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

53–929 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–192 

HELPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

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 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

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 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 36 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 37 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the state of Vermont ..................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

WITNESSES 

Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of Crime, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 11 

Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 13 

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

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 6 

Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police Department, Burlington, Vermont .................................................................................................. 3 

Schmidt, John R., Esq., Partner, Mayer Brown, former Associate Attorney 

General, Department of Justice, Chicago, Illinois ............................................. 8 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of David B. Muhlhausen to questions submitted by Senator Hatch . 22 

Responses of Charles H. Ramsey to questions submitted by Senator Feingold . 27 

Responses of Michael E. Schirling to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ........................................................................................................................ 28

Responses of John R. Schmidt to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ..... 31 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of 

Police, Washington, D.C., statement .................................................................. 33 

Fox, James P., District Attorney, San Mateo County, California, and Chairman of the Board, National District Attorneys Association, statement .......... 46 

Jordan, Anne H., Commissioner of Public Safety, Maine Department of Public 

Safety, Augusta, Maine, letter ............................................................................ 62 

Leary, Mary Lou, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of Crime, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 65 

Muhlhausen, David B., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 71 

National Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff David A. Goad, President, and Aaron 

D. Kennard, Executive Director, Alexandria, Virginia, letter .......................... 85 

National Troopers Coalition, Dennis Hallion, Chairman, Washington, D.C., 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 87

Nee, Thomas J., President, National Association of Police Organizations, Alexandria, Virginia, statement ................................................................................. 88 

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

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .............................................................. 91 

Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police Department, Burlington, Vermont, statement ............................................................................... 94 

Schmidt, John R., Esq., Partner, Mayer Brown, former Associate Attorney 

General, Department of Justice, Chicago, Illinois, statement .......................... 101 

(1) 

HELPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2009 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., Room 226, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Whitehouse. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. Thank you for being here. I see 

many people that I know and I’ve worked with over the years. Of 

course, I’d note that Michael Schirling, the Chief of Police of Burlington, Vermont, is here. Burlington is where I lived for many 

years. I was a Prosecutor there, married there 46 years ago, and 

raised children there. 

And Commissioner Ramsey, of course, is an old friend and no 

stranger to either myself or this Committee. I’m told, Commissioner, that Senator Specter has to be in Pennsylvania with President Bush today, and he regrets being unable to attend the hearing. Usually Senator Specter and I conduct these hearings together, 

and have for years. Especially having you here, he wanted me to 

extend his regrets for that. 

Later this morning, the President-Elect, President-Elect Obama, 

is going to be speaking about the economic crisis and the need for 

an immediate stimulus package. That is something that I think all 

Republicans and Democrats agree we have to, in probably the most 

severe—certainly the most severe—economic period of my lifetime. 

So it’s fitting that in the Judiciary Committee’s first hearing of 

this new Congress we consider the urgent need for more Federal 

assistance to State and local law enforcement during this economic 

crisis. Families across America find their economic security increasingly at risk, and the possibility of increased crime during this recession means they may also find their day-to-day safety and security are at risk. 

With unemployment on the rise, cities and towns are cutting 

budgets, including critical funding for police. We have to act quickly and decisively to shore up State and local law enforcement or 

face reversal of the really great strides we made in the ’90s at reducing crime. 

2 

The new Congress has appropriately focused on how best to turn 

our economy around and help those most in need, and an effective 

way to protect our citizens and create jobs, that begin rebuilding 

our economy and our communities, with confidence, would be to restore Federal support for State and local law enforcement, which 

has been so severely cut during the past eight years. 

I know that Congress, in a bipartisan effort, in the Clinton administration supported America’s law enforcement like never before. It helped to put 100,000 new officers on the street and we saw 

an historic decline in crime rates. 

But it stalled when the current administration gutted Federal 

funding for State and local law enforcement, cutting it by billions. 

Whether one is for or against the war in Iraq, the idea that we took 

the money from American law enforcement to give the money to 

law enforcement in Iraq did not make a great deal of sense. Iraq 

has a huge budget surplus; we have a huge budget deficit. I think 

that I would like to see us worry more about law enforcement in 

America than law enforcement in Iraq. 

So we have to act now. We have got to do something to reverse 

the nearly 50 percent reduction in overall funding for State and 

local law enforcement. In fact, if Congress had not stepped in, these 

cuts would have been even greater. There has been the gutting of 

assistance to State and local crime prevention programs, even 

though we know that they do prevent crime. Local law enforcement 

depends on local tax revenues. We know those are starting to fall, 

with the economic downturn. Police departments are going to find 

even further cuts. 

So as crime escalates there are going to be fewer officers and resources to protect us, and I think we have to act now. I think if 

we can allow State and local forces to fill vacancies and hire new 

officers and staff, it is going to help to jump-start our economy. 

These are good middle-class jobs for middle-class people, and they 

can be filled immediately. They are often jobs where people live in 

the hardest-hit communities, who spend their money close to home. 

So it helps. Supporting State and local law enforcement helps 

economic development in another important way, too. As many of 

our neighbors become safer, property values rise, businesses open, 

they thrive, local economies prosper. If crime returns to these 

newly prosperous neighborhoods, then business, homeowners, and 

the economy suffer. I believe we should restore the COPS program 

and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program to the levels that 

worked so effectively in the ’90s. 

Crime is not just a big-city issue. As the Judiciary Committee 

heard at hearings in St. Alban’s in Rutland, Vermont, the drugs 

and violence long seen in urban areas now plague even our most 

rural and remote communities, and ironically the rural and remote 

communities usually have the least ability to respond to it. They 

don’t have the sophisticated task forces. They don’t have the specialized squads so common in big cities and metropolitan areas. 

On the first day of this Congress, I introduced the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act to ensure that rural communities hit 

hard by crime and by the recession get the help they need. I would 

like to make sure that crime victims are not doubly penalized, first 

by being hit with a crime, and then being denied assistance and 

3 

compensation. We could prevent that by doing something that 

doesn’t cost a dime in Federal taxes, and that is to raise the cap 

on the Crime Victims’ Fund so that we could send more money to 

the States for crime victims. 

So, we have people who bring important perspectives to this. I 

have known Chief Schirling of Burlington for many years. I knew 

him long before he was chief. He used to work on some of the first 

high-tech capabilities, with the Internet and whatnot, to attack 

crime in Vermont. One of the reasons he was picked as chief is that 

he was one of the first to understand the innovative ways that 

could be used to face challenges today. 

He’s been a leader in the fight against crimes against children, 

which is especially important, as a parent and a grandparent. Of 

course, we have, as I mentioned, Commissioner Ramsey of Philadelphia here; former Associate Attorney General Schmidt, I know 

very well; Ms. Leary, from the National Center for Crime Victims; 

Mr. Muhlhousen—it is pronounced ‘‘housen’’, right? Muhlhousen?— 

from the Heritage Foundation. 

I want to thank others in law enforcement who submitted letters 

and written testimony: the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO); the Fraternal Order of Police; National Association 

of Black Law Enforcement Executives; the National Troopers Coalition; the National Sheriffs Association. Their statements will be 

placed in the record. 

[The statements appear as a submission for the record.] 

Our first witness, as I said, will be Michael Schirling, Chief of 

the Burlington Police Department since January of 2008. He previously ran the Burlington Police Department’s Administrative 

Services Bureau, the Emergency Management and Homeland Security Protective Service Bureau in training and recruitment. He 

joined as a uniformed officer in ’93. 

In ’99, he helped found the Vermont Internet Crime Task Force 

and has continued as coordinator of the task force ever since. He 

was a State leader in computer forensics, a co-founder of the Digital Forensic Technology program at Champlain College in Burlington. He received his bachelor’s degree in Political Science and 

a Master’s of Education Leadership and Policy Development from 

the University of Vermont. 

Chief Schirling, I’m delighted to have you here. It’s good to see 

you again. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. SCHIRLING, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGTON, VT 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be 

here. Thank you for the invitation to appear. I’m pleased to be here 

this morning to discuss the challenges confronting small cities and 

rural law enforcement, and how the Federal Government can 

renew its commitment to the safety and vibrancy of our communities at this crucial time of economic downturn. 

My written testimony captures the bulk of my thoughts and 

thoughts from other law enforcement leaders in Vermont and in 

the region on these issues. This morning, I’ll try to be succinct. 

Over the last 10 years, our policing paradigm in Burlington has 

shifted from a response-based model to one embracing the core teVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 053929 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53929.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

nets of community policing partnership and problem solving, with 

an eye toward preventing crime and mitigating disorder on our 

streets, in our neighborhoods, and our downtown using a variety of 

methods and employing the resources of a host of stakeholders. 

Many of those initiatives have been funded or seeded with Federal 

support. 

We believe, in addition to traditional law enforcement activities, 

such as enforcement of investigative initiatives, that those things 

are important. Increasingly, law enforcement must focus on education and prevention, as well as outreach and intervention, in an 

effort to stem the tide of crime by reaching youth, the 

disenfranchised, and the service-resistant at a neighborhood level. 

Policing is no longer one-dimensional. 

Over the course of this paradigm shift in the last decade, we 

have had a variety of successes: successful neighborhood policing, 

partnerships in parallel justice to support victims, community support programs to mediate and do intervention with citizens in conflict before it reaches the level of crime, partnership in putting 

mental health workers out on the street to mitigate crime and disorder, and extensive partnerships with Federal, State, and local 

agencies on a host of issues, from child sexual exploitation to Internet crimes against children and drug operations. 

While we’ve met success using this model, we face a variety of 

continuing challenges, including: the recruitment and retention of 

qualified employees, including police officers; shifts in violent crime 

from larger urban areas to smaller cities in rural jurisdictions; 

stresses created by the burgeoning drug trade, not only in illicit 

drugs, the classic drug trade model, but increasing stresses related 

to the trade and trafficking in prescription medication and the ancillary crime that goes with that, the increases in robberies at convenience stores, pharmacies, car breaks, burglaries, and things that 

support that drug trade; the continuing challenges posed by computer and Internet crime and the emerging challenges of increasingly mobile devices and the way in which they facilitate criminal 

activity. 

There has been significant progress in our national efforts to 

stem the tide of crime, however, there is much work remaining to 

be done. Increases in violent crime, drug sales, and gang activity 

in some parts of America correspond directly to the substantial decline in funding for State, tribal, and local law enforcement from 

the Federal Government. 

The economic recession will have a significant additional impact 

on local and State funding streams, as they are stretched to their 

limit. The economic turmoil has caused concern for public safety resources, because maintaining safe communities is arguably one of 

the key elements of economic vitality and growth for any community. 

Ensuring that the resources exist for America’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies and 800,000 police officers to continue to combat crime in a successful manner will require a renewed commitment to historic funding streams, such as Community Oriented Policing, (the COPS program), and awards such as the Edward R. 

Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program. 

5 

Without that renewed assistance, we’ll face cuts in personnel, inability to fund critical equipment needs, such as bullet-proof vests, 

communications and technology projects, reductions in the ability 

to pay for special operations, drug initiatives, traffic safety initiatives, computer and Internet crime, an erosion of resources to support victims and survivors of crime, and diminishing resources to 

deal with challenged populations, such as those suffering mental 

illness and substance abuse. 

We’re doing all we can to protect communities at this point. It’s 

essential for law enforcement programs like the ones I mentioned, 

COPS and Byrne, to be fully funded in 2009 and the years that follow. With your help and our commitment to a safer America, we 

can continue to make great strides. 

I’d just like to thank you once again for the invitation to be here 

today and for taking testimony on this important set of issues, and 

most importantly for your continued leadership and assistance on 

law enforcement matters nationwide. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I’ll tell just one story about Chief Schirling. Recently, Bob 

Mueller, the head of the FBI, was in Burlington. The Chief had 

worked, with others, on a particularly egregious crime we had in 

Vermont, and organizing of the State and local and Federal authorities to solve the crime. 

So I brought the Director of the FBI over to the Burlington Police 

Department to meet all the people who worked on the crime, and 

he had followed the crime personally, called me different times during the investigation, and he wanted to thank everybody for what 

they did. 

What the Chief did, was find an old photograph, something I had 

totally forgotten about. When I was a Prosecutor, I used to go out 

on the pistol range with the police at least once a year and qualify. 

I still have a pistol range behind my home in Vermont. I should 

tell you, Commissioner, we live way out in the country. 

[Laughter.] 

I recall the Director commenting, not so much on my prowess 

with a sidearm, because I did qualify every year with them, but the 

fact that I had hair at the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Commissioner Ramsey was appointed Police Commissioner of the 

Philadelphia Police Department on January 7, 2008. As Commissioner, he leads the fourth largest police force in the country. Prior 

to his appointment, he served as Chief of Police for Washington, 

DC’s Metropolitan Police Department from ’98 through 2006, 

longer than any other chief since DC’s home rule began. He implemented innovative community policing strategies and helped lower 

the crime rate by almost 40 percent. He began his career with the 

Chicago Police Department, where he served nearly 30 years in a 

variety of positions. He holds a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in 

Criminal Justice from Lewis University. He graduated from the 

FBI National Academy and the National Executive Institute. 

