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

54–305 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–225 

HELPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 12, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–21 

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 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Kohl, Hon. Herb, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............................ 3 

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

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

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Carlson, Kristian, Lieutenant, Burlington Polices Department, Burlington, 

Vermont ................................................................................................................ 15 

Flynn, Edward A., Chief, Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee, Wisconsin .................................................................................................................... 18 

Muhlhausen, David D., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. ............................................. 20 

Perrelli, Thomas, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of David D. Muhlhausen to questions submitted by Senator 

Coburn ................................................................................................................... 32 

Responses of Thomas Perrelli to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ........ 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Carlson, Kristian, Lieutenant, Burlington Polices Department, Burlington, 

Vermont, statement ............................................................................................. 42 

Flynn, Edward A., Chief, Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Muhlhausen, David D., Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., statement .......................... 49 

Perrelli, Thomas, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 68 

(1) 

HELPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Feingold, Klobuchar, Kaufman, 

and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. Good morning, Senator Kohl, 

Senator Sessions. I known Senator Feingold was here earlier. I 

think the Chief from Milwaukee had something to do with that. 

This is National Police Week. We are going to pay tribute to the 

men and women who work every day to protect our communities, 

our schools, and our homes, and, of course, we have to remember, 

sadly, those who died in the line of duty. Across this country, more 

than 900,000 men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly 

day in and day out to keep us safe. And of those brave men and 

women, 133 gave their lives this past year, and more than 18,000 

have died in our Nation’s history. We owe them our gratitude and 

our honor, but we also owe them our commitment to do whatever 

we can to help them in their vital mission. 

That is why, as this new Congress began, this Committee responded to the immense strain law enforcement is experiencing as 

a result of the economic downturn. I chaired the Committee’s first 

hearing of the year, and that examined the urgent need for increased Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. At 

that hearing, police chiefs and experts from around the country 

agreed that the current economic crisis makes Federal aid even 

more important. 

I have worked with others in the Congress in both parties and 

with the administration to ensure that the recovery legislation included a major infusion of funds for State and local law enforcement. Vice President Biden has long been a leader on this issue, 

and President Obama, when he was in the Senate, consistently 

supported us, as he has as President. 

The recovery legislation that Congress passed and the President 

signed into law included nearly $4 billion for State and local law 

enforcement, and we are already using that. 

2 

Tough economic times create conditions that can too easily lead 

to a spike in crime. Earlier this year, USA Today reported a study 

by the Police Executive Research Forum finding that nearly half of 

the 233 police agencies surveyed had seen significant increases in 

crime since the economic crisis began. Sadly, a lot of that, Chief 

Flynn told me before the meeting started, is domestic violence. 

In my home State of Vermont, we have seen the largest recipients of these funds in Vermont are going to be the cities of Rutland 

and St. Albans, where the Judiciary Committee held hearings in 

the last Congress that showed that crime and drugs are not just 

big-city issues but also issues for rural communities. Our largest 

city is 38,000 people. We have small cities and towns, but we are 

seeing an increase in crime. 

The law enforcement funding, together with other budget decisions, has allowed the Vermont State Police, the State’s largest 

sworn police force, to avoid laying off even a single uniformed police officer. But it will also help police departments hire new personnel in places like Burlington. The Burlington Police Department 

has continued to be a law enforcement innovator, not just in our 

State but nationally. For the first time, with these funds there is 

going to be a full-time mental health worker assigned to work with 

police on the street, help the uniformed police, and help decrease 

the need for them to provide mental health services. 

We will have Lieutenant Kris Carlson, who heads the Vermont 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, talk to us today. 

This unit, staffed by sophisticated and well-trained experts, would 

never have existed but for Federal assistance. It faced serious cutbacks, but the Recovery Act helped us not to have to make those 

cuts. And when you think of the crimes against children, every one 

of us—whether it is parents or grandparents—should be worried 

about crimes against the most vulnerable people in our society— 

our children. 

I want to welcome Associate Attorney General Perrelli. Mr. 

Perrelli is already working hard to ensure that the law enforcement funding set out in the recovery legislation is put to the most 

effective use possible to keep our communities safe. Mr. Perrelli is 

no stranger to those of us on this Committee, and, of course, I am 

delighted to have him here. 

Chief Flynn from Milwaukee has been outspoken in saying that 

only if we support effective police strategies can we ensure economic recovery. 

And Mr. Mulhausen, whom I enjoyed meeting in January, I am 

glad to have you all back. 

I will put my whole statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me yield to my friend, the senior Republican on the Committee, Jeff Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Well, Ranking Member. I have got 

a few senior folks on the Committee to me, but, Mr. Chairman, it 

is great to work with you, and I think we have some potential to 

3 

do some real good here. I look forward to not only this hearing but, 

Mr. Perrelli, in working to help you utilize that money that Congress has given in the way most effective to reduce crime. 

I think we do have an edging up of crime now. It is something 

that we need to watch. I think the murder rate maybe nationally 

is half what it was in the early 1980s, and so we have made some 

progress in a number of areas. Some cities have had dramatic 

drops in murder rates. I believe that punishment is an effective deterrent and also it incapacitates a very small number of people who 

are willing to kill, murder, rape, and rob. Not that many who will 

do that in their lifetime ever. But with regard to the $4 billion we 

have appropriated as part of the stimulus bill, it went quickly. It 

was a fast-moving bill. I am uneasy that if we are not careful, we 

will not get the crime-fighting bang for our buck that we would like 

to get. So I am worried about that. 

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, serving as United States Attorney for 12 years and convening a law enforcement coordinating 

committee, the first time those had been ever established, and we 

had all our local sheriffs and chiefs of police, Federal agencies, and 

others meet to discuss our priorities, I have become a very, very 

strong believer in task forces, unity of effort, breaking down walls 

and barriers between departments, and we found time and time 

again that when you do that, the evidence appears that one department did not have and can lead to the identification of very serious 

criminal elements. 

So I think of things like the Weed and Seed program that I personally believe worked far better than even I thought, and I was 

supportive of it; the drug courts, where we take people in who have 

a drug problem as part of their criminal problem, and we put them 

under intensive surveillance, drug testing as a condition of probation but give them a second chance. Those things work. And there 

are a lot of other programs that work. 

We have a bottleneck, in my opinion, in forensic sciences. We are 

not getting quick enough feedback to our law enforcement police officers. If you double the number of police officers but do not increase their ability to get chemical analysis of drugs or fingerprints 

or blood type or DNA, then that whole system can be weakened. 

I think the Federal role primarily should not be the funding and 

taking over of local law enforcement, but providing research, good 

information, and good Federal dollars that can help them work together in a partnership way to be more effective. So I look forward 

to this hearing, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to share these thoughts. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kohl, you had asked to say a word. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling this hearing this morning on the importance of 

local law enforcement, and I particularly thank you for inviting one 

of Milwaukee’s finest, Chief Edward Flynn of the Milwaukee Police 

Department, to testify. 

4 

I was on the airplane late yesterday afternoon with Chief Flynn, 

and I told him how much I was looking forward to his being with 

us this morning, and he stated very clearly that he was looking forward to it also. But as I was walking back to my seat after having 

visited with him on the airplane, I thought he seemed somewhat 

distracted, and I did not understand exactly whether or not there 

was another motive or another reason for his coming to Washington. And lo and behold, I hear this morning that Chief Flynn 

has a daughter who lives here in Washington, and last night his 

daughter gave birth to a baby. Is that right? 

Chief FLYNN. That is right, Senator, and his middle name is the 

same as my first name. 

Senator KOHL. Congratulations. 

Chief FLYNN. Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our law enforcement officials who work each and every day to keep our communities safe by preventing crime before it happens and enforcing 

the law when it does. We at the Federal level have a responsibility 

to provide them with the resources they need to be successful. I am 

pleased that the new administration has expressed a commitment 

to restoring much needed funding to our successful local law enforcement and prevention programs, and it is in that spirit that I 

am pleased to be here with you all today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Perrelli, thank you. Welcome. I believe this is your first 

hearing, since you were sworn into your new position, before this 

Committee. 

Mr. PERRELLI. That is correct, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Delighted to have you here. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think now it is. 

Chairman LEAHY. There. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity during National Police Week to discuss the Department of 

Justice’s deep commitment to supporting and restoring its historic 

partnership with State, local, and tribal law enforcement. 

Crime remains a central issue in communities across the country, but at the same time many law enforcement agencies face reductions in municipal and county budgets, and all State and local 

law enforcement authorities have added duties in the post-9/11 

world. Now more than ever, it is essential to strengthen our partnerships with State, local, and tribal law enforcement through 

meetings and listening sessions. The Attorney General and the Department have begun that process. 

I will talk a little bit about the Recovery Act and its funding, 

which a number of the Senators have already referenced. The Recovery Act provided more than $4 billion for State, local, and tribal 

law enforcement activities. The offices within the Department of 

Justice responsible for administering this funding—the Office of 

Justice Programs, OJP; the Office of Community-Oriented Policing 

5 

Services, the COPS office; and the Office on Violence Against 

Women—have been working, meeting with mayors, chiefs of police, 

sheriffs, city council members, and others to talk to them about the 

resources available and help them to apply. 

