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

42–508 PDF 2009

TO AUTHORIZE THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL 

JUSTICE ASSISTANT GRANT PROGRAM AT FISCAL YEAR 2006 LEVELS THROUGH 2012 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3546 

MAY 20, 2008 

Serial No. 110–153 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 20, 2008 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 3546, ‘‘To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant 

Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012’’ ............................................ 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 5 

The Honorable Hank Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 6 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Domingo S. Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, United 

States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

The Honorable Dustin McDaniel, National Association of Attorneys General 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Mr. James P. Fox, President, National District Attorneys’ Association, Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Sheriff Craig Webre, President, National Sheriffs’ Organization, Alexandria, 

VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37 

Mr. Ronald C. Rueker, President, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61 

Mr. Ronald E. Brooks, President, National Narcotic Officers’ Association Coalition, San Francisco, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 69 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 92 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 121 

(1) 

TO AUTHORIZE THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANT GRANT PROGRAM 

AT FISCAL YEAR 2006 LEVELS THROUGH 

2012 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Johnson, Baldwin, Coble, and 

Gohmert. 

Staff present: Marion Dispenza, (Fellow) ATF Detailee; Kimani 

Little, Minority Counsel; and Brandon Johns, Majority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on the bill 

H.R. 3546, ‘‘To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program for fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012,’’ 

authored by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

The Byrne Grant Program, named after Edward Byrne, a New 

York City police officer killed by a violent drug gang 20 years ago, 

is the only source of Federal funding for multijurisdictional efforts 

to prevent and fight crime. The Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant 

Grant, or Byrne/JAG Program, allows States and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control 

crime and to improve the criminal justice system which States and 

local governments have come to rely on to ensure public safety. 

The States use Byrne/JAG grants for law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education, corrections and 

community programs, drug-free planning, evaluation, technology 

improvement programs, and crime victim and witness programs. 

The States use the grants for law enforcement and hold those who 

commit crimes accountable for their offenses. 

However, the grants play an integral role in enabling States to 

employ all aspects of fighting crime, rather than simply using the 

so-called get tough approach focusing on arrests and increasing 

sentences. For example, in my home State of Virginia, in fiscal year 

2 

2007 alone, Byrne/JAG grants enabled task forces to reduce violent 

crime by as much as 20 percent in targeted areas throughout a 

multifaceted approach to crime. 

Nine different law enforcement regional information-sharing networks were established, connecting 85 agencies. The Virginia Firearms Transaction Program increased its instant background checks 

for firearm purchases by 50 percent. High school students received 

training in traffic safety, crime prevention, and substance abuse. 

In its early years, the Byrne/JAG Program enjoyed appropriations that enabled it to work effectively. Unfortunately, however, 

funding has been diminishing over the past several years, threatening its ability to function. Although Congress authorized over a 

billion dollars, only $520 million were appropriated for fiscal year 

2007. The appropriation was drastically reduced to $170 million for 

fiscal year 2008, and the President has proposed further cuts for 

fiscal year 2009. The reduced funding for fiscal year 2008 has already threatened the functionality of the programs the grants support. Further reductions could put existence to the programs in 

doubt. 

The trend to reduce the programs may result in part from instances where Byrne/JAG Program funding has been abused. For 

example, in 1999, Byrne/JAG grant funding was used in the infamous Tulia outrage in which a rogue police narcotics officer in 

Texas set up dozens of people, most of them African-American, in 

false cocaine-trafficking charges. 

In other instances, jurisdictions used funding to fund task forces 

focused solely on ineffective low-level drug arrests which has put 

the task force concept and the diminishing standards for drug enforcement that it has come to represent in the national spotlight. 

But reducing funding is not the answer. Instead, we should ensure that the funds are being used properly because the success of 

the program far outweighs its failures. 

Nationwide, the grant program has resulted in major innovations 

in crime control, including drug courts, gang prevention strategies, 

prisoner reentry programs, all of which provide proven and highly 

effective crime prevention. These innovations have demonstrated 

that best crime policies incorporate programs that help at-risk 

youth avoid criminal behavior and prepare prisoners for reentry 

into society so that they have meaningful and productive alternatives to crime when they return home. 

Byrne/JAG Grants are also indispensible resources that States 

use to combat crime, and I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the funding. 

[The bill, H.R. 3546, follows:] 

3 


HR3546-1.eps
4 


HR3546-2.eps
5 

Mr. SCOTT. It is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, 

the Honorable Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And thank you to my friend, Mr. Johnson, for filing this bill for 

reauthorization. It has done a great deal of good in a great number 

of places. 

And I appreciate the Chairman bringing up a bad example, being 

from Texas. 

In any event, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 

Grant Program allows States and local governments to support a 

broad range of activities to prevent and control crime, to improve 

the criminal justice system. 

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program is named after a 

fallen New York City police officer, Edward Byrne. I am sure everyone here was aware of that and that Officer Byrne was killed 

in February 1986 while protecting a witness who had agreed to testify in court against local drug dealers. 

The Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance administers this program which allocates using a formula based on population and crime statistics. The program has a minimum allocation 

to ensure that each State and territory receives an appropriate 

share of the Federal funds. 

There are seven purpose areas that the funding can be used for. 

The areas include law enforcement, prosecution, court programs, 

crime prevention, education programs, correction and community 

correction programs, drug treatment, technology improvement programs, and programs to support crime victims and witnesses, all 

of those being very noteworthy. 

Once received, Justice Assistance Grant funds can be used to pay 

for personnel, overtime, and equipment. Funds provided to the 

States are also used for statewide initiatives, technical assistance 

and training, support for local and rural jurisdictions. 

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program was preceded by 

the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, but it is one of the few government programs that have been 

consistently supported by both parties in Congress, and I do believe 

we should continue to do so now. 

My friend Mr. Johnson’s bill, H.R. 3546, is a one-sentence 

straight reauthorization of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012, and I would submit 

that it is an example of one member of one party being very bipartisan, playing no games, just straightforward, and that is greatly 

appreciated. 

At a time where violent crime and gangs are spreading out of 

America’s urban centers to suburban and rural areas, Congress 

should continue to provide our States and cities with the funding 

and equipment they need to effectively enforce the law. I am proud 

to support the reauthorization of the Byrne Justice Assistance 

Grant Programs and would urge my colleagues to do so. 

I also appreciate each of you being here. Obviously, you have 

been affected by the Byrne Program, and we just appreciate the 

work that each of you do. Having been a former prosecutor, judge, 

6 

chief justice, I have great appreciation for what each of you do, and 

thank you for going to all the trouble to be here today. I know the 

pay for being a witness is what draws most people here. 

In case somebody is watching on C-SPAN, they are not really 

getting paid. 

But that makes it all the more gracious on your part to be here, 

and we thank you for being a part of this. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Usually, we do not have statements from other Members. We ask 

them to put them in the record, but the author of the bill before 

us is with us, the gentleman from Georgia, and I would call on him 

if he has a brief statement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I applaud you for bringing this matter to this Subcommittee, and 

I want to thank Ranking Member Gohmert for his help and his insight into this very critical area. 

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today. 

H.R. 3546, a bill to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, I introduced last year. This law enforcement grant program is the only comprehensive Federal program to combat criminal activity within a governmental and interstate approach and which provides critical funding to State and 

local law enforcement to fight crimes, as well as to assist in the 

prevention of crimes and drug use, to treat non-violent offenders, 

and to improve the effectiveness of prosecutors, courts, as well as 

corrections practices. 

In my home State of Georgia, these grants allow the State to 

maintain a well-trained corps of specialized drug enforcement officers in small law enforcement agencies that work closely together, 

allowing for officers to share intelligence, coordinate their operations with State and Federal agencies, and share resources with 

State and Federal agencies. 

This critical funding supports half of Georgia’s counties and judicial districts, allowing localities, especially in rural districts, to 

dedicate funding to over 100 special agents, commanders, and support staff. Nationwide, Byrne/JAG has led to 220,000 arrests, the 

seizure of 54,000 weapons, the destruction of 5.5 million grams of 

methamphetamine, and the elimination of almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs. 

Byrne/JAG has the support of numerous law enforcement coalitions, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the National Narcotics Officers’ Association Coalitions. 

But as we discuss how the program has worked effectively across 

the country, we must also discuss some of the problems that have 

led this Administration and some advocacy groups to criticize the 

program; for example, as Judge Gohmert cited, the tragic and infamous drug operation in Tulia, Texas, the inappropriate use of 

Byrne/JAG funding for voter fraud prosecutions, and the funding of 

task forces for ineffective low-level drug arrests, all of which have 

certainly tarnished the program. 

But slashing funding will only jeopardize the hard work our 

criminal justice community has made in reducing and preventing 

crime in our communities. Fighting crime should not be done in a 

7 

vacuum. There must be a multifaceted approach that includes all 

parties, local law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, probation, prisoner reentry programs and, most important, prevention to ensure 

standards and accountability. 

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And, as you know, the Senate has already passed this bill by a 

unanimous consent with 52 co-sponsors, and although Members of 

this body and groups alike have concerns about the program, I believe we all can work together to ensure accountability and standards for this program. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have been joined by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble, and the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, and would 

ask that any further comments be placed in the record. By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us today to discuss the bill, H.R. 3546. 

Our first witness will be Domingo Herraiz, the director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, or BJA. BJA supports law enforcement, 

courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the Nation’s criminal justice 

system. He has an undergraduate degree from Iowa University and 

political science and is currently working toward the completion of 

a master’s degree in public administration from Ohio University. 

Our next witness will be Dustin McDaniel, the attorney general 

for the State of Arkansas, representing the National Association of 

Attorneys General. He has an extensive history of public service, 

including service as a uniformed patrol officer in his hometown of 

Jonesboro, and he was a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives. He obtained a bachelor’s degree from the University 

of Arkansas and has a law degree from the University of Arkansas 

at Little Rock. 

Our next witness will be Mr. James P. Fox, district attorney, San 

Mateo County, California, and president of the National District 

Attorneys’ Association. He is a career prosecutor serving as a district attorney since 1982. He received both his Bachelor of Science 

degree in psychology and his juris doctorate from the University of 

San Francisco. 

The next witness will be Sheriff Craig Webre of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association. Prior 

to his election as sheriff, he served his community as an officer 

with the Thibodaux Police Department and as a Louisiana State 

trooper. He holds a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and a juris 

doctorate from Loyola University. 

Our next witness will be Ronald C. Rueker who is the director 

of public safety, City of Sherwood, Oregon, and president of the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. He is a graduate of 

the FBI National Academy, the FBI’s National Executive Institute, 

and the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. 

Our final witness will be Ronald E. Brooks, president of the National Narcotic Officers’ Association Coalition, the NNOAC, representing 44 State narcotic officers’ associations with combined 

8 

membership of over 60,000 law enforcement officers around the Nation. He is a 32-year California law enforcement veteran with 24 

of those years being in drug, gang, and violent crime enforcement. 

He has been the primary investigator, supervisor, or manager for 

thousands of enforcement operations and has written policies and 

procedures for managing undercover operations and for managing 

informants. 

Now, for the witnesses, each of your written statements will be 

made part of the record in its entirety, and I would ask each of you 

to summarize your statement in 5 minutes or less. To help stay 

within that time, there is a lighting device on the table which will 

start off green, go to yellow, and red when 5 minutes are up. 

We will begin with Mr. Herraiz. 

TESTIMONY OF DOMINGO S. HERRAIZ, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, the Department of 

Justice appreciates the opportunity to testify today regarding the 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Program, the Byrne/ 

JAG Program. My name is Domingo Herraiz, and I am the director 

of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

As was mentioned, BJA supports law enforcement, courts, correction, treatment, technology, and prevention initiatives that 

strengthen the Nation’s criminal justice system. We emphasize 

local control, building relationships in the field, providing training 

and technical assistance, developing collaborations and partnerships, streamlining of grants, encouraging innovation, and communicating the value of justice efforts. 

BJA is committed to providing law enforcement and justice partners with the tools to perform their jobs and make America’s communities safer. We recognize spending challenges and the need to 

identify an approach that allows for flexibility in meeting our Nation’s law enforcement needs and the ability to adapt to everchanging crime concerns. 

To meet these challenges, the department has focused on targeting resources to the areas with the greatest need where they 

can do the most good. The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for more than $1 billion would tackle the Nation’s most 

pressing needs and support top priority initiatives. 

One of the most significant changes proposed by the President’s 

budget is the reorganization and consolidation of more than 70 existing grant programs into four multiple-purpose programs: the 

Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative; the Byrne Public 

Safety and Protection Program; the Child Safety and Juvenile Program; and the Violence Against Women grants. These new discretionary grants would award funding through a highly competitive 

grant program. 

My testimony today is focus on two of these initiatives, the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative and the Byrne Public 

Safety and Protection Program. 

Between 1993 and 2005, the violent crime victimization rate declined nearly 60 percent and the property crime victimization rates 

9 

declined by more than 50 percent. While the recent FBI Uniform 

Crime Report data shows fluctuation in rates, the violent crime 

rate during this Administration is still well below historic levels. 

Preliminary FBI data also point to a decline in violent crime for 

the first half of 2007. 

Despite these positive trends, challenges still exist. Some regions 

and communities continue to experience increases in violent 

crimes. As Attorney General Mukasey recently said, ‘‘The nature of 

crime varies not only from one city to another, but even from one 

block to the next. So it is at the block level that much of our work 

has to happen.’’ 

The department is following through on the attorney general’s 

commitment to assist State, local, and tribal governments by working with our partners to identify problems and develop meaningful 

strategies to reduce and deter crime. One outcome of this effort is 

the Violent Reduction Partnership Initiative based on the department’s experience administering the Byrne/JAG Program. The President’s initiative seeks $200 million to build on the most 

successful aspects of the Byrne/JAG Program to help communities 

address high crime rates of violent crime by developing multijurisdictional law enforcement partnerships among State, local, tribal, 

and Federal agencies. These partnerships are designed to disrupt 

and prevent criminal gang, firearm, and drug activities. 

With discretionary funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 

2007, we demonstrated this approach with a competitive solicitation to fund task force activities, refine task force activities, with 

focused strategies, including intelligence that led policing to address specific crime problems. Last fall, BJA awarded more than 

$75 million to 106 sites in 37 States through this program. With 

the resources sought by the President’s larger budget request of 

$200 million, we can expand the success and better assist communities as they reduce and prevent violent crime. This year, the President’s budget proposal includes $200 million 

for a streamlined grant program that would combine the funding 

streams of several programs into the new Byrne Public Safety and 

Protection Program. This program consolidates the Office of Justice 

Program’s most effective State and local law enforcement programs 

into a single, flexible, competitive discretionary grant program for 

communities to develop solutions based on their priority crime concerns. 

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal would enable 

the department to continue to work with our State, local, and tribal 

partners to effectively target Federal assistance to areas with the 

greatest need. Our goal is to provide communities with the opportunity to decide for themselves how to fight the problems they are 

facing to support their most critical law enforcement needs. 

Law enforcement officers are the country’s front line in the fight 

against crime. They perform dangerous jobs with courage and skill. 

BJA is committed to working alongside law enforcement and justice 

partners to provide the best practices and tools to ultimately 

strengthen the criminal justice system. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

today. I am happy to address any questions you or other Members 

of the Subcommittee may have. 

10 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herraiz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOMINGO S. HERRAIZ


DSH-1.eps
11 


DSH-2.eps
12 


DSH-3.eps
13 


DSH-4.eps
14 


DSH-5.eps
15 


DSH-6.eps
16 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. McDaniel? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DUSTIN McDANIEL, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Scott, 

Congressman Gohmert, and other Members of the Committee for 

giving me the opportunity to be here today. 

I also thank you, Congressman Johnson, for authoring this important legislation. 

My name is Dustin McDaniel, and I am the attorney general for 

the State of Arkansas, and I am here today on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General, NAAG. 

NAAG and each of its individual members across the country 

strongly urges the reauthorization of the Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistant Grant Program. The Nation’s attorneys general 

believe that full funding is critical to State and local law enforcement’s ability to maintain public safety as evidenced by a March 

2008 letter to Congress from all 56 association members, and if it 

would please the Chairman, I would like to have a copy of that letter from the 56 attorneys general incorporated into the record as 

evidence of our strong commitment to this program. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

17 


F-1.eps
18 


F-2.eps
19 


F-3.eps
20 

Mr. MCDANIEL. One of the reasons the attorneys general believe 

that Byrne/JAG funding is of paramount importance is that the 

most crime prevention efforts occur at the State and local level. 

Homeland security begins at home. But with State budgets under 

increasing financial strain, the job is becoming ever more difficult. 

Byrne/JAG has played a role in supporting Arkansas’ regional 

drug task forces. In fact, our 19 drug task forces are the primary 

location for the spending of our State’s Byrne/JAG monies. As the 

Chairman indicated, like any multijurisdictional enterprise, there 

have been growing pains felt in the implementation of these drug 

task forces. However, State statutes, local law enforcement techniques, and other evolutions have led to more efficiencies and better effective programs. 

I agree with you, Congressman Johnson, supervision and accountability is the answer rather than cutting this funding. 

According to prosecutors in Arkansas, last year, nearly 70 percent of Arkansas’ crime lab drug submissions were submitted by 

our State drug task forces. The current multijurisdictional drug 

task force concept is, in fact, more efficient fiscally and produces 

better arrests and prosecutions than any other model. 

However, when funding was cut by 67 percent in fiscal year 

2008, law enforcement agencies across the country were forced to 

shut down drug and gang task forces and cease funding effective 

programs. 

According to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, 

funding cuts there projected the loss of more than 21 prosecutors 

in that State alone. Primarily, those losses were felt in the State’s 

highest crime areas. Milwaukee County alone, the largest prosecutorial unit in Wisconsin, will lose 10 percent of its entire prosecutorial staff. 

I believe that failing to reauthorize and fully fund Byrne/JAG is 

a step in the wrong direction and will leave a void that can only 

be filled by those who wish to do harm in our communities. In Arkansas, for example, if one compares drug task force related statistics from 2004 when Byrne/JAG funding was higher to 2007 when 

it was at its lowest, the results are grim. 

Since 2004, Arkansas has experienced a 35 percent reduction in 

the number of cases filed by drug task forces and a 41 percent reduction in the number of arrests made by drug task forces. This occurs at the exact same time that methamphetamine has become an 

epidemic. Once limited to Southwestern Pacific states, it has taken 

hold of the entire country, especially in rural America. 

Byrne/JAG funding cuts not only impact local law enforcement, 

but they have also hampered a coordinated effort by law enforcement at all levels of government to seize drugs and prevent drugrelated crime. Each year, Byrne/JAG funds more than 4,000 police 

officers and prosecutors working on more than 750 drug task forces 

across hundreds of urban and rural counties and cities in all 50 

States. This funding has led to more than 22,000 arrests, 54,000 

seized weapons, 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the 

breakup of almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs annually. 

The successes of the program are clear, the failures of the program can be addressed, and I hope that Congress and the Administration will renew their commitment to fighting crime and proVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:44 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\052008\42508.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
21 

tecting our communities by reauthorizing and adequately funding 

this critical program. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify before the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDaniel follows:] 

22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DUSTIN MCDANIEL


GDM-1.eps
23 


GDM-2.eps
24 


GDM-3.eps
25 


GDM-4.eps
26 


GDM-5.eps
27 


GDM-6.eps
28 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. McDaniel. 

Mr. Fox? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. FOX, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, Members of the Committee. 

My name is James Fox. I am the district attorney of San Mateo 

County, California, and the president of the National District Attorneys’ Association. 

San Mateo County in 1984 recognized the value of a multijurisdictional task force, and we did create the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force which to this day continues. It was a combined 

effort for all 20 cities in our county. Our members have a joint powers agreement that has been very, very successful, and, in fact, just 

last night, our task force was involved in the seizure of over a 

pound of methamphetamine. 

Unfortunately, methamphetamine is an export from California. 

We are a source State, and that is not something that we are proud 

of, but it, unfortunately, is a fact. 

Prosecutors throughout the country have difficulties in being able 

to adequately train people. The Byrne/JAG money has been utilized 

in a number of the States for training of prosecution as well as law 

enforcement officers, and I think that increased training is something that would go a long way toward addressing the potential 

abuses of narcotics enforcement because I think that it is rare, but 

it is definitely important that we receive the resources for the 

training. 

In the State of Pennsylvania, the State prosecutors are solely dependent upon Byrne/JAG funding for the training of the prosecutors in that State. Tennessee—Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee—the prosecutor in that county has utilized the Byrne/JAG 

funding to create an anti-truancy program to try to address quality 

of life and to try to basically do community prosecution. That program would be seriously jeopardized with the reduction that has 

been proposed. 

In Hawaii, the Honolulu district attorney also has a community 

prosecution program that is solely dependent upon Byrne/JAG 

funding. 

Virginia, prosecutors are dependent upon the funding from 

Byrne/JAG for limited training that the State prosecutors do receive. 

Unfortunately, from the prosecutor’s perspective, we have a problem in recruiting and retaining young prosecuting attorneys because education costs have gone up, young people cannot afford to 

go into public service, and as a result, there is a very, very high 

turnover for prosecution. That has created a burden upon adequate 

training for prosecutors. 

So it is absolutely imperative that adequate resources be provided to continue the great efforts that had been implemented since 

the creation of the Byrne/JAG funding. Obviously, we know that 

there have been pressures to reduce, and we are hopeful that there 

will be some supplemental appropriations this year because there 

are programs that, unfortunately, are going to disappear. 

29 

Frankly, I think that it would be tragic because, as was said earlier, homeland security begins at home, and we are solely dependent in many areas, especially in the smaller jurisdictions, on this 

funding. 

On behalf of our Nation’s prosecutors, I would like to thank the 

Subcommittee for the opportunity to share my views on the Byrne/ 

JAG funding program, and I would urge the Subcommittee to take 

the necessary steps to ensure the authorization of Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grants at fiscal year 2006 levels 

through fiscal year 2012. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES P. FOX

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is James P. Fox and I am the elected district attorney in San Mateo County, California and have served in this capacity for approximately twenty-six years. 

