘Society is like a 

wave. The wave moves on, but the particles remain the same.’’ God 

has not made a new brand of man or woman in a millennia. And 

the idea that we are going to be able to keep violent crime down 

with fewer officers and fewer resources as populations increase, I 

find that to be totally counterintuitive. But we can get back to that. 

I have a few more specific questions. 

Let me yield to my colleague now. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you for chairing this hearing. 

I also want to recognize, because we do not do it often enough, 

the leadership that the Chairman has had on this issue of fighting 

crime and getting this right for his entire career. There is no one 

who has been more dedicated to the issue. I benefit from being able 

to talk about COPS programs and his leadership on the Violence 

Against Women Act every time I am home. So, Mr. Chairman, I 

can finally talk about my 15 years in the Senate—nothing like 

what you can say—and you maintain the commitment over time, 

and I admire you for that very, very much. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I would also like to thank all the witnesses 

whose expertise is greatly needed at a time when the Nation is 

struggling with an increase in violence and crime in our communities. I would ask that my full statement be included in the 

record. 

While we all hear about the rising crime rates in cities across 

America, one of the cities hardest hit has been Milwaukee, Wisconsin. According to a report released by the Police Executive Research Forum, Milwaukee’s homicide rates have increased by 17 

percent, robbery rates by 39 percent, and aggravated assault by 85 

percent, all in the past 2 years. These statistics alone are staggering, but the human toll is truly heartbreaking. 

On Monday, May 14, 2007, 4-year-old Jasmine Owens was shot 

and killed by a drive-by shooter. She had been skipping rope in her 

front yard. 

On Thursday, February 22, 2007, Shaina Mersman was shot and 

killed at noon in the middle of a busy shopping area. She was 8 

months pregnant, and she died in the middle of the street. 

These are but two of the senseless deaths in a list of names that 

is far too long. It is my sincere hope that through hearings like this 

and legislation such as Senator Biden’s COPS Improvements Act, 

Senator Feinstein’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant 

Grant Program bill, and my own PRECAUTION bill, which I am 

12

introducing later this week, that we can begin to address these 

very real problems. 

The PRECAUTION Act recognizes that it is far better to invest 

in precautionary measures now than it is to pay later the costs of 

crime—a cost borne not only in dollars but in lives. We have 

mourned the loss of far too many innocent lives already. This legislation creates a national commission to review the range of prevention and intervention programming available, to identify the most 

successful strategies out of that group, and to report on those findings to the criminal justice community. It creates a targeted grant 

program through the National Institute of Justice that will fund 

promising and innovative techniques that need Federal dollars to 

be developed into more reliable strategies. 

In general, the PRECAUTION Act provides resources that will 

further the integration of prevention and intervention strategies 

into traditional law enforcement practices. I hope that other members of the Judiciary Committee will join Senator Specter and me 

in working to get this modest but important piece of legislation 

passed. I also appreciate the support of Ted Kamatchus, the President of the National Sheriffs’ Association, for my bill, because I believe that utilizing prevention and intervention strategies is both 

smart and necessary. 

I would ask the witness to respond. I have mentioned that Milwaukee has been particularly hard hit by rising crime rates. What 

is the Justice Department doing to provide additional help and resources to Milwaukee? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Feingold, the Department of Justice, we share 

your concern about the violent crime challenge that Milwaukee has 

been facing. As the Attorney General said last week, it is difficult 

to dream dreams when you grow up in a community that is 

weighed down with the fear of crime. 

As you know, the Department of Justice invested specifically in 

Milwaukee $2.5 million for its comprehensive gang initiative—that 

$2.5 million, $1 million to prevention work, $1 million to crime suppression, and half a million dollars to re-entry prisoner re-entry. 

One of the most effective ways to prevent crime is to keep those 

career criminals from continuing in a life of crime. 

In addition to those funds, specifically targeted to Milwaukee and 

actually nine other cities around the country, the 2007 grant 

money has begun to be both made available to communities 

through solicitations, but then also the formula money has begun 

to be pushed out to the field. So, for example, the Justice Assistance Grant programs that the Department administers actually 

have an increase this year, such that Wisconsin will enjoy a $2.3 

million increase in Justice Assistance Grant money. Milwaukee 

itself stands to gain about $400,000 more than last year in Justice 

Assistance Grants. 

In addition to that, Mr. Feingold, the Project Safe Neighborhoods 

money for the Eastern District of Wisconsin—a lot of those dollars 

will go to work in Milwaukee—will go up 70 percent this year, and 

likewise, the PSN grants effort, which is sort of the PSN Task 

Force effort as against gang activity, will likewise increase by 

about 60 percent for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

13

So we hope through these investments—PSN, PSN Gangs, the 

increase in the Justice Assistance Grant program—that Milwaukee 

and Wisconsin will have the resources necessary to suppress violent crime. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I appreciate that answer as far as it goes. 

Some of it had to do with what has already been done before. Some 

of it appears to be forward-looking. But the fact is that there have 

been dramatic cuts advocated for some of the most important Federal grant programs: the COPS program, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program. These are important programs for Milwaukee. 

In fact, I am told that Milwaukee received zero dollars in COPS 

hiring funds last year. 

How does that track with the commitment to the problem in Milwaukee? 

Mr. EPLEY. The COPS hiring program, when it accomplished its 

core mission, which was to hire 100,000 sworn law enforcement officers, the administration began to invest resources in other priority areas, including Project Safe Neighborhoods, as a way to target relief to communities facing violent crime challenges. 

I believe 2005 was the last year in which Congress provided 

funds for the universal hiring program. It was a small dollar 

amount. Maybe the last year for which a substantial amount of 

money was 2004. But in large measure, that universal hiring program has been phased out, both through the administration budgets that we have put forward, but also through the spending priorities articulated in the congressional appropriations acts. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I think it is regrettable that that has been 

done, but let’s work together to try to get the help to the city that 

it needs. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Epley, do we have enough FBI agents? What do you think? 

Mr. EPLEY. I think that the President’s 2008 budget requests resources sufficient to meet the Bureau’s mission. There are always 

difficult choices to make in a budget when it is taken as a whole. 

The FBI has been asked to take on a significant burden, standing 

up a bureau within a bureau to do effective counterterrorism and 

counterintelligence work. And standing up that bureau takes resources. They do a lot with a limited budget. 

Chairman BIDEN. If I gave you money for another 1,000 FBI 

agents, could you use them? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, the funds that we—the resources that 

the Department seeks, the administration seeks for the Bureau, 

are best represented by the President’s 2008 budget. And—

Chairman BIDEN. Well, you know, in 2006, the FBI brought 34 

percent fewer criminal cases to Federal prosecutors than in 2000. 

The FBI sent prosecutors only 3,500 white-collar crimes in 2005 

compared to 10,000 in 2000. And the FBI pursued 65 percent fewer 

hate crimes in 2005 than 2002. Director Mueller, testifying before 

this Committee at the end of 2006, said that he has to rededicate 

1,000 FBI agents to dealing with the bureau within a bureau, as 

you reference it. And my understanding from very reliable sources, 

14

at least in my years of working with the FBI, is that the FBI asked 

for more agents this year and the request was denied. 

I have introduced a bill that would allocate $160 million a year 

to add 1,000 additional FBI agents dedicated to fighting crime because, you know, it is kind of fascinating. I do not know how—it 

is just fascinating, you know, only Orwellian Washington-speak 

that we can talk about cutting 1,000 FBI agents out of dealing with 

local law enforcement and say that you are sending $200 million 

to deal with local law enforcement problems, and that somehow we 

are able to do—it reminds me of Ed Meese in fighting the crime 

bill, we can ‘‘do more with less.’’

Now, I assume that means that something else is going on, that 

there is no need for these 1,000 agents that were involved, that 

have been redirected to terrorism. Is it that the terrorism money 

is affecting violent crime in the street. Is the counterterrorism 

work of the FBI, you know, impacting positively on street crime in 

Milwaukee or Philadelphia or Wilmington, Delaware? Is that part 

of the argument? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what effect—we can get 

back to you—the counterterrorism, counterintelligence investments 

that have been made post— 9/11 have had on violent crime. 

Chairman BIDEN. I can tell you it has not had any, but you can 

check it out. Well, look, there used to be those old movies, all those 

old B movies, ‘‘Smokey and the Bandit.’’ What we have here is we 

have ourselves, our communications problem. You guys view the 

world of violent crime and the problem that localities and the Federal Government faces starkly differently than I do. And the inability to provide the resources that we were providing and increase 

the resources because of the increased strain on the FBI I find very 

difficult. 

Now, I know it is not your job. You are not at OMB. You do not 

get to make those hard decisions. But there is a clear distinction 

here. You know, for example, just providing a tax cut—this is 

above both our pay grades. But just providing a tax cut for those 

who make an average of $1.45 million a year, that is an $85 billion 

a year expenditure. All I am asking for is about $2.1 billion out of 

that for local law enforcement like we did before. 

But there seems to be a sense that—and the argument you are 

making—I understand it—is that we really do not need it. More 

cops are not really going to make any impact on violent crime in 

America. The violent crime problem is much lower than it has been 

at any time in recent history, although it has gone—there has been 

an uptick. And, therefore, we are copacetic. Things are going along 

pretty well right now. 

You probably do not have the time, but you might find it interesting to hang around and hear the testimony of the people who 

are about to testify. 

For the record, are you at liberty to provide us with the 18 localities you went to and observed to reach your conclusions that there 

is nothing needed more than what you have asked for? Are you 

prepared to do that? 

Mr. EPLEY. Yes, sir. We can make those communities available. 

Chairman BIDEN. I would appreciate that. 

15

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me just one moment. 

Chairman BIDEN. Sure. 

Mr. EPLEY. I just want you to know that we do not view it as 

copacetic. The fact that certain crimes in certain communities are 

going up and many communities are facing a violent crime challenge, we think that is a serious matter and that we are looking 

for ways to most effectively partner with those communities to 

make a difference. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, you know, there is an old expression attributable to G.K. Chesterton. He said, ‘‘It is not that Christianity 

has been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and 

left untried.’’

I would paraphrase the nice rhetorical comment of the Attorney 

General saying it is difficult to hope when you live in fear of crime. 

I would argue it is difficult to cope with fewer COPS and it causes 

crime. 

But I thank you for your testimony, and like I said, we have a 

fundamental, basic, distinct disagreement. I fundamentally disagree with the administration. And I am going to do everything I 

can to make it difficult for you not to accept more money. 

Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman BIDEN. By the way, as you are leaving, one of the 

other things is that you talked about the DEA and the FBI. Talk 

to your DEA guys about the hiring freeze that is on and tell 

them—just, you know, do your own little survey. Go out in the field 

and ask them whether or not they think they can cope with this 

hiring freeze. The impact of the freeze and the loss of the positions 

that exist is expected to amount to 180 fewer primary drug organizations than we are able to disrupt or dismantle today and most 

likely approximately $300 million less in revenue they will be able 

to deny drug traffickers. That is the study that has been done by 

the DEA. 

But, at any rate, you ought to go talk to those guys. You know, 

get in the car and ride with them, like I do. I think you may find 

it is a little bit different. 

Anyway, thank you very much, and I appreciate your being here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Epley appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Our next panel, Ted has already been referenced about eight times here, so I do not think I have to introduce you again, Ted. Tom Nee, the President of the National Association of Police Organizations. Chief Rick Gregory, Chief of Police 

of New Castle County, Delaware. Mayor Douglas Palmer, Mayor of 

Trenton, New Jersey, and the President of the United States Conference of Mayors. And Chief Russ Laine, the Vice President of the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. And James Alan Fox, 

a criminologist from Northeastern University. 

I welcome you all. I will put each of your bios in the record in 

the interest of time, but it is a very distinguished panel. I want you 

to know I am not being merely parochial, having the chief of the 

second largest police organization in my State here. The New Castle County police and his predecessors helped draft the Biden crime 

16

bill, literally not figuratively. They were one of the lead agencies 

and, I would argue, they have one of the best records in implementing community policing in the country. That is why I wanted 

him here. 