OJP, which provides leadership in developing the Nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, is responsible for delivering more 

than $2.7 billion in Recovery Act grants. The lion’s share of that 

funding, $2 billion, comes through the Byrne/JAG program, and I 

am happy to say that as of Monday, OJP had already announced 

$537 million in State and local Byrne and JAG awards. 

The Recovery Act also provided $225 million for the Byrne Competitive Grant Program, and we will be looking at applications in 

that program that are evidence based, with a focus on community 

prevention initiatives. And I would note that one of the trends that 

we have seen in that program is the overwhelming number of applications from local law enforcement seeking funds for forensic analysts and for other civilian and technical experts to assist them in 

their law enforcement activities. 

The Recovery Act also provides essential funding for the COPS 

office in the form of grants to create and preserve law enforcement 

officer positions with $1 billion through what we are calling the 

CHRP program, the COPS Hiring Recovery Program, which we believe will create or save approximately 5,500 law enforcement officer jobs, both stimulating the economy and putting more officers 

and deputies on patrol in neighborhoods across the country. That 

program has demonstrated to us the crying need in States and localities throughout the country. The COPS office received applications from over 7,200 enforcement agencies for $8.3 billion in requested funds, or more than enough to save more than 39,000 law 

enforcement officer jobs. 

The third major initiative is through the Office of Violence 

Against Woman, where there are $225 million, both through the 

STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant and Grants to Tribal Governments Program, which support the work of State, local, 

and tribal law enforcement in addressing domestic violence and 

sexual assault. 

Turning a little bit to the 2010 budget, which the President announced last week, in that proposal the administration is requesting $2.6 billion for State and local law enforcement assistance. 

That funding will be used to establish and build on partnerships, 

hopefully to meet Senator Sessions’ point of a unity of effort between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement in areas such as violent crime, illegal drugs, gang activities, 

information sharing. 

In addition to providing support through grants at the State, 

local, and tribal levels, it is critical that we support our new and 

innovative approaches to addressing crime with evidence. The administration believes that our approach to fighting crime, like other 

important issues of the day, should be backed by sound science. 

At the Department we are following through on that commitment 

by working to integrate research from the field into our programmatic activities. In many cases, State and local authorities already have the knowledge, and it is a question of gathering it in 

6 

the right place, determining what are best practices, and spreading 

those to the field. 

If our partnership with State, local, and tribal law enforcement 

is to endure, Federal financial support cannot be a one-time occurrence. The country is facing prolonged problems that require steadfast commitment and long-term cooperation. At the Department we 

are committed to restoring that partnership with State, local, and 

tribal authorities in every way that we can to address public safety. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee, 

and I am pleased to answer any questions the Committee may 

have. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, and I think some 

of this you have covered. But I know when those of us who advocated for the $4 billion for State and local law enforcement—and 

as I mentioned earlier, it was the first hearing this Committee held 

this year on the need for that—we heard some criticism saying 

that, one, the State and local governments did not need this help, 

and another criticism, the Federal Government could not get it out 

or act quickly enough. But I understand that just 3 months later 

you have awarded $500 million already to State and local police. 

What kind of response are you getting from them? Are they saying, gee, whiz, OK, or what? I am not trying to put words in your 

mouth. I am just curious. 

Mr. PERRELLI. The Attorney General had a law enforcement 

summit in April, hearing from about 75 leaders in law enforcement 

nationwide, as well as in State and local communities. And the 

message was loud and clear that they were facing difficult budget 

pressure, that they very much needed the assistance of the Federal 

Government both to continue what they were doing as well to advance a number of long-term initiatives, such as information sharing, the joint task forces, dealing with gang initiatives in particular 

as well as illegal narcotics trafficking and crimes against children. 

So we have seen both in those listening sessions with State and 

local law enforcement a tremendous desire to work together, certainly on the funding level but also to develop that unity of effort 

that Senator Sessions talked about. 

Chairman LEAHY. It may be too early to tell, but are you getting 

any idea of how many jobs that were either created or saved because of this? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are estimating that once the COPS funding, 

which we hope will reach communities in late summer, early fall, 

we would estimate that that will create or save approximately 

5,500 officer positions. In some of the other programs we are still 

trying to develop the appropriate metrics to measure job creation 

in that context, but we certainly know that those funds are very 

much needed by the communities to which they are going. 

Chairman LEAHY. Just to kind of emphasize, most law enforcement matters tend to be pretty bipartisan or nonpartisan. I want 

to emphasize what Senator Sessions said about the joint task force 

and all, and I see this especially in a little State like the State of 

Vermont, with 640,000, 650,000 people. We stretch from the Canadian border down to the Massachusetts border, New Hampshire on 

7 

one side and New York on the other. We are near metropolitan 

areas where drug gangs and others think this is easy picking going 

into small towns where you have a small police force. They can 

move in there and, of course, it is young people especially that are 

hurt by it. 

We have used the task forces very, very effectively in going after 

these people, I think to their surprise, and the Task Force on Child 

Predators, all these other things, I just mention that. I know you 

know it, but you will hear it from a lot of us up here, as Senator 

Sessions says, as I am saying, especially in small rural areas, the 

task forces can be very helpful. But many times they need the kind 

of funding that comes from your office to set them up, to organize 

them, especially at a time when you have—when you have such a 

strain on our State and local budgets. We have some very, very 

good men and women out there in law enforcement, but they need 

the wherewithal to put these kinds of programs together. Would 

you agree with that? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I certainly would agree with that, and in the Recovery Act as well as in the President’s 2010 budget, there are additional funds requested specifically for rural law enforcement programs, and the COPS program itself recognizes this by ensuring 

that money is distributed to large communities as well as smaller 

communities. I think that is important. But I think your fundamental point that the task force approach at the Federal, State, 

and local level is critical to controlling crime is the right one. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I emphasize, we are not trying to set up 

either/or types of things. I do not in any way want to take from 

the problems that large cities have. A lot of cities are several times 

the population of my own State, and they have some very unique 

problems because of that. 

You have in the Office of Justice Programs component parts, including the COPS office, billions of dollars in grants for State and 

local law enforcement to award. Incidentally, we keep talking about 

the COPS program. That is C–O–P–S for any of the people who 

may be watching this on C–SPAN or anywhere else. It is the name 

of the program. 

What kind of plans do you have for awarding this grant money 

going forward? And what kind of programs do you expect to support? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Through the COPS hiring program, that program 

is focused on the ability of funding local communities to hire individual officers, essentially 3 years’ worth of funding with a guarantee from the local community that they will fund for an additional year thereafter. But there are other programs, particularly 

programs focused on protecting our children against child exploitation, programs that fund the schools and law enforcement working with schools to make schools safer environments, as well as a 

host of technical assistance efforts that the COPS office oversees, 

principally to help local communities, make them most effective, 

make their local police most effective by helping them find the 

right strategies and solutions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

8 

Mr. Perrelli, you are the Associate Attorney General, and in that 

position you are responsible for Office of Justice Programs and basically the policies of the Department with regard to State and 

local law enforcement? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Under the Associate Attorney General, there is 

the Office of Justice Programs as well as the COPS office and the 

Office on Violence Against Women. Those are the primary 

grantmaking policy arms. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. And do you have the Bureau of Justice Statistics? 

Mr. PERRELLI. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is within the Office of Justice Programs. 

Senator SESSIONS. I will just share this with you. Fred Thompson 

had this idea—he was exactly correct—which he thought fundamentally the first thing the Federal Government should do, since 

we represent the whole of the United States and have a certain 

amount of money the local departments do not have, we could conduct research, analyze and study initiatives and programs that are 

out there that are working, and some that may not be working. 

Do you feel like you are adequately doing that? Because when we 

spend $4 billion, we want to be sure it goes to the most effective 

programs to reduce crime and make our citizens safer. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, Senator, I think you are exactly right that 

we need to get the most bang for our buck in this context, as in, 

frankly, everything that we do. The Recovery Act is special in 

many respects, but one way is that it requires increased reporting, 

increased transparency, and increased accountability, and we are 

trying to take every step that we can to try and make sure that 

we are using money efficiently. 

On the front end, one of the things that we are doing differently 

than in the past is we are actually working with the Inspector General at the beginning in designing some of these programs. We are 

developing responses to requests for information that we get, so 

that there is no uncertainty or as little uncertainty as we can provide about what the programs are, what they can be used for, what 

they cannot be used for, and how the funds should be used. 

Senator SESSIONS. Can any of the money be used for anything 

other than law enforcement officers? Can it be used, for example, 

for forensic scientists? I am finding from what I hear that is a bit 

bottleneck in the system. You have all the police officers catching 

drug dealers and investigating murders and rapes, but they cannot 

get their DNA or their chemical analysis done. Is any of that 

money available for them? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, Senator, you have echoed what we hear from 

State and local law enforcement all the time. The COPS program 

itself is for hiring sworn officers. What we see is States and localities applying through the Byrne Competitive Grant Program, 

which has over $200 million in the stimulus package, and we have 

seen thousands—I think north of 3,000 applications for civilian personnel, many of them the kinds of forensic analysts that you have 

described. And know that has clearly been demonstrated to us 

through this as a tremendous need in State and local law enforcement authorities. 

