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

89–455 PDF 2003

ONDCP REAUTHORIZATION: THE HIGH INTENSITY

DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM AND CTAC

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 8, 2003

Serial No. 108–52

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

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

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

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

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

PETER SIRH, Staff Director

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHILIP M. SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CHRIS BELL, Texas

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

CHRISTOPHER DONESA, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

NICHOLAS COLEMAN, Professional Staff Member and Counsel

NICOLE GARRETT, Clerk

TONY HAYWOOD, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 8, 2003 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Burns, Ron, chief, Lakewood, CO Police Department; and Peter

Modafferi, Chief of Detectives, Rockland County, NY District Attorney’s

Office .............................................................................................................. 79

Burns, Scott, Director, Office of State and Local Affairs, Office of National

Drug Control Policy; and Roger Guevara, Chief of Operations, Drug

Enforcement Administration ........................................................................ 7

McCampbell, Christy, chief, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, California

Department of Justice; Wayne Wiberg, commander, Narcotics and Gang

Investigation Section, Chicago Police Department; Anthony Romano,

chief, Organized Crime Division, Baltimore Police Department; and

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Moyer, chief, Homeland Defense/Intelligence

Bureau, Maryland State Police .................................................................... 40

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

Burns, Ron, chief, Lakewood, CO Police Department, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 81

Burns, Scott, Director, Office of State and Local Affairs, Office of National

Drug Control Policy, prepared statement of ............................................... 9

Guevara, Roger, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 19

McCampbell, Christy, chief, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, California

Department of Justice, prepared statement of ........................................... 43

Modafferi, Peter, Chief of Detectives, Rockland County, NY District Attorney’s Office, prepared statement of ............................................................. 85

Romano, Anthony, chief, Organized Crime Division, Baltimore Police Department, prepared statement of ................................................................. 57

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

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 4

Wiberg, Wayne, commander, Narcotics and Gang Investigation Section,

Chicago Police Department, prepared statement of ................................... 50

(1)

ONDCP REAUTHORIZATION: THE HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM

AND CTAC

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003

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 10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings, Carter,

Ruppersberger, Blackburn, Deal, Bell, and Ose.

Staff present: Christopher A. Donesa, staff director and chief

counsel; Nicholas Coleman, professional staff member and counsel;

John Stanton, congressional fellow; Nicole Garrett, clerk; Tony

Haywood, minority counsel; and Earley Green, minority chief clerk.

Mr. SOUDER. Good morning. This is our third hearing on the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its

programs. Today we will focus on two programs that most directly

impact State and local law enforcement against drug crimes: the

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, and the

Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC].

Congress originally authorized the HIDTA program in 1988, and

renewed it in 1993 and 1998. The program provides significant financial assistance to State and local law enforcement and facilitates strong cooperation among those agencies and with Federal

law enforcement. That cooperation has led to many successes in

our efforts to disrupt the market for illegal drugs. HIDTA has also

been a politically popular program, as evidenced by its rapid expansion. The program started with five HIDTAs in areas that we

would all agree are at the heart of the national drug trafficking

networks. Over time, the program has steadily grown to where it

now covers 28 separate areas and nearly 60 percent of the population.

While the program unquestionably is a key tool in our national

drug control strategy, that rapid expansion clearly demonstrates

that the subcommittee has many issues to consider to ensure that

the program pursues its original goals, that it is accountable, and

that it delivers results determined under rigorous performance

measures. We must also carefully consider how to strike the appropriate balance to ensure that the program remains predominantly

2

focused on national goals while still ensuring that State and local

agencies receive a fair return for their investments in the program.

It is easy to make a case for the need to send Federal assistance

to the hubs of national drug traffic to disrupt the market and keep

drugs from every city in America. It is much harder to make the

case to take taxpayer money from Indiana and send it to another

State if it is used mainly for local projects or if it is not effective.

We will also consider today issues related to legislation that

Ranking Member Cummings introduced last week to direct HIDTA

funds to be made available to protect witnesses impacted in their

neighborhoods by national drug traffic. The bill is fittingly named

the ‘‘Dawson Family Community Protection Act.’’ I believe that the

unconscionable tragedy that befell the Dawson family in Baltimore

well demonstrates the need for action in this area. As a cosponsor

of his bill, I commend Mr. Cummings for his leadership and look

forward to working closely with him on this issue. With limited dollars and great demands we will need to work with the Senate and

the administration on the final amount, but I am committed to the

principle that part of winning the battle against the drug lords is

protecting citizens brave enough to stand up to their brutality.

Today’s hearing will also review the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, which was established in 1990 to oversee and coordinate the Federal Government’s anti-drug research and development. CTAC oversees a number of research programs as well as

the Technology Transfer Program, which provides drug detection

and law enforcement technologies to Federal, State and local law

enforcement. The program is so successful that there is a long waiting list for the available technology. I hope we can reaffirm our

support for the key research programs, as well as to try to bolster

the TTP program to make the equipment better available to our

communities.

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

especially like to welcome all the representatives of the State and

local law enforcement community who are joining us here at this

time. From the administration, on our first panel we will hear from

Scott Burns, the Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug

Control Policy for State and Local Affairs. From the Drug Enforcement Administration, we will also hear from Mr. Roger Guevara,

the Chief of Operations.

Our second panel will focus on HIDTA, and we will hear from

Christy McCampbell, chief of the California Bureau of Narcotics

Enforcement and Wayne Wiberg, commander of the Narcotics Investigation Section of the Chicago Police Department. From Maryland, Maryland State Police Superintendent Ed Norris, and Baltimore Police Department Organized Crime Bureau Chief Anthony

Romano will testify.

On our third panel, we will focus on CTAC with Chief Ron Burns

of Lakewood, Colorado Police Department, and Peter Modafferi,

chief of Detectives for Rockland County, NY, District Attorney’s Office.

3

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

country to be here today. We very much look very much forward

to your testimony.

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

4

5

6

7

Mr. SOUDER. I will now see if any of the other Members have an

opening statement. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yes. Just very quick.

First, I would like to commend ONDCP for all the work that you

do. Since 1998 I believe that your efforts to maintain a program of

such importance to work with the local, State, and Federal law enforcement agency has done a lot to do with the issue of drugs. We

know drugs is probably accountable for about 90 percent of all of

our crime, especially violent crime, and the coordination and the

teamwork is one of the main avenues and ways that we are going

to at least put a dent into what is going on. So looking forward to

your testimony. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Congressman Carter.

OK, I would like to take care of a few procedural matters. First,

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days

to submit written statements and questions for the hearing record,

and that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the record.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents, and

other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be

included in the hearing record, and that all Members be permitted

to revise and extend their remarks.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Now, as our standard procedure, if Mr. Burns and Mr. Guevara

will stand, is it our standard procedure to administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you both for being here today and for your

many years of work in these efforts, and we will start with Mr.

Scott Burns, the director of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy for State and Local Affairs.

STATEMENTS OF SCOTT BURNS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE

AND LOCAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL

POLICY; AND ROGER GUEVARA, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS,

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Thank you, Chairman Souder and Congressman Ruppersberger, Congressman Carter. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to talk about the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program [HIDTA], and the Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center [CTAC], that are programs under the Office of

National Drug Control Policy. I would like to commend you, Chairman Souder and your staff, and the subcommittee for the support

that you have given us over the years in making the HIDTA program and the CTAC program successful arsenals in our efforts to

make this problem of addiction and trafficking smaller.

As stated, the HIDTA program began in 1988 with the designation of five States. They were initially funded in 1990 and have

grown over the subsequent 15 years to 28 HIDTAs in some 43

States. Membership includes some 35 Federal agencies, over 100

State agencies, in excess of 1,000 local law enforcement agencies

participating.

I believe that the HIDTA program is one of the most effective

law enforcement and counterdrug tools in the country, and I say

8

that because the HIDTA program is one of the, if not the only Federal program that does one, what one would think is simple, but

very important thing, and that is bring together Federal, State,

and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement leaders in

various areas of the country to collaborate, to work together, to

share information, to use their intelligence support centers to make

the problem of drug addiction and drug trafficking in this country

smaller.

I also believe that under the leadership and direction of John

Walters, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,

over the past 12 months we have made great effort to make the

HIDTA program better. We have initiated performance measurement standards; they have been written, they have been drafted,

they have been disseminated to the 28 HIDTA directors, and we

are in the initial process of implementation. We have also reorganized the Office of State and Local Affairs to provide greater oversight and greater attention to the HIDTAs, and we have also, as

you well know, joined with the Department of Justice in launching

the CPOT, or Consolidated Priority Organizational Targeting, program in an effort to go after the major drug trafficking organizations in this country and in the world.

I have the privilege, and I know that you have visited several of

the HIDTAs, to work with some of the finest women and men in

this country. I have found, under the direction of Kurt Schmidt, the

National HIDTA Director, folks to be extremely dedicated from

California to Connecticut, and every State in between, to getting up

each day trying to help in this counterdrug effort.

I am also pleased to speak today on behalf of the Counternarcotics Technical Assessment Center [CTAC]. As you know, it is

this country’s chief R&D, or research and development, effort in

trying to do two corps missions: one, to locate, to find, and to develop technologies that will help Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to do better to protect lives of law enforcement

folks in the field and to allow them to do their missions better; and

also through the neuroimaging program, which is a project, as you

know, to bring together our best medical and scientific people in

this country to study and to research addiction so that some day

we will fully understand what it is and be able to treat it.

With that, I would respectfully request that my written statements be submitted into the record, and I look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott Burns follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Mr. Guevara.

Mr. GUEVARA. Good morning, Chairman Souder and distinguished members of this subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear

before you today to discuss ONDCP and the High Intensity Drug

Trafficking Area program which was established by Congress over

a decade ago. On behalf of Acting Administrator John B. Brown III

and myself, I want to thank the subcommittee for their unwavering

support on behalf of the men and women of DEA.

The HIDTA-funded program is a regional strategy providing Federal assistance in coordinating law enforcement efforts at the local,

State, and Federal level. The program is designed to impact on the

manufacturing, importation, and distribution networks. The

HIDTA program complements our mission to destruct and dismantle major drug trafficking organizations. By leveraging the resources, manpower, and equipment of numerous law enforcement

entities, we can, and have, achieved tremendous success.

I have benefited from seeing firsthand how a successful HIDTAfunded program operates. From 1997 to 1999, I was charged with

oversight of the HIDTA Southern California Drug Task Force. In

September 2000, I was promoted to Special Agent in Charge of the

Caribbean Division in San Juan, Puerto Rico. With this promotion

came the responsibility of serving as the vice-chair of the HIDTA

executive board for the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands

HIDTA. Difficult decisions had to be made on which initiatives to

undertake and how best to utilize our funds, but our cooperation

and collaboration did breed success.

Federal resource constraints require that DEA continue to pursue the cooperative investigative efforts of other Federal, State,

and local law enforcement officers. There are presently 18 DEA

field divisions, plus the El Paso Intelligence Center [EPIC], that

participates in the HIDTA-funded programs. This includes 48 DEA

HIDTA groups supporting 90 initiatives and consisting of 527 task

force officers. Over 300 DEA special agents work with HIDTA initiatives.

In support of national ONDCP objectives, each HIDTA is supposed to consist of an executive board comprised of an equal number of Federal, State, and local law enforcement leaders. DEA continues to urge that all HIDTA executive boards hold to the equal

representation requirement mandated by the ONDCP in order to

yield maximum effectiveness, and we pledge to undertake leadership positions whenever the opportunity arises.

Investigations begin for DEA, including our HIDTA-funded task

forces, when discovering that larger scope of drug crime arrests

merits the consolidation of resources. I would like to highlight

three major programs the administration is emphasizing to make

the greatest impact on America’s drug enforcement efforts.

The first one is the Consolidated Priority Organization Targets

[CPOTs], which is a single national list of major drug trafficking

and money laundering organizations. There are 53 identified international command and control organizations representing the most

significant drug organizations threatening the United States.

In fiscal year 2002, ONDCP allocated $5.7 million in discretionary funds in support of HIDTA-funded initiatives targeting

18

CPOTs. DEA fully supports this in keeping with HIDTA’s mission

to target the highest levels of drug trafficking groups.

DEA’s Priority Drug Traffic Organization’s [PDTO’s], program is

similar to CPOT, but more expansive since it also includes local

and regional drug organizations significantly impacting the drug

supply in DEA’s 21 nationwide field divisions.

And, finally, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force

[OCDETF], determines connections to related investigations nationwide in order to identify and dismantle drug trafficking organization. DEA’s State and Local Task Force and HIDTA-funded

groups are engaged as partners with the OCDETF program and enforce the effectiveness and success of the OCDETF program.

DEA currently has 30 HIDTA-funded initiatives that are PDTO

investigations. Eighteen of those are also established as OCDETF

investigations. Each designated HIDTA has at least one intelligence element, usually called an Investigative Support Center,

which provide tactical investigative and strategic drug intelligence

to HIDTA-supported task forces. HIDTA ISCs serve as hubs for the

sharing of drug intelligence among Federal, State, and local law

enforcement HIDTA-funded participating agencies. DEA’s commitment to HIDTA shows in the assignment of nearly 10 percent of

our analytical resources to the HIDTAs. But DEA can and should

do more. DEA should provide a leadership role in all of the HIDTA

ISCs.

HIDTA-funded initiatives should address the most significant

drug threats. These initiatives must be evaluated regularly to ensure that they remain relevant. Oversight of HIDTA initiatives is

crucial in order to keep within the national objectives of ONDCP.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, HIDTA is a concept and not an

agency. Many participants believe HIDTA is a Federal grant for

their own use. However, HIDTA is a funding mechanism designed

to support Federal, State, and local drug investigative efforts. This

point must be recognized by participating agencies in order to pursue a consolidated regional and national enforcement objective, as

opposed to a fragmented one.

DEA believes the HIDTA program is a critical component in the

administration’s drug enforcement efforts. Maintaining the focus on

the HIDTA mission and emphasizing the most significant targets

will go a long way in not only achieving the disruption and dismantling of national and international organizations, but also in keeping drugs off our local streets. DEA stands ready to take on any

challenge and continue to lead in America’s fight to reduce drug

trafficking and abuse.

In my written testimony which I have submitted is an overview

of DEA’s witness protection initiative. At this point I would be

happy to answer any questions this subcommittee may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guevara follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you both for your testimony, and as we continue to work on, as we start to actually prepare for the markup

of the legislation, there are a number of things we are debating as

regards HIDTAs.

And, Mr. Burns, I would like to start with the proliferation of

HIDTAs that has occurred has resulted in a kind of different focus.

In other words, every area, to some degree, is a drug trafficking

area or it wouldn’t have any drug usage; it is because somebody

had to traffic in the narcotics. Historically we had DEA task forces

or FBI task forces or local task forces to deal with that, but when

the HIDTA was developed, they were supposed to be high intensity,

which means higher intensity than other parts of the country drug

trafficking areas. The initial ones, as I said in my opening statement, as you referred to, were pretty well universally agreed upon,

Miami and Los Angeles, Southwest Border, and the large areas.