I see the mayor is not here yet, so we will proceed, and when he 

gets here, if he is coming, we will have him join us at the table. 

Why don’t we start in the order in which you were—we will go 

left to right, with you, Sheriff, and work our way across to you, 

Professor, and then we will get into some questions if we can. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TED KAMATCHUS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA 

Sheriff KAMATCHUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee. My name is Ted Kamatchus. I am the Sheriff of 

Marshall County, Iowa, and the President of the National Sheriffs’ 

Association. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before 

you today to express my concerns and what I know to be the concerns of sheriffs all across the country with the recent increase in 

violent crimes coupled with severe reductions in Federal assistance 

to State and local agencies. 

The essential message that I bring to you today is that the Federal Government needs to play a larger role in crime fighting. Together we need a coordinated national attack on crime, recognizing 

that there is no single ‘‘silver bullet’’ solution. Political rhetoric 

must not prevail over action. This is not a Republican or Democrat 

issue. This is an ‘‘us’’ issue. It is for the citizens across this country. 

As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in our criminal 

justice system. In addition to providing traditional policing within 

their respective counties, sheriffs also facilitate local jails and are 

responsible for protecting and providing security for the judicial 

system. Over 99 percent of the sheriffs are elected and oftentimes 

serve as the chief law enforcement officer of their counties. Consequently, they have a keen understanding of the needs of our 

criminal justice system as well as of the local communities which 

we serve. 

In the early 1990s, Congress joined in a partnership with local 

law enforcement to provide assistance in Federal funds for hiring 

additional officers to put offenders behind bars and fight the war 

on drugs. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Federal Government 

has strayed from its commitment to fight crime. 

The majority of violent crimes we have recently been experiencing have been related to drugs and an increase in gang violence. 

Sheriffs have not been able to hire the number of deputies they 

need to address these issues, and in many jurisdictions, current 

levels of staffing only allow peace officers to respond from one 911 

call to another. Stacking calls is not safe. 

For nearly 30 years, Byrne-JAG grants have funded State and 

local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and 

many other local crime control and prevention programs. It has not 

just been drug task forces. We perceive these programs as the underpinning of Federal aid for local law enforcement to address violent crimes. Continued reduction in Byrne funding will undoubtVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:30 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 040885 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40885.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17

edly obliterate the successes that we have all helped to achieve together. 

In most States, Byrne-funded drug task forces are the cornerstone of drug enforcement efforts. These task forces represent the 

ideal in law enforcement, pooling limited resources, sharing intelligence, strategically targeting a specific problem, and eliminating 

duplication of efforts. Moreover, these task forces allow Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors to work together 

and share intelligence to stem large-scale organized crime. However, most States have had to scale back on the number of such 

task forces. 

Also, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the COPS 

programs, particularly in the funding for the programs I have mentioned distributed directly to local law enforcement agencies—those 

that can best assess and allocate funds where they have the most 

impact. COPS programs assure the quality of policing services 

through better training and the highest technology equipment possible. 

We have heard time and time again that ‘‘homeland security begins with hometown security.’’ Yet vital programs such as Byrne 

and COPS that provide the necessary resources to ensure that 

hometown security have both been cut drastically, and the hiring 

initiatives for COPS have been zeroed out in most recent years. It 

is of no surprise to those in the law enforcement community that 

since law enforcement programs have been depleted, the crime rate 

has been rising. We urge this Congress to restore funds for the important public safety programs of Byrne and COPS. We want that 

$1.1 billion for Byrne and the $1.15 billion for COPS. We would 

also like to express our thanks to you, Senator Biden, and also to 

Senator Feinstein for taking a leadership role in their efforts to restore funding for these two essential law enforcement programs. 

In addition to highlighting the importance of the Byrne and 

COPS programs, I would also like to urge the Senate to take action 

on some measures that we believe will assist local law enforcement 

in helping to address violent crime. The National Sheriffs’ Association has endorsed the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act aimed 

at increasing and enhancing law enforcement resources committed 

to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs; the Second 

Chance Act which would begin to address the Nation’s escalating 

recidivism rates; and the Methamphetamine Production Prevention 

Act, cosponsored by my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, which 

would facilitate the use of electronic methamphetamine precursor 

logbook systems in order to help States crack down on domestic 

meth production; and, as was earlier mentioned, the PRECAUTION Act. We heard earlier from Senator Feingold, and early 

in his statement, he indicated that it will provide guidance in a direct and accessible format to State and local law enforcement to ensure that the criminal justice community is investing its limited resources in the most cost-effective way possible. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that over 20 sheriffs from 

border States were in Washington about a month ago, and we are 

really concerned about this border initiative. The immigration 

problem that we are seeing and the border security are major, 

major issues for us. It is more than just an issue of immigration. 

18

It is an issue of proliferation of drug cartels, drugs, and actually 

the movement of contraband, which are drugs, weapons, and people. We need something done about that, and we ask that you hear 

those sheriffs, because they are there every day on the borders 

fighting to help the Federal Government. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and 

express my concerns. I hope I have conveyed to you the dire situation that sheriffs are faced with across this country and how critical Byrne and COPS programs are to us. The strain caused by limited funds for law enforcement programs in the face of increasing 

violence and drug abuse in our communities should be a major inducement for Government and law enforcement alike to share the 

responsibility for keeping our communities safe. I ask for your full 

consideration on my comments today, and I know that through 

your commitment and the efforts together we can make our communities safer. 

I want to thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Kamatchus appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Sheriff. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. NEE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. NEE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Thomas 

Nee. I am a police officer in the city of Boston. I serve as the President of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association. 

Chairman BIDEN. I thought you were from Selma, Alabama, with 

that accent. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NEE. Not with this accent, sir. 

Chairman BIDEN. Welcome. 

Mr. NEE. I also have the honor of serving as the President of the 

National Association of Police Organizations, representing 238,000 

sworn law enforcement officers throughout the United States. 

This morning, in my testimony, as police officers, as corny as it 

sounds, we have a duty to serve and protect. As the men and 

women on the front lines to enforce the law, we have a right, really, and a need for the Federal Government to stand beside us and 

support us in those efforts in our communities. That is why I am 

here today on behalf of America’s law enforcement community 

speaking to you today. America’s State and local law enforcement 

are being disregarded by the current administration. They are 

being passed over for critical funding to assist them in performing 

their roles in combating and responding to crime and urban terrorism. 

There are three issues that I will address this morning that are 

of increasing concern to us at NAPO and our membership: the decrease in funding for vital Department of Justice State and local 

law enforcement assistance programs witnessed over the past several years; the additional duties taken on by local law enforcement 

agencies in the post-9/11 era; and finally, the recent increase in 

crime rates experienced by communities nationwide. These issues 

19

are interrelated and cannot be separated, particularly when addressing the issue of rising crime in the United States. 

The COPS program, together with the Local Law Enforcement 

Block Grant program and the Byrne Memorial Fund, gave State 

and local law enforcement the necessary funding to truly assist 

their efforts in keeping our Nation’s communities safe. These justice assistance programs have contributed countless resources to 

help us combat and fight crime. I would also like to point out, Mr. 

Chairman, that those funds simply were not for hiring. They were 

also for retention, which is an important component of it, and with 

your support these Federal grant programs can be restored. 

With the support of these Federal grant programs, community 

policing has been a dominant force behind the dramatic reduction 

in crime this Nation has witnessed over the past 13 years. In 2000, 

violent crime rates were at their lowest level in 30 years, particularly in our major cities. More police officers patrolling the streets 

not only provide greater police presence in our communities but 

also increase police knowledge of crime as well, thus allowing local 

law enforcement to do its job in its communities. 

A key factor in the implementation and success of community policing has been the Federal support through funding and resources 

to State and local law enforcement agencies. It is not a coincidence 

that community policing was at its best and national crime rates 

were at their lowest when Federal support for programs such as 

COPS, the Byrne grant, and LLEBG was at its highest. And it is 

also no coincidence that the steep reduction in Federal support for 

these programs corresponds with the increases in violent crime 

rates nationwide. 

Listening to the earlier testimony, I have an absolute positive, 

fundamental disconnect with what was represented by the administration because we have captured a small sample of what is going 

on in the country and some of our samplings in some of the major 

cities. 

A December 2001 study by researchers at the University of Nebraska at Omaha found that the COPS program is directly linked 

to the historic drop in U.S. crime rates in the 1990s. The ‘‘More 

Cops = Less Crime’’ statistical analysis produced by you, Mr. 

Chairman, together with Congressman Weiner, gives further evidence to the link between the COPS grants and the decreases in 

crime from 1995 to 2000. 

According to the ‘‘More Cops = Less Crime’’ evaluation, the effects of the COPS grants from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1999 

on violent crime during that 1995–2000 period were substantial. 

Approximately $2 billion was provided nationally in hiring grants 

and over $3.6 million was provided in innovative grants to cities 

with populations over 10,000. Nationwide, police departments in 

these cities reported that occurrences of violent crimes decreased 

by well over 150,000 between 1995 and 2000. 

Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, received $23.5 million in COPS 

hiring grants and $2.34 million in COPS innovative grants. Phoenix law enforcement estimates that these funds helped reduce reports of violent crime by over 1,500 incidents and reduced overall 

crime by 7,679 incidents. Los Angeles, California, received nearly 

$194 million in COPS grants and $2.3 million in COPS innovative 

20

grants between fiscal year 1994 through 1999. And during this 

time, violent crimes were reduced by 10,500 incidents and overall 

crime in the city by 53,435 incidents. 

Phoenix, Arizona, law enforcement agencies have had to redeploy 

their officers and resources to infrastructure protection such as 

water treatment facilities, Arizona Public Service power stations, 

airports, among other infrastructure. More importantly, they seem 

to have a pair of handcuffs on them with the immigration problem 

down there. Phoenix has seen record increases in violent crime. 

Again, to show the disconnect between the administration and 

what we are experiencing on the street, in 2005–06 the city saw 

a nearly 5-percent increase in violent crime rates, including a 4.5-

percent rise in homicides and an over 6—percent rise in aggravated 

assault. In 2004 through 2006, Phoenix law enforcement saw an astounding 12-percent increase in homicides and an almost 20-percent increase in aggravated assault over a 2-year period. 

Los Angeles, California, has seen a substantial amount of resources shifted to homeland security details also. Hundreds of law 

enforcement officers have been assigned to terrorism prevention 

issues to protect infrastructure, terrorism task forces, and 

counterterrorism duties. Although L.A. has seen a decrease in the 

overall level of violent crimes, including murder, it has seen significant increases in gang-related homicides and violent murders. 

In New York City, the city has lost over 4,000 policemen absent 

from the streets of New York since 1999, and that is up to and including the 9/11 era. After 9/11, the city added an additional 1,000 

police officers to counterterrorism activities. So that is 5,000 policemen missing from the streets of New York City, and that is not 

even comprehensible in our world. 

In Boston, my home city, the Boston miracle, as it was called, in 

the 1990s, it was a national model for policing around the country. 

Recently, we have seen an increase and a spike in violence. Between 2004 and 2006, reported homicides alone increased nearly 23 

percent in the city of Boston—the highest homicide rate the city 

has seen in 11 years. In 2004 to 2006, we have seen a 10-percent 

rise in robberies and a staggering 37-percent rise in aggravated assaults involving firearms. 

Mr. Chairman, I can add more testimony from Houston, Texas, 

their statistical analysis; Detroit, Michigan. I do not know where 

the administration is sampling, sir, but we are experiencing it in 

the street, and we represent most of the major cities in the country, 

the rank-and-file line officers. We have our problems today. 