9 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, if an agency or a department applies— 

and why wouldn’t they apply? Every good sheriff and police chief 

wants to do more in their community, and they have every incentive to try to get a free officer funded by the Federal Government. 

Are you able to analyze their proposals for how that will be used 

and set criteria to ensure that there is a furtherance of a proven 

initiative that would help reduce crime? How do you decide which 

departments get officers and which do not? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Sure. In the COPS program, there are essentially 

three sets of criteria: economic criteria—this is under the COPS 

Recovery Program—economic criteria, crime factors, so related to 

the crime rate in the individual community, and then their demonstrated commitment to community policing. And each application 

is being evaluated on an individual basis using those criteria, and 

the effort is to look at need, both in terms of how economically impacted that community may be in recent times, longer term, the 

crime rates, and then what they have done and what they have 

committed to do in terms of the kinds of preventive strategies and 

creative strategies. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you been able to have the time to think 

through the possibility of placing other additional criteria on the 

receipt of these grants that you think would further law enforcement? Or are you operating basically on the statutory requirements 

that Congress has given you? How much discretion do you have in 

terms of policymaking with regard to the money that you distribute? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are operating under the statutory criteria, recognizing the Recovery Act’s focus on economic development, the 

COPS office’s traditional focus on crime factors as well as the community policing. Certainly within that there will be an evaluation 

of particular programs. There are factors like consulting with the 

U.S. Attorney to find out is there actually a problem with a particular department that would suggest that they are not the best 

department to fund; or history, has this department not done a 

good job in the past, or has this department done an extraordinarily good job in the past. So those which may not be precisely 

statutory factors certainly come into play. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time has run, and we 

will have—there are some critics of the proposal, as you know. It 

has not accomplished what we would like it to accomplish in some 

areas, for sure. And I think you should not hesitate to ask us, and 

I am sure the Chairman, if you make some recommendations as to 

how to make it better, maybe we can get some laws done that will 

help you. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perrelli. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perrelli, while your focus here today is local law enforcement 

support, juvenile crime prevention and rehabilitation efforts play a 

big role in reducing crime rates. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has played a key role in successful State 

and local efforts to reduce juvenile crime and get kids back on 

10 

track after they have run-ins with the law. Positive intervention 

and treatment at an early stage, we have learned, can prevent further violent behavior and steer young people in the right direction 

before it is too late. In addition, some studies have shown that for 

every dollar that we spend on prevention, we save $3 or $4 in costs 

that are attributable to juvenile crime. 

Senators Leahy, Specter, myself, and others recently introduced 

legislation to make important improvements to juvenile justice programs. Can we count on your strong support in reauthorizing and 

strengthening JJDPA? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Senator, I think we have been very strong supporters of OJJDP and the juvenile justice programs that it has 

worked on over many years, and I think the focus of all of our efforts has really been three-pronged—which is prevention, enforcement, and then trying to work on issues such as re-entry and reducing recidivism. So we would very much like to work with you 

on OJJDP reauthorization. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Perrelli, we cannot underestimate the value 

of working to keep young people from getting in trouble in the first 

place. Title V is the only Federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention. Sadly, funding for the Title V juvenile crime 

prevention programs has been on a steady decline. Last year, Title 

V received only $64 million for the entire country. That was down 

from $95 million in 2002. 

We know that our local communities can leverage this funding 

to accomplish great things, but the fact that a successful and critically important program like Title V receives so little funding is 

deeply troubling. This year, the President has committed $65 million to Title V ju- venile crime prevention. Now, is $65 million to make up for years 

of inadequate support? And is it sufficient in and of itself? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, Senator, the $65 million is what the President has chosen to request in this area. I think it has to be seen 

in the context of both the funding requested through the Recovery 

Act as well as in the fiscal year 2010 budget, a series of programs, 

including funding of, for example—additional funding, for example, 

of the Second Chance Act, which will hopefully work on re-entry 

issues, both for adult and juvenile populations, and hopefully address some of the concerns that you have raised, albeit through 

other programs. 

Senator KOHL. Philosophically, Mr. Perrelli, why do you think 

there is such a wide difference of opinion between those like yourself who really believe that the Federal Government can provide 

assistance to local governments with respect to local law enforcement and juvenile crime prevention programs and those who do not 

believe that it does much good at all? I am sure you have thought 

about it a lot. You have some respect, I am sure, if not considerable, for opposing points of view. Why do we have such a deep divergence here? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I certainly come from the perspective that we are 

all going to be more effective if we are pulling the oars in the same 

direction, and that means partnership is critical. And I think the 

Federal Government plays an important role as one law enforcement agency working with other law enforcement agencies, but 

11 

also in funding programs that can allow State, local, tribal, and 

Federal law enforcement to work together. 

Everything that I have seen both in experience and talking to 

law enforcement officers, such as you will see on the next panel, 

law enforcement officers in my family who have been on a COPS 

grant and have spoken about how significant they thought that 

was and how effective it was. And I think all the research suggests 

that where we operate with this unity of purpose, unity of effort, 

we are going to accomplish more, and that is certainly true in the 

juvenile justice area. 

Senator KOHL. But why do some disagree so strongly? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I understand the argument that law enforcement, 

including in the area of juvenile justice, is a local function and the 

argument that the Federal Government should not necessarily be 

involved. But I guess my sense is that it is the officer walking the 

beat who is going to be the first person to—is going to be the first 

responder, is going to be the person who may well find out that a 

bank robbery is occurring before any Federal agent becomes involved, is as or more likely to be the person who is going to get 

a tip that may lead to an investigation related to terrorism-related 

crime. 

There is no substitute for the people on the ground in local communities who know their communities, and that has a tremendous 

impact on crime prevention and law enforcement across the board. 

Senator KOHL. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Perrelli. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank 

you, Mr. Perrelli, for joining us today as well as Chief Flynn and 

Lieutenant Carlson—Chief Flynn from our neighboring State of 

Wisconsin. It is a very good topic today. I can tell you I was sitting 

here thinking about the change the COPS program made in the 

county where I was a chief prosecutor, Hennepin County. We went 

from, in the mid–1990s where the New York Times dubbed Minneapolis ‘‘Murder-apolis,’’ to a very low crime rate, and you can literally trace it with that COPS funding. 

I was listening to your answers to Senator Kohl about the reasons and the need for this funding with tips for major crimes and 

other Federal investigations. I would also add just having those police on the beat makes a huge difference for the community because 

crimes are not committed when those police are out on the best. 

And I would add what Chief Flynn said in his written testimony, 

that also when you have a safer neighborhood, you have a stronger 

economy, which was why I was such a strong believer that we 

needed that COPS funding in the stimulus package, in the economic recovery package. I was glad it was there. We also pushed 

not to have a local matching grant, which we thought would be 

very difficult to do in these hard times. 

My question, I think, first of all, is as you look at the COPS program in the Department of Justice now, are you looking at those 

local matching grants, if you think there should be changes made 

to those to make it easier for local communities to get the grants? 

It may not be the percentage change. It may be other things. 

12 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, in both the Recovery Act and in the 2010 

budget, the President’s 2010 budget, the local match has been removed, and we have certainly seen it is one factor in why so many 

communities have applied for funding through the COPS program. 

It removed an impediment that many State and local law enforcement officials told us was a significant issue, a significant problem 

that prevented them from participating in the program. 

So I think we are interested to see how the program progresses, 

but we have found that it has been a helpful development. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And are there other changes you think that 

could be made with funding for the program or how the funds are 

given out? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think at this point we want to see how the Recovery Act progresses. We are going to get an enormous amount of 

very recent data soon, and we may be able to formulate some legislative proposals, and I think at this point we do not have anything 

based on the evidence to suggest. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I have talked about this before with you 

and others in the Justice Department. I just see this tremendous 

pressure being pushed down on local law enforcement. You first 

have the economy, which can lead to more crime; you know, the 

statistics are different in different places. But mostly you are having these enormous white-collar investigations in the Department 

of Justice and in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country. We 

have a major one, I think the biggest one we have ever had, going 

on in Minnesota right now. I was on the plane yesterday reading 

the Vanity Fair article about the Bernie Madoff case from the perspective of his secretary. It made me think a lot about all the resources going in. They described all of the FBI agents and everyone 

else looking at all those documents. And all of that is getting 

pushed down. 

Now, I remember when I was in after 9/11, when the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices were understandably focusing on that, and now they 

are focusing on white-collar, and there will be cases coming out of 

the TARP funds and cases coming out of some of the stimulus 

money, corruption cases coming out of that. 

Do you believe that you are going to see more push on local law 

enforcement having to do with million-dollar embezzlement cases 

and those kinds of things that cannot be handled by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Well, I think it is certainly true that the pressure 

on local law enforcement is extraordinary right now, both because 

of the economy and other demands, as you discussed. 