As this has proliferated, we have seen a wide variety of different

types HIDTA focus, and this has also diluted the funds from going

to those highest intensity areas. Do you believe that some of those

areas should be removed from participation in the program? If we

don’t remove some from the program, do you believe that the budget should be allocated and a certain fixed portion should go to the

highest intensity parts and less to the lower intensity? And if that

isn’t the case, there are certainly going to be additional HIDTAs

because there are several HIDTAs right now that aren’t as high as

some areas that aren’t excluded, so would you favor increasing the

number of HIDTAs?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.

There is no doubt from 5 HIDTAs to 28 HIDTAs now in 43 States,

the District of Columbia and Puerto, and covering approximately

13 percent of the counties in this country, that the original HIDTA

concept in 1988 is not what it is in 2003. With that said, I must

state that each HIDTA is different. Each HIDTA, as this program

has evolved, has come to deal with specific issues in their area. Appalachia, certainly, as you know, is not New York and is not Los

Angeles and is not the Midwest, each attacking the local impact

and drug issues that they have in their jurisdiction, but also dealing with national manufacturing, transportation, distribution and

financial crimes aspects of this business we call the drug trade.

Certainly in 15 years the threat has moved. Certainly there are

counties that no longer would meet the original designation as a

HIDTA county, and certainly there must be some mechanism in

place to rectify that.

With that said, level funding every year, and with a great deal

of help from Congress with respect to where new or additional

counties or HIDTAs ought to be stood up has had the effect, as you

say, to dilute the pool, if you will, with which to attack the problem. I believe that the HIDTA program is most effective when professionals here in Washington and, more importantly, in the field

assess the threat and then, with your support, drive resources to

where we can do the best good.

Mr. SOUDER. You have, in your testimony, said you have tried to

shift the focus of the HIDTA program to the National priority targets as well as the regional targets. Will HIDTAs be required to

tailor all of their programs that direction, or do you see it as a mix?

30

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. I see it as a mix. Currently our requirement

is that 51 percent of all the funds for the HIDTA program must

be allocated to rural areas or to attack the problem in rural America. The reality is today about 80 percent of all of the HIDTA funds

are going to State and local jurisdictions in counterdrug functions.

The CPOT program is an attempt by Director Walters and myself and Kurt Schmidt and the Department of Justice, and with

support from you, Mr. Chairman, and others to redirect the HIDTA

focus toward the major targets, back in line with what the original

intent of HIDTA was, and to try and make a difference on a National and international level.

Mr. SOUDER. This is probably going to be the most difficult challenge, and I am not sure we can politically get this done, but the

way it is going is that every area of the United States, if it is to

have a coordinated effort, that is a wonderful goal, and that certainly my home area, which does not have a HIDTA, even though

it was raised initially in the process whether we would have one,

is at this point a lot higher drug intensity trafficking area than

many that are HIDTAs; and, therefore, the question is why doesn’t

my area and other Members of Congress, who don’t have an area

have a similar drug coordination effort? But the high intensity concept was to make sure that the places where most of the drugs

were coming into the county would keep it from getting into the

rural areas and other areas with pockets in myth and others that

may be focused on differently. But I am not sure, politically, whether we can accomplish this, but it is definitely a different type of

program and we have to, in the reauthorization, either acknowledge that it is a different program or figure out how we are going

to do battle with the appropriators to make sure that the program

follows through its authorized language.

And I thank you for your comments.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. After September 11 there has been a lot of

refocus of different Federal law enforcement agencies working more

in the terrorism arena and with homeland security. How has that

affected your agency as it relates to the programs we are talking

about today, as far as resources going more into terrorism, homeland security? Has it affected manpower, resources?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. We have seen, Congressman, some pullback

from clearly the Federal agencies that are involved, the FBI, which

has been well documented, the Department of Defense, whom we

have been working with closely to transition those programs that

have been an assistance in the counterdrug program eradication,

cargo inspections along the border, the schools that train thousands

of State and local law enforcement in counterdrug efforts each

year.

But the most disconcerting, I suppose, would be what is more in

the rumor mill than we have actually seen, and that is that State

and local law enforcement agencies are becoming more taxed.

Budgets, as you know, are not going well across the country, and

if chiefs and sheriffs have additional duties, counterterrorism or because of the budget, HIDTA is certainly the first area not that they

want to, but that they are going to pull out of. That is our suspect.

31

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I understand that. And with the locals and

the refocus and all the different law enforcement agencies, have

you seen resources leave your focus on actual drug versus looking

more into the terrorism, from your perspective, from the Federal

level?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. I have to tell you honestly that the day after,

on September 12, and until today, John Walters has charged us

with making it very clear to all Federal agencies that we are all

Americans, we are here to help, whatever we can do to assist you

we will, but we cannot dilute the counterdrug mission in light of

terrorism, and that we will work together. So to date I would say

I have not seen that.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That is good. The other thing, first thing,

drugs have no geographical boundaries, and I think the HIDTA

concept is an excellent concept because you have local, State, Federal. A lot of times leads and sources or informants come from the

local and then you develop like a strike force relationship. Now,

there are always jealousies that exist. I know in the old days, when

I was a narcotics prosecutor, we, as a local, did not have the money

to pursue a high profile person, to have four or five cars tail some

to put somebody in the witness protection program. I think what

the Federal Government, through HIDTA, brought to the locals

was not the resources and the teamwork concept. You always have

issues of need to know, and the locals and State feel that the Federal agents are not telling them everything they know; probably

more FBI than DEA, by the way. But where has that evolved? Do

you see that changing or does that still exist? And if it does exist,

what do you suggest we do to keep working through that problem?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. I have, likewise, spent a career as a local

prosecutor.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Where were you?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. In southern Utah. Probably smaller than

where you came from.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Oh, yeah. Baltimore.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. That is pretty close.

I think one thing HIDTA has done over the years is establish

better relationships. We have had the ability on a State and local

level to work with the DEA, the U.S. attorneys, the relevant Federal agencies that are involved, and obtained the resources and the

help to go after the higher priority targets; and, in fact, we have

had many discussions in looking at CPOT, or the Consolidated Priority Organizational Targeting, program. While the target may be

in Colombia or Mexico, we are certainly cognizant that the intelligence and the assistance may come from a local prosecutor in Baltimore or Duluth, and that is part of the beauty of the HIDTA program.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In the high profile targets are resources

used the most effectively wiretapping?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Absolutely.

Mr RUPPERSBERGER. OK.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Yes. That is what we are doing.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Carter.

32

Mr. CARTER. Well, I have had the pleasure to work with the capital area task force in Texas on many, many occasions, and it is a

very, very effective group; brought a lot of cases to my court to try,

and we disposed of a lot of those very effectively. I think it is a

great concept, this proliferation of numerous expansions of offices

that they have had. I am just curious because we are aware, particularly where I live is a gateway area from Mexico, I–35 supposedly is one of the highest drug traffic columns in America, and

it runs right through my hometown. It is estimated every fifth car

is possibly a drug trafficker. That is a kind of interesting estimate,

I think, but, anyway, that is what they claim.

And so the five original idea areas of the country were clearly the

areas where we had a high priority, and now there is some question as to whether resources are being drained from the high profile areas to other areas that have definite needs. And I think the

task force idea works. Have you ever thought about switching from

a task force to a strike force in some of the rural areas? Because

I have seen our task force deal with specific problems and go in

and attack a specific problem area as a strike force, which would

temporarily take those resources from the high target areas, but

then those resources could be re-made available for those high priority areas when they are needed; sort of a big picture allocation:

strike a problem in middle America, and I think you can effectively

deal with it, and then move back to the border and the areas where

the high traffic unit is coming in and out. Has any of that concept

been looked into?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Interesting, Congressman, we have had those

very discussions, and as Chairman Souder and his staff, and you

know, Director Walters looks as the drug trade as a business. How

do we hurt them; how do we become the anti-CEOs; what can we

do to cripple or disable an entire trafficking organization or a part

of it, the distribution, the transportation, the financial crimes aspect. And one of the tactics that we have looked at, and in some

areas tried, is exactly what you are talking about, concentrate resources on a particular problem in a particular area and then see

if we can disrupt the market.

Mr. CARTER. In our county they did that very thing on a small

town, which you would think wouldn’t be a source, but it seemed

to be a congregating area for traffickers as they came out of Mexico. They, along with locals, have gone in and taken an area where

you wouldn’t allow your child to even drive through the area, and

made it a place where you can hold a Sunday school picnic. They

actually dozed down buildings along with local cooperation and did

a beautiful job of cleaning up that area, and it was a strike by the

capital area task force that did that, and very effective, and then

they moved on to what they normally did with it.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Sure.

Mr. CARTER. And so that was the reason I thought about that.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Thank you.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Deal.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. Obviously sometimes our

questions reflect where we live and what our districts are made up

33

of, and mine is one of those areas that is in north Georgia, which

is a non-border State, yet from some of the actual arrests and convictions that have been obtained contain some of the hot spot areas

for major distribution since I–75 goes through my district and I–

85 also goes through my district.

So my first question is since we do have a HIDTA in Atlanta, but

it is restricted, it is my understanding its content of restricted area

is only Fulton County, city of Atlanta, and DeKalb County, and

does not include any of the counties in my northern district, even

though they have had some of the major drug busts, much more

significant even than Atlanta itself, who, first of all, decides the jurisdictional area that is included within a HIDTA? Who makes the

decision as to expand it or not?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. It is a long process, but the short answer is

the ultimate decision is made by the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy after consulting with Members of Congress, you, the Governor from the respective State, and then having an intra-agency review; we would bring in experts from DEA

and FBI and Treasury and others to look at it to see if it meets

the statutory criteria.

But I guess the better answer to your question is, and it goes

back to the chairman’s initial statements, we are currently level

funded at $206 million, and have been for some time, and the question is, then, how do we continue to expand. And you may have a

serious problem in the northern part of Georgia, but we have to

come up with a way of determining whether or not that is more

of a problem than in Brownsville, TX, currently. And that is why

we have looked at options of how we can reassess and look at the

HIDTA program, and we hope that these performance measures

that we are putting in place will do just that.

Mr. DEAL. Well, first of all, would you convey the request that

they contact and discuss this issue with me, as a Member of Congress who has an issue and an interest in it?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Most certainly.

Mr. DEAL. And I don’t view it necessarily as putting one part of

the country necessarily in competition with the other. I would like

to say I would be willing to be in competition with the counties

that make up the Atlanta division right now, as to whether or not

they can justify all of the resources there, as opposed to some of

the outlying areas on the suburban areas on the interstates, where

much of the traffic is obviously still moving.

My second question is as an area that just as we have a problem

with drug activity, we also have a problem with illegal immigrant

activity, and since my son is the State prosecutor in my local area,

we obviously know that there is a linkage of one with the other,

and I would like to ask what is your working relationship with the

INS as it relates to the illegal immigrant population being a source

of bringing many of the drugs in from Mexico; and second, has that

relationship changed or do you anticipate any changes as we move

into the new Homeland Security Department? Would you comment

on those areas, please?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Certainly. I would answer that by saying

along the border I think we have had an excellent relationship. I

think that inside the continental United States we have not done

34

as well as we can. Under the new reorganization and under the Department of Homeland Security, we have made new efforts to try

and coordinate better with them in the HIDTAs, and just within

the last 6 months we have also made several trips to Mexico; we

have met with State and local prosecutors on the other side of the

border and discussed issues with respect to how we can help each

other on these immigration issues and prosecution issues.

So we are doing good on the border; we could do better inside the

United States.

Mr. DEAL. I am going to ask one last question, if my time is

about to expire.

In that regard, my concern has been, of recent, that we have not

seen the cooperation from Mexico with regard to such things as extradition. We all understand that capital felonies they are not

going to extradite back, but most recently we understand that the

Supreme Court of Mexico has now issued a ruling in which they

have ruled that even those cases that would impose life imprisonment, since they now consider that to be cruel and unusual punishment, will not be extraditable back to the United States; and that

is going to involve most of your major drug activities. I think that

is in stark contrast to what Colombia’s attitude has been, is that

they welcome extradition of their major drug traffickers.

Have you seen any problems developing from that more restrictive extradition attitude from Mexico? And what impact will that

have on your efforts to focus on major drug trafficking organizations?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. It is certainly an issue. I know that Director

Walters has met with persons in the highest levels of the Mexican

Government, I know that it is an issue that the Department of Justice deals with everyday, and I can only tell you that I think great

strides have been made by Mexico within the last 12 months because of efforts by Mr. Walters and others to convince them that

we can make the problem smaller by working together. And as a

local prosecutor, my efforts have been to reach out to local prosecutors along the border. I have found that sometimes the problem

isn’t as big as countries, but as simple as getting to know people

on the other side, and we have great hope that relationship is going

to better our cooperative efforts and take down some of the major

trafficking organizations. But clearly, Congressman, the extradition

issue is a difficult one.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Guevara, do you have anything to add on the

Mexico relationship?

Mr. GUEVARA. No, sir. At my level, when I have met with counterparts, as recently as last week, I see an attitude that is predisposed to trying to cooperate with us more, and I think that there

is a new era that will allow us to move forward and push ahead

with that particular issue. In speaking to a prosecutor again just

last week, I understand there is new legislation in Mexico that allows for the maximum penalty of 60 years, and in my semi-private

discussions with him, he was of the opinion that if somebody was

50 years old and Mexican law allowed for punishment up to 60

year incarceration, that, in his eyes, constituted a life sentence. So

35

I say that just simply there is a new attitude, and I am optimistic

that will lead us in this very, very difficult issue.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Burns, I apologize to both of you for not being here for your

earlier testimony. And if you have already covered it, I also apologize.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. It was really good.

Mr. BELL. It was all the talk throughout the Capitol that it was.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. That is what I thought.

Mr. BELL. That is why I came.

But I represent part of the Houston region, and I wanted to talk

to you. Some of the concern is focused on the splintering of the

Southwest Border, HIDTA into the five different parts, and I am

curious if you have plans for addressing some of the problems in

regard to cooperation and communication, and how we get passed

some of the turf war mentality.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Congressman, I have been the deputy director

for 11 months. There are 28 HIDTAs, including one in Hawaii and

Puerto Rico. I have been to the Southwest Border, I think, eight

times. I have only been to about 14 of the HIDTAs. I have been

there that many times to deal with the very issue that you raise.

I am convinced that this country and the HIDTA program is best

served by, one, cooperating HIDTA along the Southwest Border,

from San Diego to south Texas. We have to deal with the border

as one HIDTA, which it has always been, and in a cooperative spirit.

Last week we had the board members from, I think, four of the

five partnerships, Arizona had some conflicts, we had all of the

partnership directors here with the exception of Arizona, met with

some of them later, and I believe we are well on our way to establishing standard operating procedure to meet the needs and the desires of the respective States, which is always a priority, and understand that in America it is time to work together, not splinter

off, not my State, not my local issues, not my section of the border,

but all together. And I hope to report to you within the next month

that has happened and we are going to make it better.

Mr. BELL. Have you been able to develop some consensus during

your trips for the formation of one?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. It has always been one. There has always

been some idea that individual States want their own, and they believe that by being called their own HIDTA they may have more

leverage for additional money. I think that, in meeting with the

board members, there has become a consensus that they are more

important to you and to the citizens of this country when they are

combined as opposed to individual HIDTAs. They currently receive

almost a quarter of the entire HIDTA budget. Individual States receive large amounts of moneys to combat the problem, and I think

the reason that they receive so much attention is because they are

the border.

