case against the county government. On May 11, 
2005, a magistrate judge found sufficient evidence 
that a Byrne-funded antidrug task force had rou-
tinely targeted African-Americans to hold the county 
liable for the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Plain-
tiffs in that lawsuit alleged that for the past 15 
years, based on the uncorroborated tales of inform-
ants, task force members annually raided the Afri-
can-American community in eastern Hearne to ar-
rest the residents identified by the confidential in-
formants, resulting in the arrest and prosecution of 
innocent citizens without cause. On the eve of trial 
the counties involved in the Hearne task force scan-
dal settled the case, agreeing to pay financial dam-
ages to the plaintiffs. 
(6) Scandals related to the Byrne grants pro-
gram have grown so prolific that the Texas legisla-
ture has passed several reforms in response to them, 
including outlawing racial profiling and changing 
Texas law to prohibit drug offense convictions based 
solely on the word of an undercover informant. The 
Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the Texas 
House of Representatives issued a report in 2004 
recommending that all of the State’s federally fund-
ed antidrug task forces be abolished because they 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
23:02 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H231.IH
H231
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
are inherently prone to corruption. The Committee 
reported, ‘‘Continuing to sanction task force oper-
ations as stand-alone law enforcement entities—with 
widespread authority to operate at will across mul-
tiple jurisdictional lines—should not continue. The 
current approach violates practically every sound 
principle of police oversight and accountability appli-
cable to narcotics interdiction.’’ The Texas legisla-
ture passed a law that ends the ability of a narcotics 
task force to operate as an entity with no clear ac-
countability. The legislation transfers authority for 
multicounty drug task forces to the Department of 
Public Safety and channels one-quarter of asset for-
feiture proceeds received by the task forces to a spe-
cial fund to support drug abuse prevention pro-
grams, drug treatment, and other programs de-
signed to reduce drug use in the county where the 
assets are seized. 
(7) Texas’s ‘‘corroboration’’ law was passed 
thanks to a coalition of Christian conservatives and 
civil rights activists. As one Texas preacher related, 
requiring corroboration ‘‘puts a protective hedge 
around the ninth commandment, ‘You shall not bear 
false witness against your neighbor.’ As long as peo-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
23:02 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H231.IH
H231
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
ple bear false witness against their neighbors, this 
Biblical law will not be outdated.’’ 
(8) During floor debate, conservative Texas leg-
islators pointed out that Mosaic law requires cor-
roboration: ‘‘One witness shall not rise up against a 
man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that 
he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the 
mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be estab-
lished.’’ Deuteronomy 19:15. Jesus concurred with 
the corroboration rule: ‘‘If thy brother shall trespass 
against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee 
and him alone. . . . But if he will not hear thee, 
then take with thee one or two more, that in the 
mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be 
established.’’ Matthew 18:15–16. 
(9) Texas’s ‘‘corroboration’’ law had an imme-
diate positive impact. Once prosecutors needed more 
than just the word of one person to convict someone 
of a drug offense they began scrutinizing law en-
forcement tactics. This new scrutiny led to the un-
covering of massive corruption and civil rights abuse 
by the Dallas police force. In what became known 
nationally as the ‘‘Sheetrock’’ scandal, Dallas police 
officers and undercover informants were found to 
have set up dozens of innocent people, mostly Mexi-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
23:02 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H231.IH
H231
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
can immigrants, by planting fake drugs on them 
consisting of chalk-like material used in Sheetrock 
and other brands of wallboard. The revelations led 
to the dismissal of over 40 cases (although some of 
those arrested were already deported). In April 
2005, a former Dallas narcotics detective was sen-
tenced to five years in prison for his role in the 
scheme. Charges against others are pending. 
(10) Many regional antidrug task forces receive 
up to 75 percent of their funding from the Byrne 
grant program. As such, the United States Govern-
ment is accountable for corruption and civil rights 
abuses inherent in their operation. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that— 
(1) grants under the Byrne grants program 
should be prohibited for States that do not exercise 
effective control over antidrug task forces; 
(2) at a minimum, no State that fails to pro-
hibit criminal convictions based solely on the testi-
mony of a law enforcement officer or informants 
should receive a grant under such program; and 
(3) corroborative evidence, such as video or 
audio tapes, drugs, and money, should always be re-
quired for such criminal convictions to be sustained. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
23:02 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H231.IH
H231
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON RECEIPT OF BYRNE GRANT FUNDS 
AND OTHER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE. 
(a) LIMITATION.—For any fiscal year, a State shall 
not receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated 
to that State under section 505(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
3755(a)), or any amount from any other law enforcement 
assistance program of the Department of Justice, unless 
the State— 
(1) does not fund any antidrug task forces for 
that fiscal year; or 
(2) has in effect throughout the State laws that 
ensure— 
(A) a person is not convicted of a drug of-
fense unless the fact that a drug offense was 
committed, and the fact that the person com-
mitted that offense, are each supported by evi-
dence other than the eyewitness testimony of a 
law enforcement officer or an individual acting 
on behalf of a law enforcement officer; and 
(B) a law enforcement officer does not par-
ticipate in an antidrug task force unless the 
honesty and integrity of that officer is evalu-
ated and found to be at an appropriately high 
level. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
23:02 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H231.IH
H231
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
(b) REGULATIONS.—The Attorney General shall pre-
scribe regulations to carry out subsection (a). 
(c) REALLOCATION.—Amounts not allocated by rea-
son of subsection (a) shall be reallocated to States not dis-
qualified by failure to comply with such subsection. 
SEC. 4. COLLECTION OF DATA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—A State that receives Federal 
funds pursuant to eligibility under section 3(a)(2), with 
respect to a fiscal year, shall collect data, for the most 
recent year for which funds were allocated to such State, 
with respect to the— 
(1) racial distribution of charges made during 
that year; 
(2) nature of the criminal law specified in the 
charges made; and 
(3) city or law enforcement jurisdiction in 
which the charges were made. 
(b) REPORT.—As a condition of receiving Federal 
funds pursuant to section 3(a)(2), a State shall submit 
to Congress the data collected under subsection (a) by not 
later than the date that is 180 days prior to the date on 
which such funds are awarded for a fiscal year. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
23:02 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H231.IH
H231
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS