Leahy Brings Judiciary Committee To Vermont
RUTLAND,
Vt. (Monday, March 24,
2008) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) today
held a field hearing to examine the rise in drug-related violent crime
in rural communities. The hearing was held in Rutland, Vermont.
Rutland has seen
a rise in drug-related violent crime in recent years, and has been
aggressive in finding, developing and implementing constructive
solutions to address those issues. Judiciary Committee Ranking
Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) also attended Monday’s hearing in Vermont. To read witness testimony,
visit the
Judiciary Committee website. Leahy’s statement is below:
Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
Hearing On “The Rise Of Drug-Related Violent Crime In Rural
America:
Finding Solutions To A Growing Problem”
Rutland,
Vermont
March 24, 2008
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee has come to my
home state of Vermont to hear from the
people of Rutland about the
persistent problem of drug-related violent crime in rural communities.
This is a crisis that we have felt acutely here in
Vermont, and particularly in Rutland,
but that is also being felt throughout
America.
The myth is still alive that drug abuse and
drug-related crime are only big-city problems. The fact is that
Rural America is also coping with these issues. We need a fresh
look at drug crime through the lens of the experience of smaller cities
and rural communities, and bringing the Senate Judiciary Committee here
will give Congress a perspective that will help shape better solutions.
In Rutland,
a public-spirited community with creative leadership is not satisfied
with the status quo. That makes
Rutland’s experience and ideas all the more
valuable to other communities that are confronting these same issues.
I am glad that so many people who care about and
work on these issues have joined us today as we explore how to fix this
problem, including federal and state officials, local law enforcement
leaders, educators, experts in prevention and treatment, concerned
parents and members of the community.
I also want to thank Senator Specter for making the
trip to Vermont. He and I
have both cared deeply about fighting crime since our days as
prosecutors, and we both understand that violent crime is a major issue
for smaller cities and rural communities like those throughout
Vermont
and many parts of Pennsylvania,
just as it is in big cities.
The numbers alone are reason enough for concern.
The Vermont Crime
Information
Center
says that reported crimes in
Vermont
rose 5.7 percent from 2005 to 2006, after having declined for several
years. Violent crime in
Vermont
rose nearly 10 times the national average – a stark increase consistent
with what has been happening in rural areas around the country.
Recent events have brought the dry statistics of
crime rates into stark relief.
Rutland
has seen four drug-related shootings since November. On February
4, 2008, two men were shot, one fatally, on
Grove Street in Rutland City
in a drug deal gone bad.
The problems
Rutland
has encountered are like those seen across the country in communities
large and small. Rutland is showing
leadership in addressing those problems, and
Rutland
is a community that is interested in solutions. The town has
responded, as Vermonters always do, by working together and joining
forces to tackle this problem. Local leaders have met to discuss
new ways to improve safety, and individuals and companies have donated
money to help provide overtime funding for
Rutland
police officers. Those ideas and experiences can be useful to
other communities elsewhere. There is no one-size-fits-all
solution to this multi-faceted problem.
Law enforcement is a vital piece of any plan to
reduce violence. The Rutland Police Department and law enforcement
throughout Vermont have worked
extremely hard to respond to and prevent violence, and they have often
been successful. But for years, in
Vermont
and elsewhere, state and local law enforcement have been stretched thin
as they shoulder both traditional crime-fighting duties and new homeland
security demands. They have faced continuous cuts in federal
funding under the current administration, and time and time again, our
state and local law enforcement officers, like the Vermont State Police
and the Rutland Police Department and their counterparts in other
states, have been unable to fill department vacancies. The trend
is unacceptable.
We have made some progress. Since 2001, I
have worked to secure federal funding in the Justice Department budget,
including $1 million this year, for the Vermont Drug Task Force, which
has played an essential role in cracking down on increased drug activity
throughout the state, which many communities lack the resources to do on
their own.
We have also had setbacks. At the height of
its funding, the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program,
increased our police presence on the streets, and by all accounts aided
in the steady decline in the national crime rate in the 1990s. But
beginning with President Bush’s first year in office, the administration
has significantly cut the COPS program, and violent crime has once again
been on the rise. Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants are unique in
enabling and encouraging cross-jurisdictional solutions to preventing
and fighting crime. Vermont’s own Drug Task
Force is a prime example of the Byrne-JAG approach. Yet funding
has fallen dramatically since 2002, from $900 million to $170 million
this year. These cuts directly hit local police. Funding
cuts have also hit the Crime-Free Rural States grant program, which was
last funded through the ten million dollars I was able to secure in the
2003 omnibus appropriations bill. Since then, funding for this
important program to help local communities prevent and reduce crime,
violence and substance abuse has been eliminated.
We are working to reverse these trends, but we must
do more. I will keep fighting to restore the COPS, Byrne-JAG, and Crime-Free Rural States
programs, as well as other proven federal programs that help police
officers who are in the trenches, fighting crime.
While I have always pushed for serious punishment
for serious crimes, I also know well that law enforcement alone will not
solve the problem of violence in our communities. I have long
advocated an approach to crime with equal attention to law enforcement,
prevention and education, and treatment. The best way to prevent
crime is often to provide young people with opportunities and
constructive things to do, so they stay away from crime and drugs
altogether. When people get involved with drugs, treatment often
works better than punishment alone to turn people away from crime.
Regrettably, this administration has consistently sought to reduce
funding for prevention and treatment programs.
Perhaps the most important component in dealing
with this crucial problem is collaboration. We see results when we
have people working together at the local, state, and federal levels,
and in the law enforcement, prevention, and treatment fields. We
have seen that success in
Vermont. I hope that today we can start to
figure out what kinds of approaches have worked best and how to build
upon them, and how we can work together to bring real solutions to
Rutland, to Vermont, and to Rural America.
It is great that we have with us today such a
distinguished group of witnesses who can discuss the problem and propose
solutions from the valuable perspectives of law enforcement, education,
prevention, and treatment. I look forward to your testimony.
# # # # #