Mr. BELL. Looking at just the Houston HIDTA, 15 State and

local agencies and 10 Federal agencies that have to come together

to formulate a strategy to attack drug trafficking, and I am just curious if you have seen some of the problems in that area regarding

36

communications and information sharing and strategic planning,

and how what you would recommend as far as addressing some of

those issues.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. In Houston? Stan Purse, first, is one of the

HIDTA directors in the country. The coordination in the Houston

HIDTA, which I haven’t been to because in many ways it is an example of what all HIDTAs should be, they have their finger on the

pulse, they understand the threat, and they move their assets and

direct their focus in cases toward the problem.

Mr. BELL. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Thank you.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. I would like to do a brief followup. This is far too

complex a subject to do in a hearing, but I want to put on the

record this comment and question.

If we have a Southwest Border HIDTA, which I agree with the

concept, why wouldn’t we have, then, regional concepts that are

broad in other areas, such as north border, the northern border is

longer, so maybe east-west? Why wouldn’t everything north of the

south border then also be a large zone of southwestern United

States? Great Lakes region, all of Florida be together in one. In

other words, a regionalization concept then with a local implementation, which might not be called a HIDTA, but we all agree that

the functions of having the State and local involved have been invaluable in multiple ways. Nobody is questioning whether HIDTAs

are effective, the question is how do we approach a national strategy to get the drug trafficking organizations? And if regionalization

is good in one place, why wouldn’t it be good in another?

And I would ask Mr. Guevara and then Mr. Burns to comment.

You were involved in southern California. Could you share some

of your thoughts as how the DEA coordinates with this? Because

the fact is we had DEA or FBI task forces in most regions already.

What did the HIDTA add to that? And could you kind of weigh in

on both the Southwest Border, the concept of regionalization, and

then if we went to National, what that would do to the State and

local cooperation?

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. The DEA would support consolidation of

multiple efforts. DEA is of the view that if we bring our resources

together and we stay focused, we can impact the traffic at the highest level and thereby reduce the overall flow of drugs, reducing the

availability. So DEA would support a consolidation of border

HIDTAs. And because these criminal organizations operate at will

and are very fluid, we need to be able to respond accordingly, and

toward that end DEA has recently been moving toward improving

our ability to do just that. DEA has four border sacks that go from

San Diego to Houston, and it has been one of my projects to improve our operations there, and that has included meetings as recently as the previous month and the month prior to that, in which

I brought the four sacks together to improve that communication,

and then I took it a step further by meeting with our Mexican colleagues in Mexico City to see what more we could do to improve

that communication.

So I am of the view that it is imperative, wherever possible, that

we have common goals and objectives, and that by working toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:22 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\89455.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
37

gether and pooling our resources, we will hopefully, at the end of

the day, be able to impact the traffic that will allow my parents

in east Los Angeles to go to the grocery store.

And if you could repeat the second part of the question, please.

Mr. SOUDER. You were in the southwest or southern California

border HIDTA yourself as a coordinator. How do you see, if we nationalize this more, it possibly negatively impacting the State and

local cooperation?

Mr. GUEVARA. I think that there may be a reluctance on the part

of local law enforcement if they were to see or think that this

would take away from the local impact cases. And my answer to

that point of view would be that it would actually allow us to improve our overall efforts impacting on local traffickers if we can

identify a cell that is responsible for just putting out the narcotics

on the street. Ultimately, they are getting it from somebody else,

and the challenge needs to be that we connect those cells operating

in the neighborhoods, connect it to the mid-level violators that will

lead to the command and control operations that we can detect

through Title 3 or wiretap operations. I don’t see a conflict whatsoever. I think what it will do is facilitate the coordination that will

allow us to do exactly those type of operations.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Burns, do you have any comments?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. It is an excellent question, and it is something

that students of HIDTA, if there is such a thing, talk about. I guess

my response would be that what we have tried to do is be threatdriven and not necessarily make it all fit nicely in geographic regions. To some extent, as you well know, there already is some regionalization. We have five States in the Rocky Mountain HIDTA,

we have six States in the Midwest, we have six in New England.

But those States came together because the threat was consistent

one with another and they believed that in those areas they could

best attack the problem.

But your idea is a good one, and it is one that I would like to

discuss with you and your staff, because we are always trying to

make this program better.

Mr. SOUDER. For most of those clusters, they were too small to

get their own HIDTA to justify it to the director or the appropriations. In the Southwest Border HIDTA it is a different challenge

because they are big enough to do it individually, and that is the

tension. But I appreciate your comments.

Mr. Deal, do you have any other questions?

Mr. DEAL. I would just like to ask if there are any impediments

to your functioning that we have any jurisdiction to deal with. I

know that in the past, of course, there have always been jealousies

among various departments. There have been in the past, of

course, suspicions of not involving certain levels of departments.

Many local jurisdictions, I think, were viewed as, well, don’t share

information with them, you are not sure where it is headed. I hope

those days are over with. In fact, the jurisdictions at the local level

that I have had involvement with I think are very willing to cooperate, I think they have the highest level of integrity of cooperation, and most of them are hungry for help from the outside because their resources are so limited.

38

But are there impediments such as Federal rules, regulations,

laws, etc. that prohibit sharing of information, that prohibit your

transfer of functions or personnel? Are there things along those

lines that we need to be aware of that we ought to be trying to deal

with?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. In many ways, Congressman, I think HIDTA

is a victim of its own success. In the areas of the country where

it works and is effective, everybody wants one, and I would say

that, and I know Chairman Souder and his staff are well aware of

this, it is a disincentive to the current HIDTAs where there is level

funding in place. If they know the same money is going to come

next year, no matter what, because of that requirement, we are not

able, in ONDCP, I think, to do our job, and I think that would be

helpful.

As I said, in the short time Director Walters has been here and

that I have been here, we are all on the same page in one vein,

and that is we need to stop, take a deep breath, find out where we

are at with this program, get performance measures in place, and

then determine how we can make it better.

Mr. DEAL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ruppersberger?

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. After the arrests are made, where do the

cases go, the State court or Federal court, or do you determine

where you can get the best result?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. It depends. Again, the beauty of HIDTA, I

guess, is those issues are dealt with by the women and men who

live in those areas and have firsthand knowledge of the problem.

For example, along the Southwest Border we fund a number of

State and local prosecutors because the cases, frankly, are overwhelming for U.S. attorneys to handle. And so it is dealt with by

and between the States’ attorneys and the U.S. attorneys in a particular region. Washington State right now, I am going there next

week because there is an issue with BC Bud coming over the border in large amounts, and there is a State’s attorney up there that

some would say is swamped and he needs help; and there are county commissioners that say their jail is full, and, by the way, this

kind of looks like a Federal issue.

So part of what HIDTA does is try and assist in working those

issues out by and between the prosecutors as well as local law enforcement.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Would you say that it is more an issue of

swamped or where you think you can get the best sentence time,

so to speak?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. I have to answer that honestly.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That is what I want you to do.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. I wish we were to the point of where we could

get the best sentence. I would say it is not that. I am sure it is

that way in certain specific areas, but right now it is a matter of

resources, it is a matter of putting bodies on cases and getting

them charged.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Even with your high profile targets?

39

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Well, not with high profile targets. Those obviously would go to U.S. attorneys, and we would look at those as

cases where the Federal system ought to be used always.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. One of the problems is that the northwest border

is unusual because the primary markets are so far from the county

where they are catching most of it, it is even way north of Seattle,

and they are mostly headed toward California. So it has been a

really unusual situation on the northwest.

Mr. Bell, do you have any further questions?

Mr. BELL. I have one other question on CTAC. The Technology

Transfer Program is so popular that apparently we have a significant backlog in applications for next year’s appropriations, and

they will be spent as soon as these applications are approved. Do

you think we should have an additional spending authorization?

And if so, at what level?

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. As you state, the 2003 budget was spent in

March, and there are over 1,000 applications already for 2004. Dr.

Albert Brandenstein, who is here, would tell you that $65 million,

I think it is $48 million for 2003, $65 million, and that is without

the wireless communication aspect of it, would meet all of the

needs of this important R&D program.

Mr. SOUDER. With that, we will have additional written submitted questions, and we will go to the second panel.

Thank you for coming this morning.

Mr. SCOTT BURNS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GUEVARA. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. If the second panel could come forward.

Mr. DEAL [assuming Chair]. We will welcome you to our hearing

today, and it is my pleasure to be able to swear you in, but I would

ask that you rise, please, take the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DEAL. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered

in the affirmative to the oath. I told them I was accustomed to

swearing in folks to a grand jury and to a witness stand, and that

is almost the same, so we welcome you here.

Does any member of the panel have a special guest on the panel

you would like to introduce?

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would just like to acknowledge Mr. Romano from the great city of Baltimore.

Mr. DEAL. All right, well, thank you.

The witnesses will each be recognized for opening statements,

and we ask if you would, please, to try to summarize your statements and keep it within a 5-minute opening period.

And we are pleased to have Chief McCampbell. We will start

with you and then just move down the line. Chief, we are pleased

to have you with us.

40

STATEMENTS OF CHRISTY MCCAMPBELL, CHIEF, BUREAU OF

NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE; WAYNE WIBERG, COMMANDER, NARCOTICS AND

GANG INVESTIGATION SECTION, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANTHONY ROMANO, CHIEF, ORGANIZED CRIME DIVISION, BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND LIEUTENANT

COLONEL STEVE MOYER, CHIEF, HOMELAND DEFENSE/INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MARYLAND STATE POLICE

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today to discuss what I see as the immense importance and the influence that the HIDTA programs have in our States. I speak representing my home State of California, but I hope that I can convey

to you the benefits that are reflected on all the other States that

participate in the HIDTAs.

I am the Chief of California’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement

and I oversee all statewide narcotic enforcement operations. I am

also a past president of the California Narcotic Officers Association,

which represents 7,000 members; NASDEA, which is the National

Association of State Drug Enforcement Agencies; and, as well, I am

an active member in the NNOAC, which is the National Coalition

of Narcotic Officer Associations.

With an exploding population of over 34 million residents in California, it is the most populous State in the United States. We border Mexico; we face the most severe drug abuse epidemic ever

known, and I attribute that to the ever-increasing legalization

movement which many misguided individuals seem to be enthusiastically embracing in my State; and we are considered the

source country for the manufacture of methamphetamine. With

these many, many problems, we in California are fortunate enough

to have been granted four HIDTAs in the State: one in Los Angeles, one in San Diego, one in San Francisco, one in Fresno. Or perhaps I should say that we are unfortunate enough to need that

much help from ONDCP.

I am not an expert in the everyday administration of any of the

HIDTAs, I leave that to the HIDTA directors, but I do participate

in all four HIDTAs, have personnel assigned to each one. I have

had the experience of being one of the framers of the San Francisco

HIDTA and I chair their Initiatives Committee.

With this experience I have been able to observe firsthand the

power and the coordination of efforts that the HIDTAs bring in the

overall U.S. drug strategy. In observing the HIDTAs, I have noted

five specific areas which I believe to be representative of the great

success of this program.

First and foremost, of course, is the coordination of efforts. The

designation of a HIDTA demands that the variety of agencies and

personalities must come to the table and forge partnerships. Law

enforcement has a tendency, as was mentioned before, to work separately and not always share. But HIDTA members must all work

together, we share information and resources, and we establish

those ‘‘pick up the phone’’ type relationships.

Requiring the agencies to co-locate and place as many resources

under one roof is efficient and it builds those working relationships.

Just recently, in my own Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, we

41

moved one of our local task forces under the umbrella of the

HIDTA in the Richmond, CA area, combining our investigative efforts.

Second, enhanced communications and intelligence. Without the

benefit of the HIDTAs, we would not have the communication levels that we now maintain for officer safety. The HIDTAs have tremendously enhanced communication abilities, and an integral part

of HIDTA is the need to enhance and increase the free exchange

of information and drug and criminal intelligence.

As a matter of fact, last year our Los Angeles clearinghouse,

which is one of our information HIDTAs, began providing

deconfliction services for not only the Los Angeles area, but for the

northern California HIDTA, Central HIDTA, and the Nevada

HIDTA. In the spirit of cooperation that is fostered by the HIDTA

program, the northern California Narcotic Information Network

[NIN], co-located with the Los Angeles Clearinghouse, and instead

of everyone being territorial, all agreed to co-locate and work together in integrating our information. The intelligence component

also of the HIDTAs has connectivity into the National RISS System, which combines local, State, and Federal narcotic intelligence

sharing and has dramatically improved the communications.

Third, and I consider this very important regarding the HIDTAs,

is regional responses. An essential component of HIDTA is the

flexibility to focus on regional drug issues. Under the guidance of

the board of directors, threat assessments are developed and then

a strategy is built.

The Central Valley HIDTA is centered around Fresno in our

State, an agricultural area that has a tremendous problem with

meth labs and resulting toxic waste sites that are left behind. The

environmental damage is horrendous, and I have personally seen

drug-encrusted canisters, plastic ephedrine bottles visibly floating

downstream in the Fresno area, or strewn about in the animal pastures in that area. The drug threat is enormous, and the Central

Valley HIDTA almost exclusively focuses on the meth problem in

our State. Other parts of the State do have different geographical

problems and different drug problems, but the benefit of flexibility

for the local board to decide what the threat is is essential to fighting our the drug problem.

We try to conduct OCDETF cases, but that is not always necessarily the case. So through the HIDTA flexibility, if necessary, we

can still take a smaller case to the State’s attorney. This type of

flexibility is a key of success to the HIDTA program.

And I want to say, before I close, that enough emphasis cannot

be placed on the importance of the HIDTA concept that allows

strong local and State agency input into developing the regional enforcement strategies. HIDTA is the one Federal program that provides equal balance to all participants and maintains the identity

of each region through our board of directors. To diminish that balance and exclude the State and the local input in favor of exclusive

Federal control I think would dramatically dissipate participation

and cooperation of many agencies.

Of course, it goes without saying the fiscal help that we get from

HIDTA no doubt helps us, and we on the HIDTA boards, we watch

that money very carefully, and it was just a week ago that one of

42

the HIDTA committees sat down together and we reviewed the initiatives and we redirected some of the funding from initiatives that

had met their mission.

As you know, California is undergoing a severe budget crisis, and

local and State narcotic enforcement units are being virtually

eliminated. I have to say in Oregon I was told that just recently

they are down to eight State narcotic agents in that State, Nevada

has almost eliminated all of their State narcotic agents, and my

own Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, we have been reduced by 100

personnel and I have had a cut of almost $10 million in my State

BNE budget. It is very severe, and most of that money is being redirected toward homeland security.

The bottom line are the results that the HIDTAs produce: LA, we

seized almost 40 tons of dangerous drugs in 2001; the Central Valley HIDTA, in 3 years, we seized over 1,400 lbs. of

pseudoephedrine tablets; the northern California HIDTA, in 2

years we have made over 5,000 arrests; and the California Border

Alliance Group, we have seized 8,000 lbs. of cocaine. These are the

results that the HIDTAs produce for us.