One of the things that we have focused on is recognizing that 

through the stimulus program, we need to help work with State 

and local authorities so that they can recognize when there may be 

fraud or there may be waste or other problems, and working with 

them to help them be able to serve that function, because they will 

frequently be on the front lines and be able to work with, take a 

leading role in working with Federal authorities and making sure 

that money is spent appropriately. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You also have the $225 million Byrne Competitive Grant program. We have a drug court in our county that 

we made some changes to, I believe to make it better, in the last 

13 

few years. Do you plan on suggesting the expanding of drug courts? 

Do you see community prosecution as a viable way to go? I know 

that is something that was talked a lot about. In fact, Attorney 

General Holder used community prosecution when he was the U.S. 

Attorney in D.C. Could you just comment briefly—I am almost running out of time—on those two programs? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I think both those programs, which are, I think, 

creative solutions, good ways to address all the prongs that we 

talked about—prevention, enforcement, and re-entry—I think are 

all areas where we are looking, and certainly they have a lot of interest in funding specialized courts like drug courts and have 

sought some additional funds in the 2010 budget for that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, we are all very, very concerned about the COPS program. It is an incredibly successful program, an incredibly important program. Can you kind of go through the timing—I know you 

have said it is going to be June—and why it has taken so long to 

get it actually done? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Certainly. So we received all the applications, and 

we received roughly 8 times as many applications as we will be 

able to fund. So the number of applications I think has astounded 

everyone. 

The process going forward has been working with States and localities to confirm data, certain numbers, making certain that we 

have all the information we need, and then we need to go through 

a process of evaluating all those applications. And it is a very significant number. 

We are trying to avoid overpromising, and that is one reason why 

I think we wanted to have people’s expectations be set that late 

summer, early fall is the appropriate time. But, you know, we are 

essentially trying to do both grant funding of 2009 plus the Recovery Act grant funding, all in a very compressed window. 

Senator KAUFMAN. And what kind of things are you doing to 

make sure that these—or are you ever concerned about making 

sure these are geographically distributed across the country? Is 

that one of your considerations? 

Mr. PERRELLI. The statute itself that created the COPS program 

requires that kind of dispersion, so that essentially at least, I believe, a half a percent of the overall funds will go to each State, 

and then money is divided up among large localities and small localities. So the program itself is designed to ensure that the money 

is dispersed in an appropriate fashion. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Do you think the non-supplanting provisions 

of the COPS program act as a surplus multiplier? Or do you think 

they lead to the inefficient use of resources? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We are working very hard to make certain that 

the non-supplantation requirement is complied with and that State 

and local law enforcement officials understand what that requirement is and how to comply with it. 

14 

We do not want local law enforcement to plan to get a COPS 

grant and reduce their budget accordingly. That is not an appropriate use of the funds, and we have been very clear about that. 

I think our hope is that it does turn out to be a force multiplier. 

Our experience in the past is that it has been so, and we are making every effort to make sure that it is again. 

Senator KAUFMAN. When do you think the Byrne grant decisions 

will be made? 

Mr. PERRELLI. We have already announced more than $500 million in Byrne/JAG recipients for the formula grants, and we will be 

rolling out the remainder of that $1.9 billion in the coming weeks. 

The Byrne competitive grants will take longer as we evaluate 

what has been, again, a historic number of applications, literally 

thousands of applications for forensic and other technical, nonofficer positions, as well as other programs. We are expecting certainly that by September 30th,—but we are in the midst of evaluating that since those proposals have just come in. 

Senator KAUFMAN. I understand in your earlier testimony and 

questions you talked about the efficacy of the COPS program. 

Could you kind of go through the Byrne, ICAC, and STOP programs in terms of what you feel about the efficacy for those? 

Mr. PERRELLI. Certainly. I think we are finding that certainly 

the Byrne/JAG program has been a cornerstone of State and local 

law enforcement for years, and I think our experience has been and 

certainly the experience provided to us by State and local governments is that it is essential to them. 

The Internet Crimes Against Children is a little bit newer, but 

I think as we know, the Internet has no bounds, and it reaches into 

every community in America, and there is literally nothing—we 

should spare no expense in trying to address those crimes, prevent 

them, and bring people to justice when it occurs. 

I think our sense is that those task forces are being effective 

through terrific cooperation with State and local authorities, and 

also in conjunction with programs such as Senator Sessions mentioned, Weed and Seed and other programs that take a comprehensive approach to dealing with criminal justice issues. 

Senator KAUFMAN. I want to tell you, the ICAC program is a 

wonderful, wonderful program. I want to say what you said before, 

but clearly we are instituting in Delaware, but just around the 

country the reports have been incredible, and what a wonderful 

thing to be able to do to deal with this incredibly difficult problem. 

So I really—the ICAC especially, these are all good programs, the 

ICAC especially. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. I guess I will just say, Mr. Perrelli, that you 

sort of are the point man for the administration, and you are 

spending a number of billions of dollars to try to assist local law 

enforcement where fundamentally law enforcement occurs. It is at 

the local level. Ninety percent of law enforcement officers are probably State and local. Is that about right? 

Mr. PERRELLI. I am not sure of the number, but that would not 

surprise me. 

15 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, and they are out there every day, and we 

want to assist them in doing their job better. And I do believe the 

Federal Government is the repository and should continue to gather highly valuable studies on what programs work and what programs do not work. And I want to pledge to you, if you have ideas 

that you would like to shift some of the money that may be going 

one way to a more effective program another way, we can do some 

testing and evaluating. And so when a local department decides on 

policy, they meet and decide they are going to do community policing or they are going to do a drug court, they will have statistical 

data they can rely on of the highest quality. 

I guess my question is: Do you feel that responsibility? Is that 

your fundamental responsibility to recommend that to your superiors? And can we count on you to make sure that we are moving 

the resources to the most productive areas? 

Mr. PERRELLI. You can, Senator. I agree with you 100 percent 

that we need to—however much money we spend, there is only a 

limited amount of money. We need to use it most effectively, and 

the only way we are going to be able to determine that is if we use 

evidence and sound science and research to determine that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Perrelli, thank you. You may want to talk to Chief Flynn’s 

family with a new child. I know what it is like in your family, trying to get sleep during the night. If it is any consolation, those of 

us who are parents know what that is like. 

Mr. PERRELLI. Thank you, Senator. I would not trade it for the 

world. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know you would not. Thank you very, very 

much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, if Lieutenant Carlson, Chief Flynn, and 

David Muhlhausen could come up, please. 

Our first witness, Lieutenant Kris Carlson is currently a patrol 

supervisor for the Burlington Police Department. He is a 9-year 

veteran of the department, currently also serves as commander of 

the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Lieutenant Carlson has also worked in the Chittenden unit for special 

investigations where he investigated hundreds of cases of sexual 

assault, child exploitation, child abuse, and child fatalities. Lieutenant Carlson earned his bachelor’s degree in legal studies in 

criminology from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and a 

master’s degree in criminal justice from the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. 

Lieutenant Carlson, please go ahead. As always, it is great to see 

you. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTIAN CARLSON, LIEUTENANT, 

BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Mr. CARLSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much for having me here, and members of the Committee. My 

name is Kristian Carlson. I am currently a lieutenant with the 

Burlington, Vermont, Police Department. I have also served as a 

member of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force for 

the past 9 years in numerous capacities, most currently as comVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jan 21, 2010 Jkt 054305 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\54305.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
16 

mander. I am honored to be here this morning to discuss the impact of Federal stimulus funding via the Vermont Internet Crimes 

Against Children Task Force Recovery Act grant. This funding will 

have a direct impact on the citizens of the State of Vermont and 

will enable us to save jobs associated with the Vermont ICAC that 

would have otherwise been lost. 

Since our inception we have observed unprecedented growth in 

the use of the Internet and digital devices by those who seek to exploit our children. Although the population of Vermont is one of the 

smallest in the United States, the ratio of crimes against children 

facilitated by technology is on par with national averages, a dark 

cloud in stark contrast to the picturesque and serene backdrop of 

the Green Mountains. These problems are not unique to Vermont, 

however, as currently there are 59 ICAC task forces operating in 

each State working against similar forces. 

Since we began investigating computer-facilitated child exploitation in 1998, as a State and a Nation we have observed a substantial increase in the number, type, and scope of offenses committed utilizing digital technology and the Internet. We have also 

identified the evidentiary value of digital devices in offenses ranging from graffiti to drugs to homicide, including some of the most 

horrific—those targeting our children and families. 

We have watched as our children have grown up in an age of 

technological wonder and observed our youngest generation master 

new technologies that we could only have imagined. 

With ever expanding technology, the proliferation of digital devices that continue to shrink in size while rising in capability and 

with the overwhelming use of cellular telephones and handheld devices, our children are more at risk than they have ever been as 

those who seek to hurt our children have similarly mastered the 

same technologies. The resulting impact has been increased demand on local and State law enforcement agencies that lack the 

training and expertise to engage in these complex investigations 

and deal with intimidating amounts and scope of digital evidence. 

In turn, agencies across Vermont have come to rely on the specially 

trained and experienced members of the Internet Crimes Against 

Children Task Force. 

