To obtain information on whether CPOT investigations were consistent with the mission of the HIDTA program, we reviewed the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, ONDCP’s appropriations statutes and accompanying committee reports, ONDCP’s strategic plans and policies, and ONDCP’s Web site. We also reviewed all HIDTA applications (38) to ONDCP from HIDTAs that received discretionary funds for various investigation activities linked to the CPOT list in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and compared them with the mission of the HIDTA program. At 11 selected HIDTA sites—Appalachia; Atlanta; Central Florida; Lake County, Indiana; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Nevada; North Texas; Oregon; Rocky Mountain; and Washington-Baltimore—we interviewed HIDTA management officials and task force leaders to discuss whether their investigative activities were consistent with the HIDTA mission. We selected these 11 HIDTAs to ensure geographic spread (east coast, central, west coast) across the country. To obtain information about ONDCP’s distribution of CPOT funding, we interviewed ONDCP officials and obtained statistics they provided on HIDTAs that received CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 (app.I). We also reviewed ONDCP documents and correspondence that described the basis for ONDCP’s decision for awarding HIDTAs CPOT funding. In addition, we discussed with officials at three HIDTAs— Washington-Baltimore, North Texas, and Los Angeles—how CPOT funding was being used. We selected these three HIDTAs because they had received funds for both fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and were geographically dispersed. We also interviewed officials from 8 of the 13 HIDTAs (Appalachia, Atlanta, Central Florida, Lake County, Milwaukee, Nevada, Oregon, and Rocky Mountain) that did not apply for or applied for but did not receive CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We selected these HIDTAs to reflect broad geographic segments of the country. We determined that the data presented in appendixes I and II from ONDCP, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are sufficiently reliable, for the purposes of this review, based on interviews with agency officials and a review of their information systems documentation. In 1988, Congress established the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy to, among other things, coordinate the efforts of federal drug control agencies and programs and establish the HIDTA program. By fiscal year 2004, ONDCP had designated 28 drug trafficking areas (HIDTAs) as centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution within the United States with a federally funded HIDTA program budget of about $225 million. Each HIDTA is to develop and implement an annual strategy to address the regional drug threat. The initiatives involve the active participation of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to enhance and assist the coordination of drug trafficking control efforts in the region. To encourage HIDTAs to conduct CPOT investigations, ONDCP utilized discretionary funding. In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP allocated about $8 million in discretionary funding to HIDTAs to support their drug initiatives that link with international drug trafficking organizations on the CPOT list. This funding is not meant to supplant or replace existing agency/program budgets intended for similar purposes, according to ONDCP guidance to the HIDTAs. OCDETF is a nationwide law enforcement task force program administered within Justice that targets major narcotic trafficking and money laundering organizations using the combined resources and expertise of its federal member agencies together with state and local investigators. Its mission is to identify, investigate, and prosecute members of high-level drug trafficking enterprises and to dismantle or disrupt the operations of those organizations. To help carry out this mission and to focus investigative resources on major sources of supply, OCDETF member agencies developed the CPOT list of major international drug trafficking organizations. In September 2002, at the request of the U.S. Attorney General, OCDETF issued the first CPOT list, naming international drug trafficking organizations most responsible for supplying illegal drugs to the United States. OCDETF member agencies developed criteria for determining whether an international drug organization was to be placed on the CPOT list. Criteria include whether the international organization operates nationwide in multiple regions of the United States and deals in substantial quantities of illegal drugs or illicit chemicals on a regular basis that have a demonstrable impact on the nation’s drug supply. OCDETF compiles and issues the CPOT list at the beginning of each fiscal year, with the intent that federal law enforcement agencies will target their investigations on CPOT organizations. OCDETF member agencies control the CPOT list and its distribution. OCDETF also collaborates with ONDCP on reviews of CPOT funding applications by HIDTAs that link their initiatives with the CPOT list. CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with the mission of the HIDTA program because HIDTAs’ targeting of local drug traffickers linked with international organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for achieving the program’s goal of eliminating or reducing significant sources of drug trafficking in their regions. The mission of the HIDTA program is not expressly stated in current law. However, ONDCP has developed a mission statement that reflects the legislative authority for the HIDTA program, specifically, to enhance and coordinate U.S. drug control efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. The primary legislative authority for the HIDTA program is the Reauthorization Act, which provides guidance on the mission of the program by setting out factors for the Director