Thank you for having me here today.  I want to thank President Tom Repetto for years of sage advice and guidance on issues of crime and security.  I want to thank Professor Benjamin Tucker and Professor Joe Ryan and everyone else here for hosting me today.

I want to make particular mention of Chief Mike O’Connor, who is up here on the panel.  He has been a friend throughout my years of public service.  Now, most of you probably know Mike.  But for those who don’t, he was the last chief of the Transit Authority Police Department (TAPD) – the police force that patrolled the transit system before it was merged with the NYPD.  Since then, he has directed security for both the Port Authority and the Downtown Alliance.  I want thank him for being here today, for all he has done both for me, and for his contribution to keeping our great city safe and secure for decades.

Today, in my 12th policy address of this campaign, I want to talk about my plan to ensure that New York’s law enforcement community remains at the vanguard of efforts to combat the entire range of challenges that span from quality of life crimes to terrorism. 

We should be proud of what we’ve accomplished.  We are blessed to have the world’s finest police officers patrolling our streets. 

But we are in danger of losing our forward momentum.  There are growing signs that we are headed in the wrong direction, and that if we fail to act now, our low crime rate could be in jeopardy.

In late June, I stood in front of a subway station in Queens where a young woman had been raped and released statistics that showed that crime in the subways was up.  The Mayor’s spokesman responded: “I would take the word of [Police] Commissioner Kelly and the FBI before taking the word of Anthony Weiner. . . .Is he saying the FBI is unable to add or subtract?”

The next week, the NYPD itself released statistics that bore my report out: Robberies were up 17%, grand larceny was up, rape was up, and even murder was up from last year.  Even more recent statistics show that crime is on the upswing.

But that’s not the only indication that we are headed in the wrong direction.  As of statistics released by the NYPD late last month, 1,004 people have been shot in the five boroughs since the New Year, an 8.3% increase from the same period last year.  And in our schools, crime actually grew last year by more than 8%.

At the same time, the NYPD’s force strength has continued to decline.  In 2000, there were more than 40,000 cops on the beat in New York City.  Today, there are less than 35,000.  That’s more than a 13% drop.

And the drop in transit security officers is even more dramatic – as Chief O’Connor can testify.  When the TAPD was absorbed into the NYPD in 1995, there were more than 4,200 officers assigned to patrol our subways and buses.  Before the London bombing last month, there were fewer than 2,700 officers in the transit bureau.  That’s more than a 37% drop.

We still live in the safest City in the nation, and we should be thankful for the progress we have made over the last two decades in combating crime.  I do not believe in using crime as a political wedge issue.  But we should not be complacent – we cannot allow the relatively low crime rate today to lull us into believing that we can rest on our laurels.

The Weiner Record

Over the years, people have accused the Democratic party of being soft on crime.  They’ve suggested that we aren’t tough enough, and that we don’t have what it takes to make the hard decisions to keep our neighborhoods safe.

I want to tell you where I stand.  That's not me.  I am a “tough on crime” Democrat.
 
I sit on the Judiciary Committee in Congress, and I have a long record of fighting to strengthen law enforcement by giving police and prosecutors the tools they need to get criminals off our streets.

I am the sponsor of what some consider to be the most effective law enforcement program in the history of the federal government: The C.O.P.S. program which, to date, has put more than 118,000 cops on the street – more than 7,000 here in New York.  I know that Professor Tucker is particularly with the program – he used to run it.  Since the day he was elected to office, President Bush has fought to dismantle C.O.P.S., and I have joined with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to keep the program alive.  I am the author of a bill – passed by the Judiciary Committee – that would save the program, and help the NYPD hire an average of 900 more cops per year in New York alone.

I am proud to have been the author of the bill which provided the first federal grants to eliminate the backlog of rape kits waiting to be tested for DNA evidence.  It was just a few years ago that we found 16,000 rape kits sitting in a warehouse in Long Island City.  Since then, I have worked to pass two bills providing millions of dollars to help states, cities, and towns around the United States identify sexual predators by analyzing DNA evidence. 