As previously noted, the Vermont ICAC has worked closely with 

Federal, State, and local agencies in Vermont and the region to investigate computer-facilitated child exploitation. The importance of 

this effort has been best exemplified in the following high-profile 

investigation: 

On June 25, 2008, 12-year-old Brooke Bennett disappeared from 

tranquil Brookfield, Vermont. The circumstances surrounding 

Brooke’s peculiar disappearance led to the issuance of Vermont’s 

first Amber Alert and immediately garnered national media attention. The Vermont ICAC became involved in the investigation immediately to assist in locating Brooke and to develop information 

regarding her disappearance. This assistance included digital forensic examiners responding to crime scenes, on-site forensic analysis, seizure of digital evidence, and investigation of Brooke’s use 

of various Internet sites, including the popular social networking 

site MySpace. The information developed by the Vermont ICAC 

quickly focused the investigation on Brooke’s uncle, Michael 

17 

Jacques, and was integral in determining that Brooke was not 

missing but had, in fact, been murdered. This investigation led to 

a six-count Federal indictment charging Jacques with the kidnapping of Brooke resulting in her death and the production and possession of child pornography. 

These cases serve to highlight how prolific these offenders are, 

how wide-ranging these investigations can be, and how vital the 

Vermont ICAC has become. 

The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force stimulus funding is being utilized to support our operations by maintaining our 

current staffing and increasing our overall capacity statewide. The 

funding will be utilized to directly support the employment of current members of the Vermont ICAC employed by the Burlington 

Police Department to include a digital forensic examiner and two 

investigators. 

Recovery Act funding will also be used to maintain the current 

contingent of full and part-time personnel hired by the Vermont 

ICAC during the previous grant cycle. This funding will support 

four forensic examiners, one digital forensic technician, and one 

law enforcement investigator. These positions were created through 

funding via the ICAC operational grant, the purpose of which was 

to assist in our overall investigative, forensic, and technical assistance endeavors and to allay the overall backlog of investigations 

and forensic examinations that continue to mount. 

Without the funding through the Recovery Act Internet Crimes 

Against Children Task Force grant, support of current positions 

would not be possible, and they would be terminated. This would 

have a devastating impact on our ability to support Vermont law 

enforcement and serve the citizens of Vermont. 

In summary, Recovery Act grant funding for the Vermont ICAC 

will assist us in sustaining our operations to prevent, interdict, investigate, and prosecute those who exploit our children by allowing 

us to maintain and expand our staff of trained investigators to investigate offenses and conduct proactive investigations; maintain 

and expand our staff of digital forensic examiners to conduct a high 

number of examinations and reduce the backlog of current cases; 

to work closely with our Federal and State prosecutors to ensure 

swift and certain punishment of apprehended offenders; and, in my 

opinion, most importantly, to maintain and expand our current program of educational outreach to parents, youths, and schools 

through instruction in the art of Internet and online safety. 

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Senators for taking testimony on this important set of 

issues and for your continued leadership and support and assistance on law enforcement matters in Vermont and across our Nation. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I would also note, Lieutenant, that the Director of the FBI even came by your office to praise all those who 

worked on the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. I was 

very proud to bring him around and introduce him to everybody 

there. 

18 

Mr. CARLSON. He did. That was an amazing visit. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. He still talks about it. 

Chief Edward Flynn was appointed Chief of Police for the Milwaukee Police Department in January 2008. As Chief, he oversees 

2,000 officers and 700 civilians. Prior to his time in Milwaukee, 

Chief Flynn served as the Chief of Police in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Arlington, Virginia, as well as serving as the Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety under then-Governor Mitt Romney. 

Chief Flynn is a member of the Board of Directors of the Police Executive Research Forum, serves on the Executive Committee of the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in history from LaSalle University and a master’s degree in 

criminal justice from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He also 

graduated from the FBI National Academy and was a National Institute of Justice Pickett Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of 

Government. 

I notice, Chief, both you and Lieutenant Carlson, what a change 

it was from my days in law enforcement to see now so much of the 

advanced degrees of officers. Don’t you agree with that, Senator 

Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, it is remarkable. 

Chairman LEAHY. It is remarkable, and for those of us who 

served in law enforcement years ago, I think we would both agree 

it is a great change. 

Chief, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. FLYNN, CHIEF, MILWAUKEE 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

Chief FLYNN. Well, thank you, sir. You have copies of my remarks, so I will not read them to you. But I will note the following: 

As I look at the hash marks on my left sleeve, they not only remind 

me how old I am, but I can trace in them really the history of 

American policing over the last nearly 40 years. And as you reference education in policing, I can remember that when I was in 

college, it was reading the publication of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, ‘‘The 

Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,’’ that drew me from college 

to police work. And it was because of the law enforcement education program that I got my master’s degree. And the generation 

of police officers educated in the early 1970s who got their bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees under that program became the 

generation of police leaders, myself among them, who were both advocates and disciples for community-oriented and problem-solving 

policing. And we proudly presided over an era in which there were 

dramatic decreases in crime and violence in America’s cities, with 

positive outcomes for all to see. 

One of the points I want to make as we look at the anticipated 

reinvestment in American policing and criminal justice is the fact 

for the last number of years—and I certainly knew this firsthand 

as Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts—we presided over 

a disinvestment in American policing, for understandable but, I 

sincerely felt at the time and expressed myself so, wrongheaded 

reasons. Gradually, homeland security became the monster that 

ate criminal justice. And during my years as safety secretary in 

19 

Massachusetts, I basically saw Byrne and Justice Assistance 

Grants and COPS grants funding disappear while we bought Tyvek 

suits and command vehicles and all manner of first responder gear, 

and we lost the lessons of community-based policing, which is that 

police connected to neighborhoods learn things about those neighborhoods that cannot be learned any other way. 

When I was the police chief in Arlington, Virginia, I had the 

privilege on that great and terrible day of September 11th of leading the police recovery efforts at the Pentagon. One of the terrorists 

who was on Flight 77, Hani Hanjour, had received a speeding citation from my police department only a couple of months before. All 

of these individuals at some point in time were embedded in communities that, if connected to policing, we might conceivably have 

learned about. Certainly we know that now. 

So as we look at the lessons of community policing, they apply 

in many ways, not just to law enforcement but to anti-terrorism. 

But there is something else very important about quality police 

work and quality investments in law enforcement, and that is that 

I honestly believe that if we are thinking in terms of economic 

stimulus and how that affects investments in law enforcement, the 

most cost-effective form of economic stimulus in the central cities 

of America is public safety. 

There is no doubt in my mind that crime causes poverty. Crime 

and the fear of crime close down stores. When warehouses are investing too much money in burglar alarms and floodlights and 

barbed wire, when small stores have been robbed or burgled or 

shoplifted, they close and take with them entry-level jobs and afterschool jobs. 

When a city gets a reputation for violence, it not only affects its 

poor neighborhoods, it affects its central city. Sadly, every time a 

drug dealer shoots a drug dealer, somebody decides not to go to the 

opera or not to go to the ball game or not to go to the shopping 

center in the central city. 

I firmly believe that we have an obligation to every citizen in this 

country to ensure their public safety and that their public safety 

should not be dependent upon their zip code. And when we live in 

a country that is proud of its home rule, the fact is that many tax 

bases have moved away from the cities and left behind extremely 

vulnerable populations. And one of the things they are vulnerable 

to is violence. 

When we control violence, we change the narrative of the city. 

And if anybody doubts that, just remember when you went to 

Times Square, New York, in the 1970s, as I did, and stepped over 

people sleeping in the subways, had your windshield cleaned dirtily 

by a squeegee man, and were propositioned by a prostitute. Go to 

Times Square today, and it is Disneyland North, and that is directly related not only to the control of crime, but the reduction of 

fear and the resultant reinvestment in a central city because people felt that their investment was safe there. 

Every poor city I have ever worked in—and that would include 

Chelsea and Springfield, certainly sections of Milwaukee—when a 

developer came to the city, he only asked one question: Is it safe? 

They did not ask about the school system, public works, or any 

20 

other aspect of local government. They wanted to know if their investment would be safe. 

My point here is that economic stimulus money invested in law 

enforcement is, in fact, economic stimulus money. If we can control 

crime, we can stir reinvestment in our cities. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Flynn appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Chief, and I appreciate 

your testimony, coming as it does from practical experience, not 

just from an abstract view of it. 

Chief FLYNN. I just have one real quick question. I heard that 

there were numerous applications for the COPS grants. I am wondering if you have to be here to win. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERRELLI. It cannot hurt. 

Chairman LEAHY. There is the guy to talk to, right behind you. 

He is the one I go to. 

Our next witness is David Muhlhausen. He is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis. Dr. 

Muhlhausen has testified before Congress on several previous occasions about the law enforcement grant program, including before 

this Committee, particularly the COPS program. He received a 

Ph.D. in public policy from the University of Maryland Baltimore 

County, a bachelor’s degree in political science and justice studies 

from Frostburg State. He is also currently an adjunct professor of 

public policy at George Mason University. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, welcome back. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, PH.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you. Glad to be back. 

