FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET AND

THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND OTHER LAW

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS: ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATION?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10, 2005

Serial No. 109–37

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET AND THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND

AND LOCAL COOPERATION?OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS: ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–201 PDF 2005

FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET AND

THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND OTHER LAW

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS: ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATION?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10, 2005

Serial No. 109–37

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

DIANE E. WATSON, California

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. MARC WHEAT, Staff Director

NICHOLAS COLEMAN, Professional Staff Member

MALIA HOLST, Clerk

ANDREW SU, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 10, 2005 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Brooks, Ron, president, National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition ................................................................................................................. 66

Carr, Tom, Director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, on behalf of the National HIDTA Directors Association ............................................................ 75

Donahue, Tom, Director, Chicago HIDTA ...................................................... 90

Hamm, Leonard, acting Baltimore police commissioner ............................... 127

Harris, Chief Jack, Phoenix Police Department and vice-chair, Southwest

Border HIDTA ............................................................................................... 107

Henke, Tracy A., Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of Justice

Programs, Department of Justice; Catherine M. O’Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General and Director of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, U.S. Department of Justice; and John Horton, Associate Deputy Director, State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug

Control Policy ................................................................................................ 20

Henke, Tracy A. ......................................................................................... 20

Horton, John .............................................................................................. 43

O’Neil, Catherine M. ................................................................................. 30

Henry, Mark, president, Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers Association ... 134

Merritt, Jack L., Greene County, MO ............................................................. 141

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Brooks, Ron, president, National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 70

Carr, Tom, Director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, on behalf of the National HIDTA Directors Association, prepared statement of .................... 78

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 12

Donahue, Tom, Director, Chicago HIDTA, prepared statement of ............... 93

Hamm, Leonard, acting Baltimore police commissioner, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 129

Harris, Chief Jack, Phoenix Police Department and vice-chair, Southwest

Border HIDTA, prepared statement of ....................................................... 109

Henke, Tracy A., Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of Justice

Programs, Department of Justice, prepared statement of ......................... 23

Henry, Mark, president, Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers Association,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 136

Horton, John, Associate Deputy Director, State and Local Affairs, Office

of National Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of ........................... 45

Merritt, Jack L., Greene County, MO, prepared statement of ..................... 144

O’Neil, Catherine M., Associate Deputy Attorney General and Director

of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, U.S. Department

of Justice, prepared statement of ................................................................ 32

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 5

(1)

FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET

AND THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND

OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS:

ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE

AND LOCAL COOPERATION?

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Souder (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives: Souder, Cummings, Watson and Norton.

Staff present: J. Marc Wheat, staff director; Nicholas Coleman,

professional staff member and counsel; David Thomasson and Pat

DeQuattro, congressional fellows; Malia Holst, clerk; Andrew Su,

minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority clerk.

Mr. SOUDER. The subcommittee will now come to order.

Good afternoon and thank you all for coming. This hearing is the

second in a series of hearings providing oversight of the President’s

budget proposals for drug control programs as well as for legislation to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy and

the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.

This hearing will focus on the President’s proposed changes to

some very important drug enforcement programs. The administration released its budget proposal for all Federal programs for fiscal

year 2006 last month. One of the most significant policies reflected

in that budget is a proposal to cut most Federal support for State

and local drug enforcement. Among other things, the administration is proposing to eliminate the Byrne Grant to State and local

law enforcement, to cut the HIDTA Program by more than 50 percent and transfer its remaining funds to the Justice Department’s

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force program, to cut

the ‘‘Meth Hot Spots’FE administered by the Justice Department’s

Community Oriented Policing Services office by more than 60 percent, and to significantly reduce the funding for the Counterdrug

Technology Assessment Center Technology Transfer program.

The subcommittee shares some of the administration’s concerns

about excessive or misdirected Federal support to local agencies. It

is certainly true that Federal dollars should not be spent on purely

2

local concerns in the form of pork barrel funding. Rather, they

should be tied to clear, national priorities. Similarly, Congress

must be careful not to make State and local agencies too dependent

on Federal dollars as these agencies must remain under the control

of and respond to the needs of State and local taxpayers. State and

local governments have a responsibility to fund their own counter

narcotics efforts.

That being said, it does not follow that all Federal assistance to

State and local agencies lacks national impact. State and local law

enforcement personnel are fighting on the front lines in the struggle to stop drug trafficking. They make over 90 percent of drug-related arrests and seizures. They have a wealth of intelligence that

could be very valuable if shared with Federal authorities. Federal

assistance to these agencies can have a major positive impact by

involving them in national goals and enforcement, treatment and

prevention. The proper solution is to propose reforms to the programs rather than simply cutting them out.

We hope at this hearing to address these broader issues and to

review the administration’s specific proposals for certain key programs. First among them is the HIDTA Program. This program

was created in 1990 to help reduce the Nation’s overall supply of

illegal drugs by bringing together Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies in the most significant regions each referred to

as a HIDTA, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area where drugs

were created, smuggled or distributed.

Under the current law, the Director of ONDCP may designate

certain areas as HIDTAs making them eligible for Federal funding.

That funding is administered locally by an executive board made

up of equal representation of Federal agencies on one side and

State and local agencies on the other. As the budget’s program has

grown from only $25 million at its inception, to $228,350,000 in fiscal year 2005. The number of designated regions has grown as well,

from the initial five HIDTAs in 1990, the program has expanded

to 28 HIDTAs and pressure is building in Congress to create even

more.

As the program has expanded, its focus has frequently drifted

from activities that are truly targeted at the national supply of

drugs to activities with primarily a regional or local impact. Congress itself has exacerbated the problem by refusing to allow

ONDCP sufficient discretion over the program’s budget. For many

years, appropriations bills have forbidden ONDCP from funding at

below its previous year’s level effectively locking in $206 million of

its budget. ONDCP has had true discretion over less than 10 percent of the program’s funds.

In response to these difficulties, the administration has proposed

cutting the program’s budget from fiscal years 2005 at an active

level of $228,350,000 to $100 million. Even more significantly, the

administration has requested that the remaining $100 million be

funded through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task

Force, a Department of Justice program. If enacted, this proposal

would effectively terminate the current HIDTA program and more

or less eliminate the Drug Czar’s Office.

The subcommittee agrees with the administration that the

HIDTA Program is in need of some reform. The administration’s

3

proposal, however, is both premature and too sweeping. First, the

program cannot and should not be transferred in hold or in part

to OCDETF without authorizing legislation. Such legislation is

needed to define the goals of the program and the means of its implementation.

Second, the subcommittee is mindful of the serious disruption of

drug enforcement activities in the individual HIDTAs that this

sweeping proposal would create, at least in the short term. It would

be very undesirable for the Federal Government to take action that

drives away State and local participants. The subcommittee will,

however, carefully study the administration’s proposal as it continues to work on the reauthorization of HIDTA and ONDCP.

Today’s hearing will also review the CTAC Program which was

established in 1990 to oversee and coordinate the Federal Government’s anti-drug research and development. The administration is

requesting only $30 million for the CTAC Program, a sharp decrease from the $40 million requested from fiscal year 2005 and the

$42 million appropriated by Congress. The proposed decreases

would cut the research program nearly in half from $18 million to

$10 million while reducing the technology transfer program by $4

million from $24 million to $20 million.

The program is certainly in need of greater direction and oversight. ONDCP has not yet demonstrated that the technology transfer program supports national goals in reducing overall drug trafficking and improving interagency communication and cooperation.

Such dramatic cuts, however, do not amount to reform. They will

only exacerbate the tensions within the program.

As with HIDTA, the subcommittee intends to review the CTAC

Program and its future as it continues its work on the reauthorization of ONDCP and its programs. The subcommittee has concerns

about the proposed reduction in the COPS ‘‘Meth Hot Spots’FE

dedicated to local law enforcement activities against methamphetamine trafficking. Methamphetamine abuse has ravaged communities across the United States and put several severe strains on

State and local law enforcement agencies forced to find clandestine

drug labs, clean up the environmental damage they create and arrest the drug trafficking rings that operate them.

To assist these overburdened agencies, Congress approved

$54,050,000 in fiscal year 2004 and $52,556,000 in fiscal year 2005.

The administration is requesting only $20 million for the fiscal

year 2006, identical to their last year’s request which was more

than doubled, a cut of more than 60 percent from the appropriated

funds from last year. This would greatly reduce the ability of State

and local law enforcement agencies to help their Federal partners

in reducing methamphetamine abuse particularly given the proposed overall reduction in State and local law enforcement assistance grants.

The subcommittee also has serious concerns about the administration’s proposal to terminate the State grants component of the

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program. Congress already

complied with the administration’s request to consolidate previously separate grants programs into a single Byrne Grant Program. The administration now proposes to eliminate the $634 million that Congress appropriated last year for the Byrne grants and

4

restrict Federal to a series of enumerated grants most of which are

previously existing programs under a ‘‘Justice Assistance Account.’FE In practice, this will sharply limit the amount of money

available to help State and local agencies.

The subcommittee shares the administration’s concerns about excessive Federal subsidization of State and local law enforcement.

The administration’s proposed cuts, however, would create massive

shortfalls in the budget of State and local law enforcement agencies

across the country. I believe the administration should instead propose reforms where needed to some of the Federal Government’s

assistance grants.

We have quite a mix of witnesses with us today and we would

especially like to welcome all the representatives of the Federal,

State and local law enforcement community joining us here at this

time. From the Department of Justice on our first panel, we will

hear from Tracy Henke, Deputy Associate Attorney General at the

Office of Justice Programs who will discuss the Byrne grants,

COPS and similar Justice assistance programs and Catherine

O’Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General and Director of

OCDETF who will discuss the proposed transfer and restructuring

of the HIDTA program. We will also hear from John Horton, Associate Deputy Director at ONDCP for State and Local Affairs.

The second panel will give us the State and local perspective. We

welcome Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers’

Associations Coalition and Director of the North California HIDTA.

Ron has been very active with our committee and at many, many

hearings helping us with that. Tom Carr is director of the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Tom Donahue, Director of the Chicago

HIDTA, Chief Jack Harris of the Phoenix Police Department and

Vice-Chair of the Southwest Border HIDTA, Leonard Hamm, the

acting Baltimore police commissioner, Mark Henry, president of

the Illinois Drug Enforcement Officer’s Association, and Sheriff

Jack L. Merritt of Greene County, MO.

Again, thank you all for coming from so many places across the

Nation to be here today. We look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

5

6

7

8

Mr. SOUDER. I will now yield to the Ranking Member, Elijah

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I listened, I could not help but think about the fact that when

we had one of our last hearings, when the Drug Czar came in and

talked about the cuts, I asked him how he felt about these cuts and

he said that he was satisfied with what was going on. I have to

tell you that since that hearing I have heard from so many people

who watched it, and they were very concerned. I think we would

be more than remiss if we did not understand that the money simply isn’t there. We can debate from now until 1,000 years from now

why it isn’t there but it is not there. The fact is, then it becomes

a question of priorities with the money we do have.

One thing I must give you credit for, Mr. Chairman, and I really

appreciate this, is that you have consistently stayed on point with

regard to making sure that while we address the War on Terrorism, we acknowledge the fact that we have some terrorists in our

own neighborhoods. Many of them have become that way because

of drugs. Some of the people who are here, those who fight drugs

every day know exactly what I am talking about. They fully understand that there are people who are watching us right now who are

much more afraid of something happening to them on their street

than from some terrorist from overseas. So it is that we have to

I think put all of this in context and try now to figure out the

money we do have, how to make sure we use it effectively and efficiently.

I have said many, many times that one thing Republicans and

Democrats agree on is that the taxpayer’s dollars must be spent effectively and efficiently. The President’s budget request for fiscal

year 2006 proposes significant changes in the national drug control

budget. Most significantly, there is a considerable increase in proportional spending for supply reduction versus demand reduction

programs. Demand reduction accounts for just 39 percent of the restructured drug control budget down from 45 percent in fiscal year

2005, the budget as enacted. There is actually a net decrease of

$270 million for demand reduction compared to the fiscal year 2005

enacted level.

This is deeply troubling to those of us in Congress who would

like to see an increased commitment to prevention and treatment

programs that reduce the consumption of drugs. Even on the supply reduction side of the budget, where the goal is to reduce drug

use by driving up the price and eroding the purity of drugs available on the U.S. streets, there are stark changes in the budget the

President has submitted to this Congress.

There is an increased commitment to international supply reduction programs while domestic drug enforcement programs that support State and local efforts and partnerships between Federal law

enforcement and the State and local counterparts would suffer

elimination or sharp decreases. Many of these relationships have

been established over the years. Many of these relationships are

ones that have become very, very effective, are cost efficient and effective.

The administration argues, for example, that programs such as

community oriented policing services, hiring grants, COPS law enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:04 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22201.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

forcement technology grants, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and

Byrne Discretionary Grants have not had a demonstrably effective

impact on reducing crime. The administration therefore proposes to

eliminate these programs claiming it will save $940 million a year.

In addition, the President’s request proposes to slash the budget

of the HIDTA Program, reducing its funding from a fiscal year

2005 level of $227 million to $100 million, a decrease of 56 percent,

and to move HIDTA from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Department of Justice where it would come under the

control of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force programs.

I am not knocking that program but one thing is for sure, I believe HIDTA would be better off the way it is. I don’t want it to

get lost in the Justice Department. We have too many people who

are depending on HIDTA to do the things that HIDTA does. I

haven’t looked at all the testimony but I think some of the folks

here today who deal with HIDTA can tell us what they see. We

have to listen to them very carefully because these are the people

on the front lines. They are the one who have to face the officers,

who have to face the families of those who may be killed or injured,

they are the ones who have to worry about the people under their

jurisdiction. So they are not sitting in some nice high office just

looking down as if from heaven, they are dealing with this every

day.

The proposed reductions to the above-mentioned programs would

sharply reduce the level of Federal support for law enforcement

programs that involve coordination among Federal, State and local

entities. We are always talking about local, State and Federal entities working together so there is not duplication of effort, so they

can be most effective when they bring all of their intelligence and

all of their resources together.

What is striking about the proposal is that rather than propose

reforms to these programs, this budget reflects the President’s decision to abandon or sharply curtail them. Problems in the Byrne

Grant Program have been well publicized. The Narcotics Task

Force funded through the Byrne Program has committed severe

abuses, more egregiously in the case of Tulia, Texas where a

Byrne-supported task force ran amuck, pursuing racially motivated

investigations and prosecutions.

None of us can stand behind the rampant abuse of civil rights

by law enforcement efforts supported with Federal dollars, but the

Byrne Grant Program supports a range of activities aimed at increasing safety in communities around the country that are affected by violent crime. I would like to see an effort to make this

program work as Congress intended instead of doing away with the

program as the President proposes.

Let me tell you something. Having practiced law for over 20

years, I can tell you no matter what you do and no matter what

structure you create, you are going to have some abuse but you

don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

However, I am most concerned about the proposed evisceration

of the HIDTA Program. HIDTA is widely credited with having broken down barriers among participating local, State and Federal

agencies and HIDTAs around the country can demonstrate numerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:04 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22201.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
10

ous such successes and innovations that have had a positive impact

on the national drug threat. Under the President’s proposal, numerous HIDTAs would surely be eliminated and the scaling back

of others would severely curtail their effectiveness.

Successful nationwide programs developed and administered by

individual HIDTAs such as event and target deconfliction of enforcement operations, intelligence collection and sharing, and training programs would be significantly reduced or discontinued. An effective interagency partnership that place State and local agencies

on an equal footing with their Federal counterparts would wither

or disappear.

The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA approach which combines a

coordinated implementation of intelligence-driven law enforcement,

treatment and prevention initiatives, ought to be held up by this

administration as a model to be replicated in areas that face similar threats.

I am not sure about this but I would guess that when you do

have the Federal Government, local government and State government working together, just the experience in and of itself of working together makes all of them better. It certainly makes the Federal people more sensitive to what local and State people are doing,

and it gives our local and State officers an opportunity to see how

the Federal level operates.

Instead, I fear that the administration’s proposal will cripple the

Washington-Baltimore HIDTA and eliminate the few treatment

and prevention dollars used by a handful of HIDTAs. That would

be unfortunate, but I am heartened by the fact that the administration’s proposal for HIDTA has drawn such an intense negative

reaction from the law enforcement community and from many

Members of Congress including you, Mr. Chairman, who recognize

HIDTA’s value. It seems to me we can acknowledge that HIDTA’s

rapid growth has created challenges related to its mission cohesion,

but the correct response is not to throw it out as the administration

proposes to do with this budget request.

The fundamental character and unique system of accountability

of the HIDTA Program will be lost if it is merged with the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force whose mission is

complementary but distinct. Contrary to the administration’s

claims, this change will not improve the effectiveness of U.S. drug

enforcement efforts. Rather, it will weaken them while increasing

the burden on State and local jurisdictions already struggling within severe budget constraints.

Today’s hearing offers an important opportunity to hear from administration officials who have responsibility to administer the law.

I welcome their perspectives as well as Tom Carr, the WashingtonBaltimore HIDTA’s outstanding director, the directors of the Chicago and Southwest Border HIDTAs, the National Narcotics Officers Association, and State and local law enforcement agencies represented on the second panel.

I would like to specifically recognize Acting Commissioner Leonard Hamm of the Baltimore City Police Department who has taken

the time to be with us today.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with

you to find constructive solutions to the issues that keep some of

11

the aforementioned programs from being most effective and to protect those programs that have demonstrated their effectiveness, the

administration’s assessment notwithstanding. Today’s hearing and

future hearings related to ONDCP reauthorization will provide a

forum for this important bipartisan work.

I must tell you my mother has a saying. She only had a first

grade education but something she often said was she hates to see

motion, commotion, and emotion but no results. In other words, it

is nice to hold the hearings but we have to make sure that we get

this administration to hear the people who are on the front lines

so they can more effectively and continue to effectively do their job.

To all of them, if I don’t get a chance to say it again, I want to

thank all of you who are out there. You have a tough job. I really

thank you on behalf of the many, many citizens who may never

know what you do but on behalf of the Congress of the United

States of America, we thank you.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for today’s hearing.

It is going to be hard to take seriously Federal drug control efforts if the President’s budget before us survives. Whenever there

are programs that link various actors in our system, there are

problems that arise that need to be eliminated. There needs to be

a continuous approach to correction, but one of the most important

connections in drug control efforts has been the link that has been

built up over the last several years between Federal, State and

local actors. By building those links, we built in efficiencies and

avoided costly redundancies. There may also be problems that were

built in. I happen to believe that the only way to do a reform is

to keep reforming, particularly if you are talking about government.

