[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET AND THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS: ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL COOPERATION?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET AND THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS: ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL COOPERATION?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
22-201 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHenry, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DAN BURTON, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DIANE E. WATSON, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member
Malia Holst, Clerk
Andrew Su, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 10, 2005................................... 1
Statement of:
Brooks, Ron, president, National Narcotics Officers
Associations Coalition..................................... 66
Carr, Tom, Director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, on behalf of
the National HIDTA Directors Association................... 75
Donahue, Tom, Director, Chicago HIDTA........................ 90
Hamm, Leonard, acting Baltimore police commissioner.......... 127
Harris, Chief Jack, Phoenix Police Department and vice-chair,
Southwest Border HIDTA..................................... 107
Henke, Tracy A., Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, Department of Justice; Catherine M.
O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General and Director of
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, U.S.
Department of Justice; and John Horton, Associate Deputy
Director, State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug
Control Policy............................................. 20
Henke, Tracy A........................................... 20
Horton, John............................................. 43
O'Neil, Catherine M...................................... 30
Henry, Mark, president, Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers
Association................................................ 134
Merritt, Jack L., Greene County, MO.......................... 141
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brooks, Ron, president, National Narcotics Officers
Associations Coalition, prepared statement of.............. 70
Carr, Tom, Director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, on behalf of
the National HIDTA Directors Association, prepared
statement of............................................... 78
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 12
Donahue, Tom, Director, Chicago HIDTA, prepared statement of. 93
Hamm, Leonard, acting Baltimore police commissioner, prepared
statement of............................................... 129
Harris, Chief Jack, Phoenix Police Department and vice-chair,
Southwest Border HIDTA, prepared statement of.............. 109
Henke, Tracy A., Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, Department of Justice, prepared statement
of......................................................... 23
Henry, Mark, president, Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers
Association, prepared statement of......................... 136
Horton, John, Associate Deputy Director, State and Local
Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, prepared
statement of............................................... 45
Merritt, Jack L., Greene County, MO, prepared statement of... 144
O'Neil, Catherine M., Associate Deputy Attorney General and
Director of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces,
U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement of.......... 32
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 5
FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET AND THE BYRNE GRANT, HIDTA AND
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS: ARE WE JEOPARDIZING FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL COOPERATION?
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Souder (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives: Souder, Cummings, Watson and
Norton.
Staff present: J. Marc Wheat, staff director; Nicholas
Coleman, professional staff member and counsel; David Thomasson
and Pat DeQuattro, congressional fellows; Malia Holst, clerk;
Andrew Su, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa,
minority clerk.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will now come to order.
Good afternoon and thank you all for coming. This hearing
is the second in a series of hearings providing oversight of
the President's budget proposals for drug control programs as
well as for legislation to reauthorize the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas program.
This hearing will focus on the President's proposed changes
to some very important drug enforcement programs. The
administration released its budget proposal for all Federal
programs for fiscal year 2006 last month. One of the most
significant policies reflected in that budget is a proposal to
cut most Federal support for State and local drug enforcement.
Among other things, the administration is proposing to
eliminate the Byrne Grant to State and local law enforcement,
to cut the HIDTA Program by more than 50 percent and transfer
its remaining funds to the Justice Department's Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force program, to cut the ``Meth Hot
Spots'FE administered by the Justice Department's Community
Oriented Policing Services office by more than 60 percent, and
to significantly reduce the funding for the Counterdrug
Technology Assessment Center Technology Transfer program.
The subcommittee shares some of the administration's
concerns about excessive or misdirected Federal support to
local agencies. It is certainly true that Federal dollars
should not be spent on purely local concerns in the form of
pork barrel funding. Rather, they should be tied to clear,
national priorities. Similarly, Congress must be careful not to
make State and local agencies too dependent on Federal dollars
as these agencies must remain under the control of and respond
to the needs of State and local taxpayers. State and local
governments have a responsibility to fund their own counter
narcotics efforts.
That being said, it does not follow that all Federal
assistance to State and local agencies lacks national impact.
State and local law enforcement personnel are fighting on the
front lines in the struggle to stop drug trafficking. They make
over 90 percent of drug-related arrests and seizures. They have
a wealth of intelligence that could be very valuable if shared
with Federal authorities. Federal assistance to these agencies
can have a major positive impact by involving them in national
goals and enforcement, treatment and prevention. The proper
solution is to propose reforms to the programs rather than
simply cutting them out.
We hope at this hearing to address these broader issues and
to review the administration's specific proposals for certain
key programs. First among them is the HIDTA Program. This
program was created in 1990 to help reduce the Nation's overall
supply of illegal drugs by bringing together Federal, State and
local law enforcement agencies in the most significant regions
each referred to as a HIDTA, High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area where drugs were created, smuggled or distributed.
Under the current law, the Director of ONDCP may designate
certain areas as HIDTAs making them eligible for Federal
funding. That funding is administered locally by an executive
board made up of equal representation of Federal agencies on
one side and State and local agencies on the other. As the
budget's program has grown from only $25 million at its
inception, to $228,350,000 in fiscal year 2005. The number of
designated regions has grown as well, from the initial five
HIDTAs in 1990, the program has expanded to 28 HIDTAs and
pressure is building in Congress to create even more.
As the program has expanded, its focus has frequently
drifted from activities that are truly targeted at the national
supply of drugs to activities with primarily a regional or
local impact. Congress itself has exacerbated the problem by
refusing to allow ONDCP sufficient discretion over the
program's budget. For many years, appropriations bills have
forbidden ONDCP from funding at below its previous year's level
effectively locking in $206 million of its budget. ONDCP has
had true discretion over less than 10 percent of the program's
funds.
In response to these difficulties, the administration has
proposed cutting the program's budget from fiscal years 2005 at
an active level of $228,350,000 to $100 million. Even more
significantly, the administration has requested that the
remaining $100 million be funded through the Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force, a Department of Justice program.
If enacted, this proposal would effectively terminate the
current HIDTA program and more or less eliminate the Drug
Czar's Office.
The subcommittee agrees with the administration that the
HIDTA Program is in need of some reform. The administration's
proposal, however, is both premature and too sweeping. First,
the program cannot and should not be transferred in hold or in
part to OCDETF without authorizing legislation. Such
legislation is needed to define the goals of the program and
the means of its implementation.
Second, the subcommittee is mindful of the serious
disruption of drug enforcement activities in the individual
HIDTAs that this sweeping proposal would create, at least in
the short term. It would be very undesirable for the Federal
Government to take action that drives away State and local
participants. The subcommittee will, however, carefully study
the administration's proposal as it continues to work on the
reauthorization of HIDTA and ONDCP.
Today's hearing will also review the CTAC Program which was
established in 1990 to oversee and coordinate the Federal
Government's anti-drug research and development. The
administration is requesting only $30 million for the CTAC
Program, a sharp decrease from the $40 million requested from
fiscal year 2005 and the $42 million appropriated by Congress.
The proposed decreases would cut the research program nearly in
half from $18 million to $10 million while reducing the
technology transfer program by $4 million from $24 million to
$20 million.
The program is certainly in need of greater direction and
oversight. ONDCP has not yet demonstrated that the technology
transfer program supports national goals in reducing overall
drug trafficking and improving interagency communication and
cooperation. Such dramatic cuts, however, do not amount to
reform. They will only exacerbate the tensions within the
program.
As with HIDTA, the subcommittee intends to review the CTAC
Program and its future as it continues its work on the
reauthorization of ONDCP and its programs. The subcommittee has
concerns about the proposed reduction in the COPS ``Meth Hot
Spots'FE dedicated to local law enforcement activities against
methamphetamine trafficking. Methamphetamine abuse has ravaged
communities across the United States and put several severe
strains on State and local law enforcement agencies forced to
find clandestine drug labs, clean up the environmental damage
they create and arrest the drug trafficking rings that operate
them.
To assist these overburdened agencies, Congress approved
$54,050,000 in fiscal year 2004 and $52,556,000 in fiscal year
2005. The administration is requesting only $20 million for the
fiscal year 2006, identical to their last year's request which
was more than doubled, a cut of more than 60 percent from the
appropriated funds from last year. This would greatly reduce
the ability of State and local law enforcement agencies to help
their Federal partners in reducing methamphetamine abuse
particularly given the proposed overall reduction in State and
local law enforcement assistance grants.
The subcommittee also has serious concerns about the
administration's proposal to terminate the State grants
component of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program.
Congress already complied with the administration's request to
consolidate previously separate grants programs into a single
Byrne Grant Program. The administration now proposes to
eliminate the $634 million that Congress appropriated last year
for the Byrne grants and restrict Federal to a series of
enumerated grants most of which are previously existing
programs under a ``Justice Assistance Account.'FE In practice,
this will sharply limit the amount of money available to help
State and local agencies.
The subcommittee shares the administration's concerns about
excessive Federal subsidization of State and local law
enforcement. The administration's proposed cuts, however, would
create massive shortfalls in the budget of State and local law
enforcement agencies across the country. I believe the
administration should instead propose reforms where needed to
some of the Federal Government's assistance grants.
We have quite a mix of witnesses with us today and we would
especially like to welcome all the representatives of the
Federal, State and local law enforcement community joining us
here at this time. From the Department of Justice on our first
panel, we will hear from Tracy Henke, Deputy Associate Attorney
General at the Office of Justice Programs who will discuss the
Byrne grants, COPS and similar Justice assistance programs and
Catherine O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General and
Director of OCDETF who will discuss the proposed transfer and
restructuring of the HIDTA program. We will also hear from John
Horton, Associate Deputy Director at ONDCP for State and Local
Affairs.
The second panel will give us the State and local
perspective. We welcome Ron Brooks, president of the National
Narcotics Officers' Associations Coalition and Director of the
North California HIDTA. Ron has been very active with our
committee and at many, many hearings helping us with that. Tom
Carr is director of the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Tom
Donahue, Director of the Chicago HIDTA, Chief Jack Harris of
the Phoenix Police Department and Vice-Chair of the Southwest
Border HIDTA, Leonard Hamm, the acting Baltimore police
commissioner, Mark Henry, president of the Illinois Drug
Enforcement Officer's Association, and Sheriff Jack L. Merritt
of Greene County, MO.
Again, thank you all for coming from so many places across
the Nation to be here today. We look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. I will now yield to the Ranking Member, Elijah
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I listened, I could not help but think about the fact
that when we had one of our last hearings, when the Drug Czar
came in and talked about the cuts, I asked him how he felt
about these cuts and he said that he was satisfied with what
was going on. I have to tell you that since that hearing I have
heard from so many people who watched it, and they were very
concerned. I think we would be more than remiss if we did not
understand that the money simply isn't there. We can debate
from now until 1,000 years from now why it isn't there but it
is not there. The fact is, then it becomes a question of
priorities with the money we do have.
One thing I must give you credit for, Mr. Chairman, and I
really appreciate this, is that you have consistently stayed on
point with regard to making sure that while we address the War
on Terrorism, we acknowledge the fact that we have some
terrorists in our own neighborhoods. Many of them have become
that way because of drugs. Some of the people who are here,
those who fight drugs every day know exactly what I am talking
about. They fully understand that there are people who are
watching us right now who are much more afraid of something
happening to them on their street than from some terrorist from
overseas. So it is that we have to I think put all of this in
context and try now to figure out the money we do have, how to
make sure we use it effectively and efficiently.
I have said many, many times that one thing Republicans and
Democrats agree on is that the taxpayer's dollars must be spent
effectively and efficiently. The President's budget request for
fiscal year 2006 proposes significant changes in the national
drug control budget. Most significantly, there is a
considerable increase in proportional spending for supply
reduction versus demand reduction programs. Demand reduction
accounts for just 39 percent of the restructured drug control
budget down from 45 percent in fiscal year 2005, the budget as
enacted. There is actually a net decrease of $270 million for
demand reduction compared to the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level.
This is deeply troubling to those of us in Congress who
would like to see an increased commitment to prevention and
treatment programs that reduce the consumption of drugs. Even
on the supply reduction side of the budget, where the goal is
to reduce drug use by driving up the price and eroding the
purity of drugs available on the U.S. streets, there are stark
changes in the budget the President has submitted to this
Congress.
There is an increased commitment to international supply
reduction programs while domestic drug enforcement programs
that support State and local efforts and partnerships between
Federal law enforcement and the State and local counterparts
would suffer elimination or sharp decreases. Many of these
relationships have been established over the years. Many of
these relationships are ones that have become very, very
effective, are cost efficient and effective.
The administration argues, for example, that programs such
as community oriented policing services, hiring grants, COPS
law enforcement technology grants, Byrne Justice Assistance
Grants and Byrne Discretionary Grants have not had a
demonstrably effective impact on reducing crime. The
administration therefore proposes to eliminate these programs
claiming it will save $940 million a year.
In addition, the President's request proposes to slash the
budget of the HIDTA Program, reducing its funding from a fiscal
year 2005 level of $227 million to $100 million, a decrease of
56 percent, and to move HIDTA from the Office of National Drug
Control Policy to the Department of Justice where it would come
under the control of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force programs.
I am not knocking that program but one thing is for sure, I
believe HIDTA would be better off the way it is. I don't want
it to get lost in the Justice Department. We have too many
people who are depending on HIDTA to do the things that HIDTA
does. I haven't looked at all the testimony but I think some of
the folks here today who deal with HIDTA can tell us what they
see. We have to listen to them very carefully because these are
the people on the front lines. They are the one who have to
face the officers, who have to face the families of those who
may be killed or injured, they are the ones who have to worry
about the people under their jurisdiction. So they are not
sitting in some nice high office just looking down as if from
heaven, they are dealing with this every day.
The proposed reductions to the above-mentioned programs
would sharply reduce the level of Federal support for law
enforcement programs that involve coordination among Federal,
State and local entities. We are always talking about local,
State and Federal entities working together so there is not
duplication of effort, so they can be most effective when they
bring all of their intelligence and all of their resources
together.
What is striking about the proposal is that rather than
propose reforms to these programs, this budget reflects the
President's decision to abandon or sharply curtail them.
Problems in the Byrne Grant Program have been well publicized.
The Narcotics Task Force funded through the Byrne Program has
committed severe abuses, more egregiously in the case of Tulia,
Texas where a Byrne-supported task force ran amuck, pursuing
racially motivated investigations and prosecutions.
None of us can stand behind the rampant abuse of civil
rights by law enforcement efforts supported with Federal
dollars, but the Byrne Grant Program supports a range of
activities aimed at increasing safety in communities around the
country that are affected by violent crime. I would like to see
an effort to make this program work as Congress intended
instead of doing away with the program as the President
proposes.
Let me tell you something. Having practiced law for over 20
years, I can tell you no matter what you do and no matter what
structure you create, you are going to have some abuse but you
don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
However, I am most concerned about the proposed
evisceration of the HIDTA Program. HIDTA is widely credited
with having broken down barriers among participating local,
State and Federal agencies and HIDTAs around the country can
demonstrate numerous such successes and innovations that have
had a positive impact on the national drug threat. Under the
President's proposal, numerous HIDTAs would surely be
eliminated and the scaling back of others would severely
curtail their effectiveness.
Successful nationwide programs developed and administered
by individual HIDTAs such as event and target deconfliction of
enforcement operations, intelligence collection and sharing,
and training programs would be significantly reduced or
discontinued. An effective interagency partnership that place
State and local agencies on an equal footing with their Federal
counterparts would wither or disappear.
The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA approach which combines a
coordinated implementation of intelligence-driven law
enforcement, treatment and prevention initiatives, ought to be
held up by this administration as a model to be replicated in
areas that face similar threats.
I am not sure about this but I would guess that when you do
have the Federal Government, local government and State
government working together, just the experience in and of
itself of working together makes all of them better. It
certainly makes the Federal people more sensitive to what local
and State people are doing, and it gives our local and State
officers an opportunity to see how the Federal level operates.
Instead, I fear that the administration's proposal will
cripple the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA and eliminate the few
treatment and prevention dollars used by a handful of HIDTAs.
That would be unfortunate, but I am heartened by the fact that
the administration's proposal for HIDTA has drawn such an
intense negative reaction from the law enforcement community
and from many Members of Congress including you, Mr. Chairman,
who recognize HIDTA's value. It seems to me we can acknowledge
that HIDTA's rapid growth has created challenges related to its
mission cohesion, but the correct response is not to throw it
out as the administration proposes to do with this budget
request.
The fundamental character and unique system of
accountability of the HIDTA Program will be lost if it is
merged with the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force
whose mission is complementary but distinct. Contrary to the
administration's claims, this change will not improve the
effectiveness of U.S. drug enforcement efforts. Rather, it will
weaken them while increasing the burden on State and local
jurisdictions already struggling within severe budget
constraints.
Today's hearing offers an important opportunity to hear
from administration officials who have responsibility to
administer the law. I welcome their perspectives as well as Tom
Carr, the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA's outstanding director,
the directors of the Chicago and Southwest Border HIDTAs, the
National Narcotics Officers Association, and State and local
law enforcement agencies represented on the second panel.
I would like to specifically recognize Acting Commissioner
Leonard Hamm of the Baltimore City Police Department who has
taken the time to be with us today.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working
with you to find constructive solutions to the issues that keep
some of the aforementioned programs from being most effective
and to protect those programs that have demonstrated their
effectiveness, the administration's assessment notwithstanding.
Today's hearing and future hearings related to ONDCP
reauthorization will provide a forum for this important
bipartisan work.
I must tell you my mother has a saying. She only had a
first grade education but something she often said was she
hates to see motion, commotion, and emotion but no results. In
other words, it is nice to hold the hearings but we have to
make sure that we get this administration to hear the people
who are on the front lines so they can more effectively and
continue to effectively do their job. To all of them, if I
don't get a chance to say it again, I want to thank all of you
who are out there. You have a tough job. I really thank you on
behalf of the many, many citizens who may never know what you
do but on behalf of the Congress of the United States of
America, we thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
today's hearing.
It is going to be hard to take seriously Federal drug
control efforts if the President's budget before us survives.
Whenever there are programs that link various actors in our
system, there are problems that arise that need to be
eliminated. There needs to be a continuous approach to
correction, but one of the most important connections in drug
control efforts has been the link that has been built up over
the last several years between Federal, State and local actors.
By building those links, we built in efficiencies and avoided
costly redundancies. There may also be problems that were built
in. I happen to believe that the only way to do a reform is to
keep reforming, particularly if you are talking about
government.
We are looking at cuts that are lethal to drug enforcement.
We are talking about cuts of 50 or 60 percent of a program.
Those are cuts meant to do away with a program. I would almost
rather you shoot this animal in the head than let him die a
slow death this way.