In conclusion, this program allows enforcement to enhance narcotic enforcement activities, provide focus to regional problems, and

facilitate cooperation. You would probably ask is it possible that we

would continue on our narcotic efforts without a HIDTA. Yes, but

it would be very painful, and I think it would hurt what we have

built up with the HIDTAs.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCampbell follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

Mr. SOUDER [resuming Chair]. Mr. Wiberg.

Mr. WIBERG. Good morning. I want to thank you for affording me

the opportunity to be here. My name is Wayne Wiberg. I am the

commander of the Chicago Police Department Narcotic and Gang

Investigation Section.

Chicago has a major problem threatening our communities and

the people whom we are sworn to protect. There is a cycle of narcotic violence which has been persistent over several years. The violence in Chicago is directed by sophisticated gangs with long histories, as the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples, these gangs

whose organizational structures can rival those of many Fortune

500 companies. The violence inflicted on our communities by the

attempt to control the distribution of narcotics in our city is apparent in at least 50 percent of all homicides occurring within Chicago,

and are attributed to the gangs involved in the narcotic trade. The

main avenues of distribution are the open air drug market, which

can net anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000 per day or a staggering $1.8 to $3.5 million per year at each location. As the gangs

fight between each other and among themselves over the control of

these open market locations, police officers’ lives are at risk, in addition to the young men, women, and children who are losing their

lives and their futures to violent death, lifelong addiction, and to

long periods of incarceration.

We believe we have made a significant impact on these gangs.

Our street corner conspiracy operations have been shown to effectively remove street corner gang markets in a surgical fashion, encompassing all entities in the market operation. Our conviction

rates are high and sentences considerable. These operations have

also shown to significantly improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods where we have been conducting them. But as important

as these operations are, it is not enough. We are doing what we can

to sever the ‘‘tentacles’’ of the drug distribution here in Chicago,

but we need really to sever the ‘‘head,’’ which is made up of the

cartels that reach beyond local law enforcement and who supply

various bulk narcotics for further distribution throughout this

country.

Chicago has been identified as the premiere intermodal hub of

narcotic distribution for the United States. An example can be

found in one of the many large seizures made by the Narcotics Section of the Chicago Police Department in the year 2002. Officers

from the Narcotic and Gang Investigation Section from the Chicago

Police Department seized the largest amount of cocaine in department history: 2,000 kilos of cocaine were recovered from a warehouse in a suburb of Chicago. This seizure of cocaine had an estimated street value of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars.

The Mexican cartel identified as bringing this shipment into the

area stood to make an estimated $20 million in the wholesale distribution of these drugs, and the money was to be smuggled back

into Mexico via the same false truck panels used to hide the bulk

drugs.

There are many other examples supporting the fact that drug

cartels are responsible for all the drugs that enter or pass through

the Chicagoland area.

49

The ability of local law enforcement to attack international mechanisms that feed the narcotic violence in my city is not only limited

by jurisdictional constraints, but by financial constraints as well.

To be more effective in stemming the distribution of drugs, there

has to be a greater participation between the Federal Government

and local law enforcement in all investigative aspects of drug trafficking. A more concerted effort has to be applied to removing and

eradicating the financial resources that generate drug distribution

and the related violence. This can only be accomplished by a multiagency effort. That is why the Chicago HIDTA is so valuable, it is

the catalyst to accomplish this goal.

As with the era of prohibition, when the gangs rose to a level of

sophistication that allowed their influence to reach beyond the resources of local law enforcement, there was a need for the Federal

Government to help. The Chicago HIDTA is a conduit for that help.

HIDTA has provided us with the resources and capabilities to identify the hierarchy of these drug organizations, and to move toward

a more effective prosecution of drug conspiracy cases.

In closing, we in local law enforcement are challenged to try to

make an impact on what really is an international network of drug

delivery and distribution with limited resources. The Chicago

HIDTA has been instrumental in helping to provide intelligence

and link Federal resources to formulate comprehensive strategies

and operations to be more effective by attacking not only the

operatives at the street distribution level, but also impacting the

upper and mid-level supply sources. We need continued support of

these efforts to not only protect our police officers, but also to make

our communities safer and to help to ensure a chance for a prosperous future for the next generation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiberg follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

55

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Romano.

Chief ROMANO. Members of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, good morning. I am

pleased that Congressman Cummings extended the opportunity to

the Baltimore Police Department to provide testimony today regarding the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. I am Anthony Romano, chief of the Organized Crime Division of the Baltimore Police Department. I am extremely grateful for the partnership with

HIDTA in Baltimore, and in my previous career with the New York

HIDTA, where I served in the New York City Police Department

for 18 years.

During those 18 years, I spent a period of time, in excess of 10

years, combating the war on drugs, especially in the late 1980’s,

the mid-1980’s to late–1980’s, when crack had completely overrun

our city streets. I was a young narcotics detective assigned to the

Narcotics Division, and we were tasked with the mission of taking

back these streets. All of this was done with nothing more than a

gun, a badge, and our arrest powers. We had no training other the

basic training that was afforded to us by the New York City Police

Department. There were no avenues available to rehabilitate those

who were arrested. There were limitations on enforcement due to

budgetary restraints.

A young police officer back in the 1980’s, while guarding a witness in a drug trial, was assigned his post to watch the home of

these witnesses, and that night, in doing his job, it cost him his

life; he was executed by members of the gang that this witness was

going to testify against.

I find myself now, after just retiring a year ago from the New

York City Police Department, here in Baltimore, in a city that

bears much resemblance to what I saw in the 1980’s in New York,

and as a specific case as it relates to a family here in Baltimore,

namely, the Dawson family, another person who wanted to stand

up against the fight on drugs, and this cost a mother, a father, and

their father’s children their lives.

There is just no room for this here. We need help beyond the

help of just having additional manpower and being able to go out

there and take these streets back. The people who are arrested

need to be rehabilitated. Those involved in the fight need to have

the training that is available.

Often, much too often, I have heard in my career in the New

York City Police Department, and I hear grumblings as I begin my

career here in Baltimore City, that there are budgetary restraints,

and it is very difficult to run an operation 24 hours. Drug dealers

don’t shut down their operations; they begin in the morning, they

work through the night, 7 days a week. Unfortunately, there aren’t

enough people for us to put out on the street to fight this war 7

days a week, 24 hours a day, so we find ourselves needing people

to stay longer.

And what I have found in my career in New York, and I am

starting to see here in Baltimore, and from my own personal experiences, no one does this work because they have to do this work.

Drug work is a passion. I do this work and I have done it, and I

56

could have moved on to many different areas in the police departments, but I chose not to. I could have advanced up the ladder

through promotion. I chose not to, I chose to stay where I was and

fight the war on drugs.

Since 1994, the Baltimore/Washington HIDTA has performed at

an extremely high level. It has assisted law enforcement agencies

in coordinating an interagency response to significant threats or

crises, such as the Washington-area sniper killings and the local

response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. As a result, three

law enforcement task forces operating in Maryland have been recognized by the ONDCP for their exemplary performance. These

units include The Major Drug Traffickers Initiative, Drug Money

Laundering Initiative, and Prince George’s County Safe Streets Initiative.

Communities battling this intensive drug trade and the violence

that accompanies it need to know that HIDTA dollars and expertise are available for them for strategic and effective responses to

violence and substance abuse. In New York, and now in Baltimore,

I know that we cannot do it alone. Please consider ONDCP and

HIDTA favorably in your reauthorization deliberation. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Chief Romano follows:]

57

58

59

60

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you each for your testimony.

I am going to yield first to Ranking Member Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

just read over opening statement, make it a part of the record.

Mr. Chairman, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program is an important weapon in the Government’s drug-fighting

arsenal. By coordinating and synchronizing the regional anti-drug

efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies,

HIDTA programs around the country amplify the impact that participating agencies can make with limited resources.

I don’t think that there is any question as to whether we should

reauthorize this program. Absolutely we should, in my judgment.

And I know, Mr. Chairman, that you agree. Like any program that

undergoes rapid expansion, the HIDTA program has experienced

growing pains. New and evolving drug use transit patterns of drug

trafficking have fueled the growth of the HIDTA program from five

regions in 1990 to more than 25 today.

One of the program’s chief attributes is the capacity it provides

to tailor a comprehensive interagency response to a highly specific

regional drug threat. As we consider how to manage the growth of

the HIDTA program into the future, we must be careful to preserve

the advantage of flexibility that the program presently affords. The

value of the HIDTA program is evident to me in the contribution

that the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA has made since 1994 in

helping agencies to fight the drug trafficking problem that severely

affects my congressional district in Baltimore City, Baltimore

County, and Howard County.

It is no secret that Baltimore City’s local drug problem is among

the Nation’s worse. Sadly, the city I represent in Congress is home

to some of the Nation’s most violent drug trafficking organizations,

and the impact of their activities on those who live among the dealers and their client is direct. Everyday I see the devastation that

drug trafficking causes in the lives of drug abusers, their loved

ones, and the entire neighborhoods crippled and terrorized by drugrelated crimes against people and property.

As bad as conditions are in certain sections of Baltimore City,

they would be much worse without the cooperation of coordination

enabled by the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. Through interagency

task force and innovative and successful drug treatment component, a regional intelligence center and sophisticated crime mapping tools, the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA has dramatically enhanced the ability of law enforcement agencies to work together to

dismantle major drug trafficking organizations and conduct investigations into large-scale drug money laundering operations.

The existence of the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA also enabled

a multi-agency response to one of the most tragic events the city

of Baltimore has ever seen: the arson and murder, as Mr. Romano

has already talked about, of the Dawson family in retaliation for

Angela Dawson’s efforts to engage police to keep drug dealers away

from her very doorstep. In the immediate wake of this tragedy,

ONDCP Director Walters, to his credit, authorized the redirection

of existing funds within the fiscal year 2002 Baltimore/Washington

HIDTA budget to support a Baltimore targeting initiative that is

helping to increase safety for residents of specific neighborhoods

61

that are subject to the ever-present threat of violence from drug

distribution organizations and their affiliates.

And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today,

and coming, many of them, in such short notice.

Like the HIDTA program, the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center plays a critical role in our national drug control strategy and clearly deserves to be reauthorized. CTAC represents a tremendous resource for our Federal drug control agencies through its

research and development programs and for local and State law enforcement through the Technology Transfer Program. As foreign

and domestic criminals develop ever more sophisticated means of

threatening harm to the American people, whether through the illegal drug trade or through terrorist activities, it becomes more

and more essential to develop the technological means to detect

and disrupt their activities. It is equally important that we enable

those applications to be put to effective use by State and local law

enforcement agencies. CTAC performs both these vital functions,

and I strongly support the extension of its authorization.

A moment ago I mentioned the horrific crime that claimed the

lives of Carnell and Angela Dawson and their five young children,

age 9 to 14. In sections of Baltimore City and places like them, the

drug trade has immediate and severe impact. Angela Dawson had

the courage to stand up to drug dealers. The dealers responded

with a brazen message to the entire community. We must ensure

that the residents of communities like the Dawsons have the vigorous support of law enforcement to insulate them from the threat

of violent retaliation for their partnership with the police.

I have often said, and I firmly believe, that the police cannot do

their job effectively without the cooperation of the public. Witness

relocation programs are not an adequate solution for individuals

and families who are so deeply committed to reclaiming their communities as the Dawsons were. Moreover, communities can ill afford to lose such committed and courageous people.

The redirection of funds by Director Walters for the Baltimore

targeting initiative was an appropriate and necessary initial Federal response to this very difficult problem of domestic narco-terrorism. The next step must be to ensure that this kind of effort can

continue without eroding the support for other important HIDTA

initiatives.

With that in mind, I have introduced legislation entitled the

‘‘Dawson Family Community Protection Act’’ that would make the

funding of initiatives like the Baltimore targeting initiative a permanent priority within the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The bill would require the Director of ONDCP to devote a minimum of $1 million annually to HIDTA initiatives that aim to increase safety for and encourage voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, residents of neighborhoods that are severely affected by

drug trafficking activity and related violence.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for lending your support for

H.R. 1599 as an original co-sponsor, and I look forward to working

with you to see that the legislation is enacted either on its own or

as part of the ONDCP reauthorization legislation the subcommittee

will consider in the coming weeks.

62

In the meantime, I also want to thank all of the witnesses again

for appearing before the subcommittee today, and I look forward to

hearing the answers to the various questions put to you by our

committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Ose, did you have a statement also?

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late.

I did want to get down here and make sure that I welcome Ms.

McCampbell here to our committee. She is the chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, and in

that role she has worked closely with my staff and the communities

that I represent across the State to improve our efforts to fight the

use and abuse of dangerous drugs and narcotics.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my compliments to those of the

other Members here to your’s and Mr. Cummings’ continuing commitment to this effort. I have a statement I would like to enter into

the record, but more than anything, I just want Christy

McCampbell to know she is welcome here.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

I am going to start with a few direct questions on the HIDTA.

And let me start as a followup to the last panel, if I can ask Ms.

McCampbell, the California partnership based in San Diego is part

of the overarching Southwest Border HIDTA. Do you agree with

ONDCP belief that greater authority should be given to the Southwest Border HIDTA to manage the five regional? Have you been

involved in this discussion at all? How would you ensure that the

individual partnerships do not take actions that negatively impact

other parts of the Southwest Border?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Well, I would have to say that I have not been

directly involved in those types of discussions, but I know our

CBAG, which is at San Diego and Imperial County, they do work

collectively with the entire Southwest Border, and I do believe that

we all need to be working together; that is the point of the

HIDTAs. And we do work together at this time, so I am not sure

to say it is really a separate entity is a fair thing. We have worked

together; we share intelligence, we share information, and we share

resources. So at this time we are part of the entire region.

Mr. SOUDER. We can have all nice general discussions, but sometimes it comes down to money, that part of the struggle that we

have at the Federal level when we devise a program like this, and

this is what we are trying to work through, is that each HIDTA

sees its money coming in, they make their plans based on their

money. What happens when there are shifts along the border in

particular? Because when we are successful in one area, they will

tend to move to another area. And the question is how do we make

the decision to shift those different funding mechanisms?

The theory behind Southwest Border that this subcommittee

clearly pushed for many years, particularly when Speaker Hastert

was here, was that it needed to be somewhat fungible money that

could move the intensity of the action where the gaps were. But

then we ran into different problems in each State. It is one thing

to talk theoretically about cooperation; it is another thing to say we

63

are doing these ongoing investigations, we don’t want the money

moved.

Any thoughts on that process of how to work through it? Because

there is never enough money to tackle all the problems. The bottom

line is nobody is saying that clearly there are parts of the Arizona

border that are wide open right now; whereas, in the California

border we have a little more, at least theoretically, control. That

doesn’t mean we have begun to eliminate the drug problem in California.

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. In the initiatives that I am familiar with

within our State, we actually do some shifting of funds in the particular initiatives. We just did that recently. We felt that in the

Bay Area, particularly, that we had met the mission of some of

those original initiatives, so the board of directors took that upon

themselves to say, OK, we have finished up with that initiative,

let’s redirect this to some new initiatives that are coming in. And

I think the key to this is to allow that board of directors who knows

the particular areas to have a lot of say into how those moneys are

spent.

