U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–386 PDF 2009

S. Hrg. 111–108 

COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT: 

COORDINATION AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, 

AND LOCAL LEVEL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, 

AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND 

INTEGRATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 21, 2009 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR 

PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

KRISTIN SHARP, Staff Director 

MIKE MCBRIDE, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 1 

Senator Ensign ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Bennet ................................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2009 

John Leech, Acting Director, Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 5 

Frances Flener, Arkansas State Drug Director, State of Arkansas .................... 7 

Douglas C. Gillespie, Sheriff, on behalf of Major Cities’ Chiefs Association, 

Major County Sheriffs’ Association and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Las Vegas, Nevada ............................................................................. 8 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Flener, Frances: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Gillespie, Douglas C.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 37 

Leech, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

APPENDIX 

Maps submitted by Senator Pryor ......................................................................... 42 

Questions and responses submitted for the Record from: 

Mr. Leech .......................................................................................................... 44 

Ms. Flener ......................................................................................................... 53 

Mr. Gillespie ..................................................................................................... 59 

(1) 

COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT: 

COORDINATION AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, 

AND LOCAL LEVEL 

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2009 

U.S. SENATE,

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND

PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark L. Pryor, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Pryor, Bennet, and Ensign. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. We will go ahead and get the hearing underway. 

Thank you all for being here today. I would like to call the hearing 

to order. 

This hearing is significant for several reasons. It is the first hearing of the Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration for the 111th Congress. It also is the 

first hearing where Senator Ensign will be the Ranking Member. 

He is on his way here, but he encouraged us to go ahead and start. 

I look forward to working with him and helping him work on his 

agenda as well as making progress towards preparedness through 

the Committee and the Subcommittee. 

Welcome, Senator Ensign. Thank you for being here. 

Let me start with a very brief story. Last year, the Arkansas 

State Police made what at the time appeared to be a routine traffic 

stop. As part of that stop, they were given permission to search the 

vehicle. 

The police were given permission to search the vehicle, and as 

they did, they found a hidden compartment with over 40 pounds 

of cocaine stashed in the vehicle. And through their good police 

work and also in sharing that information with the DEA and, 

again, a lot of discussions back and forth and legwork, the DEA realized that they had the exact same type of vehicle somewhere on 

the West Coast that had been impounded. They searched that vehicle and, sure enough, found the very same hidden compartment 

with over $300,000 in cash in it. 

I bring that story up because it is an example of how local law 

enforcement—in this case, the Arkansas State Police—can work 

2 

1The map referred to appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

2The map referred to appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

with the national agencies—in this case, DEA—to get a lot of great 

police work done and make inroads in fighting these drug cartels. 

It is also an example of how the Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies can work together and can get great things 

done. 

Today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘Counternarcotics Enforcement: Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Level.’’ We have three 

witnesses representing three levels of government. Each of them 

play an important role in our Nation’s counternarcotics enforcement efforts. I want to thank you all for being here today, and I 

am going to introduce you in just a few moments. 

The purpose of this hearing is to provide an overview of the role 

and mission of DHS’ Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement 

(CNE). I hope that we will hear today about the level of coordination with other counter-drug programs within DHS and the Federal 

Government, as well as coordination with State and local partners. 

The link between the Federal Government, State, and local partners is crucial, in my opinion. 

We have all seen the recent news stories and media accounts of 

the escalating violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. This violence 

is attributed to drug trafficking and smuggling, led by several of 

Mexico’s most powerful drug cartels. There is a poster here that we 

have put up that shows a map of the territory that each of these 

cartels controls. We got this image from The Economist magazine, 

and I am pleased to say, right now at least, that our law enforcement agencies believe that most of the violence has not spilled over 

into the United States. It does occur on the Mexican side of the 

border, but it involves mostly Mexican citizens. 

The Federal Government is taking measures to ensure that the 

violence happening on the Mexican side of the border does not 

carry over to the U.S. side. The efforts include, one, increasing the 

number of Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Patrol officers along the border; and, two, the creation of Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, called ‘‘BEST teams,’’ in which various 

Federal, State, and local partners work together in cases such as 

southbound vehicles’ inspections and investigation of suspected 

stash houses; and, three, the development of an updated southwest 

border security strategy, which I understand is due out in late 

April or early May of this year. 

State and local governments around the country have also taken 

steps on their own to try to curtail smuggling and trafficking operations in their areas. These efforts include the High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area program, which is a Federal program but is used 

at the local level, and the leveraging of Fusion Center resources to 

address drug trafficking.1 The need for State and local partnership 

is highlighted by the findings of the 2009 National Drug Threat Assessment, which is produced by the Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center. This report identified 230 cities— 

and we have a map here at the front of the room on this poster,2

these 230 cities within the United States that have an established 

Mexican drug-trafficking organization. As you can see, these cities 

3 

are spread throughout the country, so we cannot say that this problem is limited to the border region with Mexico. This truly is a national problem, and these are some of the things we would like to 

discuss today. 

With that, I would like to turn the microphone over to my colleague from the State of Nevada, whom I welcome as Ranking 

Member. I know you have some agenda items you would like to discuss either now or in the future, and I look forward to working 

with you during the 111th Congress. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENSIGN 

Senator ENSIGN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. We have a 

great friendship, and I know that not only the two of us but our 

staffs will make this a very effective Subcommittee here in the U.S. 

Senate. I look forward to your leadership and know that you have 

grave concerns in a lot of the areas that will be before this Subcommittee. And I think that we can have a very effective partnership—I know we can, and I look forward to the next couple of years 

working together. 

In today’s hearing, I am looking forward to the testimony of our 

witnesses. You mentioned the 230 cities that are represented on 

that map. Three of those cities—Reno, Carson City, and Las 

Vegas—are in my State. Methamphetamine and specifically crystal 

meth produced in Mexico is imported into my State, and it has become the principal drug concern of Nevadans. Unfortunately, Nevada often serves as a transshipment point for various drugs to the 

central and eastern sections of the United States, and I am particularly interested in hearing from DHS’ Office of Counternarcotics 

Enforcement on how they are working with State and local law enforcement officials to combat this drug trafficking. 

And on that note, it is a pleasure that I welcome the sheriff from 

Las Vegas, Sheriff Doug Gillespie. He began his law enforcement 

career with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in 1980 

as a police officer, and his promotions included sergeant, lieutenant, captain, commander, deputy chief, and under sheriff. Sheriff 

Gillespie assumed the position of Sheriff of Clark County leading 

the Las Vegas Metro Police Department, in January 2007. He has 

a multifaceted career which includes many programs he founded, 

such as Friends of Las Vegas, K–9 Foundation, SWAT’s Explosive 

Breaching program, and the Executive Leadership Training for 

Metro Supervisory Employees. In 2003, he and former Sheriff 

Young established the Sheriff’s Multicultural Advisory Committee. 