I think what is particularly dangerous here is that all
these cuts would apparently take place at one time. Perhaps if
there need to be cuts, cuts could be spread out so that they
could be done very carefully over a period of years and would
not disrupt law enforcement efforts and might be acceptable but
huge cuts like this to happen to programs and assume that any
part of them will be effective, that is the problem here. Can
you cut a program in half and still expect it to be effective
in any way, particularly if you do so at one time?
What bothers me most is that cuts as gargantuan as this
occurring at one time will create enormous opportunities for
drug forces. They must be applauding on the sidelines because
what we are doing if these cuts take place at one time in one
budget is create new sources of business for them, new routes,
and worse, destroy much of the work that has been done so
painfully over the years. This is one of the hardest jobs in
law enforcement and in government.
As I looked at what is attempted in this budget, I didn't
see any area of the country that would find the effort we have
built up over the last decade or so recognizable, whether you
are talking about big cities of the kind that Mr. Cummings and
I come from where the drug problem is right before your eyes
because of conditions in those cities and let us call it what
it is, the elimination of the COPS Program which is being set
up for total elimination, including the ``Meth Hot Spots``
Program that is, I take it, one of the chairman's favorites, or
at least we have had a lot of hearings on meth.
To be sure, programs like HIDTA have grown and spread, you
have such a program that started where drugs were most visible,
the spots where they have been most concentrated since I was a
kid, the New Yorks, the border areas and yes, that has grown.
Maybe we ought to look at that because now many areas are
covered by that same program. If I may say so, it is also the
case that drugs have spread from their usual places. They are
no longer only in the New Yorks, New Jerseys, Miamis, LAs, they
are everywhere in this country and so, yes, we need these
programs that link Federal, State and local law enforcement
officials everywhere now. Yes, that costs money. We can spend
it one way or we can spend it another.
The ranking member and I have long been on record, and I
believe the chairman would like to spend more money in the
usual course of business on preventing people from getting to
the point where they are serious users of drugs, even the
demand parts of these programs are going to be cut.
I don't know what it is you can do about this. I do know
that drug control has been an area which, under your
chairmanship, we have put in a great deal of time and effort
and concentration. I hope in some way we can match what you
have been doing in the two or three terms I have been on this
committee with this budget so that what is left standing is
something that we will not be ashamed of.
I want to particularly thank today's witnesses who are on
the front line, in the front ranks of those doing one of the
toughest jobs in America. Thank you for coming to share your
information and your knowledge with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Let me assure all members of this committee that we will
need to work together. I talked to Chairman Wolf again this
afternoon and told him we were doing this hearing as well as
Chairman Nohlenberg and Chairman Lewis, so we certainly are
going to work with the appropriators and work to try to make
sure that authorizing language and appropriating language, and
I also talked to Chairman Sensenbrenner on a recent trip, so
clearly we need to get authorizing and appropriating to work
together. This is an important discussion. I appreciate the
witnesses coming today.
First, a couple of procedural matters. First, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to
submit written questions and statements for the hearing record,
that any answers to written questions provided by the witnesses
also be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents
and other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses be
included in the hearing record, that all Members be permitted
to revise and extend remarks. Without objection, so ordered.
Our first panel as I stated earlier is composed of the
Honorable Tracy A. Henke, Associate Deputy Attorney General,
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; the
Honorable Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney
General and Director of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Forces, U.S. Department of Justice; and John Horton, Associate
Deputy Director, State and Local Affairs, Office of National
Drug Control Policy.
For some reason, although we have a good crowd today and
lots of people know about this hearing, you haven't drawn the
same attention as the seven baseball players we subpoenaed
yesterday. While you are famous, you are not quite Sammy Sosa
and company yet.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Once again, thank you for coming and we will go
to Mr. Henke first.
STATEMENTS OF TRACY A. HENKE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
CATHERINE M. O'NEIL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZED CRIME DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND JOHN HORTON, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, STATE AND LOCAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG
CONTROL POLICY
STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE
Ms. Henke. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here.
As you mentioned, I currently serve as the Deputy Associate
Attorney General for the Department of Justice as well as the
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs. I am pleased to be here today to talk about the
President's fiscal year 2006 drug control budget. I also want
to thank you once again for the leadership that this committee
has shown on these issues.
The President's budget recognizes that the threat of
illegal drugs and drug abuse is grave and affects not only the
health and well being of our communities and our families but
also our national security. The President's budget for the
Department of Justice provides over $1\1/2\ billion in grant
assistance to State and local governments. That includes $185
million to strengthen communities through programs providing
services such as drug treatment as Congressman Cummings pointed
out, as well as $92\1/2\ million to support drug enforcement.
From OJP's inception, substantial resources in programming
to support States and local efforts to break the cycle of drug
abuse and crime has occurred. We view our core mission to be
that of providing Federal leadership and developing a Nation's
capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice and
assist victims. Part of that leadership is promoting and
supporting Federal, State and local cooperation to address
these vital issues.
The support that OJP and the COPS Officer provides for
State and local law enforcement generally takes three forms.
That is direct grant funding, training and technical assistance
and development across jurisdictional resources. The budget
request includes investments in three programs that are very
well known to this committee: $70 million for the Drug Court
Program; $44 million for the Residential Substance Abuse
Program or what we call RSAP; as well as $20 million for the
COPS Methamphetamine Program.
We are finding that drug courts are an active tool in
combating our war on drugs. Drug courts use the power of the
court to integrate effective substance abuse treatment,
mandatory drug testing, sanctions and incentives and
transitional services for non-violent substance abusing
offenders. As you may be aware, drug courts started at the
grassroots level well before Federal funding was ever made
available and today, over 1,500 drug courts exist in the
country.
RSAP is a critical aspect of offender reentry programs,
helping insure that offenders come back to their communities
substance free. For fiscal year 2006, we have requested $44
million. The investment in RSAP pays off in several ways. It
not only allows offenders to return to their communities
substance free but also reduces incarceration costs for
Federal, State and local governments and helps prevent further
financial and emotional costs of drug related crimes on
families, friends and communities.
The COPS Methamphetamine Program has provided a unique mix
of direct funding, training and technical assistance across the
wide range of law enforcement activities. Since 1998, COPS has
invested more than $330 million nationwide to combat the spread
of methamphetamine and has developed a problem-solving guide to
help law enforcement develop proactive prevention strategies
and to improve the overall response to clandestine drug labs.
The $20 million requested for fiscal year 2006 is intended to
support State and local clandestine lab clean up efforts.
In addition, the President's 2006 budget request includes
other programs that relate to our Nation's capacity to combat
illegal drug use and drug abuse. Those programs include the
Southwest Border Prosecution Program, the Cannabis Eradication
Discretionary Grant Program and the Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program.
As important as direct program funding may be, at the
Department of Justice we believe that through training and
technical assistance that we provide as well as the research
and statistical information to inform criminal and juvenile
justice practitioners and policymakers, the Department has an
even greater impact on making America's communities safe for
our citizens. Training and technical assistance are the key to
a huge multiplier effect and expanding knowledge and practical
operating capability to the field. They can also be the key to
helping States and localities leverage or even save limited
training dollars.
As an example, in response to law enforcement demand, OJP's
Bureau of Justice Assistance has more than tripled the number
of free methamphetamine training courses offered nationwide.
Individuals on the second panel here today have benefited from
some of that training.
In addition to direct funding, training and technical
assistance, OJP supports State and local law enforcement
through cross jurisdictional efforts that can best be
accomplished through Federal capabilities. For example, the
President's budget requests $45 million for the regional
information sharing system which facilitates and encourages
information sharing and supports more than 6,000 city, county,
State, tribal and Federal member agencies. There are 16 HIDTA
entities that also use the system.
OJP's Community Capacity Development Office administers the
Operation Weed and Seed Program for which we are requesting
approximately $60 million. Weed and Seed is another cross-
juridictional strategy that aims to prevent control and reduce
violent crime, drug abuse and gang activity in designated high
crime neighborhoods across the country.
Overall, while the budget request reflects reductions and
elimination of some grant program that provide direct funding
to State and local agencies, we believe the investments we are
proposing represent a continued commitment to the success of
State and local programming while mindful of our dual goals of
public safety and economic prosperity.
In closing, I want to emphasize the continued commitment of
the administration, specifically the continued commitment to
the Department of Justice, to our State and local partners, to
complement their efforts to eliminate the scurge of illegal
drugs and drug abuse.
Thank you again for the opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Now I will go to Ms. O'Neil.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE M. O'NEIL
Ms. O'Neil. Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the
President's drug control budget and specifically the funding
provided to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces.
The OCDETF Program was created in 1982 to bring together
Federal, State and local law enforcement to mount a
comprehensive attack on a regional, national and even
international scale against major drug trafficking
organizations and the financial systems that support them.
In March 2002, then Attorney General Ashcroft designated
the OCDEFT Program as the centerpiece of the Justice
Department's drug reduction strategy. Since then, the
Department has focused the OCDETF Program and vastly improved
its overall performance and accountability. OCDEFT has achieved
great success convicting nearly 23,000 drug dealers since 2002.
Most significantly, between 2002 and 2004, OCDETF participants
dismantled 14 of the most wanted international drug
organizations.
A key to OCDETF's success has been its strong partnerships
with State and local law enforcement. State and locals are
participating in more than 90 percent of new OCDETF
investigations and nearly 2,000 active cases overall. The
participation by these officers takes a variety of forms. In
some cases, a State and local officer may originate an
investigation of a local drug trafficking group that through
solid police work and cooperation with Federal counterparts
expand beyond the original district to an investigation of a
nationwide or even international drug supply organization.
In other cases, State and local officers provide invaluable
investigative assistance to an ongoing OCDETF case by
monitoring Federal wire taps, conducting surveillance or taking
specific enforcement actions within their local jurisdictions
that enable the Federal investigation to continue undisclosed.
Although OCDETF's appropriated funding is used only to
reimburse Federal participants, State and local departments
involved with OCDETF can obtain overtime funding. In fiscal
year 2004, for example, OCDETF disbursed about $7 million in
overtime funds to thousands of State and local officers across
the country. Additionally, OCDETF shares significant seized
assets with our partners. In fiscal year 2004, OCDETF
particpants deposited more than $126 million into the Assets
Forfeiture Fund and nearly 40 percent of these deposits or
$49.9 million were shared with State and local departments. As
OCDETF continues to increase the overall quality of its
investigations and particularly its financial investigations,
we expect to seize and ultimately share even more.
When discussing State and local participation in OCDETF, we
cannot ignore the strong support we have received from the
HIDTA Program. In a growing number of cases, HIDTA and OCDETF
are working together to impact the drug trade. As you are
aware, the President's budget proposes to transfer the HIDTA
Program from ONDCP to the Department of Justice with funding
through OCDETF. There seems to be confusion about what this
move will mean for HIDTA, so let me make one point very clear.
Under the President's proposal, the HIDTA Program will not be
merged with the OCDETF Program. OCDETF will use its executive
office to administer HIDTA's funding but the programs
themselves will remain separate and will pursue individual
missions as they do currently.
Both HIDTA and OCDETF will play important roles in the
overall drug enforcement effort. The Department welcomes this
proposal as a further opportunity to pursue a comprehensive
drug strategy that most effectively attacks organizations at
all levels and eliminates the various criminal activities and
violence associated with drug crime.
The fight against illegal drugs must be fought
strategically on many fronts, interationally, nationally,
regionally, and locally. Both HIDTA and OCDETF must utilize
their limited resources in a manner that is complementary and
that best achieves our overall goals. Placing the HIDTA in the
Department of Justice will enable us to more effectively define
our drug strategy, to establish clear priorities for our key
programs and to allocate our drug enforcement resources.
OCDETF is well suited to administer the HIDTA Program as it
too is an independent, multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional
enforcement program dedicated to promoting cooperation and
coordination among drug enforcement personnel. No single
investigative agency is more important than another and we
strive to ensure that we are effectively leveraging the
expertise and manpower of every entity that participates.
While the President's budget reduces HIDTA funding to $100
million, the Department is committed to making HIDTA operate
productively, particularly by emphasizing those elements of the
program including coordination and intelligence sharing that
have worked so well over the years.
Before closing, I simply want to note that the other
elements of OCDETF's budget, the funding for the Fusion Center,
for new prosecutors and new marshals and funding for the FBI,
all will enhance the program's overall ability to dismantle
major drug trafficking and will allow OCDETF to continue to
work closely with State and local departments and to share the
proceeds of our success. OCDETF was born in an America that was
under attack from organized drug trafficking and to respond to
that threat, we adopted a strategy of cooperation among law
enforcement at all levels, Federal, State and local.
The proud tradition of cooperative law enforcement remains
just as vibrant today as it was more than 20 years ago. Today
our efforts remain just as critical to our Nation's security
and our future. We will continue the fight against illegal
drugs, we will fight harder and we will fight smarter and we
will win.
I appreciate your support for this program and for our
overall drug enforcement efforts.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Neil follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Horton.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HORTON
Mr. Horton. Thank you for the invitation to testify before
you today regarding the President's 2006 Drug Control Budget. I
have submitted written testimony and would ask that it be made
a part of the record.
I recognize that you have already heard from ONDCP Director
John Walters regarding the overall drug control budget, so I
will keep my verbal testimony brief. I will also try to keep it
focused on aspects of the budget which specifically pertain to
drug enforcement programs.
Broadly, the President's proposal increases the drug
control budget by nearly $270 million or 2.2 percent over this
fiscal year. The budget incorporates the programs and
principles needed to continue the success the administration
has seen over the last 3 years, a 17 percent reduction in youth
drug use in America.
The drug control budget increases support for domestic drug
enforcement by 2.1 percent or nearly $70 million. Dividing the
drug control budget into five policy categories, prevention,
treatment, domestic enforcement, international and
interdiction, domestic enforcement occupies the largest
individual slice of that pie at 27 percent. This is the Federal
budget and so it should come as no surprise that our drug
enforcement support is primarily Federal in nature.
I am joined today by colleagues from the Department of
Justice and between the three of us, I hope we can answer
questions the committee may have about specific programs. I
recognize that one of the programs of interest is the HIDTA
Program, so before concluding my verbal testimony, I would like
to take a few moments to explain the rationale behind the
administration's proposal regarding HIDTA.
The President's budget proposes two things regarding HIDTA.
First is to move it from its current location at the Office of
National Drug Control Policy to the Department of Justice and
second to fund the program at $100 milliion. With respect to
the location of the HIDTA Program, the administration thinks
that the best place for drug enforcement programs like HIDTA is
at the Department of Justice. That is one of the reasons that
the Department of Justice exists, to oversee and to coordinate
our national law enforcement efforts.
The HIDTA Program is an important part of those efforts. In
order for the program to be the best it can be at important
functions like intelligence sharing and fostering multi-agency
and multi-jurisdictional coordination, it is important for the
program to be at the Department of Justrice itself. It is also
important that the program retain its focus on State and local
law enforcement and ONCDP will work with the Department of
Justice and with Congress to ensure that this focus is
maintained and that the transition is smooth.
With respect to the funding level for HIDTA, I would note
first what we think is the most important fact, that the HIDTA
Program is important and that is why it was not proposed for
elimination. Broadly, I know that Congress is aware of the
President's commitment to fiscal responsibility and to
sustaining the economic expansion by exercising fiscal
restraint. As a matter of general principle, the administration
is trying to be as efficient with the money of the taxpayers as
we can be expected and I think that you and Congress do as
well.
The level of funding proposed for the HIDTA Program
combined with its placement at the Department of Justice will
enable the program to maintain a strong focus on supporting
State and local agencies. Additionally, I would note the
administration has rightly made program performance central to
budget decisionmaking and the Office of Management and Budget
has concluded that the PARTS score, the program assessment
rating tool used by OMB, of the HIDTA Program suggests that the
program has not demonstrated results.
With that said about HIDTA, I think it is important to look
at the President's drug control budget as a whole. It increases
support for domestic drug enforcement. It increases the drug
control budget as a whole in a fiscally responsible manner. I
recognize that some of the specific provisions in the budget
will be the subject of a healthy debate as they should be.
While the American people deserve a rigorous and vigorous
discussion of the right funding priorities, they also deserve
to have their money spent on the programs that will provide the
best results.
The ultimate test of success is continued reductions in
especially youth drug use and this budget is the reight way to
continue the successes of the past 3 years.
Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you all for your testimony.
I am very frustrated with the testimony and let me say
first off, if I can give as big an insult in my vocabulary as I
can, this is the closest I have heard to early Bill Clinton,
that from a Republican administration I find it appalling that
what we faced when we came in 1994 was a drug czar's office
that had been basically gutted. Today, again, we hear the drug
czar more or less saying go ahead and gut my office. There is a
substantial proposed reduction in staff but you have most of
your staff, unlike what happened in the first 2 years under Lee
Brown, from 125 down to 25, but they are taking almost all your
programs out and you are publicly praising that, and you are
going to be left, as all hat and no cowboy because you will
have your staff there but your HIDTA Program is gone for the
most part, it is transferred; your CTAC Program is dramatically
reduced. Quite frankly, this was about all we had in the early
days of the administration when President Bush first wanted to
downgrade the drug czar to a non-Cabinet level position which
comes the question of who cares whether in one sense whether
you have an Office of ONDCP with the Drug Czar or whether it is
under the Attorney General and the Attorney General becomes the
Drug Czar.
Why did Congress do that? I say it doesn't matter who the
Attorney General is at a particular time and I certainly have
nothing against the Office of Justice Assistance. The sister of
our Governor of Indiana was head of that. Terry Donohue from my
hometown has been a key player there. My hometown does pretty
well with Justice assistance, and I have seen many effective
programs. Karen Tandy who now heads DEA headed OCDETF and has
done many great things to bust up organized crime.
I can't say this more clearly. The reason we created the
Office of National Drug Control Policy and set up these things
is the Attorney General's office and the Department of Justice
are fair weather friends to the drug battle because you have
multiple crime battles to fight in the United States that
whatever fad Congress decides, if this thing or that thing or
all the variations of organized crime, your primary mission
never will be drugs. It will always be a key part of your
mission because you can't separate law enforcement from
narcotics but it will never be the primary mission.
You have some agencies like DEA but that is why Congress
wanted to have and created an oversight office and why Congress
is likely to defend that and to come in with the type of
testimony that basically sticks your finger in the eye of
Congress and the historic tradition of why we did this without
any consultation. I talked to each of the appropriators and
each of the authorizers, and there was no consultation with any
committee about whether you should come in an appropriations
process and try to jam every authorizing committee and jam the
Appropriations Committee with this approach. It is extremely
disappointing.
