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

41–527 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–347

SUPPORTING THE FRONT LINE IN THE FIGHT

AGAINST CRIME: RESTORING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 27, 2008

Serial No. J–110–75

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 

STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

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, Oklahoma 

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 .......................................................................................... 39

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 5

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 3

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

statement and letter ............................................................................................ 53

WITNESSES 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 8

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

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 12

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa .................................. 6

Horvath, Jeffrey, Chief of Police, Dover Police Department, Dover, Delaware .. 23

Ramsey, Charles H., Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 19

Wieners, Anthony F., Executive Board Member, National Association of Police 

Organizations, Alexandria, Virginia ................................................................... 25

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Council of Chief Defenders, Fern Laethem, Chair, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 38

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

of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement ............................................................ 41

Horvath, Jeffrey, Chief of Police, Dover Police Department, Dover, Delaware, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 49

National Association of Secondary School Principals, Gerald N. Tirozzi, Executive Director, New Jersey, letter ....................................................................... 73

National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Washington, D.C., Jo-Ann Wallace, President and CEO, letter 74

Ramsey, Charles H., Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 76

Wieners, Anthony F., Executive Board Member, National Association of Police 

Organizations, Alexandria, Virginia ................................................................... 81

(1)

SUPPORTING THE FRONT LINE IN THE FIGHT 

AGAINST CRIME: RESTORING FEDERAL 

FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008

U.S. SENATE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in room 

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

presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Feingold, Specter, and Coburn. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Chairman BIDEN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

For our witnesses, let me briefly explain the order here. I have 

a brief opening statement. I believe that the Ranking Member, 

Senator Specter does. I’m told that Senator Feinstein has another 

meeting in Intelligence, or another committee, and she’d like to 

make a brief statement, which we’ll be delighted. I’d invite my colleague, if he wishes to say anything at the outset. Then we’ll hear 

from the money men, our two colleagues who are on the Appropriations Committee. We’re delighted that they’re here. Then we’ll 

move on to the witnesses. 

Let me begin by pointing out to you all that a former staffer who 

ran the Criminal Justice Subcommittee for years for me, Scott 

Green, who is a referee in the NFL and done the Super Bowl and 

the rest, I’ve asked him to come back and throw the flag on you 

guys if you don’t give us the right testimony. I just want you to 

know why he’s here. Scott, it’s great to see you. Good to have you 

back in the room. 

At the inaugural hearing of this subcommittee, a panel of law enforcement experts testified that the Federal funding for State and 

local law enforcement, to state the obvious, makes our streets safer, 

has driven down crime rates, and secured our communities against 

terrorism. 

At that hearing, I outlined three developments that had me 

greatly concerned, though. First, was I was concerned the administration would continue to cut funding for essential State and local 

law enforcement agencies like COPS, Byrne/JAG grant programs. 

2

Second, I was concerned the FBI would not replace the agents redeployed from investigating crime to fighting terrorism. 

As you gentlemen know, the FBI has worked over the years, depending on the jurisdiction—sometimes up to 10 to 12 percent of 

the criminal cases in some jurisdictions there have been some overlap with the FBI, and quite frankly their plate has been full since 

9/11, and yet we haven’t really added to their total. There’s a real 

gap, in my view, that State and local law enforcement has had to 

fill in the absence of having to pull necessarily a significant portion 

of the FBI off of working with them. 

Third, I was concerned that the economic downturn that we’re 

beginning to experience would squeeze localities and force them to 

cut their law enforcement and prevention budgets. Unfortunately, 

all three of these concerns, in my view, have been borne out. Since 

the President took office, the President has cut annual funding the 

COPS and Byrne Justice Assistance grants by $1.7 billion. The 

President’s 2009 budget proposes to eliminate these grants entirely, which I think is a tragic mistake. 

The FBI agents reassigned away from fighting crime—well, 

they’re fighting crime, but they’re moved to focus on counter-terrorism and terrorism—one investigator report last year stated the 

number of criminal cases investigated by the FBI has dropped by 

34 percent. I would argue necessarily it’s not a consequence of 

dereliction on their part, I think necessarily because of their new 

responsibilities. 

Again, in our effort to protect Americans from terrorism, I don’t 

think we can leave them vulnerable to violent crime in the street. 

It doesn’t matter to somebody if they’re killed by a terrorist or 

they’re killed by a thug, they’re dead on our streets. We have to 

do both. That makes a commitment of resources that has frankly 

been lacking in recent years that I think needs to be reestablished. 

The economy has slowed down. The Washington Post reported 

this week that next year, 20 States expect their budgets to be in 

the red. As State governments are forced to tighten their belt because most have constitutional requirements to balance their budgets, they’re likely to cut back on critical law enforcement funding. 

Federal assistance, I think, in that circumstance is going to become 

even more important. 

I learned a long time ago from cops like those we’re going to hear 

from today that fighting crime takes constant attention and a 

steady commitment. I often say it’s like cutting grass. You can cut 

the grass this spring and it’s going to look great for a week. You 

let it grow for a week, then 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks out, it’s a 

jungle. That’s how crime is. 

I’ve never seen a time in American history where the population 

continues to grow, where there’s any rationale for spending less 

money on fighting crime in the following year than the year you 

spent before. God ain’t come up with a new brand of man. As 

Emerson said, ‘‘Society is like a wave. The wave moves on, but the 

particles remain the same.’’ The idea that you think you can beat 

crime one year and that will last for more than a year, I think, is 

a tragic mistake we’re now making. We have to keep the grass 

mowed. 

3

So, ladies and gentlemen, I think we’ve neglected State and local 

law enforcement for too long and I think we’ve got a looming problem on our hands. A recent poll published by the nonpartisan Third 

Way indicates that 94 percent of Americans view crime as a ‘‘very 

serious’’ or ‘‘fairly serious’’ problem. That’s considerably up. Moreover, 69 percent of Americans feel that violent crime is a bigger 

threat to them than the possibility of a terrorist threat. They’re 

pretty smart. 

The concern of these Americans are serious and real. Last year, 

1.4 million Americans were victims of violent crime, acknowledging 

that crime is down from what it was seven, eight, and 9 years ago, 

but still inexplicable high, in my view. So, last year, 1.4 million 

Americans were victims of violent crime, and more than 445,000 

were robbed and more than 17,000 were murdered. These numbers 

are simply too high and I think we need to renew our commitment 

and return to what we know that works. As Ronald Reagan used 

to say, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’ It wasn’t broke, and they tried 

to fix it and now we have a problem. 

We know the COPS program works. Last spring, The Brookings 

Institution published a study showing that the COPS program contributed to the drop in crime during the 1990s, and is one of the 

most cost-effective options in fighting crime. Specifically, the study 

found that for every $1.4 billion invested in the COPS program, society realized a benefit of between $6 and $12 billion. 

We know the programs funded by the Byrne Justice Assistance 

grants work. Police officers and sheriffs walking the beat tell me 

that these programs are vital to their ability to protect America 

from crime and terrorism. I am sure they have told every one of 

the Senators here on both sides of the aisle. 

Productive, law-abiding citizens who participate in Boys & Girls 

Clubs and other prevention programs that Byrne/JAG grants fund 

tell me that they could not have done what they’ve been able to do 

in reducing crime without these programs. Citizens who have overcome the debilitating disease of drug addiction and lead healthy, 

meaningful lives tell me that drug courts and treatment programs 

funded by Byrne/JAG literally saved their lives. 

We know what the solution is. We know how to make American 

communities safer. We just need to make the commitment to restore funding to these tried-and-true programs, and I intend to do 

everything I can to see that that is the case. 

Now, Senator Specter was here, but I believe he had to leave for 

another committee. He saw Chief Ramsey, so I’ll make sure that 

when he gets off the train at Amtrak he’s not arrested on the way 

to home. But Chief, welcome, by the way. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Biden appears as a submission for the record.] 

So I’m assuming he may be back, but I’m going to skip right now 

to Senator Feinstein, if she would like to make any comment. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to particularly commend you and thank you, for the Crime bill 

when I first came into the Senate, the COPS program and your 

4

really constant and consistent defense of law enforcement and the 

issues that crime bring upon our communities. I mean, you’ve been 

there all the way and I just want to say thank you for it. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’m a big fan of the Byrne/JAG program. I 

know my two colleagues here, Senator Harkin and Senator 

Chambliss, join me. As a matter of fact, Senator Chambliss and I 

spearheaded an authorization of $1.1 billion. The bill passed the 

Senate and we had 52 co-sponsors. Senator Harkin has been at the 

front of the line in advocating for this and the three of us, on the 

emergency supplemental bill, are going to try to get together in Appropriations—we’re all appropriators—and increase that amount in 

this Byrne/JAG column. 

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that crime is going up. It 

was interesting to me to read a figure by the International Chiefs 

of Police, some of whom are here today, that for every 2.5 percent 

of increase of violent crime, there are 31,000 more victims. I can 

speak for my State to say that the cuts in these law enforcement 

programs have eviscerated anti-drug efforts, anti-gang efforts, 

HIDA programs, all up and down the State. We’ve just simply got 

to fight against these cuts and do more about them, so we will try 

when that supplemental appropriations bill comes before the Senate. 

As you know, we passed a gang bill. After 10 years, Senator 

Hatch and I authored that Gang Prevention Act. It was difficult to 

pass in the Senate. We negotiated between both sides. It finally 

passed by unanimous consent, which is unusual, and is now in the 

House. I’m hoping that people here will help us get this Gang 

Abatement Act passed as well, because it’s a good bill. It’s evenly 

divided in funding between prevention, education, law enforcement, 

and prosecution. 

It actually sets some important criteria, I think, for the future: 

it sets aside $411 million for gang prevention and intervention; it 

establishes a new high-intensity gang activity area program, structured to facilitate cooperation between State, local and Federal law 

enforcement; it increases funding for the Justice Department, prosecutors, FBI agents, and others to increase investigations and prosecutions. 

Just this past week in Los Angeles, a section of the city had to 

be shut down because of gang warfare. Schools had to be locked up 

because of gang warfare. A 37-year-old innocent man holding a 

two-and-a-half-year-old toddler standing on a street corner was 

shot to death with 12 bullet holes because he got in between gang 

warfare. It goes on and on. 

So these grant programs for law enforcement are primo. They are 

No. 1. I just thank you so much, and I know Senator Coburn and 

the two distinguished people at the witness table, we will fight the 

good fight. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Coburn? 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator COBURN. I have a particular interest, even though I 

don’t agree with how we got there. The Byrne/JAG grants have 

been tremendously beneficial where I’ve seen them utilized. Although I have mixed feelings on whether or not that’s a Federal 

responsibility, if you look constitutionally you’re going to have to 

question that, but we’ve gotten into that arena. 

I would like to submit for the record the latest data through 2006. State budget surpluses were $54 billion. I noticed the State 

that tended to get the most in terms of the directed earmarks, 

rather than the competitive money that was for the Byrne/JAG 

grants, had a surplus of $10 billion. The second most had a surplus 

of $7 billion. This year we’re going to run the highest deficit in history. 

So there’s no question that this is effective money, and I will 

work hard to help us reappropriate some of that money. But I want 

us to caution, when we take it and add it to a supplemental, we’re 

not paying for it and we’re asking somebody else to pay for it. The 

real hard work has to be, how do we go and find out what’s not 

working and take the money from it rather than just charge this 

to our kids? I agree, the drug courts in Oklahoma have been a phenomenal life saver, rescuing people out. The assistance to many of 

our district attorneys in terms of their drug task force have been 

tremendously beneficial. But how we pay for it makes a difference. 

We only have 4 years left before things really hit the fan for this 

country in terms of the baby boomers. 2012 is the year. When you 

look at what is happening to the dollar today, you’re looking at the 

weakening of our economy, you look at the price of oil that hit $102 

today a barrel because we haven’t managed our affairs—it’s not 

necessarily a shortage of oil or an increase in demand. The price 

of oil has gone up proportionately higher for America than it has 

any other country and it’s because people don’t have the confidence 

in us to manage our financial means. 