Now, that doesn’t directly answer your question as to what do we

do with that vacant part over there in Arizona at the border. I do

agree that there has to be a shifting of funds; we don’t stay on the

same mission day in and day out forever. But I would like to emphasize that I think that those boards of directors, working in conjunction with ONDCP and with the HIDTA director, should have

the authority to be able to perhaps in fact do shifting changing

moneys.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Wiberg, we have a HIDTA in Chicago and a

HIDTA in Lake County. I am from the northeast part of Indiana,

where we tend to view Lake County as Lake County views itself,

as almost an adjunct of Chicago. Why would those two HIDTAs be

separate? In other words, part of what we are getting at the Southwest Border we need to look at in the Midwest as well, and that

is drug dealers don’t divide along State lines because they elect officials along State party lines; they work in geographic areas in distribution networks that aren’t our political subdivisions.

I know political reasons why it is helpful in Indiana to have

HIDTA. And I would ask a broader question. Not only Lake County, Chicago, but also why not a Great Lakes HIDTA or a West

Great Lakes and an East Great Lakes, knowing Chicago and Detroit face slightly different things? But, in other words, why

wouldn’t you look at it as a hub, if we are saying this for the

Southwest Border, and say how is it moving through the Great

Lakes region?

Mr. WIBERG. To be very honest with you, it would be very difficult for me to try and evaluate what occurs in other areas outside

of the city of Chicago.

Mr. SOUDER. OK, let us say Chicago and Lake County.

Mr. WIBERG. OK.

Mr. SOUDER. Because your guys are moving across the border.

Most people who live there don’t even know where the border is.

Mr. WIBERG. We have worked in conjunction with the Lake

County HIDTA, and it was very effective because they brought to

our table something that we were looking at with respect to anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:22 Oct 21, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\89455.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
64

other street gang that was involved in the sale of PCP. And please

understand, it is very difficult for me to make a judgment. I can

tell you the HIDTA in Chicago is very effective; it works. I would

like to see more of it, to be honest with you, for the surrounding

Chicagoland area. We need more initiatives. How that would compare with Indiana, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it would

be very difficult for me to respond to that.

Mr. SOUDER. My assumption is that, for example, in my hometown the narcotics were mostly coming from Detroit, but we found

gangs, kids who had moved in from Chicago. The logical connection

in most cases are going to be out of the major metro areas moving

through into the other areas, and this isn’t hard for an outsider to

see, and it is kind of exasperating to look at it from the outside and

not see a willingness inside the organizations to see the networking

pattern that comes with the narcotics coming from a long distance,

moving to regional networks, down into subregional networks,

down into smaller networks. And if we don’t, as a country, focus

on that, we are just going to continue to drown in the individual

cases.

The HIDTAs certainly have improved that coordination, and

what we are trying to get to is are there ways to further improve

that or are HIDTAs starting to become, in a sense, another jurisdictional potential problem inside this system if they start coming

in to the adjacency areas.

So you have had some cooperation with Lake County. Do you get

into the Milwaukee zone at all?

Mr. WIBERG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, presumably narco chains are going

to run up toward Milwaukee. Rockford?

Mr. WIBERG. Yes. Oh, definitely Rockford.

Mr. SOUDER. How do you interact with St. Louis?

Mr. WIBERG. From the time that I have been there, minimal. We

really don’t have that much involvement with St. Louis. A lot more

closer to, you know, Milwaukee, Indiana, obviously. From the investigations that I have been involved in or know my group involved with, St. Louis has been minimal. But please understand,

from a person who lives in Chicago and was a police officer for 37

years, I am glad the gangs are moving out of the city. You know,

I apologize if they are coming your way, but I am glad they are

moving that way. And I think that is one of the things that we

need to be aware of, because when the gangs move, they bring everything with them; they bring the violence and they bring the

drugs. And, again, I was stressing the fact that these drugs are not

just limited to gangs, but they have that head behind them, which

is the drug cartel.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First thing, your comment kind of concerned me about the fact, and I am sure this is happening everywhere, the resources that are being taken away from the drug enforcement going into homeland security and terrorism. And there

is no question we have to deal with both issues, but if you take one

away from narcotics and transfer it, and I would like to know from

maybe each one of you on the panel is that happening in all of your

65

jurisdictions, that the resources of manpower and moneys are going

more into the terrorism and drawing away from your operations?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Yes, I can respond to that. It has been devastating to California. I try not to take it personally, as heading

up narcotic enforcement, but, you know, in California the Governor

and the attorney general created CADIC, which is an acronym for

our intelligence system for homeland security for terrorism, and

they created that out of nothing. They had no budget when September 11 occurred. There was no budget and so to create this bureau they took it out of narcotic enforcement. And they took it out

of narcotic enforcement because who knows how to deal with things

going on the streets but the narcotics officers? We had informants;

we knew there were Middle Eastern connections to

pseudoephedrine sales that we, as narcotic enforcement officers,

had worked.

So 100 agents were taken out of Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement

to create CADIC. We were promised eventually that would be refunded and made up, but then in the meantime we have energy crises and everything else, and so we have not received any allotments or funding back from our own State government.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Romano, how about you in Baltimore?

Chief ROMANO. Sir, as you know, we are in Charlie status. A lot

of our moneys are going toward paying for overtime for officers and

try to secure a city against terrorist attacks. Being new to this city

and my initial impression of how serious the mayor and the police

commissioner are to fighting this war on drugs, even though a lot

of the moneys that I would normally be using to spend on training

and for rehabilitation and for overtime as it relates to the war on

drugs, there seems to be a huge commitment on the part of the

mayor and, again, the police commissioner to go out there and do

the job, and that is what we do. At some point I can only imagine

that the strain on the budget is going to affect the work that we

do.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. All the more reason why we need to encourage our President to give more money to first responders. I

mean, it has to be done, because it is not only affecting what we

are doing with our first responders, our police, our firefighters, and

our health officers, but it is affecting your enforcement abilities.

And after September 11 the terrorism issue will stay, we have to

do that, but we can’t take away from this drug situation. I think

the statistics are clearly 90 percent of all crime is drug-related.

That is about the national average. And we have to continue to

focus on that.

My investigation, which is limited, on HIDTA, I think most of

the jurisdictions like the fact that we have Federal, State, and

local; love the fact that we get some resources from the Feds because they have more money than anybody; but some of the complaints that I hear that HIDTA, in certain areas, might be putting

too much money into infrastructure and not enough into investigations, infrastructure being salary, rent, whatever that is. Do you

see that in any of your jurisdictions?

And I want to start with you, Mr. Romano, since I am from Baltimore and you are from Baltimore.

Chief ROMANO. Sir, if you could just repeat the question.

66

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Basically the question is the one complaint

I hear about HIDTA is that there should be more money put into

basic investigations than into infrastructure, infrastructure meaning salaries, rent, those type of things.

Chief ROMANO. HIDTA moneys that are utilized need to go beyond just certainly the infrastructure; we need to allocate moneys

toward that. There is another huge component which has to be addressed, and that is in just dealing with witnesses and securing

their safety and spending moneys to relocate them. In Baltimore

City, approximately 25 percent of the cases are dropped because

witnesses fail to appear, and this comes as a result of issues like

the Dawson case, where a family who vowed to stand up and fight

lost their lives in that fight.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I don’t mean infrastructures in the communities. Really what I am trying to get to, because we are in reauthorization, do you feel that the Federal part of HIDTA needs to

put more money into focusing on your target, on your investigations, you know, whatever the issues, or you don’t see that that is

an issue?

Chief ROMANO. No.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK.

Chief ROMANO. It has gotten more and more expensive to get this

job done in purchasing equipment, in dealing with, as it pertains

to Title 3, wiretapping, in dealing with companies that supply the

services. Back in the early 1980’s, when Title 3 on cellular phones

were very rare, it seemed as though a lot of the companies were

willing to help out law enforcement to the best of their ability. Now

it has actually become business for them; we have become just another customer, and the amounts of money that are spent are exorbitant.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Deal.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me thank all three of you for coming today, and

to thank you personally for what you do to fight the problem of

drugs and to ask that you express the appreciation of this committee and this Congress to your colleagues who do it on a daily basis.

I think sometimes almost we are at a point in the history of our

country where we take for granted that drugs are just an endemic

part of everyday life, and I think we need to get much more serious

about this so-called war on drugs, and I thank all of you and your

departments for what you do in that regard.

I think all of us can hopefully agree that we need to reauthorize

and hopefully to continue to enhance funding for all of these efforts, HIDTA and CTAC and every other effort that we have in

that regard. I would like to ask you a little different question,

though.

Ms. McCampbell, you are the only one of the panel whose State

actually borders one of the two countries that border us. I would

like to ask you have you made any overall general determination

of the country of transport, the last country of transport through

which the drugs are coming?

Mr. Wiberg, of course, you are closer to the Canadian border.

Where are these drugs actually being transported through? I know

67

we have done a lot to try to deal with the country of origin, with

Colombia and others, but what country are these drugs primarily

coming through to get to our country?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Well, it depends on which drugs. We certainly

know the issues, the pseudoephedrine dealing with methamphetamine in my State of California. We have found that a good portion

of the pseudoephedrine is coming over the Canadian border down

to California. Fortunately, we were able to create some laws that

restricted sales and the ability to get pseudoephedrine in the State.

Unfortunately, now they are not getting it in California, it is coming from Canada, and then being manufactured.

When you say the drugs themselves, we grow a lot of our own

marijuana there, but there is marijuana being imported from Mexico as well. But, frankly, that is not our most serious problem. If

you are going to prioritize, methamphetamine is our most serious

problem, and that I would have to say Canadian border and the

cookers, if you will, those manufacturing meth are coming across

themselves, body-wise, from Mexico.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Wiberg.

Mr. WIBERG. I think DEA probably can answer that question better than myself, but as an observer from the Chicago Police Department standpoint, Mexico has to take the lead with us. We don’t

really deal that much with the Canadian aspect of the

pseudoephedrine coming through. Customs has made some excellent cases out of that. I know DEA has made some also. Most of

it is the cocaine that comes into our city. And now we are graduating to white heroin, and that is Nigerian cartels now are becoming

involved with that very strongly. How they are getting it in, a lot

appears to be coming out of New York. That is what we see here

in Chicago.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Romano, how is it getting into New York? Where

is it coming from?

Chief ROMANO. Well, you know, spending a lot of time in debriefing those who have been arrested, especially high level, when I retired, I retired out of a New York drug enforcement task force office, and I spent a lot of time there doing money laundering, you

know, looking at the money leaving the country, back to the origin

countries, and in doing that it was no different than tracking the

drugs coming in. Basically, this is big business, and it is like being

in a maze, you get to a wall and you find yourself having to look

around for an alternate means to get through it, and these guys

are no different.

Mr. DEAL. Where was the country of transport, at least, or where

was the money going back to?

Chief ROMANO. The money was usually going back to South

America, finding its way back there. But, again, the money aspect,

there is a lot of big business here in the United States and a lot

of people who are willing to assist these individuals in getting

money out.

But as far as the drugs coming in, when we stopped up the ports

of entry, the Mexican borders, when we beef that up and we go

down to Miami and we beef up the borders and go into New York

and Canada, we are attacking those individuals coming in from

South America, from Mexico, so what they do is they have actually

68

found a way to go into Europe and come through Europe and work

their way back into the United States, because we pay less attention to individuals coming in from Europe than we do those coming

in from South America, because the mind-set is that drugs come

in from South America, so we beef up on the borders and we pay

no attention to a flight coming in from Spain. Spain is a huge, huge

point of origin where the drugs actually go from South America

into Spain, or somewhere in Europe, and find their way back into

the United States.

Mr. DEAL. Can I ask one quick followup? And, Ms. McCampbell,

I think it might be appropriate, since you are on the border State,

are you seeing any more cooperation on the other side of the border, on the Mexican side, to assist us to try to stop it before it ever

gets across the border, or is this all just what we are having to play

defense on our side of the border? Are you seeing any more cooperation?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Well, we are definitely playing defense on our

side, but I think we have definitely received more cooperation from

Mexico with their attorney general there. He seems to be cooperating with us. We have intelligence that works with Mexico, I know

DEA is working with Mexico, and I think there has been a definite

improvement over the last few years than what it used to be.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

We have been joined by Lieutenant Colonel Steve Moyer. If you

will stand, we need to swear you in, and then get your testimony.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witness responded in

the affirmative.

And, Mr. Bell, if I could go ahead and take summary of his testimony before we move to you for questioning.

Yes, Lieutenant Colonel Moyer?

Colonel MOYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It is my understanding that the State Police is here to support the reauthorization of issues as it relates to

the HIDTA. The Maryland State Police has been actively a part of

this, in cooperation with the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA since

1994. We have participated in showing that the development of the

Office of National Drug Control Policy are utilized in the management of investigative initiatives and administrative responsibilities

assigned in the Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area.

Most of the significant accomplishments has been the pioneering

and the use of a crime mapping tool for drug enforcement and operations planning and evaluation in this region. It also offers a case

explorer software, a case management system for law enforcement

agencies to help facilitate information sharing and intelligence

gathering on these types of operations.

Additionally, we have also worked with supporting enhancement

of technology such as the CAPWIN project, which is a communications software piece which helps us have interactions with other

law enforcement agencies in the region so we are not operating on

different frequencies when we are involved in these types of drug

operations.

69

Since Colonel Norris has been on board as of January 15, his priority has been to focus on homeland security, and over the last 18

months, in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Baltimore Police Department and Baltimore County Police Department,

and other entities in the Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area,

we are trying to foster a joint analysis center where we can take

all information related to crime and/or terrorism-related type activities so that we can have all the information coming into one

center so that it is shared with all Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the region.

With this, the Maryland State Police stands behind the HIDTA

and the initiatives, and with the hopes in future cooperation along

the lines of information sharing. The three major cases of recent

that brings rise and shows the exposure of how well we do interact

would be the Washington area sniper killings. HIDTA actually assisted us with the case management process on that.

I am the chief of the Homeland Security and Intelligence Bureau.

The State Police was tasked with taking those thousands of leads,

you know, whether it be Federal, State, or local, and putting that

information together so that law enforcement could stay focused on

making a successful conclusion to that case.

I think if you remember the tag number was actually obtained

by the Baltimore Police Department on a non-enforcement type

contact which linked the adult suspect in that case with the tag

number, which resulted in the arrest being made in Maryland, and

we have to give a lot of credit to HIDTA for bringing that software

forward to be used in that case, which brought it to a successful

conclusion.

And that would be the summary of State Police testimony.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. We will put your whole statement in

the record.

Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to something that was said about the diversion

of funds to homeland security and away from the war on drugs in

the various States.

And I believe, Chief McCampbell, you commented on that. Certainly it was the desire of many of us that after September 11 that

we move away from the protect the turf mentality that seemed to

exist throughout law enforcement, regardless of what area we were

talking about, and based on what we are told these days, that has

happened in regard to terrorism.

I am curious as to whether you all believe there is any way to

expand that concept and start building alliances between those who

are engaged in the war on drugs with those who are engaged in

homeland security. And where I am going with this, looking at like

port security. It seems to make perfect sense. And I represent the

Houston region. One of the major entry points for drugs is obviously the Port of Houston. There seems to be a natural crossover

there and a natural overlap there where folks could work together.

And I am just curious, Chief McCampbell, could you comment on

that?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Yes. That is a very good point, and, actually

we are starting to do that in our intelligence system, No. 1, our

70

RISS, our Regional Information Sharing network, which the

HIDTAs, they connect into, and that is how we all share our intelligence and put our information in on our drug cases. But now we

are putting some security information in there, and our war room

in the Los Angeles Clearinghouse is working on deconfliction of our

agents going out and looking at terrorism, possible suspects of terrorism. So we are doing that and we are doing it through the

HIDTAs.

Our ports of entry, I certainly have them in San Francisco, that

is one of our main initiatives. And we have agents at the ports of

entry and at the airport, and we are combining our efforts with our

own Statewide internal homeland security units.

Mr. BELL. Commander Wiberg, do you have any thoughts on

that?

Mr. WIBERG. I think we are in the embryonic stages of it, to be

honest with you. A lot of my people from narcotics graduate into

the intelligence and are mostly working on the terrorists. Unfortunately, from my standpoint, I am not getting anything back, and

obviously the experienced police officers that have that narcotics

background fall right into the training for the work of the terrorists. I think we need more of it.

I want to say after we recovered that 2,000 kilos, it made it very

apparent to me that if someone can smuggle that much quantity

of drugs in the country, what else can they bring in?

Mr. BELL. Sure.

Mr. WIBERG. And if we don’t have a closer association with those

people that are responsible for keeping an eye on those individuals,

then we are banging our heads against the wall, we are losing it

again; and I don’t think we should. I think it is very important that

we have this multi-agency exchange of information, be it on terrorists, be it on drug traffickers.

Mr. BELL. In looking at the HIDTA program overall, since we are

talking about reauthorization, and you are not going to hurt any

of our feelings if you have criticisms of the program, are there

problems that need to be addressed going forward from this point?

Lieutenant Colonel, we can start with you.

Colonel MOYER. Yes, sir. The amount of success and cooperation

we have had with HIDTA in the Baltimore/Washington area is phenomenal. As I mentioned, and I can go back to the statements that

were just made, trying to put this joint analysis center together, we

will be taking crime information as well as the information related

to terrorism; and whether it is Federal, State, or a local law enforcement agency, and even the military branches want to participate with us, we want to get all the information into one center so

that we can get the information back out to all of law enforcement.

You know, what was mentioned was, you know, a lot of the people with the drug experience is from the law enforcement arena

and others, you know, are going into the terrorism identification

type work. But we feel it is a benefit to bring everything together

because, you know, cases that we feel will lead you into a terrorist

type investigation, are those people out there with false identities

or doing some money laundering, which all can tie back into several of the drug operations.

71

So we would support that in enhancing and broadening it so it

can work together with both, because we feel there is a lot of overlap that will show once we put all the data bases together.

Mr. BELL. Anyone else want to comment on changes or problems

that they would like to see addressed?

Mr. WIBERG. From the Chicago standpoint, I would like to see

more initiatives, is one. I don’t feel we have enough. And that may

be because of resources.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you explain what you mean by initiatives?

Mr. WIBERG. More initiatives relative to working the cases involving the drug cartels and their correlation with respect to the

open air drug markets that we have so many of. In every situation

that we are involved in, be it a wiretap or an investigation, it is

either popping up to a Nigerian cartel or a Mexican or Colombian

cartel, and it is all the way from the individual who is buying a

$10 bag of dope all the way up, and it goes that far; and the violence that occurs as a result of that.

These street corners now are tremendous amounts of real estate,

and they bear a lot of money, and people are willing to do whatever

is necessary to protect them, defend them, and ensure that no one

takes them from them. Consequently, we need more initiatives

along the lines of doing more street conspiracy cases with HIDTA

involvement. We have HIDTA involvement now; we would like to

have more.

Like anywhere else, we are all suffering from manpower constraints; Chicago Police Department Narcotics Section is no different. And I think with respect to that, I think by having the initiatives we can make it more conducive to bring more police officers

in for more training, whatever.

One of the things that has not hit Chicago as of yet, and I have

my fingers crossed, but I am not very optimistic, is the methamphetamine. We have had three within the last year, which we

consider ourselves very fortunate, but it is very apparent from surrounding suburbs that it is very close, and it is getting closer everyday. And I think that is something that we need to really address from a Federal standpoint, along with the HIDTA, to be honest with you.

The second thing that I think is even more important is that because the financial gains that are being made by these drug operations, we need more involvement from the Federal Government

relative to financial, to the financial end of going after these individuals. As the mayor of the city said, you know, you can go in any

neighborhood and they will be glad to tell you who the drug dealers

are, and most of the Chicago policemen could tell you that too. It

is just, you know, when they are driving around in their fancy cars,

living in their homes that are extravagant, you know, who is going

after them? And realistically, right now, nobody. Nobody. And that

is the reality in Chicago, nobody is going after the financial end of

these individuals. And if it is being done, it is being done on a very

small basis, and that is not acceptable when you have a street corner that can generate the kind of money that they are generating.

Mr. BELL. Chief McCampbell.

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. There has been, if you will, in the rumor mill,

or talk of consolidating the HIDTAs and putting them under the

72

umbrella of, say, the OCDETFs or some other Federal being, and

I would like to emphasize, and I did mention it in my testimony,

but I would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the balance of having Federal, State, and local participation and acting as

the board of directors, because it is my belief that if we went under

just the OCDETFs or under just the straight Federal guidelines, if

you will, that we would lose participation, and I think like a local

sheriff would go why do I need to put my agents in another Federal

program? And I think the structure of the HIDTAs, where you

allow the sheriffs and the chiefs and the State and locals to be on

the board, I think that is an important presence, and I think it is

an excellent part of the HIDTAs and one that I hope does not go

away.

Mr. BELL. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank Chief Romano and the Lieutenant Colonel Moyer for being here.

Let me just ask you all a few questions. Chief Romano, you

talked about this whole issue of 25 percent of the cases being

dropped because of witness problems and, more specifically, I

guess, witnesses being threatened. I live in the inner city of Baltimore and I talk to lks all the time, and people are scared to death.

I believe that you can see crimes committed in my neighborhood

and nobody would tell, and I don’t think the Dawson case helped.

Matter of fact, I think it hurt tremendously.

I am just wondering how do you deal with that kind of issue, I

mean, that is, of threatened witnesses? Because I think if we are

not careful in this country, we will find ourselves in a situation like

they find themselves in Colombia, where you just don’t get the cooperation and the drug dealers take over.

Chief ROMANO. Well, this problem goes beyond simply having

someone pick up the phone and make a call and having the police

respond and making an arrest. We, as a police department, have

to forge a tremendous relationship with the community.

In dealing with the prosecution and the cases, we have to make

the best cases that we can make so that the community sees an

individual taken off the street, brought to justice, and then incarcerated, because too often what they are seeing is that an individual, they will pick up a phone and call in about, will be back out

on the street a week, a month, a year later. There is no sense of

feeling that you e safe when a person that you are directly responsible for putting away is back out there an hour, a day later.

So certainly us, as a police department, we need to make the best

cases that we can make. We have to go out there and speak with

the community and let them know that there are avenues available

to them so that they can be safe. Take a family and relocate them,

almost like witness protection. Let us do this, but, again, to do

things like this we need moneys.

But our relationship with the community is probably the most

important part of this whole process, and just trust, trusting the

police, because as much as they don’t like the drug dealers, there

are a lot of other issues that they have to deal with, and in the

73

process we will find a way to forge a relationship with them and

allow them to feel as though there is safety if they come forward.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Lieutenant Colonel, did you want to join in?

Colonel MOYER. The comment that I can make is I think you

were well aware that I was on loan with the Department of Juvenile Justice for the last 3 years, helping them get through their

issues there in Maryland, and still what we run into is what was

just mentioned; it is the ability to keep, as far as juveniles go, keep

those youths off of the streets for reasons of the problems that they

are creating in their neighborhoods when they go back home. But

there is also that issue of offering some type of protection when

they are involved or when they become a target or their family becomes a target because of their involvement in the drug trade in

Baltimore.

I think what was mentioned was through Steve Hess and the

U.S. Attorney’s Office there are victim assistance and witness assistance type programs, but, again, it is a funding issue and being

able to have the capacity to do that for certain cases which may

not be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and rests locally

with the State’s attorney’s office.

I know in having personally talked to some of the youth that

were detained at Cheltenham and at the Hickey School, there were

times when they would act up intentionally just to stay there on

the grounds of those two schools so they would not return to the

street and be confronted with people that they may owe some

money to from a drug transaction.

But, again, it boils down to having the right amount of funding

available to offer that type of protection for the cases, which are

not the huge case that is going before the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see my time has run out, but I want to thank

all of you for what you do everyday. This drug problem is a very,

very serious problem, and sometimes I don’t think that a lot of people understand how devastating and how far-ranging it is and the

many families that it affects; and you all put your lives on the line

everyday and your welfare on the line everyday to make a difference, and we really appreciate what you all do, and we want to

make sure that we do everything in our power to help you do what

you have to do. And this subcommittee has been very, very supportive of law enforcement and at the same time been very supportive of trying to bring treatment to our communities so that we

can have that dual approach, addressing the law enforcement portion but also dealing with the treatment and prevention so that you

don’t have as much of a problem to deal with.

And so we thank you all for being here. We really appreciate it.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. We will have additional written questions, but I wanted to pursue just a couple of things here yet at

the end of this panel.

We made a tactical decision, in putting this panel together, not

to have HIDTA directors themselves, who would have a direct vested interest, but to have representatives of a number of different

narcotics agencies to tell you your reactions of the HIDTAs. We

have been meeting with HIDTA directors all over the country, getting all sorts of information in, and it is a little like Garrison

74

Keeler and Lake Wobegone, all the men are good looking, all the

women are strong, and all the kids are above average.

And the problem we get is everybody is above average; we don’t

get any problems identifying. But a couple have jumped out here,

and I particularly wanted to ask Mr. Wiberg a couple of questions.

I don’t think you want to give the impression, nor do you mean

to give the impression, that in Chicago it is worse than everybody

else, but you may have given us a window that we do not often get

to see, when you said that there aren’t investigations occurring. I

want to zoom in a little bit on what you meant about the drug markets and the Colombians and the Mexicans and so on, because we

are paying, in Chicago, for example, we have huge agencies that

are dealing with trying to traffic back and trace that back to Colombia and Mexico. Yet you are saying they aren’t being pursued,

and you are the commander of the Narcotics Division of the Chicago Police Department.

What precisely are you saying? Are you saying there is not the

efforts; it has been cut back?

Mr. WIBERG. Please understand, Mr. Chairman, we are pursuing

and Federal agencies are pursuing the drug dealers. What is not

being pursued is the financial end at all. At all. It is not being pursued from the individuals that are the gang leaders, gang structure

of selling drugs.

Mr. SOUDER. Not going after their assets under asset forfeiture

law? Is that a U.S. attorney’s problem?

Mr. WIBERG. To be honest with you, we don’t see IRS involved

in anything. These individuals have been conducting business for

a number of years, and I don’t think they are paying taxes, and

IRS, we have given them information and it just falls on deaf ears,

to be honest with you. There is no involvement on their part.

Mr. SOUDER. Have there been cases made by the police department working with ATF, with DEA, with FBI, where the U.S. attorney has gone after the money?

Mr. WIBERG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. And then it is not being followed through is what

you are saying.

Mr. WIBERG. Definitely not. There is no follow-through on the

part of IRS.

Mr. SOUDER. Are you part of and does the HIDTA in Chicago

have subgroups like was alluded to in Mr. Romano’s testimony, and

which we have seen in other areas, where you have multiple different task forces taking care of different problems?

Mr. WIBERG. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Is this one of them? Why wouldn’t this be one?

Mr. WIBERG. Well, let me say this. They have been invited to the

table; they just haven’t shown up yet.

Mr. SOUDER. IRS?

Mr. WIBERG. IRS.

Mr. SOUDER. But that is the only agency?

Mr. WIBERG. And we have presented to IRS.

Mr. SOUDER. Have you gone to Treasury as opposed to IRS? Because Treasury is the prosecuting.

75

Mr. WIBERG. I understand, sir. The mayor gave to whomever 10

names of people that we had worked, that we know had tremendous amount of assets, and where that is at, I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. OK. I appreciate your frankness, because that is

what we are trying to figure out.

Mr. WIBERG. But please don’t misunderstand. We have a tremendous effort on the part of working the cartels for enforcement by

everyone, everyone involved. The problem rests with the financial

end, like I said; it is not being done.

Mr. SOUDER. The other question I wanted to ask, which now that

I am over 50 my mind occasionally drifts. I was reading something

else there.

Let me see if it comes back to me in a second. Well, I lost it.

Does anyone else on the panel have any additional questions?

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The prior panel, I think it was Mr. Burns

that testified, and I asked him the question about resources being

taken away from Federal law enforcement because of the terrorism

issue, and all three members of the panel here said that clearly is

an issue.

Now, from your perspective, from more the local, State level, do

you see that resources are also being drawn away from the Federal

law enforcement agencies as a result of what is happening with the

terrorism issue? Because we are trying to do reauthorization, and

we want to focus on what is right, and we know that we need the

resources and we know that we have to deal with the issue of terrorism and we have to deal with the issue of drugs, narcotics. Now,

you know, if we need more resources, more probably in the terrorism so that you won’t lose resources, do you see that also on a Federal level too?

Mr. SOUDER. That is my question as well. Let me try another

angle, if I may.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You gave me the ESP.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

This is a touchy subject, and I am the new homeland security,

and I am particular on the border committee, and we inserted, with

my initiation and the Speaker pushing it, a narcotics connection inside the new Department of Homeland Security. But this is indisputable, a couple of the facts. FBI has been asked to concentrate

on homeland security, not narcotics, and they are pulling officers

off the case. Customs and Border Patrol are trying to sort through

what their responsibilities are, given the fact they are now under

homeland security and that is their No. 1 priority.

Presumably, if they are following orders at the local level, you

have seen a reduction in Federal cooperation in drug enforcement

in those agencies. Is that true?

Colonel MOYER. I think what we are seeing in Maryland is that

we are in a transition, you know, right now, and having a meeting

with Gary Bald, who is the special agent in charge at the Baltimore office, we know that they are redirecting some resources, but

I don’t think we felt the overall impact of what the Bureau’s involvement will be there in the Baltimore area.

And I can hand it off to my colleagues from there.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Also you are DEA also.

76

Colonel MOYER. And DEA, correct.

Chief ROMANO. Based on what I have seen so far, it seems as

though our representation in the task forces and the assistance

that we are getting from the task forces has been fine. I basically

arrived here in Baltimore yesterday, but have been here several

weeks ago, over the past couple weeks to start looking at what

needs to be addressed here; and the areas as they pertain to our

Federal task forces, whether they be Customs task forces, DEA

task forces, FBI task forces, there seems to be a very good working

relationship with them.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. My questions is not the working relationship. Are resources being taken away, manpower, and moved over

to the terrorist issue? And if it is the case, I mean, we want to

know about it so we can try to raise an issue. My issue, which I

stated before, is that we need to encourage the President to give

more resources to first responders so that the resources do not have

to be taken away from your goal and mission, which is to fight

drugs and arrest people with drugs. And that is what I am looking

for in my question.