I have been involved in the criminal justice system for forty-one years in a variety 

of positions including juvenile probation, deputy district attorney, criminal defense 

attorney and elected district attorney in 1982. I am a past President of the California District Attorneys Association and have been a chairman of the Legislative 

Committee of the California District Attorneys Association since 1990. 

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Subcommittee for the invitation 

to testify today. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns as 

well as those of my colleagues regarding the successes of the Byrne-JAG program 

and the probable consequences of continued reductions in program funding. 

Currently I serve as the President of the National District Attorneys Association 

(NDAA). NDAA is the largest and primary professional association of prosecuting 

attorneys in the United States. Formed in 1950 as the ‘‘National Association of 

County and Prosecuting Attorneys’’ and given its present name in 1959, NDAA has 

approximately 7,000 members, including most of the nation’s local prosecutors, in 

addition to, assistant prosecutors, investigators, victim witness advocates and paralegals. The National District Attorneys Association provides professional guidance 

and support to its members, serves as a resource and education center, follows public policy issues involving criminal justice and law enforcement, and produces a 

number of publications. 

As a representative of the nation’s prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals, I am here today to discuss the detrimental impact of reductions to ByrneJAG funding and to urge this subcommittee to do what is necessary to make certain 

that the program is authorized at the FY 2006 level ($1.095 billion) through Fiscal 

Year 2012. The FY08 omnibus appropriations bill cut the Byrne Justice Assistance 

Grant (Byrne/JAG) program by 67%, from $520 million in FY07 to $170 million in 

FY08. 

The Byrne-JAG program is the only comprehensive federal program to combat 

criminal activity with an intergovernmental and interstate approach, allowing for 

increased effectiveness in the responsiveness of the criminal justice system to the 

development of proactive approaches to interstate and multi-jurisdictional crime. It 

allows for a true system-wide approach, enabling communities to target resources 

to their most pressing local needs. It has been particularly critical for the prosecutorial community. Prosecutors across the nation rely on this funding for the training 

of prosecutors and law enforcement personnel; the dedication of prosecutors to task 

forces and investigation teams; the development and implementation of crime prevention programs and the creation of innovative programs to reduce recidivism 

rates. In fact, the Byrne-JAG program is in many instances the only source of funding to support critical multi-jurisdictional task forces and multidisciplinary teams. 

If funding for the Byrne-JAG program remains at the reduced FY08 level, prosecutors across the country will lose vital training, investigative tools, personnel and 

physical resources, the ability to effectively collaborate with other jurisdictions, 

states and levels of government, and the ability to engage in successful crime prevention efforts. 

30 

IMPACT OF CONTINUED FUNDING REDUCTIONS IN THE EDWARD 

BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

CALIFORNIA

In my home state of California continued reductions to the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants program will have a devastating impact on the investigation and prosecution of drug trafficking and various other crimes. A survey of county-specific programs illustrates the importance of this federal funding. 

Stanislaus County 

The Stanislaus County Drug Enforcement Agency has been an active, successful 

anti-drug abuse (ADA) task force in existence for more than 34 years. They operate 

under a supportive Governing Board comprised of all the law enforcement leaders 

in the community and have participation from every city agency in the county, along 

with the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, and Probation Department. As a result of this support and commitment to a safer community through 

drug suppression efforts, the Stanislaus task force has remained operational despite 

numerous reductions in grant funding over the past several years. 

During the past five years the county has experienced fluctuations in OES Byrne 

Grant (JAG funding) with decreases in excess of 50%. These reductions resulted in 

the loss of critical investigator positions on the task force. Further loss of personnel 

will have a negative impact on operations and could limit the task force’s ability 

to conduct some large-scale investigations. These investigations are a critical component in successfully investigating and identifying DTO’s (Drug Trafficking Organizations). This will jeopardize the Stanislaus ADA’s success in controlling and eliminating the major drug trafficking organizations responsible for the methamphetamine epidemic throughout Stanislaus County and across the nation. 

This essential funding has contributed to recent successes of the anti drug abuse 

task forces. Early this month after a comprehensive investigation and weeks of surveillance, a methamphetamine super lab was located. Approximately 200 gallons of 

methamphetamine in solution with an estimated street value of over four million 

dollars were seized, in addition to firearms. Over the past six months the ADA has 

arrested several associates of a well known multi-generational drug trafficking organization. 

In order for the Stanislaus ADA Enforcement Program to continue operating at 

the same level of sophistication and success, it is essential that the Byrne Grant 

program be funded at adequate levels. It is a constant challenge to conduct investigations, which maintain a higher level of sophistication/intelligence than that of 

the drug trafficking organizations. With a decrease in funding, resulting in a reduction of personnel, the county’s investigative abilities will be diminished. 

Santa Barbara County 

Santa Barbara County has for many years used these funds as the primary funding source for a county-wide narcotics task force. This unit is staffed by officers from 

law enforcement agencies in the various jurisdictions. Their mission is to target the 

major offenders, and work in a united effort to benefit the county as a whole. It has 

been quite successful in the past, but with the decreases in funding the entire program may be in jeopardy. This task force along with other agencies was responsible 

for implementing the DEC, or drug endangered children, program that has served 

to focus on the children victims of drug trafficking and abuse. If the funds are further decreased Santa Barbara County may have to eliminate the work of the entire 

task force. Historically, disbanded task forces are found to be extremely difficult to 

reassemble in the future when funding is increased. 

Santa Clara County 

Santa Clara County has two multi-jurisdictional investigative task forces funded 

with Byrne-JAG grants: the Unified Narcotic Enforcement Team (UNET) and the 

Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team (SCCSET). Nearly every law 

enforcement agency in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties has law enforcement 

agents assigned to one of these units. A major crimes regional task force, the South 

Bay METRO, also operates in both these counties and others, including San Mateo 

County. The work of these tasks forces and teams significantly reduces the amount 

of illegal drugs on the county’s streets and aids in the capture of regional and local 

drug traffickers. 

These task forces have been doing an excellent job and for smaller local agencies 

it is the only way they can receive the quality assistance they need in order to make 

major drug busts. They facilitate the transfer of information across and between 

local, state and federal jurisdictions and the sharing of best practices among the 

31 

participating agencies. Between January 2007 and February 2008, the task forces 

have seized 151⁄2 pounds of methamphetamine with a street value of over 

$750,000.00, 51⁄2 pounds of cocaine ($199,000.00), 1⁄2 pound of tar heroin 

($20,000.00) and 318 dosage units of MDMA (Ecstasy at 10 to 15 dollars per tablet). 

At least six of these investigations had direct ties to organized crime groups, such 

as Nuestra Familia, South Vietnamese Gangsters and MS-13. SCCSET also initiated a murder for hire investigation, which resulted in an arrest and conviction of 

the perpetrator and prevented a homicide. 

If Byrne-JAG funds are reduced, it is estimated that these task forces will be cut 

by a minimum of 67% severely crippling their ability to effectively operate. Law enforcement cannot conduct investigations without funding. The local agencies do not 

have the manpower or the resources to tackle these problems on their own. The collaborative work must continue and this will in turn reduce the amount of drugs on 

our streets. 

San Bernardino County 

In San Bernardino County the Byrne/JAG funds are used to offset designated 

Street Enforcement and Marijuana Suppression deputy district attorneys. Continued reductions in the Byrne-JAG funding will require that the department’s budget 

de-fund other positions. 

Ventura County 

Ventura County is fast becoming a supply and distribution point of narcotics for 

much of the state, as well as the western region (i.e., Oregon, Washington, and Nevada). 

During this past year the Ventura County Combined Agency Team (VCAT) noticed an increase in outside agencies conducting narcotic investigations that have 

led them directly to Ventura County. There have been several occasions where agencies from Los Angeles (LA Impact), Orange County (RSNP), San Bernardino 

(IRNET), San Diego (Southwest Border HIDTA), and even San Jose (DEA) have contacted investigators in order to advise them that their investigations have ties to 

Ventura County. Many of these investigations have resulted in the arrests of members belonging to Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs), the seizures of narcotics, 

and the forfeiture of proceeds from these DTOs. Many of the Ventura County investigations have led investigators out of Ventura County and back to these same jurisdictions, i.e., Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. In addition, investigations originating in Ventura County have led investigators directly to the source 

of supply in Baja California (Tijuana) and as far north as the state of Washington. 

VCATs primary goal has always been to reduce the impact of illicit drugs within 

Ventura County. Using a multi-jurisdictional collaborative approach (i.e., VCAT 

Task Force) has resulted in a great deal of success. For example, within the last 

few months VCAT has seized over 50 pounds of methamphetamine, 20 kilos of cocaine, 130 pounds of tar heroin, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in narcotic 

proceeds. 

Continued reductions in Byrne JAG funding, coupled with previous years reductions, would significantly impact the county’s ability to carry out the types of investigations that are currently being conducting. The expectant result of a reduction 

in funding would not only impact the narcotic task force and local law enforcement 

agencies, but more importantly, would no doubt create a concomitant effect resulting 

in an increase of drugs and crime in communities, counties, states and nation. 

Cuts to the funding such as that which occurred in FY 2008 could potentially shut 

down the task force in Ventura County. At the very least, in order to save any investigative positions all ancillary expenses would need to be eliminated. This would 

include such things as training, equipment purchases, investigative costs, administrative costs, e.g., office space, copy machines, telephones, etc. In addition, severe 

cuts would need to be made to overtime, which would impact the quality and outcome of investigations. 

With respect to the elimination of training and equipment, the loss of funding in 

each of these areas would have a catastrophic effect on the task force. Training is 

used to enhance investigators’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. Training provides a 

source of networking where investigators often meet and discuss the latest DTO 

trends, case law, threats, and the newest types of surveillance equipment necessary 

to stay current in the field. Many of the investigations involve the use of cutting 

edge technology in order to keep pace with the drug trafficking organizations. Without adequate funding and training the task force could not initiate the types of investigations currently being conducted, but instead would be relegated to working 

street drugs, which has a minimal, if any impact at all on drug trafficking organizations. 

32 

Alameda County 

In Alameda County the funds from the Byrne JAG program pay for all expenses 

(with the exception of police salaries) for the Alameda County Narcotics Task Force. 

In addition, the funding covers the costs associated with dedicating a prosecutor to 

the task force. Without this funding the District Attorney, due to staffing concerns, 

would be unable to assign a prosecutor to the task force. If the reductions continue 

the task force may have to be disbanded. This is the only unit in Alameda County 

that focuses on midlevel and upper level narcotics traffickers. In Yuba County a 

prosecutor is also dedicated to the narcotics task force and is in a similar situation 

as Byrne JAG funds are reduced. 

II. ALABAMA

4th Judicial Circuit 

Alabama’s 4th Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force is funded by the Byrne-JAG program. The 4th Judicial Circuit covers the largest geographical area of any other circuit in the State of Alabama. The total project cost for FY 2008 is currently set at 

$306,113.45. The state has requested $153,056.72 in Byrne-JAG funds to support 

this task force. 

The Drug Task Force has made a tremendous impact on the drug trade in Alabama’s 4th Circuit. The number of violent crimes related to drug activity is down 

substantially. This is attributed to the focus by law enforcement on the leaders of 

the narcotics community, the increased quality of investigative skills and improved 

case preparation. Prosecutors in the state have learned through various reliable and 

confidential informants that individuals in the narcotics trade fear the abilities of 

the Task Force to operate and make quality cases that send drug dealers to the 

state and federal penitentiaries for long periods of time. 

The 4th Circuit of Alabama would be adversely affected if the Drug Task Force 

is eliminated, and without Byrne-JAG assistance, this program would go without 

sufficient funding, ultimately requiring dissolution of the task force. Drug dealers 

will return to operating openly, without the fear of being apprehended. 

III. ARIZONA

In Arizona, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission allocates Byrne-JAG funding according to a statewide strategy that also incorporates state and local dollars 

to maximize the use of public dollars to combat drugs, gangs and violent crime. Together these funds financed 16 narcotics task forces; 15 tandem prosecution programs; funding to courts to correspond with the increased caseload; funding to the 

state and municipal crime labs to assist with lab work for drug analysis and other 

related costs; and funding for criminal history records improvement projects. These 

programs resulted in the seizure of more than 350,000 pounds of illicit drugs; the 

discovery and dismantling of 16 methamphetamine labs; and the arrest of 5,220 

drug offenders. 

Due to cuts in Byrne-JAG funding, Arizona’s state-funded programs expect to see 

a decrease from $5.6 million in FY07 to an estimated $1.7 million in FY08. Additionally, the state of Arizona is in fiscal crisis as the state legislature is trying to 

counter a $1 billion shortfall in revenue. Subsequently, state dollars distributed 

with Byrne/JAG funds under a state-wide strategic plan are at risk of being swept 

into the general fund by the legislature, further crippling the state’s enhanced drug 

and gang enforcement program. In Pima County, AZ, budget cuts to the Byrne-JAG 

Grants directly translate to personnel cuts representing one full time attorney position and one team in the narcotics unit comprised of two attorney positions, one 

paralegal position and one legal secretary position. The current level of staffing is 

inadequate with attorneys carrying unacceptably high case loads. Further reductions in staffing levels will result in increases in attorney caseloads and a negative 

impact on the time required to dispose of felony cases. 

The U.S. DEA has recognized Arizona as one of the most active drug trafficking 

corridors in the United States. Given the reduction of the Byrne and JAG funding 

over the past four years, the Byrne and JAG programs will be reduced to the point 

of no longer offering effective support. The loss of Byrne funding would result in dismantling of several rural task forces, leaving tens of thousands of miles without coordinated narcotics intervention efforts. Given Arizona’s unwanted role as a major 

trafficking corridor for narcotics smuggled from international origins, the loss of 

these task forces have implications nationally, not just for Arizona. 

33 

IV. HAWAII

Honolulu City & County 

The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (City and County of Honolulu) utilizes Justice Assistance Grants for the Community Prosecution Program and the Drug Court 

Initiative, programs that assist with both the prevention of crime and the reduction 

of recidivism rates in this community. Both of these programs have been recognized 

by the Bureau of Justice Assistance as programs that are effective in addressing the 

quality of life issues associated with communities and in giving first time drug offenders an alternative to incarceration. The JAG grant funds a prosecutor in each 

of these areas to spearhead the programs. 

The Honolulu Community Prosecution’s contributions to the advancement of justice in the community has been nationally recognized with a 2005 Coordination 

Honor Award (Truancy Sweeps), 2004 Coordination Honor Award (Weed and Seed 

Court), 2003Honorable Mention Award (Waipahu Juvenile Task Force), and 2000 

Judge C. Nils Tavares Award (for departmental systemic improvements, including 

community prosecution). In 2007, Honolulu joined forces with other jurisdictions on 

the NCJFCJ Methamphetamine Project in battling the spread of methamphetamine 

houses across rural America. 

The Community Prosecution program remains a key partner in the Methamphetamine Abatement Project sponsored by (NCJFCJ), addressing concerns of the Oahu 

Neighborhood Boards, participating in the Youth Violence Prevention Initiative of 

the D.O.E., in accomplishing the mission of the federal Weed and Seed Program, in 

being a presence around the table to discuss Drug Endangered Children, ensuring 

the media receives accurate information about Community Prosecution campaigns, 

presenting the Community Prosecution program to community groups and providing 

interagency training sessions for other community prosecution partners. 

The Justice Assistance Grant funds used in support of the Drug Court assist in 

the reduction of recidivism rates in the community. Since the inception of Drug 

Court in 1996, 738 defendants have been served. Of that number, 453 clients have 

graduated and only 57 have been convicted of new criminal offenses (26 

misdemenaors/31 felony convictions). The current recidivism rate is 12.6%. 

The loss of Justice Assistance Grant monies would seriously imperil the Office of 

the Prosecuting Attorney’s ability to sustain the successful Community Prosecution 

program and Drug Court Initiatives. 

V. MASSACHUSETTS

In the last four years alone, the Massachusetts District Attorneys and the Massa- chusetts District Attorneys Association have received more than $2,500,000 in 

Byrne-JAG funding for initiatives to promote Internet safety, address drug crimes 

(heroin, oxycontin, methamphetamine), fund apprehension teams for violent fugitives, address underage drinking, and purchase technology hardware and software 

to link police and district attorney case management systems. 

VI. NEW YORK

King County 

The King County District Attorney’s Office (KCDA) in New York currently re- ceives five separate Byrne grants totaling approximately $1.5 million. These funds 

are used in not only the investigation and prosecution of narcotics and gang-related 

criminal enterprises, but in the prosecution of domestic violence cases. Additionally, 

these funds are used for innovative offender reentry programs like the Drug Treatment Alternatives-to-Prison program, the nation’s first prosecution-ruin program to 

divert prison-bound felony offenders to residential drug treatment. 

Recently, an investigation funded, in part by a Byrne grant, made national headlines. These funds were instrumental in KCDA’s Operation Final Voyage, an investigation that uncovered an international cocaine smuggling operation between Panama and the port of New York using container ships. This operation resulted in the 

seizure of cocaine with a street value of $10 million, the indictment of seven Panamanian nationals, and the dismantling of an operation that hoped to supply cocaine to drug dealers throughout the east coast of the United States. 

VII. PENNSYLVANIA

The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute (PDAI) received $469,035 in ByrneJAG funding in FY 2007. Most of this funding is used by the Institute to conduct 

statewide training of prosecutors and law enforcement personnel. In fact, the PDAI 

is the only source of accredited in-state training for Pennsylvania’s 67 district attorneys. This training is critical to most Pennsylvania counties which are predomiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:44 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\052008\42508.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
34 

nantly rural jurisdictions with small prosecutor offices lacking in the necessary resources to provide their own training. While prosecutors could participate in training sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, the cost of this training is typically triple that of the PDAI; often geared toward defense counsel; and lacks the 

prosecutor networking and interactive component that is found in PDAI trainings. 

The loss of this funding would devastate PDAI—the Byrne-JAG funding received 

in FY 2007 covered 50% of payroll, benefits, and overhead for both the PDAI and 

the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Personnel who work primarily on 

training courses for the Institute are compensated almost entirely by the Byrne-JAG 

program. If Byrne-JAG funding is lost or continues to languish, lay-offs and sale of 

realty would become a necessity. The development of well trained prosecutors and 

law enforcement personnel will become impossible not only in Pennsylvania but 

across the nation if these funds continue to be reduced or cut entirely. 

VIII. TENNESSEE

Shelby County 

A good example of the use of Byrne-JAG funding for prevention purposes is a community outreach program being used in Shelby Count (Memphis). The District Attorney in this county dedicates one staff member (special assistant) to this program 

which educates the county school students and citizens about the severe consequences of violent crimes committed with guns and the dangers of both gangs and 

drugs. 

The ‘‘Do The Right Thing Challenge’’ implemented in Memphis City and Shelby 

County schools is an initiative of the National Campaign to Stop Violence, a nonprofit organization, composed of business, community and governmental leaders who 

have come together to reduce youth violence in communities across America. A reduction in homicides with firearms is in part attributable to the community outreach work done by this special assistant. Additionally, the special assistant is responsible for managing the Mentoring Based Truancy Reduction Program for the 

District Attorney’s Office. Five Memphis City schools participate in the Mentoring 

Program. In lieu of prosecuting truant students, the District Attorney’s Office 

matches qualified mentors with the truant students. The mentoring program has 

shown success with the mentored students by their increased school attendance and 

participation in various community activities with their mentors. The lack of funding for this special assistant position would have a drastic effect on the community. 

Without JAG funding, the truancy program will not have a manager, causing the 

program to slow or even cease. The strong message from the District Attorney’s Office about the consequences of violent crimes committed with guns, and the dangers 

of gangs and drugs will unfortunately no longer be communicated to the community. 

IX. VIRGINIA

The state of Virginia has received $58,278 of Byrne-JAG funding annually, which 

has allowed the implementation of critical training programs for prosecutors, which, 

otherwise, the state would not have had the resources to fund. This funding has and 

will support drug prosecution training for 20 prosecutors and 20 law enforcement 

officers each year from 2006–2009. The Drug Prosecution program trains prosecutors and law enforcement to work as teams to more efficiently and effectively prosecute narcotics violations. Additionally, Byrne-JAG funding provides the state with 

the ability to annually train 40 prosecutor and law enforcement officer teams in the 

latest techniques to prosecute homicide cases. These programs have been met with 

significant praise by attendees and have been found to provide much needed guidance for prosecutors and law enforcement officers as they work together to ensure 

Virginia’s communities are crime-free. 

The loss of Byrne-JAG funding would put a halt to these trainings in Virginia, 

which have proven so valuable to prosecutors and law enforcement throughout the 

state, ultimately stifling their ability to ensure public safety in Virginia’s communities. 

X. WISCONSIN

Anoka County 

With Byrne-JAG funding, Anoka County has dedicated a prosecutor to the county 

drug task force. The county has found that direct interaction between prosecutors 

and drug task force members, results in successful drug prosecutions which constitute about one third of the county’s caseload. The county has received $49,400 annually in Byrne-JAG funding to finance this task force. 

35 

If Byrne-JAG funding is eliminated, there will be less of an emphasis on drug 

prosecutions and a loss of direct contact with prosecutors during the investigation 

of drug cases. 

CONCLUSION 

On behalf of the nation’s prosecutors, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for 

the opportunity to share my views on the Byrne-JAG program and I would urge the 

Subcommittee to take the necessary steps to ensure the authorization of Edward 

Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants at the FY 2006 levels ($1.095 billion) 

through Fiscal Year 2012. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Fox. 

Sheriff Webre? 

TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF CRAIG WEBRE, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ORGANIZATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Sheriff WEBRE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. 