Furthermore, there was no reference to Byrne grants other
than in the front page of your testimony where our hearing
title includes Byrne grants. There was no reference to the
elimination of Byrne grants which are critical to drug task
forces and have been over the years. Multiple times the
administration has proposed getting rid of them and Congress
puts them back in.
Before I get into a couple of the questions, I also wanted
to say that we hear training, training, and training and I have
all kinds of people trained on meth. What they don't have is a
lab to clean up the mess. We have trained a bunch of people and
they sit out there for 4 to 8 hours waiting for somebody to
show up with the meth lab.
The argument that we need to transfer more money to
training just isn't going to fly here. What we need are more
labs and different methods of how to do it.
I have a series of questions I want to make sure I start
with specifically. I have listened and these are mostly for Ms.
Henke and Ms. O'Neil. Maybe I will start with Ms. O'Neil and
Mr. Horton on this.
As I understood your testimony, Ms. O'Neil, the HIDTAs
wouldn't be eliminated but their budgets are being cut 60
percent. Are you saying that under this program, no HIDTAs will
be eliminated, some HIDTAs will be eliminated, all HIDTAs will
be wiped out including the 60 percent production on the
southwest border, 60 percent in Texas, 60 percent in California
or are you proposing to eliminate Iowa? What is the thought of
this?
Ms. O'Neil. I don't believe I said no HIDTAs would be
eliminated. My testimony was that the HIDTA Program would not
be merged into OCDETF, that it is not our goal to turn the
HIDTA Program into the OCDETF Program. We recognize that HIDTA
and OCDETF very clearly have distinct missions and need to
continue with an overall strategic vision to have each have
focused missions. That is what we hope this will accomplish.
Mr. Souder. In my question, did you say all of them would
be reduced 60 percent or are you going to cut out some HIDTAs?
Ms. O'Neil. The President's budget would provide $100
million in overall funding and it will be incumbent upon the
Department of Justice and ONDCP and quite frankly the HIDTA
community to work jointly to figure out how that $100 million
can be administered and spread most effectively with the HIDTA
Program and with the HIDTAs working most effectively.
Mr. Souder. What methodology would you use to determine
which HIDTAs you are either cutting by 60 percent, 100 percent,
80 percent or eliminating?
Ms. O'Neil. At this time, we have not established any sort
of firm methodology. I would say we obviously would be looking
for HIDTAs that are supporting the overall goals of the
National Drug Control Strategy, the goals of the Department's
drug strategy and HIDTA programs working effectively.
Mr. Souder. Which three HIDTAs do you think aren't working
effectively and would be an example because if you came up here
proposing to cut out 60 percent of the funding and you don't
even have three examples of something that isn't working, you
have a fundamental problem. You are asking Congress to change
our budget, you are telling me you don't have the methodology
of how you are going to reduce it, you don't know whether they
are going to be eliminated or partly eliminated and if you
can't even name three that you think are a problem, we have a
problem here. You are asking us from blindness to wipe out a
program that is working. Do you have three you think aren't?
Ms. O'Neil. I do not have three HIDTAs that I would
identify at this time.
Mr. Souder. Do you have one?
Ms. O'Neil. Again, what we want to do is get our arms
around the HIDTA Program to make sure we understand exactly
where the funding is, how it is being spent, what is working
well, what might not be working so well and make decisions that
will make sure the HIDTAs achieve the overall goals they are
meant to achieve.
Mr. Souder. Wouldn't it make sense to do that before you
propose eliminating them? I don't even understand as a budget
management person, a person with a MBA degree and who worked in
the private sector, you just said you want to get your arms
around it and figure out which ones are working and how to do
it but you have already decided that you want to cut the funds
60 percent and maybe eliminate some. On what basis?
Ms. O'Neil. The President's budget proposes the $100
million and it would be my understanding that the manner in
which the $100 million was arrived at would be pre-decisional
and I would not be at liberty to answer that.
Mr. Souder. How did they come up with the $100 million?
Ms. O'Neil. That question may be best turned to my friends
at ONDCP. Again, that would be a pre-decisional budget decision
that I would not be at liberty to share.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Horton, did you make the recommendation of
$100 million and go to OMB or did OMB come to you and say it is
$100 million?
Mr. Horton. I frankly do not know the answer to that. If
you are asking if I personally did it, the answer is no, but I
believe it was pre-decisional and resulted from discussions. I
don't know who initiated it.
Mr. Souder. You are Deputy Director for Local Affairs. Do
you work with the HIDTA Program directly?
Mr. Horton. I am Associate Deputy Director. I do work with
the HIDTA Program.
Mr. Souder. Did they ask for your input and did you agree
that they should be reduced?
Mr. Horton. Unfortunately, I think that is pre-decisional
and I probably can't answer. I am sorry.
Mr. Souder. Would OCDETF retain the current operating
guidelines of HIDTA? For example, would you have an executive
board made up equally, Ms. O'Neil, of State and local and
Federal?
Ms. O'Neil. Certainly we want to look at the way the HIDTA
Program is structured and determine how well those executive
boards are working and whether they should be maintained. I
think there has been some sense that by coming over to the
OCDETF Program or being administered by OCDETF we would have a
natural inclination to impose the existing OCDETF management
structure onto the HIDTAs. OCDETF and HIDTA were created to do
different things. Our regional task forces reflect the mission
and the direction that the OCDETF Program was meant to have.
Our intention would be to maintain a strong partnership with
State and local law enforcement and to structure the HIDTA
Program in a way that furthers its mission and makes sense from
a management standpoint.
Mr. Souder. You are arguing we should change the program
butyou haven't decided whether you are going to include State
and local balance as it currently is? That is something you
would determine after we have already eliminated it?
Ms. O'Neil. We would absolutely include State and locals.
The focus of the HIDTA Program has always been a partnership
with State and local law enforcement.
Mr. Souder. You would have an equal balance between the
two? That is the fundamental philosophy of creating the HIDTA,
so if you want to change and come to Congress and say we want
to change, you need to be able to answer the question, are you
proposing changing the fundamental nature of this program where
it is 50-50, State and local and Federal or not. If you don't
know the answer to that question, why are you proposing a
change?
It is one thing to say we want some research money to look
into how to do this, we want to propose a reauthorization bill
to figure out how to do this but you have a funding bill. By
the way, did ONCDP go to OMB and say we would like this
program, take it away from the Drug Czar's office?
Ms. O'Neil. Again, I would have to agree that would be pre-
decisional. I personally did not go to OMB.
Mr. Souder. Do you know whether OCDETF, Department of
Justice or the Drug Czar's office surveyed local law
enforcement people to see what they thought about this change?
Ms. O'Neil. I am not aware whether or not ONDCP or others
did. I personally did not conduct a survey.
Mr. Souder. Have you seen anything in your departments that
would suggest any kind of surveying of State and local law
enforcement to ask them whether they would continue to
participate, whether they think it would be better off moved
over or was this a unilateral budget decision made without
consultation at the State and local level?
Ms. O'Neil. There is certainly nothing that has come across
my desk but that does not mean one way or another whether such
sorts of surveys or studies exist. I certainly know from
communications with HIDTA directors that there has been some
sense that they were not consulted.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Horton, do you have any insight
into that? Did your office survey? Let me say as chairman of
the subcommittee, I certainly haven't heard anywhere in the
country that HIDTAs, Byrne Grant, drug task forces or local law
enforcement have been consulted. If it was done, it was very
quiet. Do you know if there was any surveying done of State and
local law enforcement before you proposed a huge change in the
whole drug enforcement program?
Mr. Horton. I do know the answer, Mr. Chairman, and the
answer is that we did not consult the State and local law
enforcement about the specific inclusion in the fiscal year
2006 budget on shifting the HIDTA Program from ONDCP to DOJ. To
the best of my knowledge, we did not.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your openness.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I have to tell you this is very upsetting but
I want to take this in another direction.
Methamphetamine in Baltimore is not a major problem in
Baltimore, but it is a major problem in this country. There is
no 1 day that goes by that I walk on the floor of the House
that some one of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, tell
me about a methamphetamine problem in their district. I just
want to know what went into the thinking about the whole meth
program. Can you tell me about that? Who wants to talk about
that?
Ms. Henke. The COPS Program, the President's budget is
consistent with the prior fiscal year budget that he submitted
for $20 million. Congress did appropriate over $50 million. The
President did request $20 million and those additional
resources Congress appropriated all were earmarked. The
President's budget remains consistent on that $20 million
request.
Mr. Cummings. You realize the methamphetamine problem is
getting worse in this country?
Ms. Henke. That is why we are working on several programs
including the Drug Court Program, the RSAP Program and so forth
to try to do what we can to address those issues. I know the
chairman referenced the issue of training but we are providing
some specific training and tools to law enforcement on that.
Mr. Cummings. What about money? I have gotten so interested
in this because I represent a city and I have had people from
rural areas, law enforcement, men and women on the front lines
and they are so frustrated because they tell us they have
limited resources, they have to clean up these labs, they go
out with the limited resources they have, tie up somebody
sometimes for 8 to 14 hours in a small force. I am trying to
figure out what we are doing for them.
The reason I am raising this is I don't know what we will
hear from the next panel but I can tell you one thing. If I
were on the next panel, I would be very, very, very upset. The
reason why I would be upset is because what I said from the
beginning, these are the people on the front line. It is nice
to hear folk making these decisions but they tell me they worry
that the public will get the impression they can just mosey
into their jurisdictions because they don't have the manpower
and they don't have the resources they need and these folks get
these drug dealers and drug manufacturers who believe they can
set up shop almost anywhere.
You know this is on C-Span right now and there are drug
folks sitting right now watching this. They are bright people
and they are listening to all of this and are probably saying
to themselves, my, my, my we are in pretty good shape. They are
making decisions, they don't talk to each other. Boy, this is
great. Let us see where we are going next because we are not so
worried about getting caught.
When I hear that these decisions are being made without our
local and State input, I have to tell you it is very, very
upsetting. It is upsetting for another reason and it just seems
logic would tell us when you are dealing with Members of
Congress and dealing with things like HIDTA and methamphetamine
and these programs, every single Member of Congress is going to
go beserk on this. It doesn't even make sense.
I am saying that not long ago around early February, in
Indiana, a little girl was killed, she was 10 years old and her
last name was Coleman. She was killed because she witnessed
some kind of methamphetamine transaction. Then I will take you
to Baltimore. We have a major drug problem that our
Commissioner will tell you we are fighting with everything we
have. Still, you come here and tell us about all these cuts and
how you have sliced and diced but the very people who have to
face this front line aren't even in the mix.
We do have a program called HIDTA nad I would like you to
tell me specifically what is wrong with HIDTA, be very
specific, so I can know since we have to make these decisions.
I want to know why HIDTA has to have its money managed, is it
something wrong with theway they are managing their money and I
want to know what we expect to happen that is going to make
them more effective and efficient? Help me.
Ms. O'Neil. I would certainly speak to the management issue
of the money. I think the very simple answer to that is someone
has to manage the money. Currently ONDCP administers the grant
funding and now when it comes over to the Department of
Justice, there needs to be an entity at the Department of
Justice who will serve the same role. I think OCDETF was chosen
to serve that role because OCDETF like HIDTA is a Federal,
State and local law enforcement partnership. It is not the DEA
or the FBI or any other single Federal enforcement agency, but
rather a program dedicated to coordinating law enforcement
entities at all levels.
Mr. Cummings. Can you hold it right there because you are a
bit ahead of me. Was part of the reason there was something
wrong with the way ONDCP was administering the funds that
caused us to move to this situation? Mr. Horton.
Mr. Horton. I think the important point to know is there
are some things that are very right with HIDTA. In fact, if you
look at the drug control budget, it says the HIDTA Program has
been effective.
Mr. Cummings. This is Mr. Horton's testimony. It says the
administration has made program performance central to the
budget and part of it says HIDTA has not been able to
demonstrate results. You are talking about 2004-2005. Did I
miss something?
Mr. Horton. If I could explain, there are things the HIDTA
Program has done that are effective. It has encouraged
cooperation between the Federal, State and local agencies and
the PARTS, the Program Assessment Rating Tool, didn't say it
was ineffective. That was not the finding.
Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this because I think we are
dancing around words here. You have HIDTA people sitting here
and they are going to testify in a few minutes. I don't know
what they will say but I want to know, has the HIDTA Program
overall demonstrated results. If it hasn't, we need to know
that and if it hasn't, I would like to know why. Why do you all
think it hasn't demonstrated results so we can talk to the
HIDTA people and say we want some accountability. Since we have
so many of them here in the room, it seems like a good time to
me for us to share information.
Mr. Horton. We clearly think there are some things very
right about the HIDTA Program, that is why it wasn't
eliminated. We are funding it at $100 million. I recognize that
is a cut but again, it is being funded at $100 million.
Mr. Cummings. I have to tell you I heard Ms. O'Neil say the
same thing you just said,t hat we are not eliminating it but in
other words you are saying, be happy, we are not eliminating
it. We are only going to cut 60 percent of it, be happy. Be
happy because it is going to be better because OCDETF is going
to administer the funds now. We don't know how we are going to
make this adjustment and still be effective and efficient, a 60
percent cut is a serious cut.
I guess what bothers me is I really wonder what is going
through the heads of the HIDTA people sitting behind you. I
wonder what is going through the heads of all those men and
women who every day go out there work with HIDTA, try to make a
difference, putting their lives on the line, leaving their
families not knowing whether they will come back because they
are dealing with some criminals who think life isn't worth a
damned and yet when it comes to them, would you say they are
doing a good job?
Mr. Horton. I think there are a tremendous number of HIDTA
directors and law enforcement who do a wonderful job in this
country. I know that.
Mr. Cummings. Are they good enough to be consulted. These
are highly professional people who know their job, many who
have been doing this for many years, many severely underpaid,
many have to pump up their personnel and keep them going and
have to go back to their offices today or tomorrow and talk to
their people and keep their troops in line and keep their moral
up after their troops have listened to this that basically
says, well, guys, too bad, we are going to make these changes
but you are great guys on the front line and you are
professionals but, a decision has been made that 60 percent of
your budget is going, we don't know what is going to happen to
you next. By the way, the criminal element has been watching C-
Span.
Mr. Horton. First, I want to mention I come from a law
enforcement family. I am a former prosecutor and I have uncles
who are police and I know the sacrifice they make very well.
When we come up with the budget every year that we submit to
Congress, when we say it is pre-decisional, I think there are
very few if any parts of that allowed to go outside of the
administration.
I recognize it would be disingenuous for me to state
otherwise, that law enforcement of course would have preferred
we come to them but that is not the way the budget process
works is the honest answer. The other thing I would note is
that HIDTA budgets do not account for all of any, whether the
Indiana or Baltimore police that are meant to support those
efforts. I hope law enforcement understands, this is not
personal. It is a tough budget environment this year and we
have had to come up with a national drug control strategy that
we think is best not one that focuses only on drug enforcement
but incorporates prevention, treatment, international
interdiction. We think this budget is the right way to
accomplish that.
Mr. Souder. Predecisional budgets that don't include people
don't pass. That has been one of the problems with the Byrne
grant proposals. If you don't consult anybody, your budgets
don't pass. To say it is predecisional what is going to be
inside the room and we are just going to do this inside OMB and
maybe tell the agencies it isn't going to work. And it is going
to become abundantly clear again if I have to vote against the
budget and it doesn't take very many Republicans to do a wake
up call here that an arrogant approach that says everything is
predecisional, we are not even going to talk to all these
people out in the country, we are not going to present any
evidence to Congress and Mr. Cummings asked multiple times and
I tried to ask the question, you are proposing to transfer it
from ONDCP to OCDETF. What did ONDCP do wrong to cause the
transfer? You have not given any compelling evidence to suggest
why it should be moved over or what the punishment is. Why do
you think the Attorney General's office can do it better than
ONDCP?
Mr. Horton. I don't mean to imply and I don't think anybody
at this table means to imply that ONDCP has done anything
wrong. I certainly hope that is not the case being part of
ONDCP myself. As I indicated in my testimony, we think law
enforcement programs, drug enforcement programs like the HIDTA
program should be in the part of the Federal Government that
has the primary responsibility for law enforcement and drug
enforcement.
Mr. Souder. Does that include the Department of Homeland
Security which has more drug enforcement people than any of
you?
Mr. Horton. No, I am talking in this particular case.
Mr. Souder. Why this particular case and not all cases?
Mr. Horton. As you know, the primary drug enforcement
agency of the Federal Government is the DEA.
Mr. Souder. I would argue that the Border Patrol, Customs
and Coast Guard units inside while they have a mission of
homeland security, have as many agents doing drug enforcement
things, making as many joint arrests as what is in the Justice
Department, and the HIDTAs and local law enforcement do 90
percent of the arrests. That is not a factual answer. Justice
has more individual programs but you did answer the question.
Your argument is ONDCP didn't do anything wrong, you are moving
it over to the Justice Department to try to consolidate drug
programs in the Justice Department. Is that basically the
testimony?
Mr. Horton. I am not sure I would use the word consolidate.
As the Associate Deputy Attorney General indicated, OCDETF and
HIDTA will be distinct programs but we do think it is
appropriately placed there.
Mr. Souder. You said that you believe some HIDTAs are doing
well. Can you name some that aren't doing well?
Mr. Horton. I don't have specific HIDTAs that I would name
right now.
Mr. Souder. But you want us to cut the budget and you don't
have a single example? I don't understand this. How can you
propose cutting the budget and none of you have an example? Mr.
Cummings asked this question too. If you have measurements and
say you have evidence that suggests the program needs to be
redone or even offer testimony that says it can be done better,
on what basis and which ones aren't?
Furthermore, when we talk about State and local, in New
York which arguably is the most integrated HIDTA where they
have also integrated DEA and Department of Homeland Security
and are doing all these things together, are you proposing to
cut them 60 percent too? Do you propose to cut the New York
City HIDTA 60 percent or will they be funded because if you
don't cut them 60 percent, by definition since it is one of the
biggest HIDTAs, you are really going to whack everyone else.
Yet everybody thinks it is an amazing unit, why would you
touch it? If you say you are not going to touch it and hold it
harmless, your budget numbers don't work. You have a flaw here
in the basic proposal.
Mr. Horton. The drug control budget does not specifically
propose to cut the New York HIDTA, what is going on in New
York. Very clearly there are some decisions that will have to
be made. ONDCP and the Department of Justice are going to have
to come up with a more specific plan. We knew that, and we will
be sharing that with you.
Mr. Souder. So you are asking Mr. Cummings, who may not
vote for the budget anyway, and Ms. Watson who may not vote for
the budget anyway, to say vote blind, trust us that Washington-
Baltimore HIDTA and Los Angeles HIDTA aren't going to be
eliminated. I don't have a HIDTA. I am making this argument on
principle, not on the Ft. Wayne HIDTA. I have a Byrne grant, we
don't have a drug task force. On HIDTAs, you want them
theoretically to vote for a budget and say trust us as to
whether we put all the money in New York or Iowa or down in
Texas, vote blind?