We are looking at cuts that are lethal to drug enforcement. We

are talking about cuts of 50 or 60 percent of a program. Those are

cuts meant to do away with a program. I would almost rather you

shoot this animal in the head than let him die a slow death this

way.

I think what is particularly dangerous here is that all these cuts

would apparently take place at one time. Perhaps if there need to

be cuts, cuts could be spread out so that they could be done very

carefully over a period of years and would not disrupt law enforcement efforts and might be acceptable but huge cuts like this to

happen to programs and assume that any part of them will be effective, that is the problem here. Can you cut a program in half

and still expect it to be effective in any way, particularly if you do

so at one time?

What bothers me most is that cuts as gargantuan as this occurring at one time will create enormous opportunities for drug forces.

They must be applauding on the sidelines because what we are

doing if these cuts take place at one time in one budget is create

new sources of business for them, new routes, and worse, destroy

much of the work that has been done so painfully over the years.

This is one of the hardest jobs in law enforcement and in government.

As I looked at what is attempted in this budget, I didn’t see any

area of the country that would find the effort we have built up over

the last decade or so recognizable, whether you are talking about

big cities of the kind that Mr. Cummings and I come from where

the drug problem is right before your eyes because of conditions in

those cities and let us call it what it is, the elimination of the

COPS Program which is being set up for total elimination, including the ‘‘Meth Hot Spots‘‘ Program that is, I take it, one of the

chairman’s favorites, or at least we have had a lot of hearings on

meth.

To be sure, programs like HIDTA have grown and spread, you

have such a program that started where drugs were most visible,

the spots where they have been most concentrated since I was a

kid, the New Yorks, the border areas and yes, that has grown.

Maybe we ought to look at that because now many areas are covered by that same program. If I may say so, it is also the case that

19

drugs have spread from their usual places. They are no longer only

in the New Yorks, New Jerseys, Miamis, LAs, they are everywhere

in this country and so, yes, we need these programs that link Federal, State and local law enforcement officials everywhere now. Yes,

that costs money. We can spend it one way or we can spend it another.

The ranking member and I have long been on record, and I believe the chairman would like to spend more money in the usual

course of business on preventing people from getting to the point

where they are serious users of drugs, even the demand parts of

these programs are going to be cut.

I don’t know what it is you can do about this. I do know that

drug control has been an area which, under your chairmanship, we

have put in a great deal of time and effort and concentration. I

hope in some way we can match what you have been doing in the

two or three terms I have been on this committee with this budget

so that what is left standing is something that we will not be

ashamed of.

I want to particularly thank today’s witnesses who are on the

front line, in the front ranks of those doing one of the toughest jobs

in America. Thank you for coming to share your information and

your knowledge with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Let me assure all members of this committee that we will need

to work together. I talked to Chairman Wolf again this afternoon

and told him we were doing this hearing as well as Chairman

Nohlenberg and Chairman Lewis, so we certainly are going to work

with the appropriators and work to try to make sure that authorizing language and appropriating language, and I also talked to

Chairman Sensenbrenner on a recent trip, so clearly we need to get

authorizing and appropriating to work together. This is an important discussion. I appreciate the witnesses coming today.

First, a couple of procedural matters. First, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit written

questions and statements for the hearing record, that any answers

to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in

the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and

other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses be included in the hearing record, that all Members be permitted to revise and extend remarks. Without objection, so ordered.

Our first panel as I stated earlier is composed of the Honorable

Tracy A. Henke, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; the Honorable Catherine M.

O’Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General and Director of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, U.S. Department of

Justice; and John Horton, Associate Deputy Director, State and

Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy.

For some reason, although we have a good crowd today and lots

of people know about this hearing, you haven’t drawn the same attention as the seven baseball players we subpoenaed yesterday.

While you are famous, you are not quite Sammy Sosa and company

yet.

20

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Once again, thank you for coming and we will go

to Mr. Henke first.

STATEMENTS OF TRACY A. HENKE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; CATHERINE M. O’NEIL, ASSOCIATE

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZED CRIME DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND JOHN HORTON, ASSOCIATE

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATE AND LOCAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE

Ms. HENKE. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.

As you mentioned, I currently serve as the Deputy Associate Attorney General for the Department of Justice as well as the Acting

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. I am

pleased to be here today to talk about the President’s fiscal year

2006 drug control budget. I also want to thank you once again for

the leadership that this committee has shown on these issues.

The President’s budget recognizes that the threat of illegal drugs

and drug abuse is grave and affects not only the health and well

being of our communities and our families but also our national security. The President’s budget for the Department of Justice provides over $11⁄2 billion in grant assistance to State and local gov- ernments. That includes $185 million to strengthen communities

through programs providing services such as drug treatment as

Congressman Cummings pointed out, as well as $921⁄2 million to

support drug enforcement.

From OJP’s inception, substantial resources in programming to

support States and local efforts to break the cycle of drug abuse

and crime has occurred. We view our core mission to be that of providing Federal leadership and developing a Nation’s capacity to

prevent and control crime, administer justice and assist victims.

Part of that leadership is promoting and supporting Federal, State

and local cooperation to address these vital issues.

The support that OJP and the COPS Officer provides for State

and local law enforcement generally takes three forms. That is direct grant funding, training and technical assistance and development across jurisdictional resources. The budget request includes

investments in three programs that are very well known to this

committee: $70 million for the Drug Court Program; $44 million for

the Residential Substance Abuse Program or what we call RSAP;

as well as $20 million for the COPS Methamphetamine Program.

We are finding that drug courts are an active tool in combating

our war on drugs. Drug courts use the power of the court to integrate effective substance abuse treatment, mandatory drug testing,

sanctions and incentives and transitional services for non-violent

substance abusing offenders. As you may be aware, drug courts

started at the grassroots level well before Federal funding was ever

made available and today, over 1,500 drug courts exist in the country.

21

RSAP is a critical aspect of offender reentry programs, helping

insure that offenders come back to their communities substance

free. For fiscal year 2006, we have requested $44 million. The investment in RSAP pays off in several ways. It not only allows offenders to return to their communities substance free but also reduces incarceration costs for Federal, State and local governments

and helps prevent further financial and emotional costs of drug related crimes on families, friends and communities.

The COPS Methamphetamine Program has provided a unique

mix of direct funding, training and technical assistance across the

wide range of law enforcement activities. Since 1998, COPS has invested more than $330 million nationwide to combat the spread of

methamphetamine and has developed a problem-solving guide to

help law enforcement develop proactive prevention strategies and

to improve the overall response to clandestine drug labs. The $20

million requested for fiscal year 2006 is intended to support State

and local clandestine lab clean up efforts.

In addition, the President’s 2006 budget request includes other

programs that relate to our Nation’s capacity to combat illegal drug

use and drug abuse. Those programs include the Southwest Border

Prosecution Program, the Cannabis Eradication Discretionary

Grant Program and the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.

As important as direct program funding may be, at the Department of Justice we believe that through training and technical assistance that we provide as well as the research and statistical information to inform criminal and juvenile justice practitioners and

policymakers, the Department has an even greater impact on making America’s communities safe for our citizens. Training and technical assistance are the key to a huge multiplier effect and expanding knowledge and practical operating capability to the field. They

can also be the key to helping States and localities leverage or even

save limited training dollars.

As an example, in response to law enforcement demand, OJP’s

Bureau of Justice Assistance has more than tripled the number of

free methamphetamine training courses offered nationwide. Individuals on the second panel here today have benefited from some

of that training.

In addition to direct funding, training and technical assistance,

OJP supports State and local law enforcement through cross jurisdictional efforts that can best be accomplished through Federal capabilities. For example, the President’s budget requests $45 million

for the regional information sharing system which facilitates and

encourages information sharing and supports more than 6,000 city,

county, State, tribal and Federal member agencies. There are 16

HIDTA entities that also use the system.

OJP’s Community Capacity Development Office administers the

Operation Weed and Seed Program for which we are requesting approximately $60 million. Weed and Seed is another crossjuridictional strategy that aims to prevent control and reduce violent crime, drug abuse and gang activity in designated high crime

neighborhoods across the country.

Overall, while the budget request reflects reductions and elimination of some grant program that provide direct funding to State

and local agencies, we believe the investments we are proposing

22

represent a continued commitment to the success of State and local

programming while mindful of our dual goals of public safety and

economic prosperity.

In closing, I want to emphasize the continued commitment of the

administration, specifically the continued commitment to the Department of Justice, to our State and local partners, to complement

their efforts to eliminate the scurge of illegal drugs and drug

abuse.

Thank you again for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Mr. SOUDER. Now I will go to Ms. O’Neil.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE M. O’NEIL

Ms. O’NEIL. Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the President’s

drug control budget and specifically the funding provided to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces. The OCDETF Program was created in 1982 to bring together Federal, State and local

law enforcement to mount a comprehensive attack on a regional,

national and even international scale against major drug trafficking organizations and the financial systems that support them.

In March 2002, then Attorney General Ashcroft designated the

OCDEFT Program as the centerpiece of the Justice Department’s

drug reduction strategy. Since then, the Department has focused

the OCDETF Program and vastly improved its overall performance

and accountability. OCDEFT has achieved great success convicting

nearly 23,000 drug dealers since 2002. Most significantly, between

2002 and 2004, OCDETF participants dismantled 14 of the most

wanted international drug organizations.

A key to OCDETF’s success has been its strong partnerships

with State and local law enforcement. State and locals are participating in more than 90 percent of new OCDETF investigations and

nearly 2,000 active cases overall. The participation by these officers

takes a variety of forms. In some cases, a State and local officer

may originate an investigation of a local drug trafficking group

that through solid police work and cooperation with Federal counterparts expand beyond the original district to an investigation of

a nationwide or even international drug supply organization.

In other cases, State and local officers provide invaluable investigative assistance to an ongoing OCDETF case by monitoring Federal wire taps, conducting surveillance or taking specific enforcement actions within their local jurisdictions that enable the Federal investigation to continue undisclosed.

Although OCDETF’s appropriated funding is used only to reimburse Federal participants, State and local departments involved

with OCDETF can obtain overtime funding. In fiscal year 2004, for

example, OCDETF disbursed about $7 million in overtime funds to

thousands of State and local officers across the country. Additionally, OCDETF shares significant seized assets with our partners.

In fiscal year 2004, OCDETF particpants deposited more than $126

million into the Assets Forfeiture Fund and nearly 40 percent of

these deposits or $49.9 million were shared with State and local departments. As OCDETF continues to increase the overall quality of

its investigations and particularly its financial investigations, we

expect to seize and ultimately share even more.

When discussing State and local participation in OCDETF, we

cannot ignore the strong support we have received from the HIDTA

Program. In a growing number of cases, HIDTA and OCDETF are

working together to impact the drug trade. As you are aware, the

President’s budget proposes to transfer the HIDTA Program from

ONDCP to the Department of Justice with funding through

OCDETF. There seems to be confusion about what this move will

mean for HIDTA, so let me make one point very clear. Under the

President’s proposal, the HIDTA Program will not be merged with

31

the OCDETF Program. OCDETF will use its executive office to administer HIDTA’s funding but the programs themselves will remain separate and will pursue individual missions as they do currently.

Both HIDTA and OCDETF will play important roles in the overall drug enforcement effort. The Department welcomes this proposal as a further opportunity to pursue a comprehensive drug

strategy that most effectively attacks organizations at all levels

and eliminates the various criminal activities and violence associated with drug crime.

The fight against illegal drugs must be fought strategically on

many fronts, interationally, nationally, regionally, and locally. Both

HIDTA and OCDETF must utilize their limited resources in a

manner that is complementary and that best achieves our overall

goals. Placing the HIDTA in the Department of Justice will enable

us to more effectively define our drug strategy, to establish clear

priorities for our key programs and to allocate our drug enforcement resources.

OCDETF is well suited to administer the HIDTA Program as it

too is an independent, multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional enforcement program dedicated to promoting cooperation and coordination

among drug enforcement personnel. No single investigative agency

is more important than another and we strive to ensure that we

are effectively leveraging the expertise and manpower of every entity that participates. While the President’s budget reduces HIDTA funding to $100

million, the Department is committed to making HIDTA operate

productively, particularly by emphasizing those elements of the

program including coordination and intelligence sharing that have

worked so well over the years.

Before closing, I simply want to note that the other elements of

OCDETF’s budget, the funding for the Fusion Center, for new prosecutors and new marshals and funding for the FBI, all will enhance the program’s overall ability to dismantle major drug trafficking and will allow OCDETF to continue to work closely with

State and local departments and to share the proceeds of our success. OCDETF was born in an America that was under attack from

organized drug trafficking and to respond to that threat, we adopted a strategy of cooperation among law enforcement at all levels,

Federal, State and local.

The proud tradition of cooperative law enforcement remains just

as vibrant today as it was more than 20 years ago. Today our efforts remain just as critical to our Nation’s security and our future.

We will continue the fight against illegal drugs, we will fight harder and we will fight smarter and we will win.

I appreciate your support for this program and for our overall

drug enforcement efforts.

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Neil follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Horton.

STATEMENT OF JOHN HORTON

Mr. HORTON. Thank you for the invitation to testify before you

today regarding the President’s 2006 Drug Control Budget. I have

submitted written testimony and would ask that it be made a part

of the record.

I recognize that you have already heard from ONDCP Director

John Walters regarding the overall drug control budget, so I will

keep my verbal testimony brief. I will also try to keep it focused

on aspects of the budget which specifically pertain to drug enforcement programs.

Broadly, the President’s proposal increases the drug control budget by nearly $270 million or 2.2 percent over this fiscal year.

The budget incorporates the programs and principles needed to

continue the success the administration has seen over the last 3

years, a 17 percent reduction in youth drug use in America.

The drug control budget increases support for domestic drug en- forcement by 2.1 percent or nearly $70 million. Dividing the drug

control budget into five policy categories, prevention, treatment, domestic enforcement, international and interdiction, domestic enforcement occupies the largest individual slice of that pie at 27 percent. This is the Federal budget and so it should come as no surprise that our drug enforcement support is primarily Federal in nature.

I am joined today by colleagues from the Department of Justice

and between the three of us, I hope we can answer questions the

committee may have about specific programs. I recognize that one

of the programs of interest is the HIDTA Program, so before concluding my verbal testimony, I would like to take a few moments

to explain the rationale behind the administration’s proposal regarding HIDTA.

The President’s budget proposes two things regarding HIDTA.

First is to move it from its current location at the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Department of Justice and second

to fund the program at $100 milliion. With respect to the location

of the HIDTA Program, the administration thinks that the best

place for drug enforcement programs like HIDTA is at the Department of Justice. That is one of the reasons that the Department of

Justice exists, to oversee and to coordinate our national law enforcement efforts.

The HIDTA Program is an important part of those efforts. In

order for the program to be the best it can be at important functions like intelligence sharing and fostering multi-agency and

multi-jurisdictional coordination, it is important for the program to

be at the Department of Justrice itself. It is also important that the

program retain its focus on State and local law enforcement and

ONCDP will work with the Department of Justice and with Congress to ensure that this focus is maintained and that the transition is smooth.

With respect to the funding level for HIDTA, I would note first

what we think is the most important fact, that the HIDTA Program is important and that is why it was not proposed for elimiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:04 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22201.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
44

nation. Broadly, I know that Congress is aware of the President’s

commitment to fiscal responsibility and to sustaining the economic

expansion by exercising fiscal restraint. As a matter of general

principle, the administration is trying to be as efficient with the

money of the taxpayers as we can be expected and I think that you

and Congress do as well.

The level of funding proposed for the HIDTA Program combined

with its placement at the Department of Justice will enable the

program to maintain a strong focus on supporting State and local

agencies. Additionally, I would note the administration has rightly

made program performance central to budget decisionmaking and

the Office of Management and Budget has concluded that the

PARTS score, the program assessment rating tool used by OMB, of

the HIDTA Program suggests that the program has not demonstrated results.

With that said about HIDTA, I think it is important to look at

the President’s drug control budget as a whole. It increases support

for domestic drug enforcement. It increases the drug control budget

as a whole in a fiscally responsible manner. I recognize that some

of the specific provisions in the budget will be the subject of a

healthy debate as they should be. While the American people deserve a rigorous and vigorous discussion of the right funding priorities, they also deserve to have their money spent on the programs

that will provide the best results.

The ultimate test of success is continued reductions in especially

youth drug use and this budget is the reight way to continue the

successes of the past 3 years.

Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:]

45

46

47

48

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you all for your testimony.

I am very frustrated with the testimony and let me say first off,

if I can give as big an insult in my vocabulary as I can, this is the

closest I have heard to early Bill Clinton, that from a Republican

administration I find it appalling that what we faced when we

came in 1994 was a drug czar’s office that had been basically gutted. Today, again, we hear the drug czar more or less saying go

ahead and gut my office. There is a substantial proposed reduction

in staff but you have most of your staff, unlike what happened in

the first 2 years under Lee Brown, from 125 down to 25, but they

are taking almost all your programs out and you are publicly praising that, and you are going to be left, as all hat and no cowboy because you will have your staff there but your HIDTA Program is

gone for the most part, it is transferred; your CTAC Program is

dramatically reduced. Quite frankly, this was about all we had in

the early days of the administration when President Bush first

wanted to downgrade the drug czar to a non-Cabinet level position

which comes the question of who cares whether in one sense

whether you have an Office of ONDCP with the Drug Czar or

whether it is under the Attorney General and the Attorney General

becomes the Drug Czar.

Why did Congress do that? I say it doesn’t matter who the Attorney General is at a particular time and I certainly have nothing

against the Office of Justice Assistance. The sister of our Governor

of Indiana was head of that. Terry Donohue from my hometown

has been a key player there. My hometown does pretty well with

Justice assistance, and I have seen many effective programs. Karen

Tandy who now heads DEA headed OCDETF and has done many

great things to bust up organized crime.

I can’t say this more clearly. The reason we created the Office

of National Drug Control Policy and set up these things is the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Justice are fair

weather friends to the drug battle because you have multiple crime

battles to fight in the United States that whatever fad Congress decides, if this thing or that thing or all the variations of organized

crime, your primary mission never will be drugs. It will always be

a key part of your mission because you can’t separate law enforcement from narcotics but it will never be the primary mission.

You have some agencies like DEA but that is why Congress

wanted to have and created an oversight office and why Congress

is likely to defend that and to come in with the type of testimony

that basically sticks your finger in the eye of Congress and the historic tradition of why we did this without any consultation. I talked

to each of the appropriators and each of the authorizers, and there

was no consultation with any committee about whether you should

come in an appropriations process and try to jam every authorizing

committee and jam the Appropriations Committee with this approach. It is extremely disappointing.