Sheriff Gillespie is also the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee for the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, which represents the 

56 largest cities in the Nation, as well as Vice President of Major 

County Sheriffs, representing the top 100 counties. 

I am pleased that Sheriff Gillespie has agreed to be with us 

today and discuss his role in the Southern Nevada Counterterrorism Center and specifically how it addresses the interrelated 

problems of violent crime and drug trafficking. Obviously, I am also 

very interested in effective funding of Fusion Centers, and making 

sure that we are not wasting that. Also, that the grants are being 

done properly and that there is not any kind of abuse or fraud or 

waste going on with any because the dollars that we have are so 

4 

precious. It is a very vital role for this Congress to do proper oversight, working with the agencies and making sure that those dollars are used in a very specific and very efficient manner. 

So thank you for holding this hearing today, and I look forward 

to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Senator Ensign. 

Senator Bennet, thank you for joining us. Welcome to the Subcommittee. Would you like to make an opening statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement 

that I would like included in the record. I will say that Colorado, 

like Nevada, is a place that shows up on this map in many red 

dots. And having spent the last 2 weeks traveling my State, the 

meth problem is one that people in our rural areas in particular 

are feeling extreme concern. And everywhere I went, people said it 

was getting worse, not better. 

So in this time of limited resources, the cooperation of law enforcement at every level of government becomes that much more 

important. So I would be interested to hear our witnesses on that, 

and thank you for being here today. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennet follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET 

I am grateful that the three of you are able to appear before us today. I would 

like to thank Senator Pryor for convening this important hearing. As a large geographic State with natural barriers to seamless State coordination, Colorado depends on coordination between Federal, State, and local authorities to keep families 

safe and go after bad actors. 

Colorado has been hit hard by the trafficking and sale of methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana, an overwhelming majority of which is trafficked from Mexico. 

The Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center recently identified 

seven cities in Colorado as having distribution or supply networks associated with 

Mexican drug cartels or their affiliates. Any problem impacting seven Colorado cities is basically impacting our entire State. Given this reality, it is important that 

we ensure that the necessary resources are available for programs such as the High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), which has assisted 17 counties in Colorado combat drug trafficking. 

The problem of meth is really a public health problem as much as it is a law enforcement problem. Issues such as drug addiction, mental illness and disparities in 

economic opportunity drive this very serious problem, which impacts cities and rural 

areas alike. I believe we must conceive of the meth problem as a whole, as we design strategies for combating it. 

That said, law enforcement is one of our most important tools. Rural law enforcement in particular relies on Federal resources to halt the trafficking of methamphetamine. For instance, Colorado has a problem with trafficking through secondary 

roads. I hope the Committee and the Obama Administration assigns sufficient gravity to this very serious problem impacting smaller cities, towns, and rural areas. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

I will go ahead and introduce the witnesses, and I ask the witnesses to, if possible, limit opening statements to 5 minutes. There 

is a little red light there that should come on as you are getting 

close to the time limit. 

John Leech is Acting Director of the DHS’ Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. He serves as the primary policy adviser to 

the Secretary of the Department, and from 2003 to 2009, he served 

as Chief of Staff to the Director of CNE and will return to that poVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:47 Oct 13, 2009 Jkt 050386 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\50386.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Leech appears in the Appendix on page 23. 

sition when a new CNE Director is appointed by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate. 

Second, we have Frances Flener, who happens to be Arkansas 

State Drug Czar. She was appointed the State Drug Czar by Governor Mike Beebe in April 2007. She serves as the Chairperson of 

the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Coordinating Council, which oversees 

the spending of State and Federal dollars on alcohol and drug education, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement. 

And, third, I am not sure I can add to the sheriff’s introduction 

by Senator Ensign, but would you like to say anything else about 

him? 

Senator ENSIGN. He is a great sheriff. [Laughter.] 

Senator PRYOR. Great. Well, if we may, let’s begin with you, Mr. 

Leech. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN LEECH,1 ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. LEECH. Thank you. Chairman Pryor, Senator Ensign, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before you today and provide an update on the activities of 

the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Counternarcotics 

Enforcement. 

Secretary Napolitano is actively engaged in securing this Nation’s borders from the violence waged by the drug cartels in Mexico and the general threat posed by the flow of illicit narcotics. The 

Secretary has stated that the violence is not only a threat internal 

to Mexico, but it is also a homeland security issue in which all 

Americans have a stake. Our mutual security is inextricably linked 

to our shared border. 

To this end, the Secretary recently announced several departmental border security initiatives that call for additional personnel, 

increased intelligence capability, and greater coordination with 

State, local, and Mexican law enforcement authorities. My office is 

and will continue to be instrumental in furthering the Department’s plans. 

Among many other responsibilities, DHS’ Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (CNE) is statutorily charged with two primary functions. One is to coordinate counter-drug policy and operations between DHS and other Federal departments and between 

DHS and State and local agencies; and, two, to track and sever the 

connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism. 

CNE along with DOJ’s Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

were designated as the executive agents to lead the interagency development of the 2009 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics 

Strategy. The strategy focuses on substantially reducing the flow of 

illicit drugs, drug proceeds, and associated instruments of violence 

across the U.S.-Mexico border by fully developing specific counterdrug, counter-violence actions within 10 threat domains that include intelligence and information sharing; at the ports and between the ports of entry; air and maritime domains; investigation 

6 

and prosecution; money; the southbound flow of weapons; technology; cooperation with Mexico; and tunnels. 

In addition to complementing the Merida Initiative and the 

Southwest Border Violence Plan in terms of strengthening our security at the southwest border, the strategy is one component of a 

broader and more comprehensive counter-drug border security effort developed by CNE. In 2008, my office submitted to Congress 

the Department’s Northern Border and Maritime Transit Border 

Counternarcotics Strategies. These three strategies will collectively 

integrate and synchronize the Department’s overall ability to respond to changes in drug-trafficking routes. 

Another overarching CNE responsibility focuses on connections 

between drug trafficking and terrorism. Worldwide, illicit drug 

trafficking generates significant revenue that buttresses the infrastructure of organized crime and terrorism. CNE is statutorily 

tasked to track and sever connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism. Our Drug Terror Nexus Division (DTX), 

works closely with our interagency partners—primarily within the 

Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), construct—to collect and analyze information about the links between terrorist groups and drug 

trafficking and to target those connections. A critical DTX function 

is to ensure a steady exchange of drug-terror information between 

the law enforcement and intelligence communities at the Federal, 

State, local, and tribal levels of government. 