If you haven’t been here that long, you probably don’t know yet,

because you don’t know what was there and what is not going to

be there, so probably a month from now you will be able to answer

the question a lot better.

Chief ROMANO. That is correct, sir.

Ms. McCampbell. We have definitely seen, in particular, our military, our National Guard has been taken off almost all of our drug

cases. They were very dominant in helping us with our weed and

seed programs with our marijuana eradication. They were actually

out there whacking weeds with us up in the mountains, and they

have all been taken off that.

Now, I understand military, it is a whole separate thing, but this

is our State, our National Guard, which has always been very helpful in drug eradication in our State. That is one.

The second part of that is FBI. They were very helpful, we

worked very closely with them on drug cases until September 11,

and they were part of our task forces, and almost all of them have

been taken out of the drug business and their resources are all

going to, you know, homeland security type of issues.

DEA I personally have not seen that their mission has been decreased in working drugs from a State perspective.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So as a result of that, is that impacting on

your abilities to do the job that you need to do?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Yes.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK.

Mr. SOUDER. She didn’t mention Customs and Border Patrol.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What?

Mr. SOUDER. She didn’t mention Customs and Border Patrol.

Have they had a reduction in the amount working on narcotics as

opposed to terrorism?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Yes, they have. We certainly had much Border

Patrol participation down at the border. Actually, to some extent

they were very helpful, because when they were looking for terrorists, as opposed to drugs, we were getting bad people and drugs

that were at the border. But really their mission, I think, has been

77

much more toward homeland security now than it has looking for

drugs at the borders.

And as far as Customs, they certainly participate in our task

forces, but they have been kind of in limbo right now because some

of them, at least on the street level, don’t exactly know who or

where they are working because of the combining of them into

homeland security. I think they are struggling with identity right

now.

Mr. WIBERG. If I may, I think it is the situation, at least in Chicago, that everybody is doing more with less. The relationships we

have had with DEA go back as far as I can remember. We have

good relationships with all the agencies, but we are all doing more

with less. September 11 has affected every agency within the

Chicagoland area. Customs is drifting. A lot of times we are being

involved now with assisting Customs with cases that they have,

taking some of my officers and assisting them in cases they have,

which do not directly have anything to do with the narcotics end

of it, but maybe homeland security.

But all the agencies that I deal with, all the Federal agencies are

doing more with less, and we are trying to combine, and I think,

you know, it is becoming very apparent that we become more effective when we are all together because there isn’t a lot of us independently, to be honest with you.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. No further questions.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think basically what Chairman Souder and Mr.

Ruppersberger are aiming at is that we have always been concerned about balance, having a balance. I have often said that

while we are fighting terrorists and fighting outside forces, we have

to be carful that we don’t erode from the inside or implode. And

I just wanted to figure out, I mean, do you all see the problem as

such, just to put the final question on what they have been saying,

are there things that you would like for us to do as a Congress to

help you? Do you think the problem is that bad or do you feel confident that it is just a temporary situation?

For example, the National Guard helping you out, is that something that you feel is very important right now, or do you feel that,

you know, you can kind of go without it? And if you can go without

it, what impact does it have?

You know, those are the kind of things that we have to have a

pretty good understanding of because we are all of us, one thing

that Democrats and Republicans agree on, we don’t agree on a

whole, whole lot, but we do agree that the people’s taxes should be

spent effectively and efficiently. And so, you know, we are just wondering what would you have us do, if anything?

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. I would like to respond to that. I think what

I am very concerned about, being in the narcotic business, is that

with the creation of homeland security and the surrounding issues

of that, that we in narcotic enforcement are going to get lost. It certainly has put narcotic enforcement to the back burner in my State,

that is for sure, and I would certainly ask you for continued support, continued funding. I need the help of the National Guard, and

they are virtually closing down on their drug interdiction business

that they had been in. I need that help from them. I need the FBI

to help on our local task forces and our local areas. And certainly

78

I can’t work without DEA. I mean, they are as important as anybody can be in our State.

And so I don’t know exactly what the answer is, I suppose it is

always funding, but if there is some way that we can make sure

that narcotic enforcement doesn’t fall to the background under the

shadow of homeland security, we need to do that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When the homeland security legislation came

through, Chairman Souder and I were very concerned about narcotics efforts, law enforcement efforts not getting the kind of attention that we thought it should continue to get, and we had put in

an amendment to make sure that there was a person in Homeland

Security to address the issue of drugs in this country. We didn’t get

the level that we wanted, but we did make sure that we got somebody in there to keep their eye on the drug problems here, because

we were so afraid that some of the things that you are talking

about right now would happen, and we need to kind of figure out

how we get to the powers that be to begin to look at some of these

issues.

Ms. MCCAMPBELL. Just in response to that, I believe the appointment is Mr. Mackin. And I had an opportunity to meet with him

very briefly at the National Coalition of Narcotic Officer Association’s meeting last week, which, by the way, Chairman Souder was

awarded a very prestigious award of being in the House of Representatives, the most honored person in the House of Representatives. But I did have a chance to meet with Mr. Mackin last week,

and he actually has contacted me and is going to be coming out to

California to discuss these exact issues. So I was quite pleased to

hear that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So now you know who was responsible for Mr.

Mackin even having a position to get. It is nice to take credit for

something up here for a change.

Congratulations, Mr. Chairman, by the way.

Anybody else want to respond to that?

Colonel MOYER. The only thing that I would like to add to that

is that I think, like I said, we have a great working relationship

with our partners. You know, the FBI has admitted that they will

be backing away. I think we need to see who will be picking up

that extra load. But you have already mentioned, I think, with the

focus on enforcement, as well as treatment, needs to be paramount,

and especially in the Baltimore area, treatment. I would echo what

you have already said, that if there is dollars that can come toward

Maryland in that effort, that would be great.

But as far as enforcement goes, a lot of the enhancements that

have come through HIDTA have been from a technology point of

view. The ability to have deconfliction so you don’t have officers

from different agencies or different task forces overlapping is very

important, but, additionally, the surveillance equipment ability, to

be able to watch particular hot spot areas or drug corners and marketing type areas where you don’t have to put the human resource

there undercover on the street, where you can monitor the activity

from a distance, would be a huge enhancement for all of us.

Mr. WIBERG. Might I also interject more funding for hiring more

agents and more police officers. Those are the first responders, and

we are running out of them.

79

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you all very much.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank you for your testimony. As Mr. Cummings

said, it was one of only two changes in the original markup of the

bill. We are very concerned about the long-term trends. I do believe

the border security will be a benefit; in other words, as we tighten

that up, we will catch them at the borders more.

We are concerned in obviously having Asa Hutchinson and Mr.

Bonner from Customs there, they were former DEA guys, but I

think there will be a narrowing in of DEA being the primary Federal, and that means they can’t take a reduction; and that hopefully less is more will work, because we are in a very difficult situation as advocates of the anti-narcotics effort. Either we have to

argue that we haven’t been efficient in the past or that when we

reduce resources going to narcotics, we are going to have a rise in

narcotics; and we don’t like either one of those points.

But we are now at that position in the U.S. Congress is the less

is more will work to a point, but we have to show the specifics or

we are going to look at longer term questions as we see resources

diverted, as they certainly are and we are hearing on a regular

basis.

But thank you each for your work. Thank you for your testimony,

and appreciate your coming in today. If you have any further additions you want to add to the record, send them to us.

Mr. SOUDER. If the third panel will now come forward. Mr. Ron

Burns, the chief of the Lakewood, CO Police Department; Mr. Peter

Modafferi, chief of detectives, Rockland County, NY District Attorney’s Office.

The third panel is one of the less glamorous, in Washington

terms, issues in the supply of equipment in the OCDETF program,

but it is one of the most important things at the local level.

If both of you will remain standing, I will give you your oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that both witnesses responded

in the affirmative.

Thank you for your patience. This has been a long hearing, but

it will be most likely the only hearing, particularly on the subject

that you are about to address, and one of the most important programs in the Nation regarding local law enforcement. So thank you

for taking the time to come to Washington and be willing to testify.

Chief Burns.

STATEMENT OF RON BURNS, CHIEF, LAKEWOOD, CO POLICE

DEPARTMENT; AND PETER MODAFFERI, CHIEF OF DETECTIVES, ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Chief RON BURNS. Chairman Souder and distinguished members

of the subcommittee, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on

Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for the opportunity to testify regarding the effectiveness of the Counterdrug

Technology Assessment Center [CTAC]. The role of CTAC in the

research and development of technological measures for Federal

and local law enforcement agencies has benefited the efforts of the

Lakewood Police Department and the Federal and local agencies in

the Denver area.

80

The city of Lakewood is located in the metropolitan Denver area.

There are 43 local, county, and State law enforcement agencies, in

addition to several Federal law enforcement agencies in that area.

Drug trafficking, crime, and exceptional incidents have no jurisdictional boundaries. Collaboration and multi-jurisdictional efforts are

essential to combating illicit drug trafficking and crime. Our law

enforcement agencies operate typically with incompatible radio

communications systems. During multi-jurisdictional efforts we

cannot communicate with each other. Our department has experienced these difficulties on many occasions, including the Columbine

incident.

In September 2000, the Lakewood Police Department hosted an

evaluation of various technologies that link the communication signals from one radio, and it is typically from a diverse system, directly into all other radios selected for interoperability. The evaluation was successful and the system, the ACU–1000, was selected

and made operational in 2001. The cost of the system, and this was

for the equipment, was $194,971 and was entirely funded through

the ONDCP, CTAC, and the Navy’s SPAWAR Systems Center in

San Diego. Installation was very smooth and the cooperation with

coordinating Federal agencies was excellent.

Today the system is operational on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis

and hosts 15 local, State, and Federal agencies. The Lakewood Police Department’s Technical Operations Unit provides ongoing

maintenance and support. During 2002 the system was used on the

average of once a day, or almost 38 times a month, for inter-jurisdictional operations. Very frequently, DEA, U.S. Customs, the FBI,

and local law enforcement use the system in drug investigations.

Their surveillance includes the use of aircraft linked with the

ACU–1000 to follow suspected drug dealers. The system was also

used in a bomb threat at the Denver Federal Center, and in the

summer of 2002 to coordinate emergency response to front line firefighters during the worst forest fire in Colorado history. This technology has not only solved a communications problem, but also enhanced the overall cooperation among participating agencies.

Cooperation among local, State, and Federal agencies is critical

in the investigation of illegal drug operations, crime reduction, and

large-scale events, and now with the threat of terrorists’ activities.

The ability of public safety agencies to communicate is absolutely

essential. The ACU–1000 radio interoperability successfully solves

this communications issue by linking radio systems from various

and diverse systems or signals. Hopefully, this system will be expanded to include entire metro areas and to link with other areas

of interoperability systems across the country, building a national

network.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a success story of the

cooperation between Federal agencies and local law enforcement.

This project is a resounding success and could not have been accomplished without the House Committee on Government Reform,

and the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and

Human Resources, and CTAC. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Chief Ron Burns follows:]

81

82

83

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. It is good to hear a success

story.

Mr. Modafferi.

Mr. MODAFFERI. Good afternoon, Chairman Souder. Thank you

for this opportunity to speak to you this morning in support of the

Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.

My name is Peter A. Modafferi, and I am the chief of detectives

of the Rockland County, NY District Attorney’s Office. I also chair

the Police Investigative Operations Committee of the International

Association of Chiefs of Police, and I sit on a number of boards,

working groups, and committees concerned with issues related to

criminal investigations. Those positions include, among others,

serving as a Technical Expert for CTAC’s Technology Transfer Program and serving as a member of the FBI’s Law Enforcement Executive Forum, two projects which are concerned with how technology affects law enforcement’s ability to conduct criminal investigations.

In the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office I am responsible for the supervision of criminal investigations in Rockland

County, including those conducted by the Rockland County Narcotics Task Force. The Task Force is an investigative unit under the

District Attorney which is comprised of investigators and support

staff from eight different agencies. It is under the operational command of a director, Captain Joseph Tripodo of the New York State

Police, and the assistant director, William Manti, a Supervisory Investigator with the District Attorney’s Office.

I offer this explanation of our Drug Task Force to emphasize the

need for and the successes garnered from interagency cooperation.

Cooperation is essential at all levels of government, and it is the

foundation on which the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center is built.

There are two parts of the CTAC program that Rockland County

and law enforcement nationwide have benefited from: the Technology Transfer Program and the Research and Development Program.

The Technology Transfer Program provides State and local law

enforcement agencies with technologies without encumbering the

budgets of the applying departments. Through that program, Rockland County has been able to maintain its ability to conduct courtauthorized or electronic surveillance while investigating mid to

upper-level drug trafficking organizations.

As you are aware, the technology in the communications industry

has changed dramatically over the past decade. Those changes

have severely limited the ability of law enforcement agencies to

conduct investigations utilizing electronic surveillance.

The Technology Transfer Program has supplied Rockland County

with equipment which is critical to our mission. One such piece of

equipment is a digital wiretap system, Voice Box 3. This allows us

to conduct electronic surveillance in accordance with changes

brought about by the Communications Act to Assist Law Enforcement. In addition to supplying these systems, CTAC maintains contact with the agencies that receive equipment, and through training and consultation address the needs and issues that arise. Our

84

experiences with the support we receive from CTAC has been outstanding.

In addition to TTP, Rockland County has been involved in research and development projects through CTAC. While these

projects are manpower-intensive for Rockland County, the county

and other agencies benefit greatly when projects that are developed

become products made available to law enforcement through TTP.

CTAC makes it possible for agencies like Rockland County Narcotics Task Force to do its job effectively. This was dramatically

proven when, during investigation which culminated in June 2002,

the Rockland County Narcotics Task Force found a gaping hole in

our border security. While in the course of intercepting conversations pertaining to smuggling of cocaine through Kennedy Airport,

we were shocked to hear the drug traffickers we were targeting discuss a highly successful and lucrative alien smuggling operation.

We immediately notified DEA, Customs, and INS, all of whom

joined our investigation.

In addition to the 51 drug-related arrests prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern

District of New York prosecuted seven individuals for passport

fraud and alien smuggling. The Rockland County Narcotics Task

Force, utilizing equipment made available to us through CTAC,

found and helped address a serious weakness in the security of our

Nation.

Local law enforcement is faced with technological change everyday. We need the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center to

continue to be effective.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has done an outstanding job

of implementing the Communications Act to Assist Law Enforcement. There are, however, obstacles yet to be addressed. CTAC

helps us address these needs. In my opinion, the communication industry views law enforcement as a profit center; they charge exorbitant fees to make connections necessary to conduct court-ordered

electronic surveillance.

Law enforcement agencies will continue to work with CTAC to

seek technical solutions to limit the impact of this problem; however, these exorbitant phone company charges may soon eliminate

our ability to conduct electronic surveillance. This would be devastating to the safety and security of our Nation.