So I appreciate our two colleagues here and their testimony, and 

their work to this. It’s important. But it’s got to be about some priorities, getting rid of some other things rather than just putting the 

money back up there and charging it to our kids. 

The final point I’d make, I would enter into the record that as 

we look at what happened last year, what happened was, the discretionary—the earmarks on the Byrne/JAG actually hardly declined at all in terms of the year before, but the block grants, the 

formula block grants, the ones where we have competitive bidding 

where different jurisdictions come in and say, here’s where we have 

a need, here’s why we’re going to do it. Well, they’re the ones that got gutted, from $660 million out of the Senate bill to $170 million. So if you’ve got earmarked whether 

you were competitive or not, you just got the favor. The people who 

are really competing for this money that may have had a greater 

need, they were just thrown under the bus. 

So there has to be a better balance between the earmarking of 

Byrne/JAG grants and the actual formulary grants. What we chose 

last year, is we stuck it to everybody that’s applying for a grant 

and we gave it to everybody that got earmarked, and that’s not the 

6

right way. It’s not fair for those that are dependent on this money 

in the country, and that’s something that we need to address as we 

look forward to this. I thank the Chairman for indulging me. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you, Senator. I’m happy to hear what 

you have to say. You and I are probably going to be having some 

debates about the security premium on oil. I don’t think it’s our 

economy, I think it’s the fact that we haven’t figured out how to 

settle the war in Iraq, and are worried about a war in Iran. That’s 

what most of the security premium is. 

But that’s another question, and we’re going to probably have 

some disagreement, but we’ll work together on the matter of the 

‘‘earmarks’’, as you’ve referred to them, versus competitive grants. 

Most of those earmarks have gone to places where they’ve demonstrated there’s a need and it’s worked, but that’s a different 

question. 

For now, we have two very important Senators here whom we 

rely on because they are on the Appropriations Committee, in addition to being men of significantly good judgment. Tom Harkin is 

my good friend and colleague, a member of Commerce, Justice, and 

Science Appropriations Subcommittee. He’s worked closely with me 

on the law enforcement funding issues for, literally, decades, with 

all of us, I would say. It’s good to have you here, Tom. 

And Saxby Chambliss, who, Senator Feinstein has pointed out, 

has been a real leader in the importance of law enforcement funding and husbanding how it’s done. I appreciate his leadership, and 

am delighted they’re both here. 

Gentlemen, the floor is yours. 

Mr. Chairman? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, first of all, 

echo what the Senator from California has said earlier, and to 

thank you, Senator Biden, for your many years of leadership in this 

area of fighting crime and drugs. You have been a true leader since 

I first came here in 1985. You preceded me by a few years on that 

one. But ever since I came here, we have looked to you for your 

leadership in providing the tools that our sheriffs and our police departments need to fight crime and drugs. I just, again, want to 

thank you for your whole lifetime of making sure that our law enforcement people—you see a lot of them sitting here—get the tools 

that they need. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Senator HARKIN. So we thank you very much for that. 

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was the 20th anniversary of the killing of Edward Byrne, a young, 22-year-old rookie police officer in 

New York. He was assigned to a drug case. He was assigned to protect a witness, was sitting in his car in the early morning hours 

and a drugger came up and shot him several times in the head and 

killed him instantly. The killing was obviously an attempt to intimidate witnesses. This heinous crime then led to the enactment 

of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 

Assistance Program. 

7

I think it was recognized at that time, I think, Senator, that 

while we have looked to the states mostly for fighting crime and 

drugs, that in many cases these cross jurisdictional lines and therefore this would be an appropriate place for the Federal Government 

to come in and to assist in these efforts. That is exactly what the 

Byrne program did. It recognized it was not just a local problem. 

In fact, in all these years up until now, the Edward Byrne grant 

program is the only—the only source of Federal funding for multijurisdictional law enforcement efforts, the only source that we have 

to do that, and it has done great things. 

So I remember the history of this. In 1994, I led an effort, again 

with others, to restore the funding that was cut. I’m just going to 

be very frank here: it was cut by the Clinton administration. A 

number of us—and you, Senator Biden—were leading the effort at 

that time to get this money back in. We did, and we kept it in and 

we kept growing the Edward Byrne grant program. 

Well, what I’m here today to do is sound the alarm of what’s happened this year. You touched on it, Senator Coburn. That is what 

has happened to the funding. Again, just in recent history, in 2002 

it was $900 million. It was cut down to $520 million in 2007, and 

now $170 million. That’s a two-thirds cut in one year. In one year. 

Again, the Senate had $660 million for this year and the House 

had $600 million. But as you know, the President vetoed the bill, 

wanted to cut to $22 billion, so this all got wrapped up in that and 

that’s why we wound up with $170 million. As you pointed out, Mr. 

Chairman, the President’s budget for next year, again, zeroes out 

the Byrne program. 

Now, we’ll address that later on in terms of 2009. What I wanted 

to take your time on today is to emphasize the need that when we 

have our supplemental up in another month and a half, or whatever it is, 2 months from now, we’ve got to put that money in there 

to restore the 2008 money. I’m sure all of you have probably talked 

to your local law enforcement people in your States. What I’ve 

heard, not only from my State but from other States, too, is that 

if this money is not restored—they’re now kind of running on 

fumes, so to speak. 

They’ve got some money left over from last year, some local jurisdictions have picked up and put money in there, but quite frankly, 

almost everyone I’ve talked to said if they don’t have some money 

by July/August, they’ve got to start letting people go. They just 

won’t have the money, period. 

And as has been said to me many times, in law enforcement, 

once you eliminate a program it’s hard to start it up again. It’s 

hard to hire back trained and experienced people if you’ve gone a 

whole year. It’s hard to startup a wire tap. You’ve got a wire tap 

going, you have to end it. It’s hard to start it up again. It’s hard 

to reconnect with witnesses who, in this kind of an underworld, 

tend to drift around and move on, so they’ve gone to other States 

and you lose track of them. It’s hard to recreate a whole year of 

maybe lost investigations. 

Again, keeping in mind that the Byrne program is the only one, 

the only Federal program, that funds these multijurisdictional efforts not only within a State, but across State lines. Again, I’ve emphasized that. But as you pointed out, Senator, there are other 

8

things, like the drug courts, that have been very successful in your 

State, my State, and I’m sure others. 

Gang prevention programs that Senator Feinstein talked about. 

Reentry programs. In-school programs where they’ve gone and sent 

officers and people in to schools to talk to kids about drug prevention programs. So it sort of really covers that whole waterfront. 

I’ve emphasized mostly drugs because the scourge of methamphetamine and stuff that’s gone around this country, if it 

weren’t for the Byrne grant program we would not have been nearly as successful as we have been in finding the sources of those 

drugs and in arresting and imprisoning so many people involved, 

especially in the methamphetamine area. 

Just, if I might, Mr. Chairman, in closing, say in Iowa what his 

would mean if we don’t get the money in the 2008 supplemental, 

it means that we would have to eliminate 15 of 21 multijurisdictional drug task forces. Fifteen of 21. We would lose 39 of 59 

personnel assigned and working in this area. Again, I point out 

that 85 percent of the drug cases in Iowa have come from these 

task forces. Now, again, we have the supplemental. I hesitate to 

point this out, but I feel compelled to do so. We have already spent 

$6 billion in security and law enforcement in Iraq. Six billion. All 

we’re asking for is $490 million for some law enforcement and security in going after the druggers in this country. 

So again, I thank you all, all of you, Senator Coburn, Senator 

Biden, Senator Feinstein, who had to leave, all of you for your leadership in this area. This is one thing I hope where we can work 

across party lines and regional lines to get this money back in a 

supplemental. It’s just vital—vital—that we get it in the supplemental appropriations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Chambliss? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let 

me echo what’s been said relative to your recognition of law enforcement issues. You are a champion for law enforcement. It’s 

been a pleasure to work with you, not just on this issue, but on 

other issues, too. You have made America a better place. So, 

thanks for your great leadership. 

Senator Feinstein, I just can’t say enough about her. She’s been 

such a great partner in working on this particular issue over the 

last couple of years. She, likewise, is a champion for law enforcement, not just in her State, but for every State in the country, and 

knows and understands the issues, is very articulate on the issues, 

and understands why we need the funding that we’re asking for 

here, as well as otherwise. 

To my good friend, Senator Coburn, he is not only my colleague, 

he’s a very close personal friend. Philosophically, we’re on the same 

page most of the time. Senator Coburn is one guy that I really appreciate because of his recognition of the fact that this is a needed 

program, and this is one of those programs that we’ve got to find 

the funding for. He comes from a rural State, as do I. This is a proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:16 Apr 17, 2008 Jkt 042527 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\41527.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9

gram that has worked very well. I would just say that I agree with 

you in the sense that there are some situations where we tend to 

act as Big Brother, or Uncle Sam, by funding programs that maybe 

States ought to take care of. 

But in this case, as I will mention here in a minute, we’ve had 

experience across State lines with the State of Alabama, working 

on a specific program. So, interstate commerce is involved on a regular basis and I do think if it were not for this Byrne/JAG program, and for Federal participation in funding these grant programs around the country, that we simply wouldn’t have had the 

success that we’ve had. 

I want to focus on the Byrne/JAG program and I want to talk 

about this program, Mr. Chairman, for two main reasons. First, because I strongly advocated for the program since arriving in the 

Senate. Second, because it is one of the most critical programs that 

received one of the most devastating cuts in the appropriation bill. 

The Byrne/JAG program is the primary provider of Federal 

criminal justice funding to State and local jurisdictions, and the 

funding supports all components of the criminal justice system, 

from multi-jurisdictional drug and gang task forces, to community 

crime prevention programs, to substance abuse programs, prosecution initiatives, domestic violence programs, and information-sharing initiatives. 

I will tell you that our law enforcement officials—our sheriffs, 

our prosecutors, our drug court professionals, and many other public servants in the law enforcement community rely on this funding 

to make our communities safer. The results they get with the 

Byrne/JAG funding are tangible and real. In my home State of 

Georgia, the Byrne/JAG funding program has been essential to 

fighting crime, drugs, and gangs across the State. 

I want to highlight a few successes in Georgia from the Byrne/

JAG program during the 2006–2007 grant period. Multi-jurisdictional task forces were able to make 5,600 drug arrests and seize 

almost $50 million in drugs. Twenty-five hundred law enforcement 

officers were trained in more than 100 different classes offered by 

the Georgia Public Safety Training Center through its drug enforcement training program. 

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s State Drug Task Force led 

a cooperative investigation resulting with an interstate drug enforcement effort with the State of Alabama that received national 

recognition. The Georgia Information-Sharing and Analysis Center 

is Georgia’s Homeland Security State-level fusion intelligence center. The center expanded its Southern Shield initiative and widened the focus for intelligence integration in the region by coordinating with 12 other States within the southeast on intelligence 

collection and dissemination. Nine drug court programs were supported, as was a mental health court diversion program. 

During fiscal year 2007 when the national funding level was at 

$520 million, the State of Georgia received $12.4 million in Byrne/

JAG funding. If we cannot restore the funding that was cut in the 

2008 omnibus, Georgia is projected to receive $4.6 million. This difference of $8 million will make a huge difference in my State. 

Sheriff John Cary Bitick from Monroe County, Georgia was recently in Washington to urge that Congress find a way to restore 

10

this cut in funding. Sheriff Bitick is the former president of the National Sheriffs Association and has been very active on and off the 

Hill over the years. 

When we met, he told me that without restoration of these funds, 

60 percent of the drug task forces in Georgia would disappear. 

These cuts are the scope that the drug task forces that rely on 

them cannot bring the gap until we complete the fiscal 2009 appropriations process. 

I am afraid that our rural areas will be most affected. My hometown is in a rural part of Georgia, down in the very southwest part 

of the State, so I know first-hand the challenges that small-town 

police chiefs and sheriffs face from a funding perspective. One great 

thing about the Byrne/JAG program is that the money is allocated 

so that 40 percent of the funding is distributed to local governments. 