The biggest problem of all is I think what the chiefs will share 

with you as well as the rank-and-file testimony here today. It will 

be in our major cities around the country post-9/11. We have experienced anywhere from 15 to 18 percent of our staffing is missing 

from the streets, and I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, as we have 

in the past. If you do not cover all four corners of the blocks, the 

genie is out of the bottle. And we can have all the task forces we 

want and all the prosecution methods behind it, but that is after 

we lose. That comes in at the eleventh hour, and that is not a good 

thing. We are suffering right now out here in the streets. We are 

doing our very best to keep the borders of this country safe, and 

21

we need the efforts of the United States Federal Government to 

complete the task at hand. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nee appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. I think they spent most of the time down in 

Crawford getting the crime statistics. I do not know. 

I should not be so flippant because this is such a serious subject. 

Before we go to you, Colonel, I just want to point out one thing, 

just for the record. If you take a look at the crime statistics—I just 

want this to be in the record. Let me find them here. Take a look 

at the crime statistics. Let us assume that what is stated is true. 

The number of crimes committed in the year 2006, whether they 

are up or down, they are still way beyond what a civilized society 

should be accepting. So this premise that as long as—and I will 

submit that for the record. This premise that as long as it is not 

really going back up above what it was pre— crime bill that somehow things are OK is, I find, a preposterous notion. The first primary function of Government is to keep folks safe so they can walk 

the streets. 

I thought I had them right at hand. I apologize for the intervention, but I will submit them for the record so that we know just 

how high the low is. It is still very high. 

Chief, welcome. And, by the way, I might add I am being very 

parochial here. We have a whole bunch of what I facetiously refer 

to as ‘‘my guys’’ here. We have the Chief of Dover, Delaware, Smyrna, Delaware, South Bethany, Delaware State Police, the Delaware 

Police Chiefs Council, the Lieutenant of New Castle County, and 

Corporal Trinidad, who speaks for all of them when they need to 

be spoken for. I welcome you all here today, and I hope I get a 

chance to spend a little time with you. 

But, again, I am not just being parochial when I do that, I say 

to my friend from Wisconsin. These are the folks that helped write 

that first bill. They really did. This one did not come out of—no one 

handed it down. And, by the way, NAPO was the single biggest 

help at the time when we started this thing off. Thank you for your 

continued support. 

No more advertising. Chief, fire away. 

STATEMENT OF RICK S. GREGORY, CHIEF OF POLICE, NEW 

CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE 

Chief GREGORY. Good morning, sir, and thank you for the opportunity to be here with you this morning and the distinguished 

members of your panel and Committee and also my fellow law enforcement professionals. I am the Chief of Police for New Castle 

County. I have been there since the last day of September in 2006. 

It is the second largest agency in the State of Delaware and, as you 

mentioned, a pioneer agency in community policing in the State of 

Delaware. 

Our agency consists of 364 officers, We cover about 426 square 

miles with about 450,000 citizens. During 2006, our officers responded to or handled approximately 162,000 calls for service. For 

the year 2007, we will surpass that mark considering that we have 

already handled some 82,000 calls for service. 

22

Recently, we have become predominantly a call-driven or 911-

driven agency. The bulk of our time is responding from one 911 call 

to the next. This is not effective community policing, as you know. 

In our agency and in our county, we are seeing a level of violence 

such as the armed robbery of a pizza delivery person as a commonplace criminal act. From 2005 to 2006, we saw a 38-percent increase in these types of robberies. This type of crime has made violence impersonal and second nature to many offenders. People are 

shot for reasons for simply being on the wrong side of the street 

or for saying the wrong things, and we must curb this growing 

trend. While doing so, we have to also realize that we are going to 

be doing it with less Federal resources unless we can have some 

help. 

A recent article in USA Today entitled ‘‘Youth Gangs Contribute 

to Rising Crime Rates,’’ May 15, 2007, stated, ‘‘increasing violence 

among teenagers and other youths appears to have contributed to 

a nationwide crime spike.’’ This trend is only the beginning of what 

we sure believe is going to be an increase for the future. 

We in Delaware, and specifically New Castle County, are not immune from the national trend. Last summer one of our communities was bombarded with gang violence that eventually led to a 

full-scale brawl between rival gangs. One was on one side of the 

street and one was on the other side of the street, not realizing 

they were rival gang members until they began communicating 

with hand signals that led to a brawl. One person was shot, one 

person was stabbed, one was killed. Twelve subjects were arrested 

for this battle, and of those twelve—and this is the alarming part—

six of them were juveniles. When considering this homicide and the 

comments from the USA Today article, we try to remember that we 

are discussing juveniles with weapons. Firearms in the hands of 

adults are deadly, but consider firearms in the hands of an immature gangster wannabe at the ripe age of 13. It is astounding. 

The successful investigation of this case and ultimate prosecution 

was, in large part, due to the expertise offered by our federally 

funded gang officer. The Federal funding for this officer from the 

Edward Byrne Memorial Fund allows us to dedicate an officer to 

the growing problem of gangs and gang violence. Additionally, Federal money spent on the community crime intervention program allows us to dedicate a Spanish-speaking officer to a specific area 

that is troubled with the problems of Hispanic gang influences. Together these officers provide invaluable intelligence on our gangs. 

Communities without Federal funding have difficult dealing with 

these types of problems. 

Many of these juveniles, as we know, start their life as delinquency runaways. From 2002 until 2006, our agency saw a 22-percent increase in the number of juvenile runaways. This, in effect, 

is a 22-percent increase in the number of kids primed for recruiting 

by gangs and the gang culture. 

One initiative that is working very effectively in Delaware is the 

Safe Streets program, a collaborative effort involving the four largest police agencies and the Department of Corrections. Combined 

Federal money in support of this program is close to $1 million. 

Money spent on ventures such as this are truly effective weapons 

in the everyday battle to reduce or contain violent crime. Expanded 

23

measures in this regard remove repeat offenders from our communities and free up time for our officers to return to the job of community policing. 

With that, I come with a request that the expansion of programs 

such as Safe Streets, gang officers, and community crime intervention officers. Allowing a small number of officers to have a magnified and directed impact on communities that are most needing 

of our help will make an impact. In addition, their efforts serve to 

rid the communities of repeat offenders, which frees up the officer 

on the street to spend more time in their communities working to 

break this increasing cycle of violence. While these positions are of 

great value, their longevity is limited due to the funding source. 

Byrne money, which funds these positions, is an excellent resource, 

but it is not a suitable device for hiring officers. COPS money, as 

you well know, with its 3-year hiring grant is a better funding 

source for stability reasons. Federal money spent on these proven 

successful endeavors is money well spent on the security of our 

communities. 

I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for allowing me 

to come today. I want to thank you also for the leadership that you 

have proven time and time again. I am not new to community policing. I am new to the area. But I can tell you that nationally we 

appreciate your leadership and support in what we do. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Gregory appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Mayor, you have a job most of us up here would not take 

on a bet, the most difficult job in America. I really do think being 

the mayor of a major city is the epicenter of requiring political 

skill. I am flattered you are here. We had a chance to talk when 

we spoke to the National Mayors Conference, and your input and 

the input of your colleagues is vitally important here, and I am delighted you would take the time to be here. I know you have got 

a lot of other things to do, but thank you very, very much for being 

here. I am anxious to hear what you have to say. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS H. PALMER, MAYOR, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, AND PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 

Mayor PALMER. Thank you, Senator, and it is a pleasure for me 

to be here. My name is Douglas Palmer. I am the mayor of Trenton, New Jersey, and I have the honor of being the President of 

The United States Conference of Mayors, whose membership represents 80 percent of the population of the United States of America. We also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming to our 

January meeting and discussing our ten-point plan, one point of 

which we are talking about, the COPS program, strong cities, 

strong families, for a strong America. And quite frankly, you cannot have strong cities if you do not have safe cities. 

As you were talking to Mark Epley—and he seems like a nice 

enough fellow. I had the opportunity to serve on a few panels with 

him. And I was just realizing as you were grilling him—I mean 

talking to him, President Bush does not pay him enough money for 

24

what he has to do. And, actually, what he has to do is really go 

against logical thinking in what we see the trends are. 

We want to also thank you for your leadership, and I know President Clinton talks about the Clinton crime bill, and he certainly 

was a large part in that. But we also know that it is the Biden 

crime bill that helps put us on the right track. 

You know, a little over 400 days ago, while I was in Los Angeles 

with Attorney General Gonzales at an event talking about crime, 

my police director got a call. It was a Friday afternoon, a lovely 

spring afternoon. I think it was the 1st of April. And he got a call, 

because we had experienced some gang violence and retaliation 

earlier in the week that a 7-year-old girl by the name of 

Tajhanique Lee, while riding her bike, what every young child 

should be doing on a nice warm spring day, was caught up in the 

crossfire of two rival gangs, and this beautiful young girl was shot 

in the face. Fortunately, God spared her life, and she is still a 

beautiful young lady. But I had the task, like many of my colleagues, mayors and police chiefs—and I am really honored to be 

with these individuals—to talk to her mother about 2 hours after 

it happened in the hospital. Far too often, mayors have to make 

these calls. Mayors have to go to the funerals of law enforcement 

people, of law— abiding citizens and children far too often. We certainly are on the front lines. 

I would ask Mark—and I know he left, but I would like him to 

come to Trenton. If he thinks things are copacetic, the status quo 

is acceptable, I plead with him to come to the city of Trenton where 

we have seen a reduction in crime, almost 27 percent, but an increase in homicides directly attributable to drugs, illegal guns, and 

gangs. Our homicide rates go up, as I think these individuals can 

tell you, fueled by guns, illegal guns in the hands of criminals, and 

drugs, which is a part of that, and gangs. 

While we have reduced crime, the fear level is as high as ever. 

It is not American to be afraid to sit out on your porch in the afternoon. It is not American to have your children not use a park that 

we have paid for because it is not safe. This is just not American. 

We also see that this is attributable in part because of the rise 

in juvenile crime. We see a culture today that is almost a subculture, and we see young people very willing to join gangs, to be 

lured into gangs, use illegal weapons and to shoot each other. It 

is just astonishing to me that the administration would think that 

because certain areas in this country are not experiencing an increase in violent crime that everything is OK. It is almost like if 

you have heart problems, do not take any medicine, wait until you 

have the heart attack. 

Well, we need medicine. We need the kind of support that you 

have had and shown over the years. We urge Senate passage of the 

COPS reauthorization bill sponsored by yourself, urge passage of 

your Second Chance Act to help with prisoner re-entry, which is 

critically important. And the U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed Senator Feinstein’s Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 

2007 and urge passage. And, of course, the COPS and the Byrne 

block grants should be fully funded this year. 

You cannot have homeland security and not have hometown security. And the point you made was very well taken. We do need 

25

1,000 more FBI agents because our police will tell you that when 

they used to have the partnership with the Federal Government to 

have FBI work with them on these very serious cases, now they are 

fighting counterterrorism. And that is fine. But we need additional 

FBI agents to come and work with our local law enforcement to 

help federally put these bad guys away. 

We truly need this Federal partnership. When we see school violence is on the rise, we know our police have to use more resources 

there. And what is also troubling for us without a Federal partnership is that the police—and they will tell you, and mayors will tell 

you—we will have to spend whatever we have to make our citizens 

safe, and that means a lot of times using resources that we would 

have for parks, for economic development, for senior citizen programs, for things that are the lifeblood of a city, that help sustain 

a city, that help make cities livable, we have to take those moneys 

away for law enforcement because our Federal partners are not at 

the table with us. 