Again, my name is David Muhlhausen. I am Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. 

I thank Chairman Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and 

Senator Kohl, and also the rest of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. The views I express in this testimony are 

my own and should not be construed as representing any official 

position of The Heritage Foundation. 

Instead of passing legislation designed to stimulate the economy, 

Congress treated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as 

a political Christmas tree to be filled with goodies for special interest groups. Congress allocated $2 billion for the Byrne/Justice Assistance Grant Program and $1 billion for the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services. Both of these grant programs subsidize 

the routine activities of local law enforcement and rarely, if ever, 

fund activities that are the responsibility of the Federal Government. 

My spoken testimony will focus on three points: 

First, Byrne and COPS grants do virtually nothing to stimulate 

the economy. These grants do not fund the types of activities that 

would provide a stimulus or a shock to the economy. Further, these 

grants do not elevate economic productivity or promote technological advancement—two important ingredients for economic 

21 

growth. Funding for these programs has been either taxed or borrowed out of the private sector. This transfer of money out of the 

private sector and into inefficient hands of the Government is unlikely to stimulate the economy. 

After passage, the stimulus act requires Byrne and COPS grants 

be rapidly spent in 90- and 30-day time periods. The Congressional 

Budget Office’s analysis of the act has foreseen some of the complications created by Federal transfers to local governments. The 

CBO acknowledges that in an environment in which rapid spending is a significant goal, State and local governments that received 

stimulus grants might apply some of the funding to activities they 

would have carried out anyway, thus lowering the long-run economic return of those grants. 

More importantly, the CBO estimates that the long-run impact 

of the stimulus act will be increased debt that will crowd out private investment. We note recently the news reporting that our national debt for this year is now going to be an estimated $1.8 trillion. That is four times the debt of last year. This act is estimated 

to reduce the Nation’s long-term economic output. 

Second, Congress encourages local officials to shift accountability 

for funding departments toward the Federal Government. During 

the Committee’s last hearing on this issue, we heard testimony 

that local governments did not have enough money to adequately 

fund their police departments. Given that public safety is the primary responsibility of State and local governments, then these governments should seriously reconsider their budget priorities. If 

budget shortfalls exist, then funding should be cut from less important services. 

Some local governments have recognized that accepting Federal 

grants can create fiscal problems down the road. For example, 

Scottsdale, Arizona, turned down over $225,000 in Byrne funding. 

Council members worried that accepting the money would create 

overhead that would burden future city budgets. They also were 

concerned that the city would be accepting the money just for the 

sake of spending it. 

In North Carolina, the Lenoir County Sheriff’s Office decided 

against applying for COPS grants due to concerns about the budgetary hole the grant would create after funding ran out. 

Third, COPS has an extensive track record of poor performance. 

The 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, burglary, assault, larceny, and auto theft rates. Although the hiring grants were associated with a slight decrease in robberies, the meager effect suggests 

that additional funding would 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 conducted by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. 

In conclusion, the addition of Byrne and COPS grants in the 

stimulus act is precisely the wrong approach to accomplish an economic recovery. 

Thank you. 

22 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Lieutenant Carlson, you mentioned in your testimony that the 

Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force was facing 

cuts before funding in the stimulus package. What kind of cuts 

were you facing before the stimulus package? 

Mr. CARLSON. We were able to hire a number of positions during 

the last operational grant for forensic analysts—four forensic attorneys, a law enforcement investigator—that were being funded 

through our operational grant. Given the status of our operational 

grant currently, there would be no way for us to maintain those positions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Is there any other similar type unit in 

Vermont that could have picked up the slack? 

Mr. CARLSON. There are none, no, sir. And, you know, this is one 

of those areas that I think we referenced earlier regarding 

forensics. When I say forensics, we are referring to digital 

forensics, so any devices that are used really for any offense, and 

obviously we focus on child exploitation cases. But the collateral 

benefit to the folks in our unit is that they have the training and 

experience to look into devices that might be used in other types 

of offenses as well, as I said, from graffiti to homicide. 

Chairman LEAHY. So with the money you have, you will be able 

to keep those positions now. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, we will be able to keep those positions and 

be maintaining our current staff as we have it right now and maintain our current operations. 

Chairman LEAHY. I think it is because of your unique role, actually the one place in the State, which is why the FBI Director came 

and toured your operation, including the computer forensic lab. 

As a Vermonter, I might say just as a personal aside, I was very 

proud to bring Bob Mueller over there. I think that he was impressed that a State as small as ours could do that. But I think 

he also understood that it could do it only because it was there for 

the whole State. 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes. And at this point, we have become heavily relied upon by most of the law enforcement organizations across 

Vermont, to include its largest, the Vermont State Police, for our 

expertise in investigating Internet-related offenses, computer offenses, and, of course, as I mentioned, our digital forensic capacity. 

Chairman LEAHY. Chief Flynn, you alluded to this in your testimony. You have advocated these funds not only to support State 

and local police but how they affect law enforcement and what it 

does to the area economically. 

Tell me again, stress again why it is you feel money spent on law 

enforcement has an effect for economic stimulus beyond the obvious, just hiring jobs for law enforcement. 

Chief FLYNN. I think it needs to be understood as you watched 

the cycle of decay and decline of America’s cities in the 1960s and 

1970s and early 1980s, what you saw was a cycle driven not primarily by the economy but primarily by crime and the fear of 

crime. Those cities that experienced the most urban decay in terms 

of riots or spikes in crimes, starting in the 1960s, lost their middle 

23 

class. And no city can successfully succeed without a middle and 

working class. When people abandon their cities, they not only take 

their tax base with them, they take with them social capital. They 

take with them leadership capacity. And the vacancies that were 

left behind, the vacuums that were left behind, were proven over 

and over again in places like Newark and Detroit. I was born in 

Newark. You know, the Newark of the 1970s was not the Newark 

that I was born in. Its middle class abandoned it, and it abandoned 

it because of fear of crime. 

Now, it has been shown in cities that have made significant 

strides in crime reduction that economic activity will gradually return. When we look at Milwaukee, we have got significant pockets 

of poverty. We have a 24-percent poverty rate. That is in the top 

ten of America. And in the neighborhoods that have the worst poverty, they have the least economic opportunity because of the abandonment of many of their shopping districts of the stores that held 

those neighborhoods together. 

You know, when warehouses and factories close because their 

cars are getting broken into, they not only leave a gaping hole in 

our property tax, they abandon those people who could easily get 

to work there. People in a central city do not have access to the 

kind of mass transit that will get them out to some suburb to work. 

So we see the cities are already well situated physically. The 

challenge is can they change their reputation, and I think we can. 

And when we do change that reputation, we get an upsurge in 

downtown activity, not just a fighting chance to restore some activity or a challenged neighborhood. Remember, those are the same 

neighborhoods to which a generation of criminals that we locked up 

in the late 1990s are now returning, and they are returning to 

neighborhoods that do not have the jobs to support them. And I 

think that return is part of what is challenging our street crime 

rate right now as we try to hold the line. 

Chairman LEAHY. And so, Dr. Muhlhausen, you have written extensively on this, and I heard your testimony. Do you believe the 

Federal Government should never support State and local law enforcement through the Byrne and COPS programs? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think, first off, the COPS program basically subsidizes salaries of police officers, and that is not an appropriate Federal function. 

Chairman LEAHY. So you do not think the Federal Government 

should support State and local law enforcement? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think there are areas that, in the 

sense of information sharing and coordination, setting up DNA 

databases, helping out with task forces that address interstate 

issues and not intrastate issues, I think the Federal Government 

can do a lot to help out, helping States and law enforcement coordinate activities across the country. But paying for a local officer to 

walk the beat in his hometown is not an appropriate function of 

the Federal Government. 

Chairman LEAHY. My time is up, and I am going to turn the 

gavel over to Senator Kohl, but I would yield first, of course, to 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. 

24 

This is a good discussion. Chief Flynn, let me say that I think 

you are right that crime does create poverty. It can result in an 

abandonment of whole neighborhoods. And in the past, police have 

abandoned those neighborhoods. Sometimes they have had hostile 

receptions there, and they have just backed off. And what we have 

learned, wouldn’t you agree, from community-oriented policing is 

that good police officers in any neighborhood will be welcomed and 

can actually play a role in improving that neighborhood’s safety 

and financial strength? 

Chief FLYNN. Absolutely. There is no doubt, in the early years of 

my police career, that police were often the flashpoint for racial discord in the central city, and virtually every major urban disturbance of the late 1960s and early 1970s was, in fact, caused by a 

police action. 

We have seen extraordinary strides in the cementing of positive 

neighborhood and police relations because now the police are in 

there problem solving and working with people in those neighborhoods to create safety. 

Senator SESSIONS. I could not agree more. In Mobile, I was involved with Chief Harold Johnson, who came out of the Detroit Police Department, an African American leader committed to community-oriented policing. And it really turned the whole relationship 

between the people and the police. Crime was improved, and we 

did a Weed and Seed program together with the mayor, with the 

chief, with the Federal agencies that worked remarkably in a whole 

neighborhood that had been taken over by crime. So I know that 

can be done. We wanted Federal money to do it, but we did not 

make the cut for the Weed and Seed. 