Furthermore, there was no reference to Byrne grants other than

in the front page of your testimony where our hearing title includes

Byrne grants. There was no reference to the elimination of Byrne

grants which are critical to drug task forces and have been over the

years. Multiple times the administration has proposed getting rid

of them and Congress puts them back in.

49

Before I get into a couple of the questions, I also wanted to say

that we hear training, training, and training and I have all kinds

of people trained on meth. What they don’t have is a lab to clean

up the mess. We have trained a bunch of people and they sit out

there for 4 to 8 hours waiting for somebody to show up with the

meth lab.

The argument that we need to transfer more money to training

just isn’t going to fly here. What we need are more labs and different methods of how to do it.

I have a series of questions I want to make sure I start with specifically. I have listened and these are mostly for Ms. Henke and

Ms. O’Neil. Maybe I will start with Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Horton on

this.

As I understood your testimony, Ms. O’Neil, the HIDTAs

wouldn’t be eliminated but their budgets are being cut 60 percent.

Are you saying that under this program, no HIDTAs will be eliminated, some HIDTAs will be eliminated, all HIDTAs will be wiped

out including the 60 percent production on the southwest border,

60 percent in Texas, 60 percent in California or are you proposing

to eliminate Iowa? What is the thought of this?

Ms. O’NEIL. I don’t believe I said no HIDTAs would be eliminated. My testimony was that the HIDTA Program would not be

merged into OCDETF, that it is not our goal to turn the HIDTA

Program into the OCDETF Program. We recognize that HIDTA

and OCDETF very clearly have distinct missions and need to continue with an overall strategic vision to have each have focused

missions. That is what we hope this will accomplish.

Mr. SOUDER. In my question, did you say all of them would be

reduced 60 percent or are you going to cut out some HIDTAs?

Ms. O’NEIL. The President’s budget would provide $100 million

in overall funding and it will be incumbent upon the Department

of Justice and ONDCP and quite frankly the HIDTA community to

work jointly to figure out how that $100 million can be administered and spread most effectively with the HIDTA Program and

with the HIDTAs working most effectively.

Mr. SOUDER. What methodology would you use to determine

which HIDTAs you are either cutting by 60 percent, 100 percent,

80 percent or eliminating?

Ms. O’NEIL. At this time, we have not established any sort of

firm methodology. I would say we obviously would be looking for

HIDTAs that are supporting the overall goals of the National Drug

Control Strategy, the goals of the Department’s drug strategy and

HIDTA programs working effectively.

Mr. SOUDER. Which three HIDTAs do you think aren’t working

effectively and would be an example because if you came up here

proposing to cut out 60 percent of the funding and you don’t even

have three examples of something that isn’t working, you have a

fundamental problem. You are asking Congress to change our

budget, you are telling me you don’t have the methodology of how

you are going to reduce it, you don’t know whether they are going

to be eliminated or partly eliminated and if you can’t even name

three that you think are a problem, we have a problem here. You

are asking us from blindness to wipe out a program that is working. Do you have three you think aren’t?

50

Ms. O’NEIL. I do not have three HIDTAs that I would identify

at this time.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you have one?

Ms. O’NEIL. Again, what we want to do is get our arms around

the HIDTA Program to make sure we understand exactly where

the funding is, how it is being spent, what is working well, what

might not be working so well and make decisions that will make

sure the HIDTAs achieve the overall goals they are meant to

achieve.

Mr. SOUDER. Wouldn’t it make sense to do that before you propose eliminating them? I don’t even understand as a budget management person, a person with a MBA degree and who worked in

the private sector, you just said you want to get your arms around

it and figure out which ones are working and how to do it but you

have already decided that you want to cut the funds 60 percent and

maybe eliminate some. On what basis?

Ms. O’NEIL. The President’s budget proposes the $100 million

and it would be my understanding that the manner in which the

$100 million was arrived at would be pre-decisional and I would

not be at liberty to answer that.

Mr. SOUDER. How did they come up with the $100 million?

Ms. O’NEIL. That question may be best turned to my friends at

ONDCP. Again, that would be a pre-decisional budget decision that

I would not be at liberty to share.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Horton, did you make the recommendation of

$100 million and go to OMB or did OMB come to you and say it

is $100 million?

Mr. HORTON. I frankly do not know the answer to that. If you

are asking if I personally did it, the answer is no, but I believe it

was pre-decisional and resulted from discussions. I don’t know who

initiated it.

Mr. SOUDER. You are Deputy Director for Local Affairs. Do you

work with the HIDTA Program directly?

Mr. HORTON. I am Associate Deputy Director. I do work with the

HIDTA Program.

Mr. SOUDER. Did they ask for your input and did you agree that

they should be reduced?

Mr. HORTON. Unfortunately, I think that is pre-decisional and I

probably can’t answer. I am sorry.

Mr. SOUDER. Would OCDETF retain the current operating guidelines of HIDTA? For example, would you have an executive board

made up equally, Ms. O’Neil, of State and local and Federal?

Ms. O’NEIL. Certainly we want to look at the way the HIDTA

Program is structured and determine how well those executive

boards are working and whether they should be maintained. I

think there has been some sense that by coming over to the

OCDETF Program or being administered by OCDETF we would

have a natural inclination to impose the existing OCDETF management structure onto the HIDTAs. OCDETF and HIDTA were

created to do different things. Our regional task forces reflect the

mission and the direction that the OCDETF Program was meant

to have. Our intention would be to maintain a strong partnership

with State and local law enforcement and to structure the HIDTA

51

Program in a way that furthers its mission and makes sense from

a management standpoint.

Mr. SOUDER. You are arguing we should change the program

butyou haven’t decided whether you are going to include State and

local balance as it currently is? That is something you would determine after we have already eliminated it?

Ms. O’NEIL. We would absolutely include State and locals. The

focus of the HIDTA Program has always been a partnership with

State and local law enforcement.

Mr. SOUDER. You would have an equal balance between the two?

That is the fundamental philosophy of creating the HIDTA, so if

you want to change and come to Congress and say we want to

change, you need to be able to answer the question, are you proposing changing the fundamental nature of this program where it is

50–50, State and local and Federal or not. If you don’t know the

answer to that question, why are you proposing a change?

It is one thing to say we want some research money to look into

how to do this, we want to propose a reauthorization bill to figure

out how to do this but you have a funding bill. By the way, did

ONCDP go to OMB and say we would like this program, take it

away from the Drug Czar’s office?

Ms. O’NEIL. Again, I would have to agree that would be predecisional. I personally did not go to OMB.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know whether OCDETF, Department of

Justice or the Drug Czar’s office surveyed local law enforcement

people to see what they thought about this change?

Ms. O’NEIL. I am not aware whether or not ONDCP or others

did. I personally did not conduct a survey.

Mr. SOUDER. Have you seen anything in your departments that

would suggest any kind of surveying of State and local law enforcement to ask them whether they would continue to participate,

whether they think it would be better off moved over or was this

a unilateral budget decision made without consultation at the State

and local level?

Ms. O’NEIL. There is certainly nothing that has come across my

desk but that does not mean one way or another whether such

sorts of surveys or studies exist. I certainly know from communications with HIDTA directors that there has been some sense that

they were not consulted.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Mr. Horton, do you have any insight

into that? Did your office survey? Let me say as chairman of the

subcommittee, I certainly haven’t heard anywhere in the country

that HIDTAs, Byrne Grant, drug task forces or local law enforcement have been consulted. If it was done, it was very quiet. Do you

know if there was any surveying done of State and local law enforcement before you proposed a huge change in the whole drug enforcement program?

Mr. HORTON. I do know the answer, Mr. Chairman, and the answer is that we did not consult the State and local law enforcement

about the specific inclusion in the fiscal year 2006 budget on shifting the HIDTA Program from ONDCP to DOJ. To the best of my

knowledge, we did not.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for your openness.

Mr. Cummings.

52

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have to tell you this is very upsetting but I

want to take this in another direction.

Methamphetamine in Baltimore is not a major problem in Baltimore, but it is a major problem in this country. There is no 1 day

that goes by that I walk on the floor of the House that some one

of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, tell me about a

methamphetamine problem in their district. I just want to know

what went into the thinking about the whole meth program. Can

you tell me about that? Who wants to talk about that?

Ms. HENKE. The COPS Program, the President’s budget is con- sistent with the prior fiscal year budget that he submitted for $20

million. Congress did appropriate over $50 million. The President

did request $20 million and those additional resources Congress appropriated all were earmarked. The President’s budget remains

consistent on that $20 million request.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You realize the methamphetamine problem is

getting worse in this country?

Ms. HENKE. That is why we are working on several programs including the Drug Court Program, the RSAP Program and so forth

to try to do what we can to address those issues. I know the chairman referenced the issue of training but we are providing some

specific training and tools to law enforcement on that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What about money? I have gotten so interested

in this because I represent a city and I have had people from rural

areas, law enforcement, men and women on the front lines and

they are so frustrated because they tell us they have limited resources, they have to clean up these labs, they go out with the limited resources they have, tie up somebody sometimes for 8 to 14

hours in a small force. I am trying to figure out what we are doing

for them.

The reason I am raising this is I don’t know what we will hear

from the next panel but I can tell you one thing. If I were on the

next panel, I would be very, very, very upset. The reason why I

would be upset is because what I said from the beginning, these

are the people on the front line. It is nice to hear folk making these

decisions but they tell me they worry that the public will get the

impression they can just mosey into their jurisdictions because

they don’t have the manpower and they don’t have the resources

they need and these folks get these drug dealers and drug manufacturers who believe they can set up shop almost anywhere.

You know this is on C-Span right now and there are drug folks

sitting right now watching this. They are bright people and they

are listening to all of this and are probably saying to themselves,

my, my, my we are in pretty good shape. They are making decisions, they don’t talk to each other. Boy, this is great. Let us see

where we are going next because we are not so worried about getting caught.

When I hear that these decisions are being made without our

local and State input, I have to tell you it is very, very upsetting.

It is upsetting for another reason and it just seems logic would tell

us when you are dealing with Members of Congress and dealing

with things like HIDTA and methamphetamine and these programs, every single Member of Congress is going to go beserk on

this. It doesn’t even make sense.

53

I am saying that not long ago around early February, in Indiana,

a little girl was killed, she was 10 years old and her last name was

Coleman. She was killed because she witnessed some kind of methamphetamine transaction. Then I will take you to Baltimore. We

have a major drug problem that our Commissioner will tell you we

are fighting with everything we have. Still, you come here and tell

us about all these cuts and how you have sliced and diced but the

very people who have to face this front line aren’t even in the mix.

We do have a program called HIDTA nad I would like you to tell

me specifically what is wrong with HIDTA, be very specific, so I

can know since we have to make these decisions. I want to know

why HIDTA has to have its money managed, is it something wrong

with theway they are managing their money and I want to know

what we expect to happen that is going to make them more effective and efficient? Help me.

Ms. O’NEIL. I would certainly speak to the management issue of

the money. I think the very simple answer to that is someone has

to manage the money. Currently ONDCP administers the grant

funding and now when it comes over to the Department of Justice,

there needs to be an entity at the Department of Justice who will

serve the same role. I think OCDETF was chosen to serve that role

because OCDETF like HIDTA is a Federal, State and local law enforcement partnership. It is not the DEA or the FBI or any other

single Federal enforcement agency, but rather a program dedicated

to coordinating law enforcement entities at all levels.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you hold it right there because you are a bit

ahead of me. Was part of the reason there was something wrong

with the way ONDCP was administering the funds that caused us

to move to this situation? Mr. Horton.

Mr. HORTON. I think the important point to know is there are

some things that are very right with HIDTA. In fact, if you look

at the drug control budget, it says the HIDTA Program has been

effective.

Mr. CUMMINGS. This is Mr. Horton’s testimony. It says the administration has made program performance central to the budget

and part of it says HIDTA has not been able to demonstrate results. You are talking about 2004–2005. Did I miss something?

Mr. HORTON. If I could explain, there are things the HIDTA Program has done that are effective. It has encouraged cooperation between the Federal, State and local agencies and the PARTS, the

Program Assessment Rating Tool, didn’t say it was ineffective.

That was not the finding.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this because I think we are dancing around words here. You have HIDTA people sitting here and

they are going to testify in a few minutes. I don’t know what they

will say but I want to know, has the HIDTA Program overall demonstrated results. If it hasn’t, we need to know that and if it hasn’t,

I would like to know why. Why do you all think it hasn’t demonstrated results so we can talk to the HIDTA people and say we

want some accountability. Since we have so many of them here in

the room, it seems like a good time to me for us to share information.

Mr. HORTON. We clearly think there are some things very right

about the HIDTA Program, that is why it wasn’t eliminated. We

54

are funding it at $100 million. I recognize that is a cut but again,

it is being funded at $100 million.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have to tell you I heard Ms. O’Neil say the

same thing you just said,t hat we are not eliminating it but in

other words you are saying, be happy, we are not eliminating it.

We are only going to cut 60 percent of it, be happy. Be happy because it is going to be better because OCDETF is going to administer the funds now. We don’t know how we are going to make this

adjustment and still be effective and efficient, a 60 percent cut is

a serious cut.

I guess what bothers me is I really wonder what is going through

the heads of the HIDTA people sitting behind you. I wonder what

is going through the heads of all those men and women who every

day go out there work with HIDTA, try to make a difference, putting their lives on the line, leaving their families not knowing

whether they will come back because they are dealing with some

criminals who think life isn’t worth a damned and yet when it

comes to them, would you say they are doing a good job?

Mr. HORTON. I think there are a tremendous number of HIDTA

directors and law enforcement who do a wonderful job in this country. I know that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are they good enough to be consulted. These are

highly professional people who know their job, many who have

been doing this for many years, many severely underpaid, many

have to pump up their personnel and keep them going and have

to go back to their offices today or tomorrow and talk to their people and keep their troops in line and keep their moral up after

their troops have listened to this that basically says, well, guys, too

bad, we are going to make these changes but you are great guys

on the front line and you are professionals but, a decision has been

made that 60 percent of your budget is going, we don’t know what

is going to happen to you next. By the way, the criminal element

has been watching C-Span.

Mr. HORTON. First, I want to mention I come from a law enforcement family. I am a former prosecutor and I have uncles who are

police and I know the sacrifice they make very well. When we come

up with the budget every year that we submit to Congress, when

we say it is pre-decisional, I think there are very few if any parts

of that allowed to go outside of the administration.

I recognize it would be disingenuous for me to state otherwise,

that law enforcement of course would have preferred we come to

them but that is not the way the budget process works is the honest answer. The other thing I would note is that HIDTA budgets

do not account for all of any, whether the Indiana or Baltimore police that are meant to support those efforts. I hope law enforcement

understands, this is not personal. It is a tough budget environment

this year and we have had to come up with a national drug control

strategy that we think is best not one that focuses only on drug enforcement but incorporates prevention, treatment, international

interdiction. We think this budget is the right way to accomplish

that.

Mr. SOUDER. Predecisional budgets that don’t include people

don’t pass. That has been one of the problems with the Byrne grant

proposals. If you don’t consult anybody, your budgets don’t pass. To

55

say it is predecisional what is going to be inside the room and we

are just going to do this inside OMB and maybe tell the agencies

it isn’t going to work. And it is going to become abundantly clear

again if I have to vote against the budget and it doesn’t take very

many Republicans to do a wake up call here that an arrogant approach that says everything is predecisional, we are not even going

to talk to all these people out in the country, we are not going to

present any evidence to Congress and Mr. Cummings asked multiple times and I tried to ask the question, you are proposing to

transfer it from ONDCP to OCDETF. What did ONDCP do wrong

to cause the transfer? You have not given any compelling evidence

to suggest why it should be moved over or what the punishment

is. Why do you think the Attorney General’s office can do it better

than ONDCP?

Mr. HORTON. I don’t mean to imply and I don’t think anybody at

this table means to imply that ONDCP has done anything wrong.

I certainly hope that is not the case being part of ONDCP myself.

As I indicated in my testimony, we think law enforcement programs, drug enforcement programs like the HIDTA program should

be in the part of the Federal Government that has the primary responsibility for law enforcement and drug enforcement.

Mr. SOUDER. Does that include the Department of Homeland Security which has more drug enforcement people than any of you?

Mr. HORTON. No, I am talking in this particular case.

Mr. SOUDER. Why this particular case and not all cases?

Mr. HORTON. As you know, the primary drug enforcement agency

of the Federal Government is the DEA.

Mr. SOUDER. I would argue that the Border Patrol, Customs and

Coast Guard units inside while they have a mission of homeland

security, have as many agents doing drug enforcement things,

making as many joint arrests as what is in the Justice Department, and the HIDTAs and local law enforcement do 90 percent of

the arrests. That is not a factual answer. Justice has more individual programs but you did answer the question. Your argument is

ONDCP didn’t do anything wrong, you are moving it over to the

Justice Department to try to consolidate drug programs in the Justice Department. Is that basically the testimony?

Mr. HORTON. I am not sure I would use the word consolidate. As

the Associate Deputy Attorney General indicated, OCDETF and

HIDTA will be distinct programs but we do think it is appropriately placed there.

Mr. SOUDER. You said that you believe some HIDTAs are doing

well. Can you name some that aren’t doing well?

Mr. HORTON. I don’t have specific HIDTAs that I would name

right now.

Mr. SOUDER. But you want us to cut the budget and you don’t

have a single example? I don’t understand this. How can you propose cutting the budget and none of you have an example? Mr.

Cummings asked this question too. If you have measurements and

say you have evidence that suggests the program needs to be

redone or even offer testimony that says it can be done better, on

what basis and which ones aren’t?

Furthermore, when we talk about State and local, in New York

which arguably is the most integrated HIDTA where they have

56

also integrated DEA and Department of Homeland Security and

are doing all these things together, are you proposing to cut them

60 percent too? Do you propose to cut the New York City HIDTA

60 percent or will they be funded because if you don’t cut them 60

percent, by definition since it is one of the biggest HIDTAs, you are

really going to whack everyone else.

Yet everybody thinks it is an amazing unit, why would you touch

it? If you say you are not going to touch it and hold it harmless,

your budget numbers don’t work. You have a flaw here in the basic

proposal.

Mr. HORTON. The drug control budget does not specifically propose to cut the New York HIDTA, what is going on in New York.

Very clearly there are some decisions that will have to be made.

ONDCP and the Department of Justice are going to have to come

up with a more specific plan. We knew that, and we will be sharing

that with you.