So we urge that through your leadership this be done. It is unfortunate that the administration—I hope somebody from the administration is here to listen to these individuals whose officers put 

their lives on the line each and every day, whose mayors fight the 

good fight each and every day. But like in everything else, we need 

a Federal partner. This is a Federal responses needed in a partnership to deal with this problem. It has worked in the past, and we 

know with the resources that it will work for all of us in the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Palmer appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Mr. Mayor, I am going to place in the record, 

by the way, for each one of you your bios and what I had prepared 

for you. But I must say you have done a remarkable job. I know 

Trenton relatively well. I know New Jersey pretty well. And with 

all due respect, Mr. Mayor, not every mayor in America is making 

the choices you have made. You are making some tough choices between, figuratively speaking, street lights and cops. And you are 

making them for cops. But a lot of other mayors are not either able 

to or think they should make those choices, and it is truly remarkable that you are running against the trend here because your 

crime rate is down. Your crime rate is down. 

But one of the things that caused me to draft that legislation 

back in the early 1990s was the thing that frightened people the 

most is the randomness of crime. The randomness. All the studies 

that we have done and read and all the hundreds of hours of hearings, most people thought they could protect themselves against 

being victimized by putting themselves in a position where they 

avoided the bad neighborhood, the bank teller, the ATM machine 

at midnight, walking in a certain—they thought they could do that. 

But what happens in your city and every other city, and the nature 

of the change in the crime, demonstrates once again it is totally 

random. There is nothing you can do in many cases to give yourself 

the sense that you are out of harm’s way. It is not just avoiding 

‘‘the bad neighborhood.’’

So, anyway, I just wanted to state for the record that I think 

your leadership of the National Conference of Mayors has been reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:30 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 040885 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40885.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
26

markable. But, more importantly, your day-to-day hands-on leadership in Trenton, New Jersey, has been remarkable. And I just want 

to note that for the record. And I am sure my Republican colleagues, if they were here, would say the exact same thing. It has 

been remarkable. 

Mayor PALMER. Well, Senator, I just would like to say our homicide rate is up, though. Our regular—

Chairman BIDEN. I know that. But your overall crime— but my 

point is that is what is happening all over. What is happening all 

over is you see these trends. The homicide rate is up, gun crimes 

are up. You also find gangs are up. MS–13 is becoming visible. It 

is a little bit like when— Ted will remember-–15 years ago—that 

is not true-–17 years ago, I was in Iowa—having nothing to do with 

what Senator Grassley referenced of running for President—as a 

United States Senator in Iowa and warning that ice was coming, 

methamphetamine was on its way, and how it was coming and 

wrote a very extensive report. 

And you look around the corner, juvenile crime is up. I would 

argue one of the reasons juvenile crime is up is because community 

policing is down, because school resource officers are not available 

any longer, because the gang initiatives have been cut, because 

when you make choices, you have got to make very hard choices 

in the allocation of these moneys. 

So I do understand certain aspects of crime are up, but overall 

it has been remarkable what you have done in the face of these significant cuts. Chief, welcome. It is great to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. LAINE, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, 

ALGONQUIN, ILLINOIS 

Chief LAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and good 

morning, 

Senator KOHL. My name is Russell Laine, and I serve as the 

Chief of Police in Algonquin, Illinois. For those of you unfamiliar 

with the area, Algonquin is a community of approximately 33,000 

located about 40 miles northwest of Chicago. 

I am here today as the Vice President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police representing over 20,000 law enforcement 

executives throughout the world. I am pleased to be here to discuss 

the challenges currently confronting the U.S. law enforcement community and our need for an increased level of support from the 

Federal Government. 

In the United States, there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and well over 700,000 officers who patrol our State 

highways and the streets of our communities each and every day. 

During the past 15 years, these officers, and the law enforcement 

agencies they serve, have made tremendous strides in reducing the 

level of crime and violence in our communities. This has been accomplished in part because these officers have an intimate knowledge of their communities and because they have developed close 

relationships with the citizens they serve. 

Yet despite the best efforts of our Nation’s law enforcement officers, the disturbing truth is that each year in the United States, 

well over a million of our fellow citizens are victims of violent 

27

crime. Unfortunately, in the last 2 years we have seen a steady increase in the rate of violent crime in the United States. According 

to the Uniform Crime Report, violent crime rose at a rate of 2.5 

percent during 2005. To put that in perspective, that is an additional 31,479 victims. 

Unfortunately, this increase in the crime rate appears to be accelerating. For the first 6 months of 2006, the crime rate rose at 

a rate of 3.7 percent, when compared to the same timeframe in 

2005. If this rate holds for the final 6 months—and I am sorry to 

say that I believe it will—it will mean that an additional 47,000 

Americans will find themselves as victims. 

While there are many different theories as to why violent crime 

is increasing in these communities, after years of often double-digit 

declines, there is one fact that we all can agree on: no one is immune from crime. What were once considered ‘‘urban’’ problems—

drug addiction, drug distribution, violent crime, gangs, and poverty—have migrated to suburban and even rural communities. 

Gangs, guns and drugs are everywhere. 

In many ways, my hometown of Algonquin typifies the problems 

that are plaguing many American communities. Traditionally, the 

Algonquin Police Department has not had to deal with the same 

level of crime and violence that has confronted larger communities 

and cities. For example, nearly 22 years ago when I first arrived 

in Algonquin, the pressing issues facing the department were dealing with curfew violations, traffic issues, parking issues, and stray 

cows and horses that wandered onto main thoroughfare. 

Today, that thoroughfare is an eight-lane highway, and the 

Algonquin Police Department is dealing with more dangerous 

criminals who are committing increasingly violent crimes. For example, Algonquin just experienced a rather infamous first in the 

history of our community: our first drive-by shooting. 

In years past gang activity within Algonquin could be accurately 

described as local youth wannabes who thought they were acting 

cool and seeking an identity for themselves, and sometimes we had 

the random contacts with hard-core gang members from other 

towns who were merely passing through Algonquin going from one 

community to another. Today there is an active gang presence 

within our community, and the attendant violence is increasing 

both in frequency and intensity. 

I think it is safe to say that the days of worrying about stray 

cows are over. 

And it is not just gang-related and other violent crimes that are 

on the increase. We are witnessing a rise in property crimes and, 

like many communities around the country, a new wave of financial and identity crimes. 

Another example of this chilling trend in the Midwest is a new 

drug called ‘‘cheez,’’ a mix of black heroin and Tylenol. It is mostly 

sold to minors and is becoming available in the high schools. As 

you can imagine, responding to and investigating all of these 

crimes is labor intensive and a time-consuming process. 

Unfortunately, our ability to do this is becoming increasingly 

strained. To be blunt, our resources are stretched to the limit. As 

a result, we have not been able to add the additional officers that 

would allow us to combat these criminals aggressively. We have 

28

not been able to take advantage of necessary training that would 

leave our officers better prepared to confront the new breed of 

criminals operating in our community. And we have not been able 

to acquire the sophisticated technology to help us in our crime 

fighting and which is available to the bad guys. 

It is telling that this increase in violent crime, drug sales, and 

gang activity in America corresponds directly to the substantial decline in funding for State, tribal, and local law enforcement from 

the Federal Government assistance programs. 

I will not use my time here this morning to enter into a prolonged discussion of the current budget situation, but I would ask 

that I be able to submit a copy of the IACP’s Budget Analysis for 

the record. 

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

record. 

Chief LAINE. Thank you. 

I do believe it is important to note that when compared to the 

fiscal year 2002 funding level of $3.8 billion, the administration’s 

fiscal year 2008 proposal represents a reduction of more than $3.2 

billion, or 85 percent, and, unfortunately, no program has been hit 

harder over the last several years than the COPS program. 

These cuts are particularly troubling because the IACP believes 

that the COPS program played an integral role in our ability to reduce crime rates in the past. By providing law enforcement agencies with the necessary resources, training, and assistance, the 

COPS program has become an invaluable ally to State, tribal, and 

local law enforcement agencies. It is this fact that makes the current situation completely unacceptable, not only to the Nation’s entire law enforcement community, but also to the citizens we are 

sworn to protect from both crime and terrorism. It is an undisputed 

reality: State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies are on the 

front line of effective terrorism prevention. If you recall earlier, it 

was brought up that—the question was whether terrorism affects 

violent crime on the street. I would suggest that what really happens, it is the work that the men and women in law enforcement 

do on the street in their communities and the State highways that 

really affects how effective we are on terrorism. 

We willingly accept the new responsibilities in combating terrorism, but our ability to continue with traditional policing is our 

best weapon against terrorism. For this we need your assistance. 

State, tribal, and local law enforcement are doing all that we can 

to protect our communities from increasing crime rates and the 

specter of terrorism, but we cannot do it alone. We need the full 

support and assistance of the Federal Government. That is why 

programs like the COPS program and the Byrne-JAG program 

have been so successful and so popular in the state and local law 

enforcement community. And that is why it is so essential for these 

programs to be fully funded in fiscal year 2008 and the years that 

follow. 

Unfortunately, as the IACP Budget Analysis makes clear, the reductions these critical programs have suffered in recent years and 

the cuts contained in the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget have the 

potential certainty to cripple the capabilities of law enforcement 

agencies nationwide and force many departments to take officers 

29

off the streets, eliminate the promise of vital communications between agencies during a major public safety emergency or natural 

disaster—all leading to more crime and more violence in our hometowns and, ultimately, less security for our homeland. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our comments 

today, and I also appreciate your leadership in our efforts. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Laine appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Thanks, Chief. 

Professor, great to have you as the clean-up hitter here, seriously. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES ALAN FOX, THE LIPMAN FAMILY PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. FOX. Thank you very much. I am pleased to be here today 

alongside these law enforcement representatives from communities 

around the country. 

Now, I do not work the streets like these brave men. I live and 

work in the city of Boston, though. I do actually patrol the halls 

of the campus, a 31-year veteran of the lecture halls. I live and 

work in Boston, and Boston, of course, is a city that has grappled 

with a disturbing increase in gun violence, especially related to 

youth and gang activity, as Officer Nee has described. 

You know, they say that misery loves company. Well, for whatever consolation it is—and I am not sure it is any consolation—

Boston has lots of miserable company, based on the crime statistics 

that we have for 2005 and the preliminaries for 2006 and some 

other reports, such as the PERF report. 

Just about a year ago, I was here to testify for the Democratic 

Policy Committee of the House about specifically the issue of the 

cuts in the COPS program and Byrne program, and what is interesting is if you look at the decline in police resources, it has not 

been across the board. Since 2000, the number of police officers per 

capita in cities, large cities, the 58 cities, the largest American cities, has been a 10-percent decline. The rest of the Nation, there has 

been no change at all. So it is the cities that have seen this big 

downturn. And, of course, it is the cities where we are seeing the 

big increases in gangs, guns, and violence and homicides. 

Now, you also, Mr. Chairman, pointed out that it is not only the 

decline in resources that we are robbing Peter to pay for Paul, to 

use your phrase. I think it is more—not just robbing. We are robbing, raping, and murdering Peter to pay for Paul, the shift in resources from hometown security to homeland security. And I think 

to understand why this has happened, you have to consider who is 

at risk for these different types of criminal, terrorism versus street 

violence. 

The people most at risk for terrorism, of course, are the wealthy, 

the powerful, those who commute on the airlines, those who work 

in our financial hubs. The people who are most at risk for ordinary 

street violence are poor. They live in certain sections of D.C. and 

Baltimore and Newark. And when you really look at the numbers, 

you know, it is tragic, the thousands of deaths that occurred on 9/

30

11. But many more people are gunned down every year in America 

in ordinary street violence than what happened in 9/11. And I do 

not want to weigh one death against another, but again, the people 

who are at risk for the kinds of tragedy we see every year are poor 

and powerless, and that is where we are seeing the problem. 

What is particularly disconcerting—I do not want to get too political about this, but I know that President Bush was discussed earlier and the fact that he was making cuts. It was so disingenuous. 

He was running for re-election, standing shoulder to shoulder with 

New York’s finest at the same time cutting the Federal budgets for 

law enforcement that was supporting New York City. 

The other thing about it is I know people want tax cuts. You 

mentioned tax cuts. A few hundred extra dollars in your pocket is 

not very much consolation if you are staring down the wrong end 

of a gun. 