And I will just say, Mr. Muhlhausen, it was accomplished without Federal money. Later on we got some Federal money. But basically it was utilizing the existing police, the existing city’s ability 

to crack down on people who let their houses fall in and will not 

pick the garbage up, and all of those things that go to creating a 

healthy environment. 

Dr. Muhlhausen, I would just say that you made some very valuable points. I know people do not like to talk about it, but I am 

not convinced that just providing bodies, small numbers of police 

bodies and certain selected few departments who are fortunate 

enough to win the lottery is necessarily an effective crime-fighting 

technique. 

What I would say, Mr. Flynn and Lieutenant Carlson, is that the 

key to it is effective policing, not so much the numbers. Now, 

wouldn’t you agree, Chief Flynn, that it was changing of tactics in 

New York City under Rudy Giuliani and his team and others, the 

broken windows and other ideas, that they promoted not just the 

number of police officers but the effective deployment of those by 

imaginative leadership that really made the progress in transforming New York City. 

Chief FLYNN. They did the best of both worlds, Senator. On the 

one hand, they really did enhance their management accountability 

systems, which was critical. But the New York City Police Department did increase from 28,000 to 40,000 over those years. So I 

would say it was a combination of good management, but also exVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jan 21, 2010 Jkt 054305 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\54305.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
25 

traordinary resources that enabled them to really drive crime 

down. 

Senator SESSIONS. And wouldn’t you agree that a lot of departments have large numbers of police officers that are not being effectively utilized and that very effective strategies can help any Department improve its productivity, and if they are not doing that, 

they are wasting taxpayers’ money? 

Chief FLYNN. I think strategy connected to good data analysis 

will always do a better job for you than no strategy at all. But certainly having people in the public spaces of our most violent neighborhoods where they are visible and available goes a long way toward driving down fear as well as crime. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand that. I understand that. You and 

I understand each other. You are a professional, and I have been 

at it for a long number of years, too. So more police officers will 

not necessarily help anybody do a better job. 

Chief FLYNN. Not by itself, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. But you do have to have the mix. 

With regard to the task force on Internet and child exploitation, 

I think those kinds of activities work, Lieutenant Carlson. I have 

seen it. I believe in it. People need to have—the average police officer does not have access to that. You need a specialized group that 

can support a whole area. 

Are you supporting more than just your area, the whole State? 

Mr. CARLSON. We are currently supporting the entire State of 

Vermont. We have investigations that range from border to border 

on any given week or month. So we offer our services to anyone 

that needs it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, do you expect that the—did the Federal 

Government grant money help you create this capacity and create 

the computer systems you needed and the personnel you needed to 

get this program started? 

Mr. CARLSON. From day one, we have been funded through Federal grant funds and have created our entire structure. 

Senator SESSIONS. You would expect that every city and every 

State of America to have all these task forces fully funded by the 

Federal Government? 

Mr. CARLSON. I am sorry? 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you expect that every city and county 

in America would have the Federal Government fund those kinds 

of task forces? 

Mr. CARLSON. Currently, there are 59 throughout the United 

States, and I think the goal is—so that not every city and State has 

a funded task force, but there are regional task forces that can assist larger and broader areas and create that inter-jurisdictional cooperation that we were speaking about earlier. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I just know that every department, 

every sizable department has people that specialize in sexual abuse 

of children. They are doing the right thing, and if we help them 

create these systems that work, each one of those existing officers 

can be supported and be a lot more effective. Don’t you agree with 

that? 

Mr. CARLSON. Absolutely, and one of the roles of the task force 

is just that, is training, is that we go out and we train officers from 

26 

across the State of Vermont to, at the very least, engage in a lowerlevel type of investigation where they are able to respond to crime 

scenes that have digital evidence. They can do basic lower-level, patrol-officer-level forensic examinations onsite if needed. 

So we are actually providing that, and we are giving officers 

throughout the State of Vermont the skills that they need to at 

least initiate these investigations from the ground. And then if we 

need to come in later on for more complex investigations or for investigative support, we are also there for that as well. 

Senator SESSIONS. Excellent. 

Senator KOHL. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

Chief Flynn, for many years, we have been asking law enforcement to do more with less, and so our ability to fight crime has 

been undermined as a result. With the recent increased support in 

the 2009 omnibus appropriations act as well as the stimulus bill, 

what must law enforcement officials do to ensure taxpayers that 

the money, the resources that we are now putting out there to be 

used by local law enforcement, what can you do to assure us that 

the money will be used effectively? 

Chief FLYNN. I think that is a very important question, Senator, 

and I think one of the challenges that Senator Sessions raises is 

the accountability issue, which is, Are we properly accounting for 

our use of public assets. 

We have certainly committed ourselves in the Milwaukee Police 

Department to being proper stewards of public assets, and we have 

a track record in this last year of carefully managing those assets 

that the city provides us. And we have even managed to curtail our 

overtime because we have carefully examined our existing business 

practices in order to create maximum efficiencies, because we recognize that every dollar we save is a dollar we can apply to good 

law enforcement. 

So I think it is important that there be strings attached, if you 

will, to this money and that there be accountability. And I think 

we ought to be audited as to how we spend this money. And if we 

can draw a nexus between our investments in local capacity and 

an impact on crime and on fear and on disorder, I believe we can 

do all three. 

We have certainly worked very hard in this last year and a half 

in Milwaukee to be a data-driven police department that manages 

itself by its metrics. It is constantly aware of the changing crime 

environment. But we also recognize that there is a felt need on the 

streets of Milwaukee for a visible, stable police presence. And one 

must keep in mind in central cities that I wish we could spend all 

of our time fighting crime. If we could, we could have even a more 

dramatic impact. But we are the social service agency of first resort 

for the poor, and even in our busiest, most crime-ridden neighborhoods, the police department is spending 80 percent of its time 

helping people in crisis, be they the mentally ill, the drug-addicted, 

the alcohol-addicted, dysfunctional families, problems with youth, 

child abuse—all manner of disputes, disturbances, and car accidents. The police department is heavily committed to those duties 

and tasks. 

27 

And so, consequently, it is a challenge for us to identify preventive policing resources, and that is why COPS grants money is so 

important to us. It allows us to make an extra investment in those 

police resources so we can provide that foot patrol, so we can provide that bicycle patrol, so we can provide that stable presence in 

public spaces from which people draw strength and courage and 

begin to use their neighborhoods. 

You know, our challenge is to create neighborhoods that can sustain civic life, and we do that through the thoughtful application 

not just of crime attack strategies, if you will, but by problem solving and neighborhood stabilization. 

Keep in mind a very important point. The essence of General 

Petraeus’ strategy in Iraq was not defeating the terrorists militarily. It was providing public safety in the cities. He recognized 

that no society can flourish, commercially or politically, without a 

base sense of public safety. And I would offer to all of you that that 

truism is just as true in our central cities as it is in Mosul and 

Baghdad. Our challenge is to restore that sense of stability and 

safety to our challenged neighborhoods so they can recover politically and economically. 

Senator KOHL. Chief Flynn, while the focus here today is primarily on local law enforcement programs, juvenile crime prevention and rehab efforts play a big role in reducing crime rates, as 

you know. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

has played a key role in successful State and local efforts to reduce 

juvenile crime and get our young people back on track after they 

have had run-ins with the law. 

What role do your officers play within the juvenile justice system 

and the programs that are out there to help lead our young people 

away from getting involved in criminal activity? 

Chief FLYNN. Well, I am not only proudly a police chief, but 

proudly a member of the Executive Board of Fight Crime, Invest 

in Kids, which you probably know of because they are a nonpartisan, public education group made up of police chiefs, prosecutors, and crime victims who make the point to inform Congress 

that research has demonstrated time and again that investments 

in young people can prevent crime longitudinally, whether it is investments in things like Head Start or early child care or investments in after-school activities. 

Milwaukee is heavily invested in a program known as Safe and 

Sound, which is a network of locations where young people can go 

after school, whether they are homework clubs or Boys and Girls 

Clubs or YMCA-based leadership activities, to have alternatives to 

the street, because our young people are at risk as victims as well 

as potential criminals, and most of the trouble that young people 

get into is after school closes and before their parents get home 

from work. And our challenge is to provide them healthy opportunities that keep them out of harm’s way. 

I think judicious and thoughtful investments in juvenile justice 

systems as well as juvenile programming goes a long way toward 

preventing crime committed by juveniles, and just as importantly, 

preventing crime committed upon juveniles, because the peer group 

is always the group that is most victimized by other young people. 

Senator KOHL. How has that Safe and Sound program worked? 

28 

Chief FLYNN. I think it is terrific. You know, our officers are very 

engaged with it. It is a very powerful network of service providers 

in the city who have a wide array of opportunities for young people 

to participate in events after school. You know, everybody is not a 

basketball player, and so it is a challenge to provide a variety of 

activities that young people can benefit from in a safe environment. 