In many cases, grants from the Byrne/JAG program are the only 

source of Federal funding for sheriffs and police in smaller communities. Immediate action is needed. I am pleased to join with so 

many of my colleagues to try to do just that in the supplemental 

appropriation bill that Congress is expected to take up this spring. 

I’m sure each and every member of this Senate has heard from 

a law enforcement official in their State about the importance of 

the Byrne/JAG program to helping them fight methamphetamine 

and other drug trafficking, as well as gang violence and other 

crime. I think this program enjoys such widespread bipartisan support here in the Senate because we know of the good results it produces. We know that for so many localities, this is where the rubber hits the road in terms of ability to tackle the critical tasks they 

face. Particularly in light of the new security environment in which 

we live in the post-9/11 world, as we call on State and local law 

enforcement to do more, we have to provide them with the resources they need to carry out their duties. 

I thank the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to be here 

and to put this in the record, this critical information regarding the 

Byrne/JAG program in my State. I look forward to working with 

this Committee as we move forward with Senator Harkin and others to make sure that our law enforcement continue to have the 

tools they need to fight crime at the local level. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you for your testimony, gentlemen. I 

know you are very busy. I just would say, before I yield for 2 minutes to my friend, or whatever he needs—my friend from Wisconsin, who is managing a bill on the floor, he may want to make 

a statement, if you could wait just a couple minutes. 

As we all know, we ended up with the omnibus bill, but you 

guys, out of your subcommittee, for the bill that we hoped had 

passed the Senate, $587 million for the COPS program as well. I 

know we’re talking about Byrne grants today, but I hope I get a 

chance to talk to you fellows about the COPS program, as it received significant support in the Senate the last time out. But at 

any rate, I know you’re busy. 

Senator Feingold? 

11

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

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue over the years. And thank you for chairing this 

important hearing. I, too, want to thank Senators Harkin and 

Chambliss for their hard work on this. This is as close to a consensus issue as you can find. 

I am also deeply concerned about the current state of Federal 

funding for grants that aid State and local law enforcement agencies, in particular the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and the 

COPS grants. The fiscal year 2008 funding levels were far too low, 

and for fiscal year 2009 the President’s budget proposal once again 

proposes to slash funding for these programs. 

This continues to be the number-one issue that I hear about from 

police officers, prosecutors, and other law enforcement officials in 

Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I know because I have held 30 town 

meetings already this year, and we have the record amount of snow 

in the history of the State of Wisconsin. We’ve had 100 inches of 

snow. These police officers and sheriffs come in whatever the 

weather, whatever the conditions, to tell me how worried they are 

about Byrne grants. It is the most consistent message that I’m 

hearing throughout the entire State of Wisconsin. They desperately 

need this Federal funding. 

If you think about the context in which these brave men and 

women are trying to keep our communities safe, the violent crime 

rate has been rising, particularly in Milwaukee. State and local 

agencies are being expected to do more and more as new Homeland 

Security responsibilities continue to crop up and other resources 

like the National Guard, on which these agencies used to be able 

to rely, are no longer available, many times, because of the war in 

Iraq. In the midst of this, Federal funding has been going down. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have to help. I was deeply disappointed in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for Byrne grants, 

which was just $170 million. This is a sliver of the authorized 

amount, which is more than $1 billion annually, and also a dramatic cut from the $520 million that Congress appropriated to 

Byrne grants in fiscal year 2007. 

In Wisconsin alone, this results in a $4.1 million reduction in 

Federal funds to State and local law enforcement between 2007 

and 2008. Then on the heels of that, the President’s new budget 

proposal eliminates funding for both Byrne grants and COPS 

grants, replacing them with new, woefully underfunded proposals. 

So the hearing is important and I look forward to working with 

you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, for understanding that I am going to ask to put my full statement in the 

record. I regret I can’t stay for all the testimony. 

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

record. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Senator, do you have any questions for our colleagues? 

12

Senator COBURN. I just wanted to emphasize, I understand the 

cross-jurisdictional area and I am fully supportive of that. The drug 

task forces have been phenomenal. The point that I think you, Senator Harkin, made which we should not lose, is the unwinding of 

these drug task forces, you won’t put back together for years because of the experience, the knowledge, the contacts, the informants, and everything else. 

So, the timeliness of what you’re doing, I agree with. I think 

we’ve got to get it done and we’ve got to get it done to a certain 

extent. I think we also have to make sure we get the authorization 

done, since it hadn’t been authorized since 2005. So we’re appropriating on something that has no authorization, which we do to 

the tune of $280 billion a year right now and we ought to be authorizing it. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I would expect, Mr. Chairman, that Senator 

Feinstein and I will have our amendment in the budget process 

back on the floor in a couple of weeks. 

Chairman BIDEN. I look forward to that. As I told my staff, the 

bad news is for them, I’m back from Iowa, Tom, so I’m going to be 

paying a whole heck of a lot of attention to this. 

At any rate, thank you gentlemen for coming over. We appreciate 

your support very, very much, and your time. Thank you. 

Our next panel would be Mark Epley, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General. He’s testified for the Department on the 

crime hearing last year. It’s good to have you back, Mark. Thank 

you very much. 

As you can see, you have no opposition here. Everybody is going 

to love the fact you’re eliminating Byrne grants. So I just want you 

to know, we’ll provide you with Capitol Hill police protection out 

of the room, but not down the hall. So you’re on your own, Jack. 

Anyway, all kidding aside, welcome, Mark. We’re happy to have 

you here. The floor is yours. 

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

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn. 

As you mentioned, I came representing the Department last May 

and engaged in a dialog with this distinguished panel about the 

right role of the Federal Government in assisting State and local 

law enforcement with violent crime. I’m very glad to be back to 

continue this dialog, particularly in light of new crime statistics 

and the President’s 2009 budget request. 

I’ll just make two points. First, when we look at the crime statistics we see that there are a number of cities struggling with violent 

crime, but the data do not reveal nationwide trends or any particular case. 

The second point, is the Department’s approach to strengthen 

partnerships with law enforcement, State and local law enforcement, and to target resources is well suited to the crime challenges 

that we see. 

First, as to crime statistics, the 2007 preliminary Uniform Crime 

Report from the FBI shows that the first half of 2007, violent crime 

went down 1.8 percent when compared to the preceding year. It’s 

13

just a preliminary report, however, and it could change by the time 

the final comes. There are still struggling cities that are represented in the 2007 report, but it is nonetheless encouraging. But 

to get the best site view of the state of violent crime in America, 

you need to go to the final reports. 

Now, for some historical context. In 1992, the FBI measured sort 

of the all-time high in the rate of violent crime. Violent crime has 

been decreasing since then every year through 2004. In 2005, it 

went up 1.3 percent. In 2006, almost another percent. In our effort 

to understand what was going on, what caused this uptick, we 

looked closely at the numbers. We talked to the field, to academics. 

What we saw is that different sized cities were differently affected, different regions were differently affected. For example, 

when you look at 2005 and 2006 together, just 16 cities are responsible for 50 percent of the increase in violent crime that was reported in 2005 and 2006. I’m happy to report that all those cities 

that applied for Department of Justice funds for a new grant program to support violent crime task forces received funding. 

Which brings me to my second point, that the Department’s approach to strengthen and grow partnerships with State and local 

law enforcement, to target resources to communities to solve their 

particular problems, is best suited to the kind of crime challenges 

we’re seeing. 

We’ve done that through the FBI Safe Streets task forces. We’ve 

done that through the ATF’s Violent Crime Impact Teams, of which 

there are 30 around the country. We’ve done that through the U.S. 

Marshal’s Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces, working with State 

and locals, the FALCON program. We’ve done that with Project 

Safe Neighborhoods. Adding prosecutors, giving small grants to 

local law enforcement, working together, we have doubled the number of gun prosecutions in the last 7 years when compared to the 

preceding 7 years. 

We appreciate, though, that partnership does take resources. 

One of the ways that we support our partners is thorough equitable 

sharing. In this last year, the Department returned $410 million to 

our State and local partners. These are law enforcement agencies 

with whom we’ve done joint operations and the proceeds, the assets, and the cash seized, we pushed that back, a large measure 

of that back to our partners. But the other way that we support 

partnerships is through grants. 

As I mentioned, there’s a new program that the Department financed last year. We invested $75 million in 106 communities 

around the country, investing in violent crime task forces. Those 

resources allow law enforcement to target, using intelligence-led 

policing, resources to the specific problem that that community has. 

So, in short, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Department’s 

budget this year has struck the right balance between investing in 

our core mission, defending against the threat of terrorism, and investing in our State and local partners in the most value-added 

way. 

Thanks again for the opportunity to be here. 

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

for the record.] 

14

Chairman BIDEN. Well, thank you. I just have a couple brief comments and I’ll yield to my colleague. 

You know, when we talk about crime I always find it fascinating. 

I’ve had this debate now for the last 30-some years. By the way, 

your returning to the local governments the money you’re talking 

about is required by law, a law that I wrote about 18 years ago. 

The Federal Government didn’t want to participate in it in the 

past. So it’s not like it’s largesse, you had no option, No. 1. 

But No. 2, the thing that fascinates me, and I wonder if you 

could comment on it, I thought our job was, State and local, to continue to reduce crime. The fact that crime may have now ticked up 

or gone down, we can argue about that. We’re talking about, we 

still have, as of the statistics of 2006, 1,417,745 violent crimes committed in the United States of America. Now, granted, that’s down 

from a high of 1994, when the Biden crime bill passed, 1,857,760 

crimes, but it’s still 1,417,745. 

Now if we could, just for the sake of discussion, by expending additional money bring that down to 1,300,000, you’d still have a 

heck of a lot of crime but you’ve taken over 117,000 people out of 

the cycle of crime and being victimized. We had, this year, the total 

number of murders in the United States still at 17,034. We talk 

about that like it’s good, like somehow we’ve met our objective. We 

only have 17,034 murders. 

So I guess what I’m trying to say to you is, we can argue—and 

we will in exchanges of papers here—about whether crime is 

trending up or down, where it is, what the causes of it are, et 

cetera. But the bottom line is, you still have the last full report. 

You have 1,417,745 violent crimes, 17,034 murders, 447,403 robberies. That’s the United States of America, making us one of the 

most dangerous countries in the world. I mean, I find that—we accept it as that’s good, we’ve met our goal, we only have 1.4 million 

violent crimes. 

The last point I’ll make, and stop. I’m happy to welcome any 

comments you’d make, and I will not respond in the interest of 

time here. But the other thing is, I know probably a place where 

my friend Senator Coburn and I probably disagree is the role of the 

Federal Government. Sixty percent of all the violent crime in 

America is directly related to drug trafficking. I don’t know, other 

than meth labs, and even there it doesn’t exist—I don’t know any 

place where it’s a State responsibility. 

If I’m not mistaken, all those drugs come across the border. Almost all of them. Some are made here. Precursors come across the 

border. Not all of them. Not all of them. Heroin comes across the 

border. The bulk of the cocaine comes across the border. I kind of 

thought that was a Federal responsibility. What can the State of 

Iowa or the State of Oklahoma do about the border? What can the 

State of Delaware do about the border? 

So I just want to make the generic point, this notion of devolution of government and Federal responsibility, Federal responsibility seems to me to implicate an awful lot of State problems. So, 

for example, I’ll bet you the States will make a deal. If we could 

just stop all the—if we could significantly improve the Federal portion of the deal, and that is keeping heroin and cocaine, just those 

two, out of the country, which is a Federal responsibility, I’ll bet 

15

you they’d say, OK, we don’t need any help. We don’t want any of 

your help. You keep all the heroin out, you keep all the cocaine out, 

I don’t need your help at all. 

So Federal failure sets up State problems, so that’s why I argue 

that there is a role and responsibility for the Federal Government 

to be directly impacting on local law enforcement. But again, we 

will go into this argument more, but I just wanted to make those 

two generic points. I’d invite any comment you have. You don’t 

have to. I’d invite any comment and I would yield to my colleague. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a chance to respond. 

