    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    TO AUTHORIZE THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANT GRANT PROGRAM
                    AT FISCAL YEAR 2006 LEVELS THROUGH 2012

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 3546

                                   __________

                                  MAY 20, 2008

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-153

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

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

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    42-508 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2009
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
    HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         LAMAR SMITH, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    JERROLD NADLER, New York                 Wisconsin
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MAXINE WATERS, California            DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   CHRIS CANNON, Utah
    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               RIC KELLER, Florida
    LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California         DARRELL ISSA, California
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   STEVE KING, Iowa
    LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois          TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota

                Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
          Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    MAXINE WATERS, California            LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                Wisconsin
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama                 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio

                          Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel

                        Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                  MAY 20, 2008

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

    H.R. 3546, ``To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
      Assistant Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through
      2012''.........................................................     3

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.....................     1
    The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security...............................     5
    The Honorable Hank Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
      and Homeland Security..........................................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Domingo S. Herraiz, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
      United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC
      Oral Testimony.................................................     8
      Prepared Statement.............................................    10
    The Honorable Dustin McDaniel, National Association of Attorneys
      General
      Oral Testimony.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    22
    Mr. James P. Fox, President, National District Attorneys'
      Association, Alexandria, VA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    28
      Prepared Statement.............................................    29
    Sheriff Craig Webre, President, National Sheriffs' Organization,
      Alexandria, VA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    35
      Prepared Statement.............................................    37
    Mr. Ronald C. Rueker, President, International Association of
      Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    44
      Prepared Statement.............................................    61
    Mr. Ronald E. Brooks, President, National Narcotic Officers'
      Association Coalition, San Francisco, CA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    69
      Prepared Statement.............................................    92

                                    APPENDIX

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

    TO AUTHORIZE THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANT GRANT PROGRAM
                    AT FISCAL YEAR 2006 LEVELS THROUGH 2012

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008

                  House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
                                  and Homeland Security
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
    C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Scott, Johnson, Baldwin, Coble,
    and Gohmert.
        Staff present: Marion Dispenza, (Fellow) ATF Detailee;
    Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and Brandon Johns, Majority
    Staff Assistant.
        Mr. Scott. The Subcommittee will now come to order.
        I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on the
    bill H.R. 3546, ``To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial
    Justice Assistance Grant Program for fiscal year 2006 levels
    through 2012,'' authored by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Johnson.
        The Byrne Grant Program, named after Edward Byrne, a New
    York City police officer killed by a violent drug gang 20 years
    ago, is the only source of Federal funding for
    multijurisdictional efforts to prevent and fight crime. The
    Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant, or Byrne/JAG Program,
    allows States and local governments to support a broad range of
    activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the
    criminal justice system which States and local governments have
    come to rely on to ensure public safety.
        The States use Byrne/JAG grants for law enforcement,
    prosecution and court programs, prevention and education,
    corrections and community programs, drug-free planning,
    evaluation, technology improvement programs, and crime victim
    and witness programs. The States use the grants for law
    enforcement and hold those who commit crimes accountable for
    their offenses.
        However, the grants play an integral role in enabling
    States to employ all aspects of fighting crime, rather than
    simply using the so-called get tough approach focusing on
    arrests and increasing sentences. For example, in my home State
    of Virginia, in fiscal year 2007 alone, Byrne/JAG grants
    enabled task forces to reduce violent crime by as much as 20
    percent in targeted areas throughout a multifaceted approach to
    crime.
        Nine different law enforcement regional information-sharing
    networks were established, connecting 85 agencies. The Virginia
    Firearms Transaction Program increased its instant background
    checks for firearm purchases by 50 percent. High school
    students received training in traffic safety, crime prevention,
    and substance abuse.
        In its early years, the Byrne/JAG Program enjoyed
    appropriations that enabled it to work effectively.
    Unfortunately, however, funding has been diminishing over the
    past several years, threatening its ability to function.
    Although Congress authorized over a billion dollars, only $520
    million were appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The
    appropriation was drastically reduced to $170 million for
    fiscal year 2008, and the President has proposed further cuts
    for fiscal year 2009. The reduced funding for fiscal year 2008
    has already threatened the functionality of the programs the
    grants support. Further reductions could put existence to the
    programs in doubt.
        The trend to reduce the programs may result in part from
    instances where Byrne/JAG Program funding has been abused. For
    example, in 1999, Byrne/JAG grant funding was used in the
    infamous Tulia outrage in which a rogue police narcotics
    officer in Texas set up dozens of people, most of them African-
    American, in false cocaine-trafficking charges.
        In other instances, jurisdictions used funding to fund task
    forces focused solely on ineffective low-level drug arrests
    which has put the task force concept and the diminishing
    standards for drug enforcement that it has come to represent in
    the national spotlight.
        But reducing funding is not the answer. Instead, we should
    ensure that the funds are being used properly because the
    success of the program far outweighs its failures.
        Nationwide, the grant program has resulted in major
    innovations in crime control, including drug courts, gang
    prevention strategies, prisoner reentry programs, all of which
    provide proven and highly effective crime prevention. These
    innovations have demonstrated that best crime policies
    incorporate programs that help at-risk youth avoid criminal
    behavior and prepare prisoners for reentry into society so that
    they have meaningful and productive alternatives to crime when
    they return home.
        Byrne/JAG Grants are also indispensible resources that
    States use to combat crime, and I urge my colleagues to support
    the reauthorization of the funding.
        [The bill, H.R. 3546, follows:]