of ONDCP to consider in determining which regions to designate as HIDTAs. The factors contained in the act are the extent to which 1. the area is a center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution; 2. state and local law enforcement have shown a determination to respond aggressively to drug trafficking in the area by committing resources to respond to it; 3. drug-related activities in the area are having a harmful impact in other areas of the country; and 4. a significant increase in federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related activities in the area. In addition, House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports on ONDCP’s appropriations have stated that the program was established to provide assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement entities operating in those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking. The use of a portion of the HIDTA program’s discretionary funds to focus on CPOT investigations is not inconsistent with ONDCP’s mission statement for the program and the legislative authority on which it is based, particularly the first and third factors in the Reauthorization Act. Drug traffickers operating in a HIDTA may be linked with the CPOT list because of their role in major international drug trafficking activities, including illegal distribution in multiple regions of the United States. Given such activities, they would contribute to the HIDTA’s status as a center of illegal drug importation and distribution and have a harmful impact in other regions. Similarly, in keeping with appropriations committee statements on the purpose of the program, HIDTA involvement in CPOT investigations is one way of assisting federal, state, and local operations in areas where the significant adverse effects of drug trafficking activities are due in part to links to international criminal organizations. Thus, for HIDTAs to investigate and disrupt or dismantle regional drug traffickers that are linked with CPOT organizations is not inconsistent with the HIDTA program’s stated mission and its legislative authority. ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs to help support their investigations of drug traffickers linked with international organizations on the CPOT list by reviewing and approving HIDTA applications for funding. In fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, ONDCP distributed CPOT funds to a total of 17 of the 28 HIDTAs. A Justice official who participates in the evaluation of HIDTA applications for CPOT funding said that ONDCP encourages applications for CPOT funding where additional funds are likely to benefit an initiative and move the investigation forward. Some HIDTAs chose not to apply because they face a domestic drug threat that does not have a link to any international CPOT organization activity. Other HIDTAs that have applied for funds did not receive CPOT funding because they did not have sufficient investigative resources to uncover the link to a CPOT organization. In commenting on a draft of this report, Justice said that while this may be true in some circumstances, it was also often the case that HIDTAs may have had sufficient resources but simply had not yet taken the investigation far enough to justify the award of discretionary funds. During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 6 HIDTAs did not apply and 7 applied but were not approved for CPOT funding. In fiscal year 2004, 17 of the 28 HIDTAs did not receive CPOT funding—10 did not apply and 7 applied but were not approved for funding. ONDCP and HIDTA officials mentioned several reasons why some HIDTAs may not receive funding. First, some HIDTAs were denied funding if the investigative activities in their funding applications were not consistent with the HIDTA mission and linked to a CPOT organization. Second, ONDCP did not provide clear guidance or sufficient information for HIDTAs to develop their applications for CPOT funds, although it took steps to clarify its guidance and create opportunity for all HIDTAs to participate. Third, reducing the amount of discretionary funds available for CPOT funding in fiscal year 2004 affected the number of HIDTAs that received this funding. Fourth, HIDTAs’ local priorities may not link to any CPOT organization activity. ONDCP granted CPOT funding for HIDTA investigative activities that it determined demonstrated a link to the CPOT list and were consistent with the mission of the HIDTA program. As an example, one of the applications we reviewed requested CPOT funding for overtime pay, video cameras, portable computers, and wiretaps for surveillance activities to target a complex criminal organization involved in the distribution of significant quantities of heroin and cocaine as well as related homicides, abductions, arson, assaults, fraud, and witness tampering. Surveillance of the organization indicated that it was being supplied with drugs through an affiliate of a Latin American/Caribbean-based CPOT organization. Therefore, these drug activities were linked to an organization on the CPOT list, and the investigations also were consistent with the HIDTA program’s mission, in that these activities contributed to eliminating or reducing significant sources of drug trafficking within the HIDTA region. Drug investigation activities that were not consistent with the HIDTA program’s mission were not to receive CPOT funds from ONDCP, even if they showed a CPOT link. Specifically, it is inconsistent with the HIDTA program’s mission to supplant funds from other sources. Rather CPOT funds are meant to supplement funding for investigations that support the HIDTA mission. For example, in one HIDTA application, a request was made for $686,000 for the HIDTA to provide software to a cellular telephone company located in a Caribbean country to monitor the cellular telephone calls of a CPOT organization. The application also asked for travel expenses of $7,500 to send a prosecutor and two HIDTA investigators