You suggested that there is a difference of opinion, perhaps, over 

the rates of crime. Honestly, I don’t know that we’re that far apart. 

I think we both agree that there are a number of communities that 

are facing serious violent crime challenges. My sole point in that 

regard was that we don’t perceive a nationwide trend. It may be 

that one point of disagreement, or at least a point of dialog that 

would be of great profit to continue, and that is, what is the best 

approach to violent crime. 

I do think, because you had indicated sort of the inextricably 

linked Federal, State, and local roles on things like drug control, 

crime control that’s drug-related, related to illegal firearms. We 

can’t do crime control without meaningful partnerships, Federal, 

State, local. I want to suggest that the Department’s approach, represented by the President’s 2009 budget, includes, for example, 

$200 million for violent crime task forces. 

Mr. Harkin mentioned that the JAG Byrne is the only source of 

multi-jurisdictional task force funds, and he’s correct. If Congress 

were to authorize and fund the President’s request for violent 

crime task forces, that $200 million could be speeded to communities that have particular challenges and would go to address 

their customized solution, if you will. 

Last year in the 2007 appropriations bill there was a good deal 

of money invested in the JAG Byrne program, and I know that 

State and local law enforcement made great use of it. As it happens, only $103 million ultimately ended up to support drug task 

forces. The balance went to other activities, drug courts and other 

very, very worthwhile activities. But even there, State administrating agencies, they had to make difficult choices about how to 

best apportion that money. So, I would just suggest that there’s a 

great profit in continuing this dialogue about the best way to aid 

our State and local partners. 

Chairman BIDEN. The one thing I found after thousands of hours 

of hearings in the last 35 years, if there’s going to be a crime committed in an intersection and there’s three cops on three of the four 

corners, the crime will be committed where the cop is not. If anyone suggests to me that there’s any evidence that by putting another 50,000 cops on the street we’re not going to further reduce 

crime—forget trends, just further reduce crime in absolute numbers—I think defies what we have learned over the last 20 years. 

My generic point is, $200 million in Byrne grants, which is what 

you referenced, how they made good use of it, the request was for 

$570 million. If $200 million served well, $570 million would serve 

it better, unless you’re arguing that there’s not enough crime to go 

16

around. My generic point is, there’s a whole lot of crime to go 

around. 

Anyway, let me yield to my colleague from Oklahoma. Senator? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple of questions. What was the balance that the Justice 

Department carried over at the end of last year? 

Mr. EPLEY. I don’t know. 

Senator COBURN. I do. It’s $2.87 billion. For those who are not 

aware, the Justice Department is the only agency of the Federal 

Government that gets to keep their unobligated balances, a large 

percentage of them. No other branch agency is afforded that. It just 

comes to mind that we could probably solve the Byrne/JAG problem without doing a supplemental. We could probably do it very 

quickly with an authorization bill that we take a portion of the 

$2.87 billion in unobligated balances and immediately put $400 

million into the Byrne/JAG grants. 

We don’t have to have a supplemental appropriation, all we have 

to have is an authority to do that and a direction to tell the agencies to do that. So, that’s an important thing to note. We know that 

because the Federal Financial Management Oversight Committee 

discovered this in the last 2 years, fifty-some hearings on waste, 

fraud and abuse in the Federal Government. 

The administration’s recommendation is to zero out Byrne/JAG 

grants. Why? You’d have to be up here defending it. You may not 

agree with that, but you have to defend it. So, let’s hear you defend 

it. 

Mr. EPLEY. The approach that the Department has taken, and is 

represented by the 2009 budget request, is to target resources 

where they’re most needed. So, for example, in the context of those 

16 cities that in 2005 and 2006 drove half of the violent crime increase reported in those 2 years, all the cities that applied for task 

force grants received funding. 

Our strategy is to leverage our partnership with Federal resources, whether it be through Project Safe Neighborhoods, taking 

the worst of the worst offenders, processing them through the Federal system, including serving time in BOP, all of which costs Federal resources but relieves that community of a troublemaker, a 

violent person, and takes the State correctional costs away as well. 

We’re looking for opportunities to leverage what we have, leverage our collective resources in the most effective way, and to target 

spending where it came make the biggest value added difference. 

The JAG program has been used and made good effect, but it’s a 

formula program that every State, whether it has a particular 

present need, present crime problem or not, or community, gets a 

piece of this money. 

Now, Federal resources, even at its heyday, the greatest amount 

of Federal investment in State and local law enforcement grants 

only amounted to be about 4.5 percent of all State and local spending on police protection. So when our share is relatively small, our 

view is that we need to invest it in the most value-added way. 

Senator COBURN. Let me take issue with that for a minute. How 

many drug task forces did we have before we had Byrne/JAG 

grants? Not a lot. 

Mr. EPLEY. No. 

17

Senator COBURN. And 80 percent of them are going to go away. 

Mr. EPLEY. It’s a very important—yes. 

Senator COBURN. Eighty percent of the drug task forces in this 

country are going to go away under the President’s budget. 

Now, the question would then come, what’s going to happen to 

crime, and the rate of crime, and serious crime, which we know a 

lot is related to drugs anyway, either in the trafficking or in the 

addicted personalities associated with that? What’s going to happen? Are you all not penny wise and pound foolish on this to think 

that we could reduce the drug task forces in this country 80 percent and think that there’s not going to be a large pop-up in the 

consequential action that we’re not interdicting all these people? 

Mr. EPLEY. Senator Coburn, the President’s 2009 budget request 

asked for $200 million for task forces, to support violent crime task 

forces. 

Senator COBURN. Why take something away that’s working? Why 

are we taking away something that’s working effectively? We have 

DAs, we have sheriffs’ departments, we have U.S. Marshals, we 

have the FBI. We have them all working together in interdicting 

this. So, sure, you’ve got another program which is not authorized 

and you’ve got $200 million, and we’ve had $600, or $520 million 

in average in the last four or 5 years, so you’re going to reduce it 

60 to 65 percent and then redirect it with another bureaucracy? 

We’ve got a bureaucracy already. We’ve got one that we have to 

supply the answers to and the results to. 

The fact is, is the drug task forces are one of the keys to keeping 

some of our communities safe because so much of the other crime 

is surrounded around drugs. So to me, I don’t understand. I know 

you have a tough job. You were sent up here to defend it. The point 

is, I think it’s indefensible because I think that’s a legitimate Federal role to aid in that because it’s across State lines, and very 

often multiple States. In Oklahoma, sometimes it’s three and four 

States at one time that are working together. So, I just would comment for the record. 

The other thing that I would put in, is one of the things Congress 

doesn’t do is prioritize the funding well. That may be part of what 

your all’s evaluation is. For example, Hawaii ranks fourth in funding, yet 41st in methamphetamine. But they get the fourth highest 

amount of money on methamphetamine, but they’re 41st in terms 

of problems with methamphetamine. 

So, that tells you that we’re not doing a good job and that’s one 

of the things we ought to fix. I’ve made a career of trying to fix priorities within the Senate. I don’t know how successful I’m being, 

but I’m sure being an irritant to a lot of my colleagues as I try to 

continue to do that. 

I thank you for your testimony. I think it’s hard to come up here 

and defend this position. Matter of fact, I don’t think it’s defensible 

in terms of what’s going to happen if we really do gut this program. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to have a frank discussion with 

Senator Feinstein, and Senator Chambliss, and Senator Harkin, 

because I think we can do this more quickly than with the supplemental. 

Chairman BIDEN. I think you make a very good point, Senator 

I’m anxious to do that and I will call just such a gathering. 

18

Well, do you have any other comments you’d like to make? 

Mr. EPLEY. Just one note for the record, Senator Coburn. 

Chairman BIDEN. Sure. Please. 

Mr. EPLEY. You mentioned a pretty significant 10-figure amount 

of unobligated balances. I’m not sure what all is made up in that. 

If it includes, for example, the Crime Victims Fund, that—

Senator COBURN. You all, in the last budget, decided you were 

going to take that and spend that money, even though it’s—the administration has decided that they would take the money that’s designed for crime victims and use it as part of your budget, which 

I adamantly object to. But you all did it anyway. 

Mr. EPLEY. Respectfully, both Congress and the administration, 

in assembling the budget request and appropriations, used that as 

an offset for spending. But leave that aside, I’m going to look at 

that. I think that those unobligated funds include things like witness fees, asset forfeiture funds, working capital funds, certain 

things that are part of our working budget. 

Senator COBURN. And the $100 million a year over which the 

Justice Department gets full discretion under how they want to 

spend it. It’s not overseen by the Congress that you all get. Under 

a special case, the Justice Department gets that. No other agency 

gets it. So I’m not against you having it, but I am against holding $2.87 

billion when we’re struggling with task forces, when it’s going to 

make a big difference on school children, young people, college students in this country who are multiply attacked with the enticement to become addicted to drugs. And it’s not just the crime, it’s 

the total cost to our society that’s associated with it. 

Mr. EPLEY. Senator Coburn, we will go back and look at that. I 

just want to suggest that those funds support our core justice mission. It’s not as if it’s a bank account that we’re keeping for a rainy 

day, those support current and ongoing operations. 

Senator COBURN. I understand. But I’ll be happy to give you the 

continuing load of unobligated balances, which have been in excess 

of $2 billion now for seven or 8 years. If we’ve got $2 billion sitting 

there floating through it, then we can find $400 million to go for 

the JAG grants. 

Chairman BIDEN. As they used to say in those old ‘‘Smokey and 

the Bandit’’ movies, what we got here is we got ourselves a communications problem. And what we got here is, you all got a problem, 

because when Senator Coburn and I, who don’t often agree on a lot 

of things, agree, you all have got a problem. So I’d go back and I 

quickly find out where that $2.6 billion is, how much you need it, 

how much relates to the Crime Victims Fund. A guy named Thurmond and I fought for 7 years to get that Crime Victims Fund set 

up. You’re right, Congress may have signed on with the administration on using that as part of the budget, but I think that’s going 

to change pretty quick. 

Anyway, it’s delightful to have you here. I’m sure you’ve enjoyed 

it. 

[Laughter.] 

Like I said, would any person wearing a uniform volunteer to escort the gentleman out? That’s a joke, by the way. I wanted to get 

a little bit of humor here. But thank you for doing your job, Mark. 

19

You’re here and I appreciate your testimony. I truly appreciate you 

coming up. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIDEN. It’s not an easy position to defend. Thank you 

very, very much. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thanks. 

Chairman BIDEN. Now, our next panel is the Commissioner from 

a suburb of Wilmington, Delaware, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We 

have the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Commissioner, Charles H. 

Ramsey. Prior to this appointment in Philadelphia, Commissioner 

Ramsey was the longest serving chief of the Metropolitan Police 

Department here in the District of Columbia. He’s well known to 

many of us on this committee and in this Congress, and he was 

Commissioner of the Independent Commission on Security Forces 

on Iraq. We appreciate that, in my role in the Foreign Relations 

Committee. Chief, we appreciate you taking the time. 

From Delaware, we have the Chief of Police in the city of Dover. 

Chief Horvath also serves on the board of directors of the Delaware 

Police Chiefs Council, and is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Testifying on behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations is Anthony Wieners—pronounced 

‘‘Weiner’’, as my staff points out here. I apologize if I mispronounce. 

You can call me ‘‘Bidden’’ if you like. Officer Wieners is a member 

of NAPO’s executive board and an active officer, and he is also 

president of the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time here today. We’re 

anxious to hear your testimony. Why don’t we proceed in the order 

in which you were introduced? 

Commissioner? 

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

Commissioner RAMSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to 

thank you for all the support you’ve given law enforcement over the 

years. We have had a chance to work together on quite a few issues 

and you’re always there whenever issues of concern come up with 

the law enforcement community, and I want to thank you for that, 

and all members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this very important 

topic. 

My name is Charles H. Ramsey, and I’m currently the Commissioner of Police for the city of Philadelphia. Like many American 

cities, the city of Philadelphia has been struggling in recent years 

with an increase in many types of violent crime. We’ve had to endure these troubles at a time of declining support from the Federal 

Government. 