My name is Craig Webre. I am the sheriff of Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana, and president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, representing over 3,000 elected sheriffs and more than 22,000 law enforcement professionals. I appear before you today to discuss the 

necessity for Byrne/JAG among State and local law enforcement 

agencies and the urgent need to reauthorize funding levels through 

fiscal year 2012. 

Sheriffs play a unique role in the criminal justice system. Beyond 

providing traditional policing services, sheriffs also manage local 

jails and often provide court security. Over 99 percent of the sheriffs are elected and, oftentimes, serve as the chief law enforcement 

officers of their counties, giving us a keen understanding of the 

needs of the criminal justice system in the local communities we 

serve. 

The purpose of Byrne/JAG is to assist State and local law enforcement in combating crime in their communities. Primarily, this 

task has been accomplished through the establishment of multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces. Additionally, Byrne/JAG 

funding has been used for community crime prevention programs, 

substance abuse treatment programs, prosecutorial initiatives, and 

many other local crime control and prevention programs. 

Over the last several years, we have seen dramatic decreases in 

Byrne/JAG funding from a high of nearly $900 million in fiscal 

year 2003 to $170 million in fiscal year 2008. The funding cut in 

fiscal year 2008 Omnibus bill, a 67 percent decrease, represents the 

most significant funding cut to drug-fighting initiatives in the last 

25 years. This will result in as many as half of the longstanding 

multijurisdictional drug task forces shutting down as of July 1 of 

this year, and the remaining task forces will face significantly reduced operational effectiveness. 

Gangs, drug dealers, and other violent criminals are certain to 

regain a stronghold in the area of narcotics trafficking and distribution. Moreover, the inability to sustain drug task forces will 

lead to the loss of veteran members possessing years of institutional knowledge, the loss of intelligence databases, and the loss of 

informants. 

The drastic reduction of Byrne/JAG, and other essential programs, such as COPS, places an insurmountable burden upon State 

36 

and local law enforcement. As funding for law enforcement continues to decrease, we continue to see an increase in crime. The 

numbers are there to prove that this is already happening. 

Additionally, assaults on police officers have likewise increased. 

The level of violence is now bleeding into areas where it has never 

been seen before. One week ago, I received the now infamous 3 

a.m. phone call with the news of a triple homicide that had occurred in Lafourche Parish, a residential bedroom community. 

Three individuals, who themselves had been arrested in the past 

by the Lafourche Parish Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force, were 

ambushed as they sat in a parked vehicle. More than 20 rounds 

from an AK-47 assault rifle were pumped into the late-model Mustang, and the occupants had no chance to escape from their death 

chamber. 

The cuts to Byrne/JAG could not come at a worst time. Given the 

fact that hundreds of potentially violent federally convicted drug 

dealers are being released from prison pursuant to mandates of the 

U.S. Sentencing Commission, these offenders will soon flood our 

towns, cities, and counties ready to reestablish their turf. 

Some have said that the problems created by street corner drug 

dealers are limited in scope and, therefore, it is a State and local 

issue with no role for the Federal Government. The fallacy of this 

proposition lies in the fact that the success of multijurisdictional 

task forces in reducing the proliferation of backyard meth labs has 

resulted in the creation of super meth labs in Mexico and the importation of meth into the United States. 

Also, the World Wide Web presents endless opportunities for 

drugs and illegal substances to be brought into the country from 

around the world, and highway interdiction units have demonstrated the vast nature of networking of interstate trafficking. 

In addition to restoring the fiscal year 2008 funding for Byrne/ 

JAG, I urge Congress to reauthorize funding for Byrne/JAG 

through fiscal year 2012 in the amount of $1.1 billion per year, 

which will enable existing task forces to continue operations and 

the opportunity for new task forces to start up. 

I would like to thank Congressman Henry Johnson of Georgia 

and the 53 co-sponsors for supporting Byrne/JAG and introducing 

H.R. 3546. 

Finally, I would like to propose the Committee give serious consideration to increasing Byrne/JAG allocations to rural communities, which, by my earlier example, now face big city problems. 

Currently, funding is allocated to each area on the national crime 

violent reports. Although rural areas may not have violent crime 

rates competitive with suburban and urban areas, this does not 

mean that rural areas do not have significant crime problems. 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to come before you this 

morning and express our concerns. I hope I have conveyed to you 

the dire situation that sheriffs are faced with across the country 

and how critical the Byrne/JAG Program is to us and our local and 

State counterparts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webre follows:] 

37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG WEBRE

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Craig 

Webre and I currently serve as the Sheriff of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana and President of the National Sheriffs’ Association. The National Sheriffs’ Association represents over 3,000 elected sheriffs across the country and more than 22,000 law enforcement professionals, making us one of the largest law enforcement associations 

in the Nation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to 

discuss the necessity for the Byrne JAG program among state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the urgent need to reauthorize funding levels through Fiscal Year 2012. 

As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in our criminal justice system. 

In addition to providing traditional policing within their respective counties, sheriffs 

also manage local jails and are responsible for providing court security. Over 99% 

of the sheriffs are elected and, oftentimes, serve as the chief law enforcement officer 

of their counties. Consequently, we have a keen understanding of the needs of our 

criminal justice system, as well as of the local communities we serve. 

In the early 1990’s, Congress joined in a partnership with local law enforcement 

to provide assistance with hiring new officers and combating crime throughout the 

Nation. Unfortunately, in recent years, the federal government has strayed from its 

commitment to local and State law enforcement, particularly in regards to Byrne 

JAG. 

Byrne JAG is named in memory of Officer Edward Byrne, a rookie with the New 

York City Police Department. On February 26, 1988, Officer Byrne was protecting 

the home of a witness in a narcotics case, when he was shot five times in the head 

at point-blank range by drug dealers. Officer Byrne was only 22 years old when he 

was murdered. 

The purpose of Byrne JAG has been simple: to provide assistance to state and 

local law enforcement to combat crime in their communities. Primarily, this task 

has been accomplished through the establishment of multi-jurisdictional drug and 

gang task forces. Additionally, Byrne JAG funding has been used for community 

crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecutorial initiatives, and many other local crime control and prevention programs. Currently, 

Byrne JAG is the only formula grant program that is available to local law enforcement. 

Sheriffs use Byrne JAG funding in a multitude of ways. While the primary usage 

is to operate the multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, sheriffs also use Byrne JAG 

to purchase vital law enforcement technology and equipment; to provide crime prevention education to their communities; and to institute School Resource Officers in 

schools throughout their communities. Byrne JAG has enabled state and local law 

enforcement to fund many prevention and intervention programs which, while authorized by Congress, have not received specific program funding. 

Over the last several years, state and local law enforcement has seen a significant 

and dramatic decrease in funding for Byrne JAG, from nearly $900 million in FY’03 

to $170 million in FY’08. The funding cut in the FY’08 Omnibus Bill slashing Byrne 

JAG funding from $520 million in FY’07 to the current level of $170 million, a 67% 

decrease—represents the single, most significant adverse action leveled against 

crime fighting initiatives in the last 25 years. 

The virtual elimination of funding for FY’08 will result in as many as half of the 

long-standing multi-jurisdictional drug task forces to shut down as of July 1st of 

this year. The remainder of the task forces will face significantly reduced operational effectiveness. The foreseeable ramifications of these actions will result in 

gangs and drug dealers and other violent criminals regaining a stronghold in the 

area of narcotics trafficking and distribution. The inability to sustain multi-jurisdictional task forces will lead to the loss of veteran members who have institutional 

knowledge, the loss of intelligence databases, and the loss of a network of informants. 

Once these vital tools are gone, the doors locked and the lights turned off, it will 

take years to reestablish and recreate them. The loss of 365 days of funding will 

create problems that will last for years. In that period of time, the dismantling of 

proven, productive and successful crime fighting systems will put us at a tremendous disadvantage while giving people in the drug trafficking business the opportunity to do even more harm in our communities. 

The drastic reduction of Byrne JAG, as well as other essential law enforcement 

funding such as the COPS Programs, places an insurmountable burden upon state 

and local law enforcement—to fight the rise in crime with limited resources. If funding for law enforcement continues to decrease, this country can only expect to see 

an increase in crime. 

38 

The numbers are there to prove that is already happening. We are starting to see 

an increase in all categories of violent crime. After decades of reductions in violent 

crime statistics, we can see a direct correlation between funding cuts and the rise 

in violence. Moreover, assaults on police officers have likewise increased (See attachments, Exhibits 1, 2, 3). 

The level of violence is now bleeding into areas where we have never seen it before. One week ago, I received that now infamous ‘‘3 AM phone call,’’ with the news 

of a triple homicide that had occurred in my Parish, in a residential, bedroom community. I have provided photos depicting the graphic and violent nature of their 

deaths which is becoming increasingly common among individuals in the drug trade. 

Three individuals, who themselves had been arrested in the past by the Lafourche 

Parish Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force, were ambushed as they sat in a parked vehicle. The late model Mustang, belonging to the sister of one of the victims, became 

the final resting place for Chauncey Adams, Brad Bourda and Terry Hester. More 

than twenty rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle were pumped into the vehicle— 

through the windows. Adams, Bourda and Hester had no chance to escape from 

their death chamber. When the shooting stopped, the interior of the vehicle is best 

described as something straight out of the ‘‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’’—blood and 

brain matter plastered throughout. 

It is often said that drug addicts and drug distributors do not live long enough 

to collect old age pensions because if the drugs don’t kill you, the lifestyle does. One 

of the suspects in the cold-blooded case I have just described told my detectives just 

that, quoting here ‘‘It’s either we gonna kill them, or they gonna kill us.’’ Again, 

the potential for violence is ramping up, as Washington considers taking away the 

money to combat the problem. 

In the course of the past fifty-years, our criminal justice system’s response to combating drugs has evolved from one of primarily deep undercover narcotics enforcement operations resulting in long, harsh jail sentences to one of a comprehensive 

strategy encompassing prevention, intervention, enforcement and treatment. In particular, we have seen the development of successful drug treatment courts, many 

of which are funded with Byrne JAG dollars. 

The average cost of treating an addict through drug court is $2,000 per year 

(versus an average of $23,000 for incarceration, according to the Office of National 

Drug Court Policy) and provides real hope for that person while aiding them to become a law abiding, contributing member of society. Effective, aggressive enforcement of our drug laws is a necessary prerequisite for the success and optimism of 

drug courts. Hence, if task forces are reduced or disappear completely, you will see 

a companion reduction in the number of people availing themselves of the assistance 

drug courts provide in helping addicts turn their lives around. 

While there is never a good time to reduce law enforcement funding, the cuts to 

Byrne JAG could not come at a worse time, given the fact that hundreds of potentially violent convicted drug dealers are being released from prison pursuant to 

mandates of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. These offenders represent federally 

convicted drug dealers from the most violent sector of drug offenders and will soon 

flood our towns, cities and counties ready to reestablish their turf. Moreover, if, as 

some suspect we are on the brink of a recession, you can rest assured that criminals 

and drug law offenders will not be taking a recess. The problem will only get worse. 