As part of this effort, our DTX Division is working to improve relationships with High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs), 

JTTFs, Fusion Centers, and State, local, and tribal entities. Less 

than 2 months ago, we met with key personnel from the South 

Florida HIDTA to establish working protocols and to ensure accurate and timely information flow on drug-terror issues. 

In addition, at the request of the Director of the Gulf Coast 

HIDTA, CNE senior staff participated in the HIDTA Investigative 

Support Center Managers meeting to establish robust interface 

with HIDTAs nationwide. We will continue to foster relationships 

between various Federal, State, and local partners by sharing intelligence related to drug trafficking and terrorism and other data related to this evolving threat. 

I will conclude by reflecting back on my experience as the CNE 

Chief of Staff and most recently as the Acting Director for the past 

5 years. Over this time, it has become readily apparent to me that 

successful counternarcotics efforts cannot be solely conducted at the 

Federal level. Our communities, and especially those at our borders, are directly impacted by drug trafficking. State, local, and 

tribal partners have tremendous responsibilities, and they possess 

the expertise since they are on the front lines of the fight. I am 

committed to partnering with these colleagues. Only through a 

combined Federal, State, local, and tribal effort, highlighted by robust communication and coordination, can this Nation hope to combat illicit narcotics activities. 

I thank the Subcommittee and would also like to personally 

thank Ms. Flener and Sheriff Gillespie for all the work that they 

do and for this opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Ms. Flener. 

7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Flener appears in the Appendix on page 30. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCES FLENER,1 ARKANSAS STATE DRUG 

DIRECTOR, STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Ms. FLENER. Good morning, Senator Pryor, Ranking Member Ensign, Senator Bennet, and honored guests. It is indeed my pleasure 

to appear before you today. On behalf of Governor Mike Beebe and 

our State, I would like to thank this Subcommittee for its continued support of counternarcotic enforcement. 

Senator Pryor, we are grateful for your continued support of the 

men and women in law enforcement. Your first speech as a Senator 

dealt with the importance of continued and increased funding for 

this group. Through your ongoing support and dedication to this 

issue, our State and Nation have both benefited, and I wanted to 

take this opportunity to thank you for that leadership. 

Methamphetamine is the No. 1 drug threat in the State of Arkansas, followed closely by cocaine and marijuana. Pharmaceuticals 

continue to rise in epidemic proportions within the State. Our local 

meth lab seizures have risen slightly in 2008; however, most methamphetamine found in Arkansas is now produced outside of the 

State and is being transported into Arkansas by Mexico-based polydrug-trafficking organizations. 

These groups have developed distribution networks that have 

been responsible for a series of drug-related crimes and social problems. To compound what Senator Bennet from Colorado stated, for 

instance, my home town of Batesville, Arkansas, was the center of 

a 3-year joint drug-trafficking investigation led by the DEA entitled 

‘‘Tienda Hielo,’’ or ‘‘Ice Store.’’ To date, it has resulted in 52 arrests, 

seizures of more than 100 pounds of methamphetamine ice, with a 

street value of over $11 million, and the dismantling of a drug-trafficking organization with ties to a violent Mexico drug cartel. 

This little town of Batesville, Arkansas, is less than 10,000 in 

population. However, the investigation was a textbook example of 

multi-agency coordination. Seven Federal, five State, 10 local, and 

four drug task forces were actively involved. We are fortunate in 

Arkansas in having outstanding relationships between Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement. 

In February 2008, Arkansas received a tremendous boost in its 

ability to disrupt illicit drug trafficking. With the support of you, 

Senator Pryor, Senator Lincoln, Representative John Boozman, 

Governor Mike Beebe, and the entire congressional delegation, four 

counties in Arkansas were added to the HIDTA program as a part 

of the Gulf Coast HIDTA. We now have two initiatives in Arkansas—one in the northwest corner, one in the central portion of the 

State. 

The Byrne-JAG program funds 19 multi-jurisdictional drug task 

forces (DTFs). The size of our local law enforcement agencies is so 

small that most find it impossible to conduct proactive drug-related 

investigations without Federal assistance. While this funding for 

2009 is expected to increase, the optimal effectiveness of the DTFs 

is in jeopardy due to low and reduced staff and low morale. Without the 2009 increase, some programs would disband, leaving Arkansas communities with little or no proactive organized efforts to 

combat drugs. 

8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gillespie with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 37. 

If we are to have a robust national drug control strategy, we 

must not cut the resources available for these efforts. Federal assistance is the incentive that has caused dramatic improvements in 

cross-jurisdictional cooperation. The impact of diluted drug policies 

and a reduced Federal commitment would be devastating to society. 

Senator Pryor, we support your inclusion of the budget amendment that calls for expanding the number of counties participating 

in the HIDTA program. Other parts of Arkansas desperately need 

those HIDTA resources to address their own drug-trafficking problems. The Byrne-JAG assistance grant should be funded at full 

strength of $1.1 billion as originally recommended by the Senate. 

Our Nation’s drug problems are extremely complex and will not 

be solved quickly or easily. However, by using a comprehensive approach that embraces education, treatment, and enforcement, we 

can dramatically reduce illegal drug usage and associated violent 

crimes. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee, and I will be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you very much. Sheriff Gillespie. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS C. GILLESPIE,1 SHERIFF, ON BEHALF OF MAJOR CITIES’ CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, MAJOR 

COUNTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Thank you, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member 

Ensign, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Today I 

speak for both the Major City Chiefs as well as Major County Sheriffs. 

Because Las Vegas is home to many of the world’s largest hotels 

and a major center of international tourism and entertainment, my 

jurisdiction is continuously mentioned by our enemy as a potential 

target. To counter this well-established threat, we have created the 

Southern Nevada Counter-Terrorism Center, which embraces the 

‘‘all crimes, all hazards’’ fusion doctrine. The Fusion Center is comprised of 13 different agencies, representing Federal, State, and 

local government, including the private sector in the terrorism prevention. 

In our community, there are over 6,700 private security professionals and thousands more valet attendants, housekeepers, and 

bell captains, each poised and capable of detecting suspicious behaviors indicating criminal activity. We are working to harness this 

incredible force multiplier. 

To supplement and enhance this ground-level suspicious activity 

reporting, we are participating as a pilot city in the Nationwide 

Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, referred to as ‘‘SARs.’’ 

Embracing the intelligence-led policing philosophy within the Fusion Center: Within the Fusion Center, we have a robust analytical 

group that focuses on traditional criminal activity and crime patVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:47 Oct 13, 2009 Jkt 050386 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\50386.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9 

terns. These crime analysts scour raw crime data looking for patterns and trends, as well as any social causative factors. 