Commissioner, we’re delighted to have you here. Please go ahead, 

sir. 

6 

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

Commissioner RAMSEY. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the future of 

our Nation’s law enforcement agencies at such a critical time in our 

history. 

My testimony here today reflects not just the experience of the 

City of Philadelphia or the Philadelphia Police Department. Our 

experience, especially at this time, is not unique. Federal support 

for municipal police organizations has been declining steadily since 

the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001 in favor of Homeland Security funding. 

From 2001 until now, local police have received 81 percent less financial support, from $2.1 billion to $400 million, for initiatives 

such as additional personnel hiring and technology grants. I would 

submit, however, that this is not an either/or proposition, either defend the homeland or fight crime. In looking forward, the Federal 

Government can, and should, support local police in both grants for 

crime reduction and Homeland Security. 

At its highest, the Philadelphia Police Department received al- most $32 million in Federal grants for crime reduction in 1996. 

Last year, in 2008, we received $3.5 million in Federal funding. Not 

only do we as local law enforcement agencies share a similar history with decreasing Federal investments, but we all share the 

present experience of being in an economic recession. No city or 

State has been spared from this recession. Local governments 

across the country are facing extraordinary budget shortfalls, necessitating cut-backs in services, programs, and personnel. 

The public safety sector is not immune and the consequences for 

our cities, large and small, are very real. Local police agencies are 

the primary agency in any municipal government for preventing, 

responding to, and reducing crime, violence, and terrorism. A 

strong and economically viable city will have a strong, capable, and 

well-trained local police agency as its foundation. 

With cities and States universally scaling back their police operations infrastructure, reducing or canceling academy classes, cutting back investigation and patrol overtime, slowing their financial 

investment in technology, and implementing hiring freezes for 

sworn and civilian positions, all of us—police, local, State, and Federal Government—have a stake in ensuring that public safety for 

the citizens in this country is not compromised. 

Providing Federal support to local and State law enforcement 

agencies during this economic downturn is an investment in the 

growth and success of this Nation’s future. If we are able to build 

a sustainable future for our cities and States—and that is one of 

the core issues here, sustainability—then the Federal Government 

must partner with local police departments in offering dependable 

and meaningful support. 

Criminologists, social scientists, and statisticians have rigorously 

studied policing in this country for over 40 years. One area that 

has received much inquiry is the positive impact of targeted policing initiatives through increased personnel in particularly crimeridden areas. I have also been in this profession for over 40 years, 

7 

and based on my experience, the most influential deterrent to 

crime is a highly visible and well-trained uniformed patrol division. 

More personnel not only deters those would-be criminals from 

breaking the law, but contribute to a sense of safety and well-being 

to our law-abiding citizens that is intangible and invaluable. 

In Philadelphia in particular, Mayor Michael Nutter and I set 

aggressive goals for the Department in January of 2008 and 

worked diligently to reduce the level of violent crime in the city. 

Homicides in 2008, compared to 2007, decreased by 15 percent, or 

60 fewer homicides; shooting victims, by 11 percent; and our homicide clearance rate reached 75 percent. Those were accomplished by 

returning more officers and specialized units to uniformed patrol in 

order to increase the size of our patrol force. 

In light of the current budget constraints, the Philadelphia Police 

Department will be unable to hire an additional 200 officers originally planned in the beginning of the 2009 fiscal year. More police 

equal less crime, a formula that, when directed using evidencebased policing principles such as targeting hot-spots where violence 

is disproportionately high, is a crime-fighting strategy with which 

I agree. 

Additionally, the Philadelphia Police Department must reduce 

our use of all over-time, while maintaining our progress and our 

presence on the street. Driving down crime in the years to come, 

not just for us but for all local police, will present an even greater 

challenge in this economy. 

Four areas common to all law enforcement agencies have 

emerged as a focal point for Federal support for local police over 

the past 10 years: hiring law enforcement personnel, both sworn 

and key civilians; training and technology grants; increasing Homeland Security funds for use locally, such as reinstating the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and increasing flexible 

grant assistance through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

grants. 

The opportunities afforded to local police agencies via Federal 

grants for personnel hiring through the COPS program are so vitally important to all of us now. It is not just sworn positions, however, that are in need of effective crime fighting. Increasing the 

number of civilian positions in the area of forensic sciences, specifically ballistics, DNA analysts and technicians, and intelligence and 

crime analysts, also provides an essential complement to our local 

policing agencies. Bringing these civilian positions in to police organizations allows a greater number of officers to be redeployed to 

the street. 

Police hiring grants and law enforcement technology grants, totaling $950 million, comprise the cornerstone of the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, introduced by Senator Biden with 35 co-sponsors, 

including yourself as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, and 

Ranking Member Specter, in March of 2007. 

Both IACP, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and 

the Major City Chiefs endorse this important Act. Although the bill 

did not pass the House of Representatives, the funding priorities 

still remain the same today and would provide local police with the 

much-needed assistance required to fight crime successfully. 

8 

Lastly, in considering how the Federal Government can partner 

effectively with local and State police, we should not lose sight of 

one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal, that of prevention. 

Long-term and sustainable solutions to crime and violence must include prevention initiatives, spanning from early intervention to reentry, and providing victim services. Groups such as the National 

Crime Prevention Council, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, the National Center for Victims of Crime, work with police departments 

across the country to educate our youth and others to promote 

healthy and viable communities. 

Federal funding that provides inter-governmental cooperation 

and assistance between local law enforcement agencies, prevention, 

and service organizations will go a long way toward making us all 

safer in the future. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Ramsey appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Commissioner. As I said before, 

it’s good to see you again. 

John Schmidt is currently a partner at the law firm of Mayer 

Brown in Chicago, Illinois. He specializes in large-scale government 

transactions and litigation. But where I knew him before that was 

when he served as Associate Attorney General in the Department 

of Justice from 1994 to 1997. He oversaw the implementation of 

the 1994 crime bill and the then-new COPS program. We worked 

closely together, as many Senators on both sides of the aisle did, 

during that time. 

He received his Bachelor’s degree from Harvard College, his J.D. 

from Harvard Law School, and we’re glad to have you here, Mr. 

Schmidt. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. SCHMIDT, PARTNER, MAYER BROWN 

CHICAGO, IL FORMER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m delighted to be 

here. I really commend you for holding a hearing on this subject. 