to that country to review the cellular telephone records. ONDCP officials told us that they denied funding for these activities because ONDCP guidance to the HIDTAs regarding CPOT funding states that the funds cannot be used to “supplant,” or replace, existing agency/program budgets intended for similar purposes because to do so would be inconsistent with the HIDTA mission. In commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP made the clarifying statement that CPOT funding is provided for investigations of major drug trafficking organizations affiliated with CPOTs. However, HIDTAs do not participate in international investigations, and CPOT funding cannot be used to conduct or supplement investigations in places like Colombia or Afghanistan. In another application, a request was made for $120,000 to pay for street lighting in a drug-infested crime area of a major U.S. city to aid the HIDTA surveillance task force in pursuing drug enforcement operations. ONDCP officials told us that they determined the activity was not consistent with the HIDTA mission because CPOT funding cannot be used to supplant a city’s budget for street maintenance and improvements. In some cases, ONDCP’s lack of clear guidance or sufficient information limited some HIDTAs’ ability to apply for CPOT funding. For example, some HIDTA officials told us that in fiscal year 2002, ONDCP did not provide clear directions in its guidance about how HIDTAs were to document the link between their investigations and the CPOT list. However, in fiscal year 2003, ONDCP’s officials recognized the problem and, at quarterly meetings, discussed with HIDTAs how to document links between their investigations and the CPOT list, thus resolving the problem. In addition, ONDCP was only able to provide a partial CPOT list to officials in all HIDTAs in each of the 3 fiscal years it provided CPOT funding, even though applications were to include a link between their investigations and the CPOT list. The partial list contained some of the largest organizations in operation and ones that were most frequently targeted by law enforcement. ONDCP, in its guidance, advised HIDTAs that they could obtain the entire list from their Justice contacts. Some HIDTA officials said not having a full list available to them from ONDCP limited their ability to apply for CPOT funding. In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP created an opportunity for all HIDTAs to participate. According to OCDETF officials, access to the full CPOT list is restricted to federal law enforcement officials. Commenting on a draft of this report, Justice said these restrictions are driven by the fact that the member agencies have designated the list as “law enforcement sensitive,” because disclosure of certain investigative information contained on the list might jeopardize ongoing investigations of targeted organizations. As a result, access to the full CPOT list is restricted to OCDETF-member federal law enforcement agencies. Nonparticipating federal agencies, HIDTA directors, state and local police officials, and non-law enforcement federal agencies such as ONDCP could obtain the list from U.S. Attorneys or Special Agents-in-Charge of the OCDETF member agencies on a need-to- know basis. To facilitate the distribution of discretionary CPOT funding, however, OCDETF provided a partial list, which contained information on some of the largest organizations and those commonly known to, and targeted by, the law enforcement community, to ONDCP. Since HIDTA officials have said that they need to know who is on the CPOT list to determine which of their investigations qualify for CPOT funds, ONDCP, in its guidance, advised HIDTAs to obtain the full CPOT list through their Justice contacts. However, officials from 2 HIDTAs we spoke to said that they had some difficulty in obtaining the full CPOT list. We spoke with officials from 8 of the 13 HIDTAs that either did not apply or applied for and did not receive CPOT funds in either of the first 2 years (fiscal years 2002 and 2003) ONDCP awarded CPOT funds. Officials from 2 of the HIDTAs said that obtaining the full list was a problem because for one HIDTA, they did not have the full CPOT list within the time needed to complete the application, and the other HIDTA said there was not a formal procedure for obtaining the full CPOT list. Officials from 6 of the 8 HIDTAs said it was not a problem, however, because they were able to obtain the full CPOT list from their Justice contacts. Although these examples may not typify all HIDTAs, they nevertheless indicate that not every HIDTA was able to readily access the full CPOT list and that it would be difficult to show how their investigations qualify for CPOT funds without having the full list. Although ONDCP believed the CPOT information it provided was sufficient for all HIDTAs to fairly compete for discretionary CPOT funding, an ONDCP official responsible for CPOT funding acknowledged that not receiving a full CPOT list most likely reduced opportunities for some HIDTAs to receive CPOT funding or discouraged others from applying for funds. All HIDTAs are eligible to apply to receive CPOT funding, according to ONDCP officials, even though 13 of the 28 HIDTAs did not apply for or applied for but did not receive CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP’s guidance identified three international organizations that trafficked in illegal drugs in all HIDTAs. ONDCP officials said that this additional guidance would allow all HIDTAs to focus their limited funding on these three organizations and would allow a baseline of opportunity for all HIDTAs to apply for CPOT funding. ONDCP stated it would give preference to funding applications that had links to these three CPOT organizations. Ten of the 11 HIDTAs that received CPOT funds in fiscal year 2004 linked their applications to the three CPOTs referenced in ONDCP’s guidance. Providing HIDTAs with the names of three CPOT organizations that operated in all