Now, narcotics trafficking and associated violence in our Fusion 

Center: Las Vegas has long been considered the ‘‘crossroads’’ for 

narcotics trafficking between the suppliers in Central and South 

America and the consumers in the United States. As the site of a 

HIDTA, we are on the front lines of the war on drugs. With drug 

trafficking comes the associated violence. In October of last year, 

we found out just how ruthless drug traffickers can be. Six-yearold Cole Puffinberger was inside his home in Las Vegas when 

armed intruders posing as police officers snatched him away from 

his mother. My detectives quickly learned that young Cole was 

likely abducted because his grandfather owed Mexican drug cartels 

several millions of dollars. As detectives worked to locate the young 

boy, special agents from the FBI and DEA worked feverishly to 

learn more about the abductors and their criminal organizations, 

all of which took place within our Fusion Center. The intensity and 

tenaciousness of the investigators paid off when Cole was recovered 

unharmed 4 days later. 

The role of DHS in combating drug-trafficking violence: Because 

Fusion Centers are the heart of Federal, State, and local information-sharing efforts, we urge the distinguished Members of this 

Subcommittee to consider this when contemplating the role of DHS 

in countering violence related to drug trafficking. We would like to 

have these information channels in place and firmly entrenched 

within the Fusion Centers so we can react quickly and effectively 

when violence related to narcotics trafficking occurs in our community. 

The Department of Homeland Security has a number of agencies 

under its control which have a statutory responsibility for the counternarcotics mission. It is critical to the Nation’s security that the 

efforts of these various agencies are coordinated with the DEA. 

The roles of the respective Federal entities that are tasked with 

this mission have overlap and in some cases redundancies. Neither 

are in themselves a negative; they do, however, require coordination at the Federal level. The important aspect of this, I believe, 

is to ensure that the respective agencies are focusing their efforts 

on what it is they do best and are best situated to address. 

To further enhance our counternarcotics and counterterrorism 

capabilities, we in Las Vegas are considering the options available 

to us to improve the coordination between the Fusion Center and 

the HIDTA. Among the options are exchanges of intelligence analysts, relocating the investigative and operational de-confliction 

function into the Fusion Center, and the possible future collocation 

of the Southern Nevada Counterterrorism Center and the Las 

Vegas HIDTA task force. 

On behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police as well as Major 

County Sheriffs Association, I thank this distinguished Subcommittee for the opportunity to share our views. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Sheriff, let me start with you. You 

mentioned Nevada’s Fusion Center, which sounds like it is very effective and is running the way one should be run. How many staff 

work out of the Fusion Center and from what agencies? Could you 

please discuss its organizational structure? 

10 

Mr. GILLESPIE. We have a total of roughly 60 people that actually, I would say, work in what you are referring to as the ‘‘fusion 

aspect’’ of that particular center. That is the analytical people that 

we rely on day to day to analyze a variety of information, from 

local crime information to national and international as well. We 

have representation there from all public safety within southern 

Nevada. 

Senator PRYOR. Including the Federal side? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Correct. Yes, we have DHS as well as FBI participation. 

Senator PRYOR. And you are happy with how the Fusion Center 

operates? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Well, I am much happier now than I was a number of years ago in regards to the information exchange. We are not 

where we need to be yet. We continually work through the obstacles that we find. But I think anytime you place that number of 

individuals in a room, in a building, cross-jurisdictional and crossdisciplinary—because we have fire in that room, we have emergency managers as well. So when you are combining all those 

things, you run into some of these territorial-type issues, policy 

procedural-type issues that you have to continually work through. 

But we are making progress. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. And what would you guess is the percentage of the workload that relates to drugs? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. At our Fusion Center, very little right now. Actually, the Fusion Center concept, there was not a lot of discussion 

early on about the integration of the narcotics-type information. 

However, I have seen at the national as well as the local level, renewed—I should not say ‘‘renewed interest,’’ but interest in that. 

One example I would give you, Senator, is I happened to be participating in a meeting where the Chief of Police of, I believe it 

was, Newark, New Jersey—a gentleman by the name of Garry 

McCarthy—talked about the Fusion Center in New Jersey and that 

they had recently incorporated the narcotics information as well as 

their HIDTA information, and they were seeing huge benefit from 

it; not to mention, as I stated with the Cole Puffinberger case, 

bringing in the DEA in particular, with that particular case, because day to day they do not have a seat in the Fusion Center, was 

invaluable to us from the resources that they were able to bring to 

the table. 

I do not mean to go on too long, but in regards to that, our 

HIDTA in particular has just funded an analyst position that will 

now be in our Fusion Center. So I think we definitely see the benefits of having that information incorporated into our Fusion Centers. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. Senator Lieberman yesterday had a Committee field hearing in Arizona, and there some of the witnesses 

talked about the obstacles in Fusion Center participation. I think 

the biggest obstacle they focused on was funding. They do not have 

the resources to fully staff and fully equip a fusion center. 

What have been the obstacles that you have had with your Fusion Center? You mentioned some of the cross-jurisdictional turf 

battles. But what else has been an obstacle? 

11 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Funding, actually people, and other entities willing to give up a full-time position to be at the Fusion Center. I 

have been very fortunate up until, I would say, roughly a year ago 

to have a very robust economy in Las Vegas, and my police department was growing, which afforded me the opportunity to shift some 

resources. My counterparts throughout Clark County were not 

quite so lucky. 

So funding continues to be an aspect for us, and I think long 

term one of the challenges that we will see within the Fusion Center aspect is that sustainment-type funding because the majority of 

your costs associated with these centers are your salary and benefit 

packages associated with your personnel. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Flener, in Arkansas we have drug task forces, and they have 

been around for a long time. And we also now, as you mentioned 

in your testimony, have been able to utilize the High Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Area program. How do the drug task forces coordinate with the HIDTA effort? How does that work in the State? 

Ms. FLENER. Well, it appears to be working quite well in both 

places where the HIDTA is physically located. That is in the extreme northwest and in the central. But, for instance, the Tienda 

Hielo operation that I mentioned, that brought in several of the 

drug task forces which were not in those sections of Arkansas that 

required that. 

So because Arkansas is small, we work on a very personal-type 

relationship. We all know one another, and through that, I think 

we work as well as can be expected. We just need additional resources to incorporate the northeastern part of Arkansas, which is 

a tremendous area for methamphetamine trafficking. 

I think I mentioned in my written comments that those drugs 

that came in from Mexico came in three hubs in the western part 

of the United States with a population of 4.1 million, and then they 

were transported into a county of less than 30,000 for redistribution back to another 4 million. 