Mr. SOUDER. So you are asking Mr. Cummings, who may not

vote for the budget anyway, and Ms. Watson who may not vote for

the budget anyway, to say vote blind, trust us that WashingtonBaltimore HIDTA and Los Angeles HIDTA aren’t going to be eliminated. I don’t have a HIDTA. I am making this argument on principle, not on the Ft. Wayne HIDTA. I have a Byrne grant, we don’t

have a drug task force. On HIDTAs, you want them theoretically

to vote for a budget and say trust us as to whether we put all the

money in New York or Iowa or down in Texas, vote blind?

Mr. HORTON. We are asking that you vote for the President’s

budget, not based purely on that factor but because we think this

is the overall strategy incorporating all those five functional units

that will accomplish continued reductions in drug use in America.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I am just now coming into the meeting but I understand there have been some charges of corruption and if you have

explained then let me know. I don’t want you to have to repeat responses.

Are you aware of cases of corruption and abuse involving Byrne

funds and do you believe these are widespread problems? I get the

sense you are asking to defund some of these programs?

Mr. HORTON. That is correct. As to the corruption question, I am

not aware of anything like that in my office or in the HIDTA Program. I am aware you asked about Byrne and perhaps I should

defer to the Assistant Attorney General.

Ms. HENKE. Congreswoman, over the years there have been several IG investigations and GAO investigations into COPS programs, into Byrne programs where abuse and misuse has been

found. Is it widespread? No, we don’t necessarily think it is widespread but we do know there are problems out there.

Ms. WATSON. When you find those problems, what can be done

about them, those specific ones since it is not widespread?

Ms. HENKE. It depends on the specific situation that is found,

whether or not it resulted in involvement from the FBI or the U.S.

Attorneys Office or whether or not it is just a small violation of

program rules or responsibilities that has been identified by the Inspector General or the GAO or others. Sometimes it means asking

for funds back, sometimes it means freezing funds for that specific

57

entity until the problem is resolved, so there is a variety of actions

we can and do take.

Ms. WATSON. Bring me up to date, are you recommending, Mr.

Horton, that we eliminate some of these programs or we cut funds?

Mr. HORTON. There are some recommendations throughout the

drug control budget to cut or eliminate some programs. We most

recently discussed the cut of the HIDTA Program.

Ms. WATSON. I represent a very critical part of Los Angeles. I

represent what they used to call South Central Los Angeles or

South Los Angeles, now. We suffer from a rash of gangs and violence with guns, and a lack of police.

We have tried several tax enhancements to hire more police, and

they have not succeeded. If there is any program that we need

funding or need more of, it certainly is the COPS program, HIDTA

programs, and anything that will help us as we deal with youth on

the street.

I am wondering why, with proposals that are going to be in front

of us, that we are looking at these very critical programs for cuts.

Can you explain to me why this is occurring?

Mr. HORTON. Certainly, I would be happy to speak, especially to

the HIDTA program itself. Then on some of the other program that

fall under the jurisdiction from my colleagues from the Department

of Justice, I may defer to them.

But as I indicated earlier, I think that first, we all know that

this is a tight fiscal environment. That is an over-arching feature,

I think. I indicated earlier that OMB has found that the HIDTA

has not demonstrated results. That is under PART, its Program Assessment Rating Tool. That is not to say that it was found ineffective. It was found that it had not demonstrated results.

In the President’s direct control budget, it also notes that by

moving the HIDTA program over to the Department of Justice,

that is where many of our drug enforcement efforts are housed,

such as DEA, OCDETF, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement

Task Force. We think that having those programs be able to work

from the same section of the Federal Government will be more efficient and help accomplish our drug control objectives better.

Ms. WATSON. Let me just say this. I do not think so. We are

3,000 miles away. There is not even communication between Washington and California. I found that out by trying to get rid of a gun

and arms shop, ATF, that has been operating for 15 years illegally.

I go to the ATF Federal level, and then I have the regional in

my district office, and I said, did you know they are getting ready

to renew the license for this guy who has been there illegally, and

he has not complied with the local ordinances? No, they do not talk

to each other.

So there is no way you can convince me that you can run it from

Washington, DC, when ATF cannot oversee and run the program

out in Los Angeles.

Now when there was testimony before Congress in support of the

HIDTA program, the Chief of the California Bureau of Narcotics

Enforcement testified and said, an essential component of HIDTA

is the flexibility and the ability for unique law enforcement problems to be addressed. The benefit of flexibility of the local Board

58

to decide what threat is pertinent to their region is absolutely essential to righting the drug problem in a particular area.

I can testify to that. You cannot tell me that you can run it from

Washington, and believe me, we have a horrendous problem, as you

know, in the Los Angeles area, right in my own district. So they

are testifying to the effects of a program that gives them the flexibility to be innovative and creative.

Believe me, the gangs on the street, they far out-pace law enforcement being creative. You know, they have got a better communication system and they change their language every day, and

they get away. They sell on those streets, guns, you know.

So I am just saying that I do not know what your data is. But

I can tell you, from what my people say in the region, this is a program that they cannot do without.

Mr. HORTON. Thank you for those comments. I want to correct

a mis-impression that I may have inadvertently made. We are not

proposing that we would be taking all the HIDTA activity back up

to Washington, DC. I do not forecast that fact.

I fully expect that the HIDTA program is going to retain and

maintain its focus on supporting State and locals. The Department

of Justice and ONDCP and my office have talked about that, and

I will defer to the Associate Attorney General for the remainder of

this answer, since the program is proposed to go to her. But I know

that we agree that it would retain its ability to respond flexibly to

State and local problems as you described.

Ms. O’NEIL. Congresswoman, I would reiterate that comment.

Certainly, as I mentioned earlier before you had come in, the program needs to be run from somewhere, and they have determined

that within the Department of Justice, the appropriate place to do

that would be from the OCDETF program.

I might share with you that while OCDETF does not have certainly quite the same structure that the HIDTA program has from

a management standpoint, simply because it is designed to do

something different from HIDTA, we, too, run our program out in

the field.

Our structure is comprised of district coordination groups that

are made up of the representatives of all of our Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as, under our guidelines, a State and

local representatives on every one of those district coordination

committees.

At the regional level, we have all of our agencies represented

again. In fact, we have State and local law representatives on two

of those regional committees. We have HIDTA Directors on three

of those regional committees. Even the OCDETF program, which

has a more regional, national, and international focus, recognizes

that strategies have to be developed out in the field.

We have our OCDETF regions submit to us regional strategies

that will work for the Southwest and the Great Lakes and the

Southeast, so that we can even adjust the OCDETF program to

adapt to the way that we must attack the drug trade, and the differences that the drug trade has in different parts of the country.

So I completely agree with you, and that certainly would be an

important part of what we would intend to continue to do.

59

Ms. WATSON. For my own edification and clarification, you are

saying we are just going to pick up and house this program over

here? It still will depend on local cooperation and collaboration and

the locals suggesting strategies. Is that correct?

Mr. SOUDER. May I intervene, because we covered this a little?

Ms. WATSON. Yes, please do, I need to be clear.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask this again. You suggested that part of

the reason it is moving over to the Justice Department, was that

they, and it was interesting that you said ‘‘they’’ rather than ‘‘you’’

at OCDETF, decided that it should be in OCDETF was because of

your structure.

Now I had asked you earlier, the way HIDTAs were structured,

it was half local and half Federal. Are you going to have half local?

The way you just described your Task Forces, is local invited to be

part of the committee, but they do not have the same leverage that

they do in a HIDTA?

The whole concept of a HIDTA was to give equal voting power,

because most of the dollars come in from a local watch, and we use

our Federal dollars as leverage. Ms. Watson, when she was asking

her question, hit a core point. The fundamental belief, I believe, behind this ideologically, which we have fenced with on this committee, is a feeling that the HIDTAs have become too oriented toward

local and regional, and not national enough.

One way to do that, and to change that and nationalize and give

less power to the people in Los Angeles is to move it to an

OCDETF-type structure, rather than a HIDTA structure. Thus far,

you have been unwilling to say, even though you are asking us to

move the funds, that you will keep the same structure that half of

the group will be local agencies and half will be Federal.

Will you say to this committee, as the authorizing committee on

HIDTAs, that you will keep half and half; or do you see it modeled

more like the OCDETF model? I am sure Ms. Watson will appreciate this.

We can say all the time, we include the minority on all sorts of

bills and they are welcome to come to the hearings. There may be

three of them, while there are 200 of us. They may even get to offer

an amendment here and there, that we get to vote down.

This is about power, and if the majority is Federal and the minority is included and the HIDTA Director gets to sit on it, the difference in the HIDTA program and the concept that Congress

passed was equal, 50/50, it has been a headache.

On national strategy, I understand it has been a headache, and

it looks to me like you are saying, we are tired of the headache.

We are moving it out of the Justice Department. We are going to

have a clear top-down. We would love to have them along for the

ride, and as long as they are good, we will keep them on our advisory committee. Otherwise, they are welcome to sit there and complain, but they are going to be voted down.

Ms. O’NEIL. Mr. Chairman, let me make myself clear, because I

do not want to leave any mis-impression. When I was describing

the OCDETF structure, I wanted to describe it to explain how even

we, which you would consider to be much less of a State and local

or regional flair-type program, recognized how important it is to get

60

the input at the District level and the regional level. I was explaining our structure that works for the OCDETF program.

Because the focus of the OCDETF program is a Federal program.

What we do is, we fund Federal agencies through our appropriation, and we partner with State and locals. So our management

structure reflects that. What we would want to do for the HIDTA

program is to preserve what has worked so well for the HIDTA program, which is its focus on State and local law enforcement. It

works differently than the OCDETF program does.

We want to, then, select the management structure that works

most appropriately to reinforce that mission. If the HIDTA Boards,

as they have been structured, are the most effective way to do that,

with the 50/50 participation or other recommendations that the

HIDTA Directors may have for that management structure, then

that would certainly be a direction that we would want to go.

Mr. SOUDER. So you are proposing to change it, but you do not

really know, yet? I mean, we just did a loop. Because you said, if

the current structure is effective the way it is, then you would keep

it; but we already have it.

If you do not have any evidence that it is not effective, why are

you changing it? That is, unless there is a management question,

as Ms. Watson was just asking, which is are you changing the fundamental nature? You are, at the very least, admitting that you are

going to study the fundamental nature and that you have not concluded how you are going to do it.

You admit that OCDETF, which certainly has local participation,

and I did not mean to be overly cynical about it, but when there

are disagreements, voting rights matter. One of the frustrations

here is that you are telling us and you are gradually elaborating

a process of how you are going to decide this, but you are asking

us to change it, without telling us what you are changing to.

What we know is we have something that all evidence suggests

works. There is just as much evidence that this works, as there is

that DEA works. In other words, any criticism you can say of a

HIDTA that it does not work, the HIDTAs are scoring just as high

on any tests as DEA, which is under your watch, as Bureau Justice

Assistants. Quite frankly, it is as effective as drug courts, which I

am a strong supporter of.

So you cannot look at HIDTAs and say, there is an ineffectiveness here, because we can find study after study that show we

have a problem all across the board. It is a hard issue to work. The

question is, on what basis, other than management? But now you

say you are proposing, and you have not even decided how to manage it.

I am sorry I cut you off, Ms. Watson. Do you have any other comments?

Ms. WATSON. I just have one more question. I think I will ask

Ms. O’Neil this question. The proposal is to cut HIDTA’s budget by

56 percent when you transfer it over to the Department of Justice?

Ms. O’NEIL. That is correct. The President’s budget proposes a funding level of $100 million.

Ms. WATSON. Why would you want to cut a program that is zeroing in on specific local plans to address the drug trafficking that

is discovered, and they are trying to do something about? Why

61

would you suggest cutting by 56 percent the overall HIDTA budget? If you think that moving it into the Justice Department will

allow more coordination, more flexibility to focus in on those areas

and those innovations, why would you want to cut the funding? I

do not understand that.

Ms. O’NEIL. Clearly, what we are trying to accomplish is to satisfy the budget requirements that we have in very tight budget

times, and to achieve a budget that will meet the overall drug enforcement goals and further the administration’s strategy to promote prevention, treatment, and drug enforcement. That does require hard choices.

Although with the funding level of $100 million that has been determined, we are committed to making sure that the HIDTA program remains productive, to focus it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, in his earlier remarks had suggested that

the HIDTA program may have drifted a bit. What we would like

to do, by bringing it over to the Department of Justice, by having

it in a place that is responsible for the Federal drug enforcement

strategy, to determine what is it that HIDTA can do best; what

part of the strategy should HIDTA focus on; and where should it

devote the limited resources that it has to have the biggest impact

on our drug enforcement problem, nationwide; and then let

OCDETF and other programs do other things.

Ms. WATSON. Let me say this in response and let me suggest

this. I represent, as I said, Los Angeles. We are 2 hours from the

border between Mexico and the United States. Every day, people

are coming over that border illegally. Every day, we are finding

that drugs are being brought over the border.

We are finding now that Afghanistan is the biggest producer of

heroin. That heroin is finding its way into our community. Our

city, 3,000 miles away, is trying to tackle this. Do you know what

they do? They go out to the community and they find people who

look like these groups that are coming over the border illegally.

They must have the resources.

I do not understand how you feel you can fight this kind of crime

more specifically, a, coming out of the Department of Justice, and

b, with a reduced budget. Fifty-six percent is half. You are going

to try to do more with half the means. It just does not compute.

This is at a time when we are fighting and we are fearing terrorism on our own borders. You know, the sales of guns, I do not understand that. Right there, if you want to destroy a city, you know,

you throw that bomb up in the middle of its impacted area.

You are telling me that a 56 percent cut will allow you to focus

your resources where they are needed the most. That cut, we could

use, you know, and we could really do a good job, if we had the

funds flowing in.

So I think that this proposal really does not make sense if your

goal is to reduce drug trafficking and the associated crimes that

come along with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time you have given

me.

Mr. SOUDER. I just want to clarify this for the record. My understanding is that New York City, which is one of the center places

62

right now where we have a HIDTA, where 100 percent of its funds

are merged in, in the main anti-terrorism center.

You are saying you are going to cut it 60 percent; or you do not

know, you might cut it 60 percent; you might eliminate it; or is it

guaranteed that it is going to be there and not be cut? Because this

is a critical part. You do not know. That is what I have heard so

far.

Ms. O’NEIL. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, the plan has

not been finalized with regard to how the funding level will be

spent; how it will be allocated; and what decisions will be made.

The Department of Justice needs to work with OCDCP and with

the HIDTA community to determine how we can best function, because we want to make sure that the HIDTA program is productive.

Mr. SOUDER. As we look across the country at the border questions, urban centers, one of the concerns here would be that this

is a proposal to cut the HIDTAs, many of which, or the biggest

ones, are in urban centers. Those are represented by Democratic

members.

If you assured us and said, oh, we are not going to cut the

HIDTAs in those big urban areas that are mostly represented by

Democrats, then you are proposing to cut the HIDTAs that are represented mostly by Republican members. Are you suggesting that

the administration wants to do this without talking to Congress?

Ms. O’NEIL. We would certainly look forward to working with the

committee, as the plans are finalized and the funding levels are finalized.

Mr. SOUDER. But you were not going to talk to State and local

law enforcement before you came to Congress with this; and not

only did you not talk to Congress before this, but what I heard you

to say is, we are going to come up with some procedures, and then

we are going to make decisions about whether to cut New York or

leave New York, or whether we will keep the ones in the center of

the country where methamphetamines are present.

You can see why it is hard here. I mean, you are defending a

very tough position. I appreciate how difficult it has been today.

But it is just unbelievable that your departments would send you

up here with no specifics, when we are headed into a budget and,

in effect, say, look, we do not know who is getting wiped out. We

do not even know how we are going to measure who gets wiped

out. We would like to have it over here.

It starts to look, quite frankly, and I am going to say this on the

public record, like the Attorney General’s Office lost a lot of their

staff to Homeland Security. So they decided to go poach the

ONDCP office and say we are going to focus on the drug problem,

unless there is another issue that comes up.

Let us say that organized crime becomes a big thing. Then because your office is Attorney General, and not drugs of which drugs

are a part of it, our concern is, once you basically wipe out the

ONDCP, once you weaken the HIDTA system, where we have an

even partnership, which is a model-type program, in effect to question whether we should have some in each State that then goes up.

Then also there is the Byrne grant, which we have not talked

about much, and we will certainly talk about in the next panel,

63

which funds those areas that do not have a HIDTA. Their Drug

Task Forces are usually funded through a Byrne grant.

In effect, you are proposing changing the whole nature of how we

fight drugs in the United States, without consultation. Then you

are telling us, no, we are not. We are going to consult before, because that was pre-decisional, but you are not going to consult with

us after.

You might inform us, and we will certainly give our opinions at

hearings. But you are missing the whole appropriations process.

You are missing the whole authorizing process. You are missing

multiple branches of Government.

You have to have some kind of compelling case. The disturbing

thing today is, you have not made any compelling case. Your compelling case is, we think it would be better consolidated under the

Attorney General’s Office.

But why is that? The closest you have come to criticizing ONDCP

is that you refer to something that I said, which is, the mission has

drifted a little bit. So you are, in effect, saying ONDCP could not

control it. Director Walters was not a good enough cabinet member

to control this, so we think it ought to go over to the Attorney General’s Office. That is, in effect, what you just said.

Your saying that some HIDTAs are doing really well implies that

many HIDTAs are not doing really well. But you cannot name one.

You cannot name three. We certainly would ask you to submit to

us if you can say, look, what are the specifics. Delineate them.

If you want Congress to change its budget, Congress writes the

budget. That is relatively, in American history, a new thing that

the President proposes the budget. It is basically because we could

not, and we wanted the executive branch to do it. But we start the

appropriations process over here; not this committee, but the Appropriations Committee.

But as we move through this process, there has to be some reasons given for overhauling more than, we think it would be nice to

consolidate because we would like to control it through the Attorney General’s Office. That is not going to fly. You have to have

some kind of substance.

I have one last thing. On the Byrne grants, I just want to clarify

this, because twice it has been brought up that there was some

abuse in Byrne grants. Is the administration was testifying that

you are eliminating Byrne grants because there was corruption in

Byrne grants?

Ms. HENKE. No, we are not.

Mr. SOUDER. Did it impact your decision to eliminate Byrne

grants, that you are worried about corruption in Byrne grants?

Ms. HENKE. It might have played some role.

Mr. SOUDER. Is it your testimony that you believe by moving it

away from Byrne grants and putting it more under Federal control,

that there will be less corruption?

Ms. HENKE. The Byrne grants are straight State and local. We

are not moving them. What the budget proposes is the elimination

of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program; not based on the

corruption or possible concerns that have been identified in the

past by Inspector General reports and others.

Mr. SOUDER. Then why are you eliminating them?