Mr. Horton. We are asking that you vote for the President's
budget, not based purely on that factor but because we think
this is the overall strategy incorporating all those five
functional units that will accomplish continued reductions in
drug use in America.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. I am just now coming into the meeting but I
understand there have been some charges of corruption and if
you have explained then let me know. I don't want you to have
to repeat responses.
Are you aware of cases of corruption and abuse involving
Byrne funds and do you believe these are widespread problems? I
get the sense you are asking to defund some of these programs?
Mr. Horton. That is correct. As to the corruption question,
I am not aware of anything like that in my office or in the
HIDTA Program. I am aware you asked about Byrne and perhaps I
should defer to the Assistant Attorney General.
Ms. Henke. Congreswoman, over the years there have been
several IG investigations and GAO investigations into COPS
programs, into Byrne programs where abuse and misuse has been
found. Is it widespread? No, we don't necessarily think it is
widespread but we do know there are problems out there.
Ms. Watson. When you find those problems, what can be done
about them, those specific ones since it is not widespread?
Ms. Henke. It depends on the specific situation that is
found, whether or not it resulted in involvement from the FBI
or the U.S. Attorneys Office or whether or not it is just a
small violation of program rules or responsibilities that has
been identified by the Inspector General or the GAO or others.
Sometimes it means asking for funds back, sometimes it means
freezing funds for that specific entity until the problem is
resolved, so there is a variety of actions we can and do take.
Ms. Watson. Bring me up to date, are you recommending, Mr.
Horton, that we eliminate some of these programs or we cut
funds?
Mr. Horton. There are some recommendations throughout the
drug control budget to cut or eliminate some programs. We most
recently discussed the cut of the HIDTA Program.
Ms. Watson. I represent a very critical part of Los
Angeles. I represent what they used to call South Central Los
Angeles or South Los Angeles, now. We suffer from a rash of
gangs and violence with guns, and a lack of police.
We have tried several tax enhancements to hire more police,
and they have not succeeded. If there is any program that we
need funding or need more of, it certainly is the COPS program,
HIDTA programs, and anything that will help us as we deal with
youth on the street.
I am wondering why, with proposals that are going to be in
front of us, that we are looking at these very critical
programs for cuts. Can you explain to me why this is occurring?
Mr. Horton. Certainly, I would be happy to speak,
especially to the HIDTA program itself. Then on some of the
other program that fall under the jurisdiction from my
colleagues from the Department of Justice, I may defer to them.
But as I indicated earlier, I think that first, we all know
that this is a tight fiscal environment. That is an over-
arching feature, I think. I indicated earlier that OMB has
found that the HIDTA has not demonstrated results. That is
under PART, its Program Assessment Rating Tool. That is not to
say that it was found ineffective. It was found that it had not
demonstrated results.
In the President's direct control budget, it also notes
that by moving the HIDTA program over to the Department of
Justice, that is where many of our drug enforcement efforts are
housed, such as DEA, OCDETF, the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force. We think that having those programs be
able to work from the same section of the Federal Government
will be more efficient and help accomplish our drug control
objectives better.
Ms. Watson. Let me just say this. I do not think so. We are
3,000 miles away. There is not even communication between
Washington and California. I found that out by trying to get
rid of a gun and arms shop, ATF, that has been operating for 15
years illegally.
I go to the ATF Federal level, and then I have the regional
in my district office, and I said, did you know they are
getting ready to renew the license for this guy who has been
there illegally, and he has not complied with the local
ordinances? No, they do not talk to each other.
So there is no way you can convince me that you can run it
from Washington, DC, when ATF cannot oversee and run the
program out in Los Angeles.
Now when there was testimony before Congress in support of
the HIDTA program, the Chief of the California Bureau of
Narcotics Enforcement testified and said, an essential
component of HIDTA is the flexibility and the ability for
unique law enforcement problems to be addressed. The benefit of
flexibility of the local Board to decide what threat is
pertinent to their region is absolutely essential to righting
the drug problem in a particular area.
I can testify to that. You cannot tell me that you can run
it from Washington, and believe me, we have a horrendous
problem, as you know, in the Los Angeles area, right in my own
district. So they are testifying to the effects of a program
that gives them the flexibility to be innovative and creative.
Believe me, the gangs on the street, they far out-pace law
enforcement being creative. You know, they have got a better
communication system and they change their language every day,
and they get away. They sell on those streets, guns, you know.
So I am just saying that I do not know what your data is.
But I can tell you, from what my people say in the region, this
is a program that they cannot do without.
Mr. Horton. Thank you for those comments. I want to correct
a mis-impression that I may have inadvertently made. We are not
proposing that we would be taking all the HIDTA activity back
up to Washington, DC. I do not forecast that fact.
I fully expect that the HIDTA program is going to retain
and maintain its focus on supporting State and locals. The
Department of Justice and ONDCP and my office have talked about
that, and I will defer to the Associate Attorney General for
the remainder of this answer, since the program is proposed to
go to her. But I know that we agree that it would retain its
ability to respond flexibly to State and local problems as you
described.
Ms. O'Neil. Congresswoman, I would reiterate that comment.
Certainly, as I mentioned earlier before you had come in, the
program needs to be run from somewhere, and they have
determined that within the Department of Justice, the
appropriate place to do that would be from the OCDETF program.
I might share with you that while OCDETF does not have
certainly quite the same structure that the HIDTA program has
from a management standpoint, simply because it is designed to
do something different from HIDTA, we, too, run our program out
in the field.
Our structure is comprised of district coordination groups
that are made up of the representatives of all of our Federal
law enforcement agencies, as well as, under our guidelines, a
State and local representatives on every one of those district
coordination committees.
At the regional level, we have all of our agencies
represented again. In fact, we have State and local law
representatives on two of those regional committees. We have
HIDTA Directors on three of those regional committees. Even the
OCDETF program, which has a more regional, national, and
international focus, recognizes that strategies have to be
developed out in the field.
We have our OCDETF regions submit to us regional strategies
that will work for the Southwest and the Great Lakes and the
Southeast, so that we can even adjust the OCDETF program to
adapt to the way that we must attack the drug trade, and the
differences that the drug trade has in different parts of the
country.
So I completely agree with you, and that certainly would be
an important part of what we would intend to continue to do.
Ms. Watson. For my own edification and clarification, you
are saying we are just going to pick up and house this program
over here? It still will depend on local cooperation and
collaboration and the locals suggesting strategies. Is that
correct?
Mr. Souder. May I intervene, because we covered this a
little?
Ms. Watson. Yes, please do, I need to be clear.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask this again. You suggested that part
of the reason it is moving over to the Justice Department, was
that they, and it was interesting that you said ``they'' rather
than ``you'' at OCDETF, decided that it should be in OCDETF was
because of your structure.
Now I had asked you earlier, the way HIDTAs were
structured, it was half local and half Federal. Are you going
to have half local? The way you just described your Task
Forces, is local invited to be part of the committee, but they
do not have the same leverage that they do in a HIDTA?
The whole concept of a HIDTA was to give equal voting
power, because most of the dollars come in from a local watch,
and we use our Federal dollars as leverage. Ms. Watson, when
she was asking her question, hit a core point. The fundamental
belief, I believe, behind this ideologically, which we have
fenced with on this committee, is a feeling that the HIDTAs
have become too oriented toward local and regional, and not
national enough.
One way to do that, and to change that and nationalize and
give less power to the people in Los Angeles is to move it to
an OCDETF-type structure, rather than a HIDTA structure. Thus
far, you have been unwilling to say, even though you are asking
us to move the funds, that you will keep the same structure
that half of the group will be local agencies and half will be
Federal.
Will you say to this committee, as the authorizing
committee on HIDTAs, that you will keep half and half; or do
you see it modeled more like the OCDETF model? I am sure Ms.
Watson will appreciate this.
We can say all the time, we include the minority on all
sorts of bills and they are welcome to come to the hearings.
There may be three of them, while there are 200 of us. They may
even get to offer an amendment here and there, that we get to
vote down.
This is about power, and if the majority is Federal and the
minority is included and the HIDTA Director gets to sit on it,
the difference in the HIDTA program and the concept that
Congress passed was equal, 50/50, it has been a headache.
On national strategy, I understand it has been a headache,
and it looks to me like you are saying, we are tired of the
headache. We are moving it out of the Justice Department. We
are going to have a clear top-down. We would love to have them
along for the ride, and as long as they are good, we will keep
them on our advisory committee. Otherwise, they are welcome to
sit there and complain, but they are going to be voted down.
Ms. O'Neil. Mr. Chairman, let me make myself clear, because
I do not want to leave any mis-impression. When I was
describing the OCDETF structure, I wanted to describe it to
explain how even we, which you would consider to be much less
of a State and local or regional flair-type program, recognized
how important it is to get the input at the District level and
the regional level. I was explaining our structure that works
for the OCDETF program.
Because the focus of the OCDETF program is a Federal
program. What we do is, we fund Federal agencies through our
appropriation, and we partner with State and locals. So our
management structure reflects that. What we would want to do
for the HIDTA program is to preserve what has worked so well
for the HIDTA program, which is its focus on State and local
law enforcement. It works differently than the OCDETF program
does.
We want to, then, select the management structure that
works most appropriately to reinforce that mission. If the
HIDTA Boards, as they have been structured, are the most
effective way to do that, with the 50/50 participation or other
recommendations that the HIDTA Directors may have for that
management structure, then that would certainly be a direction
that we would want to go.
Mr. Souder. So you are proposing to change it, but you do
not really know, yet? I mean, we just did a loop. Because you
said, if the current structure is effective the way it is, then
you would keep it; but we already have it.
If you do not have any evidence that it is not effective,
why are you changing it? That is, unless there is a management
question, as Ms. Watson was just asking, which is are you
changing the fundamental nature? You are, at the very least,
admitting that you are going to study the fundamental nature
and that you have not concluded how you are going to do it.
You admit that OCDETF, which certainly has local
participation, and I did not mean to be overly cynical about
it, but when there are disagreements, voting rights matter. One
of the frustrations here is that you are telling us and you are
gradually elaborating a process of how you are going to decide
this, but you are asking us to change it, without telling us
what you are changing to.
What we know is we have something that all evidence
suggests works. There is just as much evidence that this works,
as there is that DEA works. In other words, any criticism you
can say of a HIDTA that it does not work, the HIDTAs are
scoring just as high on any tests as DEA, which is under your
watch, as Bureau Justice Assistants. Quite frankly, it is as
effective as drug courts, which I am a strong supporter of.
So you cannot look at HIDTAs and say, there is an
ineffectiveness here, because we can find study after study
that show we have a problem all across the board. It is a hard
issue to work. The question is, on what basis, other than
management? But now you say you are proposing, and you have not
even decided how to manage it.
I am sorry I cut you off, Ms. Watson. Do you have any other
comments?
Ms. Watson. I just have one more question. I think I will
ask Ms. O'Neil this question. The proposal is to cut HIDTA's
budget by 56 percent when you transfer it over to the
Department of Justice?
Ms. O'Neil. That is correct. The President's budget
proposes a funding level of $100 million.
Ms. Watson. Why would you want to cut a program that is
zeroing in on specific local plans to address the drug
trafficking that is discovered, and they are trying to do
something about? Why would you suggest cutting by 56 percent
the overall HIDTA budget? If you think that moving it into the
Justice Department will allow more coordination, more
flexibility to focus in on those areas and those innovations,
why would you want to cut the funding? I do not understand
that.
Ms. O'Neil. Clearly, what we are trying to accomplish is to
satisfy the budget requirements that we have in very tight
budget times, and to achieve a budget that will meet the
overall drug enforcement goals and further the administration's
strategy to promote prevention, treatment, and drug
enforcement. That does require hard choices.
Although with the funding level of $100 million that has
been determined, we are committed to making sure that the HIDTA
program remains productive, to focus it.
I think, Mr. Chairman, in his earlier remarks had suggested
that the HIDTA program may have drifted a bit. What we would
like to do, by bringing it over to the Department of Justice,
by having it in a place that is responsible for the Federal
drug enforcement strategy, to determine what is it that HIDTA
can do best; what part of the strategy should HIDTA focus on;
and where should it devote the limited resources that it has to
have the biggest impact on our drug enforcement problem,
nationwide; and then let OCDETF and other programs do other
things.
Ms. Watson. Let me say this in response and let me suggest
this. I represent, as I said, Los Angeles. We are 2 hours from
the border between Mexico and the United States. Every day,
people are coming over that border illegally. Every day, we are
finding that drugs are being brought over the border.
We are finding now that Afghanistan is the biggest producer
of heroin. That heroin is finding its way into our community.
Our city, 3,000 miles away, is trying to tackle this. Do you
know what they do? They go out to the community and they find
people who look like these groups that are coming over the
border illegally. They must have the resources.
I do not understand how you feel you can fight this kind of
crime more specifically, a, coming out of the Department of
Justice, and b, with a reduced budget. Fifty-six percent is
half. You are going to try to do more with half the means. It
just does not compute.
This is at a time when we are fighting and we are fearing
terrorism on our own borders. You know, the sales of guns, I do
not understand that. Right there, if you want to destroy a
city, you know, you throw that bomb up in the middle of its
impacted area.
You are telling me that a 56 percent cut will allow you to
focus your resources where they are needed the most. That cut,
we could use, you know, and we could really do a good job, if
we had the funds flowing in.
So I think that this proposal really does not make sense if
your goal is to reduce drug trafficking and the associated
crimes that come along with it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time you have
given me.
Mr. Souder. I just want to clarify this for the record. My
understanding is that New York City, which is one of the center
places right now where we have a HIDTA, where 100 percent of
its funds are merged in, in the main anti-terrorism center.
You are saying you are going to cut it 60 percent; or you
do not know, you might cut it 60 percent; you might eliminate
it; or is it guaranteed that it is going to be there and not be
cut? Because this is a critical part. You do not know. That is
what I have heard so far.
Ms. O'Neil. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, the plan
has not been finalized with regard to how the funding level
will be spent; how it will be allocated; and what decisions
will be made. The Department of Justice needs to work with
OCDCP and with the HIDTA community to determine how we can best
function, because we want to make sure that the HIDTA program
is productive.
Mr. Souder. As we look across the country at the border
questions, urban centers, one of the concerns here would be
that this is a proposal to cut the HIDTAs, many of which, or
the biggest ones, are in urban centers. Those are represented
by Democratic members.
If you assured us and said, oh, we are not going to cut the
HIDTAs in those big urban areas that are mostly represented by
Democrats, then you are proposing to cut the HIDTAs that are
represented mostly by Republican members. Are you suggesting
that the administration wants to do this without talking to
Congress?
Ms. O'Neil. We would certainly look forward to working with
the committee, as the plans are finalized and the funding
levels are finalized.
Mr. Souder. But you were not going to talk to State and
local law enforcement before you came to Congress with this;
and not only did you not talk to Congress before this, but what
I heard you to say is, we are going to come up with some
procedures, and then we are going to make decisions about
whether to cut New York or leave New York, or whether we will
keep the ones in the center of the country where
methamphetamines are present.
You can see why it is hard here. I mean, you are defending
a very tough position. I appreciate how difficult it has been
today. But it is just unbelievable that your departments would
send you up here with no specifics, when we are headed into a
budget and, in effect, say, look, we do not know who is getting
wiped out. We do not even know how we are going to measure who
gets wiped out. We would like to have it over here.
It starts to look, quite frankly, and I am going to say
this on the public record, like the Attorney General's Office
lost a lot of their staff to Homeland Security. So they decided
to go poach the ONDCP office and say we are going to focus on
the drug problem, unless there is another issue that comes up.
Let us say that organized crime becomes a big thing. Then
because your office is Attorney General, and not drugs of which
drugs are a part of it, our concern is, once you basically wipe
out the ONDCP, once you weaken the HIDTA system, where we have
an even partnership, which is a model-type program, in effect
to question whether we should have some in each State that then
goes up.
Then also there is the Byrne grant, which we have not
talked about much, and we will certainly talk about in the next
panel, which funds those areas that do not have a HIDTA. Their
Drug Task Forces are usually funded through a Byrne grant.
In effect, you are proposing changing the whole nature of
how we fight drugs in the United States, without consultation.
Then you are telling us, no, we are not. We are going to
consult before, because that was pre-decisional, but you are
not going to consult with us after.
You might inform us, and we will certainly give our
opinions at hearings. But you are missing the whole
appropriations process. You are missing the whole authorizing
process. You are missing multiple branches of Government.
You have to have some kind of compelling case. The
disturbing thing today is, you have not made any compelling
case. Your compelling case is, we think it would be better
consolidated under the Attorney General's Office.
But why is that? The closest you have come to criticizing
ONDCP is that you refer to something that I said, which is, the
mission has drifted a little bit. So you are, in effect, saying
ONDCP could not control it. Director Walters was not a good
enough cabinet member to control this, so we think it ought to
go over to the Attorney General's Office. That is, in effect,
what you just said.
Your saying that some HIDTAs are doing really well implies
that many HIDTAs are not doing really well. But you cannot name
one. You cannot name three. We certainly would ask you to
submit to us if you can say, look, what are the specifics.
Delineate them.
If you want Congress to change its budget, Congress writes
the budget. That is relatively, in American history, a new
thing that the President proposes the budget. It is basically
because we could not, and we wanted the executive branch to do
it. But we start the appropriations process over here; not this
committee, but the Appropriations Committee.
But as we move through this process, there has to be some
reasons given for overhauling more than, we think it would be
nice to consolidate because we would like to control it through
the Attorney General's Office. That is not going to fly. You
have to have some kind of substance.
I have one last thing. On the Byrne grants, I just want to
clarify this, because twice it has been brought up that there
was some abuse in Byrne grants. Is the administration was
testifying that you are eliminating Byrne grants because there
was corruption in Byrne grants?
Ms. Henke. No, we are not.
Mr. Souder. Did it impact your decision to eliminate Byrne
grants, that you are worried about corruption in Byrne grants?
Ms. Henke. It might have played some role.
Mr. Souder. Is it your testimony that you believe by moving
it away from Byrne grants and putting it more under Federal
control, that there will be less corruption?
Ms. Henke. The Byrne grants are straight State and local.
We are not moving them. What the budget proposes is the
elimination of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program; not
based on the corruption or possible concerns that have been
identified in the past by Inspector General reports and others.
Mr. Souder. Then why are you eliminating them?