And I think it has been a very important component of our continued success in Milwaukee in controlling crime. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With regard to juvenile crime, having been a United States Attorney for a long time, I am well aware of the Federal idea that 

juvenile crime is a local matter and there is almost no arrest of juvenile crimes—and, Chief, you have probably seen it. If there is a 

Federal investigation and juveniles get arrested, they usually ask 

the State and local people to take them because the Feds do not 

have a juvenile detention center; they do not have the system set 

up with counselors and the kinds of things that we use for juveniles. That is just sort of, Senator Kohl, one of the things that has 

happened over the years. It is probably good. So strengthening the 

State and local juvenile system is an important thing for the country. 

Just briefly, Chief Flynn, how big is your Milwaukee department? How many officers do you have? 

Chief FLYNN. Two thousand sworn officers, and the population I 

think is about 605,000. 

Senator SESSIONS. And how many officers do you have on your 

team? 

Chief FLYNN. Well, you know, obviously we have not hired anybody with universal hiring grant money in probably about 8 years, 

but Milwaukee hired, I believe, 80 officers from that program who 

became part of our table of organization. 

Senator SESSIONS. Over the years? 

Chief FLYNN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. So over, I guess, 10 years or so, you hired 80 

out of 2,000. So that is not the breakthrough numbers that I think 

we might understand the COPS program to be. 

Now, Dr. Muhlhausen, let me ask you to just state for the 

record—one of the criticisms of COPS was that several departments—I see one you mentioned, one in Mount Desert, Maine, rejected a grant, because you have to commit to keep this officer on 

the payroll, right? Isn’t that the commitment, that a police department, if you get a COPS program they pay for 3 years, and then 

the city or the sheriff is supposed to pay that salary permanently 

and not reduce the other personnel in the office to pay for it, right? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, what is the criticism with regard to the 

faithfulness of the cities who got these police officers in following 

through on their commitment to maintain this as a permanent increase to the Department? Do you have any numbers on that? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think the Inspector General found that 

abuse was widely just rampant among police departments with 

COPS grants. What happened was many agencies, they would hire 

29 

a police officer through the COPS program while they were actually downsizing. Newark, New Jersey, and Camden, New Jersey, 

were recently in the news for—they are actually now being held accountable for their abuse during the 1990s. 

Other police departments—Atlanta—did not hire the number of 

officers it claimed. Then there was Seattle, did not hire the number 

of officers it was supposed to. 

There was a survey done by the National Institute of Justice that 

found that police departments that received COPS grants to hire 

additional officers, the majority of them did not know how they 

were going to retain the officers in the future. 

So I think that sets up a scenario where, once you get a COPS 

grant, the fund just for the basic routine services that local governments are supposed to provide anyways, when that grant runs out, 

they turn around, and whose fault is it that they have to let go of 

the police officer? It is not the local government is not living up to 

the grant. It is the Federal Government because they are not continuing to fund the program. 

So now I think we have a lot of pressure now where we want to 

turn the COPS program into a permanent subsidy for State and 

local law enforcement. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, there is a lot of truth to that. I am just 

telling you. I know my police departments, and everybody does, 

and you take any money you can get. They are shortchanged by 

their counties and city budgets, and they are frustrated. And if 

they can get Federal money, it is a big asset to them, and they 

want it, and they are going to get it. The question is: Is this the 

best way and has it proven to be as effective as we would like it 

to be to enhance law enforcement? 

This has been passed. It is going to be out there, and I think all 

of us just need to do—as the Chief said, make sure we use every 

dollar as wisely as we can. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Feingold. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for chairing the 

hearing, and, of course, just like you, I want to extend a special 

welcome to Chief Flynn of the Milwaukee Police Department. I had 

the opportunity to meet with the Chief a couple of months ago, and 

I was very impressed by the innovative ideas he has brought to the 

Milwaukee Police Department that have resulted in great strides 

toward lowering the crime rate in that city. So I welcome you. 

I am a long-time supporter and defender of Federal assistance to 

State and local law enforcement, as you know, in particular the 

Byrne/Justice Assistance Grants and the COPS grants. It is a partnership between the Federal Government and the State and local 

governments to provide adequate funding, and it is especially important now, when State and local agencies are being tasked with 

homeland security responsibilities in addition to their law enforcement responsibilities, when, of course, as we know certainly in our 

State, and I know in many other States, State revenue sources are 

greatly threatened, diminished by the recession. 

I am pleased that funding to support the available services that 

State and local law enforcement provide after being slashed repeatVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:58 Jan 21, 2010 Jkt 054305 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\54305.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
30 

edly by the previous administration were provided in the economic 

stimulus package that Congress passed this year, and now this 

money has begun to make its way to State and local agencies 

across the country. It is important that Congress continue to stay 

informed of the situation on the ground and provide assistance 

where necessary and appropriate. 

And so, with that, I would like to really just ask the Chief from 

Milwaukee to answer one question. What would you say have been 

the most important factors that contributed to the dramatic decrease in violent crime that you have overseen in Milwaukee in the 

past year? And do you face special challenges in trying to continue 

to reduce crime during this economic downturn? 

Chief FLYNN. I think we have had—I have benefited by an interlocking combination of circumstances. Number 1, I arrived to a police department that was nearly fully staffed. The mayor had made 

a major commitment within existing resources to keep the numbers 

of Milwaukee police officers up to its table of organization level, 

which was remarkable. 

With that resource and with the commitment to data-driven policing that we developed in our first several months there, and a 

commitment to neighborhoods, those interlocking combinations of 

community connection, data-driven analysis to deploy our resources, and adequate resources have allowed us to have a dramatic impact on crime. 

Last year, we reduced homicides by 32 percent, but within that 

number is a more profound number. The number of African American men between the ages of 15 and 29 murdered in 2008 was 65 

percent lower than it was in 2007, from 54 to 19, and that was a 

relentless focus on our crime hot spots, our gang areas, our openair drug dealing, trying to break up the retaliatory cycle of violence. That takes people. That takes a commitment to getting officers in public spaces. And I sincerely believe it borders on the disingenuous to cite places like Newark and Camden that have been 

urban blast zones in terms of poverty, unemployment, urban degradation, destruction of the local tax base, and then, like Captain 

Renault in ‘‘Casablanca,’’ be ‘‘Shocked, shocked,’’ to find out that 

the city has used COPS office hiring instead of local assets. They 

did not have any money, and they had extraordinary crime. 

Now, I am not here to defend bad practices, but I have also been 

a police officer a very long time and have seen an extraordinary 

amount of inner-city violence. And it is highly concentrated in 

those cities that have the worst tax bases. Surprise, surprise. What 

is America’s responsibility to its citizens? If you have the accident 

of birth to be born in Newark, does that mean you deserve to get 

shot, but if you get born in Summit, New Jersey, you deserve to 

be safe? It is absurd. All right? 

The safety challenges of American cities are not uniform across 

the country, and the only agency of government in a position to assist American cities at high risk of violence and American citizens 

at high risk of violence is to provide local government assistance. 

I am looking at a city right now that has got a $40 million operating budget deficit right now as we speak. Why? Because the stock 

market collapsed with the employee pensions, and by charter, we 

have to fund it at 100 percent. Now, that $40 million has to come 

31 

out of an operating budget. That is going to put pressure on police 

and on firefightings and on roads and on every other such thing. 

And so as I am applying for COPS money, trying to hold onto the 

officers I have and prudently expand the numbers we have, I know 

I am going to be challenged going forward to continue to provide 

a safe environment for our citizens. And because of that, I certainly 

welcome the renewed interest in the U.S. Government in the safety 

of its local government citizens. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have been 

pleased and proud to hear that answer from anyone in law enforcement, but I am particularly proud that the Chief of our largest city 

would be able to articulate that in such an eloquent and effective 

way. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold. 

Gentlemen, you have done a great job. I think the panel has been 

stimulating and informative—some degree of disagreement here, 

which is also always healthy in trying to get at some of the essentials. So we appreciate your being here, and we at this time dismiss 

the panel. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

32 


54305.001
33 


54305.002
34 


54305.003
35 


54305.004
36 


54305.005
37 


54305.006
38 


54305.007
39 


54305.008
40 


54305.009
41 


54305.010
42 


54305.011
43 


54305.012
44 


54305.013
45 


54305.014
46 


54305.015
47 


54305.016
48 


54305.017
49 


54305.018
50 


54305.019
51 


54305.020
52 


54305.021
53 


54305.022
54 


54305.023
55 


54305.024
56 


54305.025
57 


54305.026
58 


54305.027
59 


54305.028
60 


54305.029
61 


54305.030
62 


54305.031
63 


54305.032
64 


54305.033
65 


54305.034
66 


54305.035
67 


54305.036
68 


54305.037
69 


54305.038
70 


54305.039
71 


54305.040
72 


54305.041
73 


54305.042
74 


54305.043
75 


54305.044
76 


54305.045
77 


54305.046
78 


54305.047
79 


54305.048
80 


54305.049
81 


54305.050
82 


54305.051
83 


54305.052
84 


54305.053
85 

Æ 


54305.054