So we do have tremendous trafficking problems, and our drug 

task forces need the Federal assistance, dollars and resources, to 

attack those problems. 

Senator PRYOR. I think most Senators, it is fair to say, do not 

mind allocating resources if we feel like there is accountability and 

we know that the money is being spent properly and is being managed well and being used effectively. So from your perspective as 

a State stakeholder, what assurances can you give the Subcommittee here that the HIDTA money and the other money that 

you were able to get from the Federal Government is actually being 

used effectively? 

Ms. FLENER. Well, the Gulf Coast HIDTA, of which we are a 

part, has established best practices, and those have been adopted. 

And through the efforts with Tony Soto, we intend to put those 

best practices in place with all of our drug task forces as well as 

the HIDTA initiatives. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to follow up on that, maybe all three of you could answer 

this. I think more specifically what we are looking for is metrics. 

How do we measure effectiveness? We can say that we all want 

12 

more money, we want this, we want that. But it is just like job 

training programs. We have, I think, 13 different job training programs in the U.S. Government, and not all of them are the same. 

They use different metrics, and metrics are really important 

whether something is effective or not. 

So under the areas at least under your jurisdiction that you are 

testifying here today, what would you establish as far as some of 

the metrics for this Subcommittee to be able to look at and see 

whether you are using the money effectively? We will start with 

Mr. Leech. 

Mr. LEECH. Senator, that is a challenging question to answer. I 

can say that in an indirect way—not specifically on the funding of 

the HIDTAs and the drug task forces—that the Southwest Border 

Counter-Drug Strategy, which I believe—I think we submitted a 

copy to Congress sometime ago of the 2007 version. I have the 2009 

version here that we are in the process of finishing up and soon 

will be putting the implementation plan to it. 

When we developed that implementation plan, what you will see 

in the strategy, the counter-drug strategy—and it will cover those 

nine areas that I spoke to earlier—rather, those 10 domains that 

I spoke to earlier. Those will have performance measurements and 

metrics attached to the various actions that we will be executing 

along the border. Many of those actions have to do with our 

HIDTAs. As a matter of fact, of the 93 sub-supporting actions within the strategy to achieve our objectives, 24 of those have to deal 

with our HIDTAs, and those various actions—which it is predecisional right now, so I am not free to discuss it in detail. But 

of those 24 actions, there are metrics and performance measures 

attached to them. 

Senator ENSIGN. Before we go to the other panelists, on those 

metrics what is the feeling in DHS as far as the Title 21 authority 

specifically that DHS I guess maybe lacks when it comes to—the 

DEA supposedly has full Title 21, and you all do not. How do you 

think that is going to affect your metrics? In other words, do you 

need more flexibility under Title 21? 

Mr. LEECH. Senator, I think for ICE to have Title 21 authority, 

I think it is a very good idea. Now, I know that issue is being 

worked at very senior levels. The Secretary is very interested in 

trying to work this issue. I think we are now, as you know, operating in an environment unlike any environment we have ever had 

in the past, and I think it is imperative that we marshal all available resources to fight this drug fight. And I think that we have 

to equip our soldiers, our front-line fighters, which includes our 

ICE agents, with every available tool out there to help them move 

the counter-drug effort forward. 

So I think the whole issue of ICE having Title 21 authority 

would be a tremendous benefit for the overall drug fight. 

Senator ENSIGN. I just raised that point because I think it is 

also. I think that it reminds me a little bit of pre-September 11, 

2001 when we had all of these basically stovepipes in our intelligence community, and, Sheriff Gillespie, you mentioned the whole 

turf battles. There will always be turf battles, but we need to minimize them whenever possible. From what I understand, for ICE, 

for instance, if they have somebody they arrest, and it turns out 

13 

to be a drug problem, they do not have the proper authorities that 

they need, and the bureaucracy basically gets in the way and the 

rules get in the way of effectively protecting our country. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. 

Senator ENSIGN. So thank you for that. 

Ms. Flener, if you could just address what I had asked, basically 

for specific metrics to—for instance, the Gulf Coast HIDTA that 

you are talking about. 

Ms. FLENER. Well, to me that is one of the beauties of the HIDTA 

program. It enables a group of executive law enforcement officials 

to sit down and to adequately outline performance goals and what 

those goals are. And I might make mention that in Arkansas, within 6 months of having our HIDTA initiatives up and going, we had 

already met our yearly goals. Now, maybe they may have been set 

somewhat low—— 

Senator ENSIGN. Give me some examples of those yearly goals. 

Ms. FLENER. Well, with the different types of—well, I am just 

drawing a blank. 

Senator ENSIGN. That is not a problem. If you could all come 

back to us because we just want to know as a Subcommittee—if we 

are going to judge you on performance, we want to know what your 

metrics are going to be. And we want to be able to look at that and 

have our staffs look at it and see whether we think those are also 

fair metrics, whether we have any ideas for other metrics to be involved because we are the folks who have to authorize the funding. 

Ms. FLENER. Absolutely. 

Senator ENSIGN. And I like to authorize and appropriate funding 

to things that are being effective, not just because somebody likes 

the idea, but because they are actually being effective. 

Sheriff Gillespie. 

Mr. GILLESPIE. I think if you look at the Fusion concept itself 

and how it has grown since it began being discussed after September 11, 2001, it shows at the local and State levels a desire to 

have an efficiency aspect to it. When it originally started, it was 

just homeland security-type information that we were looking at 

exchanged, and we realized that we did not just want to put all of 

our people in that building just to do that. We wanted to approach 

this ‘‘all crimes, all hazards,’’ have it a robust, 24/7/365-type operation, and the different types of information that you could exchange. 

I think from a Fusion Center standpoint, what you need to do 

is talk to our customers. Are they getting the information that they 

desire to get? Are you getting the information that you need? Is the 

governor? Are other rural counties, agency heads from an information-sharing standpoint? 

From a narcotics-type standpoint, I think you can look at the 

numbers per se that the HIDTAs do produce and that we as 

HIDTAs have to produce in an annual—I do not know if it is an 

annual or biannual actual evaluation where they come out and 

they take a look at your individual HIDTAs and how much narcotics have you seized, how many arrests, how many pen registers 

and a variety of other things that they look at. But, really, so much 

of these Fusion Centers is focused on not only pushing the information out, but are they user-friendly for the information coming in? 

14 

And I really think if we developed a process to talk to our customers and there would be a little filtration coming back to you as 

to our effectiveness, it would hold us more accountable to what it 

is that we are doing as well. 