Some have said problems created by the street corner drug dealers are limited in 

scope and therefore, it is a state and local issue with no role for the Federal government. It is true the impact is felt on a local level, but the source has a national 

nexus in a number of ways. In part, the success of multi-jurisdictional task forces 

in reducing the proliferation of backyard meth labs has resulted in the creation of 

super meth labs in other countries, particularly in Mexico. In turn we are seeing 

a resulting importation of meth into our country. 

Second, the World Wide Web presents another opportunity for drugs and illegal 

substances to be transported from state to state and to be brought into the country 

from around the world for ultimate distribution again into our towns, cities and 

counties. Highway interdiction units have demonstrated the vast nature of the network of interstate trafficking and transportation which again clearly implicates the 

need for Federal jurisdiction and dollars. 

In addition to restoring the FY’08 funding for Byrne JAG, I urge Congress to reauthorize funding for Byrne JAG through Fiscal Year 2012, in the amount of nearly 

$1.1 billion. The reauthorization of Byrne JAG at $1.1 billion will enable existing 

task forces to continue operations, and the opportunity for new task forces to start 

up. I would like to thank Congressman Henry Johnson of Georgia, as well as the 

53 cosponsors, for supporting Byrne JAG and for introducing H.R. 3546. However, 

it is critical Congress understands that while reauthorization of Byrne JAG is imVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:44 Jan 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\052008\42508.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
39 

portant, Congress must also appropriate funding for Byrne JAG at a more significant level than it has been allocated at in recent years. 

Finally, I would like to propose the Committee give serious consideration to increasing Byrne JAG allocations to rural communities which, by my earlier example, 

now face ‘‘big city’’ problems. Currently, funding is allocated to each area based on 

national violent crime reports. Although rural areas may not have a violent crime 

rate competitive with suburban and urban areas, this does not mean that rural 

areas do not have significant crime problems nor does it mean that they do not rely 

on the funding. In fact, rural areas may rely on funding from Byrne JAG more than 

larger areas, as it is the only source of funding which enables the rural area to combat crime. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and express my concerns. I hope I have conveyed to you the dire situation that sheriffs are faced with 

across the country and how critical the Byrne JAG program is to us. The strain 

caused by limited funds for Byrne JAG in the face of increasing violence and drug 

abuse in our communities should be a major inducement for government and law 

enforcement alike to share the responsibility for keeping our communities safe. 

ATTACHMENTS 


X1.eps
40 


X2.eps X3.eps
41 


X4.eps
42 


X5.eps
43 


X6.eps
44 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Webre. 

Director Rueker? 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD C. RUEKER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Mr. RUEKER. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Scott, 

Ranking Member Gohmert, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Ronald Rueker, and I am the director of public safety for the City of Sherwood, Oregon. I also serve as president of the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with my distinguished 

colleagues today to discuss this critical issue facing State, tribal, 

and local law enforcement agencies. In the United States, there are 

more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and well over 700,000 

officers who patrol our State highways and the streets of our communities each and every day. 

During the last 15 years, these officers and the law enforcement 

agencies they serve have made tremendous strides in reducing the 

level of crime and violence in our communities. This has been accomplished in part because these officers have an intimate knowledge of their communities and because they have developed close 

working relationships with the citizens they serve. 

Yet, despite the best efforts of our Nation’s law enforcement officers, the disturbing truth is that each year in the United States, 

well over a million of our fellow citizens are victims of violent 

crime. Unfortunately, in the last 2 years, we have seen a steady 

increase in the rate of violent crime in the United States in some 

communities, and while there are many different theories as to 

why violent crime is increasing in these communities after years of 

often double-digit declines, there is one fact that all can agree 

upon: no place is immune. 

What were once considered problems of our major metropolitan 

areas—drug addiction and distribution, violent crime, gangs, and 

poverty—have migrated to suburban and even rural locations. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, cities with populations 

from 25,000 to 50,000 are seeing the fastest-growing incidents, and 

from 2004 through 2006, the violent crime rate in these communities rose by more than 7 percent. In towns with populations from 

10,000 to 25,000, the homicide rate went up by 9.4 percent over the 

same 2-year period. 

It is telling that this increase in crime in America, violent and 

otherwise, corresponds to the substantial decline in funding for 

local and State law enforcement from Federal Government assistance programs. In the years since 2003, the very programs that allowed State, tribal, and local law enforcement to combat crime in 

our communities, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, have suffered significant budget reductions, and, as has been mentioned, in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus, 

Byrne and JAG was funded at just $170 million, a decrease of 68 

percent. 

Additionally, the Administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal calls for the complete elimination of the Byrne program. Regrettably, these cuts only continue a trend that began in fiscal year 

45 

2003 of significant funding reductions for law enforcement assistance funding at the Department of Justice. In fact, when compared 

to the fiscal year 2002 funding level of $3.8 billion, the Administration’s fiscal year 2009 proposal represents a reduction of more than 

$3.4 billion, or 90 percent. 

I will not go into a complete analysis of the budget, but if it is 

your pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the 

IACP’s Budget Analysis for the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


G-1.eps
46 


G-3.eps
47 


G-4.eps
48 


G-5.eps
49 


G-6.eps
50 


G-7.eps
51 


G-8.eps
52 


G-9.eps
53 


G-10.eps
54 


G-11.eps
55 


G-12.eps
56 


G-13.eps
57 


G-14.eps
58 


G-15.eps
59 


G-16.eps
60 

Mr. RUEKER. Thank you. 

I would, however, like to express the IACP’s profound concern 

over the impact that these cuts have had on the Byrne and JAG. 

It is the IACP’s belief that the Byrne and JAG Program played an 

integral role in our ability to combat crime and protect our communities. 

For example, as is mentioned in my written statement, the value 

of Byrne and JAG Program was aptly demonstrated earlier this 

year when 41 State drug enforcement agencies participated in Operation Byrne Blitz, a 1-day enforcement effort which resulted in 

the arrest of 4,220 individuals and seizure of vast quantities of illicit narcotics. 

This successful effort was made possible by the Byrne and JAG 

funds provided to State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies 

with the necessary resources to partner successfully. Unfortunately, if the Byrne and JAG Program is severely reduced or eliminated, the effectiveness of proven and successful law enforcement 

in crime reduction programs will suffer. 

For example, in my home State of Oregon, if the Byrne and JAG 

funds continue to decline as they have in years past, these programs will be severely reduced or eliminated: all six of our multijurisdictional drug task forces that cover all of Oregon’s 36 counties—these task forces target those engaged in the production, distribution, and the use of methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, 

crack cocaine, and ecstasy; four of our most successful domestic and 

family violence prevention programs; two alcohol and drug treatment programs; 11 drug court programs; four juvenile justice prevention programs. 

In addition, some agencies in the U.S. will no longer be able to 

afford sobriety checkpoint equipment, portable radios, less-than-lethal technologies, and training materials and equipment. Simply 

stated, reductions to the Byrne and JAG Program have the potential to weaken severely the capabilities of law enforcement agencies 

nationwide, reducing their ability to mount aggressive and effective 

crime prevention and crime reduction programs. Sadly, this will 

undoubtedly lead to more crime and violence in our hometowns. 

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rueker follows:] 

61 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD C. RUECKER


RCRx-1.eps
62 


RCRx-2.eps
63 


RCRx-3.eps
64 


RCRx-4.eps
65 


RCRx-5.eps
66 


RCRx-6.eps
67 


RCRx-7.eps
68 


RCRx-8.eps
69 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Rueker. 

Mr. Brooks? 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD E. BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

NARCOTIC OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION COALITION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Mr. BROOKS. Chairman Scott, Judge Gohmert, Members of the 

Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of H,R. 3546, and I want to thank Mr. Johnson as the author 

and for his leadership on this issue. 

I also want to thank the Subcommittee for focusing attention on 

the Byrne/JAG formula program. It is the single most important 

component for sustaining multijurisdictional drug enforcement in 

America. The Byrne formula program provides only a small 

amount of the overall funding that is dedicated to State and local 

drug enforcement, but its role is pivotal in allowing us to fight the 

scourge of drugs and gangs in our communities. 

Funding for Byrne provides the necessary incentive for multijurisdictional coordination in combating the drug epidemic. It is 

this coordination that has improved the effectiveness of drug enforcement and has helped reduce drug abuse, meth labs, and violent crime, and it is the reason that 97 percent of all drug arrests 

in America are made by State and local cops. 

Drug traffickers are not bound by borders of cities, States, or nations. Criminal mobility is why multijurisdictional task forces are 

critical in battling the threat to our security. Multijurisdictional 

task forces help reduce the impact of drugs and firearm trafficking, 

fight gangs and organized crime in America’s community by 

leveraging information and resources to provide a real-time advantage for law enforcement. Thanks to Byrne-funded task forces, drug 

investigators are co-located and working cooperatively in cities and 

towns and rural communities throughout America. 

Recent proposals to reduce or eliminate the Byrne/JAG program 

are reckless and disturbing. Drug enforcement was dealt a devastating blow when the original Byrne program and local law enforcement block grants were consolidated into the Byrne Justice 

Assistance Grant with a significant reduction in funding. When the 

Byrne/JAG Program was reduced in the recent Omnibus from $520 

million to just $170 million, a cut of almost two-thirds, my colleagues across the Nation were stunned. If these cuts remain intact, hundreds of multi-jurisdictional drug task forces will be forced 

to close. 

During my 34-year career, I have seen more drug-caused death 

and devastation than I care to think about. I have pulled too many 

children from dens of neglect. I have seen too many who have died 

from drug overdose or the violent crime that is always present 

when drugs are near. 

On 9/11, 3,000 Americans were murdered by terrorists from foreign lands. The intensity and sheer evil of that attack was a wakeup call to the world. Ironically, the events of 9/11 overshadowed the 

chemical attacks that occur each day in cities and towns in the 

form of illegal drug trafficking. Drug overdoses kill more than 

30,000 Americans each year, and the impact on our economy is estimated to be more than $180 billion annually. 

70 

But those stark numbers do not paint the complete picture. The 

unrelenting attack by international cartels, gangs, meth cookers, 

and neighborhood drug dealers is a tragedy that touches every family. How can we quantify the lives ruined, opportunities lost, and 

heartache caused by drug abuse? 

Since 9/11, no child in American has been injured or killed in a 

terrorist attack, but most children will be asked to try illegal 

drugs. Each child will struggle with the choice that has the real potential to ruin their life, a choice that wrongly made will cause 

them to sacrifice health, mental state, education, and family. 

Serving as a narcotics officer is not only my job; it is a moral responsibility. In my 34 years, no program has enabled me to carry 

out that responsibility more effectively than Byrne. If Congress 

does not embrace H.R. 3546 and if it does not restore funding for 

Byrne/JAG in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations, then I and my 

colleagues will be prevented from doing what we know works and, 

more importantly, what we know is right. 

Because of the last-minute cuts to Byrne/JAG in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, a diverse group of law enforcement treatment, prevention, corrections, and victims’ rights groups, labor organizations, and grassroots groups have come together in an effort 

to restore funding for Byrne/JAG. In recent letters submitted to the 

House leadership, 30 of those groups representing almost a million 

combined members of public servants and community activists requested funding to offset the severe cuts to Byrne in fiscal year 

2008. 