Ms. Henke. As my colleagues have stated, but as I had hoped
to maybe clarify a little bit, this is a very difficult budget
year. You are well aware, Mr. Chairman, that discretionary
spending, in essence, is frozen. That means that in preparing
the President's budget, some very difficult budget decisions
had to be made.
What we had to look at were programs with demonstrable
results. We had to look at what was the true Federal role; what
is the true Federal responsibility? Where can we take the
resources that we do have available under this budget, and
direct them in a targeted fashion to be, as Mr. Cummings was
pointing out, efficient and effective? That is what we have
attempted to do.
The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program, we do know, has
funded a lot of Task Forces. What we also do know is that for
fiscal year 2005, over the past several years, the funding that
Congress has provided for this programs or the programs prior
to the merging, has been declining.
Four years ago, it was over $1 billion. Last year, it was
approximately $500 million or $600 million. So it has been
declining. Last year's appropriation represented less than 1
percent of the criminal justice expenditures made by State and
locals. So those were some of the factors that did go into
consideration.
Mr. Souder. So because you crossed several there, I mean,
there are ideological things that you put in there, and then
there are practical things. You suggested you wanted to put in
the programs that were demonstrably effective. Do you have any
evidence that Byrne grants are less effective than other
programs?
Ms. Henke. Unfortunately, we do not have tangible outcomes
from the Byrne grants. Part of that is, the Byrne grants have
over 32 purpose areas. So entities are allowed to spend them on
a wide variety of things, from prosecution to law enforcement,
correctional items, drug courts, victim assistance. So it makes
it very difficult to identify outcome measurements for a
program that has such a wide variety of purpose areas.
Mr. Souder. There were alternatives to that, granting that
is a problem when you are having this drug prevention, drug-
free schools money, too, which you are proposing.
Ms. Henke. And we have.
Mr. Souder. But let me ask you a question. Why did you not
come to Congress and then say, narrow the scope of the Byrne
grants? Why did you not come to Congress and say, we need
better research on the Byrne grants? Why would you come and
say, eliminate the Byrne grants?
Ms. Henke. What we have done over the past couple of years
is, we have instituted programs, for instance, evaluations of
the Justice Assistance Grants Program or the Byrne NNLBG. For
this current fiscal year, we have put in place measurements. We
are asking the recipients to provide us hard outcome
measurements for the resources that they are receiving.
But in this budget, once again, hard choices had to be
made. Those hard choices unfortunately resulted in the
proposal, in many cases, and we know that it is difficult for
State and local law enforcement, to propose the elimination of
this program. But part of that also goes to, once again, as I
stated, the tough choices.
We have come to Congress to talk about some of those
things; for instance, the merger of the Justice Assistance
Grant Program. The President has proposed that for 3 years. We
worked closely with the Authorization Committee on that
program, as well as numerous other programs, and we look
forward to continuing to do so.
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you, and I know I have taken a lot
of time on the first panel and people are waiting. But let me
say, as we told Director Walters, if we have an ideological
difference, we have an ideological difference.
It is a legitimate debate. Should Federal dollars be used
for things that are more Federal directed, and how much do we
do, State and local? If that is the decision, that is fine.
But when you raise questions about effectiveness, you have
an obligation to come to us, and I will make the open
invitation and we would like to have it for this hearing
record, with any evidence that you have that Federal-directed
programs are more effective than the Byrne grants and the
HIDTAs; or any sign that when you are making these hard
choices, that this was based on some sort of evidence of what
is effective, as opposed to evidence of an ideological choice
that Federal dollars ought to be Federal-directed, which we can
have a debate about.
My personal belief is, this was more of an ideological
decision, and that you are distracting from that debate by
raising questions of effectiveness. Because we have looked for
effectiveness things and, quite frankly, in the whole drug and
narcotics field, it is difficult to measure effectiveness,
particularly as we push cooperation.
When something is effective, we find 100 agencies involved
in it. Therefore, how you attach who gets what points in
effectiveness or ineffectiveness, it is nearly impossible to
do. But then you should not imply that the decision was
effectiveness. If you have any evidence of that, we would like
to see that.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I just have one thing, Mr. Chairman. Just
adding on to what you just said, I want the clarification that
you just talked about. I am sorry I had to step out, but I did
listen to a bit of it.
The clarification about ideology, as opposed to
effectiveness, is very important. I emphasize this. They are
human beings. You said you are from a police family. You
understand what I am saying.
They are human beings, and if you start talking about their
effectiveness, it gets real personal. They start beginning to
ask themselves, well, you know, you mean to tell me you all
cannot see what we have been doing?
The last thing we need is for the morale of those who are
fighting on the front line to be, in any way, diminished. If
anything, we need to be trying to lift them up and give them
the tools that they need to do what they need to do. It is
clear that this effort against drugs is one that is very, very,
very difficult.
People risk their lives. They risk their livelihoods. They
risk their families over this thing called drugs. So I always
want us to keep that human element involved there. Because,
believe me, when we go back to our offices today, we will have
all kinds of calls from all over the country of people who will
say, thank you for remembering us.
I just do not want us to get away from them. So I did not
want you all to take my words in any other way than that is
where I am coming from; thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, and let me say, too, if you will
communicate to Attorney General Gonzalez, I am thrilled to have
an Attorney General who wants to do drug issues, and who is
very focused, and it is a great sign. I think we need to work
out how we are going to do this.
But whether or not these funds are transferred over, the
Attorney General still has, like you pointed out today, Weed
and Seed, DEA, Office of Justice Assistance, drug reentry
programs, drug court programs.
The Attorney General is certainly one of the major players,
if not the major player, in addition to the Department of
Homeland Security and ONDCP, in this, regardless of what
happens with this budget process.
I am thrilled that he is taking an aggressive interest and
your departments are taking aggressive interest, even if we
have disagreements about how to deploy these programs. Director
Walters has been a friend of mine for many years. I know he is
committed, but it is really frustrating to have this happen to
ONDCP if this transfer occurs on his watch.
With that, I thank each of you for coming, for being
willing to put up with grilling today. It is never fun coming
in front of a congressional committee, but this is an oversight
committee and this is what we do, and we have a fiduciary
responsibility to do so.
Thank you for coming. I would ask the second panel to come
forward.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. Thank you for your patience,
first with the vote delay and then the long first hearing. I am
sure you found it very interesting, as well.
We are looking forward to hearing your testimony. We will
start with Mr. Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics
Officers Associations Coalition.
Let me say up front that all your testimony will be in the
record. If you want to do some highlights or respond, obviously
this was the first time we heard from multiple departments
about the budget request. But feel free to do your statements,
if you want do to your statements; either way you want to do
it.
But we will insert anything, and if you want to write
additional comments later, because there are a lot of you on
this panel, send that in, and we will put that in the record,
too. If you know other people on your HIDTA Task Force, when
you go back home and share some of what you heard today, and
you want to get that in, that is fine. We want to make sure we
have a comprehensive mix in this hearing, as we look at the
huge challenge of how to do this budget. Mr. Brooks.
STATEMENT OF RON BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL NARCOTICS OFFICERS
ASSOCIATIONS COALITION
Mr. Brooks. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here. It
is always a distinct pleasure to be at this subcommittee. I
want to offer my perspective on the disastrous impact of the
President's budget request for State and local drug enforcement
programs, including Byrne and HIDTA.
My name is Ron Brooks, and I am the president of the
National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition, which
represents 43 State Narcotics Officers Associations, with a
combined membership of more than 60,000 police officers around
the country.
Mr. Chairman, together, we have made outstanding progress
in reducing drug use and violent crime over the past decade.
But that progress is threatened by the budget proposal for
State and local drug enforcement programs in fiscal year 2006.
Congress must seriously consider the consequences of cutting or
eliminating Byrne and HIDTA programs.
Since September 11, 2001, the focus of Federal assistance
to State and local public safety agencies has shifted from
traditional law enforcement to protecting the homeland against
terrorist activities and equipping first responders. This is
appropriate, however, the shift is coming at the expense of
traditional law enforcement missions, such as drug enforcement.
In shifting resources to Homeland Security, we must not
lose our focus on drug enforcement and prevention. In fact,
protecting our homeland must mean protecting citizens from drug
traffickers and violent drug gangs.
Let me put in perspective the impact of drug abuse. We lost
almost 3,000 Americans on September 11th. In contrast, more
than 3,000 Americans die every 2 months, more than 19,000
people each year, as a result of illicit drug abuse and its
related effects.
In addition to the human toll, ONDCP estimates that elicit
drug abuse costs our society $160 billion each year. I believe
that a cost of 19,000 lives and $160 billion makes drug
trafficking America's own home-grown terrorism, and it must be
restored as a top priority in this Congress' policy agenda.
The Byrne and the HIDTA programs provide only a small
amount of the overall funding that is dedicated to State and
local drug enforcement. But this funding is the incentive that
encourages State and local law enforcement officers to work
with their Federal counterparts, and help them implement our
national drug control strategy.
It is the coordination that has improved the effectiveness
of drug enforcement, and has helped reduce drug abuse and
violent crime. I want to address the argument that provides the
underpinning of the administration's proposed cuts, which is
that Federal Government has gotten too deep into funding State
and local law enforcement activities.
I agree that the Federal Government should not supplant
State and local funds for law enforcement activities. But I
strongly disagree that Byrne and HIDTA fall into that category.
Byrne funds multi-jurisdictional task forces that do not
replace State and local funds; but rather provide the incentive
for local agencies to cooperate, to communicate, to share
information, to build good cases, and to pursue organizational
and regional targets, rather than just individual pushers that
local agencies typically deal with.
Both enforcement targets are valid and necessary, but
without Byrne, law enforcement would go back to the 1970's,
where we worked within our own stovepipes, without cooperating
and using intelligence to lead us in investigating drug
trafficking organizations.
HIDTA initiatives like Byrne-funded Task Forces provide
avenues of cooperation, forced information sharing,
deconfliction of local and regional intelligence, analysis that
State and local agencies simply are incapable of performing
themselves, and that Federal agencies are inadequately focused
and equipped to perform.
HIDTA and Byrne Task Forces work because they are locally
owned. They are a partnership between the Federal, State, and
local government.
If Congress allows Byrne to be canceled and HIDTA to be
cut, and if you reduce or eliminate the local control over
individual HIDTAs, then you effectively remove an entire line
of defense against drug trafficking at the local and regional
level.
Another argument I have heard from the administration is
that since crime and drug use are down, resources should be
shifted to other priorities. I could not disagree with this
statement more.
You saw in the early 1990's, that when resources were
shifted out of the fight against drugs, drug usage and crime
rates increased. We should be embracing what has worked; not
calling it a day and dismantling a successful program.
The question that must be asked and answered by this
Congress is, in light of the successful reduction in drug use
and drug-related crime, should America gamble the safety of its
citizens by rejecting programs that have allowed police chief,
sheriffs, and State police superintendents to fight drug and
violence in their own communities?
If the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget is passed
as submitted and, in fact, if Byrne and HIDTA are not restored,
at least to fiscal year 2005 funding levels, suburban and rural
law enforcement will no longer have the financial resources
they need to use the best methods they know how to tackle the
problem of drugs and drug-fueled gang activities in their
community.
Without Byrne and HIDTA, we will see a resurgence of drug
usage and drug-related violence. I believe, from talking to my
members that this will mean the elimination of the vast
majority of the Drug Task Forces in this country.
I know that in California, we will lose the majority of our
58 Task Forces, and at least a third of the California
Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we would giving up coordinated drug
enforcement at the State and local level.
With funding cuts already taking a toll in the last 3
years, Task Forces operating on a shoe string will go away.
Anything less than full funding of Byrne will result in the
elimination of more than half of our Task Forces. The overall
impact on drug enforcement would be almost the same as
eliminating the program entirely.
This budget proposal is a step in the wrong direction. We
have made tremendous progress over the last few years with the
leadership of this committee and the Congress with the support
that the State and local law enforcement has received.
I, on behalf of our 60,000 members, would urge the
restoration of the Byrne and HIDTA funding at the 2005 levels,
and the retention of the HIDTA program at ONDCP, where it
serves as a fair and honest broker on behalf of all of law
enforcement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Mr. Tom Carr, director of the
Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, on behalf of the National HIDTA
Directors Association.
STATEMENT OF TOM CARR, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE HIDTA, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL HIDTA DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Chairman Souder and Ranking Member
Cummings and Congresswoman Watson, and distinguished members of
the committee. I am honored to appear before you today to
discuss the HIDTA directors' concerns with the administration's
fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. My name is Tom Carr, and as
mentioned, I am and have been since its inception in February
1994 the director of the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA.
I am going to change my oral testimony somewhat, in light
of the previous testimony. But I would like to, first of all,
for the record, acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, you and Mr. Cummings
for the outstanding work you both have done in Baltimore. Both
of you responded to the Dawson family tragedy, which happened
not too long ago, where seven members of a family were killed
by a drug dealer. They were burned out of their home and
killed.
You went to ONDCP and you got extra money from ONDCP to
help fight the crime problem in Baltimore. We came about
working together with some serious reductions in violent crime
and drug dealing in that area. You both should be commended for
that. I know that Commissioner Hamm, who has recently inherited
that department is very much appreciative of what you both have
done.
Let me just shed some light, and I think that is the right
medicine for all this, and I am glad you are doing this. I will
shed some sunlight on some things that are taking place.
First, let me say that HIDTA makes linking cases
originating with State and local agencies possible to bring to
Federal prosecution. It is the bridge between Federal, State,
and local agencies. I did not hear any data in the testimony
before, so let me give you some data about HIDTA and what HIDTA
is doing.
With 70 percent of the HIDTAs reporting to me thus far and
our new automated performance management system, for 2004, the
HIDTA program targeted 895 international drug trafficking
organizations, 1,111 multi-state organizations, and 1,734 local
drug trafficking organizations, many of which were violent in
nature.
Of the cases we did, 232 were linked to CPOT
investigations. This represents 32 percent of the 730 total
active investigations recognized by the Department of Justice.
So I would hardly call this a failure in the ability of us to
recognize the value of the CPOT in the priority targeting list.
HIDTA Task Forces also comprised over 12,000 Federal,
State, and local officers. We disrupted 99 of the 159
organizations of which DEA and OCDETF are claiming sole credit
for, insofar as the CPOTs are concerned.
Let me also suggest to you, and I think you recognize this,
that the HIDTA program grew, not because it was pork barrel; it
grew because it was successful. That is why people want it. It
works.
State and local law enforcement have to commit a vast
amount of their own resources in order to join with a HIDTA.
HIDTA dollars, as few as they are, leveraged those resources.
That is why people want it, though. They want it because it
works. State and local law enforcement see the value of sharing
information, working on a strategy, working on a plan to bring
about positive results.
Now I would like to talk about what the administration has
said about one of the reasons for getting rid of the HIDTA
program and moving the HIDTA program: lack of effectiveness and
its inability to demonstrate results.
At the initiative of the HIDTA directors, in response to
that first PART review, we established the committee, which I
had the honor of chairing, in which we worked with staff from
ONDCP to create a performance measurement system. That system
now is in effect. It went in effect in January. That is why I
can give you that data. It is an automated system. It is
showing results, and it is showing that we are truly focused.
Part of the problem was, I think, the administration was
looking and shooting from the gut and shooting from intuition,
as opposed to using facts to demonstrate what HIDTA was really
doing.
We were inclusive. We worked with DEA and we worked with
OCDETF. I know it is shocking, but it may not surprise you to
learn that we had to come up with a definition for what a drug
trafficking organization is. The Federal Government did not
have a uniform definition; nor did they have one for dismantled
or disrupted or about 20 other common terms that were necessary
to clearly define in order to measure effectiveness and
efficiency.
We came up with those measures. We are using those
measures, and they are showing results and they will show
results.
They will also enable us to show which HIDTAs are doing
better than other HIDTAs, and perhaps at a later point in time,
based upon scientific fact, we can inform you of this, and
people can make informed decisions on which HIDTAs ought to be
eliminated, which HIDTAs ought to be changed to some degree,
and which HIDTAs ought to be bolstered. So I think that is a
more logical way to go about these things than what I have
heard in the previous testimony.
Let me also say that some very wise and thoughtful members
of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate chose to
place the HIDTA program in ONDCP. Why, and I have researched
this and I agree with it, because of how it is managed in
ONDCP, the HIDTA program enjoys a degree of visibility,
efficacy, fairness, and neutrality; points that all three of
you have recognized in your questioning.
So before you consider ONDCP's recommendation to move the
HIDTA program to the Department of Justice, I want you to think
about some of the unintended consequences that such a rash and
obviously unplanned move would bring about.
Here are some questions, and I want to close my comments
with this. These are some questions I think that ought to be
considered before any decision is made. Will the transfer of
the HIDTA program preserve its visibility, its efficacy, and
its ability to leverage and coordinate Federal, State, and
local drug enforcement efforts?
Does OCDETF have a history of effective performance? What
impact do State and local law enforcement leaders foresee for
the transfer and diminishment of the HIDTA program? I think my
colleagues today will shed some light on that. What harm will
result when the cooperation among Federal, State, and local law
enforcement is diminished? Under the current administration's
plan, let me assure you, with 34 years of experience in this,
it will be diminished, the way it is structured.
I will leave you with this one final thought. Since the
administration's proposal increases the drug control budget by
2.2 percent, I believe Mr. Horton said, the reduction of the
HIDTA program is not one then about paying for the war on
terrorism. It is about choices.
Why did ONDCP really choose to reduce the HIDTA program? I
do not think you have an answer to that, yet. Why did they
choose to transfer it to the Justice Department, while at the
same time, elect to keep other programs within ONDCP that, by
the way, did not do as well in their initial PART's score?
I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this
committee. Again, I appreciate all the great work, Mr.
Chairman, that you and the other Members have done, and I look
forward to any questions at the end; thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you; next we will hear from Mr. Tom
Donahue, director of the Chicago HIDTA.
I know the Speaker has been very supportive of your HIDTA.
He used to chair this subcommittee, and has been our chief
champion in the higher ranks of leadership. He is a very busy
man, but I know he has been very pleased with the efforts in
Chicago. Thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF TOM DONAHUE, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO HIDTA
Mr. Donahue. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today to discuss the Chicago HIDTA's concerns with
the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal that
contains unprecedented budget cuts for the HIDTA program, and
suggests transferring the program to the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force.
I appear before you with over 37 years of law enforcement
experience. During that time, I spent 10 years as an narcotics
investigator and 12 years as an experienced prosecutor,
concentrating on prosecutions of organized crime, narcotics
cases, and related violent crimes. I have had the honor of
serving as the director of the Chicago HIDTA since August 2000.
My testimony today will attempt to answer the question
posed by the committee. ``Are we jeopardizing Federal, state,
and local cooperation?'' In a phrase, yes we are, drastically.