The thing about all these cuts is we may wake up someday and 

decide, gee, you know, maybe we should not have cut all that 

money, all the COPS money, it was so successful, we made a mistake. Well, you cannot just flip the switch and return the staffing 

in quick form. It takes time to recruit. It takes time to train. It 

takes time to provide those new recruits with experience. So it is 

unfortunate that we did this, and we are going to have to get back 

to the—turn the clock back. 

Now, I am here not so much to talk about policing, because certainly we have heard that. Smart crime fighting involves a balanced between enforcement, from community policing to identifying 

illegal gun markets; treatment, from drug rehab on demand to prisoner re-entry services; as well as crime prevention, from family 

support programs to summer jobs for high-risk youth. Regrettably, 

the prevention approach has at times been disparaged as a waste 

of money, it is worthless, it is soft on crime. Yet this cynical perspective reflects gross misunderstanding of the process and goals of 

prevention and a selective examination of the evaluation outcomes. 

Simply put, prevention programs can work; good prevention programs that are well implemented and well funded do work. 

Too often, prevention initiatives are implemented on a shoestring, a very short shoestring, with a brief window of opportunity 

to show results. It is a recipe for failure. 

Now, I am going to talk about five principles of crime prevention 

and violence prevention that are really critical to this investment. 

First of all, no program is successful all the time and for all individuals. No matter what the initiative, there will be failures. Rather than focusing on the failures, as the media likes to do—those 

‘‘bad news bearers,’’ I call them—the goal should be a reasonable 

reduction in offending rates. In light of the enormous social and administrative costs and human tolls and suffering associated with 

each criminal act, even modest gains are worthwhile. 

Secondy, prevention should have an emphasis on the prefix—on 

the prefix ‘‘pre’’ as in prevention. The greatest opportunity for positive impact comes with a focus on children—those who are young 

and impressionable and will be impressed with what a teacher, a 

preacher, or some other authority figure has to say. Youngsters, as 

we know, are often drawn to gang activity. It is actually for positive reasons. They are drawn to gangs because of the camaraderie, 

31

the respect, the status, the excitement, the protection. Our challenge is to find other ways, alternative means that youngsters 

could derive the same kinds of need fulfillment in programs that 

foster positive development. 

Third, patience is much more than a virtue. It is an essential requirement. Prevention is not a short-term strategy. Unfortunately, 

many prevention programs are given short windows in which to 

show progress, and they are often terminated before the final results are in. 

Fourth, prevention should take a multifaceted approach. There 

are many points of intervention for successful crime prevention. I 

do support the gang abatement program, but we should also look 

for promising programs for young children. Several proven and 

promising strategies are directed at at— risk youth, at families 

with young children. Rather than assail young mothers who are 

unable to deal with their children, we need to assist them in trying 

to raise healthy children. In addition, we have school-based initiatives that enhance well-being of large numbers of children. Behavioral skills training at the elementary school level, anti-bullying 

curricula at the middle school level. We know about the connection 

between bullying and later offending. Peer mediation and afterschool programs targeted at the prime time for juvenile crime. All 

these things have payoff far greater than the investment. 

Fifth, and finally, prevention is significantly cost— effective. Virtually all assessments of crime prevention confirm the old adage 

that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of prison time. It is, 

however, a political reality that sound investments in prevention 

take years to reap the benefits. It takes bold leaders like you to 

earmark funds today for tomorrow’s success, maybe 4, 8, 10 years 

down the road, when perhaps your successor will reap the benefits 

and derive pleasure. 

So, to conclude here, the recent upturn in youth violence was anticipated years ago. As you know, I have been here several times 

to talk about demographics and other factors, and even while the 

rates of crime were dropping in the 1990s, criminologists like myself warned about the potential for another wave of youth and gang 

violence. This not-so-perfect storm combining the growth in the 

number of at-risk kids and cuts in social and educational programs, 

we were so complacent, we cut the anti-gang programs because we 

did not think gangs were a problem anymore. And like your grass 

analogy, it comes right back. 

The encouraging news, though, is that the crime problem is not 

out of control, at least by contrast to the early 1990s when the Nation’s murder rate was twice what it is today. It is not surprising 

that a small bounce-back will happen, but let this small upturn 

serve as a thunderous wake-up call that crime prevention, police 

funding, and dealing with illegal guns need to be priorities once 

again. 

At this juncture, we can look toward immediate solutions like the 

gang abatement program and easy access to illegal firearms—approaches that depend heavily on police personnel, intelligence, and 

deployment. But at the same time, we must maintain a long-range 

view toward the future. The choice is ours: Either pay for the programs now or pray for the victims later. 

32

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much. I am going to yield to 

my colleague, Senator Kohl.

Senator KOHL. Thank you so much, Senator Biden, and, gentlemen, it is good to have you here today. Am I hearing from all of 

you that the most important thing we need to do is to increase 

funding for the programs that we all know or feel work well? Is 

that the major thing that we are hearing here this morning, that 

it is the lack of funding that is causing the upsurge in crime in our 

communities, lack of Federal funding? 

Mr. FOX. It is juvenile justice funding, the OJJDP, lack of COPS 

funding. It is basically the idea that we thought we had solved the 

crime problem. You know, crime rates went down for 8 straight 

years, and we said, Hey, we do not need to spend money on crime 

fighting anymore, let’s pay attention to other really important 

things like who is going to win ‘‘American Idol’’ or something. 

But we really got complacent. We took our focus off the crime 

issue. You do not solve the crime problem. You do not solve the 

gang issue. You only control them. And so long as you are dealing 

with it, you are seeing success, and we had success and we said, 

oh, let’s move the money elsewhere. 

You know, the one thing about youth is that we have a new 

group of teenagers every 5 years. You know, we did a great job in 

the 1990s in Boston and elsewhere in investing in those kids and 

making sure that they were not as violent as their predecessors, 

that they saw alternatives to joining gangs. But now we have a 

new group of kids, and they are too young—they do not know what 

it was like in 1990 when joining a gang could mean an early grave. 

They were like 2 years old. And so we cut back on the anti-gang 

initiatives in Boston and elsewhere, and lo and behold, that is 

where they are going again. 

So you have to keep on working at it, and because we are seeing 

success, we should redouble our efforts, not cut them. 

Senator KOHL. Is the prevalence of guns on the street a major, 

major issue here? Does anybody want to say anything beyond what 

is commonly said about guns? Is the prevalence of guns—do we 

need stronger gun laws? Do we need just stronger enforcement? 

Mayor PALMER. You know, I think we need stronger enforcement. 

There is no doubt about that. We need to enforce the laws that are 

already on the books. But we also need to aggressively go after 

straw purchases. In New Jersey, in my city, Trenton, New Jersey 

has very strict gun laws, but 5 minutes from Trenton across the 

Delaware Bridge and into Pennsylvania, their laws are much more, 

in my estimation, lenient, where an individual can buy hundreds 

of guns and then sell them illegally, you know, to gang bangers in 

the cities. 

So I think that we have to close the gun show loophole. We have 

to go after straw purchases. And we have to make sure that people 

that commit crimes with guns, that they go to jail and not be out. 

One of the things that was just remarkable to me, unbelievable 

to me, was just about 2 months ago we had a press conference because the police finally arrested a person who was allegedly inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:30 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 040885 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40885.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
33

volved in two homicides, gang— related homicides. This individual 

was out on bail—and this is the court system, too. But this individual was out on bail, committed two murders, and he was out on 

bail after having shot a cop three times. How could this guy be out 

on bail? 

So there is a whole disparity there as well, but certainly illegal 

guns are a focus. Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Menino and other 

mayors are working with mayors against illegal guns, fighting the 

good fight. But we need to look at, you know, the Tiahrt amendment and those kinds of things as well, and go after these straw 

purchasers and make committing crimes with a gun as serious if 

it is happening in a poor neighborhood as it would be in an affluent 

one. 

Senator KOHL. Before I ask you, Mr. Fox, are you saying, Mayor, 

that the issue of guns, who has them, how they get them, whether 

it is legal or illegal, and then what we do with people once they 

are convicted of gun crimes in terms of incarceration, is among 

other things central to this whole discussion we are having here 

today? 

Mayor PALMER. Yes, absolutely. I had the experience of going 

with Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Street from Philadelphia, and some 

Philadelphia councilmen to Harrisburg last September to talk 

about an idea of one gun a month. I met with Democrat and Republican State Senators. They almost laughed us out of the room 

and said, no, that is not going to happen, you are wasting our time 

if you are talking about one gun a month. And if you are married, 

that is like two guns a month, 24 in a year. And they said, no, I 

just bought three guns this weekend. 

And so they did not even want to put an amendment so that if 

you lost your gun or it was stolen to report it. They said no, we 

are not even reporting lost or stolen guns. You know what happens. 

People buy guns legally, sell them illegally, and if you go to trace 

it back, they say, well, now that this gun was involved in a crime, 

we found it was yours, oh, I lost that gun, or it was stolen. Well, 

if you report it when it happens, then that is a way of tracing it, 

too. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Fox? 

Mr. FOX. I can put some of the onus here on the Congress and 

some of your colleagues. You know, in the last couple of years, it 

has been kind of disturbing to see some of the change in terms of 

the posture of the Congress toward guns. And I do not blame the 

NRA. You know, they have a right to have their opinion. But what 

I am concerned about is how so many Members of Congress seem 

to be willing to pass things like the immunity law, the gun immunity law that—you know, when they talked about tort reform 4 

years ago in a campaign, who knew that is what they meant, that 

they would just protect the gun industry. 

I understand the logic of the debate on the other side, but so 

many of the advances that have been made in terms of guns in this 

country have been with the threat of lawsuits. 

Second, the whole area of gun tracing and efforts in Congress to 

trim and curtail the extent to which police departments can use 

gun tracing efforts, we know—you know, I have done a lot of work 

at the Brady Center, and we know that these rogue dealers, that 

34

1 percent of the gun dealers are responsible for over half the guns 

used in crimes every year. We need to be able to identify these people. 

Boy, if there was a liquor store where all the 14-year— olds are 

going to buy beer, we would do something about that liquor store. 

And I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea about prosecuting 

gun crimes, but let’s also keep in mind that so much of the increase 

we have seen is in kids carrying guns. They do not really care, 

many of them, about what the criminal justice system might do. 

They are carrying guns because they feel they need it to survive. 

You know, the criminal justice system, the Federal Government 

can just take a number and wait in this line with all the other people out to get them. So they feel they need the gun to live, and 

whatever prosecution there is—they may not even be aware of 

what the Federal Government is doing—is not a priority. 

So we need to find out the process by which the guns are getting 

into this illegal market, and investigate it and deal with it, and 

deal with the rogue dealers. 

Senator KOHL. Anybody disagree with that or want to offer additional comments on this issue, gun availability? Crimes committed 

with guns and people not being sufficiently long incarcerated? 

Sheriff KAMATCHUS. If I might just make a comment on it, I own 

well over 100 firearms, and I have been a competitive shooter for 

a long time. And I am a firm believer in the fact that the old adage 

that guns do not commit crimes, people do. But I also am a firm 

believer in what was said earlier in the fact that you have to have 

strong, just—you know, we have to commit these individuals to a 

facility so they cannot get back out so quickly. We have to make 

sure that the individuals who perpetrate the crimes are handled 

harshly so that if there is any potential for a deterrent factor in 

that, it is real, it is not talked about. 

Recently, in a neighboring county to mine, we had some young 

teens at a party, and one young gentleman simply walked up—and 

this case is still active, so I do not want to get into it too much, 

but walked up and pulled a gun and shot another kid right in the 

head, in rural Iowa. Dropped him right there. And I know the family that had the loss personally. 

The bottom line on it is that we need to do something with those 

type of people so that those young individuals who are coming up 

that was mentioned earlier who do not have an understanding of 

what it is like to be involved with gangs or such, that those individuals have a better understanding of what can happen to them if 

they perpetrate those crimes. 