In addition to those associations, a bipartisan group of 218 Members of the House signed a letter sent to leadership and appropriators requesting $430 million in emergency funding for Byrne/JAG. 

Additionally, a bipartisan group of 56 senators signed a similar letter. 

This broad show of support for a Federal program is extremely 

rare, and it shows how deep the support for this program is. I 

would like to submit those letters for the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

71 


H1-1.eps
72 


H1-2.eps
73 


H1-3.eps
74 


H1-4.eps
75 


H1-5.eps
76 


H1-6.eps
77 


H1-7.eps
78 


H1-8.eps
79 


H1-9.eps
80 


H1-10.eps
81 


H1-11.eps
82 

f 


H1-12.eps
83 


H2-1.eps
84 


H2-2.eps
85 


H2-3.eps
86 

f 


H2-4.eps
87 


H3-1.eps
88 


H3-2.eps
89 


H3-3.eps
90 


H3-4.eps
91 

Mr. BROOKS. On behalf of America’s narcotic officers, I urge the 

Members of this Subcommittee who have been leaders in protecting 

programs that fight back against drug traffickers and gang violence 

to do everything in your power to reauthorize Byrne/JAG and to assist us in ensuring that it is appropriated at adequate levels. 

Mr. Chairman, Judge Gohmert, and Mr. Johnson, I want to 

thank you for inviting me to share the views of America’s narcotic 

officers, the 69,000 narcotic officers that I represent, and we certainly appreciate your service to America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:] 

92 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD E. BROOKS


REB-1.eps
93 


REB-2.eps
94 


REB-3.eps
95 


REB-4.eps
96 


REB-5.eps
97 


REB-6.eps
98 


REB-7.eps
99 


REB-8.eps
100 


REB-9.eps
101 


REB-10.eps
102 


REB-11.eps
103 


REB-12.eps
104 


REB-13.eps
105 


REB-14.eps
106 


REB-15.eps
107 


REB-16.eps
108 


REB-17.eps
109 


REB-18.eps
110 


REB-19.eps
111 


REB-20.eps
112 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. 

We will now have questions for the panel, and I will recognize 

myself for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Herraiz. 

You indicated that the Administration is recommending the combination of several programs into just four programs? Did I understand you right? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you need legislation to do that? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. It is listed under the appropriation. There has been 

no legislation introduced. 

Mr. SCOTT. And would there be as much money appropriated in 

the combined as it is in the 70 different programs you are consolidating or—— 

Mr. HERRAIZ. The programs—— 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Do you propose to cut the funding overall? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, the programs themselves that are 

currently funded under the Byrne/JAG Program would still be eligible for funding under this initiative. The total dollar figure is represented at $200 million for the Byrne Public Safety Initiative. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what is the total appropriation in the four that 

would be left compared to the 70 that you started off with? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the figure for the 

Juvenile Justice and Child Safety category and the Violence 

Against Women. I am familiar with the Violent Crime Partnership 

Initiative which is $200 million and the Byrne Public Safety which 

is $200 million. Those are the two pieces that fall within the Bureau of Justice Assistance. That would be a total of $400 million. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. I was a State legislator during the Reagan administration, and frequently you would have a lot of programs consolidated, and each of the programs would be told, ‘‘There is plenty 

of money for your program,’’ but the total amount of money was 

cut. So we want to make sure that—if you are cutting, we would 

like to know exactly where you propose those cuts, or if there is 

more money, we would like to know that too. 

Now which of the grant programs are discretionary and which 

are formula based? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. In the President’s 2009 recommended budget, all of 

the programs are identified as discretionary, competitive, flexible 

grant programs. 

Mr. SCOTT. And in the awarding of grants, does politics, favoritism, or religion trump evidenced-based approaches or not? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, we operate, certainly at the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, a very open, competitive, and flexible program, as we have administered the funds that you allowed us last 

year under the Byrne discretionary program as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that, no, it does not—— [Laughter.] 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, there is no politics in the decisionmaking within the Bureau of Justice Assistance for those grants. 

Mr. SCOTT. And religion does not play a part? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. No, sir, it does not. 

Mr. SCOTT. And favoritism? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, no, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

113 

Mr. McDaniel, you indicated that Byrne/JAG funding is an effective model. What is effective about that model? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, you will find that you will 

have a prosecuting attorney who is dedicated to a task force and 

you will have multijurisdictional resources dedicated to that model. 

You talk about your experience in the State legislature, and I remember mine as well. But, earlier than that, I was a police officer, 

and it would be very difficult to dedicate myself to investigating, 

for instance, a crack house where we knew that there was a great 

deal of trafficking going out of it, when I had all these other responsibilities to attend to, the radio would go off. Those are realworld impediments to true narcotics investigation. 

When you have a dedicated task force, that does not happen, and 

they are able to pool their resources, work together as a team, and 

they should be accountable to a prosecutor who is accountable in 

Arkansas to the people. They are elected, and they are deputies. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I guess the same question of a number of people. Why can’t that be done without Federal funds? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Simply the resources are not available. They are 

strapped. I had committed when I was running for attorney general 

in Arkansas to doing just what I am doing today, which is to come 

and encourage Congress to renew these funds. If we do not have 

them renewed, I think that it is of paramount importance that we 

try to do as much as we can on the State level to fill the void because the void will be filled by those who want to do harm in our 

communities. But the truth is the States are hurting as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how can we make sure that there is effective 

oversight for these multijurisdictional task forces, and who is kind 

of in charge? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I think we have to follow the money. In Arkansas, I sit on a council that is responsible or reviewing the applications from each of the drug task forces, and then we, of course, are 

responsible to the Justice Department, and I think that increased 

oversight and accountability at all levels would be important, and 

I certainly would support that. I just agree with Congressman 

Johnson that withdrawing funding would be the wrong course. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, who should do the oversight? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I think we should do it at each level and oversee, 

frankly, one another. I think that our drug council in Arkansas has 

a responsibility not just to review the applications made by these 

drug task forces and other entities that seek the money. I think we 

should look over what is their structure like, how are they screening officers to be a part of the program, not just how are they 

spending it. 

We have bean counters to make sure that money is not being stolen, but how are they actually implementing their programs? Are 

they working with State and Federal law enforcement, or are they 

simply targeting small-time petty operators? 

Mr. SCOTT. And who should do that oversight? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. In Arkansas, I think, again, it should be the 

elected prosecutor who is answerable directly to the people, who 

has to dedicate one deputy to a multijurisdictional task force. I 

think it should be the drug council on which the attorney general’s 

office, the State police, the drug czar, and the governor’s office, and 

114 

others oversee the applications, and I think the Department of Justice. 

Mr. SCOTT. If everybody is doing oversight, sometimes no one 

does the oversight. Sometimes it is a little better if you designate 

one person, but we will follow through on that. 

Judge Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman. 

And thank each of you for your testimony. It is helpful. 

Sometimes in some of these Federal programs, we set up a formula whereby the offices that are doing the poorest job, have the 

poorest workers in them, show that they should get more money 

than the most efficient, most effective offices, and I like it when we 

can avoid that happening so that if there is an office that is efficient, that does need help, we get them money. 

So let me ask Mr. Herraiz is there some way to avoid that with 

the Byrne/JAG Program? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gohmert, we are excited about the opportunity we had with the $75 million this year 

for the targeting violent crime task forces that we established. We 

took in developing that initiative all the best that we saw with the 

Byrne/JAG program over the years. 

I have had the opportunity to also administer the funds at the 

State level here in Washington and actually being a Byrne/JAG recipient at the local level. So a lot of experience and partnership 

amongst various agencies here on this panel as well went into the 

ideas behind the development of the initiative—focusing on ideas 

of intelligence-led policing, trying to look at data-driven models so 

that we are targeting money in the community where the greatest 

crime need is. 

We have various communities across the country, and Attorney 

General Gonzales put out an 18-city tour. He went to various communities to look at crime rates where they were up or down, and 

what were some of the causes, what were locals really seeing, because really for us to prescribe a program here in Washington that 

does not have the input of the locals addressing their specific crime 

need would really be less than worthy. 

So, in indentifying those needs and those issues, one of the 

things we found is that the best way to affect change in public safety in that community is to really allow a program to address local 

needs and concerns and to be targeted for that need. 

Over 106 communities are receiving those targeting violent crime 

task force partnership initiatives where they decide themselves 

what their crime issue is and what they want to address. Preliminary results for that program so far show that in just 2 months— 

because the program just kicked off in January—we see over 1,700 

felony arrests; gang member arrests for violent felonies, 454; heroin 

seized in kilograms, 127; legal firearms seized, 1,600; and the stats 

go on. 

We have built in new performance measures with this initiative 

to take again what we have not seen in success of other traditional 

programs that we have tried to address in crime fighting to develop 

this initiative. 

115 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it sounds good. And, you know, those obviously that are familiar with the program know it has done a lot 

of good. 

But, apparently, as the Chairman pointed out, there is a bad egg 

every now and then that uses things inappropriately. It is because 

they are human, and one thing we know is, no matter how wonderful you are, if there is not adequate accountability, you are given 

temptations you should not have to face. 

But I do appreciate all the testimony. I would just like to submit 

to each of you—I mean, you each represent not only your own office, but most of you represent many other people as well—you do 

not have to wait until you are invited to come testify to give us 

feedback on something. If you are unhappy about something, then 

just bombard Chairman Scott’s office with messages. [Laughter.] 

Seriously, though, I mean, if there is a problem on legislation, oftentimes, you know about it or hear about it before we do even. 

There was an example in the last Congress. I had a court security 

bill, and I was asked by the Administration would we mind sticking in a provision that would allow the DOJ or the attorney general 

to just select U.S. marshals instead of the normal presidential appointment. I thought, ‘‘Well, if the White House wants it, if they 

do not mind giving up that, if that is going to be easier, fine.’’ 

I did not realize, apparently, the National Sheriffs got all upset. 

There were e-mails and wild calls. Somebody called my local sheriff 

and said, ‘‘Do you know this guy?’’ He said, ‘‘Sure.’’ So, anyway, I 

get the message. It turns out what they were doing is they were 

going to end any chance any sheriff or chief of police or DA, anybody, ever had of being a U.S. marshal because you would have to 

be within the civil service area already. 

Well, as soon as I heard that was the deal, I pulled it out of the 

bill, I am not sticking that in there, and I told my sheriff, ‘‘What 

the hell? The president of the National Sheriffs they do not have 

to send all this stuff all over the country. Just give me a call. Let 

me know if there is a problem. We want to work with them,’’ you 

know. 

And so I am giving that anecdotally to tell you most of the people 

in Congress—and I know everybody up here now—we do not want 

to make your life more miserable. We want to try to work together 

to make things happen. So, when you hear or you learn that something is a problem, just let us know as we do want to work with 

you. 