Senator ENSIGN. Good suggestion. When we look at, for instance, 

the Fusion Centers, you mentioned personnel coming from different 

agencies, and this gets back a little bit to turf and whether different agencies think things are important. Are you getting the 

proper level of expertise? And also within that, do you think that 

DEA should have a seat? In other words, should we have DEA people within the Fusion Center as well permanently? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. I think from an analytical standpoint, yes, the information that they have. And, that is our challenge at the local 

law enforcement level from my perspective, Senator, when you are 

talking about personnel. Because bringing in a 15-year veteran police officer and placing them in a Fusion Center from an analytical 

standpoint is not necessarily the best way to spend your money. 

There are a lot of people out there that have become very good at 

analyzing this type of information. But they do not come cheaply. 

There is a huge demand for them out there. And what we are seeing is people that we may get or other Fusion Centers may get, we 

are losing them to other places, based on salary and benefits, not 

only in the public sector but the private sector as well. 

Senator ENSIGN. But to further answer the question, I guess, do 

you feel comfortable with the expertise that, for instance, DHS 

would put in the Fusion Center or the FBI would put in the Fusion 

Center right now? I know that you have some control over the 

locals, but you do not have a lot of control of who DHS puts over 

there or who the FBI puts over there. 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Within our Fusion Center, I am very pleased with 

the level of expertise that is there. There is definitely at the local 

level a commitment to giving us quality people within the center. 

Senator ENSIGN. Very good. Mr. Leech, just a final question. The 

whole issue of guns going to Mexico. I think that there is no question when the President talks about and when Senator Clinton, the 

Secretary of State, have talked about the demand for drugs in the 

United States certainly drives the drug trade. I think we would all 

agree with that, and we should do everything that we can to diminish the demand in the United States in every possible way, and I 

am hoping that the President uses his bully pulpit to talk about 

drugs. The whole ‘‘Just Say No’’ campaign that Nancy Reagan embarked on was laughed at, but drug use in the United States dramatically went down during the 1980s. And I think that the President can have a tremendous role on using the bully pulpit, especially with young people, and his influence right now with young 

people and talking about drugs and the danger of drugs and things 

like that. 

But the gun issue itself, the Mexican Government—it has been 

said 90 percent of the guns turning up in Mexico are from the 

United States. From what I understand, the statistic is way off. It’s 

my impression that 90 percent of the guns that the Mexican Government turns over to us for a background check to find out where 

it came from, and not 90 percent of all guns that are seized are 

turned over. That they only do the ones that they know come from 

15 

the United States, and the vast majority—I mean, let us just use 

common sense. There are other countries in the world that produce 

guns that it is a lot cheaper to buy from than it is from the United 

States where you have to get most of these guns illegally in the 

first place. 

I just visited a wonderful machine gun manufacturer in northern 

Nevada the other day. The controls that we have—and this is for 

military machine guns, obviously. The controls that we have in the 

United States from those weapons manufacturers are so strict that 

to get those weapons is very difficult versus buying them from 

other countries that produce these that do not really care and have 

the kind of responsibility the U.S. Government puts on these weapons. 

So if you could get that information so we can share much more 

legitimate numbers, especially when we are talking, in the political 

realm with our neighbors down south, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir, I will. Sir, if I could also comment on the 

issue of guns in a much broader sense in what we are trying to do, 

in particular our office, what our office is trying to do. I had mentioned earlier about the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy for 2009, which you should be receiving soon, hopefully towards 

the end of April or very early May. It is an interagency effort in 

which our office was asked to serve as executive agents with the 

Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 

Stuart Nash, over at his office. And if you look in a broad sense 

about what the U.S. Government is trying to do to secure the U.S.- 

Mexican border, we try to look at it in terms of three legs on a 

stool. South of the border, we are talking about the Merida Initiative, resources going to the Government of Mexico and how they 

can strengthen their law enforcement community. And then on our 

side of the border, we have this, the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. And then the third leg of that stool would be 

a plan, if you will, a strategy, the Border Violence Plan, which I 

believe you may have been briefed on the Border Violence Plan. 

Admiral Rufe is running the operations on that. And so we see the 

security of the border is very dependent on those three legs, and 

if Merida fails, I think this will fail. If this fails, Merida is going 

to fail. Very dependent—as I said in my oral, ‘‘inextricably linked,’’ 

the security of our border. 

But to get back to address your arms issue, this is a very complicated issue, but the wonderful thing about it is that we have 

brought the two primary interagency players to the table, which is 

ATF and ICE, and we have actually produced an arms chapter. 

And I think you will be very proud of what the United States of 

America has put in this document in terms of trying to get control 

of the arms problems and the southbound flow of arms going to 

Mexico. 

So it has been a maturing process over the years. I think we 

have hit our stride, the interagency has hit its stride. I think we 

are making a very concerted, collective, collegial effort to get at the 

heart of the gun problem, and not so much concerned about numbers, 80 percent, 90 percent, or what percent is traceable, what 

percent is not as traceable; but to really address the gun issue with 

tremendous respect for the Second Amendment rights of every 

16 

American citizen. And that is what we are seeing different in this 

new strategy that we have not seen before, and I think you will be 

very proud of that. 

Senator ENSIGN. Just quickly, since you did put that report together, are the guns that are coming from the United States, are 

they bought legally? Are they obtained legally or illegally, the majority of them? 

Mr. LEECH. Sir, I am not an expert. I feel out of my league to 

qualify. 

Senator ENSIGN. Can you get that answer for us? 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir, I will. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. 

Mr. LEECH. I mean, I can tell you in a general—only in general 

terms, a little bit of both. But I can get you exact numbers. I am 

just not qualified—— 

Senator ENSIGN. No. That is fine. As a matter of fact, we will 

have a lot more written questions for all three of you for the record, 

simply because of limited time, and I know I have gone way over 

my time. But I appreciate the indulgence of the Chairman. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you very much. Those were great questions. 

Let me start with you, Mr. Leech, where you left off. You mentioned the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. Is that 

still scheduled to be released in the April-May time frame? 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. The strategy itself is with the White House 

now. Our office, CNE, with the Deputy Attorney General, as the 

executive agents, have been working since this past summer with 

the interagency to develop the actual strategy itself, roughly 40- 

something pages. That strategy is up with the White House. It will 

be now interagency vetted through OMB, and it will come to you. 

We will immediately get into the implementation planning process, 

which typically in the last strategy, the March 2006 strategy, expanded that basic document up to around 260 pages, the implementation portion of it. So you not only have a strategy, but you 

have the implementing mechanisms to execute the strategy. 

Senator PRYOR. How long will it take you to work on the implementation? 

Mr. LEECH. Sir, from the time we start—and I anticipate once 

the document is delivered to you—for planning purposes, let us say 

you get it May 1. I hope to have the implementation complete, the 

implementation phase complete, by the end of May. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. So it should take you 30 days? 