I believe very strongly that unless Congress provides substantial 

assistance now to State and local law enforcement in this country, 

we are going to see a real decline in the size of police forces across 

this country, and that in turn is going to produce a significant increase in crime and violence, and as you indicated in your opening 

remarks, I think a roll-back and a regression from the enormous 

progress we made over the last 15 years in bringing safety to communities across this country. 

As you indicated, my own particular involvement with Federal 

assistance for local law enforcement came about in 1994, when 

Congress passed the crime bill, as you indicated, with a lot of hard 

work from a lot of people on this Committee on both sides of the 

aisle. A key element of that was the COPS program, to put 100,000 

additional officers into communities in this country, and the Attorney General and the President asked me to take responsibility for 

that program. 

I think that program is a very useful precedent, as you think 

about what can and should happen now. It not only showed how 

9 

effective Federal assistance can be, it showed how quickly the impact can be felt. To give you an idea of how quickly we moved in 

1994, after the bill was passed by Congress, before the President 

had even signed the bill, I had a meeting with a delegation from 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors in which we agreed that if they 

would tell us then how many officers they were prepared to begin 

hiring and training, we would tell them then the level of funding 

they could be assured of receiving. That was a minimum level; they 

could come back later. 

We did that, and the result of that was that, within a matter of 

weeks after the signing of that bill, we had officers across the country into training academies. I think if Congress provides assistance 

of that kind today, there will be a similar reaction among local law 

enforcement, because I think in many ways the need is arguably 

even greater today. 

In ’94, we had a situation where we had communities all across 

the country, with absolutely intolerable levels of crime and violence, and we had to increase police forces very substantially to enable police to work with communities and bring that level of violence down. We did that over the ’90s. By the end of that decade, 

we had increased sworn officers in this country by over 100,000 officers, most of them funded initially with Federal money. As you 

indicated, crime rates had come way down. 

From that point on, there has been essentially no Federal funding available for increased hiring. Fortunately, the condition of the 

economy in this country was such that those communities were 

overwhelmingly able to keep those higher levels of police force in 

place and they were able to fund them on an ongoing basis. So 

since the end of the ’90s there’s been no significant increase overall, but we’ve had relative stability in the level of police forces. 

We then had one very important thing happen: we had 9/11, 

which put huge additional burdens on State and local law enforcement. So I think even with those stable levels of force, we came 

into this current period of economic crisis with law enforcement 

under real strain. 

But what we are now seeing are real declines in the size of police 

forces. It’s taking the form of not filling vacancies, and beyond that 

it’s taking the form of outright lay-offs. I’ll give you my home City 

of Chicago as a good example. Chicago, as Chief Ramsey, as I call 

him, knows well, is a city that really prides itself on support for 

its police department. The last thing any mayor wants to do is 

stand up and say, I’m reducing the size of the Chicago Police Department. That is, in fact, what has happened. 

The mayor’s budget for 2009, passed very reluctantly by the city 

council, achieves a balanced budget in the face of severely declining 

revenues only by slowing down on the filling of vacancies. The total 

number of vacancies was over 400 at the end of last year. Turnover 

is going to continue. They’re going to fill only 200. Chicago, I don’t 

think, is in the worst shape. 

The worst example I’ve heard about is Pontiac, Michigan, where 

the economic decline is such that they’ve actually had to reduce 

their police force by over 50 percent, and they are experiencing a 

dramatic increase in crime rates. But it’s not geographically limited. I saw a story the other day about Sacramento, California 

10 

which had managed—and they were sort of priding themselves— 

to come up with money to fill 11 vacancies in the police department, but they had 98 vacancies, over 10 percent of the police department. 

So I think across this country we are seeing now, on an accelerating basis, a decline in the size of police forces. That, in turn, 

is going to result in an increase in crime and violence. No one can 

predict precisely what that increase is going to be. It obviously will 

vary from place to place, just as in the ’90s the impact of increasing 

the size of police forces was felt at varying levels. But it will be real 

and I think it does present a real risk that we will see, nationwide, 

a falling away from the progress that we’ve made. 

To me, the answer is pretty straightforward. I would see a need 

for Congress to provide funding to enable police departments across 

the country to fill vacancies, to hire back previously laid off officers. 

I set out in my statement some ways that I think that probably 

needs to be done now that differ a little from the way it was done 

in the ’90s, the most significant of which is, I don’t think the limits 

that we put on COPS grants back in the ’90s, which were a maximum of $30,000 per officer, per year, and no more than 80 percent 

of the total cost, would work at this point. Those worked in the 

’90s, even though they meant we weren’t providing anywhere close 

to the full cost in a lot of places. But that worked because localities 

had the ability to make up the difference. 

I think at this point, to make it work in the current economic crisis, you need to provide full funding for some period of time, although I think you still have to limit it. I think localities will still 

have to hire on the assumption that, within some period of time, 

such as three years, they would have to assume the cost of those 

officers. 

But I think that can be done, and I set out some numbers. The 

numbers are, in one sense, huge. On the other hand, in comparison 

to the amounts we are spending on other elements, or proposing to 

spend, of economic stimulus, it seems to me they are more than 

justified. 

I would just conclude by saying one word about economic stimulus. It seems to me that, from the standpoint of economic stimulus, providing money to put additional police officers on payrolls 

in communities across this country, is about as good as it can get. 

I mean, construction projects are great, but only 30, 40 percent of 

that money goes into direct labor. Here, every dollar goes to pay 

the salaries of officers who live and work across the country. 

As I was indicating, I think it can happen very fast and have an 

impact that would be felt very fast. It seems to me something that 

you should do, and I urge you to do it and would be eager to provide any further help I could on how you develop the best means 

to do it and make it happen as quickly as possible. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, as you know, I followed this very closely 

during the time when the program began, not only because of my 

own interest as a member of this Committee, but my past experience in law enforcement. I watched it not only in my own State,— 

we’re a border State. We have a lot of problems because of transVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 053929 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53929.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
11 

shipping, through Vermont from metropolitan areas, drugs and 

other things. 

But I have also seen it around the country. We’ve held hearings 

in other parts of the country, where I’ve dealt with police agencies 

throughout the Nation. It’s one of those government programs that 

actually works. I agree with you that we may make some adjustments for today’s economy and today’s economic restrictions, but 

the basic concept still works. 

Mary Lou Leary is currently the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, where she’s served since 2004; 

again, no stranger to this Committee. She’s worked with us on a 

lot of legislation and been extraordinarily helpful in doing that. 

She previously served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. As a leader of the Office of Justice Programs, she 

oversaw the Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime 

and the Office of Violence Against Women. She previously served 

as the Acting Director of Community Oriented Policing Services at 

the Department. She earned her Bachelor’s degree in English literature in Syracuse, her Master’s in Education at Ohio State University, her law degree at Northeastern University School of Law. 