I would like to thank Dr. Brandenstein, who is seated to my left,

for his leadership in this wonderful program, and I would like to

thank you for this opportunity to speak before you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Modafferi follows:]

85

86

87

88

89

90

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you both for your concise testimony. We will

insert the entire statement in the record. It is important that we

build on the hearing record on reauthorization, the importance of

this program, and it is important to local law enforcement.

Could you each tell us how you and your agencies first learned

about the Technology Transfer Program?

Chief RON BURNS. I have been with two other agencies, actually

three other agencies other than Lakewood, CO, and we heard about

the Technology Transfer Program primarily through our involvement with HIDTA, our involvement with DEA, and then through

local and federally based task forces.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you get the impression in Colorado that it has

kind of been a rolling process, that as more people get access to the

technology, people ask them where they heard about it and then

it is connected, or do you think it is more top-down?

Chief RON BURNS. No, I think that is the case. You know, technology is continually developing, and as new items come into use,

as new technologies are discovered, you know, one agency will get

them and then the word will spread.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Modafferi, could you tell us how you and your

agency first learned, and then how you think others learn in the

primary way? Because the difference is that had it come top-down

and every department known about it, we would know kind of the

finite about a demand. But if it has been kind of a trickle in, it

means the demand is going to build as more people hear about it

from other local departments and subdepartments.

Mr. MODAFFERI. That is an interesting question. We are very

pleased with what we have received from CTAC, and we hope we

continue to receive as much as it spreads out with our success.

We first heard of CTAC through a former chief investigator with

the New York State Organized Crime Task Force who became an

employee of CTAC. He got us involved; we have had tremendous

successes, and our success has been noted by the media in the New

York metropolitan area and I think has gotten people to call us and

ask how you did that, where did you get that equipment from, and

we have promoted CTAC.

The other way that I am promoting CTAC nationwide is through

the Police Investigative Operations Committee of the International

Association of Chiefs of Police. Dr. Brandenstein has appeared before the Committee and explained the program; he has stood before

it and been grilled on questions, and he has been very favorably

received. So people leave the different IACP functions and conferences with a better knowledge of CTAC, and I am sure that

played a role in the growing demand for it.

Mr. SOUDER. What is interesting is when he came to Fort Wayne

and the areas north of Fort Wayne, a fair number of people were

exposed to it for the first time. Some had heard that other departments had it, and many of the departments already had applied or

had gone off on their own because they had heard earlier. It is a

combination, but my feeling is that it is a building demand.

Is there anything in the process that you believe could either be

streamlined or improved, as we look at reauthorization, as far as

from the local law enforcement standpoint as far as clarity, what

it takes to go through, the amount of paperwork, clarity, or even

91

other types of technology that clearly would help in the anti-narcotics effort?

Chief RON BURNS. Well, actually, I asked that question of the

technicians and the operational people who really were at the

grassroots level developing this system, you know, were there any

problems whatsoever. There were none. I mean, it was very, very

smooth. The development, the testing of the equipment, the installation all went very, very smooth; I couldn’t have asked for any

more cooperation.

Mr. MODAFFERI. From my experience, it has been an outstanding

relationship. I also sit as a technical expert, regional expert for

CTAC, and I review the applications that come in from the northeast, and as word spreads of CTAC, the numbers increase, the volume of the applications, and I do find that certain departments are

asking for equipment that they couldn’t possibly utilize; an eightman police department in the State of Maine will ask for a wiretap

system that costs a tremendous amount of money, but they

wouldn’t have the personnel to conduct a wiretap.

So it is something that I have spoken to Dr. Brandenstein about

and it is something that we are addressing. I think when we talk

about the CTAC program, we have to make people understand

where they fit into it, as opposed to they can just get all this equipment that would be great to have; but logic has to enter into this

someplace, and how do you logically put that equipment to best

use.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is the research and development duplicative of

the National Institute of Drug Abuse, what they do? I mean, is it

the same kind of thing?

Mr. MODAFFERI. Not at all. The research and development program that we are involved in with CTAC is specifically related to

conducting drug investigations to a degree that it is very specific

projects that we work on, very specific equipment that couldn’t be

used anyplace else in the criminal justice arena but narcotics investigations. It is region-specific, it is case-specific, and hopefully it is

stuff that can be used in other areas, but in other areas by people

with similar needs.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, they say that as we develop our technology, the folks who want to skirt the technology are constantly

coming up with new things to get around it. I mean, do we have

that; is that a major problem?

Chief RON BURNS. Well, I would say technology is continually

evolving, and, first of all, we have to adjust our enforcement and

our efforts to be flexible enough to respond to that, but then the

development of our technology I think continually has to be evolving. And as something is developed, something else may be developed to counteract that. So I guess the answer to that question is

yes, it is continually changing but, yes, we have to continually respond to that change technologically.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you have something? I am sorry.

Mr. MODAFFERI. I am sorry, sir. In preparing my statement for

today, I was going to go into more detail about what we have actually accomplished through CTAC, but we don’t put that out in our

92

press releases. I would be hesitant to speak about it anywhere because we have made some tremendous, tremendous technological

advances that we don’t want the bad guys to know. If they knew

we knew, they would change their approach, and at this point I

think we are doing some things that they just don’t know we can

do.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I will tell you I agree with you. I think, you

know, I don’t want them to know what you know either. And that

is the very reason why I asked that question, because I know that

when you have the amounts of money that are involved here, they

can certainly get folks or find people who are probably almost, if

not just, as sharp, as the people who do what you do. And so I was

just wondering about that.

When I see how far technology has come just in the last few

years, I mean it has been astounding. When I think that I can hold

one of these little things and be able to send messages all around

the world from just sitting right here, it is just astounding to me.

So I just was wondering, you know, exactly how you go about

making sure that you keep up with what they may be trying to do

to counter what you do. And so apparently you feel like you have

been very effective, and I assume you would, like everybody else,

love to see more money in the program. Is that right?

Chief RON BURNS. Absolutely. And, you know, I think we have

made tremendous strides with technology. I mean, in my days

working narcotics on the street, you know, I had a body bug system

that hardly even worked at all, and the technology today is just

tremendous, and I would like to see more support.

You know, in terms of this radio interoperability system, it has

been so helpful in regional investigations and drug investigations,

or counterterrorism investigations, and that is something that

probably wouldn’t have been thought of or we were able to do. We

could not have accomplished this, you know, 5 years ago as easily,

so it is just incredible the support that we have had.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you all.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you describe to me, Mr. Modafferi probably

would know most here, the process of when new technologies are

added? Is it a combination of something becomes available at the

national level that can be offered and requests that are coming up

from the local communities?

Mr. MODAFFERI. With CTAC, we have sources meetings periodically throughout the year in which we, in working with the

SPAWAR people and the Fort Huachuca, who does the technical

assistance for CTAC, we develop what we think should be in the

program and we ask vendors what they think they have to offer the

program, and we come out of these with new products that we put

into the booklet that makes it available to local law enforcement.

Mr. SOUDER. One other question regarding the, in general, on

this program as to how it works. You mentioned an example of

Maine possibly wanting a system that they didn’t have the ability

to utilize. And I believe I know the answer to the question, but I

want to have it in the record and understand how you measure

that and are there requirements if you get this equipment you have

to take X amount of training, you have to have somebody to staff

it?

93

Mr. MODAFFERI. Yes, before any training is given out by CTAC,

they have the mandatory training sessions around the country. But

before it reaches that point, it goes through a series of evaluations

by different CTAC staff people, up to and including myself, looking

at the northeast region, and very often I will look at an application

and I will say, you know, this really isn’t appropriate, and I will

call that police chief and talk to them about what else is available

in the program that he might be able to get a better bang for our

buck with, ours being the public’s, it is taxpayer money.

But once it is given out, it is seriously monitored, and if they

can’t pass muster on the training, it is not given.

Mr. SOUDER. And, Mr. Burns, when you received your equipment

and have looked at other departments in your region, as well as

your own, did you see that as also a request to you about whether

you will adequately staff or have maintenance abilities, those type

of things?

Chief RON BURNS. Well, our staff was trained in the operation

of the equipment and then effectively took over the ongoing maintenance with the help of CTAC. So we conduct our own maintenance

and system upgrades and ongoing maintenance currently with our

own staff, and they were trained through CTAC.

Mr. SOUDER. Do either of you have any additional things you

would like to add about the strengths or weaknesses of the program? You will probably be the only witnesses to this committee

and the full committee as far as what things we might want to do

in the reauthorization, do you have any suggestions?

Chief RON BURNS. I would just suggest, in my perspective, from

a local law enforcement agency in a metropolitan area, and that

would be to continue pushing the envelope looking for new technologies, and continually offering these products to local law enforcement agencies or metropolitan task forces in terms of drug

interdiction and terrorism. I think this has just been a tremendous

success for us, and I don’t know how we could actually operate it

without it effectively.

Mr. MODAFFERI. I would like to make a point; I made it in my

oral statement and my written statement. We are generalists at

our level, at local law enforcement; we handle not only narcotics,

but we handle everything from organized crime to terrorism. And

it is important that the committee realize that at our level the

equipment that is being used is used not only in drug fighting, but

also in terrorism. I mentioned our case with Kennedy Airport.

And there are different things that are available through CTAC,

night vision equipment, hidden compartment detectors, digital

wiretap systems, satellite-based trackers, radio interoperability systems. All of those are vitally important not only to the drug arena,

but also to terrorism, and I think when you get to our level, the

very local level of law enforcement, CTAC has to continue acting

the way it is acting in supporting local law enforcement because we

do share our equipment and we do make it available.

The other thing that I mentioned in my statement is not a

CTAC-related issue, but it is one very dear to my heart, and it is

about the communications industry acting like we are profit centers; and I wish at someplace in Congress they would address that

issue, because we may have the equipment, but with what we are

94

being charged by the phone companies, we may be soon unable to

use it.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. You mean rates, basically?

Mr. MODAFFERI. Yes, the things they charge us to hook up.

Mr. SOUDER. I would like to pursue two other things here. We

are getting ready to vote. I know you have both come a long way,

but you heard the earlier discussions that we had on HIDTAs. Presumably both of you have seen and had interactions in that. Do either of you have anything you would like to add on the record as

far as the HIDTA debates?

Chief RON BURNS. In our area, we operate a task force, a drug

task force that is made up of several city agencies, county agencies,

and HIDTA has been very supportive of that effort, helps fund that

effort. And, in addition, from that task force we assign an officer

to the local DEA office, so we work very closely with DEA. And it

seems to tie the Federal enforcement with our local enforcement

very nicely, and, again, HIDTA has been very cooperative and very

supportive in funding our task force, our local task force.

So I guess I am not talking about just one singular agency, but

a multitude of agencies working a larger geographic area, and it

has worked out very well.

Mr. MODAFFERI. I am in the New York metropolitan area, and

we are very involved with the New York HIDTA. The New York

HIDTA, over the years, has been tremendously successful, and especially since September 11. We have, in Rockland County, in

Westchester County, we have set up our own regional intelligence

centers that are separate and distinct from the main HIDTA center

in downtown Manhattan. The New York State Police are now setting up a regional intelligence center in Upstate New York. And

without New York HIDTA, we wouldn’t be able to have the investigative support that we have in the New York metropolitan area

and throughout New York State, so it has been a tremendous success.

And I have heard about the changes that are being considered,

but I would hope that, especially in an area like New York, it

would remain pretty much the way it is going.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, they have called a vote. I guarantee this will

be my last question.

In particular, Mr. Modafferi, I wanted you to see if you have any

thoughts on this. It is somewhat related to the topic at hand today,

but they have done such a good job at ONDCP in implementing

this program that one of the questions are is in the Department of

Homeland Security should we have a similar type of an outreach?

You have raised the question of multi-use of the equipment; in

other words, I don’t want to see this program changed because it

enables us to particularly have things that are of particular use in

narcotics, and to somewhat not lose focus by blending and having

Homeland Security squash the narcotics effort in this area as well

because it is like a 1,000 pound gorilla versus a 100 pound gorilla

in terms of Washington spending right now.

On the other hand, were we to set up some kind of a program,

clearly a lot of the equipment would be similar, because, just like

you said, you clearly, in the smuggling ring, I thought you had a

95

great comment in your testimony about with just family connections it is very hard to use undercover agents, and you need the

technology. That would be true of terrorism and homeland security

type systems as well.

And I just wondered if you had any thoughts of if we set up a

similar type system for local responders, how we would deal with

the overlaps.

Mr. MODAFFERI. First off, I don’t think you should set up something similar. That is my opinion. I think you should just go with

what works.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me tell you what is somewhat behind it. I and

others are seeing potentially, and this is heresy in some corners,

a potential humongous pork barrel project here in homeland security, where everybody is coming to us for all kinds of stuff, and we

are going to repeat what you said about Maine 1,000 times over.

People are going to get equipment that they don’t know how to use,

they haven’t gone through training, and unless we have some kind

of an orderly method to distribute the responder equipment, we are

going to drown in dollars that are ineffectively used, then the criticism is going to come back you wasted all this money in homeland

security, you diverted anti-drug resources, other crime resources

into homeland security, and you didn’t know your head from a hole

in the ground.

That is what is kind of behind how do we control the technology,

much like what you have done such a good job of in narcotics.

Mr. MODAFFERI. Well, I think Chief Burns would agree with me,

that the panel before us was comprised of major cities and large

States. We are from the local level and we do work together and

we are very generalists. I think the CTAC program has been very

effective. I don’t know how you are going to work this out, because

the equipment has to get out there, but you should at least replicate CTAC’s approach.

But you have to realize that when you are supplying equipment

to the local level, it is incumbent upon us to work together. Our

drug task force is co-located in the same building as our intelligence unit. If the drug people arrest somebody who knows something about terrorism or murders or something, they tell the intelligence unit and it gets out. So when you do replicate this thing,

you really have to have regional experts that are considering that

an eight-man police department really doesn’t need that, or the

40,000-man New York City Police Department needs 12 of these.

You know, it basically comes down to local level to common sense,

and I don’t think that a big bureaucratic shuffle in Washington can

address it as effectively as CTAC has.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Burns, to that?

Chief RON BURNS. I was just going to say why reinvent the wheel

when there is a mechanism already in place. Very effective.

Mr. SOUDER. A smile came to my face, it is because the scale of

the way we do things in Washington, and as a practical matter, we

would certainly try to replicate the process, but you have to be very

careful you are not swallowed up by a huge department that is big

right now.

96

But I definitely agree if a process is working, that is the process

we ought to look at replicating, how you get this local community

input into making that kind of decision, particularly as it gets to

smaller counties, because unlike a statement was made in homeland security and everybody seems to be uniting, we are watching

the counties and the cities fight over every dollar right now, and

we are actually seeing more turf battles right now in homeland security than we are seeing in narcotics, and it is really scary because the money is so huge; it is much like the way government

works. If we say narcotics is the big issue, everybody repositions

their departments around narcotics; if we say it is missing children, we reposition around missing children; if it is homeland security, we reposition all the grant requests around that.

And we really need to both watch to make sure that your efforts

in the drug enforcement areas are still there and, at the same time,

that we are as efficient in these new departments.

So thank you very much for your testimony. Thanks for coming

a long distance for the hearing today.

And with that, the subcommittee hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Æ