So, you know, I just want to make sure that we do not end up 

in a situation here where we evolve it into the banning of weapons 

or something that is so restricting that we do not have firearms 

anymore. That is just what I want to make sure is said. 

Senator KOHL. Oh, yes. No question about it. Your comment is—

Mr. Nee? 

Mr. NEE. You know, it is the unlawful guns that we have the 

problem with up there in New England, firsthand knowledge. I can 

give you by way of example, the other night, Thursday night—I am 

certain Professor Fox could add. Within a ten-square-block radius, 

within an hour and a half of time, we seized nine illegal guns on 

35

the street. Three were used in acts of violence; the rest were seized 

through aggressive police tactics that night because of the many 

shootings that we had that night. 

But I firmly believe being, again, a sportsman, somebody who enjoys that way of life, being around firearms for the past 29 years 

of my life, I am not afraid of them. I believe that there has to be 

an understanding, and they do have a lawful purpose. But it is uniformity in gun laws in the United States that has to be brought 

in line. You can go to a neighboring State, and I see some of these 

places popping up now where they are teaching kids to shoot AKs. 

They have got to be 21 years old, and they are up there taking tactical training and courses where they are not licensed, there is no 

understanding, and then they get into these underground railroads 

with these firearms that are coming up out of some of the communities in other parts of the country. And we are lacking right now 

the ability to track and trace these underground networks of guns 

that are coming out of other parts of the country. 

You know, I watched the gun purchase program that we used up 

in Boston several years ago. No one was turning in the guns we 

were looking for. They were turning in black powder muskets and 

things, you know, things that were prehistoric, for sake of a better 

term. 

But, you know, these guns are still being used, and just to a 

slight degree I would disagree with the Professor in this sense, that 

these guns are not used just to keep kids alive. A lot of these guns 

are being used in aggressive acts of violence. What is extremely 

disturbing to me is up in Boston proper—and I am hearing it from 

a lot of the major cities—a lot of these kids today have no fear of 

taking up arms against an armed police department, an armed officer. And if the country—if people do not get that, if they are willing 

to take up arms against a uniformed officer, trained, they have no 

problem taking it up against the rest of society. That message has 

got to be sent with firm, swift convictions, incarcerations. The message has got to be clear. We can blame the guns all we want. It 

is the kids behind the guns that are using these things. Again, like 

you said, nine guns within 90 minutes of a ten-square-block radius 

part of the city. It was very disturbing to the policemen involved, 

and we are finding it more and more common that these young 

gang members are taking firearms up against our police officers, 

our colleagues around the country. And it is very disturbing to me. 

Mayor PALMER. And I would say you need a comprehensive approach. The U.S. Conference of Mayors understands that. You need 

job training, re-entry is very important, drug treatment, housing 

when people get out, and all those things. But you have to make—

police will tell you. What is really disturbing is before, if you were 

getting robbed, you would say, OK, stick ’em up; here, here is everything, I am not arguing with you, here is everything I have. And 

they shoot you anyway. Why? That is a sociological thing, because 

they are mad—

Mr. FOX. Eliminate the witness. 

Mayor PALMER. Well, no, they will shoot you in the butt. They 

will not kill you, maybe, but they are mad. They are just mad because you have it and I do not and I had to get it. 

36

So we need to do more in the prevention, education, and those 

things, but we also have to send a strong message, and I am—look, 

I never thought in my days I would be so conservative on this 

issue, as tough as I am on crime, but I know what it is doing to 

innocent people. But you have got to make sure these juveniles 

that shoot somebody, you got to lock them up for a long time so 

they get it out of their system, and when they are in jail, then you 

give them programs and try to help turn them around, because 

these kids have no fear using guns. They see it on videos. They see 

it on TV, MTV, and they think it is cool. To get bones, being in the 

gang, they make you shoot somebody. That has got to stop. You 

have to make these kids afraid if they get caught shooting a gun 

or having a gun that they are going to jail. 

Then we have to rehabilitate them when we fail before that. But 

it is just like why do teenage—no, I might get a little over my 

bounds here, but it is like why did teenage pregnancy at one point 

go down? It was because teenagers were starting to use condoms. 

Why were they using condoms? Because they were scared to death 

at the time of getting AIDS, because they thought, if I get AIDS, 

I am going to die. So they got scared and they started wearing 

condoms. 

Now, I know that is an overgeneralization, but you have got to 

make kids scared, teenagers, juveniles, scared to be in a gang, 

scared to use a gun because of the consequences. How we do that 

is up for debate, but we have got to scare them straight, in my 

opinion. 

Mr. FOX. You know, it is interesting—you mentioned the media. 

What is interesting is that so many kids will hold guns, because 

they see it on TV, it looked really cool, like sideways or upside 

down. Actually, you know, do not tell them this, but it is actually 

not good in terms of their accuracy. The gun can actually jam. But 

it looks good because that is what they see on TV. 

But I wanted to say something. You know, I used to write for a 

rather conservative newspaper, the Herald. I used to write a column, and anytime you say anything about guns, you get deluged 

with, you know, pro-NRA people. I did not know they had so much 

time on their hands. They are always cleaning their weapons. But 

they certainly have time to write me. 

I think it is very possible to be in favor of things like gun tracing 

and against the immunity law, yet respect the right of decent, lawabiding people that own guns. No one—I will not say no one, but 

so many people who are gun control freaks, I guess, we have no 

problem with people owning guns, so long as they use them right. 

And we are only looking to try to break down and interdict the illegal gun markets, and trying to do that is not—you know, the slippery slope and all that kind of garbage, there is no slippery slope. 

We are only interested in finding guns that are illegal, how do people purchase them. No one here is interested in trying to deprive 

law-abiding citizens of their guns. 

And it is not a panacea. The one gun a month, let’s keep in mind 

that Virginia has one gun a month, and that is why Mr. Cho down 

at Virginia Tech had to wait a month to buy his second weapon. 

And I know in Massachusetts they talk about one gun a month. It 

is a small piece of the puzzle. We need, I agree, something comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:30 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 040885 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40885.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
37

prehensive, something national, because every State is as weak as 

the weakest link in the chain. But we can indeed focus on dealing 

with illegal guns and respect the rights of gun owners. I wish we 

were all on the same page here. We should be. But for some reason, everyone wants to get painted into corners, like you are either 

against them or you are for them. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I would like to pursue—and I know your time is valuable, but 

if you would give me a few more minutes, I would like to pursue 

a couple things here, more in sort of a generic sense here, before 

we get into specifics. 

I am making this statement to invite response, and, look, as my 

colleagues from Delaware can tell you, I always say I am a United 

States Senator, I am used to not being taken seriously, so I really 

do want your critical comments, if you disagree with the assertions, 

the broad assertions I am going to make. 

For 17 years, I chaired this Committee and/or was the Ranking 

Member, and it took a long time to get a consensus between then 

the Chairman or Ranking Member, Strom Thurmond, and Joe 

Biden, which was an interesting combination at that time. And all 

through the 1970s and all through the 1980s, we had this constant, 

ongoing fight about, on the one side, what we have to do is look 

at the source of crime and deal with that because there is not much 

you can do in dealing with crime once it occurs; and the other side 

was hang ’em high, make the penalties tougher, put people in jail 

longer. 

And it took a long time to get what I thought was a consensus 

that from police to social workers agreed on. And that was there 

are three pieces of this puzzle. One piece, which is very important 

and could have real payback and was cheaper if you invested in it, 

was prevention. The other point was the apprehension of the bad 

guys. And the third point was incarceration of the bad guys. 

And so the original crime bill, which caused me so much trouble 

and took literally 6 years to get done, it is the first time we combined all three of those things. And that bill said three things—and 

it equally distributed the money. It was a $30 billion bill—and, by 

the way, this is not a pride of authorship thing. This is trying to 

get a sense of what seems to me to be happening, and I would like 

you to comment on it. 

And so we reached this sort of grand compromise, something we 

never really tried before: one, the Federal Government had a significant responsibility to deal with local crime, the reason being, 

Mr. Mayor, you can do everything right, but if we do not control 

cocaine coming out of Afghanistan, if we do not control cocaine 

coming out of Colombia, heroin coming out of Colombia and parts 

of Venezuela, coming through the port in Trenton, you cannot do 

much. There is nothing you can do about our porous borders and 

all the drugs that are coming through those borders, no matter how 

good you are. 

And so it seems to me there is a Federal responsibility. We went 

through this fight. The Federal Government has a responsibility, 

even though the ultimate local responsibility is the crime committed on the street, that is literally local. But all the factors that 

38

go into why that crime was committed, a lot of it had to do with 

the failure of Federal policy. 

So we fought through this whole thing about whether or not the 

Federal Government has a role in dealing with local crime. And the 

second thing we fought through was how you get my conservative 

friends, who wanted tougher enforcement, and my liberal friends, 

who wanted more prevention, whether it is drug rehab or whether 

it is after-school programs or a whole range of other things, how 

you get them on the same page. And it really was a tortuous undertaking. It took 6 years to get it done. 

And the third part—the part that nobody really liked—was providing more money to States to build prisons, because as the great 

Senator from the State of Maryland, Senator Mathias, pointed out 

when I authored the bill that became the Sentencing Commission, 

he said it is going to cause more people to go to jail, and he was 

right. It is. And we can argue whether the Sentencing Commission—but it had an effect. It had an effect at least while you are 

in jail. The only thing we do know is if you are in jail behind bars, 

you are not committing crime in the streets. You may be committing crimes in jail, but you are not committing them on the street. 

And so the one thing I was not able to get done in that bill was 

to deal with what Senator Specter and I are trying to do now, and 

that is, invest money in reintegrating people back into society when 

they get out of the prison—housing, jobs, drug programs, because 

all of you know drugs are rampant in prisons right now. If you are 

not addicted, you might get addicted in prison. 

And so we had this thing, and the formula seemed to work. We 

seemed to have arrived at a consensus, Democrats and Republicans, that there was some Federal responsibility. You needed to 

do all three pieces in order to impact on crime. And it was not just 

cops, more cops. It related to prevention, and it related to incarceration. 

Now, at the Federal level, we did the things you are looking for, 

Mr. Mayor. Use a gun in the commission of a crime, you go to jail. 

Bingo, you go to jail. You do not pass go. You go to jail. Most of 

your States do not do that. I say ‘‘your States.’’ Most States do not 

do that. 

We also suggested that there is no probation or parole in the 

sense that you look out there, and we did not know what caused 

recidivism, we did not know what the measure was, so I admit, I 

am responsible for it, and I sometimes wonder whether I was right, 

Professor, saying same time for the same crime, you know, and you 

go to jail. Or if it is not jail, if that is not the sentence, whatever 

that crime is. 

Now, here is my dilemma, what I really do not understand. I am 

wondering whether—I would ask from the police enforcement officer’s standpoint and from an elected official’s standpoint and then 

from a criminologist’s standpoint. What happened? What happened 

that would lead anyone to believe that that formula was not a legitimate formula? When that formula, the combination of all those 

things was employed, when money was put behind it, States took 

advantage of it, crime actually went down at the very time those 

in the crime-committing years were going up. So what happened? 

What kind of discussions took place in the squad room, you know, 

39

over the last 10 years to say we have got this under control? What 

happened with—you know, did mayors and elected officials say this 

is not our biggest problem now? Did criminologists conclude this 

formula is not the proper formula? 

That is what I would like to talk about, because it seems almost 

like—you know, they talk about the Know—Nothing Party in the 

1880s. It is kind of like we have become anti-intellectual here, that, 

you know, the facts seem so obvious to me, and yet there is this 

consensus among many people, including my colleagues in Congress. You know, look, that formula does not work anymore, or that 

formula is not necessary. 

What is going on? Ted, did you want to make a comment? 

Sheriff KAMATCHUS. Well, it baffles me as much as anyone in 

this room and anyone who is listening or watching this today. 