In 1988, Congress wisely recognized the importance of
coordinating Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
to effectively address the Nation's drug threat. Congress
established the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program to
provide a coordination of drug enforcement efforts in critical
regions of the country.
This coordinated effort was necessary due to competing
strategies within the Federal, State, and local law enforcement
community.
Building on the concept that the country faces a national
drug abuse epidemic which is, in reality, a network of related
and unrelated regional and local drug abuse problems and the
markets that supply them, HIDTAs address regional drug problems
based upon a unique threat assessment process.
Each HIDTA develops its own strategy, consistent with and
complimentary to the National Drug Control Strategy. HIDTA
Executive Boards implement their strategies by funding
structured and formal initiatives, each with a mission that
best uses its particular expertise and addresses a particular
threat.
A targeted strategy, implemented locally, produces greater
immediate impact, while at the same time, provides avenues for
further investigation into national and international
trafficking groups.
HIDTA Executive Boards, as you have noted, are comprised of
an equal number of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
executives that meet regularly to govern each HIDTA. The HIDTA
management structure creates a level playing field among
Federal, State, and local partners, who understand all aspects
of law enforcement, and put the interests of the HIDTA above
their own.
This neutrality fosters an innovative program, immune to
turf battles. No other program of the Federal Government that
integrates State, local, and Federal assistance and financial
awards allows this level of local oversight and direction. This
is the first time in history State and local law enforcement
has been empowered to manage drug investigations in their own
regions.
The program requirements of establishing intelligence
centers within each HIDTA and mandating Federal, State, and
local participation has resulted in the sharing of intelligence
on an unprecedented scale. Each HIDTA has direct access to
multiple agency and commercial data bases, and provides a full
range of analytical services.
The HIDTA Investigative Support Centers now stand as an
object lesson in interagency cooperation, collaboration, and
coordination.
Two of the most innovative things that have come out of the
investigative support centers are event deconfliction and
target deconfliction, which will no longer be there if the
funding is cut back. In the Chicago region, the only
deconfliction that is done is through the Chicago HIDTA.
In event deconfliction, I have pioneered systems that allow
undercover officers to schedule a time and location for events
such as stakeout, drug buys, execution of search and arrest
warrants, and to determine if the event they are scheduling
would conflict with a different agency for a similar time and
location.
Event deconfliction is a requirement within the program,
and is available to non-HIDTA agencies, as well. In the Chicago
region, we have trained over 2,000 people to be part of our
deconfliction system. This system is critical to officer
safety.
The second part I am talking about is the target
deconfliction. Agencies have wasted countless resources
investigating the same targets, an acacia of systemic
difficulties or reticence to share information. HIDTAs have
developed systems that allow agencies to share targeting
information, and are actively working with DEA and other
Federal agencies in nationwide programs developed and
administered by the individual HIDTAs.
HIDTA's most important contribution, however, to the war on
drugs is the partnerships it has nurtured among participating
agencies. These partnerships developed over the years have
become an institutionalized part of the program.
The leveraging of resources and fiscal flexibility will
likely be eliminated by placing HIDTA under the Department of
Justice. Furthermore, placing HIDTA within a department that
gives the perception that it is under the control and direction
of a Federal law enforcement entity would certainly influence
State and local participation, and threaten collaborative
partnerships that have been nurtured by the HIDTA model.
If the HIDTA program is moved from the Office of National
Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President,
it will give the wrong message to law enforcement and diminish
the importance of the war on drugs in the eyes of the public.
Just so you will understand, in Chicago, the war on drugs
is raging. In 2004, Chicago HIDTA initiatives seized over a ton
of cocaine, an increase of 103 percent from the previous year;
40 kilos of heroin, a 75 percent increase over the previous
year; 8 tons of marijuana, a 270 percent increase over the
previous year; and over $9 million in U.S. currency, a 51
percent increase over the previous year.
In conclusion, HIDTA clearly represents a model for
leveraging all resources in order to provide comprehensive
approaches for stopping drug crime. Without the ability to
maintain the operational collaboration made possible by the
HIDTA resources, local law enforcement faces a risk of
returning to the days when cooperation was episodic, delivered
on a case-by-case basis, and found to be generally ineffective
in disrupting drug trafficking.
At a time when State and local governments are increasingly
forced to cut budgets because of economic difficulties, it is
imperative for the Federal Government to continue local
assistance against what is still the war on drugs.
HIDTA is an intrical part of that assistance. Media ads
alone will not eliminate drug abuse. More effective is the
multi-faceted approach HIDTA brings. Now that we have developed
a viable and effective way of combating these organizations on
a national and regional level through HIDTA, it is not the time
to pull back or try to reorganize.
This country is at war on several fronts, including the
streets of our major cities. We have won many battles through
the HIDTA program. Yet, the war rages on. Terrorists murdered
over 3,000 U.S. citizens on September 11th, and 1,500 soldiers
have died in the streets of Iraq.
In the streets of our major cities and surrounding
communities, street gangs and drug dealers, better referred to
as urban terrorists, have caused the drug-related deaths of
over 19,000 of our citizens. We must continue to maintain and
increase the support in this noble fight. Thank you for this
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donahue follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Chief Jack Harris, Phoenix Police
Department and Vice Chair of the Southwest Border HIDTA. Thank
you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JACK HARRIS, PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
VICE-CHAIR, SOUTHWEST BORDER HIDTA
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I think when we start looking at, do the policies
and the programs that are current in existence work, and we try
to evaluate those policies, we have to say that currently, they
are working.
We have statistics that show that drug use is down by 11
percent, and teenage drug use is down by 17 percent in this
country. But we have to ask ourselves why is that?
Let me give you just a couple of numbers from the Southwest
HIDTA and HIDTA, in general: marijuana, seized over 2\1/2\
million pounds of marijuana in 2004; 46,600 pounds of cocaine;
740 pounds of heroin, and 5,000 pounds of methamphetamine out
of the Southwest Border.
When we look at HIDTAs in general, they disrupted or
dismantled in 2004, 509 international, 711 multi-state, and
1,010 local drug trafficking organizations. Those are the type
of things that are examples of what is going on in HIDTAs
across this country.
I have several concerns that have been voiced by other
members of this panel: cutting HIDTA funding by 56 percent. I
understand, listening to the first panel, that one of the
reasons that the administration is looking at cutting is
because there is a shortfall of revenue.
I currently have been asked to cut funding for the Phoenix
police department, because of a similar shortfall. To do that,
one of the first things that I did was surveyed the community,
and asked them what was important in policing in their
community, what they are looking for from the Phoenix police
department. At the top of their list is drug enforcement and
gang enforcement and violent crime. As you may have guessed,
even though I did have to make cuts, I did not make cuts in
those areas.
Moving the program from ONDCP to OCDETF, I have to say that
I am in total opposition of that. OCDETF is an administrative,
non-operational body that provides funding and prosecution, not
drug enforcement investigations.
HIDTA was formed, as you have heard, as a grassroots
program, designed to promote inter-agency cooperation between
Federal, local, and State agencies. That is occurring every day
in Phoenix.
We have a HIDTA center that is comprised of over 300 agents
that represent ATF, FBI, DEA, the Phoenix police department,
local police agencies, the sheriff's office, and the State
police. They are sharing information that caused all of those
seizures that I talked about at the beginning of this
presentation to occur. That cooperation and communication
between agencies is what brought down those heads of crime
organizations dealing with drugs.
We have a similar program in Tucson, AZ, a similar center
that has the sane results with the same number of people,
working out of that center. Those centers will disappear if the
funding disappears. The city of Phoenix does not have $1\1/2\
million to apply to these centers and to keep this program
running.
The next thing that I would talk about is what is the
incentive for local law enforcement. If you take away all of
the funding, if you take away an equal voice in who is going to
be targeted by that funding, then you are asking us to play and
to participate and to conduct the investigations.
By the other panels own statement, over 90 percent of the
OCDETF are conducted by local agencies. So you are going to ask
us to continue to be a part of that organization and to target
individuals that we have no input on.
If you look at those first numbers that I gave you, over
1,100 of those kingpins that were targeted were local
traffickers. Local traffickers become national traffickers, who
become international traffickers. We do not want to lose the
incentive for us to participate with our detectives, with our
investigators and with our resources. But we cannot do that
without the funding that currently exists.
In conclusion, I oppose the proposed funding cuts, because
those cuts will have a dramatic impact on drug enforcement at
the local level. The proposed changes will damage cooperation
and relationships between local, State, and Federal entities.
These changes would eliminate local input into drug target
selection and remove the incentives for local agencies to
participate in critical drug enforcement programs.
Last, it would hinder information sharing between the very
agencies tasked with drug enforcement at the local level, as
well as the Federal level, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Our next witness is Baltimore's acting police commissioner,
Mr. Leonard Hamm. Thank you for coming today. We know your city
has been hard hit; and Mr. Cummings, as well as Mr.
Ruppenberger have been long-time advocates, and particularly
our distinguished ranking member. So thank you for taking time
out to come here today.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD HAMM, ACTING BALTIMORE POLICE COMMISSIONER
Mr. Hamm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, and Ms.
Watson; thank you for having me. I am honored that you would
have me here testifying on the drug budget for fiscal year
2006.
My name is Leonard Hamm, and I am the acting police
commissioner of Baltimore City. I have been doing this for 30
years; 30 years, this drug stuff for 30 years on the local
level.
One of the things that was not talked about by the other
panel was results. I am going to give you some results. A lot
of times, numbers are boring, but please just bear with me.
All partners in HIDTA work under a form of measured success
and management for results. In this successful HIDTA formula
that law enforcement has worked on for years, this will
jeopardize the major cases, networking, leads, and partnerships
which have proven to work.
Now I want to talk about some of the groups and some of the
things that we are doing locally. First of all, we have Group
51, which is our Violent Trafficking Initiative. In short, this
initiative investigates violent gun drug traffickers and
organizations that impact on the Baltimore Metropolitan area.
In 2005, our expected output is to arrest 80 drug/firearm
traffickers, seizing $770,000 in criminally obtained assets,
disrupt or dismantle 10 major drug trafficking groups, and
seizing 2 kilos of heroin, 10 kilograms of crack cocaine, and
10 kilograms of marijuana.
Now in fiscal year 2005 to present, the group has arrested
21 persons, seized $617,000 in moneys and assets; 1\1/2\ kilos
of heroin, 11 firearms, 1.6 kilograms of cocaine, 2.7 kilograms
of marijuana, and dismantled and disrupted three organizations.
The 2004 actual outputs consist of nine organizations being
dismantled and disrupted, 62 people arrested, seizing $891,000
in money, $200,000 in assets, 36 firearms, 3\1/2\ kilograms of
heroin, 8.7 kilograms of cocaine, 1 kilogram of crack, and 9.9
kilograms of marijuana. Baltimore City has five members
dedicated to this initiative.
I want to talk about our Group 54. This is our major drug
trafficking initiative. This initiative primarily focuses on
major cocaine and heroin trafficking organizations.
The 2005 expected outputs are to seize 50 firearms, $1
million in drug assets, 3 kilograms of heroin, 10 kilograms of
crack cocaine, and 15 kilograms of marijuana, to include
dismantling of 10 drug organizations.
For fiscal year 2005 to present, this group is well on the
way to achieving that expected output. They have seized
$263,000 in money and assets, 18 kilograms of cocaine, 27
arrests, 0.16 kilograms of crack cocaine, 0.35 kilograms of
heroin, and disrupted and dismantled two organizations so far
this year.
The 2004 actual outputs consisted of 14 organizations being
dismantled or disrupted, 89 arrests. They seized $1,025,000 in
money, $47,000 in assets, 25 firearms, 3.9 kilograms of heroin,
28 kilograms of cocaine, and 2.3 kilograms of marijuana.
We have a REDRUM Group, and that is part of our Group 54.
They work jointly with Group 54. However, their primary focus
is to topple violent groups in Baltimore City. One group that
the Congressmen know about, they call themselves the North
Avenue Boys.
Working closely with our Homicide Unit, State and Federal
prosecuting teams, we identified their violent trends and
patterns through data base analysis and crime mapping, and we
work jointly with the Homicide Unit and the State and Federal
prosecutors to bring the responsible parties to the table for a
successful prosecution. Baltimore City has 12 members dedicated
to the entire Group 54 initiative.
Group 56 is our Mass Transportation Initiative. Their
efforts and their mission is to reduce drug trafficking in the
Baltimore Metropolitan area by interdiction efforts and
immediate followup and investigations.
Across the Nation, a new smuggling of choice has been
identified as parcel and vehicle traps. In 2003, this
initiative merged with the Delivery System Parcel Interdiction
Initiative to effect coordination and operational
effectiveness.
Our expected outputs for 2005 are to arrest 70 drug/firearm
violators, seize $400,000 in assets, 100 kilograms of
marijuana, 10 kilograms of cocaine, 1 kilogram of heroin, and
two firearms.
Our output, to date, the group has generated 20 arrests,
seizing $175,000 in assets, three firearms, 19.9 kilograms of
marijuana, and 1 kilogram of cocaine. They are also involved in
two major case investigations.
We have our DEA Heroin Task Force. This group has arrested
three persons, seized $393,000 in moneys. We have our Weapons
Enforcement Initiative. This group investigates armed violent
drug trafficking organizations which impact the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area. We utilize the ATF Disarm Program as its
targeting mechanism.
We have the Customs Baltimore Seaport Initiative. We have
the Customs Money Laundering Initiative. We have a Customs
Airport Group. All of these groups have measured targets. We
are getting great results.
Mr. Chairman, there are those that question the value of
HIDTA. They simply have not taken the time to look at these
measurable lifesaving results.
I urge all of you to maintain an open mind and speak
directly with the HIDTA directors and law enforcement
professionals who dedicate their lives to just the kind of
cases which Federal, State, and local law enforcement should be
focusing on.
I want to thank you for your time. I cut my testimony down.
Our successes have been numerous, and thank you for listening
to us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamm follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. We will put your full statement in, if you have
other materials, also.
Mr. Hamm. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Souder. I want to make sure for the record that the
charts over there get printed so we can get those into the
record, as well.
Our next witness is Mr. Mark Henry, president of the
Illinois Drug Enforcement Officer's Association. Thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF MARK HENRY, PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS DRUG ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Henry. Chairman Souder and distinguished panel, I thank
you. Good afternoon, or I guess it is good evening now. I thank
you for this opportunity to speak.
First, I would like to say that while most of my comments
will be directed toward the proposed elimination of Byrne/JAG
grants and the impact in Illinois, I do want to go on record as
saying that the Chicago HIDTA is a friend to multi-
jurisdictional task forces in Illinois, and we appreciate all
that they do.
My name is Mark Henry, and I have been a police officer in
Illinois for 21 years. For 18 of those years, I have been
involved in drug enforcement. In the vast majority of that
time, I have been assigned to various multi-jurisdictional Drug
Task Forces.
In addition, I served as the administrator of two Drug Task
Forces, so I understand the critical importance of the Byrne/
JAG Program.
In 2001, I served as the chairman of the Illinois MEG and
Task Force Commanders Association, which consists of 20-plus
multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Forces, which cover
approximately 73 of the 102 counties in Illinois. Once again, I
had the opportunity to hear from all the various Drug
Commanders about the importance of the Byrne/JAG Program.
Currently, I serve as the president of the Illinois Drug
Enforcement Officers Association. We have approximately 1,000
members, consisting of Federal, State, and local officers, from
all parts of Illinois. The IDEOA is 1 of 43 such State
organizations throughout our Nation, and all of us are
concerned about the proposed elimination of the JAG assistance
grants.
I am quite familiar with drug enforcement in Illinois, and
specifically the role the Drug Task Forces play. I would like
to explain that role.
First there is DEA. They are a great partner in the
strategy in Illinois. They assist lower law enforcement and
Drug Task Forces whenever they can. However, DEA and the other
Federal agencies focus much of their efforts on attacking the
top levels of the drug pyramid, and rightfully so.
At the same time, you have local police departments that
are handling the lower level drug trafficking that is occurring
in their communities. The gap which exists between the top and
the bottom, that squarely falls on the shoulders of the Drug
Task Forces in Illinois.
In short, for most of the State, the Drug Task Forces are
the backbone of drug enforcement in Illinois. In addition,
these units have taken over the responsibility of investigating
and dismantling methamphetamine labs in Illinois, which
continues to increase.
In 2004, the Drug Task Force's dismantled an excess of 960
meth labs. Most local police departments do not have the
training or resources to handle these labs.
In Illinois, approximately 60 percent of police departments
have less than 10 full-time officers. Combining resources and
expertise is the only effective and efficient way to address
Illinois drug problems.
To ensure my message was accurate today, I would like to
read some abbreviated replies from the Illinois Drug Commanders
where they reference their thoughts on eliminating the Byrne/
JAG Program.
The first quote is, ``The elimination of the Byrne/JAG
Grant would have a catastrophic effect on the metropolitan
enforcement group of Southwestern Illinois. The majority of the
Board members indicated they would be forced to either withdraw
from the unit or reduce their participation to that of
financial contributor.''
The next quote is Vermillion County MEG, ``Eliminating this
funding would cut our number of agents by 62 percent. The
elimination of this funding would be the beginning of the end
of Vermillion County MEG.''
The next quote is, ``The West Central Illinois Task Force
is the primary if not the only deterrent of narcotic
trafficking and enforcement in West Central Illinois. Without
the Byrne Grant funding, this concept would be dissolved.''
The next quote is, ``The Southeastern Illinois Drug Task
Force will cease to exist within a year if the Byrne funds are
eliminated.''
The next quote is from the LaSalle Task Force. ``I strongly
believe that the elimination of these funds would force the
Task Force to close its doors.''
The last quote is from Task Force 6. ``I look at this
proposed Byrne/JAG cut as a closing down of a police department
and the abandoning of our children and citizens.''
In closing, the State and local police departments in
Illinois are committed to the multi-jurisdictional principle,
and dedicate many of their own limited resources to this
ideology.
The Byrne/JAG funding is the glue that brings hundreds of
law enforcement agencies and their resources together to
effectively and efficiently attack local drug trafficking,
reduce violent crime, and promote safer communities. Without
that glue, we will weaken our grip on this important issue, and
negatively impact the quality of life for the citizens which we
all serve in this great Nation in the State of Illinois.
I thank you for your time and consideration with this
critically important matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony. Our
clean-up witness today is Sheriff Jack Merritt of Green County,
MO. He has worked with Congressman Blunt, who certainly has
been a crusader in the house on methamphetamine and is a leader
in the meth area, as well as many other narcotics areas, along
with your talent. We thank you for coming today. We look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JACK L. MERRITT, GREENE COUNTY, MO
Mr. Merritt. Thank you very much, Chairman Souder, Mr.