64

Ms. HENKE. As my colleagues have stated, but as I had hoped

to maybe clarify a little bit, this is a very difficult budget year. You

are well aware, Mr. Chairman, that discretionary spending, in essence, is frozen. That means that in preparing the President’s

budget, some very difficult budget decisions had to be made.

What we had to look at were programs with demonstrable results. We had to look at what was the true Federal role; what is

the true Federal responsibility? Where can we take the resources

that we do have available under this budget, and direct them in

a targeted fashion to be, as Mr. Cummings was pointing out, efficient and effective? That is what we have attempted to do.

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program, we do know, has

funded a lot of Task Forces. What we also do know is that for fiscal

year 2005, over the past several years, the funding that Congress

has provided for this programs or the programs prior to the merging, has been declining.

Four years ago, it was over $1 billion. Last year, it was approximately $500 million or $600 million. So it has been declining. Last

year’s appropriation represented less than 1 percent of the criminal

justice expenditures made by State and locals. So those were some

of the factors that did go into consideration.

Mr. SOUDER. So because you crossed several there, I mean, there

are ideological things that you put in there, and then there are

practical things. You suggested you wanted to put in the programs

that were demonstrably effective. Do you have any evidence that

Byrne grants are less effective than other programs?

Ms. HENKE. Unfortunately, we do not have tangible outcomes

from the Byrne grants. Part of that is, the Byrne grants have over

32 purpose areas. So entities are allowed to spend them on a wide

variety of things, from prosecution to law enforcement, correctional

items, drug courts, victim assistance. So it makes it very difficult

to identify outcome measurements for a program that has such a

wide variety of purpose areas.

Mr. SOUDER. There were alternatives to that, granting that is a

problem when you are having this drug prevention, drug-free

schools money, too, which you are proposing.

Ms. HENKE. And we have.

Mr. SOUDER. But let me ask you a question. Why did you not

come to Congress and then say, narrow the scope of the Byrne

grants? Why did you not come to Congress and say, we need better

research on the Byrne grants? Why would you come and say, eliminate the Byrne grants?

Ms. HENKE. What we have done over the past couple of years is,

we have instituted programs, for instance, evaluations of the Justice Assistance Grants Program or the Byrne NNLBG. For this current fiscal year, we have put in place measurements. We are asking the recipients to provide us hard outcome measurements for

the resources that they are receiving.

But in this budget, once again, hard choices had to be made.

Those hard choices unfortunately resulted in the proposal, in many

cases, and we know that it is difficult for State and local law enforcement, to propose the elimination of this program. But part of

that also goes to, once again, as I stated, the tough choices.

65

We have come to Congress to talk about some of those things; for

instance, the merger of the Justice Assistance Grant Program. The

President has proposed that for 3 years. We worked closely with

the Authorization Committee on that program, as well as numerous other programs, and we look forward to continuing to do so.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, thank you, and I know I have taken a lot of

time on the first panel and people are waiting. But let me say, as

we told Director Walters, if we have an ideological difference, we

have an ideological difference.

It is a legitimate debate. Should Federal dollars be used for

things that are more Federal directed, and how much do we do,

State and local? If that is the decision, that is fine.

But when you raise questions about effectiveness, you have an

obligation to come to us, and I will make the open invitation and

we would like to have it for this hearing record, with any evidence

that you have that Federal-directed programs are more effective

than the Byrne grants and the HIDTAs; or any sign that when you

are making these hard choices, that this was based on some sort

of evidence of what is effective, as opposed to evidence of an ideological choice that Federal dollars ought to be Federal-directed,

which we can have a debate about.

My personal belief is, this was more of an ideological decision,

and that you are distracting from that debate by raising questions

of effectiveness. Because we have looked for effectiveness things

and, quite frankly, in the whole drug and narcotics field, it is difficult to measure effectiveness, particularly as we push cooperation.

When something is effective, we find 100 agencies involved in it.

Therefore, how you attach who gets what points in effectiveness or

ineffectiveness, it is nearly impossible to do. But then you should

not imply that the decision was effectiveness. If you have any evidence of that, we would like to see that.

Are there any other questions? Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just have one thing, Mr. Chairman. Just adding

on to what you just said, I want the clarification that you just

talked about. I am sorry I had to step out, but I did listen to a bit

of it.

The clarification about ideology, as opposed to effectiveness, is

very important. I emphasize this. They are human beings. You said

you are from a police family. You understand what I am saying.

They are human beings, and if you start talking about their effectiveness, it gets real personal. They start beginning to ask themselves, well, you know, you mean to tell me you all cannot see what

we have been doing?

The last thing we need is for the morale of those who are fighting on the front line to be, in any way, diminished. If anything, we

need to be trying to lift them up and give them the tools that they

need to do what they need to do. It is clear that this effort against

drugs is one that is very, very, very difficult.

People risk their lives. They risk their livelihoods. They risk

their families over this thing called drugs. So I always want us to

keep that human element involved there. Because, believe me,

when we go back to our offices today, we will have all kinds of calls

from all over the country of people who will say, thank you for remembering us.

66

I just do not want us to get away from them. So I did not want

you all to take my words in any other way than that is where I

am coming from; thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, and let me say, too, if you will communicate to Attorney General Gonzalez, I am thrilled to have an Attorney General who wants to do drug issues, and who is very focused, and it is a great sign. I think we need to work out how we

are going to do this.

But whether or not these funds are transferred over, the Attorney General still has, like you pointed out today, Weed and Seed,

DEA, Office of Justice Assistance, drug reentry programs, drug

court programs.

The Attorney General is certainly one of the major players, if not

the major player, in addition to the Department of Homeland Security and ONDCP, in this, regardless of what happens with this

budget process.

I am thrilled that he is taking an aggressive interest and your

departments are taking aggressive interest, even if we have disagreements about how to deploy these programs. Director Walters

has been a friend of mine for many years. I know he is committed,

but it is really frustrating to have this happen to ONDCP if this

transfer occurs on his watch.

With that, I thank each of you for coming, for being willing to

put up with grilling today. It is never fun coming in front of a congressional committee, but this is an oversight committee and this

is what we do, and we have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.

Thank you for coming. I would ask the second panel to come forward.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that each of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. Thank you for your patience, first with

the vote delay and then the long first hearing. I am sure you found

it very interesting, as well.

We are looking forward to hearing your testimony. We will start

with Mr. Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers

Associations Coalition.

Let me say up front that all your testimony will be in the record.

If you want to do some highlights or respond, obviously this was

the first time we heard from multiple departments about the budget request. But feel free to do your statements, if you want do to

your statements; either way you want to do it.

But we will insert anything, and if you want to write additional

comments later, because there are a lot of you on this panel, send

that in, and we will put that in the record, too. If you know other

people on your HIDTA Task Force, when you go back home and

share some of what you heard today, and you want to get that in,

that is fine. We want to make sure we have a comprehensive mix

in this hearing, as we look at the huge challenge of how to do this

budget. Mr. Brooks.

STATEMENT OF RON BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

NARCOTICS OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONS COALITION

Mr. BROOKS. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings,

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here. It

67

is always a distinct pleasure to be at this subcommittee. I want to

offer my perspective on the disastrous impact of the President’s

budget request for State and local drug enforcement programs, including Byrne and HIDTA.

My name is Ron Brooks, and I am the president of the National

Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition, which represents 43 State

Narcotics Officers Associations, with a combined membership of

more than 60,000 police officers around the country.

Mr. Chairman, together, we have made outstanding progress in

reducing drug use and violent crime over the past decade. But that

progress is threatened by the budget proposal for State and local

drug enforcement programs in fiscal year 2006. Congress must seriously consider the consequences of cutting or eliminating Byrne

and HIDTA programs.

Since September 11, 2001, the focus of Federal assistance to

State and local public safety agencies has shifted from traditional

law enforcement to protecting the homeland against terrorist activities and equipping first responders. This is appropriate, however, the shift is coming at the expense of traditional law enforcement missions, such as drug enforcement.

In shifting resources to Homeland Security, we must not lose our

focus on drug enforcement and prevention. In fact, protecting our

homeland must mean protecting citizens from drug traffickers and

violent drug gangs.

Let me put in perspective the impact of drug abuse. We lost almost 3,000 Americans on September 11th. In contrast, more than

3,000 Americans die every 2 months, more than 19,000 people each

year, as a result of illicit drug abuse and its related effects.

In addition to the human toll, ONDCP estimates that elicit drug abuse costs our society $160 billion each year. I believe that a cost

of 19,000 lives and $160 billion makes drug trafficking America’s

own home-grown terrorism, and it must be restored as a top priority in this Congress’ policy agenda.

The Byrne and the HIDTA programs provide only a small

amount of the overall funding that is dedicated to State and local

drug enforcement. But this funding is the incentive that encourages State and local law enforcement officers to work with their

Federal counterparts, and help them implement our national drug

control strategy.

It is the coordination that has improved the effectiveness of drug

enforcement, and has helped reduce drug abuse and violent crime.

I want to address the argument that provides the underpinning of

the administration’s proposed cuts, which is that Federal Government has gotten too deep into funding State and local law enforcement activities.

I agree that the Federal Government should not supplant State

and local funds for law enforcement activities. But I strongly disagree that Byrne and HIDTA fall into that category.

Byrne funds multi-jurisdictional task forces that do not replace

State and local funds; but rather provide the incentive for local

agencies to cooperate, to communicate, to share information, to

build good cases, and to pursue organizational and regional targets,

rather than just individual pushers that local agencies typically

deal with.

68

Both enforcement targets are valid and necessary, but without

Byrne, law enforcement would go back to the 1970’s, where we

worked within our own stovepipes, without cooperating and using

intelligence to lead us in investigating drug trafficking organizations.

HIDTA initiatives like Byrne-funded Task Forces provide avenues of cooperation, forced information sharing, deconfliction of

local and regional intelligence, analysis that State and local agencies simply are incapable of performing themselves, and that Federal agencies are inadequately focused and equipped to perform.

HIDTA and Byrne Task Forces work because they are locally

owned. They are a partnership between the Federal, State, and

local government.

If Congress allows Byrne to be canceled and HIDTA to be cut,

and if you reduce or eliminate the local control over individual

HIDTAs, then you effectively remove an entire line of defense

against drug trafficking at the local and regional level.

Another argument I have heard from the administration is that

since crime and drug use are down, resources should be shifted to

other priorities. I could not disagree with this statement more.

You saw in the early 1990’s, that when resources were shifted

out of the fight against drugs, drug usage and crime rates increased. We should be embracing what has worked; not calling it

a day and dismantling a successful program.

The question that must be asked and answered by this Congress

is, in light of the successful reduction in drug use and drug-related

crime, should America gamble the safety of its citizens by rejecting

programs that have allowed police chief, sheriffs, and State police

superintendents to fight drug and violence in their own communities?

If the administration’s fiscal year 2006 budget is passed as submitted and, in fact, if Byrne and HIDTA are not restored, at least

to fiscal year 2005 funding levels, suburban and rural law enforcement will no longer have the financial resources they need to use

the best methods they know how to tackle the problem of drugs

and drug-fueled gang activities in their community.

Without Byrne and HIDTA, we will see a resurgence of drug

usage and drug-related violence. I believe, from talking to my members that this will mean the elimination of the vast majority of the

Drug Task Forces in this country.

I know that in California, we will lose the majority of our 58

Task Forces, and at least a third of the California Department of

Justice’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. Frankly, Mr. Chairman,

we would giving up coordinated drug enforcement at the State and

local level.

With funding cuts already taking a toll in the last 3 years, Task

Forces operating on a shoe string will go away. Anything less than

full funding of Byrne will result in the elimination of more than

half of our Task Forces. The overall impact on drug enforcement

would be almost the same as eliminating the program entirely.

This budget proposal is a step in the wrong direction. We have

made tremendous progress over the last few years with the leadership of this committee and the Congress with the support that the

State and local law enforcement has received.

69

I, on behalf of our 60,000 members, would urge the restoration

of the Byrne and HIDTA funding at the 2005 levels, and the retention of the HIDTA program at ONDCP, where it serves as a fair

and honest broker on behalf of all of law enforcement. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]

70

71

72

73

74

75

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Tom Carr, director of the WashingtonBaltimore HIDTA, on behalf of the National HIDTA Directors Association.

STATEMENT OF TOM CARR, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE HIDTA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL HIDTA DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. CARR. Thank you, Chairman Souder and Ranking Member

Cummings and Congresswoman Watson, and distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you today to

discuss the HIDTA directors’ concerns with the administration’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. My name is Tom Carr, and as mentioned, I am and have been since its inception in February 1994

the director of the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA.

I am going to change my oral testimony somewhat, in light of the

previous testimony. But I would like to, first of all, for the record,

acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, you and Mr. Cummings for the outstanding work you both have done in Baltimore. Both of you responded to the Dawson family tragedy, which happened not too

long ago, where seven members of a family were killed by a drug

dealer. They were burned out of their home and killed.

You went to ONDCP and you got extra money from ONDCP to

help fight the crime problem in Baltimore. We came about working

together with some serious reductions in violent crime and drug

dealing in that area. You both should be commended for that. I

know that Commissioner Hamm, who has recently inherited that

department is very much appreciative of what you both have done.

Let me just shed some light, and I think that is the right medicine for all this, and I am glad you are doing this. I will shed some

sunlight on some things that are taking place.

First, let me say that HIDTA makes linking cases originating

with State and local agencies possible to bring to Federal prosecution. It is the bridge between Federal, State, and local agencies. I

did not hear any data in the testimony before, so let me give you

some data about HIDTA and what HIDTA is doing.

With 70 percent of the HIDTAs reporting to me thus far and our

new automated performance management system, for 2004, the

HIDTA program targeted 895 international drug trafficking organizations, 1,111 multi-state organizations, and 1,734 local drug trafficking organizations, many of which were violent in nature.

Of the cases we did, 232 were linked to CPOT investigations.

This represents 32 percent of the 730 total active investigations

recognized by the Department of Justice. So I would hardly call

this a failure in the ability of us to recognize the value of the CPOT

in the priority targeting list.

HIDTA Task Forces also comprised over 12,000 Federal, State,

and local officers. We disrupted 99 of the 159 organizations of

which DEA and OCDETF are claiming sole credit for, insofar as

the CPOTs are concerned.

Let me also suggest to you, and I think you recognize this, that

the HIDTA program grew, not because it was pork barrel; it grew

because it was successful. That is why people want it. It works.

76

State and local law enforcement have to commit a vast amount

of their own resources in order to join with a HIDTA. HIDTA dollars, as few as they are, leveraged those resources. That is why

people want it, though. They want it because it works. State and

local law enforcement see the value of sharing information, working on a strategy, working on a plan to bring about positive results.

Now I would like to talk about what the administration has said

about one of the reasons for getting rid of the HIDTA program and

moving the HIDTA program: lack of effectiveness and its inability

to demonstrate results.

At the initiative of the HIDTA directors, in response to that first

PART review, we established the committee, which I had the honor

of chairing, in which we worked with staff from ONDCP to create

a performance measurement system. That system now is in effect.

It went in effect in January. That is why I can give you that data.

It is an automated system. It is showing results, and it is showing

that we are truly focused.

Part of the problem was, I think, the administration was looking

and shooting from the gut and shooting from intuition, as opposed

to using facts to demonstrate what HIDTA was really doing.

We were inclusive. We worked with DEA and we worked with

OCDETF. I know it is shocking, but it may not surprise you to

learn that we had to come up with a definition for what a drug

trafficking organization is. The Federal Government did not have

a uniform definition; nor did they have one for dismantled or disrupted or about 20 other common terms that were necessary to

clearly define in order to measure effectiveness and efficiency.

We came up with those measures. We are using those measures,

and they are showing results and they will show results.

They will also enable us to show which HIDTAs are doing better

than other HIDTAs, and perhaps at a later point in time, based

upon scientific fact, we can inform you of this, and people can make

informed decisions on which HIDTAs ought to be eliminated, which

HIDTAs ought to be changed to some degree, and which HIDTAs

ought to be bolstered. So I think that is a more logical way to go

about these things than what I have heard in the previous testimony.

Let me also say that some very wise and thoughtful members of

the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate chose to place

the HIDTA program in ONDCP. Why, and I have researched this

and I agree with it, because of how it is managed in ONDCP, the

HIDTA program enjoys a degree of visibility, efficacy, fairness, and

neutrality; points that all three of you have recognized in your

questioning.

So before you consider ONDCP’s recommendation to move the

HIDTA program to the Department of Justice, I want you to think

about some of the unintended consequences that such a rash and

obviously unplanned move would bring about.

Here are some questions, and I want to close my comments with

this. These are some questions I think that ought to be considered

before any decision is made. Will the transfer of the HIDTA program preserve its visibility, its efficacy, and its ability to leverage

and coordinate Federal, State, and local drug enforcement efforts?

77

Does OCDETF have a history of effective performance? What impact do State and local law enforcement leaders foresee for the

transfer and diminishment of the HIDTA program? I think my colleagues today will shed some light on that. What harm will result

when the cooperation among Federal, State, and local law enforcement is diminished? Under the current administration’s plan, let

me assure you, with 34 years of experience in this, it will be diminished, the way it is structured.

I will leave you with this one final thought. Since the administration’s proposal increases the drug control budget by 2.2 percent, I

believe Mr. Horton said, the reduction of the HIDTA program is

not one then about paying for the war on terrorism. It is about

choices.

Why did ONDCP really choose to reduce the HIDTA program? I

do not think you have an answer to that, yet. Why did they choose

to transfer it to the Justice Department, while at the same time,

elect to keep other programs within ONDCP that, by the way, did

not do as well in their initial PART’s score?

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee. Again, I appreciate all the great work, Mr. Chairman, that

you and the other Members have done, and I look forward to any

questions at the end; thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you; next we will hear from Mr. Tom

Donahue, director of the Chicago HIDTA.

I know the Speaker has been very supportive of your HIDTA. He

used to chair this subcommittee, and has been our chief champion

in the higher ranks of leadership. He is a very busy man, but I

know he has been very pleased with the efforts in Chicago. Thank

you for coming today.

STATEMENT OF TOM DONAHUE, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO HIDTA

Mr. DONAHUE. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings,

and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the Chicago HIDTA’s concerns

with the administration’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposal that contains unprecedented budget cuts for the HIDTA program, and suggests transferring the program to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.

I appear before you with over 37 years of law enforcement experience. During that time, I spent 10 years as an narcotics investigator and 12 years as an experienced prosecutor, concentrating on

prosecutions of organized crime, narcotics cases, and related violent

crimes. I have had the honor of serving as the director of the Chicago HIDTA since August 2000.

My testimony today will attempt to answer the question posed by

the committee. ‘‘Are we jeopardizing Federal, state, and local cooperation?’’ In a phrase, yes we are, drastically.