Being a sheriff, I am a peace officer, but I am also a 20-year veteran of the political field. I have been elected five times. So I have 

to also balance that whole issue of the utilization of the taxpayers’ 

money probably a little bit more because in 4 years I may not have 

a job. 

But I have to tell you something. I am baffled as much as you 

are, and the reason I am baffled as much as you are is because look 

at who is at this table, and then think back into the 1990s and who 

was at the table. And what happened then was the proverbial 

squeaky wheel got the grease, and maybe we as organizations, 

maybe you as—I will call you the father of this COPS program, and 

more. Maybe we got complacent and quit squeaking. Maybe we got 

quiet because—and that allowed the people, for whatever reason 

who are opposed to it, to turn around and beat the drum about the 

success. And they became louder. And somewhere along the line, 

they began robbing from Peter to pay Paul, as you said. 

It does not make sense to me either. You know, the COPS program was not perfect. It had its flaws. But, you know, a neat thing 

about the program was it was self—healing. When we could not 

hire people quick enough and train them quick enough, we shifted 

funds. And when we arrested a bunch of people and we could not 

prosecute them quick enough, we shifted funds. And then all of a 

sudden when we needed technology, we shifted funds. And that is 

the positive thing about the COPS program. 

And I think what happened was it became so easy to shift those 

funds and so successful that it became more the norm, the standard, if you will. 

I do not know what the answer is other than to say that I hope 

your colleagues—I hope that they look at this panel and they look 

at what is going to happen in the months ahead and they hear us. 

And I look back to the same argument that happened in the 1990s. 

And if there are some experts out there who walk the street like 

we do who are opposed to this and who have got a better answer 

than we do, I would like to have them come up. I have traveled 

across this country. I have been to 38 States in the last 11 months. 

I have driven a car from State to State. I have talked to people in 

small rural Kansas, all the way to Orlando, Florida, and L.A. and 

all over. And I do not see anybody against this, the funding. 

So to answer your question, I do not know. It has to be the fact 

that we have not beat the drum loud enough, and maybe we should 

40

take the blame for that. But I am here to tell you, you can see 

today, and you are going to hear more of it, we are going to beat 

the drum, sir, and we are going to stand with you on that issue. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Mayor? 

Mayor PALMER. I will say something that is obvious to everyone. 

Before I was a mayor, I was African-American. Or in my day I was 

a Negro, I guess, in the 1950s. And after I am mayor, I will be an 

African-American male as well. And it is very troubling as an African-American—take away being an elected official, a mayor—to see 

so many African-Americans and Latinos and poor people incarcerated. It breaks my heart that we would have to choose between 

prison and school. And I think, Senator, the question you ask is a 

good one, but it goes beyond your Committee. It talks to what we 

are dealing with in terms of race and racism and poverty. Mayor 

Antonio Villaraigosa, who is the mayor of the great city of Los Angeles, and Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit and Francis Slay of St. 

Louis and others are on a task force about poverty within the 

United States Conference of Mayors. Poverty is at the root of all 

of these things, and poverty has to be addressed—how we look at 

poverty, how we get people out of the cycle of poverty, how we 

make sure that we have health benefits and those kinds of things, 

how we look at early childhood education, how we look at after—

school programs, how we look at growing our economy in a green 

way that will produce more jobs. I mean, it goes beyond this Committee. 

And I think what has happened is the squeaky wheel does get 

the grease, but we have to recognize that in order to have strong 

cities, strong families, and a strong America, you are going to have 

to deal with the issue of race, racism, poverty, and getting our 

economy back on the right track, and that we are all our brother’s 

keepers. 

You reap what you sow. You cannot have people living in abject 

poverty concentrated in cities and other areas, poor education systems without the resources needed to get the best teachers in the 

most challenging situations, you cannot continue to have drugs and 

those things happen, you cannot continue to have single parents 

and that whole moral issue, you cannot abandon kids and have 

people live in poverty and have drugs and illegal guns and expect 

that these individuals are going to grow up and be good. They are 

not. It requires a total comprehensive response, a total comprehensive commitment on behalf of all Americans—liberal, conservative, 

Democrat, Republican, Independent—in order to address it. 

So what we are talking about here is just the tip of the iceberg, 

but in order to do what really needs to be done, we need, in my 

opinion, and in the opinion of the mayors across this country, we 

need a whole comprehensive not only plan, but we need a new vision and a real commitment for America that says we are our 

brothers’ and sisters’ keeper. 

Chairman BIDEN. You know, Mr. Mayor—and before I go to you, 

Professor, and I am anxious to hear what you have to say, but this 

is on point. The irony was, in all those hearings—and literally 

probably a thousand hours of hearings I held in the 1980s and 

early 1990s—one of the things that we did in this Committee and 

41

through the crime bill was actually try, to be very blunt about it, 

to embarrass the rest of society into dealing, through the crime bill, 

with things that really were not within the purview of the crime 

bill. 

For example, in the prevention program, I put in money for afterschool programs. That should not be coming from the criminal side. 

That should be coming from the education side of the equation. We 

put in $20 million, which was a small amount then, for Boys and 

Girls Clubs, because we found that studies done on public housing 

projects that had them and did not have them, there was a 33 percent less crime rate, arrest rate, of folks, the same economic circumstance, same inner-city circumstance, where there was a Boys 

and Girls Club in the basement of a public housing project. 

So what we tried to do—and you have hit on what I was trying 

to get at. What we tried to do through the crime bill, as a weak 

read and weak vehicle, was to get a change in attitude about the 

overall point you are making. How can we have in this society a 

circumstance where the one thing every cop here will tell you, you 

see a direct correlation between truancy and juvenile delinquency. 

As the professor pointed out, I remember when I wrote a report 20 

years ago saying everybody thinks most violent crime occurs in the 

deep of the night. It occurs between the time the kids get out of 

school and before their parents come home, including rape, including other violent crimes. 

And so what we tried to do was put in initiatives that were designed to deal with—for example, we know if you start kid in a 

troubled neighborhood in school at age 3, they have got something 

like—do not hold me to the exact number; I do not have it in front 

of me—something like a 70-percent better chance of finishing 

school than if you start them at age 6 in school. I mean, these are 

things we know. 

But I just want to make it clear to you all, I do not see adding 

cops as the answer. I see adding cops as the bridge here, as the 

dam, because the irony is—and I want to say this with the police 

officers here—they will be the first one to tell you, give them a 

chance to have full-blown treatment programs in their communities. Give them a chance to have full-blown after-school programs. Give them a chance to have full-blown early education programs. Give them a chance to have full-blown summer work programs versus adding 10 percent more cops. They will take the 

former, not the latter. 

Mr. FOX. In fact, the organization Fight Crime, Invest in Kids 

that you know of—they are centered here in D.C. It is an organization of crime victims and police officers and prosecutors. It has 

polled police officers and police personnel and supervisors and 

chiefs. Overwhelmingly, the belief is that the best way to solve the 

crime problem is not with more cops but prevention. 

May I respond to your question? 

Chairman BIDEN. Yes, sure. Professor, you are allowed. Professors are allowed to do that. Fire away. 

Mr. FOX. It was a great question about what happened to those 

three parts to the stool in the crime bill. It had a balance, the 

crime bill, and, by the way I remember even there was money in 

there for dance programs, because not every kid was looking for 

42

midnight basketball. Some kids were looking for dance and music 

and art. 

Let me take each of the three. In the prevention area, there was $9 billion of prevention money in the 1993 crime bill, and then 

what happened is the 1994 takeover of Congress. I do not want to 

make this too political, but it really is. You know, the Contract 

With America. ‘‘Prevention’’ is now a bad word, a dirty word. 

I remember, for example, that Vice President Gore was supposed 

to be coming up to Boston for a conference and give a talk to criminologists about prevention. Canceled right after the election. Cannot talk about prevention. 

I was on several committees for President Clinton, and I remember his frustration about how although $9 billion was authorized 

for prevention, what started to happen after 1994 is a lot of that 

money was moving away from prevention. There was this whole belief that, oh, it is all midnight basketball. Of course, most of it—

that was sort of the rallying cry. It was all midnight basketball, 

and it was silly. Most of it was not midnight basketball, and the 

basketball was not even at midnight. It was in the after— school 

hours. It just got sort of a bad name, and the administration, 

frankly, did not want to talk about prevention. 

In fact, I was working with Rahm Emanuel, who was the chief 

domestic policy adviser, and he said to me, ‘‘If we can push one prevention program, what would it be?’’ And that is, in fact, when I 

talked to Rahm about the after-school program, the fact that 49 

percent of juvenile crimes occur between 2 and 8, and that led to 

the 21st Century Schools Initiative, and you may remember that 

the President in the State of the Union address in the late 1990s 

sort of advocated for after-school programs. So you basically could 

not talk about prevention because there was this belief that prevention is just soft on crime. 

Policing. Again, political. I know that you had a strong hand in 

the crime bill. Let’s also recall that President Clinton campaigned 

on this idea of 100,000 cops. And when the new—

Chairman BIDEN. Let’s get it straight. He did not adopt the 

crime bill until September, and he had a very good idea. He had 

a good idea. He called me on the phone and said, ‘‘How many cops 

will your bill buy?’’ I said, ‘‘A hundred thousand.’’ And he was very 

smart. He said, ‘‘Why don’t you call it the 100,000 COPS program?’’ 

That was the totality of the commitment. 

Mr. FOX. OK. 

Chairman BIDEN. Keep going. 

Mr. FOX. But he did sort of talk about it, and it would seem that 

when the new President came in, you distance yourself from one 

of the pet projects or ideas of the previous administration, and I 

think that part of it was playing politics with protection and the 

fact that that was such—that was the last administration, and you 

throw out the last administration, and you sort of change the equation. 

Finally, in this whole area about corrections, I remember talking 

with Adam Walinsky, who you know is heavily behind the Police 

Corps idea. We were talking about the fact that so many more 

Americans were going to prison. We had 2 million Americans behind bars, and the idea was that people were not thinking about 

43

what is going to happen when these people eventually get out down 

the road. It was, like, well, we will deal with that bridge when we 

come to that. That was the bridge to the 21st century. Well, that 

bridge is here, and it is as firm and fortified as the Ted Williams 

tunnel in Boston, which, of course, as you may know, is falling 

apart. 

What happened is we did not take—we said let’s put them in 

prison, but let’s ignore them once they are there. Citizens said, I 

do not want to spend my tax dollars on education programs for inmates. I cannot afford to send my own kid to college. Why should 

I be spending money for education for inmates? They did not want 

to spend money for job training or other skills for inmates. And so 

we just basically housed them. 

It is great now that we are deciding that re-entry programs are 

critical, because they are now all getting out, but the process begins not the day they are released from prison, but the day they 

go into prison. 

So I think also, besides having re-entry programs, we have to do 

something more about rehabilitation programs in prison, which, 

again, do work, but we are kind of shortsighted there. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, the reason I ask the question is I think 

there has been a fundamental philosophical change that took place 

over the last 6 to 8 years, and it did begin in 1994, although it was 

not successful, and that was that, first of all, this is a State responsibility, not a Federal responsibility, the devolution of government 

argument, the neoconservative notion to devolve power to local government. 

The second thing I think that happened is that there is this emphasis on sort of a self-improvement as if somehow kids in the 

ghetto can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it out. 

And, third, there was this fundamental shift, Mr. Mayor, from 

any focus on cities and the problem about cities. We just walked 

away—housing, every other aspect of what you deal with. 

And so I guess the reason I ask the question is mainly for the 

record, because I think as we begin to try to rebuild—what I think 

the public is ready to do. I think the public is ready to go back and 

look at this comprehensively again. I do not think they are afraid. 

I think they get it. I think that the election in 2006, having nothing 

to do with the partisan notion, but every once in a while, the American public closes a chapter on a political philosophy. They closed 

the chapter. They closed the chapter on the New Deal in 1980. 