Cummings, and Ms. Watson. I certainly am honored, and I do
thank you for the opportunity to appear before this panel to
express my concerns and what I believe are the concerns of many
other agencies in the Midwest HIDTA with the current proposal
to dramatically reduce the Federal support available to State
and local enforcement.
Probably my concerns have gone two-fold, after hearing the
previous panel express their plan or lack of plans in
facilitating this. It is of deep concern, and more than when I
arrived.
State and local law enforcement depend on the Byrne Grant
and HIDTA Program and other Federal Programs to help us control
crime. I understand that budgets are tight at all levels of
Government, but I tell you, we in middle America have been
extremely dependent on the invaluable assistance that we have
received from the Federal Government through these programs.
Such drastic reductions will cripple the enforcement
capabilities of sheriffs and others in law enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I represent Greene County, which is the home
of Congressman Blunt. It is the third largest county in the
State, and I am blessed to have many resources that are
unavailable to many of my neighboring sheriffs. But even so, I
depend on the assistance I receive from Byrne and HIDTA. My
ability to work Drug Task Forces, fight crime, and protect my
constituents, all of our constituents, would be devastated if
the proposed reductions were to be enacted into law.
Complicating matters, the efforts of this proposal would be
even worse for the other counties in my State, and I am sure
that all 74 counties in the Midwest OUTDO would face similar
adverse effects from the proposed cuts.
As you know, HIDTA funding as currently set by Congress, as
has been mentioned here today, is at $228 million for fiscal
year 2005. This budget cut to $100 million, in the real world,
effects of this drastic cut will mean that the current 28 HIDTA
areas will be severely scaled back and, I believe, in many
cases, eliminated.
The elimination of HIDTA means that resources, cooperative
agreements, active cases, and other critical drug control tools
and techniques will cease to exist. That might be OK if the
flow of drugs ceased, as well. However, we know that will not
happen. As soon as enforcement stops, the drug dealers hit the
streets with impunity and pollute our neighborhoods with their
evil.
With or without the Federal support, law enforcement still
faces continuing threats from drug dealers and drug cartels. In
the Midwest especially, we have a devastating methamphetamine
problem. One of our greatest assets in the HIDTA program is the
collaboration we have with Federal and local agencies.
My 36 years as a city policeman, highway patrolman and now
as Sheriff of Greene County has taught me the only hope for
continued success in law enforcement is the cooperative spirit
that is shared by not only the working elements of those
agencies, but also the administrators of those agencies.
Midwest HIDTA brings this concept, not only into the entire
State of Missouri, but to the 74 counties in six States. As a
criminal investigator for the Missouri State Highway Patrol, I
have been involved in OCDETF cases, and certainly understand
and appreciate the benefit of pursing cases in this program.
But those cases resulted from investigations we made on the
street, and then were pursued and prosecuted as OCDETF cases.
The important fact here is that we need HIDTA to have the
resources and the manpower to develop cases and then select
those that meet the OCDETF criteria to further that
investigation and prosecution. Without HIDTA, we lose that
valuable asset that is so important to those of us that live
and work in an area that is becoming completely saturated with
methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking.
That is to say that the first line of defense against
illegal drugs is by having investigators continuing their
investigations at a local level in a unified way as is
currently done with our Federal Drug Task Force through the
local Drug Enforcement Administration office.
This DTF goes beyond the investigation of our local meth
cooks. One of the significant contributions is that of pursuing
the drug interdiction cases that are made in the ``drug
pipeline'' that crosses Missouri via Interstates 44 and 70.
Certainly, many cases developed through this process reach the
realm of national and international proportions and OCDETF
criteria.
Again, this is an enforcement concept that would be lost
without our support from HIDTA. I believe that many U.S.
attorneys in the Midwest, if you inquired of them, would
express some of the same concerns that State and local law
enforcement agencies have concerning these proposed cuts. I
assume, from earlier testimony, they were not consulted, and
did not have a part in this decision.
I realize that DOJ may have a differing opinion of the
necessity of the HIDTA program, but I do believe that if they
would look at the success and benefit of Midwest HIDTA to Mid-
America, it would affect their justification to reduce HIDTA
funding and increasing that of OCDETF.
I hate to repeat myself, but the loss of HIDTA funding
would be devastating to Mid-America. I would also like to
express my concerns with the loss of funding to the Byrne
Grants as this, too, is something that local law enforcement
agencies have become so dependent upon.
In the recent past, we have seen new sheriffs coming into
office that are trying to bring new technology and updated
equipment into their departments, allowing them to provide a
full-service police agency to serve their constituents. Without
the benefit of grant funds, many of us would not be able to do
this.
In my situation, local resources alone cannot resolve these
problems. Every day, we confront pushers and meth cooks from
our own communities that buy or steal massive quantities of
pseudo-ephedrine to distill into meth.
Also, recently, across the Midwest, we have seen an
increase of thefts from anhydrous ammonia tanks on farms. These
``cooks'' try to steal this fertilizer to make their poison.
Compounding that situation, we also must confront
international traffickers as drugs and precursor chemicals make
their way from Mexico, traveling our highways across the
Midwest to eventually poison our youth.
As law enforcement leaders, we must find new and innovative
ways of dealing with this growing problem. Moreover, meth is
not our only challenge. Gateway drugs such as marijuana are
prevalent among our teenagers. In fact, the problem is so
widespread that OCDETF has engaged sheriffs and chiefs across
the country to focus on them combatting marijuana use.
How can we consider reducing the Federal support of HIDTA
with all of this work left undone? It is my view, it is a
national model that should be expanded and not cut back.
Thank you all very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merritt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony. This is a great
panel. I want to ask a more general question, just to make
sure, to reinforce something that I asked of the first panel.
This is an extraordinary panel. Mr. Brooks is from
California. You head the National Police Narcotics Association,
and you have worked in California for many years.
Mr. Carr is head of the HIDTA Association in the United
States. Mr. Donahue heads the HIDTA in the speaker's home
district in one of our biggest cities in the United States.
Commissioner Hamm is a direct front line person from one of the
hardest hit cities in the United States, on the East Coast.
Chief Harris is Vice Chair of the Southwest Border HIDTA,
which everybody in Congress agrees is the toughest area and
where most of our drugs are coming across the southwest border.
Phoenix stands right in the middle of the run in a very
critical area.
Mr. Henry has done a thorough job of surveying the
speaker's home State, in looking at both the Byrne and the
HIDTA grants. Sheriff Merritt is our Majority Whip's home
sheriff in one of the meth hot zones in the Nation. Nobody
disagrees that in Arizona, Arkansas, and Missouri, they are
probably the hardest hit meth area in the United States.
As head of these different associations, in even our
leadership home districts, did any of you get consulted before
this kind of bomb hit us? Maybe we can go in reverse; Sheriff
Merritt?
Mr. Merritt. No, sir, when I found out about it, it was
when we were in a panic about it. It had reached that point
where it was a very strong consideration that was going to
happen, and I am on the State Board for HIDTA in Missouri.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Henry.
Mr. Henry. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. Commissioner Hamm.
Mr. Hamm. I was not consulted.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Donahue.
Mr. Donahue. No, sir, and I can also say that select
members of OCDETF, the State and local office were not
consulted.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Yes, we have checked with all of our member
State associations. No one was consulted, to our knowledge. Not
only that, when we learned, through leaks within OCDETF of
these proposed cuts, I called Marc Wheat on your staff, Eric
Akers on Senator Grassley's staff and others that we work with
all the time, very concerned and learned that they were unaware
of these proposed cuts.
So not only as the President of a 60,000 member
organization, but as a citizen, I am very concerned that they
would take away a very effective law enforcement tool without
talking to the people here in the Congress that help build that
tool, and out on the streets where we apply the tool.
Mr. Souder. We need to look at this, in trying to get
lemonade out of a lemon, that as an opportunity to do some
education, this is an opportunity to educate each Member of
Congress, many of whom have not visited the HIDTAs in their
home area or exactly understand how the Byrne Grant works.
They understand they see meth on the news, or they see
different challenges. But this is an opportunity to educate and
to do surveys in your area and to get this in so that we can
help do this, like Mr. Cummings said earlier.
It does not do us any good to have a hearing. We have to
figure out how to get the word out. But it is clear here that
we have the talking at the grassroots. It is getting back to
Members. Mr. Cummings is hearing it. I raised it in our
conference, and many Members are very concerned about getting
blindsided about something like this. This is an opportunity to
educate with this.
I am ideologically disturbed, as a Republican, that one of
our philosophies has been to try to do more State and local
cooperation, rather than nationalize everything. I just cannot
believe we would destroy the program. On tinkering with it, I
am going to ask a followup question. Maybe, Mr. Carr, you would
be the best person.
Could you describe this a little bit and for the record? In
other words, we put a certain amount of funds into a HIDTA. But
then State and locals make an investment. A number of you said
in your testimony that people would have to pull out if you did
not get some of the funds. You might participate financially,
but not be able to send officers in. Chief Harris said directly
in Phoenix that you have cut other areas, but you did not cut
this area.
But this is a tough decision in each of the department's
budgets. Even small amounts of leveraging could have a
devastating impact. Also, Mr. Carr, and if anybody else wants
to take this, what I raised and you have heard me raise it
repeatedly, there is this 50/50 question. How important is it
when all of you at the local level make decisions to put
dollars into a Task Force that you feel you have participatory
and not domineered kind of input, especially given the fact
that many of you raised concerns about OCDETF?
I had a feeling that some of that might be that you felt it
was more top down rather than shared. To some degree, he who
pays the piper picks the tune. The question is, how much is
local law enforcement putting in, what is the relationship, and
if you put the dollars in but do not have any authority, how
will you behave? Maybe we can start with Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer that.
First of all, I used to sit on the OCDETF Board when I was the
chief of narcotics for Mountain State Police. I stopped going
to the meetings, not because I was dis-interested, but because
I did not have a voice. I simply sat and listened to cases that
they were reviewing.
It is a paper pushing scheme, whereby they approve funding,
and they fund officers to go out. They are already
investigating. They approve funds to pay for their overtime
allowance.
I did not see that it was targeted, at least at that point;
and many of the cases that I was hearing were cases that were
brought to the panel by my narcotics officers. So they were my
cases I was hearing reviewed at the Federal level for funding.
But at the HIDTA, it is completely different. We are
comprised of an Executive Board that determines the strategy,
the funding levels, the focus, for the dollars to come in. It
is a shared responsibility with the Federal, State, and local
police.
Our HIDTA is a little bit unique, because we also have
treatment and prevention folks that sit on our Board. Now they
do not entertain or hear cases, but they determine the
strategy, how much money, how many programs go to Baltimore
versus D.C., versus northern Virginia.
They make a constant effort to focus the dollars on where
the problem is, as opposed to, and I think it was somewhat
insinuated in the earlier testimony, of spreading it over nine
regions or spreading it over an area. They focus the dollars
where they need to be focused.
State and locals, and I believe I brought it up in my
testimony and others mentioned it here, as well, get a few
HIDTA dollars in return for the commitment they make.
Now as a HIDTA Director, I always like to say, my job is to
take away all the excuses. By that, I mean, we use HIDTA funds
to provide you with allowance for cars, for State and locals.
We pay for a limited amount of overtime. We pay for bi-money.
We train officers. By the way, our HIDTA trained 2,000 officers
last year, Federal, State, and local. So we do not just use the
dollars for State and local officers.
But by having this type of equality on our Board and
focusing what we are doing, we have been able to generate very
positive results. We have built teamwork. Most of the decisions
on our Executive Board, and in fact, I cannot recall any that
were not, are unanimous decisions. That is how well it works
together after 11 years.
Now in the first couple of years, I can tell you, they were
not unanimous decisions, and there was probably some
headbutting. But now the people understand the strategy. They
are comfortable. They have a voice. They get Federal, State,
and local law enforcement, treatment, and prevention folks
working together.
If I recall, a few years ago, there was a movement to take
treatment and prevention out of our HIDTA. The first people to
stand up and shout to the mountains were the Chiefs of Police,
who said, we cannot do this alone. We need treatment and
prevention.
So that is how well it works, and it is completely
different than the dictatorial process that I have seen in
OCDETF.
Mr. Souder. Yes, Mr. Donahue?
Mr. Donahue. Yes, Mr. Chairman, regarding the State and
local investment, this is the greatest thing for the Federal
tax dollar that I have ever seen.
In the Chicago HIDTA, there are approximately 70 Federal
agents who are assigned to the Chicago HIDTA from all of the
Federal agencies. There are over 340 State and local police
officers who work on regular basis with the HIDTA, not to
mention the fact that they come from a body of over 16,000
State and local officers who interact with their own
departments and HIDTA. This investment by the Federal
Government is absolutely minimal for what they get in return.
As far as OCDETF is concerned, OCDETF's problem is that it
is not a program that necessarily addresses the threat as it
appears in the regions that we come from. OCDETF is a case
specific support organization that pays for overtime for State
and local police officers.
The majority of the cases that come to OCDETF come from
State and local police officers; and in Chicago, a good portion
of those come from the HIDTA. The HIDTA, itself, is divided by
eight State and local members on a Board, and eight Federal,
thus giving them an even playing field; and thus, giving them
something that they do not have in OCDETF, and that is a say in
how those cases are managed and how they are prosecuted.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Hamm and then Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Hamm. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much; I do not have
any money in my city. What I do have are dedicated detectives
who work very closely with HIDTA, to the tune of about 54. Now
some people may say that may be an excessive amount.
But for the bang for the buck that I am getting, it is well
worth my while to have my men and women working in this
capacity. Because we are working drugs not only in Baltimore
City, but in Baltimore County and Hartford County and
Montgomery County, and all that stuff is related.
All these guys are related. It is related stuff. What is
going on, most of the guys who are selling drugs in Baltimore
City live in Baltimore County. They live in Baltimore County,
so there is a connect there. I have made it my business that we
are going to address violent crime in Baltimore City.
Drugs drive about 60 percent of the violence in my town. So
it is the best investment that I can have, on a local level,
having the resources and the money we have. I want to thank Tom
and his people for allowing us to participate.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, sometimes there is this
perception, not by this committee, because you deal with these
issues, but by many in the Congress and others that HIDTA and
Byrne are somehow funding law enforcement officers, that it is
an entitlement program, that it supplants; when in reality, the
officers assigned to HIDTA, with very, very few exceptions, and
almost exclusively with the Byrne Task Forces, those are
officers paid for by their own agencies, out of their own
pockets.
I know, just on the California meth problem, we looked one
time at the money we got from meth hot spots. Then we looked at
how much money we spent from a State and local perspective. We
got $3 million out of the meth hot spots grant. We spent $160
million of State and local money on meth enforcement.
That, I think, is the experience across the board at HIDTA
and Byrne; that agencies want to put their personnel there. The
limited HIDTA dollars and the limited Byrne dollars give them
the ability to have a facility to co-locate; maybe to help
offset some vehicles or overtime or some communications or
inter-operability issues.
But those agencies are truly making the commitment by
putting their people there, paying their overtime, paying their
salaries and their benefit packages, taking those people out of
other assignments and putting them in drug enforcement. So it
is truly the best leverage of Federal dollars, anywhere in law
enforcement.
Mr. Souder. If Chief Harris and Sheriff Merritt could
comment on this briefly, too; and if Mr. Henry does on the
Byrne Grant, then I will yield.
But what I am hearing here is that the funding is the kind
of glue that helps pay the combined overhead, the phones, and
so on. But the actual objects that are being glued together are
your dollars. If we take the glue away and it falls apart and
they have no plan, how do you have these Task Forces?
Mr. Harris. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct.
The HIDTA Center that we have, that has over 300 people
assigned to it, we have those people in there. But the HIDTA
funds are what pays for the facility, to keep that place up and
running; all the things that you talked about, whether it is
cars, etc.
We do appreciate OCDETF's current cooperations with working
with the agencies that when we apply for OCDETF funding for a
target that they approve of, that we receiving overtime funding
to cover the overtime of the officers that are actually
conducting the investigation.
But what everyone is saying here is absolutely correct.
Without that funding that holds everything together, we cannot
afford to continue the operation and to put all of those bodies
into these Task Forces in these programs with no return on
that.
As was stated earlier, we are 130 miles or so from the
border with Mexico. If you look at where all of the drugs are
coming from, South America through Mexico, they are coming into
Arizona and the Southwest Border for distribution all over the
rest of the country.
When we target these people, it is great to say only target
Federal bad guys. The local bad guys are the Federal bad guys,
especially in our case, where we are tying violent crimes,
homicides, coyotes smuggling humans across the border, drugs,
home invasions, murders; it is all tied together. Those targets
develop into the Federal targets.
But to take all of that local input out and say it has to
be a Federal or a national target before you can get any
funding, it is just not going to work.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Henry.
Mr. Henry. I have a couple of things. In Illinois, the
local Drug Task Forces, really are dealing with the issues of
local concern. They all have policy boards. Everyone who gives
an officer money has an equal vote. They really look at what is
going on within the community, and they attack those local drug
dealers. The local drug dealer that is on your corner, the Drug
Task Force is the one that takes them out.
The drug dealers dealing in the area, they are the ones
that do that. We also have a network with these 20 Drug Task
Forces in Illinois where the bad guys, the drug dealers, they
do not know jurisdictional boundaries. They deal dope anywhere
and everywhere they can sell it.
So now we have a network of law enforcement personnel
specialized in narcotics that can work with each other,
communicate, work investigations together on a local level,
attack the problems that really deal with quality of life
issues. We are very efficient and effective in what we do.
That money is the glue that brings it all together. The
locals in the State are putting their own resources into it,
but that extra money is what brings it all together.
If that money goes away, some of these units are going to
disband. They will become smaller. There will not be that
connection. There will be pieces of the puzzle that are
missing, and there will not be that ability to inter-connect
with each other and be as efficient and as effective as we are
right now.
Mr. Souder. Sheriff Merritt, maybe you could also say what
your HIDTA is; a newer HIDTA, formed a lot because of the meth
issue. How has it changed with the HIDTA, and maybe you can
talk about that connection?
Mr. Merritt. Well, just the resources to deal with the
disposing of the chemicals and everything. The State of
Missouri, I think, had about 3,000 labs last year, and a good
deal of those in our county, there. It was a few-100 in our
county. So it is an extremely critical thing.
Now I think of the problems that are related in these
others agencies, much larger agencies, and I think maybe we
have it pretty lucky. But proportionately, with what we have to
spend, with the manpower, the resources we have, I contribute
two officers to a Drug Task Force other than the HIDTA and the
DEA Task Force. Without the Byrne Grants, that would not exist.