        Mr. Scott. It is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas,
    the Honorable Judge Gohmert.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
        And thank you to my friend, Mr. Johnson, for filing this
    bill for reauthorization. It has done a great deal of good in a
    great number of places.
        And I appreciate the Chairman bringing up a bad example,
    being from Texas.
        In any event, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
    Grant Program allows States and local governments to support a
    broad range of activities to prevent and control crime, to
    improve the criminal justice system.
        The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program is named after a
    fallen New York City police officer, Edward Byrne. I am sure
    everyone here was aware of that and that Officer Byrne was
    killed in February 1986 while protecting a witness who had
    agreed to testify in court against local drug dealers.
        The Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance
    administers this program which allocates using a formula based
    on population and crime statistics. The program has a minimum
    allocation to ensure that each State and territory receives an
    appropriate share of the Federal funds.
        There are seven purpose areas that the funding can be used
    for. The areas include law enforcement, prosecution, court
    programs, crime prevention, education programs, correction and
    community correction programs, drug treatment, technology
    improvement programs, and programs to support crime victims and
    witnesses, all of those being very noteworthy.
        Once received, Justice Assistance Grant funds can be used
    to pay for personnel, overtime, and equipment. Funds provided
    to the States are also used for statewide initiatives,
    technical assistance and training, support for local and rural
    jurisdictions.
        The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program was preceded by
    the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
    Assistance Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
    Program, but it is one of the few government programs that have
    been consistently supported by both parties in Congress, and I
    do believe we should continue to do so now.
        My friend Mr. Johnson's bill, H.R. 3546, is a one-sentence
    straight reauthorization of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant
    Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012, and I would
    submit that it is an example of one member of one party being
    very bipartisan, playing no games, just straightforward, and
    that is greatly appreciated.
        At a time where violent crime and gangs are spreading out
    of America's urban centers to suburban and rural areas,
    Congress should continue to provide our States and cities with
    the funding and equipment they need to effectively enforce the
    law. I am proud to support the reauthorization of the Byrne
    Justice Assistance Grant Programs and would urge my colleagues
    to do so.
        I also appreciate each of you being here. Obviously, you
    have been affected by the Byrne Program, and we just appreciate
    the work that each of you do. Having been a former prosecutor,
    judge, chief justice, I have great appreciation for what each
    of you do, and thank you for going to all the trouble to be
    here today. I know the pay for being a witness is what draws
    most people here.
        In case somebody is watching on C-SPAN, they are not really
    getting paid.
        But that makes it all the more gracious on your part to be
    here, and we thank you for being a part of this.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Usually, we do not have statements from other Members. We
    ask them to put them in the record, but the author of the bill
    before us is with us, the gentleman from Georgia, and I would
    call on him if he has a brief statement.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I applaud you for bringing this matter to this
    Subcommittee, and I want to thank Ranking Member Gohmert for
    his help and his insight into this very critical area.
        Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.
        H.R. 3546, a bill to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial
    Justice Assistance Grant Program, I introduced last year. This
    law enforcement grant program is the only comprehensive Federal
    program to combat criminal activity within a governmental and
    interstate approach and which provides critical funding to
    State and local law enforcement to fight crimes, as well as to
    assist in the prevention of crimes and drug use, to treat non-
    violent offenders, and to improve the effectiveness of
    prosecutors, courts, as well as corrections practices.
        In my home State of Georgia, these grants allow the State
    to maintain a well-trained corps of specialized drug
    enforcement officers in small law enforcement agencies that
    work closely together, allowing for officers to share
    intelligence, coordinate their operations with State and
    Federal agencies, and share resources with State and Federal
    agencies.
        This critical funding supports half of Georgia's counties