Ms. Leary, it’s good to see you again. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LEARY. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chairman Leahy 

and Senator Whitehouse. I am the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. For over 20 years, the National 

Center for Victims of Crime has worked in a variety of ways to 

make sure that victims have the rights, the resources, and the respect that they need to recover from crime and rebuild their lives. 

We want to thank this Committee for giving us the opportunity 

to speak this morning to the important issue of the need to fully 

fund victim services and local law enforcement response to crime 

in our communities. For the past eight years, the issue of crime in 

our communities has been sorely neglected at the Federal level. As 

important as homeland security is, the safety of our neighborhoods 

is just as critical to domestic tranquillity. We hope that this hearing will encourage the incoming administration, and Congress as a 

whole, to refocus attention on this issue. 

I’d like to take a couple of minutes to talk about the increase in 

victimization that we are seeing across this country. Is there a relationship between the economic downturn and rates of victimization? Well, there’s always a time lag before the official statistics, 

like the UCR, would reflect any such relationship. But we do know 

that, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in a 2008 study, 

we are seeing an increase in crime as a result of worsening economic conditions. That report was issued in May of 2008. Things 

have only gotten a lot worse since that time. 

But regardless of how direct the correlation may be between economic downturn and increase in crime, during the past year, victim 

service professionals across this country have seen a very clear inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 053929 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53929.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
12 

crease in victimization and victim need, coupled with significantly 

reduced funding to respond to this crisis. 

At the National Center alone, we’ve seen a 25 percent increase 

in calls to our National Crime Victim Help Line. Hot-lines and crisis lines across the country are seeing similar increases, as job 

losses and economic stress factor into increased violence in our 

homes and in our communities. 

You know, we recently polled the members of the National Center to find out what was happening in their communities. What 

they told us can only be described as a crisis in the Nation’s ability 

to respond to crime. I’d like to share a couple of their responses 

with you. 

First of all, 92 percent reported an increase in victimization in 

the last year—robberies, property crimes, domestic violence—and 

many of them also mention that there’s an increase in violence accompanying this crime, so it’s not just a robbery, it’s a robbery with 

a dreadful beating. 

Some of the comments we received are listed in my testimony, 

things like, ‘‘I’ve seen my victim base double in the past year.’’ 

‘‘We’ve had a 143 percent increase from 2005 to 2007,’’ ‘‘a 34 percent increase in victim services’’ in a domestic violence shelter. But 

many of them also told us that victims are requiring more services 

and many different kinds of services, things they haven’t seen before. 

For instance, because of the increased cost of living and rising 

unemployment, victims are requiring much longer stays in emergency shelters. Nearly 90 percent of the respondents to our survey 

told us that they believe that this increased demand for victim 

services was linked to economic conditions, based on what they 

heard from the victims. 

The link between financial stress, alcohol use and violence, increased requests for victim compensation because victims—many of 

them no longer have insurance to cover crime-related losses, or 

they’re folks who used to be treated at, say, senior centers, mental 

health centers, and other programs that have been down-sized or 

closed. 

At the same time, victim service providers across this country 

are totally strapped for funding. Especially, we heard from service 

providers in rural areas, where victims face really unique challenges with access to services, compromised privacy in a small community, and services that are actually having to close their doors 

because of funding. 

In the rural area, one prosecutor told us, ‘‘if our victim services 

program goes away, there will be no one in this county to help victims of crime.’’ How can we address this crisis? 

I’ll just say, briefly, that we understand budgets are tight, but 

we believe that smart investments by this Congress can help save 

millions of dollars that would otherwise be lost as a result of harm 

suffered by victims of crime, and at the same time could significantly improve services to victims. 

Very briefly, I would say, number one, in our view, the very best 

way for Congress to support a more effective response to victims 

is through releasing additional VOCA funds. You all know what 

the VOCA fund is and how critically important it is, but please 

13 

note that for the past several years there’s been a cap on these 

funds, hovering around $625 million. But last year it was decreased. At the same time, the balance of the fund has grown to 

$1.9 billion. About $896 million was collected in FY ’08 alone. 

That’s the third largest amount deposited in one year in the entire 

history of the VOCA fund. There are indications that FY ’09 will 

be another record year. 

Therefore, Congress can easily, we submit, release additional 

VOCA funds with no impact on the overall budget figures and no 

fear of draining the fund. Another important source of funding is 

VAWA. We urge Congress to fully fund those programs that were 

authorized in 2005 and have yet to receive their authorized funding: Advocates for Youth, Access to Justice for Youth, Sexual Assault Services Program, and the Expanded Services for Rural Victims Program. They are authorized but not appropriated at the levels that they desperately need. 

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. We urge Congress to look 

seriously at that. It’s the most flexible and innovative grant program out there to help communities address the needs not just of 

law enforcement, but prosecution, defense, specialized courts, and, 

in our view, very importantly, victim services. 

My testimony lists several examples of very innovative uses of 

Byrne grant funding that has directly improved services to victims 

or improved access for victims to justice. 

In sum, demand for victim services is up. Critical services are 

being cut and Congress can, and should, make a difference. You 

have the tools already in VAWA, in VOCA, the COPS office, the 

Byrne grants, and funding for at-risk youth. We urge you to use 

those tools and use them swiftly. Victims of crime across this country are counting on you. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

David Muhlhousen is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage 

Foundation at the Center for Data Analysis. Dr. Muhlhousen has 

testified before Congress on several occasions about law enforcement grant programs, particularly the COPS program. He obviously has a different view than some of the witnesses we’ve heard 

today. 

He received a Ph.D. in Public Policy from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and his Bachelor’s degree in Political 

Science and Justice Studies from Frostburg State University. He is 

currently an Adjunct Professor of Public Policy at George Mason 

University. 

Please go ahead, Dr. Muhlhousen. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, Ph.D. SENIOR POLICY 

ANALYST, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. MUHLHOUSEN. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhousen. I 

am a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at the 

Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Specter, and the rest of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

14 

The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not 

be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage 

Foundation. 

While Congress is developing legislation intended to stimulate 

the economy, interest groups are lining up for their share of what 

is rapidly becoming a political Christmas tree. In keeping with this 

theme, Congress may add funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to the economic stimulus package. 

My testimony will focus on six points. First, COPS encourages 

local officials to shift accountability for funding local police departments toward the Federal Government. A prime example is the 

City of Boston. Boston accepted millions of dollars to hire additional police officers. As part of the condition to receive the grants, 

Boston was supposed to retain these officers after the grants expired. Once the grants expired, Boston’s mayor downsized the city’s 

police force, and then the mayor blamed the Federal Government 

for not providing additional funds to maintain staffing levels. 