Without the HIDTA money, my participation in the DEA Drug Task
Force would not exist.
I see these people sit down once a month around a table
about this size. Every agency is represented. They know what is
going on. They refer to the deconfliction. They sit there and
talk about it. We share offices, and that type of thing.
This brings agencies together that might not otherwise be
together. If they are together in the drug enforcement, when a
drug-related homicide happens, they are together on that. It
brings our agencies as one.
You can watch them working an investigation of a case of
any type, and it is hard to tell who belongs to who, for us as
Administrators. That is as it should be, because they are
working as one. It is a tremendous asset, and well worth what
goes into it for our area, for just that collaboration between
agencies, because you do not always have that every place. So
it is tremendous to see that.
Without this funding, we are pretty well sunk on that. I
know our meth labs are not going to go away and, as Mr.
Cummings referred to earlier, that they are going to know it.
You know, I have a 500 bed jail. I would say a very
conservative estimate of 80 to 85 percent of my inmates are
meth-related.
The tentacles go from the cost of that, beyond the
investigations, beyond what it takes to get them to jail, with
the meth mouth. Their teeth are falling out. I have to have
extra dental. The medical cost of mine, I spent over $1 million
last year on medical costs for the jail there. I provide a
counseling program to try to do something about it.
If I can just touch on one thing. I had a group from the
Fellowship of Christian Athletes touring the other night that I
took them through personally. As we were in the visitation
area, there was a beautiful little 18 month old, and a 2-year
old girl with blonde curly hair, with her face against the
glass, looking down the hall to see her daddy come and visit
her.
This culture is taking over. If we do anything to take away
from the effectiveness of enforcement, that little girl is
going to be coming down the hall with her little girl looking
for her.
Mr. Souder. I am just overwhelmed. I am so baffled that we
worked so long to get cooperation, and then in one short, we
are busted. I just do not understand. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I only have a few questions. First of all, I
want to thank you all. Since I have been on this subcommittee,
which has been about 9 years, this is one of the best
presentations I have heard.
But I wanted to be very careful here, because I always try
to figure out what would somebody listening to us have to argue
against what you have said. Let me tell you what they would
say, and then I want you to address this.
The reason why I am doing this is because I think it is
important that you know how the folk think around here. On
Capitol Hill, we deal with a lot of turf situations. Maybe
these folks just want to hold on to their turf. They have it
already carved out, and they do not want anything disrupting
what they are doing.
I know that is how folks think. I wish that the folks who
testified before could have heard this. I wish they had heard.
I was trying to speak for you all, by the way, when I was
addressing my questions to them, because I had a pretty good
idea of what you would say.
But one of the things, I guess, that has really hit me is
that from listening to what you all are saying, OCDETF is not a
real law enforcement kind of entity. I mean, in other words, it
is out there really fighting crime, but maybe managing some
dollars and things like that.
It is not that they are not important. But on the other
hand, when you all deal with the HIDTA's and you deal with
ONDCP, you feel a lot more comfortable. Is that a fair
statement; yes, sir?
Mr. Donahue. OCDETF is an important part of this, but it is
not the part that has to do with the active every day law
enforcement. OCDETF is a prosecution support system.
The reason that OCDETF is important to the HIDTAs is
because it takes the cases into the realm of Federal
conspiracies. When you get into the realm of Federal
conspiracies, you have a huge hammer over the drug dealer.
Mr. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Donahue. As far as the turf is concerned, I am not
trying to keep my turf. I am trying to increase it.
In 1992, there were 2,200 heroine overdoes in the city of
Chicago. In the year 2,000, there were 12,254. Where was the
Federal Government during that 8 year period? It is the HIDTA
that has addressed the heroine problem in the city of Chicago.
Now Chicago is not unique, as major cities go, but they do
have a problem that most major cities do not have. We have 65
active gangs in the city of Chicago, of which there are 65,000
members. They handle 98 percent of the distribution of the
drugs in our city and in our region.
Now maybe we are hurting ourselves by calling these people
members of street gangs, because there are organized crime.
This is not the Jets and the Sharks from West Side Story. These
are hardened, organized criminal gangs. So I do not want to
keep my turf. I want to double it or triple it, and I need
these Federal dollars to do that.
Mr. Cummings. Well, you gave the answer that I was hoping
for. I hope the President is listening to what you are saying,
Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr. I just want to add that I did not want to malign
OCDETF.
Mr. Cummings. And I do not want you to. I guess what I am
trying to get to is your basic concerns. Because actually, what
we are being asked to do is make a major shift. So if you are
doing this major shift, like the chairman said, you ought to
have at least some evidence to show that you are going to do
something that is better and much more effective and efficient,
as you said.
Mr. Carr. I think we are all perplexed by this. We had no
warning. It seems to me the administration is pushing, as the
chairman mentioned. They are Federalizing this problem, when it
is not totally a Federal problem. It is a State and local
problem, as well.
It seems to me that they are abandoning the domestic drug
enforcement that we have now in this country, and that we
worked so hard to do; and that is, as you have pointed out, to
create this partnership between Federal, State, and local.
You brought up an interesting word, ``turfism.'' Let me
turn it a different way. The turfism I think of, are the
turfisms of the gangs like MS-13, and the turfisms of the drug
dealers that are operating in Baltimore, Washington, DC, and
northern Virginia, that I am very much aware of, and the
conflict that is going on between them.
So, yes, we want to reduce turfism, because it is reducing
violence, reducing drug trafficking and the like. I think the
Commissioner can comment on that; thank you.
Mr. Hamm. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, I do not care about
turf. I care about what works. What we do now works. That is
all I care about. We have a systematic way, and systematic
tactics of taking violent, drug-dealing people off the street,
and it works. So I do not care about turf. I care about what
works, and I have talked about some of the results already. If
you check the testimony, you will see. That is my concern; not
turf, results.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Relative to those, the one thing that most
people, I think, fail to understand is that more than 90
percent of the OCDETF budget just pays for Federal employees.
It pays for FTEs for the FBI, the U.S. attorney's office, the
marshalls, and others.
There is a misconception that there is an OCDETF Task Force
out there somewhere. But really, there are just nine regions
with coordinators that sit around a table, and they decide what
cases they will fund for prosecution. But there are no, like,
HIDTA Task Forces, or Byrne Task Forces. There is no brick and
mortar building where law enforcement officers area co-located
and where they go out and work investigations.
OCDETF is owned by the U.S. attorney's office. If HIDTA
goes to OCDETF, it will be just another Federal program without
the kind of partnership and ownership that local law
enforcement has built with the HIDTA. So that is my concern;
that OCDETF does not even know what it is we really do, because
they do not run Drug Task Forces. They have not been in the
multi-jurisdictional enforcement business, like we have.
So Byrne and HIDTA are absolutely critical to keep those
State, Federal, and local law enforcement officers at the
table. They asked me, and I got interviewed on this issue on
NPR radio. They said, what is the single most important aspect
of HIDTA.
I said, the most important aspect of HIDTA, and it is with
Byrne, as well, is that today we have a ton of disparate
agencies that would have never been at the table talking before
Federal, State, and local that would never shared information;
would not have deconflicted their cases; would not have shared
their resources.
We have them all now jumping up saying, no, no, let me help
you with that. I have a couple of extra cars that I could give
you. We could use our radios. We could kick some more money
into that case. Those people are all now at the table, sharing
information, embracing one and other's organizational cultures,
working together willingly, because we brought them together,
using the incentive of Federal money.
Mr. Cummings. Well, you just hit on where I was trying to
go to. I am not a police officer. But I would assume that there
is somewhat of a brotherhood and sisterhood going on there.
I am just wondering, you were just talking about people
coming together. I am just guessing, if I am on the Federal
level and I am fighting drugs, and I am on the State or local
level, and I have an opportunity to work, and we are all
working toward the same thing, are relationships established
there? You do not even see it in the paperwork. You just know
that folks get to know each other, and they talk about the
intuition of police officers.
It is amazing this situation up in Chicago. I do not listen
to the news very carefully, but I do know some officers
apparently stopped the guy. I do not know whether it was
intuition or not.
But my point is, I guess there is something that happens,
too, that you cannot even put a monetary value on it. You may
not even be able to adequately describe it. When folks come
together who have a common mission, no matter what agency they
are in, because they know that they all are in the same boat,
trying to deal with the same kind of thing.
Is that very significant here with regard to HIDTA? Yes,
sir; you have not spoken yet.
Mr. Merritt. Yes, sir, as I mentioned earlier, we watch our
people work. They work as one. You do not know who is a Federal
agent, and who is county, and who is city police.
You know, there are certain philosophical differences on
whether crime control is a local Government or a Federal
Government issue, and I think that September 11th took that
out. It is irrelevant now.
The question is not of dependency upon the Federal
Government to fund local responsibilities. But it is, will the
Federal Government help local agencies meet the demands of
crime control and Homeland Security? Because truly, as I
believe you mentioned in the first panel, this internal
terrorism gnaws at us, and there is probably no greater threat
to our society than drugs.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, sir?
Mr. Donahue. I am going to date myself with this. But back
in 1972, I was assigned to probably the first Federal Drug Task
Force in this country. It was in 50 cities across the country,
and it put State and locals together for the first time.
You talked about the relationships that develop amongst
people who worked together. After 33 years, I have friends from
that Task Force. As a result of my experience on that Task
Force, I was able to work cases as a narcotics investigator
when I was sent back to the Police Department; because after 14
months, the Federal Government turned that Task Force out.
What we had built up was gone, except for the relationships
that stayed between the officers and agents who were in that
program.
It withered and it died, and Congress had to come back
again, 16 years later, to do the same thing. The result of that
is HIDTA. So the answer to your question is yes, the
relationships become institionalized, and that is what makes
the investigations better.
Mr. Cummings. I have just one last thing. I have often said
that the people who are on the front line are the best
witnesses. In other words, you all know how you are affected.
So I would just suggest that you will let your Congress people
know, and I am sure you are already doing this. This is
important stuff.
Because I do not think there is one single Congressman that
wants to be in a situation where they believe they are doing
something, and I do not think the President wants to be in this
situation, by the way, doing something that actually goes
counter.
Because in listening to you all, it seems to be a concern
that you might go backward. I do not want 16 years to back the
other way, because in the midst of that 16 years, a lot of
people are going to die, a lot of problems are going to happen,
and there is going to be a lot of pain.
But the other thing that, I guess, I want you to talk
about, and maybe one of two of you are can talk about it, you
mentioned the term ``deconfliction.''
Just for our purposes, would you all tell us what is the
significance of deconfliction, just if you do not mind? Keep in
mind, there are people on C-SPAN watching this, too, and that
is a term that they would like to know.
Mr. Carr. I also work at the University of Maryland, as you
know, and deconfliction is not a real word. But as a
university, you can make up words, so we did. But I think the
word explains what it is.
In other words, there are two types of conflicts that we
are very much concerned about. One is when police agencies are
conducting high risk operations at the same place or around the
same place in time, and they do not know it; where you are
confronting good guy and good guy. I have had a gun pulled on
me by another police officer years ago in a raid like that. It
is not a pleasant feeling.
So that is one of the ways we deal with it, in that we have
police agencies call our intelligence centers. They let us know
when they are going to do an operation.
Because we are in D.C., several years ago, Mrs. Clinton was
Christmas shopping. She was taken to a mall in this area where
we were doing it by bus, so I am told. As a result of that, the
Secret Service deconflicts with us in our center now. So those
things can be very real.
The other type of deconflicting involves cases where I am
working a target and you are working a target, and it is the
same target, and we do not realize that.
Early on in our HIDTA, we had two of our initiatives not do
a case deconfliction. I turned out, one of them was selling
drugs to the other in an undercover operation. The only way
they found out was that they were from the same Police
Department, and they happened to meet and say, what are you
doing here; and the other one said, well, I am selling drugs.
The other says, I am buying drugs. [Laughter.]
So those are real incidents. That is the officers' safety,
their resource incidents, and those are the two types of
deconfliction.
Mr. Cummings. Well, that is a good example. Thank you very
much. I think that, you know, I would imagine that those people
who might be the salespersons of drugs that may be listening to
all of this, probably the last thing they want is to see you
all continue to do what you have been doing, deconflicting and
deal all these other things.
I would imagine that they would just love to know that they
can do certain things and, like you said, Commissioner Hamm,
they have no boundaries.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hamm was talking
about Baltimore City and Baltimore County. Baltimore City is
surrounded by Baltimore County, like a doughnut, like we are
right in the middle. So, therefore, we have all these
salespersons living outside, but right in the middle is where
they do their dirt.
So I guess that communication thing is so very, very
important. Again, I want to thank all of you for your
testimony; I really do. I hope that when you get back to the
men and women who put their lives on the line every day, I hope
that you will let them know that we want to do everything in
our power to support them. Again, we thank you very much.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. I sincerely want to thank the Chair for
bringing this panel together, as well. I am amazed that those
of you who are on the front line were not consulted. I also
understand that the word went out to cut the budget.
But to cut it in such highly sensitive areas of law
enforcement is the wrong cut to make. We are facing, in this
country, an overwhelming threat of terrorism, and our terrorism
is coming from the streets and the drugs that somehow get into
the hands of our youth and our violent criminals.
I do not know how they come here. They are smuggled in
because we lack the personnel to be able to detect. We lack the
intelligence to know how they are bringing it in. We woke up 1
day in the seventies, and I was telling everybody and I was on
the school board then, oh, the community does not deal with
crack cocaine. They cannot afford it. All of a sudden, everyone
was selling the packages for $20, those plastic packages,
including mothers on welfare.
So I have been on it ever since then, and we still have not
cracked it. So if you were not contacted that there was a
proposed cut and reorganization, then Mr. Chairman and Members,
I think we ought to turn this down and we ought to send the
message right now that we will not accept this change.
Right in the middle of success, and I am sorry the other
panel is not here, because they did express in front of all of
you that they had not seen positive results. That is because
they had not talked to you. You know, they had not asked you to
give them all of your records that you collect in a year's time
or 6 months' time. I can see why they would say that, because
the communication has broken down; yes, sir?
Mr. Carr. If you will allow me, real quickly, I just wanted
to comment on that. When the PART survey was done originally in
2004, the folks from OMB did not get the outcomes and outputs
from the HIDTA program. They got budget summaries and anecdotal
information to look at.
So they did not even give them the information that would
allow them to say whether or not we were successful. That is
what really started the process of us developing our own
performance management system.
Ms. Watson. I would imagine that these decisions were made
in a little room, you know, amongst themselves, without
reaching out to you. I would say to defund you and reorganize
you would cause what you have been doing to fail, and would
probably jeopardize a lot of people out there who have been
undercover. You would have to pull them out and then they show
up in another outfit, a uniform or something, and they get
marked.
I mean, I know how that game is played in my city. So I
want to thank all of you, you came here and do not be afraid to
speak out, stand strong, support your programs' continuation
and the funding. We will work with you, I hope, here in the
House and certainly in the Senate to see that your funding
continues.
Because we have an overwhelming task, all of us do, to get
after this scourge in our streets. To stop you while you are
doing that does not make sense. It is not going to save money.
It is going to create expenditures in other areas. We are going
to have to pay more for hospitalization and for survivors of
people who have been killed on the street and incarceration and
so on.
So I want to just end it by saying I am behind your program
and these funds 100 percent. Leave the program as it is. Make
cuts in other areas, but not in this crime-stopping component.
The Justice Department, if they came and made the
statements that they did and those statements, they believe,
are true, then I know they have not been in communication with
you. I mean, you did not have to tell us that. Because they
would not have made those statements.
If they had gotten out into your regions and observed what
was going on, and reviewed what was going on, then they would
have to argue against the kind of changes that you propose.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. It has
been an afternoon well spent. I have to rush to catch my plane
to go back to the streets of Los Angeles, and watch my drug
dealers, you know, dealing on the streets. I mean, I see it,
because I am on those streets every day, and they do it with
impunity. So thank you very much, and I thank all of you for
your contributions this afternoon.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Congresswoman Watson; for those who
say we cannot do things in a bipartisan way, when we fight drug
dealers and we fight narcotics, we need to fight in a
bipartisan way. We did not ask who was Republican or Democrat.
Up here, it would have been tough to figure out who was and who
was not.
Ms. Watson. We need policymakers.
Mr. Souder. Yes, we need to tackle this. We would
appreciate if you could communicate back to your grassroots
people. They are putting their life on the line to try to keep
the rest of America safe. We very much appreciate that, because
it is a few people who then addict other people, spread this
through.
It gets into their families and their kids. It puts people
at harm when they are shopping. They cannot walk at night on
the street. There is a fear to travel or move around that leads
to the housing decline, education in school declines. At least
drug and alcohol abuse is the enabler that creates much of this
problem.
So we thank you very much for your efforts. We need to look
at this. If we speak out united, and if we can educate the
public more on what is happening, one of the problems in
narcotics that people get very frustrated, because it seems
like it does not go away. It is just like child abuse, just
like spouse abuse. It is just like many other things. It just
seems like you work at it and you work at it. But the second
you back off, it gets worse.
This is an opportunity to educate, to educate Congress and
to educate the general public, and say, basically, to the
administration: Look, this is working. We do not know why you
did this. But send a clear message from the grassroots level in
the Congress: we will do a good job of testing the wind and
react real fast, and make sure that we send a message, which is
a lesson, not only for this year; but this is a program that
works, and we ought to be looking at how to make it more
effective; how to spread it.
Yes, if there are things like drug courts that need to be
added, then propose adding that. But do not wreck another
program in order to try to address another kind of problem.
This has been a terrific panel. Thank you for all the time
that you have spent. We appreciate you coming to Washington and
being part of this, and we will make sure that the word gets
out, and will you please help get it out to your own individual
members and back home.
Because this is a big decision, a key crossroads, that
could affect, again, because we have done this before. As Mr.
Donahue said, in narcotics, sometimes we tackle it. If we start
to have success, we give it up and we have to do it all over
again.
Now we finally have an integrated system that is probably
the most integrated, helping us to work with the Homeland
Security agencies that we are seeing internationally. We are
better able to track. We are not just going to arrest people on
the street. We are going to be able to get to the systems.
But if you cannot turn witnesses, if you cannot follow it
through, hey, the whole system falls apart. What good does it
do to go down and eradicate cocaine in Columbia, and try to
intercept it, if we cannot also work it back the other
direction?
Ultimately, it is the ones on the street who are killing
the people, and you have to stop them. Because, in effect, if
we fail in the eradication, if we fail in the interdiction, if
we fail at the border, then it is in your towns.
We cannot abandon the towns, just because we have not been
able to stop it; back in Colombia, or Afghanistan, or
elsewhere. So thank you very much for your willingness to
participate. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]