They closed the chapter on compassionate conservatism in 2006. 

They are waiting for us to construct a new paradigm, as they love 

to say here in Washington. 

And so what I would like to do, as a prelude to this question, and 

you do not have to answer it here, but I have ‘‘redrafted’’ a comprehensive crime bill that I would like to get to you all. I know it 

is a whole lot of work to go through it and read it. You know, I 

understand I am asking a lot. But I would like you to take a look 

at it and get your eyes on it and give me an honest assessment of 

whether or not you think I am barking up the right tree here, number one. 

Second, I do think there is a change. Whether or not the change 

would be enough for us to be able to do something in 20 months, 

44

I do not know. When I reintroduced the new crime bill to add 

50,000 cops, a new COPS bill, we were able to get the money for 

it in the budget. Both the House and the Senate passed the bill 

that I introduced, passed the resolution authorizing the Budget 

Committee to spend money on it. Now we have got to go back and 

fight it through the Appropriations Committee. But there is a $1.15 

billion per year for each of the next 5 years for hiring cops. 

I want to make it clear for the record, I do not see that as the 

end. I do not see that—but we have to begin to rebuild this sort 

of dike. 

The last point I will raise here is one of the things that has disappointed me the most—and I have to take blame for it—is I am 

the guy years ago that crafted the drug czar legislation, the idea 

of getting one person in charge of all the Federal agencies, cooperating with the States and the cities about the drug problem. One 

of the reasons for that was to force the Federal Government to look 

around the corner, to look down the road and anticipate what was 

likely to come, like we did with ice, what used to be called ice, then 

meth. And one of the things I somehow think we have missed—and 

I need your help. I need your help. In particular, I need help from 

cops. They expect mayors to be enlightened. They expect criminologists to get it right. They expect you guys only to be asking for—

I mean, when I say today that cops helped me write the prevention 

money into the crime bill, people look at me like I am lying. That 

was a cop idea. That was cops. Your predecessor as President of 

the Sheriffs, your predecessor as President of NAPO, your predecessor, the predecessor of the Chiefs, FOP. They were the ones who 

insisted on the money, and that is the only reason it got done, because you all showed up in people’s offices wearing your uniforms, 

and you said we not only want more cops, we want the money for 

prevention in here. 

You know, I do not know what—because I do not do this every 

day like I used to because I am now the guy that does Foreign Relations, foreign policy stuff. It used to be the statistic, Professor, 

was a drug addict, meaning someone who consumed a controlled 

substance more than 3 times a week out there, committed on average 154 crimes a year, some of which related to just purchasing the 

drugs, others related to getting the money to get the drug. 

When they put him in drug treatment programs and you just 

kept them there for 6 months, what happened is you found that 

dropped down to about 22 crimes per year. Even if it was wasted 

time, it was cheaper than prison. It was cheaper than hiring more 

cops to figure out how to solve 125 of those crimes a year—if my 

numbers are correct. I used to know them off the top of my head. 

But the bottom line here, and somehow the thing that disturbs 

me the most about this is you guys see what is coming. You guys 

see what the professor said is that you had these teenagers 15 

years ago who got into a system whereby we gave them some help, 

they ended up not being—or 10 years ago. But now you have got 

a whole new cadre coming up, and they did not hear of any of this 

stuff. 

And so it just disturbs me, and it—I do not know, it disappoints 

me that somehow we can so quickly forget the basic lessons we 

learned just 10 years ago. I wish old Ronald Reagan were around 

45

because he was the guy that coined, at least in the political context, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’ This thing wasn’t broke, but we 

have got to fix it. 

And so what I have done here—and I am not going to keep you—

I have half a dozen specific questions that I would like to submit 

to you, and over the next couple weeks, if you get a chance, I would 

like you to respond to them for the record. But I cannot tell you 

how much I appreciate the fact that you uniformed officers are 

talking not just about more cops, and, Mr. Mayor, that you have, 

along with your fellow mayors, pointed out that—I mean, one of 

the senior colleagues on this Committee sits right here, Ted Kennedy, who has helped me and been a leader in this area, points out 

that one of the significant correlations that has occurred now is the 

increased dropout rates. The increased dropout rates in major cities 

in America have fueled this crime surge, that the idea we are just 

going to have more cops and think we are going to do something 

fundamental about this without dealing with the dropout rate, 

without figuring out these kids we are just dumping like a bucket 

on a front-end loader, you know, onto the street is, I think, very, 

very shortsighted. So hopefully—I do not want to—you have never 

heard me use the phrase ‘‘war on crime’’ or ‘‘war on drugs.’’ It is 

a daily battle every day. There is no such thing as a ‘‘war on 

crime.’’ 

But there are incremental things we can start to do right now 

to stem what is the reverse of a trend. The reverse of the trend for 

10 years was crime was going down. We had ourselves in a situation where things were getting a little better. And now it is starting to tick back up, and I think that is just like a little bit of—

you know, being at a dike where there is a little bit of a leak and 

a small hole. That hole is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger 

and bigger. And we are going to be right back to the flood we had 

in 1989 in terms of crime. 

So I want to submit three things to you all: a copy of the COPS 

bill that has been authorized, at least in terms of funding in the 

budget, not done yet but I will need help on it. And I may very well 

be asking you all to come up in uniforms again. You know, you all 

have an effect when you show up in uniforms. I mean, you really 

do. You really do. That is what happened last time, if you remember. You kept marching up here and going into offices, you know, 

people get the message. 

Secondly, I would like you to take a look at this comprehensive 

piece of legislation I have put together, have not introduced yet, 

and I genuinely am inviting constructive criticism of it and things 

you think should change. It is working off of a template that I 

think would work, but it may change. 

And, third, I am going to, especially with you, Mr. Mayor, if I 

may, as the President of the Conference of Mayors, lay out some 

matters that do not relate to the criminal justice system that I believe impact significantly on the criminal justice system, to see if 

we can get your input, because this time I think there has to be 

companion legislation introduced as well to re-engage the public in 

the debate about things we know, if we do, if we spend the money 

on, they work. And I think it is pretty important we change—my 

conservative friends love this word—the paradigm. We have got to 

46

change the paradigm here. You have got to invest money to save 

money. You have got to invest money to save money. 

If we can do something to keep your kids in Trenton in school 

through grade 12, the cost savings for the expenditure needed to 

do that is astronomical. It is a factor of 10 or 12. A kid drops out 

of school in ninth grade, the cost associated with that kid dropping 

out is gigantic. And so we have got to change the debate, like we 

did last time. We changed the debate so it was not liberal— conservative. It was practical, when we put all three of these things 

together. 

I think you have got to change the debate. Mr. Mayor, I am going 

to, with your permission, submit ideas not all of which are original 

to me by any stretch of the imagination, but ones that I think that 

maybe we can get a—when we get the mayors and the cops, we get 

the sheriffs and the county executives, we get the local people sitting down, again, and working out some basically grand compromise here as to how we should be spending what is not a lot 

of money relative to a several trillion dollar budget, but it is important to do it. 

Anyway, I cannot thank you all enough. I promised I would have 

you out by 12 and it is 1 minute after. I have breached my promise. 

I apologize. But I thank you very much. I know how busy you are, 

and unless any of you want to make a closing comment, I would—

yes, Professor. 

Mr. FOX. Professors always like to have a closing comment. I am 

glad that you mentioned that about other things we can do. You 

know, we have changed the way that we run our schools. We have 

gotten rid of all the extracurriculars. We do not want to pay the 

money. Also, we are so focused on test scores, some kids are dropping out because they just cannot—they are not going to make it 

to graduation, other kids because we have taken away from school 

all the things that gave them a sense of pride, satisfaction, and 

maybe even enjoyment of school, the music and drama. We need 

to put these things back into the curriculum because it will keep 

kids engaged. And I know that is not crime fighting, but in the 

long run it is. I will address that in my comments. 

Chairman BIDEN. I would ask you—I was just reminded by staff. 

The statements of Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein will be entered in the record as if read. They both offer their apologies. They 

are in other committees. I do not want you to think that lack of 

participation here is a lack of interest. There is a real interest here. 

I think there is a resurgence, Mr. Mayor. I think we are finally getting it again. I hope that is what it is. If it is not, we are in deep 

trouble. We are in deep trouble if it is not. 

I thank you all. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

47


40885.001
48


40885.002
49


40885.003
50


40885.004
51


40885.005
52


40885.006
53


40885.007
54


40885.008
55


40885.009
56


40885.010
57


40885.011
58


40885.012
59


40885.013
60


40885.014
61


40885.015
62


40885.016
63


40885.017
64


40885.018
65


40885.019
66


40885.020
67


40885.021
68


40885.022
69


40885.023
70


40885.024
71


40885.025
72


40885.026
73


40885.027
74


40885.028
75


40885.029
76


40885.030
77


40885.031
78


40885.032
79


40885.033
80


40885.034
81


40885.035
82


40885.036
83


40885.037
84


40885.038
85


40885.039
86


40885.040
87


40885.041
88


40885.042
89


40885.043
90


40885.044
91


40885.045
92


40885.046
93


40885.047
94


40885.048
95


40885.049
96


40885.050
97


40885.051
98


40885.052
99


40885.053
100


40885.054
101


40885.055
102


40885.056
103


40885.057
104


40885.058
105


40885.059
106


40885.060
107


40885.061
108


40885.062
109


40885.063
110


40885.064
111


40885.065
112


40885.066
113


40885.067
114


40885.068
115


40885.069
116


40885.070
117


40885.071
118


40885.072
119


40885.073
120


40885.074
121


40885.075
122


40885.076
123


40885.077
124


40885.078
125


40885.079
126


40885.080
127


40885.081
128


40885.082
129


40885.083
130


40885.084
131


40885.085
132


40885.086
133


40885.087
134


40885.088
135


40885.089
136


40885.090
137


40885.091
138


40885.092
139


40885.093
140


40885.094
141


40885.095
142


40885.096
143


40885.097
144


40885.098
145


40885.099
146


40885.100
147


40885.101
148


40885.102
149


40885.103
150


40885.104
151


40885.105
152


40885.106
153


40885.107
154


40885.108
155


40885.109
156


40885.110
157


40885.111
158


40885.112
159


40885.113
160


40885.114
161


40885.115
162


40885.116
163


40885.117
164


40885.118
165


40885.119
166


40885.120
167


40885.121
168


40885.122
169


40885.123
170


40885.124
171


40885.125
172


40885.126
173


40885.127
174


40885.128
175


40885.129
176


40885.130
177


40885.131
178


40885.132
179


40885.133
180


40885.134
181


40885.135
182


40885.136
183


40885.137
184


40885.138
185


40885.139
186


40885.140
187


40885.141
188


40885.142
189


40885.143
190


40885.144
191


40885.145
192


40885.146
193


40885.147
194


40885.148
195


40885.149
196


40885.150
197


40885.151
198


40885.152
199


40885.153
200


40885.154
201


40885.155
202


40885.156
203


40885.157
204


40885.158
205


40885.159
206


40885.160
207


40885.161
208


40885.162
209


40885.163
210


40885.164
211


40885.165
212


40885.166
213


40885.167
214


40885.168
215


40885.169
216


40885.170
217


40885.171
218


40885.172
219


40885.173
220


40885.174
221


40885.175
222


40885.176
223


40885.177
224


40885.178
225


40885.179
226


40885.180
227


40885.181
228


40885.182
229


40885.183
230


40885.184
231


40885.185
232


40885.186
233


40885.187
234


40885.188
235


40885.189
236


40885.190
237


40885.191
238


40885.192
239


40885.193
240


40885.194
241


40885.195
242


40885.196
243


40885.197
244


40885.198
245


40885.199
246


40885.200
247


40885.201
248


40885.202
249


40885.203
250


40885.204
251


40885.205
252


40885.206
253


40885.207
254


40885.208
255


40885.209
256

Æ


40885.210