In 1988, Congress wisely recognized the importance of coordinating Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to effectively

address the Nation’s drug threat. Congress established the High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program to provide a coordination

of drug enforcement efforts in critical regions of the country.

This coordinated effort was necessary due to competing strategies

within the Federal, State, and local law enforcement community.

Building on the concept that the country faces a national drug

abuse epidemic which is, in reality, a network of related and unrelated regional and local drug abuse problems and the markets that

supply them, HIDTAs address regional drug problems based upon

a unique threat assessment process.

Each HIDTA develops its own strategy, consistent with and complimentary to the National Drug Control Strategy. HIDTA Executive Boards implement their strategies by funding structured and

formal initiatives, each with a mission that best uses its particular

expertise and addresses a particular threat.

A targeted strategy, implemented locally, produces greater immediate impact, while at the same time, provides avenues for further

investigation into national and international trafficking groups.

HIDTA Executive Boards, as you have noted, are comprised of an

equal number of Federal, State, and local law enforcement executives that meet regularly to govern each HIDTA. The HIDTA management structure creates a level playing field among Federal,

State, and local partners, who understand all aspects of law enforcement, and put the interests of the HIDTA above their own.

This neutrality fosters an innovative program, immune to turf

battles. No other program of the Federal Government that integrates State, local, and Federal assistance and financial awards alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:04 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22201.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
91

lows this level of local oversight and direction. This is the first time

in history State and local law enforcement has been empowered to

manage drug investigations in their own regions.

The program requirements of establishing intelligence centers

within each HIDTA and mandating Federal, State, and local participation has resulted in the sharing of intelligence on an unprecedented scale. Each HIDTA has direct access to multiple agency and

commercial data bases, and provides a full range of analytical services.

The HIDTA Investigative Support Centers now stand as an object lesson in interagency cooperation, collaboration, and coordination.

Two of the most innovative things that have come out of the investigative support centers are event deconfliction and target

deconfliction, which will no longer be there if the funding is cut

back. In the Chicago region, the only deconfliction that is done is

through the Chicago HIDTA.

In event deconfliction, I have pioneered systems that allow undercover officers to schedule a time and location for events such as

stakeout, drug buys, execution of search and arrest warrants, and

to determine if the event they are scheduling would conflict with

a different agency for a similar time and location.

Event deconfliction is a requirement within the program, and is

available to non-HIDTA agencies, as well. In the Chicago region,

we have trained over 2,000 people to be part of our deconfliction

system. This system is critical to officer safety.

The second part I am talking about is the target deconfliction.

Agencies have wasted countless resources investigating the same

targets, an acacia of systemic difficulties or reticence to share information. HIDTAs have developed systems that allow agencies to

share targeting information, and are actively working with DEA

and other Federal agencies in nationwide programs developed and

administered by the individual HIDTAs.

HIDTA’s most important contribution, however, to the war on

drugs is the partnerships it has nurtured among participating

agencies. These partnerships developed over the years have become

an institutionalized part of the program.

The leveraging of resources and fiscal flexibility will likely be

eliminated by placing HIDTA under the Department of Justice.

Furthermore, placing HIDTA within a department that gives the

perception that it is under the control and direction of a Federal

law enforcement entity would certainly influence State and local

participation, and threaten collaborative partnerships that have

been nurtured by the HIDTA model.

If the HIDTA program is moved from the Office of National Drug

Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President, it will give

the wrong message to law enforcement and diminish the importance of the war on drugs in the eyes of the public.

Just so you will understand, in Chicago, the war on drugs is raging. In 2004, Chicago HIDTA initiatives seized over a ton of cocaine, an increase of 103 percent from the previous year; 40 kilos

of heroin, a 75 percent increase over the previous year; 8 tons of

marijuana, a 270 percent increase over the previous year; and over

92

$9 million in U.S. currency, a 51 percent increase over the previous

year.

In conclusion, HIDTA clearly represents a model for leveraging

all resources in order to provide comprehensive approaches for

stopping drug crime. Without the ability to maintain the operational collaboration made possible by the HIDTA resources, local

law enforcement faces a risk of returning to the days when cooperation was episodic, delivered on a case-by-case basis, and found

to be generally ineffective in disrupting drug trafficking.

At a time when State and local governments are increasingly

forced to cut budgets because of economic difficulties, it is imperative for the Federal Government to continue local assistance

against what is still the war on drugs.

HIDTA is an intrical part of that assistance. Media ads alone

will not eliminate drug abuse. More effective is the multi-faceted

approach HIDTA brings. Now that we have developed a viable and

effective way of combating these organizations on a national and

regional level through HIDTA, it is not the time to pull back or try

to reorganize.

This country is at war on several fronts, including the streets of

our major cities. We have won many battles through the HIDTA

program. Yet, the war rages on. Terrorists murdered over 3,000

U.S. citizens on September 11th, and 1,500 soldiers have died in

the streets of Iraq.

In the streets of our major cities and surrounding communities,

street gangs and drug dealers, better referred to as urban terrorists, have caused the drug-related deaths of over 19,000 of our citizens. We must continue to maintain and increase the support in

this noble fight. Thank you for this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donahue follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Chief Jack Harris, Phoenix Police Department and Vice Chair of the Southwest Border HIDTA. Thank you

for coming today.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JACK HARRIS, PHOENIX POLICE

DEPARTMENT AND VICE-CHAIR, SOUTHWEST BORDER HIDTA

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I think when we start looking at, do the policies and

the programs that are current in existence work, and we try to

evaluate those policies, we have to say that currently, they are

working.

We have statistics that show that drug use is down by 11 percent, and teenage drug use is down by 17 percent in this country.

But we have to ask ourselves why is that?

Let me give you just a couple of numbers from the Southwest

HIDTA and HIDTA, in general: marijuana, seized over 21⁄2 million

pounds of marijuana in 2004; 46,600 pounds of cocaine; 740 pounds

of heroin, and 5,000 pounds of methamphetamine out of the Southwest Border.

When we look at HIDTAs in general, they disrupted or dismantled in 2004, 509 international, 711 multi-state, and 1,010 local

drug trafficking organizations. Those are the type of things that

are examples of what is going on in HIDTAs across this country.

I have several concerns that have been voiced by other members

of this panel: cutting HIDTA funding by 56 percent. I understand,

listening to the first panel, that one of the reasons that the administration is looking at cutting is because there is a shortfall of revenue.

I currently have been asked to cut funding for the Phoenix police

department, because of a similar shortfall. To do that, one of the

first things that I did was surveyed the community, and asked

them what was important in policing in their community, what

they are looking for from the Phoenix police department. At the top

of their list is drug enforcement and gang enforcement and violent

crime. As you may have guessed, even though I did have to make

cuts, I did not make cuts in those areas.

Moving the program from ONDCP to OCDETF, I have to say

that I am in total opposition of that. OCDETF is an administrative,

non-operational body that provides funding and prosecution, not

drug enforcement investigations.

HIDTA was formed, as you have heard, as a grassroots program,

designed to promote inter-agency cooperation between Federal,

local, and State agencies. That is occurring every day in Phoenix.

We have a HIDTA center that is comprised of over 300 agents

that represent ATF, FBI, DEA, the Phoenix police department,

local police agencies, the sheriff’s office, and the State police. They

are sharing information that caused all of those seizures that I

talked about at the beginning of this presentation to occur. That

cooperation and communication between agencies is what brought

down those heads of crime organizations dealing with drugs.

We have a similar program in Tucson, AZ, a similar center that

has the sane results with the same number of people, working out

of that center. Those centers will disappear if the funding disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:04 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22201.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
108

appears. The city of Phoenix does not have $11⁄2 million to apply

to these centers and to keep this program running.

The next thing that I would talk about is what is the incentive

for local law enforcement. If you take away all of the funding, if

you take away an equal voice in who is going to be targeted by that

funding, then you are asking us to play and to participate and to

conduct the investigations.

By the other panels own statement, over 90 percent of the

OCDETF are conducted by local agencies. So you are going to ask

us to continue to be a part of that organization and to target individuals that we have no input on.

If you look at those first numbers that I gave you, over 1,100 of

those kingpins that were targeted were local traffickers. Local traffickers become national traffickers, who become international traffickers. We do not want to lose the incentive for us to participate

with our detectives, with our investigators and with our resources.

But we cannot do that without the funding that currently exists.

In conclusion, I oppose the proposed funding cuts, because those

cuts will have a dramatic impact on drug enforcement at the local

level. The proposed changes will damage cooperation and relationships between local, State, and Federal entities. These changes

would eliminate local input into drug target selection and remove

the incentives for local agencies to participate in critical drug enforcement programs.

Last, it would hinder information sharing between the very agencies tasked with drug enforcement at the local level, as well as the

Federal level, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Our next witness is Baltimore’s acting police commissioner, Mr.

Leonard Hamm. Thank you for coming today. We know your city

has been hard hit; and Mr. Cummings, as well as Mr.

Ruppenberger have been long-time advocates, and particularly our

distinguished ranking member. So thank you for taking time out

to come here today.

STATEMENT OF LEONARD HAMM, ACTING BALTIMORE

POLICE COMMISSIONER

Mr. HAMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, and Ms.

Watson; thank you for having me. I am honored that you would

have me here testifying on the drug budget for fiscal year 2006.

My name is Leonard Hamm, and I am the acting police commissioner of Baltimore City. I have been doing this for 30 years; 30

years, this drug stuff for 30 years on the local level.

One of the things that was not talked about by the other panel

was results. I am going to give you some results. A lot of times,

numbers are boring, but please just bear with me.

All partners in HIDTA work under a form of measured success

and management for results. In this successful HIDTA formula

that law enforcement has worked on for years, this will jeopardize

the major cases, networking, leads, and partnerships which have

proven to work.

Now I want to talk about some of the groups and some of the

things that we are doing locally. First of all, we have Group 51,

which is our Violent Trafficking Initiative. In short, this initiative

investigates violent gun drug traffickers and organizations that impact on the Baltimore Metropolitan area.

In 2005, our expected output is to arrest 80 drug/firearm traffickers, seizing $770,000 in criminally obtained assets, disrupt or dismantle 10 major drug trafficking groups, and seizing 2 kilos of heroin, 10 kilograms of crack cocaine, and 10 kilograms of marijuana.

Now in fiscal year 2005 to present, the group has arrested 21

persons, seized $617,000 in moneys and assets; 11⁄2 kilos of heroin,

11 firearms, 1.6 kilograms of cocaine, 2.7 kilograms of marijuana,

and dismantled and disrupted three organizations.

The 2004 actual outputs consist of nine organizations being dismantled and disrupted, 62 people arrested, seizing $891,000 in

money, $200,000 in assets, 36 firearms, 31⁄2 kilograms of heroin,

8.7 kilograms of cocaine, 1 kilogram of crack, and 9.9 kilograms of

marijuana. Baltimore City has five members dedicated to this initiative.

I want to talk about our Group 54. This is our major drug trafficking initiative. This initiative primarily focuses on major cocaine

and heroin trafficking organizations.

The 2005 expected outputs are to seize 50 firearms, $1 million

in drug assets, 3 kilograms of heroin, 10 kilograms of crack cocaine,

and 15 kilograms of marijuana, to include dismantling of 10 drug

organizations.

For fiscal year 2005 to present, this group is well on the way to

achieving that expected output. They have seized $263,000 in

money and assets, 18 kilograms of cocaine, 27 arrests, 0.16 kiloVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:04 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22201.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
128

grams of crack cocaine, 0.35 kilograms of heroin, and disrupted and

dismantled two organizations so far this year.

The 2004 actual outputs consisted of 14 organizations being dismantled or disrupted, 89 arrests. They seized $1,025,000 in money,

$47,000 in assets, 25 firearms, 3.9 kilograms of heroin, 28 kilograms of cocaine, and 2.3 kilograms of marijuana.

We have a REDRUM Group, and that is part of our Group 54.

They work jointly with Group 54. However, their primary focus is

to topple violent groups in Baltimore City. One group that the Congressmen know about, they call themselves the North Avenue

Boys.

Working closely with our Homicide Unit, State and Federal prosecuting teams, we identified their violent trends and patterns

through data base analysis and crime mapping, and we work jointly with the Homicide Unit and the State and Federal prosecutors

to bring the responsible parties to the table for a successful prosecution. Baltimore City has 12 members dedicated to the entire

Group 54 initiative.

Group 56 is our Mass Transportation Initiative. Their efforts and

their mission is to reduce drug trafficking in the Baltimore Metropolitan area by interdiction efforts and immediate followup and investigations.

Across the Nation, a new smuggling of choice has been identified

as parcel and vehicle traps. In 2003, this initiative merged with the

Delivery System Parcel Interdiction Initiative to effect coordination

and operational effectiveness.

Our expected outputs for 2005 are to arrest 70 drug/firearm violators, seize $400,000 in assets, 100 kilograms of marijuana, 10

kilograms of cocaine, 1 kilogram of heroin, and two firearms.

Our output, to date, the group has generated 20 arrests, seizing

$175,000 in assets, three firearms, 19.9 kilograms of marijuana,

and 1 kilogram of cocaine. They are also involved in two major case

investigations.

We have our DEA Heroin Task Force. This group has arrested

three persons, seized $393,000 in moneys. We have our Weapons

Enforcement Initiative. This group investigates armed violent drug

trafficking organizations which impact the Baltimore Metropolitan

Area. We utilize the ATF Disarm Program as its targeting mechanism.

We have the Customs Baltimore Seaport Initiative. We have the

Customs Money Laundering Initiative. We have a Customs Airport

Group. All of these groups have measured targets. We are getting

great results.

Mr. Chairman, there are those that question the value of HIDTA.

They simply have not taken the time to look at these measurable

lifesaving results.

I urge all of you to maintain an open mind and speak directly

with the HIDTA directors and law enforcement professionals who

dedicate their lives to just the kind of cases which Federal, State,

and local law enforcement should be focusing on.

I want to thank you for your time. I cut my testimony down. Our

successes have been numerous, and thank you for listening to us.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamm follows:]

129

130

131

132

133

134

Mr. SOUDER. We will put your full statement in, if you have

other materials, also.

Mr. HAMM. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to make sure for the record that the charts

over there get printed so we can get those into the record, as well.

Our next witness is Mr. Mark Henry, president of the Illinois

Drug Enforcement Officer’s Association. Thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF MARK HENRY, PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS DRUG

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. HENRY. Chairman Souder and distinguished panel, I thank

you. Good afternoon, or I guess it is good evening now. I thank you

for this opportunity to speak.

First, I would like to say that while most of my comments will

be directed toward the proposed elimination of Byrne/JAG grants

and the impact in Illinois, I do want to go on record as saying that

the Chicago HIDTA is a friend to multi-jurisdictional task forces in

Illinois, and we appreciate all that they do.

My name is Mark Henry, and I have been a police officer in Illinois for 21 years. For 18 of those years, I have been involved in

drug enforcement. In the vast majority of that time, I have been

assigned to various multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Forces.

In addition, I served as the administrator of two Drug Task

Forces, so I understand the critical importance of the Byrne/JAG

Program.

In 2001, I served as the chairman of the Illinois MEG and Task

Force Commanders Association, which consists of 20-plus multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Forces, which cover approximately 73 of the

102 counties in Illinois. Once again, I had the opportunity to hear

from all the various Drug Commanders about the importance of the

Byrne/JAG Program.

Currently, I serve as the president of the Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers Association. We have approximately 1,000 members,

consisting of Federal, State, and local officers, from all parts of Illinois. The IDEOA is 1 of 43 such State organizations throughout

our Nation, and all of us are concerned about the proposed elimination of the JAG assistance grants.

I am quite familiar with drug enforcement in Illinois, and specifically the role the Drug Task Forces play. I would like to explain

that role.

First there is DEA. They are a great partner in the strategy in

Illinois. They assist lower law enforcement and Drug Task Forces

whenever they can. However, DEA and the other Federal agencies

focus much of their efforts on attacking the top levels of the drug

pyramid, and rightfully so.

At the same time, you have local police departments that are

handling the lower level drug trafficking that is occurring in their

communities. The gap which exists between the top and the bottom, that squarely falls on the shoulders of the Drug Task Forces

in Illinois.

In short, for most of the State, the Drug Task Forces are the

backbone of drug enforcement in Illinois. In addition, these units

have taken over the responsibility of investigating and dismantling

methamphetamine labs in Illinois, which continues to increase.

135

In 2004, the Drug Task Force’s dismantled an excess of 960 meth

labs. Most local police departments do not have the training or resources to handle these labs.

In Illinois, approximately 60 percent of police departments have

less than 10 full-time officers. Combining resources and expertise

is the only effective and efficient way to address Illinois drug problems.

To ensure my message was accurate today, I would like to read

some abbreviated replies from the Illinois Drug Commanders

where they reference their thoughts on eliminating the Byrne/JAG

Program.

The first quote is, ‘‘The elimination of the Byrne/JAG Grant

would have a catastrophic effect on the metropolitan enforcement

group of Southwestern Illinois. The majority of the Board members

indicated they would be forced to either withdraw from the unit or

reduce their participation to that of financial contributor.’’

The next quote is Vermillion County MEG, ‘‘Eliminating this

funding would cut our number of agents by 62 percent. The elimination of this funding would be the beginning of the end of Vermillion County MEG.’’

The next quote is, ‘‘The West Central Illinois Task Force is the

primary if not the only deterrent of narcotic trafficking and enforcement in West Central Illinois. Without the Byrne Grant funding, this concept would be dissolved.’’

The next quote is, ‘‘The Southeastern Illinois Drug Task Force

will cease to exist within a year if the Byrne funds are eliminated.’’

The next quote is from the LaSalle Task Force. ‘‘I strongly believe that the elimination of these funds would force the Task Force

to close its doors.’’

The last quote is from Task Force 6. ‘‘I look at this proposed

Byrne/JAG cut as a closing down of a police department and the

abandoning of our children and citizens.’’

In closing, the State and local police departments in Illinois are

committed to the multi-jurisdictional principle, and dedicate many

of their own limited resources to this ideology.

The Byrne/JAG funding is the glue that brings hundreds of law

enforcement agencies and their resources together to effectively

and efficiently attack local drug trafficking, reduce violent crime,

and promote safer communities. Without that glue, we will weaken

our grip on this important issue, and negatively impact the quality

of life for the citizens which we all serve in this great Nation in

the State of Illinois.

I thank you for your time and consideration with this critically

important matter.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henry follows:]

136

137

138

139

140

141

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony. Our

clean-up witness today is Sheriff Jack Merritt of Green County,

MO. He has worked with Congressman Blunt, who certainly has

been a crusader in the house on methamphetamine and is a leader

in the meth area, as well as many other narcotics areas, along with

your talent. We thank you for coming today. We look forward to

your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JACK L. MERRITT, GREENE COUNTY, MO

Mr. MERRITT. Thank you very much, Chairman Souder, Mr.

Cummings, and Ms. Watson. I certainly am honored, and I do

thank you for the opportunity to appear before this panel to express my concerns and what I believe are the concerns of many

other agencies in the Midwest HIDTA with the current proposal to

dramatically reduce the Federal support available to State and

local enforcement.

Probably my concerns have gone two-fold, after hearing the previous panel express their plan or lack of plans in facilitating this.

It is of deep concern, and more than when I arrived.

State and local law enforcement depend on the Byrne Grant and

HIDTA Program and other Federal Programs to help us control

crime. I understand that budgets are tight at all levels of Government, but I tell you, we in middle America have been extremely dependent on the invaluable assistance that we have received from

the Federal Government through these programs. Such drastic reductions will cripple the enforcement capabilities of sheriffs and

others in law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I represent Greene County, which is the home of

Congressman Blunt. It is the third largest county in the State, and

I am blessed to have many resources that are unavailable to many

of my neighboring sheriffs. But even so, I depend on the assistance

I receive from Byrne and HIDTA. My ability to work Drug Task

Forces, fight crime, and protect my constituents, all of our constituents, would be devastated if the proposed reductions were to be enacted into law.

Complicating matters, the efforts of this proposal would be even

worse for the other counties in my State, and I am sure that all

74 counties in the Midwest OUTDO would face similar adverse effects from the proposed cuts.

As you know, HIDTA funding as currently set by Congress, as

has been mentioned here today, is at $228 million for fiscal year

2005. This budget cut to $100 million, in the real world, effects of

this drastic cut will mean that the current 28 HIDTA areas will be

severely scaled back and, I believe, in many cases, eliminated.

The elimination of HIDTA means that resources, cooperative

agreements, active cases, and other critical drug control tools and

techniques will cease to exist. That might be OK if the flow of

drugs ceased, as well. However, we know that will not happen. As

soon as enforcement stops, the drug dealers hit the streets with impunity and pollute our neighborhoods with their evil.

With or without the Federal support, law enforcement still faces

continuing threats from drug dealers and drug cartels. In the Midwest especially, we have a devastating methamphetamine problem.

142

One of our greatest assets in the HIDTA program is the collaboration we have with Federal and local agencies.

My 36 years as a city policeman, highway patrolman and now as

Sheriff of Greene County has taught me the only hope for continued success in law enforcement is the cooperative spirit that is

shared by not only the working elements of those agencies, but also

the administrators of those agencies.

Midwest HIDTA brings this concept, not only into the entire

State of Missouri, but to the 74 counties in six States. As a criminal investigator for the Missouri State Highway Patrol, I have been

involved in OCDETF cases, and certainly understand and appreciate the benefit of pursing cases in this program. But those cases

resulted from investigations we made on the street, and then were

pursued and prosecuted as OCDETF cases.

The important fact here is that we need HIDTA to have the resources and the manpower to develop cases and then select those

that meet the OCDETF criteria to further that investigation and

prosecution. Without HIDTA, we lose that valuable asset that is so

important to those of us that live and work in an area that is becoming completely saturated with methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking.

That is to say that the first line of defense against illegal drugs

is by having investigators continuing their investigations at a local

level in a unified way as is currently done with our Federal Drug

Task Force through the local Drug Enforcement Administration office.

This DTF goes beyond the investigation of our local meth cooks.

One of the significant contributions is that of pursuing the drug

interdiction cases that are made in the ‘‘drug pipeline’’ that crosses

Missouri via Interstates 44 and 70. Certainly, many cases developed through this process reach the realm of national and international proportions and OCDETF criteria.

Again, this is an enforcement concept that would be lost without

our support from HIDTA. I believe that many U.S. attorneys in the

Midwest, if you inquired of them, would express some of the same

concerns that State and local law enforcement agencies have concerning these proposed cuts. I assume, from earlier testimony, they

were not consulted, and did not have a part in this decision.

I realize that DOJ may have a differing opinion of the necessity

of the HIDTA program, but I do believe that if they would look at

the success and benefit of Midwest HIDTA to Mid-America, it

would affect their justification to reduce HIDTA funding and increasing that of OCDETF.

I hate to repeat myself, but the loss of HIDTA funding would be

devastating to Mid-America. I would also like to express my concerns with the loss of funding to the Byrne Grants as this, too, is

something that local law enforcement agencies have become so dependent upon.

In the recent past, we have seen new sheriffs coming into office

that are trying to bring new technology and updated equipment

into their departments, allowing them to provide a full-service police agency to serve their constituents. Without the benefit of grant

funds, many of us would not be able to do this.

143

In my situation, local resources alone cannot resolve these problems. Every day, we confront pushers and meth cooks from our own

communities that buy or steal massive quantities of pseudo-ephedrine to distill into meth.

Also, recently, across the Midwest, we have seen an increase of

thefts from anhydrous ammonia tanks on farms. These ‘‘cooks’’ try

to steal this fertilizer to make their poison.

Compounding that situation, we also must confront international

traffickers as drugs and precursor chemicals make their way from

Mexico, traveling our highways across the Midwest to eventually

poison our youth.

As law enforcement leaders, we must find new and innovative

ways of dealing with this growing problem. Moreover, meth is not

our only challenge. Gateway drugs such as marijuana are prevalent

among our teenagers. In fact, the problem is so widespread that

OCDETF has engaged sheriffs and chiefs across the country to

focus on them combatting marijuana use.

How can we consider reducing the Federal support of HIDTA

with all of this work left undone? It is my view, it is a national

model that should be expanded and not cut back.

Thank you all very much for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merritt follows:]

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for your testimony. This is a great

panel. I want to ask a more general question, just to make sure,

to reinforce something that I asked of the first panel.

This is an extraordinary panel. Mr. Brooks is from California.

You head the National Police Narcotics Association, and you have

worked in California for many years.

Mr. Carr is head of the HIDTA Association in the United States.

Mr. Donahue heads the HIDTA in the speaker’s home district in

one of our biggest cities in the United States. Commissioner Hamm

is a direct front line person from one of the hardest hit cities in

the United States, on the East Coast.

Chief Harris is Vice Chair of the Southwest Border HIDTA,

which everybody in Congress agrees is the toughest area and

where most of our drugs are coming across the southwest border.

Phoenix stands right in the middle of the run in a very critical

area.

Mr. Henry has done a thorough job of surveying the speaker’s

home State, in looking at both the Byrne and the HIDTA grants.

Sheriff Merritt is our Majority Whip’s home sheriff in one of the

meth hot zones in the Nation. Nobody disagrees that in Arizona,

Arkansas, and Missouri, they are probably the hardest hit meth

area in the United States.

As head of these different associations, in even our leadership

home districts, did any of you get consulted before this kind of

bomb hit us? Maybe we can go in reverse; Sheriff Merritt?

Mr. MERRITT. No, sir, when I found out about it, it was when we

were in a panic about it. It had reached that point where it was

a very strong consideration that was going to happen, and I am on

the State Board for HIDTA in Missouri.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Henry.

Mr. HENRY. No, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. No, sir.

Mr. SOUDER. Commissioner Hamm.

Mr. HAMM. I was not consulted.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Donahue.

Mr. DONAHUE. No, sir, and I can also say that select members

of OCDETF, the State and local office were not consulted.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, we have checked with all of our member State

associations. No one was consulted, to our knowledge. Not only

that, when we learned, through leaks within OCDETF of these proposed cuts, I called Marc Wheat on your staff, Eric Akers on Senator Grassley’s staff and others that we work with all the time,

very concerned and learned that they were unaware of these proposed cuts.

So not only as the President of a 60,000 member organization,

but as a citizen, I am very concerned that they would take away

a very effective law enforcement tool without talking to the people

here in the Congress that help build that tool, and out on the

streets where we apply the tool.

Mr. SOUDER. We need to look at this, in trying to get lemonade

out of a lemon, that as an opportunity to do some education, this

is an opportunity to educate each Member of Congress, many of

151

whom have not visited the HIDTAs in their home area or exactly

understand how the Byrne Grant works.

They understand they see meth on the news, or they see different challenges. But this is an opportunity to educate and to do

surveys in your area and to get this in so that we can help do this,

like Mr. Cummings said earlier.

It does not do us any good to have a hearing. We have to figure

out how to get the word out. But it is clear here that we have the

talking at the grassroots. It is getting back to Members. Mr.

Cummings is hearing it. I raised it in our conference, and many

Members are very concerned about getting blindsided about something like this. This is an opportunity to educate with this.

I am ideologically disturbed, as a Republican, that one of our philosophies has been to try to do more State and local cooperation,

rather than nationalize everything. I just cannot believe we would

destroy the program. On tinkering with it, I am going to ask a followup question. Maybe, Mr. Carr, you would be the best person.

Could you describe this a little bit and for the record? In other

words, we put a certain amount of funds into a HIDTA. But then

State and locals make an investment. A number of you said in your

testimony that people would have to pull out if you did not get

some of the funds. You might participate financially, but not be

able to send officers in. Chief Harris said directly in Phoenix that

you have cut other areas, but you did not cut this area.

But this is a tough decision in each of the department’s budgets.

Even small amounts of leveraging could have a devastating impact.

Also, Mr. Carr, and if anybody else wants to take this, what I

raised and you have heard me raise it repeatedly, there is this 50/

50 question. How important is it when all of you at the local level

make decisions to put dollars into a Task Force that you feel you

have participatory and not domineered kind of input, especially

given the fact that many of you raised concerns about OCDETF?

I had a feeling that some of that might be that you felt it was

more top down rather than shared. To some degree, he who pays

the piper picks the tune. The question is, how much is local law

enforcement putting in, what is the relationship, and if you put the

dollars in but do not have any authority, how will you behave?

Maybe we can start with Mr. Carr.

Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer that. First

of all, I used to sit on the OCDETF Board when I was the chief

of narcotics for Mountain State Police. I stopped going to the meetings, not because I was dis-interested, but because I did not have

a voice. I simply sat and listened to cases that they were reviewing.

It is a paper pushing scheme, whereby they approve funding, and

they fund officers to go out. They are already investigating. They

approve funds to pay for their overtime allowance.

I did not see that it was targeted, at least at that point; and

many of the cases that I was hearing were cases that were brought

to the panel by my narcotics officers. So they were my cases I was

hearing reviewed at the Federal level for funding.

But at the HIDTA, it is completely different. We are comprised

of an Executive Board that determines the strategy, the funding

levels, the focus, for the dollars to come in. It is a shared responsibility with the Federal, State, and local police.

152

Our HIDTA is a little bit unique, because we also have treatment

and prevention folks that sit on our Board. Now they do not entertain or hear cases, but they determine the strategy, how much

money, how many programs go to Baltimore versus D.C., versus

northern Virginia.

They make a constant effort to focus the dollars on where the

problem is, as opposed to, and I think it was somewhat insinuated

in the earlier testimony, of spreading it over nine regions or

spreading it over an area. They focus the dollars where they need

to be focused.

State and locals, and I believe I brought it up in my testimony

and others mentioned it here, as well, get a few HIDTA dollars in

return for the commitment they make.

Now as a HIDTA Director, I always like to say, my job is to take

away all the excuses. By that, I mean, we use HIDTA funds to provide you with allowance for cars, for State and locals. We pay for

a limited amount of overtime. We pay for bi-money. We train officers. By the way, our HIDTA trained 2,000 officers last year, Federal, State, and local. So we do not just use the dollars for State

and local officers.

But by having this type of equality on our Board and focusing

what we are doing, we have been able to generate very positive results. We have built teamwork. Most of the decisions on our Executive Board, and in fact, I cannot recall any that were not, are unanimous decisions. That is how well it works together after 11 years.

Now in the first couple of years, I can tell you, they were not

unanimous decisions, and there was probably some headbutting.

But now the people understand the strategy. They are comfortable.

They have a voice. They get Federal, State, and local law enforcement, treatment, and prevention folks working together.

If I recall, a few years ago, there was a movement to take treatment and prevention out of our HIDTA. The first people to stand

up and shout to the mountains were the Chiefs of Police, who said,

we cannot do this alone. We need treatment and prevention.

So that is how well it works, and it is completely different than

the dictatorial process that I have seen in OCDETF.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, Mr. Donahue?

Mr. DONAHUE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, regarding the State and local

investment, this is the greatest thing for the Federal tax dollar

that I have ever seen.

In the Chicago HIDTA, there are approximately 70 Federal

agents who are assigned to the Chicago HIDTA from all of the Federal agencies. There are over 340 State and local police officers who

work on regular basis with the HIDTA, not to mention the fact that

they come from a body of over 16,000 State and local officers who

interact with their own departments and HIDTA. This investment

by the Federal Government is absolutely minimal for what they get

in return.

As far as OCDETF is concerned, OCDETF’s problem is that it is

not a program that necessarily addresses the threat as it appears

in the regions that we come from. OCDETF is a case specific support organization that pays for overtime for State and local police

officers.

153

The majority of the cases that come to OCDETF come from State

and local police officers; and in Chicago, a good portion of those

come from the HIDTA. The HIDTA, itself, is divided by eight State

and local members on a Board, and eight Federal, thus giving them

an even playing field; and thus, giving them something that they

do not have in OCDETF, and that is a say in how those cases are

managed and how they are prosecuted.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Hamm and then Mr. Brooks.

Mr. HAMM. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much; I do not have

any money in my city. What I do have are dedicated detectives who

work very closely with HIDTA, to the tune of about 54. Now some

people may say that may be an excessive amount.

But for the bang for the buck that I am getting, it is well worth

my while to have my men and women working in this capacity. Because we are working drugs not only in Baltimore City, but in Baltimore County and Hartford County and Montgomery County, and

all that stuff is related.

All these guys are related. It is related stuff. What is going on,

most of the guys who are selling drugs in Baltimore City live in

Baltimore County. They live in Baltimore County, so there is a connect there. I have made it my business that we are going to address violent crime in Baltimore City.

Drugs drive about 60 percent of the violence in my town. So it

is the best investment that I can have, on a local level, having the

resources and the money we have. I want to thank Tom and his

people for allowing us to participate.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, sometimes there is this perception,

not by this committee, because you deal with these issues, but by

many in the Congress and others that HIDTA and Byrne are somehow funding law enforcement officers, that it is an entitlement program, that it supplants; when in reality, the officers assigned to

HIDTA, with very, very few exceptions, and almost exclusively with

the Byrne Task Forces, those are officers paid for by their own

agencies, out of their own pockets.

I know, just on the California meth problem, we looked one time

at the money we got from meth hot spots. Then we looked at how

much money we spent from a State and local perspective. We got

$3 million out of the meth hot spots grant. We spent $160 million

of State and local money on meth enforcement.

That, I think, is the experience across the board at HIDTA and

Byrne; that agencies want to put their personnel there. The limited

HIDTA dollars and the limited Byrne dollars give them the ability

to have a facility to co-locate; maybe to help offset some vehicles

or overtime or some communications or inter-operability issues.

But those agencies are truly making the commitment by putting

their people there, paying their overtime, paying their salaries and

their benefit packages, taking those people out of other assignments and putting them in drug enforcement. So it is truly the best

leverage of Federal dollars, anywhere in law enforcement.

Mr. SOUDER. If Chief Harris and Sheriff Merritt could comment

on this briefly, too; and if Mr. Henry does on the Byrne Grant, then

I will yield.

But what I am hearing here is that the funding is the kind of

glue that helps pay the combined overhead, the phones, and so on.

154

But the actual objects that are being glued together are your dollars. If we take the glue away and it falls apart and they have no

plan, how do you have these Task Forces?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. The

HIDTA Center that we have, that has over 300 people assigned to

it, we have those people in there. But the HIDTA funds are what

pays for the facility, to keep that place up and running; all the

things that you talked about, whether it is cars, etc.

We do appreciate OCDETF’s current cooperations with working

with the agencies that when we apply for OCDETF funding for a

target that they approve of, that we receiving overtime funding to

cover the overtime of the officers that are actually conducting the

investigation.

But what everyone is saying here is absolutely correct. Without

that funding that holds everything together, we cannot afford to

continue the operation and to put all of those bodies into these

Task Forces in these programs with no return on that.

As was stated earlier, we are 130 miles or so from the border

with Mexico. If you look at where all of the drugs are coming from,

South America through Mexico, they are coming into Arizona and

the Southwest Border for distribution all over the rest of the country.

When we target these people, it is great to say only target Federal bad guys. The local bad guys are the Federal bad guys, especially in our case, where we are tying violent crimes, homicides,

coyotes smuggling humans across the border, drugs, home invasions, murders; it is all tied together. Those targets develop into

the Federal targets.

But to take all of that local input out and say it has to be a Federal or a national target before you can get any funding, it is just

not going to work.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Henry.

Mr. HENRY. I have a couple of things. In Illinois, the local Drug

Task Forces, really are dealing with the issues of local concern.

They all have policy boards. Everyone who gives an officer money

has an equal vote. They really look at what is going on within the

community, and they attack those local drug dealers. The local

drug dealer that is on your corner, the Drug Task Force is the one

that takes them out.

The drug dealers dealing in the area, they are the ones that do

that. We also have a network with these 20 Drug Task Forces in

Illinois where the bad guys, the drug dealers, they do not know jurisdictional boundaries. They deal dope anywhere and everywhere

they can sell it.

So now we have a network of law enforcement personnel specialized in narcotics that can work with each other, communicate, work

investigations together on a local level, attack the problems that

really deal with quality of life issues. We are very efficient and effective in what we do.

That money is the glue that brings it all together. The locals in

the State are putting their own resources into it, but that extra

money is what brings it all together.

If that money goes away, some of these units are going to disband. They will become smaller. There will not be that connection.

155

There will be pieces of the puzzle that are missing, and there will

not be that ability to inter-connect with each other and be as efficient and as effective as we are right now.

Mr. SOUDER. Sheriff Merritt, maybe you could also say what your

HIDTA is; a newer HIDTA, formed a lot because of the meth issue.

How has it changed with the HIDTA, and maybe you can talk

about that connection?

Mr. MERRITT. Well, just the resources to deal with the disposing

of the chemicals and everything. The State of Missouri, I think,

had about 3,000 labs last year, and a good deal of those in our

county, there. It was a few-100 in our county. So it is an extremely

critical thing.