Mr. LEECH. To complete it, but then it goes through the coordination process, which is out of our hands at that point and is now 

with the White House and OMB. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, you may have anticipated my next 

question, but as you are preparing the strategy and the implementation, who are you working with to do that? In other words, is it 

just your Department? Are you reaching out to local folks? Tell us 

about the perspectives in the room as you have these discussions. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. Let us first talk about at the Federal level. 

Of course, virtually all of the DHS law enforcement or pseudo-law 

enforcement agencies within DHS, which would include ICE, CBP, 

U.S. Coast Guard, would include our Policy Office, our Intelligence 

17 

and Analysis, our State and local folks, our intergovernmental affairs—that is from the departmental side. ODAG, Office of Deputy 

Attorney General, Stuart Nash will reach out to his Justice subordinates and bring those folks to the table. And we will go out to 

the remaining of the interagency. ONDCP works with us in corralling the remaining of the interagency together. So at the Federal 

level, we do quite well in bringing the entire interagency together. 

Now, we also recognize—and in terms of evolution, when we 

built the first strategy, the 2006 strategy, two people pretty much 

masterminded—or choreographed that strategy, myself and Mr. 

Cronister sitting behind me, the two of us worked overtime in trying to bring the interagency together. 

It was a learning process. At that time, we reached out to State 

and local players, but not anywhere near to the extent that we 

have reached out this past effort, this most recent effort. We sent 

out roughly 160 invitation letters to our State and local and tribal 

partners asking for input on the strategy itself. Not only that, but 

Ted Sexton, who is part of our State and Local Law Enforcement 

Office within the Department of Homeland Security, I now have 

partnered with him in biweekly teleconference calls with all of our 

southwest border sheriffs, roughly 23 sheriff communities, and 

State and local folks, where we teleconference with them every 2 

weeks. 

The most recent meeting was about a week ago where we solicited more input from our State and local partners. And if you 

would allow me just to take about a minute, this is an example of 

the feedback that we are getting from our State and local partners. 

This is from Assistant Sheriff Jim Cooke, San Diego County. The 

call went out for the strategy: Please give me your input and tell 

us what you would like to see. What would help you do your job 

in a national strategy? And Sheriff Cooke came back, and he said, 

‘‘The increased cooperation and collaboration among Federal, State, 

and local enforcement agencies to address drug trafficking and 

drug-related violence are encouraging and have established the 

foundation for the kind of integrated and comprehensive approach 

that is necessary.’’ 

And then he listed specifics. He said, ‘‘I would like to see enhanced intelligence capabilities associated with the southwest border among all agencies.’’ And I can provide you his letter, which 

I have made copies for everyone on the Subcommittee. But he goes 

into further detail. He talks about Fusion Centers and information 

sharing and what needs to be done. That is, in fact, we addressed 

in the strategy. 

He said, ‘‘I would like to see increased interdiction of drugs, drug 

proceeds, associated incidents of violence through patrols, land, air, 

and sea, and checkpoint operations at the ports of entry.’’ Then he 

goes on to talk about what San Diego County is doing in that area. 

He said, ‘‘I would like you to explore alternatives to the prosecutorial protocols based on the amount of narcotics seized, the various 

thresholds.’’ It gave him an opportunity to comment on that. 

He said, ‘‘I would like to see you disrupt and dismantle drug-trafficking organizations through the use of a layered approach involving Federal, State, and local law enforcement.’’ 

18 

He said, ‘‘Please explore the possibility of expanding involvement 

of all DHS agencies and local law enforcement task forces, for example, providing sworn DHS personnel who can be cross-sworn.’’ 

‘‘I want you to increase deployment of counter-drug technologies 

and use off-the-shelf technologies.’’ We developed a chapter on technologies. 

‘‘Enhance U.S.-Mexico cooperation regarding joint counter-drug 

efforts by encouraging Mexico law enforcement and intel agencies 

to share or provide anti-narcotic information, camera feeds, license 

plate readers, to our State and local Fusion Centers.’’ 

And the last one, he said, ‘‘Authorize Federal field personnel 

more latitude and discretion in making resources available to assist 

with local anti-narcotic and anti-crime initiatives.’’ 

Mr. LEECH. So the point I am trying to make is that this did not 

occur in the first strategy, nothing like this. We asked for input. 

Most of it was either via E-mail or phone calls. This time we have 

gotten a little more robust in trying to integrate State and local 

into this strategy. 

Now, we are getting ready to open up the Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy and the Transit Zone Strategy. I talked about 

that in my oral testimony. What you can expect to see as we start 

securing the southwest border, you can expect to see increased activity in the transit zone, most likely through the northern border, 

and our office in 2008 submitted to you those two strategies. Right 

now those are sitting at the departmental level, and we are working with the White House to try to develop those at an interagency 

level, and we will have to build interagency—we will have to expand that to an interagency strategy, and we will have to build implementation plans around those strategies. And what we have 

learned by developing this Southwest Border Strategy and working 

with the State and local is that we will have to make every effort 

to meet them face to face and include them at every level of State 

and local government to make this an effective strategy. Otherwise, 

it will fail if State and local are not reflected in these strategies. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, that is helpful. Let me say that last month, 

you were over at the House Homeland Security Committee and testified. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. And you mentioned a recommendation for the 

adoption of criminal penalties for ‘‘persons who construct and use 

a tunnel or subterranean passage’’ for illegal trafficking of drugs, 

guns, money, or people. 

Can you talk about that in more detail? Specifically I would like 

to know about what is going on with the tunnels and the subterranean passages and what the current penalties are for that behavior 

and the use of those entry methods and what you think the penalties should be to be more effective. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. What we have done is—and, again, predecisional, and I will provide you actual legal reading from our Office of General Counsel because they provided input. But the use 

of tunnels and subterranean passages is actually a part of the 

strategy. So the ONDCP reauthorization of 2006, part of that reauthorization is the requirement to build the strategy, and so every 

19 

2 years ONDCP has to update the original 2006 strategy with the 

executive agents for that. 

But in the most recent reauthorization, we were required to address tunnels and subterranean passages. And, again, everything is 

pre-decisional. But I will provide you, if you would allow me to, 

what the Executive Branch will let me forward to you very soon. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir 

Senator PRYOR. That would be helpful because I think that is an 

important piece that we need to understand and keep an eye on. 

Let me ask, Sheriff Gillespie, if I can—we have already talked 

about you would like more resources, you would like more Federal 

money, if possible, and more resources, more people, etc. Are there 

any changes in the Federal law that you think would be helpful to 

your job out in the field, especially as it relates to counternarcotics? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Not off the top of my head, Senator. I am one of 

those police practitioners that believe we have got a lot of laws on 

the books, and I do not always know that creating new ones is the 

best approach. 