As you are all well aware, funding for the Byrne Justice program 

has been cut almost in half over the past 2 years, and funding for 

the COPS program has been nearly eliminated. Other funding 

sources have also been reduced dramatically, and I’m here to talk 

to you about the challenges we face and the ways that the Federal 

Government can help. 

20

With additional funds, we, like many other major city police departments, could increase the number of police officers on the 

street, enhance our technological capabilities, improve the training 

of our officers on the best practices of modern policing and rehabilitate our inadequate facilities. 

My testimony reflects what Philadelphia is experiencing and 

doing about violent crime, however, Philadelphia’s experience is reflective of what other major cities are experiencing across this 

country. 

The Police Executive Research Form, or PERF, surveyed 56 jurisdiction in 2005 and 2006 and reported that many cities saw homicides increase 20 percent or more. The results of 2007 were more 

promising in some cities, while others are still seeing increases in 

violence. 

On the day of his inauguration, Mayor Michael Nutter asked me 

to develop a crime-fighting strategy, which he and I delivered to 

the city on January 30th. The focus of the crime-fighting strategy 

is a return to the basics of policing, combining what works from 

traditional crime fighting with the best of community policing. It 

is a bold, aggressive plan for a long-term, sustainable reduction of 

violent crime in Philadelphia. 

The strategy, which is already being implemented, has several 

components, including the following strategies: putting more cops 

back on the street; focus on the toughest neighborhoods—we found 

that 65 percent of our violent crime is concentrated in 9 of our 23 

patrol districts—expand the use of technology that works in our 

fight against crime. 

The crime-fighting strategy is intended to achieve Mayor Nutter’s 

goal of reducing homicides by 30 to 50 percent over the next 3 to 

5 years. I believe that it can work, and the mayor, in his recently 

introduced budget, has given our department additional funds to 

implement the plan. However, major urban areas are feeling the effect of the recent downturn in the U.S. economy. Local and State 

tax revenues are declining, while there is an increasing demand for 

public services. Cities need Federal financial help in fighting violent crime. 

Let me briefly list some of the many ways that Federal resources 

could assist us in our efforts. For several years, the Federal Government provided funds to support the hiring of additional police 

officers. Between April 1, 1995 and August 31, 1999, the city of 

Philadelphia hired 773 police officers under the COPS program. 

However, despite the efforts of you, Senator Biden, and others, the 

funding for that program has been drastically scaled back since 

2002. 

As a result of this change and other challenges, the number of 

police officers on the streets declined for several years. Mayor Nutter, with assistance from Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. 

Rendell, is working to reverse this trend, and the fiscal year 2009 

budget contains funding to hire new officers. However, the city has 

many demands on its limited resources. Federal support for the 

COPS program would enable us to get more desperately needed officers on the street. 

Basic aggressive community-based policing is the most important 

crime-fighting tool that a police department can implement, and 

21

this kind of policing requires up-to-date intense training of police 

officers in several techniques, including community engagement 

and targeted tactics such as stop-and-frisk. 

Community policing is a time-intensive process that requires a 

deep understanding of the neighborhoods we serve. Additional Federal funding would enable us to collect more sophisticated data 

about community conditions and needs and to enhance our training 

and community outreach efforts. Although our patrol officers are on 

the front line of our public safety system, technology also plays a 

crucial role in a comprehensive crime-fighting strategy. 

Because of declining resources, the Philadelphia Police Department is behind in its application of modern technology to prevent 

and solve crimes. There are numerous areas where additional 

funds to enhance our technology would make a major difference in 

our ability to protect our citizens. 

One example is surveillance cameras, which are excellent tools to 

document and prosecute criminals. In addition to serving these 

purposes, their mere presence has a dramatic deterrent effect, preventing crime in the immediate area. The fiscal year 2009 city 

budget includes funding for an additional 250 cameras, but many 

more areas could be covered with Federal assistance. 

Another area in which the technology would improve public safety would be through enhancing our response to violent crimes by 

creating real-time crime centers and with the purchase of mobile 

rapid-response command centers. These units, which are used in 

many cities, would enable investigators to immediately access data 

bases to obtain the information needed to solve crimes. Such technology would greatly improve our ability to close cases, and equally 

important, to prevent the loss of any further life through retaliatory violence. 

Another area where additional resources would help us is by supporting improvements in the department’s investigation of gun 

crimes. Criminals who use guns during the commission of a crime 

are a direct and imminent danger to our communities. The Federal 

gun laws have substantial penalties, which include mandatory minimum sentencing. Thus, the Philadelphia Police Department is 

working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and ATF to substantially 

increase the number of gun cases prosecuted at the Federal level. 

However, it is very difficult to make progress in this area, given 

limitations of the department’s ballistic investigation system, which 

currently has a backlog of more than 6,000 pieces of ballistic evidence waiting to be tested. This impedes the department’s ability 

to identify and prosecute offenders in a timely fashion. Additional 

Federal resources would enable us to get through this backlog and 

get guns off the street. 

Finally, the department, like police forces in many other cities, 

suffers from an overwhelming need for capital investment. Old, decrepit facilities and an aging and high-mileage vehicle fleet hamper 

effective crime fighting and lower morale. A recently completed 

study by the Pennsylvania Inter-Governmental Cooperation Authority concluded that the city’s police stations and training facilities are among the most dilapidated publicly owned buildings in 

the city’s inventory. 

22

Mayor Nutter has committed in the 2009 budget to make an investment to improve this situation, and the department is working 

with the city to develop a multi-year capital improvement plan to 

repair or replace aging police facilities, and an information technology plan to bring the department into the 21st century. However, without State and Federal resources it will take decades to 

bring our facilities up to modern standards. These are just a few 

of many areas in which additional Federal resources would make 

a major difference in the lives of our residents. 

As we all know, the daily assault of violent crime falls harder on 

some of us than others. The televised grief of family members devastated by a shooting seems to lead the news every evening. But 

even families untouched by violence and neighborhoods are tainted 

by mayhem and demoralized by death and disorder in our city. It 

is the job of the mayor, the police commissioner, and the whole police force to unite the resources of the whole community to calm the 

violence, restore order, and begin to build a tangible future for people who don’t seem to have one today. 

Of course, homicide is often the end result of a series of negative 

and misguided actions, events, and decisions. Programs aimed at 

prevention, such as the Byrne Justice program-supported Youth Violence Reduction Partnership, or YVRP, have had measurable successes in intervening in young people’s lives and providing intensive services to those most likely to kill or be killed. We are thankful to Senator Specter for his leadership and recognizing the importance of disrupting the cycle of violence in the lives of our young 

people, and for securing funds for this program. However, with current funding, YVRP only serves a small percentage of our population. Additional Federal resources would help us achieve our goal 

of making the program city-wide. 

I should also mention that in Philadelphia we are working toward a holistic public safety effort that focuses not just on prevention, but the reentry of ex-offenders as well. Philadelphia Re-Entry 

Program, or PREP, provides incentives to businesses to employ exoffenders, because the best crime prevention program is a job. We 

are, again, grateful to Senator Specter for recognizing the merits 

of this program and for proposing a similar initiative at the Federal level. 

Finally, we must not forget that our major urban areas are still 

terrorist targets. The belief is that the terrorists have not forgotten 

us, but are planning their next big attack. Local law enforcement 

officers will be among the first responders to a terrorist attack and 

may be the one to prevent an impeding attack. 

The local neighborhood terrorist is the focus of major city police 

departments, however, we are very much aware of our dual responsibility to neighborhood security and homeland security. We are 

stretched thin, and past homeland security funding was essential 

to bring local law enforcement up to the task of homeland security. 

Now is not the time to retreat on that commitment. 

Congress must fund the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention 

Program, LETPP, at $500 million and as its own line item. We also 

need stability in the urban areas covered under the Urban Areas 

Security Initiative, or UASI, for planning and sustainability. Local 

law enforcement officers have proven they can fight neighborhood 

23

crime and prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but we need 

your help. No community prospers, or even survives long, without 

safety. 

Safety is why people come together to govern themselves in the 

first place. Just as providing for the common defense is the fundamental obligation of our national government, it is the very first 

obligation of local government, is to protect the lives of its residents. Mayor Michael Nutter and I have committed to making the 

safety of every Philadelphian a priority for this administration, and 

like other cities we could use some help in doing this. 

So, Senator, again, I want to thank you for putting together this 

hearing on this very important and vital topic. I also want to thank 

other members of the Committee as well. Thank you. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you, Commissioner. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Ramsey appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Chief? 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HORVATH, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

DOVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, DOVER, DELAWARE 

Chief HORVATH. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Biden, I would 

like to thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I consider 

it an honor and a privilege. As you already know, being from Delaware, I’m the Chief of Police at the Dover Police Department. I also 

currently serve on the board of directors of the Delaware Police 

Chiefs Council, and I am the second vice chairman of the Delaware 

Police Chiefs Foundation. I also serve as Delaware’s representative 

to the State Association of Chiefs of Police, known as SACOP, 

which is a division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

I’d like to think that I’m not just here representing the 91 sworn 

men and women of the Dover Police Department, but that I’m also 

representing the Delaware Police Chiefs Council and the smaller 

departments of the State of Delaware. 

Dover is the capital of the first State, and Dover Police Department is the fourth largest police department in the State. Our jurisdiction consists of 29 square miles, and I can state with absolute 

certainty that the use and sale of illegal drugs is the greatest challenge for the men and women of my department. A majority of our 

serious and violent crimes are directly or indirectly related to the 

use and sale of illegal drugs. 

In the 1990s, there was a violent crime crisis across this country. 

This crisis also affected the city of Dover. In the 1990s, the rise in 

violent crime peaked, with a 73 percent increase in Dover. The 

COPS program helped communities like Dover to put more police 

officers on our streets and in our schools. Over the next few years, 

we saw violent crime drop by 35 percent in Dover alone. 

Since I became the Chief of Police in March of 2001, I have been 

able to increase the authorized strength of the police department 

from 81 sworn officers to 91 sworn men and women. Six of those 

officers were funded by the COPS program; four of the funded officers were added to patrol our streets and our neighborhoods and 

two were placed into our schools to work as school resource officers. 

24

Capital School District was the last school district in the State 

of Delaware to get a school resource officer in its high school. We 

could not have done that without COPS money. There is no measure to properly show the value of these officers. Without a doubt, 

the addition of these six officers has made the Dover Police Department a stronger force. 

Unfortunately, violent crime is back on the rise. In the last 2 

years alone, violent crime has risen 30 percent in Dover. I’m pretty 

sure Dover is not one of the 16 cities across the country that has 

increased the national violent crime percentage, but we are seeing 

it in Dover. It is important that we get back to basics. 

There are departments in the State of Delaware and across the 

country that need more police officers on the streets, equipped with 

the tools and resources needed to keep our community safe. The 

best way to help us is to fully fund the COPS program. Since September 11, 2001, the Federal focus has been taken off of street 

crimes and has eliminated funding for COPS hiring. Much of the 

funding has been moved to the Department of Homeland Security. 

While I support the need for increased homeland security funding, I think it is vital that we don’t forget our most important security function, which is hometown security. As I, and many other 

chiefs before me have stated, hometown security is homeland security. Local law enforcement has demonstrated this on numerous occasions. 

Law enforcement is being asked to do more with less. If we have 

fewer police on the streets to prevent crime and to protect our communities, we will see a rise in crime across this country. That is 

inevitable. The COPS program used to be funded for over $1 billion. It has been cut to $20 million this fiscal year, in fiscal year 

2008. 

The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 would completely eliminate the COPS program. As a police chief, I consider 

this to be an irresponsible approach to policing in the United 

States. COPS grants have funded 463 additional police officers to 

engage in community policing activities, including crime prevention, in Delaware. 

Local and State law enforcement agencies in Delaware have directly benefited from funding made available through the COPS office. Nearly $1.6 million has been awarded for 13 school resource 

officers to improve safety for students, teachers, and administrators 

in primary and secondary schools throughout Delaware. Over $10 

million has been awarded for crime-fighting technologies which 

have allowed officers to spend more time on the streets of Delaware, fighting and preventing crime through many time-saving 

technologies, information-sharing systems, and improved communications equipment. 