the HIDTA regions established a baseline of opportunity for the HIDTAs to apply for funding despite receiving a limited number of CPOT organizational targets from ONDCP. Commenting on a draft of this report, Justice acknowledged that the HIDTAs did face some difficulty regarding the distribution of the CPOT list. However, through participation with ONDCP in evaluating applications for CPOT funding, Justice officials noticed that—for those HIDTAs that applied—problems associated with the limited distribution of the list appeared to be confined to fiscal year 2002, when the list was first developed. In subsequent years, law enforcement agencies, including those in the HIDTAs, were more familiar with the CPOT list and how to gain access to it. The CPOT funding amount almost tripled from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 but was cut in half in fiscal year 2004. Given the reduction in discretionary funding allocated to CPOT funding, ONDCP officials said that even if HIDTAs link their investigations to the CPOT list, and do not supplant other funding sources, they are not guaranteed CPOT funding. They recognized that reduced funding affected HIDTA participation. As shown in figure 1, fiscal year 2004 funding was reduced from $16.5 million to $7.99 million. In the first year, 8 HIDTAs received funding. In the second year, 14 HIDTAs received funding, and in the third year, when funding was reduced, 11 HIDTAs received funding. Despite more than a 50 percent drop in funding in fiscal year 2004, 2 of 11 HIDTAs received CPOT funding for the first time. While there could be multiple causes, we also noted that the number of HIDTAs that did not apply in fiscal year 2004 compared with prior years increased from 6 to 10. ONDCP officials said that the limited CPOT funds must be directed at those HIDTAs where, in the judgment of those officials who reviewed the CPOT applications, the supply of drugs from CPOT organizations had the best chance of being interrupted. Commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP agreed that the reduction of CPOT funding in fiscal year 2004 affected HIDTA participation but added that this observation, while accurate, should be stated within the context of all discretionary funding activities. ONDCP consulted with Congress prior to allocating the discretionary funding, as required by the report language accompanying the ONDCP’s appropriations. As a result of those consultations, ONDCP decided to reduce the amount available for funding CPOT-related investigations in order to fund other activities. Thus, while the reduction in fiscal year 2004 for CPOT-related funding resulted in fewer HIDTAs receiving CPOT funding, that should not have caused a decline in applications for other discretionary funding activities. For more detailed information on the amounts funded to each HIDTA, see appendix I. Figure 2 shows the 17 HIDTAs that received CPOT funding at least once during fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and the 11 that have not received funding. Within certain HIDTAs, law enforcement tended to focus more on domestic drug enforcement than on developing links with CPOT organizations. Officials at three HIDTAs we spoke to told us that in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, they did not apply for CPOT funding because their biggest drug problems were domestic drug producers and distributors, such as those organizations involved in methamphetamine and marijuana. As a result, their strategy was to focus on these local drug traffickers that they were required by law to investigate, and those investigations did not necessarily link with CPOT organizations. In addition, according to some HIDTA law enforcement officials, local law enforcement officers in their HIDTA focused on local investigations rather than those potentially linked with CPOT organizations because they saw a direct benefit to their city or countyprosecution of local targets accompanied by drug and asset seizures. Also, HIDTA officials said that while their law enforcement officers initiated numerous investigations, they do not always have enough funds to proceed to a level that may link the HIDTA investigation to the CPOT list. Commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP did not disagree with the facts above but emphasized that HIDTAs should be focusing on investigations of local activities that reach beyond the boundaries of the HIDTA, consistent with their designation as centers of illegal drug trafficking activities that affect other parts of the country. On December 27, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for review and comment to ONDCP and Justice. ONDCP commented on our analysis that the use of some discretionary funding for the HIDTA program to support CPOT-related drug trafficking investigations was not inconsistent with the HIDTA mission because it was one possible strategy to eliminate or reduce significant sources of drug trafficking in their regions. Justice generally agreed with the substance of the report and provided clarifications that we also incorporated in this report where appropriate. Both agencies focused their comments and clarifications on the second objective: how ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs for CPOT investigations and why some HIDTAs did not receive funding. ONDCP stressed their belief that the information they provided to HIDTAs was sufficient for all HIDTAs to fairly compete for limited CPOT funding, and that although CPOT funding was reduced in fiscal year 2004, HIDTAs could still participate in other discretionary funding activities. Finally, ONDCP believes that while some HIDTAs’ investigations may not link to CPOTs, HIDTAs should focus on finding that link, given their designation as centers of illegal trafficking that affect other parts of the country. Justice emphasized that their restrictions on the distribution of the CPOT list were soundly based, allowed for HIDTAs to gain access to the full list, and