Second, adding COPS funding to the economic stimulus package 

will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. A study by Professor Steven Miller of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas found 

that increased funding for intergovernmental transfers and total 

expenditures for transportation and public safety to be negatively 

associated with economic growth on the State level. 

Third, increased government reduces economic growth. Government spending crowds out private spending, especially private sector investment spending that would have elevated productivity. 

Government spending infused into the economy must first be taxed 

or borrowed out of the private sector. This transfer can only be efficient if the government spends the money more effectively than the 

private sector, an unlikely scenario. Numerous studies demonstrate 

that the increased size of government reduces economic growth. 

Fourth, claims of a forthcoming violent crime epidemic are overstated. Overall, America is a much safer place compared to 15 

years ago. The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey 

found that rates for every major violent crime and property crime 

were at, or near, the lowest levels recorded since 1973. 

Fifth, COPS has an extensive record of poor performance. A Heritage Foundation evaluation of COPS grants, using data from 1990 

to 1999 for 58 large cities, found that the grants had little to no 

effect on crime. The hiring grants failed to have a statistically 

measurable impact on murder, rape, assault, burglary, larceny, and 

auto theft rates. Although the hiring grants were associated with 

a slight decrease in robberies, the meager effect suggests that additional funding will do little to reduce crime. 

In addition, the evaluation found that COPS grants were used to 

supplant local police spending. This finding is supported by multiple audits by the Justice Department’s Inspector General. The Inspector General found that cities failed to hire the number of officers required and did not comply with other grant conditions. 

In Washington, DC, the police department was awarded almost 

$11 million in Moore grants to redeploy 521 officers from administrative duties to community policing. When the Inspector General 

asked for a list of redeployed officers, the list included only 53 offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 053929 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53929.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15 

cers. Of the 53, one was deceased, 10 were retired, and 13 no 

longer worked for the department. 

Sixth, combatting ordinary street crime is the principal responsibility of State and local governments. If Congress wants to aid in 

the fight against crime, it should limit itself to unique rolls that 

only the Federal Government can play. The Federal Government 

should not become a crutch on which local law enforcement becomes dependent. 

The inclusion of COPS funding in the economic stimulus package 

will not assist in an economic recovery, nor will it make a substantial contribution to the reduction in crime. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Muhlhousen appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Doctor. Incidentally, 

Senator Feinstein asked that her statement be placed in the record, 

and will be. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Kohl regrets he can’t be here today. 

He’s introducing the COPS Improvements Act this morning. I’m 

happy to be an original co-sponsor of that Act. 

Incidentally, Dr. Muhlhousen, could I just ask you—and you’ve 

been very consistent in your feelings on this matter. Have you ever 

taken a position on the hundreds of millions—even billions—that 

we spend on police departments in Iraq? Are you in favor or opposed to that? 

Dr. MUHLHOUSEN. It’s not really an issue that I’ve studied. While 

I wish we have tremendous success in Iraq and I hope that we can 

turn that country around, that’s an issue that I would defer to 

other Heritage experts. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would just note parenthetically that, of the 

huge amounts of money that have gone there, we found, in many 

instances, the police departments end up shooting each other. 

We’ve had thousands upon thousands of firearms sent over there 

and we can’t even find where they are, until they’re used against 

Americans. Yet, that’s been an unlimited amount of money that we 

spent on those law enforcement. My point being only that I wish 

we’d spend as much time worrying about law enforcement in the 

United States as we do law enforcement in Iraq. 

Chief Schirling, one of the reasons I wanted you here, aside from 

our own personal and professional association, is that I worry not 

only about large cities, as we all do, but about small cities and 

towns like Burlington. That’s why I held the two hearings I’ve had 

in the past year in Vermont—Senator Specter was there for one of 

those—and why I introduced the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, directly aimed at staffing for rural—staffing and 

training for rural law enforcement officers. 

You describe the cuts you expect to make in the coming year, 

given the economic downturn. You mentioned cutting officer staff, 

delaying the purchase of new communications equipment, bulletproof vests, and so on. If we were to increase Federal COPS and 

Byrne grant funding, including a rural law enforcement assistance 

16 

grant funding, first, would that help you avoid these painful cuts? 

Would you be able to use the money, virtually immediately? 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The short answer is 

yes. Not only at our department, but in other rural agencies 

throughout Vermont and the region, I think that money could be 

used almost immediately to stem the tide of cuts in officers and key 

support personnel and technology programs, and a host of other 

possible initiatives, to include training. 

I think it’s important to note that, as we look at creative crime 

prevention and crime-fighting strategies, that some agencies may 

be looking to fund critical support positions, as Commissioner 

Ramsey indicated. There are key civilian positions that can help 

get officers back on the street out of administrative assignments, 

or bolster what officers do, or bolster the support that officers have 

and essentially act as a force multiplier. 

So, for example, if you deploy social service practitioners, substance abuse clinicians, or mental health practitioners in certain 

areas, you may be able to manage problems without using the resources of a police officer and allow that police officer to focus on 

standard investigations and crime prevention types of activities. So 

there are a variety of things that would be helpful, and I think 

many of them could be implemented fairly quickly. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, it’s interesting. Marcelle and I are in 

Burlington several times a month, as you know, and have been 

talking to different police officers and those who work in your department and surrounding departments. They live in the area. 

They have an effect in the area, homes in the area. Is it over-simplistic to say, if you cut these positions, it has an economic adverse 

effect, but if you add these positions it has an economic positive effect? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I don’t think that’s an over-simplification. I 

think that makes perfect sense. Any job that you add—the economists, at least in the Vermont area, indicate a single job created 

actually supports upwards of 10 ancillary jobs in service industries, 

grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, and things like 

that. 

So every job has an impact. As important as that direct impact, 

is the need, I think, to make sure that the climate for economic 

growth is a good one. So a safe community, someplace that people 

want to come and vacation, spend their dollars, visit relatives, or 

even move to, is critical in the overall goal of growing our economy, 

not only locally, but regionally and nationally. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, in fact, in that regard, to pull it into a 

much larger area, in Philadelphia—what is the population of Philadelphia, Commissioner, approximately? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. It’s about 1.6 million. 

Chairman LEAHY. So it’s about two and a half times the size of 

the population of our whole State. You described in your testimony 

how the City of Philadelphia, back in the mid-1990s, received more 

than $30 million a year in Federal funding. Last year, you received 

about a tenth of that amount. If the money was restored, would 

you be able to hire more police officers, and would that have a direct effect on crime and the safety of your community? 