I have been at the forefront of efforts to force the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress to scrap the pork barrel method of distributing homeland security funds.  In May, the House of Representatives passed a bill that included the “Weiner Provision,” that ensures that the Department of Homeland Security make threat the primary factor when determining a City’s risk-level.

I have been proud to identify myself as a “tough on crime” Democrat throughout my tenure in the City Council, and as a representative of the people of Queens and Brooklyn in Congress.  I will be a “tough on crime” mayor.

The Weiner Plan

My opponents and I agree on a lot of the things we have to do make New York safer.  In fact, a number of the ideas I have proposed have been adopted – whole cloth – by my opponents.  I was flattered, for instance, when former Borough President Ferrer actually cited a study I did on the C.O.P.S. program when laying out his vision for making New York safe. 

But I also differ with my opponents on a number of issues – issues which illustrate my very different vision of how to keep New Yorkers safe and secure.

First, the issue of hiring more police officers.  None of my opponents have plans to return the NYPD to its full force strength on 9/11.  My plan does. 

The NYPD has more that 3,000 fewer officers today that it did the day the towers fell.  Former Borough President Ferrer would only hire 1,900 more police – and he has not specified how he will pay for his plan, except to say that 900 cops will be hired through the very C.O.P.S. program I have sponsored in Congress.  Borough President Fields has said she would hire 2,000 more terrorism cops, but has never explained where she will find the funds to pay their salaries.  And Speaker Miller has proposed shortening the average cop’s workday and hiring only 1,000 more cops, leaving it unclear how much more protection New Yorkers would get under his plan.

My plan is to hire more than 3,000 new officers – returning the NYPD to its force strength on 9/11.  My plan will cost $267 million per year, paid for by cutting wasteful programs like the dysfunctional “parent coordinators” program at the Department of Education, and eliminating wasteful tax exemptions like the one we give annually to Madison Square Garden.  

Second, I differ with my colleague on the issues of bag searches.  I was unable to participate in the Community Service Society debate in Brooklyn at Medgar Evers College because I was voting in Washington.  All three of my opponents were critical of the NYPD’s plans to institute random bag searches.  I have a different view on the subject.  I think having the NYPD take a quick look through someone’s book bag as they head into the subway is a reasonable accommodation meant to protect us from a very serious threat. 

Third, my colleagues and I differ on how we view Ray Kelly.  Borough President Fields says she would fire the police commissioner.  Both former Borough President Ferrer and Speaker Miller have hinted that they would replace him.  I have a different view.  I think that Ray Kelly has been a fantastic public servant and leader of the NYPD.  He has served Mayor Dinkins, President Clinton and Mayor Bloomberg with distinction.  Though he has announced that he will leave the NYPD when Mayor Bloomberg leaves office in January, I have a different view than my opponents.  I would be proud to have a police commissioner like Ray Kelly.

Finally, I differ from my opponents in how I plan to use DNA evidence when I am mayor.  I’m pleased that the funding I fought to secure has helped to eliminate New York’s rape kit backlog.  But those tests are only useful when they match up against profiles submitted to a database of previous offenders.  Incredibly, the database in New York does not include many of the offenders it should.  Rapists who completed their sentences before 1994, for example, are not required to submit a DNA profile.  I will fight to make sure all offenders are required to submit samples.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that keeping New Yorker safe and secure is a mayor’s primary responsibility.  We cannot let our past successes lull us into a sense of complacency.

I honor all of my opponents for their service.  Crime and terrorism are not political issues.  But I have a different vision of what we need to do. 

We are in danger of losing our forward momentum when it comes to protecting New Yorkers from crime and terrorism.  And if Democrats want to win this election – if we want to end our losing streak of three straight municipal elections – we need to be actively pursuing new and better ways of buttressing New York’s security.

Thank you for listening.