We have to be flexible with that, and I think methamphetamine 

is a really good example of that. The byproducts to make methamphetamine were readily available to anyone, and when we, as 

States, restricted the availability of those items, it significantly impacted the amount of methamphetamine that was being made in 

our communities. So I think it is one of those things you have to 

be flexible with, and off the top of my head, I could not tell you 

right now of a new Federal law I am hoping for. 

Senator PRYOR. That is fair enough. 

Ms. Flener, do you have any Federal law that you think we 

ought to change? 

Ms. FLENER. No. I would agree with what Sheriff Gillespie has 

said there. We need to work better with the laws that we have on 

the books. We, in Arkansas, were quite successful with our precursor limits that we set. That reduced our local labs by 50 percent, 

and then the tracking with an actual online log, that reduced— 

blocking some 12,000 purchases. 

We just need to do a better job and have to break down the silos 

that Senator Ensign mentioned earlier, and that comes through 

dialogue. The things like the Fusion Center I think go a long way 

in creating an environment where we can work together. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. 

Mr. GILLESPIE. If I might, Senator. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. 

Mr. GILLESPIE. My memory just kicked in a little bit. One of the 

challenges that we are projecting to see at the enforcement level 

is our ability to monitor communications with encryption and a variety of other sources that have come out. 

Now, I am not prepared at this point to tell you what exactly the 

law modifications would be, but I can tell you, as early as yesterday in a meeting that I was in with other agency heads, we are 

projecting in the out-years this to be a challenge for us. Unlike a 

number of years ago, we were readily accessible via wiretaps and 

things available to us, and we are seeing that diminish with the 

advancement of technology. 

20 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Good point. 

Mr. Leech, I was pleased to hear you, in response to Senator Ensign’s questions, mention that ATF and ICE are working together 

on the gun portion of this issue, and I do think it is important for 

us to understand the facts, and the facts have been a little bit 

murky. 

Is it your impression that—and I know you are not an expert on 

this, but maybe if you know you can tell me; or, otherwise, you can 

come back to us—but is it your impression that most of the guns 

going into Mexico are from the United States? Or is it your impression that, as Senator Ensign alluded, that it is really only a portion 

of the guns and that others are coming in from other countries, and 

they report a pretty high percentage back to us? 

Mr. LEECH. Sir, I am not an expert, and I just do not feel qualified to provide that because I have seen what would appear to be 

valid arguments on both sides. I have seen arguments for the 

straight 90 percent; then I have seen arguments for, well, that 90 

percent represents only a small percentage—for example, in 2007 

I believe there were roughly 15,000 weapons seized. Of those, 6,000 

weapons were traceable back to the United States; the other 9,000 

had serial numbers taken off, or the gun control law of 1968, the 

paperwork was not available on certain ones of those, or the Federal licensees would have already gone out of business. So there 

was a great portion of those that could not be tracked. But I do not 

know the answer, and I am not the expert, so I do not want to mislead you in any way or give the impression that I know the answer. 

But I will get back with you with a DHS position on that. 

Senator PRYOR. That would be helpful. Like I said, I think what 

Senator Ensign and I would just ask is that we have a better understanding of the real facts. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. That would be very helpful if you could get back 

to us on that. 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. The last thing I have for you, Mr. Leech, is a 

concern about the Mexican drug cartels reaching out to, perhaps 

recruiting U.S. street gang members and gangs, as well as U.S. 

prison gangs, in their operation. Is that a valid concern? And can 

you tell me about that? 

Mr. LEECH. Sir, if I could get back to you on that. The DOJ, my 

DOJ counterparts would have, I think, better information for you. 

They have gang units set up over there that study that, and anything that I could add would just be my own personal opinion or 

speculation, and I do not think that is of any value to you. If I 

could get back with you, I would prefer to do that. 

Senator PRYOR. That would be helpful, too, because I think the 

first time I saw some news media reports where my impression 

after reading the news story was that somehow the drug cartels 

were operating in the United States in a lot of these cities, and 

they were doing it largely through gangs. It will help us considerably if we know the real state of the facts on this matter and to 

have a better understanding of what is really going on there. 

Mr. LEECH. I will speak with Mr. Nash and the Deputy Attorney 

General’s office and get a DOJ position on that for you. As you 

21 

said, the cartels have reached into 230 cities. They have to recruit 

someone for their supply chain operations, for collection and distribution of those drugs. I would assume many do come from gangs. 

I just do not know exact numbers. But I will get that information 

and provide it to you. 

Senator PRYOR. A corollary of that question would be: Are they 

also using other organized crime entities that exist in these areas? 

Are they tapping into—I will call it ‘‘distribution infrastructure,’’ 

for lack of a better word? If so, how are they doing this? 

Mr. LEECH. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. We have some additional questions for the record 

that I would love for you to answer. I have some, Senator Ensign 

has some, and there are probably a few more around the table that 

do. We will leave the record open for 15 days, and we will try to 

get those to you as quickly as possible. Then if you could get those 

back to us within 15 days, that would be great. 

I really want to thank you all for being here today. This is very 

helpful to us, not only because this has been in the news media 

quite a bit, but also just because it is a real national problem, as 

we have talked about, and it is an international problem with our 

neighbor to the south. So I really appreciate you all helping us get 

a better handle on this and understanding the Federal, State, and 

local coordination that needs to happen and helping us identify 

ways that we can be more effective in our fight against these drug 

cartels and these drugs coming into our country. 

So, with that, we will leave the record open. I know that a few 

people will submit either their opening statements, like Senator 

Bennet, or questions, and we will leave the record open. 

Thank you very much. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 


50386.001
24 


50386.002
25 


50386.003
26 


50386.004
27 


50386.005
28 


50386.006
29 


50386.007
30 


50386.008
31 


50386.009
32 


50386.010
33 


50386.011
34 


50386.012
35 


50386.013
36 


50386.014
37 


50386.015
38 


50386.016
39 


50386.017
40 


50386.018
41 


50386.019
42 


50386.045
43 


50386.046
44 


50386.036
45 


50386.037
46 


50386.038
47 


50386.039
48 


50386.040
49 


50386.041
50 


50386.042
51 


50386.043
52 


50386.044
53 


50386.020
54 


50386.021
55 


50386.022
56 


50386.023
57 


50386.024
58 


50386.025
59 


50386.026
60 


50386.027
61 


50386.028
62 


50386.029
63 


50386.030
64 


50386.031
65 


50386.032
66 


50386.033
67 


50386.034
68 

Æ 


50386.035