17 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Yes, sir. Last year, we were very successful in fighting crime in Philadelphia, but we are nowhere near 

where we ought to be in terms of levels of crime in the city. Even 

after redeploying numerous officers back to street duty, really 

tracking activity using every tool we had available to us, we were 

able to have a decrease in crime. 

But additional personnel would certainly be beneficial and allow 

us to push the rates down even further. Just like Chief Schirling 

mentioned, the safer the community, the more likely you’re going 

to have businesses invest, the more likely you’re going to have increased tourism, and the like. 

But I’d also like to mention that one of the problems we have is 

being able to hire qualified civilians in certain key areas, like in 

our forensic sciences, intelligence analysts, crime analysts, and the 

like. It would be good if this would include that, not just sworn hiring, because a lot of times we find ourselves having to either backfill those positions with sworn or outsource the work, which is an 

added expense, and so forth. 

So we even—in my testimony, which I shortened for the sake of 

time, one of the suggestions we made is to provide an educational 

subsidy for people interested in pursuing college-level or advanced 

degrees in the study of forensic sciences and criminology, intelligence, crime analysis, and the like. We can encourage young people to get involved in a career in law enforcement not just on the 

sworn side, but there are other areas that we equally are in need 

of help. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I think you find those non-sworn officers, 

the technicians and all, that’s a significant change from when you 

were first a police officer, and a significant difference. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. It is. 

Chairman LEAHY. One of the advantages in this Committee, is 

we’ve had so many people, so many members of the Committee 

who’ve had past experience in law enforcement before they came 

here to the Senate. One of those, of course, is Senator Whitehouse 

of Rhode Island, former U.S. Attorney, former Attorney General of 

his State. I have gone over my time, and I yield to Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome the witnesses here. I’d love to ask a question of Chief 

Schirling and Commissioner Ramsey, based on your on-the-ground 

public safety experience in your communities. 

We have seen an enormous amount of money spent in this country in recent years on a whole variety of programs catalogued 

under the sort of political heading ‘‘homeland security’’. I think 

that we’ve done that at great expense to, what I would call, ‘‘hometown security’’. I’d love to have you give me your kind of from-theground evaluation of how you feel the availability is of terror-related funding to the public safety threat from terror that you see 

in your communities and compare that equation to the availability 

of funding and support for hometown security and protection from 

crime, compared to the public safety problems of crime in your 

communities. 

I mean, there were, what, 17,000 people murdered the last year 

we have numbers for, 2007, murdered or died by manslaughter in 

18 

this country, and yet we seem to be robbing that public—nothing 

against protecting this country from terrorism, but when you do so 

by robbing hometown security at the expense of homeland security—in Rhode Island we see sort of, you know, these remarkable 

grants for—I mean, I’m exaggerating and making this up a little 

bit, but basically, you know, underwater vehicles—armored underwater vehicles with sonar cannons that you can get through homeland security for a land-bound municipality, but the COPS program, the Byrne grant program, proven programs, slashed 90 percent, endeavor to be eliminated by the Bush administration. 

And I’ll let you answer that question, but before I do, I just want 

to—one of the reasons that I ask it, is that there seems to me to 

be a very strong—what an economist would call externality involved here, and that is that by emphasizing homeland security, an 

administration can emphasize the terror threat, and by emphasizing the terror threat can emphasize the wartime nature of a 

presidency, and by emphasizing the wartime nature of a presidency, can build in the inherent public support for a wartime president. 

That is a political fact going back decades and generations. If 

that’s your goal, you’re really doing something political, not something from a public safety perspective. But it could be an important 

political goal if your agenda, as a president, is to do things that are 

deeply unpopular with the American public, harm the American 

public, supports special interests, and need cover in order to be 

done. So that’s my sort of political overview. 

I’m not going to make you comment on that. I might get you in 

trouble if I asked you to comment on that. But the underlying part, 

in terms of the balance between terror support versus the terror 

public safety threat in your communities and how that’s working 

out compared to the crime and public safety hometown security 

support, versus that public safety threat to the people you are responsible for protecting. 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I appreciate 

the pass on the comment on the political side of things. From our 

perspective, I think to contrast homeland security versus hometown security, there’s been an absence of funding—an almost complete absence of funding—in our area for local law enforcement and 

hometown security in a steadily declining line since 9/11, and simultaneously a steadily increasing line in funding related to homeland security initiatives. And certainly not to diminish the importance of homeland security initiatives, but they do appear to be out 

of balance, from our perspective. 

To suggest that you pour resources into homeland security without hitting the 18,000 law enforcement agencies and increasing 

their ability to detect crime, apprehend offenders, and provide services to their communities, you’re missing a piece of that puzzle. 

Early on in the homeland security funding, I think there was 

more—a little more of an eye toward providing those types of resources to local law enforcement, but that quickly waned. 

The other, almost intangible factor, is—there’s actually two. One, 

that as government, around homeland security, has grown, there 

have been requirements placed on local law enforcement, especially 

those that have transportation infrastructure to secure, like an 

19 

international airport that we have, that drain resources without 

providing enough support. There’s some support, but not enough 

support to provide those services. 

And the other thing that’s happening, is in various locations 

around the country we’re actually having difficulty recruiting qualified officers, in some instances because we’re in competition with 

Federal agencies who are in significant pushes to hire agents and 

security folks. TSA, Air Marshals, has expanded by thousands of a 

percent. The FBI started a hiring push earlier this week. I’ll take 

a moment to mention for Director Mueller that I mean to send him 

a no-poaching sign in the mail. 

[Laughter.] 

I’ll get to that. Thank you. So I think that’s our perspective. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Commissioner Ramsey. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I agree with Chief Schirling. I 

think that when the homeland security issue developed in 2002, 

the funding was siphoned off of the COPS funding into homeland 

security. In my opinion, it’s not an either/or proposition: you have 

to do both, and you have to do both equally well. We did pick up 

additional responsibilities. I happened to be the chief here in Washington at the time. Obviously, this was a city that was of great concern when it comes to homeland security, and a lot of our resources 

went into that. 

But on a daily basis, people and communities are concerned with 

daily crime: burglaries, robberies, thefts. In Philadelphia last year, 

we had 330 homicides. Not a single homicide was committed by Bin 

Laden or anyone associated with Al Qaeda. So when you think 

about what really is driving crime in our cities right now, what is 

scaring people right now, it is crime, regular crime. 

I also need to mention, however, that we’ve been very fortunate 

that we’ve not had anything happen over the past few years. If terrorism is going to take hold in this country, they’re going to use 

existing criminal networks in order to support themselves. There 

will be drug trafficking rings, the smuggling of cigarettes, all kinds 

of things that are illegal, to subsidize their activities here in the 

United States. 