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grants were previously funded at 

over $900 million before the current administration took over. For 

fiscal year 2008, this funding has been cut by 67 percent, from 

$520 million to $170 million. The President’s proposed budget for 

fiscal year 2009 eliminates the Byrne/JAG funding completely. 

These proposed cuts would jeopardize numerous programs in Delaware which could affect the quality of life for our citizens. 

25

I just also recently learned that funding supporting the Regional 

Information Sharing Systems, known as RISS, has also been cut. 

I think that is also a huge mistake. That is a key piece to law enforcement across the country. 

In closing, Federal grant funds have been extremely important to 

local law enforcement agencies in Delaware and across the country. 

My department alone has received over $1.2 million in Federal 

grants over the past 10 years. These funds have greatly assisted 

the Dover Police Department in its mission to protect the citizens 

and visitors of Dover, Delaware. By properly funding the COPS 

programs and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 

Grant programs, we will be able to better ensure success of our law 

enforcement efforts in preventing and reducing crime. 

On a personal note, Senator, from all the chiefs in the Delaware 

Police Chiefs Council and from the Dover Police Department, I 

would like to thank you for your undying support to law enforcement. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. Wieners, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY F. WIENERS, EXECUTIVE BOARD 

MEMBER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. WIENERS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Anthony Wieners. I’m a detective with the Belleville, New Jersey Police Department. I also serve as the president of the 33,000-member New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, and I am 

an executive board member with the National Association of Police 

Organizations, which represents 238,000 sworn law enforcement officers throughout the country. 

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity for being here today, but 

on behalf of every law enforcement in this country I’d like to thank 

you for your passion and dedication to our cause over the years 

that you have served. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. WIENERS. The duty of every law enforcement officer in America is to serve and protect the peoples of our community. As such, 

we need the manpower and tools to do our best to fight crime, and 

as part of the national crime-fighting strategy we require the full 

support of the Federal Government now more than ever. 

I am here today because State and local law enforcement officers 

in America are being dangerously short-changed. Our officers are 

passed over for critical funding to assist them in combatting and 

responding to crime and terrorism. Crime is on the rise and we 

need the resources to fight back now. I know the Committee understands the history of the COPS program and the Byrne/JAG program, however, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly explain their significance to State and local law enforcement officers 

in the fight against crime. 

Local law enforcement has more knowledge about crime in their 

jurisdictions than our Federal counterparts, making us an essential 

part of the national strategy to combat crime. It is not a coincidence that community policing was at its best and national crime 

rates were at their lowest when Federal support for the programs 

26

such as COPS and the Byrne/JAG program and local law enforcement block grants was at its peak. 

It is also no coincidence that the steep reduction in Federal support for these programs has been followed by an increase in violent 

crime rates nationwide. In fact, a December 2001 study by researchers at the University of Nebraska at Omaha found that the 

COPS program is directly linked to the historic dropping of U.S. 

crime rates in the 1990s. 

The ‘‘More Cops Equals Less Crime’’ statistical analysis produced 

by yourself, Senator Biden, together with Congressman Anthony 

Weiner, provides further evidence to the link between the COPS 

grants and the decrease 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 crimes, during that 1995 to 2000 period, were substantial. 

During that time, approximately $2 billion was provided nationally 

in hiring grants, and over $3.6 billion was provided in innovative 

grants to cities with populations over 10,000. Nationwide, police departments in these cities reported that violent crimes were decreased by well over 150,000 incidents between 1995 and 2000. 

As the New Jersey State PBA includes over 350 Locals across the 

State, representing municipal, county, State, and Federal law enforcement officers, we are in a unique position in regards to the 

needs of law enforcement in the community. 

The Uniform Crime Report maintained by the New Jersey Attorney General over the same period, 1995 to 2000, showed dramatic 

drops in every category of crime. It is not a coincidence that this 

occurred roughly at the same period New Jersey was granted over 

$293 million in COPS funding, and 4,563 officers hit the street. 

The current administration has been vocal in its dismissal of 

these important programs. It has repeatedly proposed steep cuts to 

COPS and Byrne/JAG programs, with the COPS hiring initiative 

receiving the brunt of the cuts. Since 2000, funding for the Byrne 

grants have been cut by more than 83 percent, from $1 billion to 

$170 million in fiscal year 2008. 

COPS programs have been cut by more than 43 percent, from 

more than $1 billion to $607 million. This fiscal year 2008 level includes $20 million for COPS hiring initiatives, which has been zeroed out in previous fiscal years. Twenty million will allow for the 

funding of approximately 500 officers nationwide. While better 

than no funding, this is not enough to make a real impact. 

Through my work as a NAPO board member, I know that the 

loss of needed Federal support through the Byrne/JAG program not 

only adversely affects law enforcement in New Jersey, but also officers and agencies from around the country. These cuts will result 

in closing many drug and gang task forces in California, Nevada, 

Texas, and throughout the midwest at a time when these forces are 

making tremendous strides in the fight against methamphetamine. 

States and municipalities will have to lay off law enforcement officers, as they are currently doing in New Jersey, because of tightened budgets and due to lack of Byrne/JAG money. Additionally, 

cold case units, identity theft investigations, school violence prevention programs, and victim and witness protection services are all 

feeling the strains of these cuts. 

27

NAPO and the New Jersey State PBA are truly concerned about 

the steep decline in funding for vital State and local law enforcement assistance programs that have occurred since fiscal year 

2002, particularly in light of additional duties taken on of law enforcement post-9/11. 

Today, local police departments, already understaffed due to lack 

of resources to hire new officers, must place officers into drug, 

gang, and terrorism task forces, as well as protect critical infrastructure during periods of heightened national threat advisory levels, often at the expense of street patrols. 

Additionally, many cities and municipalities, because of tight 

budget constraints, are forcing officers to take on counterterrorism 

duties on top of their community policing duties and to their responsibilities while patrolling the streets. 

For example, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, another 

NAPO member organization, has reported that the Los Angeles Police Department is mandated to redeploy officers to protect infrastructure, staff terrorism task force, and take on counterterrorism 

duties, and patrol units suffer. The Los Angeles Police Protective 

League attributes the rise in gang-related homicides that city has 

seen to the lack of resources the police department has to cover the 

holes in community policing and gang deterrents caused by the 

new terrorism duties. 

According to the FBI, in the semi-annual Uniform Crime Report 

which was released in December of last year, there was a steep increase in violent crime the first half of 2006. These results followed 

the 2005 Uniform Crime Report, which up to this point has marked 

2005 as the highest rise in crime rate in 15 years. State and local 

law enforcement agencies are struggling to meet the needs of their 

communities, and due to increased duties, have diminished Federal 

assistance and support. 

With police departments in this Nation’s cities and municipalities under-staffed and over-worked, the national crime rate is at 

the highest level in 15 years. How can Congress and this administration justify cutting or eliminating grants under the COPS program and the Byrne/JAG program? 

Over the past 15 years, local law enforcement officers and the 

agencies they serve have made tremendous strides in reducing levels of crime and violence in our communities. This success was 

largely part of the much-needed assistance and support provided to 

them by the Federal Government. The severe cut in funding suffered by the COPS and Byrne/JAG programs is already beginning 

to dismantle the progress law enforcement has made in the fight 

against crime. 

The correlation between the substantial decreases in Federal 

funding for the Justice Assistance Programs and the sharp rise in 

crime over the past several years can no longer be ignored. It is 

the tools provided to the State and local law enforcement by these 

programs that have improved information sharing, cooperation between departments and agencies, equipment and training, which in 

turn has led to more effective law enforcement and safer communities. I want to once again thank you, Senator Biden, for the opportunity of being here today, and I ask that my printed testimony 

be made part of the record. 

28

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much. It will be. Each of your 

formal statements will be made a part of the record. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman BIDEN. Gentlemen, we have got an opportunity here to 

have a conversation, so I don’t want this to be formalized, since 

there aren’t any of my colleagues here. 

Let me start off by saying three things, and maybe we can speak 

to some of what I raise based upon your experience. I have a different starting point, and I have for 30 years. The reason I wrote 

the crime bill in 1995—and I might add, as you remember, Commissioner, you guys helped me write the crime bill, although I was 

criticized for bringing in a bunch of social workers to write the 

crime bill. They’re good people. My daughter is a social worker, 

used to work in your city. The truth was, it was cops that sat 

around my table for months. Scott Green was the guy who helped 

put this all together for me. So it wasn’t a bunch of people who 

were naive about crime. These were hard-nosed cops. 

They said to me back then, there were three things that were 

critically important: 1) you needed more. Simple, more. I mean, I 

notice there are certain things—all these years I’ve held hearings, 

I mention one about cops not on the corner where the crime will 

be committed. 

I also notice violent crime drops the older you get because it’s 

harder to run down the road and jump that chain-link fence while 

you’re being chased, you know. I mean, so certain things impact on 

crime. We try to make this very, very sort of esoteric, kind of like 

what I do these days, foreign policy. We try to make it sound like 

we’re really important because they’re complicated subjects. Some 

of this is pretty basic stuff. 

Let me start off by saying that the premise I start from, if crime 

does not go down every year, we’re failing. Let me start off and say 

that again. My measure of success, what I think my job is, is to 

provide law enforcement organizations, federally and nationally, 

enough resources so that they can continue to reduce crime every 

year. Every year. Every year. If it goes up 1 year, we failed. We 

failed to give you the resources. 

So I want to set it straight for anybody who is listening here. For 

me, what I’m going to be focusing on again now that I have the 

opportunity, is to deal with constantly reducing the number of 

Americans who are victimized by crime. Technically, ideally, we 

only succeed when there’s no crime committed. Now, we can’t do 

that, but that’s the objective. So I have a fundamental disagreement with the administration on the notion of when it warrants 

stopping spending on fighting crime or drastically reducing Federal 

spending. 

The second point that I will make, is this notion that there’s not 

a Federal responsibility. Aramingo Avenue, where you have to 

spend a lot of your resources dealing with the drug problem, those 

drugs being sold there, they weren’t grown in south Philly. They 

weren’t grown in the northeast. They weren’t grown in north 

Philly. They didn’t come out of Wilmington or Camden, New Jersey. That’s not where they were grown. You can’t do a thing about 

that. 

29

What are you going to do about the drug cartel in Colombia? 

What are you going to do about 94 percent of the world’s heroin 

coming from the place I just landed in accidentally in, in the mountains of Afghanistan? So I don’t understand why this is called a 

local problem. It’s not just drugs. A chief can’t affect anything that 

happens. A lot of the folks are coming down from Aramingo Avenue 

into Dover. He can’t do anything about that. So the second point 

I want to make is, I do think there is a significant Federal role, 

a legitimate Federal role under the Constitution. 

The third point I want to make to you, in the context of asking 

the few questions I have for you, is that we know it works. It’s not 

like we haven’t figured it out. It’s not like we have to go out and 

reinvent the wheel. What do we do? What you guys and women 

told me in writing in that 1994 Biden crime bill was simple. That 

was that there’s a direct correlation, as you mentioned, again, Commissioner, between having someone walking a beat on the street 

knowing the neighborhood and driving down crime. 

Why? The woman is going to come out and tell you who the dealer is in the corner if she knows they’re not going to come back, if 

she knows the cop she’s dealing with, if she has some relationship 

with the Philadelphia Police Department. You do that in Dover, 

Chief. They know you have a particular officer who’s in a particular 

neighborhood. Newcastle County police do that as well. But it’s getting harder. It requires more intensive use of manpower. 

I remember asking you guys back in 1988 when I started to write 

this bill why you don’t do more community policing, why you’ve got 

guys riding through with a single person in a cruiser through a 

though neighborhood. They say, hey, it takes more resources. So 

the public has to understand, if you want to drive down crime, community policing being a big part of that, you need more resources, 

not fewer resources. So those three propositions are the place from 

which I reintroduced this omnibus crime bill, again. 