And, if I could just make this final comment, Chairman, bad 

things may happen, people may use some money inappropriately, 

and I hate to put any more pressure than this Mr. Herraiz, but if 

we get embarrassed, it is just the way it is. We are going to look 

for somebody to embarrass. And guess who that is probably going 

to be? So thank you for being here. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And from the outset, I would like to say that there is not many 

other occupations that are more worthy than going into law enforcement, and law enforcement helps to keep our safe streets, 

116 

which is something that all citizens demand, but, unfortunately, we 

do not really like to pay for it. 

But I will say that being a locally elected official before I came 

to Congress, I was aware as a county commissioner of the strains 

on our budget and how we would have to make choices in terms 

of how much to pay our police officers, how much goes to law enforcement, and with declining resources to this, it makes it very 

difficult. 

Just this past January, we had two police officers in DeKalb 

County who were shot down in the line of their work, but they 

were working extra hours security because the county is not paying 

them such that they would be able to go home and enjoy, you 

know, some time with their family. They had to work 20, 30 hours 

extra per week just to make ends meet, and so it is a really difficult situation to be a law enforcement officer, and then you may 

never be able to come back home again. 

And so with this very worthy and honorable profession that we 

are not paying them enough to do, it makes it important that there 

is funding from the Federal level to help streamline and make 

more efficient the efforts of our local law enforcement officials. I 

want to thank all of the law enforcement officials for what you 

have done to help keep our streets safe. 

And I want to ask Mr. Herraiz, given the difficulties of State and 

local governments to fund law enforcement operations, in your testimony, you point to a nearly 60 percent decline in crime from 1993 

to 2005, and you credit the Byrne/JAG grants for at least some of 

that success, yet you also endorse slashing the program which 

would essentially hurt those efforts. 

How do you reconcile those two positions, and also would you answer for me how will these competitive grants that you are advocating for be awarded? Will they be awarded from a local perspective or from a national perspective? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Johnson, I appreciate 

the opportunity to answer that. As it relates to the Byrne/JAG Program in particular and the efforts that we have put forth to address those issues of violent crime, over the years, we have seen— 

and I have been in this position for a little over 4 years now. Before, as I mentioned, I was at the State level and then previously 

at the local level, so I have seen the different facets of Byrne. 

And I will readily admit, in my tenure on the other side, I oftentimes did not submit the best reports to communicate the value of 

the criminal justice efforts in particularly the Byrne/JAG Program. 

When I came to Washington, I clearly saw within my agency that 

the information that we were getting was not as strong as it could 

be to really tell a story of the value of resources, and without that, 

many of the issues that you have addressed here today surfaced. 

We recognized that we needed a multifaceted approach. We recognized that we needed accountability. So we engaged discussion 

with many of the partners here at this table to really help define 

what it is that we need, how do we communicate the real value of 

these initiatives. We recognized that we had—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well—— 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Yes, sir? 

117 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I must interrupt you, and I want to focus you 

on that particular question. How will this new structure and the 

decreased funding that you are proposing help to stem the tide of 

crime which is growing in our communities, which will continue to 

accelerate, given the deteriorating economic condition which the 

country faces, drug trafficking, crimes of violence, property crime 

is going to go up as a result of people being strapped for funding, 

if you will? So I am talking about on a personal level. So how will 

your new formula enhance the ability to fight the crime that is 

foreseeable? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Johnson, what we 

have seen in the crime statistics, what it is showing us is, in particular if you look at the violent crimes reported in 2005 and 2006, 

16 cities across the Nation account for over half of those violent 

crime increases, which is a huge percentage. 

The discussion we have as it relates to a formula grant is by 

merely sprinkling the resources throughout communities—although 

as you have heard here today and you will hear from other jurisdictions, your experience at the county level as well, those resources 

are valuable because they help with the necessary dollars in the 

economy at that local level. 

However, when we look at the crime picture itself, the department has tried to approach its efforts and whether it is the FBI 

Safe Streets Initiative, the U.S. Marshals’ Safe Surrender Program, 

the Violent Crime Partnership Task Force Initiative, et cetera, our 

PSN and Anti-Gang Initiative, on those communities where you 

have the largest crime increases. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Who would make the decision as far as the grant 

awardees? Who would award the money? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would that be done in Washington? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Yes, sir. Congressman, what we have is we have 

a targeted approach where the community decides what the problem is, and it is competitive. So, yes, through a competitive process 

the decision would be made at the Department of Justice. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Don’t you think it would be more effective if the 

local law enforcement agencies are able to determine how best to 

use the funding? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Yes, Congressman Johnson, and that is specifically 

built into the program, that they determine whether it is they need 

a drug court, whether they need a reentry initiative, whether they 

need a crime prevention program. You are absolutely correct. 

But—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But then an official in Washington, D.C., would 

make the determination. 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Congressman, the official in Washington, D.C., 

would only make the decision based on a competitive external peer 

view grant-making process, not based on someone sitting in my 

chair in my office saying, ‘‘We know what is best for your office.’’ 

No, the locals know what is best. They would merely have to compete across the country for those resources. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

118 

The gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin? 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses here today for your testimony—I very much appreciate it—and want to quickly echo my colleague’s sentiments of how critical the Byrne/JAG funding is to 

State and local law enforcement officers and their ability to fight 

crime and assist in the prevention of drug use. 

I want to also think Mr. McDaniel for highlighting the impact of 

these proposed cuts in home State of Wisconsin so eloquently in 

your testimony. I was going to go over some of those numbers. I 

will not. 

I do want to probe a little bit further with regard to the issue 

of oversight of the multijurisdictional drug task forces because that 

tends to be one of the areas of criticism we do hear, and we need 

to be able to assure our colleagues as we promote greater funding 

of this program that their concerns are unwarranted. 

Just, for example, in Wisconsin, in 2005, the Byrne/JAG monies 

helped fund 26 multijurisdictional drug enforcement task forces, 

providing specialized drug enforcement services to 71 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. Combined, the task forces reported making almost 9,000 arrests for drug offenses stemming from incidents involving marijuana, crack and powder cocaine, heroin, and other 

drug offenses, and these collaborative multiagency task forces have 

done a tremendous job in reducing the impact of drugs, gangs, and 

organized crime in our communities. 

But as to the oversight issue, it is my understanding that there 

is one lead agency for each multijurisdictional task force and an 

oversight board that meets as necessary. That said, I want to just 

express that I have received anecdotal information about problems 

with oversight in Wisconsin before. The anecdotal information that 

I have heard is particularly with regard to State-line multijurisdictional enforcement where Illinois-Wisconsin folks were collaborating and not necessarily understanding in a traffic stop situation 

the laws of one another’s State. 

And so please shed a little bit more light, if you will, on Mr. 

McDaniel and also perhaps, Mr. Herraiz, if you will. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

We have similar questions, as I guess all States do, but Texarkana, Arkansas and Texas, have a very unique system where, in 

fact, they have one police department that operates within the city 

on both sides of the State line, having to have a very unique charter and compact and understanding of both States’ laws and multijurisdictional cooperation. 

I did not come today with a model in hand on enhanced supervision and accountability. It became very clear to me quite some 

time ago that that was, in fact, needed, and I am very open to that, 

and I believe that the attorneys general of this county would be 

more than willing to cooperate with local law enforcement as well 

as the Department of Justice in coming up with the best model possible. 

I think that our primary concern was that, oh, my gosh, we are 

going to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, and that was 

certainly what we considered to be the wrong course. 

119 

I think that there are a lot of saving graces to the program, and 

we are more than willing—as I have mentioned earlier, I think 

that one thing that I can do and that the attorneys general can do 

is to create new criteria when we review more than merely a 

spreadsheet of finances on whether or not we approve funding because, obviously, there are clearinghouses for this money on the 

State level, at least that is the way ours is structured, and I would 

be more than willing to consider new and additional criteria, not 

just for how you spend it, but who is spending it, what are you 

spending it on, how are you cooperating with other agencies, how 

you screen your officers, who is responsible in the chain of command if there are violations of racial profiling, for instance? 

My office is responsible in Arkansas, as many attorneys general 

are, for overseeing and mandating racial profiling criteria for law 

enforcement agencies, and I have received hundreds from all over 

Arkansas that we are in the process of reviewing. We can integrate 

those things in such a way as to make this program more effective, 

I believe. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Herraiz, do you have any additional comments? And I am also hoping—well, my time is out—I might 

squeeze in an additional question about victim witnesses programs. 

But, Mr. Herraiz, do you have anything more on oversight? 

Mr. HERRAIZ. Yes, Congresswoman Baldwin. As far as oversight, 

obviously, all the partners involved, whether it is State and local 

law enforcement, the State—in your case, Office of Justice Programs there in the State of Wisconsin, David Steingraber—Tulia 

was a wakeup call for all drug task forces, for Ron Brooks’ organization and many others, including here at BJA in Washington, to 

try to identify what type of proper accountability can we put in 

place. BJA in particular had the Center for Task Force Management Initiative which we increased funding for so that we can 

make sure that we had properly trained task forces out there. 

So, in developing a more comprehensive approach to the training, 

working in partnership with all the players, if you will, that are 

at this table, and developing that oversight in partnership with the 

State level by creating a greater partnership between the Department of Justice and the State administering agency who oversees 

those local task forces, that is going to be the strength of it, and 

we have gained a lot of ground in the last several years in doing 

that. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady has an additional question? 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This one also directed at Mr. McDaniel. Recently, I had the 

chance to tour my home county’s victim witness unit in the DA’s 

office, and I was incredibly impressed by the work they do. Not surprisingly, a majority of our conversation during my tour focused on 

funding cuts for the program. 

So I want to know if in your opinion is simple reauthorization 

of Byrne/JAG at an adequate funding level enough to ensure that 

these victim witness programs can thrive, or would you be recommending that we consider a separate stream for authorization and 

funding of the victim witness elements of this? 

120 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I know that each State handles it differently, 

and I only feel competent to address mine, and I would be more 

than happy to provide additional information to the Congresswoman or the Subcommittee, if needed. But I think that adequate 

funding for Byrne/JAG is certainly going to be critical to a number 

of things in addition to the multijurisdictional task forces, which 

are certainly high on everyone’s attention list. 

But we also see everything from school resource officers to victim 

assistance to drug courts. There are a number of very worthy and 

important causes that fall under this large umbrella. We have a diverse set of resources available to victims and witnesses in Arkansas, local coordinators through the prosecuting attorney’s office. I 

myself administer somewhat of an insurance benefits program for 

victims of crimes in Arkansas that do not have the ability to pay 

for some of their out-of-pocket expenses. 

I think that all of those are key components in a larger puzzle, 

and the first big step, of course, is to support the measure before 

the Committee. 

[Audio gap.] 

Mr. SCOTT. I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

Members may have additional written questions which they will 

submit to you in advance—— 

[Audio gap.] 

Mr. McDaniel’s constituents, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 

Berry, in the back, a great supporter of this program—— 

Thank you very much. Without objection the Subcommittee is 

now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

121 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

122 


A-1.eps
123 

f 


A-2.eps
124 


B-1.eps
125 


B-2.eps
126 

f 


B-3.eps
127 

f 


C.eps
128 


D-1.eps
129 

f 


D-2.eps
130 


E-1.eps
131 

Æ 


E-2.eps