were not intended to withhold access to the CPOT list from HIDTA personnel. They acknowledged that HIDTAs did face some difficulty but were confident the problem has been overcome. We incorporated their perspectives as appropriate. The full text of the ONDCP Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs’ letter, and the Department of Justice’s Associate Deputy Attorney General’s memo are presented in appendix III and IV, respectively. We will provide copies of this report to appropriate departments and other interested congressional committees. In addition, we will send copies to the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, contact me on (202) 512-8777. During fiscal year 2003, a total of 744 CPOT investigations were conducted by OCDETF member law enforcement agencies. The majority of those investigations (497, or 67 percent) were multi-agency OCDETF investigations, involving participation from DEA, FBI, ICE, IRS and other member agencies, while the remaining were conducted individually by DEA (191, or 26 percent) or FBI (56, or 8 percent). For fiscal year 2004, the majority of CPOT investigations continued to be multi-agency OCDETF investigations. For the first 7 months of fiscal year 2004, 72 percent (548 of 761) of CPOT investigations conducted by member law enforcement agencies were designated as OCDETF investigations. OCDETF officials attributed fiscal year 2004 increases in CPOT investigations over fiscal year 2003 to OCDETF’s emphasis on identifying links between targeted domestic organizations and the CPOT list. As previously mentioned, OCDETF is composed of member agencies that worked together on the 497 CPOT investigations in fiscal year 2003. Member agencies either led investigations or supported other OCDETF member agencies in these investigations. The bar chart in figure 3 shows the number of drug investigations in which each OCDETF member agency participated. For example, DEA participated in 402 CPOT investigations, the highest level of participation by any member agency. FBI participated in 320 investigations, many of which it conducted jointly with DEA along with other member agencies. DEA and FBI are the only OCDETF member agencies that conducted separate CPOT investigations. Generally, these investigations were handled outside of OCDETF because they did not yet satisfy the criteria for OCDETF designation—that is, they were investigations conducted exclusively by foreign offices or investigations that had not yet developed to a sufficient level to be designated as OCDETF cases. For the first 7 months of fiscal year 2004, data showed that DEA separately conducted 23 percent (172 of 761) and FBI separately conducted 5 percent (41 of 761) of investigations linked to CPOTs in addition to their participation in OCDETF investigations. These two agencies conducted their CPOT investigations out of their own agency’s direct appropriations. These CPOT investigations can subsequently become eligible for OCDETF funding when OCDETF’s criteria are met. For example, besides being linked to the CPOT list, DEA and FBI investigations are to involve multiple law enforcement agencies, among other things, in order to qualify as OCDETF-designated CPOT investigations. Figure 4 shows the relationship among OCDETF, DEA, and FBI in their handling of CPOT investigations and shows that DEA and the FBI conduct CPOT investigations both separately and collectively with other OCDETF member agencies. Figure 4 also shows the collaborative relationship between ONDCP and Justice. In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed to this report: Frances Cook, Grace Coleman, David Dornisch, Michael H. Harmond, Weldon McPhail, and Ron Salo.

Summary: In fiscal year 2002, the Attorney General called upon law enforcement to target the "most wanted" international drug traffickers responsible for supplying illegal drugs to America. In September 2002, law enforcement, working through the multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program, developed a list of these drug traffickers, known as the Consolidated Priority Organization Target List (CPOT), to aid federal law enforcement agencies in targeting their drug investigations. Also, the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) collaborated with law enforcement to encourage existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to conduct CPOT investigations. According to ONDCP, the 28 HIDTAs across the nation are located in centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution. ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to supplement some HIDTAs' existing budgets beginning in fiscal year 2002 to investigate CPOT organizations. Out of concern that a CPOT emphasis on international drug investigations would detract from the HIDTA program's regional emphasis, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed GAO to examine whether investigations of CPOT organizations are consistent with the HIDTA program's mission and how ONDCP distributes its discretionary funds to HIDTAs for CPOT investigations. The mission of the HIDTA program is to enhance and coordinate U.S. drug control efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in HIDTAs. CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with this mission because HIDTAs' targeting of local drug traffickers linked with international organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for achieving the program's goal of eliminating or reducing significant sources of drug trafficking in their regions. GAO found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to 17 of the 28 HIDTAs for CPOT investigations. Some HIDTA officials said they did not receive CPOT funding for several reasons including unclear guidance, insufficient application information to the HIDTAs for funding, and local priorities not linking with CPOT investigations. Reduced discretionary funding in fiscal year 2004 for CPOT investigations affected the number of HIDTAs that received this funding.