So the first thing I want to ask you, and this is kind of in a sense 

a set-up question. I think I know your answer. Do you disagree 

with any of those propositions, that success in your department—

you feel success when you’re driving down crime, not when it’s 

staying static or when it’s going up? Is that a fair statement? 

Chief HORVATH. Yes, sir, that is a fair statement. 

Chairman BIDEN. And I know it’s not within your power all the 

time. It’s not your fault when crime goes up. 

The second thing is that the idea that if in fact it is, there is a 

Federal responsibility here. You don’t have the capacity to figure 

out what comes across the river in New Jersey, do you? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. No, sir. I mean, crime is everybody’s responsibility, including the Federal Government. In listening to the 

testimony from the previous panel, I almost had to chuckle a little 

bit, the way in which they were interpreting crime stats and so 

forth. I think you’re right on target on your first point. The key to 

fighting crime is being absolutely relentless at going after the people that will cause harm in our communities. You don’t let up. 

If crime is going down, then you put more resources to get it 

down even further. You don’t wait until you start to see that uptick, then you’re right back where we were in the late 1980’s and 

early 1990’s, where crime was off the hook and we had to take exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:16 Apr 17, 2008 Jkt 042527 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\41527.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
30

traordinary measures in order to bring it back under control. Now 

is the time to continue to drive it down, and that’s exactly what’s 

not happening in terms of the way in which this is being funded. 

Mr. WIENERS. I think New Jersey is unique in itself, being in the 

footprint, if you will, or the shadow of the World Trade Center and 

the tragedy that happened there. We have probably the largest 

port on the East Coast. Our officers have been taking on a lot of 

the responsibilities that should be Federal Government, and in 

turn not paying attention or, because of resources, not putting their 

time into the communities and the areas which we serve. 

Chairman BIDEN. When the Federal Government goes to Code 

Orange you end up at the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge, or you end up 

at the Walt Whitman Bridge, or you end up looking at what’s going 

at Dover Air Force Base, you end up deciding what’s going on in 

the Lincoln Tunnel, coming through into New Jersey, do you get 

paid by the Federal Government for that? Do they pay you overtime, your cops that you deploy, your police officers? 

Mr. WIENERS. I don’t believe so. No, I don’t believe so. 

Chairman BIDEN. How about you, Commissioner? Do you get—

Commissioner RAMSEY. I don’t know about Philadelphia, but in 

Washington we could apply. If it went to Code Orange, we could 

apply for the overtime funds that were expended during that period 

of time and we tracked our costs independently. I would assume 

that’s the case in Philly as well. 

Chairman BIDEN. Now, let me ask you about—can you tell me—

you may not know for certain, but what’s your explanation, Commissioner, as to why the crime rate, the murder rate, in Philadelphia is up so much? I commute every day. I get nothing but Philadelphia television, and I complain about that. But everything that 

Philadelphia hears, we hear in Delaware. We don’t have a private 

television station. I don’t think there’s a night that goes by that 

you’re not in the street trying to figure out how you deal with a 

murder that’s occurred. I know the mayor is absolutely committed 

to doing something about it. But what’s your explanation as to why 

the murder rate is up in Philly so significantly? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, we’ve had 47 murders so far this 

year and it’s only February 27th. Now, that’s actually down from 

last year. Last year at this time we had 60. It’s a very violent city 

in pockets. We have a lot of people that have no regard at all for 

human life. The availability of handguns is not helping the situation. 

What we’re finding is more and more people are getting killed 

over very trivial matters. We had a young man, 16-year-old boy on 

his birthday, killed because he hit someone with a snowball. The 

person got angry, got a gun, and shot and killed him. I mean, just 

senseless crime that’s taking place. So to think that violent crime 

somehow is better, the streets are very violent. I had six officers 

shot last year, one killed, breaking up a robbery. That’s what’s 

going on, the reality of what’s going on in the streets of our city. 

That’s not reflected in numbers. 

It’s far too much violence taking place on our streets, so whether 

the numbers happen to be up today or down today, there’s still far 

too much crime and violence in our cities, Philadelphia being one 

of them. I’m joined here today by the chief from Montgomery CounVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:16 Apr 17, 2008 Jkt 042527 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\41527.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
31

ty, Maryland. Tom Manger is in the audience, and Gil 

Krowakowski, the chief in Seattle, Washington. We’ve had conversations about this, all the major city chiefs. 

We’re very concerned about what we see is an emerging trend 

that is going to put us all in a very, very difficult situation, if not 

this year, certainly next year. We know what we’re looking at. We 

have all done this for a considerable period of time. I’m in my 39th 

year. I know what I’m looking at. You can interpret numbers any 

way you want: the streets are getting more and more dangerous. 

Now is not the time to stop funding, to reduce funding. Now is the 

time to put more resources into policing, not less. 

Chairman BIDEN. Now, you represent the fifth largest city in 

America, you represent one of the smaller cities in America in 

terms of—your total population in Dover, roughly? 

Chief HORVATH. Residents, about 35,000. 

Chairman BIDEN. Thirty-five thousand. Is the murder rate up in 

Dover or down? 

Chief HORVATH. No. We average about two homicides a year. But 

as I said in my statement, violent crime is rising. It’s gone up 35 

percent in the last 2 years. 

Chairman BIDEN. To what do you attribute that? 

Chief HORVATH. Senator, I don’t know. It’s some of what the 

Commissioner said. It’s a different attitude, a disregard for—I can’t 

say life, because I don’t have the homicides that Philly has, but it’s 

a disregard for the law and a disregard for doing the right thing. 

That’s causing our violence. Almost all of our problems, as I testified to, are drug-related, in my opinion, either indirectly or directly, 

whether it’s a turf war, this is my corner, not yours, or just a disagreement on funds, illegal funds from drug transactions, or whatever it may be. 

Chairman BIDEN. Mr. Wieners, you represent the whole State of 

New Jersey here. I’m pretty familiar with Camden. I’m pretty familiar with Atlantic City. South Jersey, I have some genuine familiarity with. Camden is a pretty rough place these days, has been 

for a while. When you guys—I’m just trying to get a sense. I’m not 

looking for a criminologist response. I’m looking for, when you sit 

down with your colleagues, what do you talk about? I mean, what 

do you attribute this apparent attitudinal change, the actual—because there’s a sense—every cop I talk with, even in communities 

that—look, because I’ve been so aligned with you guys for so long, 

literally there’s not an airport where I got off a plane, no matter 

where I am, that if your guys—and I don’t tell them I’m coming. 

I’m not one of these guys that calls anybody. 

Ask the guys in Delaware. I never ask for an escort, I never ask 

for a ride, I never ask for—but because I’ve been so associated with 

you for so long and I know so many of you, no matter what city 

I land in, there’s somebody in the police department, whether it’s 

the airport police or whether it’s the local city policy or State police, that come up and say something to me and ask if I need any 

assistance. I always ask them, what’s going on? 

I haven’t found anybody yet who doesn’t think that they just 

have the feel things are going downhill, not uphill, even in cities 

where the crime rate isn’t going up statistically. I’m not making 

this up. I’m not making this up. I realize it is not evidence. But 

32

I’m wondering, and I know this sounds strange in a committee 

hearing to ask you, when you sit with your colleagues in New Jersey, what do you talk about? 

Mr. WIENERS. I think the number-one problem that we discuss, 

and it’s not a local level, it’s a national level, is gangs. Along with 

that, you have the drug trade and you have no value for human 

life. Our officers are out there dealing with it. Last year, the UCR, 

Uniform Crime Reports, statistics have 57 of my officers in New 

Jersey who were assaulted with a firearm. There’s too many firearms out on the street. The gangs are out of control. Along with 

the gangs goes the narcotics trade. There’s no value for human life. 

Chairman BIDEN. Again, Commissioner, it’s hard for you to answer this because you’ve only recently been in Philly. You may or 

may not have an answer. so I understand you may not. But if I 

were to ask your management corps wearing uniforms throughout 

the city whether or not they’re getting more or less cooperation 

from the citizenry, people who aren’t committing crimes, compared 

to 10 years ago, what would they say? What do you think they’d 

say? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I can answer that question. It depends on the community that you’re talking about. This whole 

‘‘stop snitching’’ campaign has really taken root in many of our 

communities, unfortunately. I worked in homicide 20 some-odd 

years ago and if there was a murder in a community—not every 

community, but in most communities—finding witnesses was not 

all that difficult to do. Now it’s very difficult. We have crimes committed in broad daylight with a street full of people, and nobody 

will come forward. So it’s becoming more and more difficult depending on the area that you’re in and the nature of the crime 

that’s been committed. 

Last question in this vein. Again, Mr. Wieners, you may be able 

to speak to this better than anybody because of the national board 

you’re on. We had the actual statistics. I’d just like to talk about 

this for a minute. Has the trend been for police departments, large 

and small, in the last—since 2001, to move not out of, but away 

from, community policing as we all four know it, or increasing the 

commitment to community policing? What’s the trend been? 

Mr. WIENERS. Well, I could talk from New Jersey and surrounding States. Moving away from community policing because resources are needed elsewhere, especially in New Jersey with the 

counterterrorism and protecting infrastructure. We need help. 

Chairman BIDEN. How would you characterize it, Commissioner? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I think that the concept has morphed 

into something that is a bit different today. I wouldn’t say that 

we’ve moved away from it. Intelligence-led policing, using more 

technology to be able to pinpoint where it’s occurring, when it’s occurring, and deploying our resources accordingly, but partnerships 

and collaboration is still a big part of what we do in Philadelphia 

and it’s a big part of what we did in the District of Columbia. 

Those are fundamental to community policing. We’ve stopped calling it that, pretty much. It’s just pretty much the way we deliver 

police services. But the concept itself, and many aspects of it, is 

pretty much intact. 

33

Chairman BIDEN. Chief, what would you say, talking about Delaware, and Dover in particular? 

Chief HORVATH. Talking about, for Dover, we still have a core 

community policing unit which goes out into the community and 

tries to make the contacts and get known by the residents. However, I agree with the Commissioner, too. You try to do that type 

of policing with even the patrol officer. There’s nothing more valuable to any police department in this country than a patrol-level 

police officer in a car. So the trend, I think, for a lot of departments 

is maybe not to have a community policing unit, but to have a community policing patrol officer, if that makes any sense. 

Chairman BIDEN. Commissioner? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. And I would just add one thing. The real 

challenge, sir, is with a lack of resources, to have the kind of continuity of assignment in neighborhoods that you would like to have. 

Our officers are starting to revert back to running from call to call 

and not really having an opportunity to put to use many of the 

things they’ve learned and the things that they know work as it 

relates to community officers. You know, having an officer on foot 

patrol, it’s a great idea, but when you’ve got a backlog of calls 

you’ve got to put them in a car so they can start to reduce that 

backlog. So the challenge is really having the resources to implement it properly, but we are all still believers. At least, most are 

still believers. 

Chairman BIDEN. The reason I raise it—I’m glad you said that. 

I was going to come to that point. That’s my observation. I know 

one of the Attorneys General in our State. He’s trying to implement 

community prosecution teams and he’s having some difficulty doing 

that, again, relating to resources, not so much the resources that 

he may be able to get, which is difficult, but to have a corresponding officer who would be part of that. 

Initially, back in the 1990s when the crime bill—by the way, let’s 

put this in perspective. We have reduced the amount of assistance 

to local law enforcement by over $2 billion since 2002. No matter 

how you cut it, no matter how you slice it, no matter what you do, 

there’s $2 billion less going from the Federal Government directly 

to local law enforcement. I mean, that’s just a fact. So it gets harder, because the thing I wanted to hear you say, Commissioner, is 

that when you’ve got a guy, you’ve got a reduced number of people 

and you’ve got calls coming in from all over the territory he or she 

is covering, the idea, she’s still stopping in Johnny’s Sandwich 

Shop, showing up at the local community meeting that evening and 

doing all the rest, it just gets very, very difficult. One of the biggest 

disappointments I had, one of the proudest achievements—achievements—one of the things I sponsored I’m most proud of was the 

school resource officers. What people didn’t get, was I wasn’t looking for a cop with a gun to shoot bad guys who would come in with 

a gun. That’s pretty hard stuff to do. 

But what it was, I found, is whether it was in Dover, or in Wilmington, or whether it was in Hatboro in New Jersey, or whether 

it was in Payoli in Pennsylvania, if there’s something bad going 

down behind school the next day, or if a kid brings in a weapon 

and puts it in his locker, kids need excuses to tell the truth. They 

need excuses to step up. If, every day, they walk by the same State 

34

trooper, the same resource officer and they got to know him and 

trust him, what we’ve found is they’d walk by and say, John, locker 

27, Harry brought in a gun, and walked on, knowing he wouldn’t 

be given away, but knowing he’d be safer. 

That’s the part that I think people don’t understand. As you reduce resources, you reduce that connection, whether it’s a kid talking to a cop in a school hallway or a neighbor talking to a cop who 

has repeatedly been assigned to that neighborhood or that area 

town. At any rate, I know you know—you’ve forgotten more about 

this than I’m going to know, but I think it’s important for the 

record that people understand the connection. 

Let me ask you one other point about prevention here. Chief, you 

had a good guy who became a friend of mine, a very, very conservative predecessor, politically conservative in every way, who I met 

in 1992 when I was drafting the crime bill. I think Scott and I went 

down to see him in Dover. I expected to get push-back about, you 

know, we should just hang them higher and shoot them on sight 

kind of thing. I’m joking. ‘I said, what most can I do for you, Chief? 

And he went to a card catalogue, Commissioner, like 3 x 5 cards, 

like the old library thing, and he pulled out of the Dover Police Department file this catalogue of cards. He said, Senator, I just want 

to know what I’ve been following. He didn’t use a computer printout, he had cards. He said, the difference between crime among 

those between the ages of 13, and I think he said 21, in East Dover 

and West Dover is significant. The only thing I attribute it to, Senator, is one side of Dover has a Boys & Girls Club, the other 

doesn’t. He said, you want to do something for me? Don’t give me 

a two more cops, give me a Boys & Girls Club. That’s one of the 

most conservative—you guys know who I mean. The most conservative police officers I knew. 

It brings me to this point. You’re going to be competing against 

Philadelphia for your request for drug courts money. You’re going 

to be competing against Philadelphia for Boys & Girls Club money. 

You’re going to be competing against Philadelphia’s request to train 

and equip your officers. 

I realize people think this is parochial, but obviously the problems in Philadelphia are bigger, considerably bigger. But the problems in Delaware are real. I want both of you at either end—you 

represent two great cities, one very small, the capital, in relative 

terms, and one very major, major city. 

Does it make sense—I know I’m asking you to speak against interest here. But does it make sense to think about this in only focusing on, if we could, where 50 percent of the crime is committed 

and not focus on where the remaining 50 percent is committed? We 

can narrow it down. I think it was said, what, 14 cities? Fourteen 

jurisdictions, 16 jurisdictions, 50 percent of the crime is committed. 

Philosophically, how does that work? I mean, is that a sound way 

to go about dealing with violent crime in America? Commissioner? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, Philly is probably one of the 16. I 

would still argue that that’s not a sound way of going about it. I 

mean, it’s all relative. The problems I have in Philadelphia are real 

for me. The problems in Dover are real for the chief. I mean, I 

think that everyone needs to be able to justify what they’re doing, 

why they’re doing it, and so forth. 

35

But I think to say only 16 cities, that doesn’t mean that there’s 

an absence of crime in all these other places. The point you made 

about prevention, the best crime-fighting tool is stopping it from occurring to begin with. So, you know, we do have to take a look at 

those programs that stop crime from occurring to begin with and 

not just focus on more cops. You do have to take an approach that’s 

more holistic in nature that really takes into consideration all 

these other factors. 

Chief HORVATH. Senator, we spoke about this earlier at lunch. 

The idea of Dover Police Department competing against the Philadelphia Police Department, or the city of Dover for Boys & Girls 

Clubs, or Weed and Seed, or any other type of money competing 

against Philadelphia is crazy. It’s intimidating. I know that he is 

going to be able to justify the need so much easier on paper than 

I can, so I feel like my chances of competing against him and winning are crazy. 

He is charged with protecting the citizens of Philadelphia, and I 

am charged with protecting the people of Dover. I think my job is 

just as important as his. Maybe not as big of a scale, maybe not 

as difficult, but it is just as important. I think we need to be concerned with the quality of life for everybody, not just for the people 

in the 16 cities that caused the violent crime rate to rise throughout the country. If you get robbed at gunpoint or beat up at an 

ATM machine in Dover, that’s just as serious as in Philadelphia. 

So I don’t like the idea, the philosophy of, let’s give him the money 

because he has a bigger problem. My problem is just as big. He basically said that in his statement, too. 

Chairman BIDEN. Well, again, the reason I raise this is, right 

now we are all justifiably focusing on, and the press is focusing on, 

earmarks and how they’ve ballooned in the appropriations process 

and how there are tens of billions of dollars and so on, and we 

should be concerned about it, and we are. 

In Delaware, we only have three Federal representatives. We 

haven’t asked for any Lawrence Welk museums. We haven’t asked 

for any money for anything that we can’t totally justify on the merits. But unless, in the 38 States that are relatively small, unless 

you’re able to compete, the idea that we’re going to get money—-

there’s only going to be money—I’m making this up—to build 10 

significant bridges in America this year, guess what, if you do it 

simply based on population, 38 States will never get a bridge. They 

will never get a bridge. 

Now, if you have enough money to build all the bridges that are 

needed, there’s no problem. If you have enough money to provide 

all the funding you need in the Nation to fight crime, no problem. 

You should get less money than Philadelphia gets. Wilmington 

should get more money than you get. New York should get more 

money than Philadelphia gets. But that’s not the reality. The reality is, we woefully under-fund our basic infrastructure and we 

woefully under-fund the fight against crime. So I just think that 

the reason why there are formulas for distribution is that it’s a little like highways. If you didn’t have a formula for distribution of 

highways, all the highway money would go to five States. The rest 

of us would be riding on dirt roads. 

36

So I just want to make it clear. I’m sure that what will happen, 

is I’m going to get—there will be notice of the fact that Delaware 

gets, on a percentage basis, more than its fair share of this money. 

But the question is on these earmarks, in my view, is the money 

that it’s gotten not justified in its own right? Not relative to something else, but justified relative to the particular thing for which 

you’re spending the money? As you know, Chief—you don’t known 

as well, but I think all your predecessors will tell you, I have been 

very, very cognizant of Philadelphia’s needs over the years. Again, 

it’s my neighborhood. It’s my neighborhood. It’s our neighborhood. 

Your success in Philadelphia affects our success in Delaware. I’ve 

been very cognizant of the needs of New Jersey, not being parochial, that’s just a fact. There’s 10 million people in the Delaware 

Valley. There are porous State lines, as they should be. 

So I just want to make it clear to you, I promise you I will fight 

to see to it you get the money you need, but I do not believe that 

when you fight for specific proposals, that if on their own they 

merit—they merit support, that’s an earmark as dealing with 

crime. I might add, methamphetamine, which is a giant problem 

for all of us, most of it is rural communities. Not as many meth 

labs in south Philly as there are in Coeurdalene, Idaho. But if you 

base it on population, you would not think that. That’s not to suggest, Commissioner, I’m not going to fight to make sure Philadelphia gets what it needs. I will. I might point out—and I realize 

we’re going a little over. I had hoped to end by 4 and it’s now seven 

after—is that Senator Specter and I are the co-sponsor of the bill 

you referenced. 

One of the things we can help you most with is to make sure, 

as the over 600,000 people we let out of State and local prisons this 

year, they have more than a bus ticket to get under a bridge. The 

rate of recidivism is overwhelming when people, when they get out 

of prison, they don’t have any job opportunity, they don’t have any 

training possibility, they don’t have any drug rehab to go into. A 

significant portion of people released out of every prison, State and 

local, in America is addicted to drugs as they walk out the door, 

and it’s your problem. 

That’s why we’re fighting so hard for this Second Chance Act, to 

actually invest $175 million into providing for transitioning these 

folks from prison, after serving in the Federal system, anyway, 

pretty set terms so that you don’t have the total responsibility of 

dealing with it. So I thank you all for your support. I am going to 

be a bit of a broken record with you all. I’ve got to stop using that 

phrase. My 12-year-old granddaughter at the time followed me to 

a speech, accompanied me. 

Actually, I was down in Dover speaking and she was the only 

one that would drive to Dover with me to hear Pop speak. I don’t 

blame her. I blame everyone else. Coming back, she looked at me 

like all granddaughters. You know, granddaughters think grandfathers are special. Fathers are a different deal. But at any rate, 

she looked and me and she said, ‘‘Pop, that was a good speech.’’ I 

said, ‘‘Thank you, honey.’’ She said, ‘‘Can I ask you a question?’’ I 

said, ‘‘Sure.’’ She said, ‘‘What’s a record?’’ 

[Laughter.] 

37

She’s very smart kid. She thought a record was some Olympic 

record or a sports record. She didn’t think it was a piece of plastic 

that used to spin around. 

But at any rate, I realize I do sound like a broken record. But 

I’m going to come back to all of you again and again. I am determined—determined—to pass this comprehensive crime bill we have 

reintroduced, including authorizers of $1.15 billion per year for the 

next 6 years for COPS, $600 million for hiring 50,000 new cops, 

$350 per year for new technology and equipment along the lines 

you were referencing, Commissioner, and $200 million to train 

community prosecutors. That’s not because my son was the Attorney General. I’ve been pushing that for 12 years. 

We also have COPS Benefits, we call it, based on the Brookings’s 

studies. COPS reauthorization results in savings, considerable savings, a safe society—the COPS bill, between $15 and $30 billion on 

costs not having to be paid as a consequence of crime. 

I add 1,000 FBI agents to focus on crime because of the point you 

all have made about the shift. I also restore 500 DEA agents. 

Again, used to work much more closely with you. They had more 

personnel. So I hope I can look forward to being able to talk with 

you all about how we pushed that through. I am convinced—I am 

convinced. I may be kidding myself, but they said the same thing 

when I initially introduced the Biden crime bill now 15 years ago, 

that people would never buy it—my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, see the need for this. 

But again, the only reason it passed before is because men and 

women in uniform showed up in Senators’ offices and said this is 

important to us, not intimidating, just telling them because you’re 

still the most believable group out there. So, I look forward to 

working with you all. I don’t think we’re going to have any problem 

restoring the Byrne grants. 

I also think, by the way, that we have not focused—and I’m not 

going to take the time to do it now, on another cut on a program 

that I spent a lot of time in my career working on. I’m trying to 

find the statistic here. But we found that this administration is 

also cutting the Regional Information Sharing System, the RISS 

program, which I assume you think is fairly important. 

Hopefully we can include that in restoration moneys quickly. But 

the longer fight is going to be providing for the kind of commitment 

we had before from the Federal Government in terms of shields, 

technology, and support. So if any of you have a closing statement, 

I’d invite it. If not, we will stand adjourned. I thank you for what 

you do for the country, and for your cities. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

38


41527.001
39


41527.002
40


41527.003
41


41527.004
42


41527.005
43


41527.006
44


41527.007
45


41527.008
46


41527.009
47


41527.010
48


41527.011
49


41527.012
50


41527.013
51


41527.014
52


41527.015
53


41527.016
54


41527.017
55


41527.018
56


41527.019
57


41527.020
58


41527.021
59


41527.022
60


41527.023
61


41527.024
62


41527.025
63


41527.026
64


41527.027
65


41527.028
66


41527.029
67


41527.030
68


41527.031
69


41527.032
70


41527.033
71


41527.034
72


41527.035
73


41527.036
74


41527.037
75


41527.038
76


41527.039
77


41527.040
78


41527.041
79


41527.042
80


41527.043
81


41527.044
82


41527.045
83


41527.046
84


41527.047