Now I think of the problems that are related in these others

agencies, much larger agencies, and I think maybe we have it pretty lucky. But proportionately, with what we have to spend, with

the manpower, the resources we have, I contribute two officers to

a Drug Task Force other than the HIDTA and the DEA Task

Force. Without the Byrne Grants, that would not exist. Without the

HIDTA money, my participation in the DEA Drug Task Force

would not exist.

I see these people sit down once a month around a table about

this size. Every agency is represented. They know what is going on.

They refer to the deconfliction. They sit there and talk about it. We

share offices, and that type of thing.

This brings agencies together that might not otherwise be together. If they are together in the drug enforcement, when a drugrelated homicide happens, they are together on that. It brings our

agencies as one.

You can watch them working an investigation of a case of any

type, and it is hard to tell who belongs to who, for us as Administrators. That is as it should be, because they are working as one.

It is a tremendous asset, and well worth what goes into it for our

area, for just that collaboration between agencies, because you do

not always have that every place. So it is tremendous to see that.

Without this funding, we are pretty well sunk on that. I know

our meth labs are not going to go away and, as Mr. Cummings referred to earlier, that they are going to know it. You know, I have

a 500 bed jail. I would say a very conservative estimate of 80 to

85 percent of my inmates are meth-related.

The tentacles go from the cost of that, beyond the investigations,

beyond what it takes to get them to jail, with the meth mouth.

Their teeth are falling out. I have to have extra dental. The medical cost of mine, I spent over $1 million last year on medical costs

for the jail there. I provide a counseling program to try to do something about it.

If I can just touch on one thing. I had a group from the Fellowship of Christian Athletes touring the other night that I took them

through personally. As we were in the visitation area, there was

a beautiful little 18 month old, and a 2-year old girl with blonde

curly hair, with her face against the glass, looking down the hall

to see her daddy come and visit her.

This culture is taking over. If we do anything to take away from

the effectiveness of enforcement, that little girl is going to be coming down the hall with her little girl looking for her.

156

Mr. SOUDER. I am just overwhelmed. I am so baffled that we

worked so long to get cooperation, and then in one short, we are

busted. I just do not understand. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I only have a few questions. First of all, I want

to thank you all. Since I have been on this subcommittee, which

has been about 9 years, this is one of the best presentations I have

heard.

But I wanted to be very careful here, because I always try to figure out what would somebody listening to us have to argue against

what you have said. Let me tell you what they would say, and then

I want you to address this.

The reason why I am doing this is because I think it is important

that you know how the folk think around here. On Capitol Hill, we

deal with a lot of turf situations. Maybe these folks just want to

hold on to their turf. They have it already carved out, and they do

not want anything disrupting what they are doing.

I know that is how folks think. I wish that the folks who testified

before could have heard this. I wish they had heard. I was trying

to speak for you all, by the way, when I was addressing my questions to them, because I had a pretty good idea of what you would

say.

But one of the things, I guess, that has really hit me is that from

listening to what you all are saying, OCDETF is not a real law enforcement kind of entity. I mean, in other words, it is out there

really fighting crime, but maybe managing some dollars and things

like that.

It is not that they are not important. But on the other hand,

when you all deal with the HIDTA’s and you deal with ONDCP,

you feel a lot more comfortable. Is that a fair statement; yes, sir?

Mr. DONAHUE. OCDETF is an important part of this, but it is not

the part that has to do with the active every day law enforcement.

OCDETF is a prosecution support system.

The reason that OCDETF is important to the HIDTAs is because

it takes the cases into the realm of Federal conspiracies. When you

get into the realm of Federal conspiracies, you have a huge hammer over the drug dealer.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right.

Mr. DONAHUE. As far as the turf is concerned, I am not trying

to keep my turf. I am trying to increase it.

In 1992, there were 2,200 heroine overdoes in the city of Chicago.

In the year 2,000, there were 12,254. Where was the Federal Government during that 8 year period? It is the HIDTA that has addressed the heroine problem in the city of Chicago.

Now Chicago is not unique, as major cities go, but they do have

a problem that most major cities do not have. We have 65 active

gangs in the city of Chicago, of which there are 65,000 members.

They handle 98 percent of the distribution of the drugs in our city

and in our region.

Now maybe we are hurting ourselves by calling these people

members of street gangs, because there are organized crime. This

is not the Jets and the Sharks from West Side Story. These are

hardened, organized criminal gangs. So I do not want to keep my

turf. I want to double it or triple it, and I need these Federal dollars to do that.

157

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you gave the answer that I was hoping for.

I hope the President is listening to what you are saying, Mr. Carr.

Mr. CARR. I just want to add that I did not want to malign

OCDETF.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I do not want you to. I guess what I am trying to get to is your basic concerns. Because actually, what we are

being asked to do is make a major shift. So if you are doing this

major shift, like the chairman said, you ought to have at least some

evidence to show that you are going to do something that is better

and much more effective and efficient, as you said.

Mr. CARR. I think we are all perplexed by this. We had no warning. It seems to me the administration is pushing, as the chairman

mentioned. They are Federalizing this problem, when it is not totally a Federal problem. It is a State and local problem, as well.

It seems to me that they are abandoning the domestic drug enforcement that we have now in this country, and that we worked

so hard to do; and that is, as you have pointed out, to create this

partnership between Federal, State, and local.

You brought up an interesting word, ‘‘turfism.’’ Let me turn it a

different way. The turfism I think of, are the turfisms of the gangs

like MS–13, and the turfisms of the drug dealers that are operating

in Baltimore, Washington, DC, and northern Virginia, that I am

very much aware of, and the conflict that is going on between

them.

So, yes, we want to reduce turfism, because it is reducing violence, reducing drug trafficking and the like. I think the Commissioner can comment on that; thank you.

Mr. HAMM. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, I do not care about

turf. I care about what works. What we do now works. That is all

I care about. We have a systematic way, and systematic tactics of

taking violent, drug-dealing people off the street, and it works. So

I do not care about turf. I care about what works, and I have

talked about some of the results already. If you check the testimony, you will see. That is my concern; not turf, results.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Brooks.

Mr. BROOKS. Relative to those, the one thing that most people,

I think, fail to understand is that more than 90 percent of the

OCDETF budget just pays for Federal employees. It pays for FTEs

for the FBI, the U.S. attorney’s office, the marshalls, and others.

There is a misconception that there is an OCDETF Task Force

out there somewhere. But really, there are just nine regions with

coordinators that sit around a table, and they decide what cases

they will fund for prosecution. But there are no, like, HIDTA Task

Forces, or Byrne Task Forces. There is no brick and mortar building where law enforcement officers area co-located and where they

go out and work investigations.

OCDETF is owned by the U.S. attorney’s office. If HIDTA goes

to OCDETF, it will be just another Federal program without the

kind of partnership and ownership that local law enforcement has

built with the HIDTA. So that is my concern; that OCDETF does

not even know what it is we really do, because they do not run

Drug Task Forces. They have not been in the multi-jurisdictional

enforcement business, like we have.

158

So Byrne and HIDTA are absolutely critical to keep those State,

Federal, and local law enforcement officers at the table. They asked

me, and I got interviewed on this issue on NPR radio. They said,

what is the single most important aspect of HIDTA.

I said, the most important aspect of HIDTA, and it is with

Byrne, as well, is that today we have a ton of disparate agencies

that would have never been at the table talking before Federal,

State, and local that would never shared information; would not

have deconflicted their cases; would not have shared their resources.

We have them all now jumping up saying, no, no, let me help you

with that. I have a couple of extra cars that I could give you. We

could use our radios. We could kick some more money into that

case. Those people are all now at the table, sharing information,

embracing one and other’s organizational cultures, working together willingly, because we brought them together, using the incentive of Federal money.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you just hit on where I was trying to go

to. I am not a police officer. But I would assume that there is somewhat of a brotherhood and sisterhood going on there.

I am just wondering, you were just talking about people coming

together. I am just guessing, if I am on the Federal level and I am

fighting drugs, and I am on the State or local level, and I have an

opportunity to work, and we are all working toward the same

thing, are relationships established there? You do not even see it

in the paperwork. You just know that folks get to know each other,

and they talk about the intuition of police officers.

It is amazing this situation up in Chicago. I do not listen to the

news very carefully, but I do know some officers apparently

stopped the guy. I do not know whether it was intuition or not.

But my point is, I guess there is something that happens, too,

that you cannot even put a monetary value on it. You may not even

be able to adequately describe it. When folks come together who

have a common mission, no matter what agency they are in, because they know that they all are in the same boat, trying to deal

with the same kind of thing.

Is that very significant here with regard to HIDTA? Yes, sir; you

have not spoken yet.

Mr. MERRITT. Yes, sir, as I mentioned earlier, we watch our people work. They work as one. You do not know who is a Federal

agent, and who is county, and who is city police.

You know, there are certain philosophical differences on whether

crime control is a local Government or a Federal Government issue,

and I think that September 11th took that out. It is irrelevant now.

The question is not of dependency upon the Federal Government

to fund local responsibilities. But it is, will the Federal Government

help local agencies meet the demands of crime control and Homeland Security? Because truly, as I believe you mentioned in the

first panel, this internal terrorism gnaws at us, and there is probably no greater threat to our society than drugs.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, sir?

Mr. DONAHUE. I am going to date myself with this. But back in

1972, I was assigned to probably the first Federal Drug Task Force

159

in this country. It was in 50 cities across the country, and it put

State and locals together for the first time.

You talked about the relationships that develop amongst people

who worked together. After 33 years, I have friends from that Task

Force. As a result of my experience on that Task Force, I was able

to work cases as a narcotics investigator when I was sent back to

the Police Department; because after 14 months, the Federal Government turned that Task Force out.

What we had built up was gone, except for the relationships that

stayed between the officers and agents who were in that program.

It withered and it died, and Congress had to come back again,

16 years later, to do the same thing. The result of that is HIDTA.

So the answer to your question is yes, the relationships become

institionalized, and that is what makes the investigations better.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have just one last thing. I have often said that

the people who are on the front line are the best witnesses. In

other words, you all know how you are affected. So I would just

suggest that you will let your Congress people know, and I am sure

you are already doing this. This is important stuff.

Because I do not think there is one single Congressman that

wants to be in a situation where they believe they are doing something, and I do not think the President wants to be in this situation, by the way, doing something that actually goes counter.

Because in listening to you all, it seems to be a concern that you

might go backward. I do not want 16 years to back the other way,

because in the midst of that 16 years, a lot of people are going to

die, a lot of problems are going to happen, and there is going to

be a lot of pain.

But the other thing that, I guess, I want you to talk about, and

maybe one of two of you are can talk about it, you mentioned the

term ‘‘deconfliction.’’

Just for our purposes, would you all tell us what is the significance of deconfliction, just if you do not mind? Keep in mind, there

are people on C–SPAN watching this, too, and that is a term that

they would like to know.

Mr. CARR. I also work at the University of Maryland, as you

know, and deconfliction is not a real word. But as a university, you

can make up words, so we did. But I think the word explains what

it is.

In other words, there are two types of conflicts that we are very

much concerned about. One is when police agencies are conducting

high risk operations at the same place or around the same place

in time, and they do not know it; where you are confronting good

guy and good guy. I have had a gun pulled on me by another police

officer years ago in a raid like that. It is not a pleasant feeling.

So that is one of the ways we deal with it, in that we have police

agencies call our intelligence centers. They let us know when they

are going to do an operation.

Because we are in D.C., several years ago, Mrs. Clinton was

Christmas shopping. She was taken to a mall in this area where

we were doing it by bus, so I am told. As a result of that, the Secret Service deconflicts with us in our center now. So those things

can be very real.

160

The other type of deconflicting involves cases where I am working a target and you are working a target, and it is the same target, and we do not realize that.

Early on in our HIDTA, we had two of our initiatives not do a

case deconfliction. I turned out, one of them was selling drugs to

the other in an undercover operation. The only way they found out

was that they were from the same Police Department, and they

happened to meet and say, what are you doing here; and the other

one said, well, I am selling drugs. The other says, I am buying

drugs. [Laughter.]

So those are real incidents. That is the officers’ safety, their resource incidents, and those are the two types of deconfliction.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, that is a good example. Thank you very

much. I think that, you know, I would imagine that those people

who might be the salespersons of drugs that may be listening to

all of this, probably the last thing they want is to see you all continue to do what you have been doing, deconflicting and deal all

these other things.

I would imagine that they would just love to know that they can

do certain things and, like you said, Commissioner Hamm, they

have no boundaries.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hamm was talking

about Baltimore City and Baltimore County. Baltimore City is surrounded by Baltimore County, like a doughnut, like we are right

in the middle. So, therefore, we have all these salespersons living

outside, but right in the middle is where they do their dirt.

So I guess that communication thing is so very, very important.

Again, I want to thank all of you for your testimony; I really do.

I hope that when you get back to the men and women who put

their lives on the line every day, I hope that you will let them know

that we want to do everything in our power to support them.

Again, we thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I sincerely want to thank the Chair for bringing

this panel together, as well. I am amazed that those of you who are

on the front line were not consulted. I also understand that the

word went out to cut the budget.

But to cut it in such highly sensitive areas of law enforcement

is the wrong cut to make. We are facing, in this country, an overwhelming threat of terrorism, and our terrorism is coming from the

streets and the drugs that somehow get into the hands of our youth

and our violent criminals.

I do not know how they come here. They are smuggled in because we lack the personnel to be able to detect. We lack the intelligence to know how they are bringing it in. We woke up 1 day in

the seventies, and I was telling everybody and I was on the school

board then, oh, the community does not deal with crack cocaine.

They cannot afford it. All of a sudden, everyone was selling the

packages for $20, those plastic packages, including mothers on welfare.

So I have been on it ever since then, and we still have not

cracked it. So if you were not contacted that there was a proposed

cut and reorganization, then Mr. Chairman and Members, I think

161

we ought to turn this down and we ought to send the message

right now that we will not accept this change.

Right in the middle of success, and I am sorry the other panel

is not here, because they did express in front of all of you that they

had not seen positive results. That is because they had not talked

to you. You know, they had not asked you to give them all of your

records that you collect in a year’s time or 6 months’ time. I can

see why they would say that, because the communication has broken down; yes, sir?

Mr. CARR. If you will allow me, real quickly, I just wanted to

comment on that. When the PART survey was done originally in

2004, the folks from OMB did not get the outcomes and outputs

from the HIDTA program. They got budget summaries and anecdotal information to look at.

So they did not even give them the information that would allow

them to say whether or not we were successful. That is what really

started the process of us developing our own performance management system.

Ms. WATSON. I would imagine that these decisions were made in

a little room, you know, amongst themselves, without reaching out

to you. I would say to defund you and reorganize you would cause

what you have been doing to fail, and would probably jeopardize

a lot of people out there who have been undercover. You would

have to pull them out and then they show up in another outfit, a

uniform or something, and they get marked.

I mean, I know how that game is played in my city. So I want

to thank all of you, you came here and do not be afraid to speak

out, stand strong, support your programs’ continuation and the

funding. We will work with you, I hope, here in the House and certainly in the Senate to see that your funding continues.

Because we have an overwhelming task, all of us do, to get after

this scourge in our streets. To stop you while you are doing that

does not make sense. It is not going to save money. It is going to

create expenditures in other areas. We are going to have to pay

more for hospitalization and for survivors of people who have been

killed on the street and incarceration and so on.

So I want to just end it by saying I am behind your program and

these funds 100 percent. Leave the program as it is. Make cuts in

other areas, but not in this crime-stopping component.

The Justice Department, if they came and made the statements

that they did and those statements, they believe, are true, then I

know they have not been in communication with you. I mean, you

did not have to tell us that. Because they would not have made

those statements.

If they had gotten out into your regions and observed what was

going on, and reviewed what was going on, then they would have

to argue against the kind of changes that you propose.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. It has been

an afternoon well spent. I have to rush to catch my plane to go

back to the streets of Los Angeles, and watch my drug dealers, you

know, dealing on the streets. I mean, I see it, because I am on

those streets every day, and they do it with impunity. So thank you

very much, and I thank all of you for your contributions this afternoon.

162

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Congresswoman Watson; for those who

say we cannot do things in a bipartisan way, when we fight drug

dealers and we fight narcotics, we need to fight in a bipartisan

way. We did not ask who was Republican or Democrat. Up here,

it would have been tough to figure out who was and who was not.

Ms. WATSON. We need policymakers.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, we need to tackle this. We would appreciate

if you could communicate back to your grassroots people. They are

putting their life on the line to try to keep the rest of America safe.

We very much appreciate that, because it is a few people who then

addict other people, spread this through.

It gets into their families and their kids. It puts people at harm

when they are shopping. They cannot walk at night on the street.

There is a fear to travel or move around that leads to the housing

decline, education in school declines. At least drug and alcohol

abuse is the enabler that creates much of this problem.

So we thank you very much for your efforts. We need to look at

this. If we speak out united, and if we can educate the public more

on what is happening, one of the problems in narcotics that people

get very frustrated, because it seems like it does not go away. It

is just like child abuse, just like spouse abuse. It is just like many

other things. It just seems like you work at it and you work at it.

But the second you back off, it gets worse.

This is an opportunity to educate, to educate Congress and to

educate the general public, and say, basically, to the administration: Look, this is working. We do not know why you did this. But

send a clear message from the grassroots level in the Congress: we

will do a good job of testing the wind and react real fast, and make

sure that we send a message, which is a lesson, not only for this

year; but this is a program that works, and we ought to be looking

at how to make it more effective; how to spread it.

Yes, if there are things like drug courts that need to be added,

then propose adding that. But do not wreck another program in

order to try to address another kind of problem.

This has been a terrific panel. Thank you for all the time that

you have spent. We appreciate you coming to Washington and

being part of this, and we will make sure that the word gets out,

and will you please help get it out to your own individual members

and back home.

Because this is a big decision, a key crossroads, that could affect,

again, because we have done this before. As Mr. Donahue said, in

narcotics, sometimes we tackle it. If we start to have success, we

give it up and we have to do it all over again.

Now we finally have an integrated system that is probably the

most integrated, helping us to work with the Homeland Security

agencies that we are seeing internationally. We are better able to

track. We are not just going to arrest people on the street. We are

going to be able to get to the systems.

But if you cannot turn witnesses, if you cannot follow it through,

hey, the whole system falls apart. What good does it do to go down

and eradicate cocaine in Columbia, and try to intercept it, if we

cannot also work it back the other direction?

Ultimately, it is the ones on the street who are killing the people,

and you have to stop them. Because, in effect, if we fail in the

163

eradication, if we fail in the interdiction, if we fail at the border,

then it is in your towns.

We cannot abandon the towns, just because we have not been

able to stop it; back in Colombia, or Afghanistan, or elsewhere. So

thank you very much for your willingness to participate. With that,

the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

Æ