So it’s very important that we pay attention to both and that we 

identify the potential nexus between what looks like a burglary 

ring and what potentially could be something that has implications 

that go far beyond just your typical auto theft or burglary ring. So 

I think that one of the problems that I saw early on with homeland 

security funding, there were no controls over the spending and 

there was not any real accountability for the States or the local 

municipalities. A lot of money, in my opinion, was wasted. People 

were going out, buying stuff that they did not need. There was no 

accountability in the sense of understanding what the return on 

the investment would be. 

Now, that continues to be a problem, to an extent. So any new 

funding, there needs to really be some careful consideration and 

thought as to how that money is going to be used and what’s expected of the municipality that receives that funding. I think that’s 

only right, otherwise we’re just throwing money at a problem and 

not necessarily getting any benefit as a result of it. 

20 

We’ve got to learn to work more in terms of regional cooperation. 

Now, that’s taken huge leaps since 9/11, I know, certainly here in 

the Washington area, around Philadelphia, and other areas where 

police departments are working together like they’ve never worked 

before, and I think we’ve got to continue to push and drive that, 

to make sure that information systems are compatible, we can actually share information. 

The gap that exists between Federal, State, and local law enforcement in terms of information sharing is better than it was, but 

it’s not where it really needs to be. You’ve still got a lot of issues 

with classification of materials and who has access to what, who 

needs to know what, and that sort of thing. So it’s pretty complicated. Part of this, we need to sit down and really think of ways 

in which we can improve those, and at the same time provide funding that’s going to really give you the maximum return on your investment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Leahy. 

Chairman LEAHY. The coordination. Commissioner, the need for 

better coordination. Your colleague, as Commissioner in New York 

City, has raised—somebody I’ve known also for years—the same 

issue. It is sometimes hard to break down those barriers, but we’re 

going to have to do it. It’s probably easier on a small scale in rural 

and small cities and towns. 

Chief Schirling has been very involved, but this involved everybody. We’ve had the chief of police at the University of Vermont, 

the chief of police at the various departments throughout 

Chittenden County, where he is, the sheriffs’ departments, and the 

Federal authorities have worked together. But there, you know everybody on a very personal basis. You see them every day at the 

grocery store, church, wherever else. But we’ve got to start doing 

a better job of breaking that down. I was concerned about some of 

the problems over the years in New York City, similar problems in 

some other big cities; I know Mr. Schmidt, when he was at Department of Justice, one of the things he talked about a lot. 

Ms. Leary, when you talk about the Crime Victims Fund, which, 

as you know, is something I’ve worked—the former Chairman of 

this Committee, Joe Biden, who is soon to leave the Senate for another job, worked so hard on, as did, again, members on both sides 

of the aisle. For those who don’t understand it, the Victims of 

Crime Act Fund, that’s funded through penalties and fines from 

Federal offenders. It doesn’t come out of taxpayer money. But it’s 

been capped annually, so in recent years, hundreds of millions of 

dollars have been collected, but not allowed to be used to help victims. Do you think we should be raising those caps? I realize that’s 

kind of a leading, easy question. But tell me about what happens. 

Ms. LEARY. No. Absolutely. I would urge Congress to raise that 

cap. Another way to describe it, is release more of the funds that 

are available. These are not taxpayer dollars. This money comes directly from fines and assessments on offenders and it is designated 

for the purpose of serving the needs of victims throughout the 

country. Because there have been very robust collections, and my 

goodness, when you read the newspaper every day, you can only 

21 

anticipate that ’09 will be a real bonus year for the VOCA fund because of all these negotiated settlements. 

It seems rather foolish to have all that money available, it’s supposed to be serving victims, and it’s being held back. I strongly 

urge Congress to release more of those funds, to raise that cap and 

really—the problems that are faced by victims and victim service 

providers are at a crisis proportion. Victims of crime are really kind 

of the hidden citizens in this country. 

What people don’t really understand is that a vast majority of 

them never make it into the criminal justice system, so you can’t 

say, oh, let the prosecutors take care of them, let the police take 

care of them. Most of them never get there, and they are relying 

on that little victim service provider in the church basement in 

rural Vermont to help them recover and rebuild. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

As you can tell, we have a dozen hearings going on today, including confirmation hearings. Everybody is around in different areas. 

I’m going to put into the record a statement by Senator Feingold 

regarding this hearing. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. We’ll leave the record open to all of you if 

there are things you want to add, either to your own answers or 

to the answers of others. The record will be kept open so you can 

do that. If you review your testimony—this is not a ‘‘gotcha’’ kind 

of hearing. If you review your testimony and say, I should have 

added this, there will be provision to do that. 

With that, unless somebody has anything they wish to add, we’ll 

stand in recess. 

[No response]. 

[Whereupon, at **************** the Committee was adjourned.] 

22 


53929.001
23 


53929.002
24 


53929.003
25 


53929.004
26 


53929.005
27 


53929.006
28 


53929.007
29 


53929.008
30 


53929.009
31 


53929.010
32 


53929.011
33 


53929.012
34 


53929.013
35 


53929.014
36 


53929.015
37 


53929.016
38 


53929.017
39 


53929.018
40 


53929.019
41 


53929.020
42 


53929.021
43 


53929.022
44 


53929.023
45 


53929.024
46 


53929.025
47 


53929.026
48 


53929.027
49 


53929.028
50 


53929.029
51 


53929.030
52 


53929.031
53 


53929.032
54 


53929.033
55 


53929.034
56 


53929.035
57 


53929.036
58 


53929.037
59 


53929.038
60 


53929.039
61 


53929.040
62 


53929.041
63 


53929.042
64 


53929.043
65 


53929.044
66 


53929.045
67 


53929.046
68 


53929.047
69 


53929.048
70 


53929.049
71 


53929.050
72 


53929.051
73 


53929.052
74 


53929.053
75 


53929.054
76 


53929.055
77 


53929.056
78 


53929.057
79 


53929.058
80 


53929.059
81 


53929.060
82 


53929.061
83 


53929.062
84 


53929.063
85 


53929.064
86 


53929.065
87 


53929.066
88 


53929.067
89 


53929.068
90 


53929.069
91 


53929.070
92 


53929.071
93 


53929.072
94 


53929.073
95 


53929.074
96 


53929.075
97 


53929.076
98 


53929.077
99 


53929.078
100 


53929.079
101 


53929.080
102 


53929.081
103 


53929.082
104 

Æ 


53929.083