    and judicial districts, allowing localities, especially in
    rural districts, to dedicate funding to over 100 special
    agents, commanders, and support staff. Nationwide, Byrne/JAG
    has led to 220,000 arrests, the seizure of 54,000 weapons, the
    destruction of 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the
    elimination of almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs.
        Byrne/JAG has the support of numerous law enforcement
    coalitions, including the International Association of Chiefs
    of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National
    Narcotics Officers' Association Coalitions.
        But as we discuss how the program has worked effectively
    across the country, we must also discuss some of the problems
    that have led this Administration and some advocacy groups to
    criticize the program; for example, as Judge Gohmert cited, the
    tragic and infamous drug operation in Tulia, Texas, the
    inappropriate use of Byrne/JAG funding for voter fraud
    prosecutions, and the funding of task forces for ineffective
    low-level drug arrests, all of which have certainly tarnished
    the program.
        But slashing funding will only jeopardize the hard work our
    criminal justice community has made in reducing and preventing
    crime in our communities. Fighting crime should not be done in
    a vacuum. There must be a multifaceted approach that includes
    all parties, local law enforcement, prosecutors, courts,
    probation, prisoner reentry programs and, most important,
    prevention to ensure standards and accountability.
        Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. And, as you know, the Senate has already passed this
    bill by a unanimous consent with 52 co-sponsors, and although
    Members of this body and groups alike have concerns about the
    program, I believe we all can work together to ensure
    accountability and standards for this program.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        We have been joined by the gentleman from North Carolina,
    Mr. Coble, and the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin, and
    would ask that any further comments be placed in the record. By
    unanimous consent, so ordered.
        We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us today to
    discuss the bill, H.R. 3546.
        Our first witness will be Domingo Herraiz, the director of
    the Bureau of Justice Assistance, or BJA. BJA supports law
    enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services,
    technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the
    Nation's criminal justice system. He has an undergraduate
    degree from Iowa University and political science and is
    currently working toward the completion of a master's degree in
    public administration from Ohio University.
        Our next witness will be Dustin McDaniel, the attorney
    general for the State of Arkansas, representing the National
    Association of Attorneys General. He has an extensive history
    of public service, including service as a uniformed patrol
    officer in his hometown of Jonesboro, and he was a member of
    the Arkansas House of Representatives. He obtained a bachelor's
    degree from the University of Arkansas and has a law degree
    from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
        Our next witness will be Mr. James P. Fox, district
    attorney, San Mateo County, California, and president of the
    National District Attorneys' Association. He is a career
    prosecutor serving as a district attorney since 1982. He
    received both his Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and
    his juris doctorate from the University of San Francisco.
        The next witness will be Sheriff Craig Webre of Lafourche
    Parish, Louisiana, president of the National Sheriffs'
    Association. Prior to his election as sheriff, he served his
    community as an officer with the Thibodaux Police Department
    and as a Louisiana State trooper. He holds a bachelor's degree
    in criminal justice and a juris doctorate from Loyola
    University.
        Our next witness will be Ronald C. Rueker who is the
    director of public safety, City of Sherwood, Oregon, and
    president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
    He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, the FBI's
    National Executive Institute, and the Program for Senior
    Executives in State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy
    School of Government at Harvard.
        Our final witness will be Ronald E. Brooks, president of
    the National Narcotic Officers' Association Coalition, the
    NNOAC, representing 44 State narcotic officers' associations
    with combined membership of over 60,000 law enforcement
    officers around the Nation. He is a 32-year California law
    enforcement veteran with 24 of those years being in drug, gang,
    and violent crime enforcement. He has been the primary
    investigator, supervisor, or manager for thousands of
    enforcement operations and has written policies and procedures
    for managing undercover operations and for managing informants.
        Now, for the witnesses, each of your written statements
    will be made part of the record in its entirety, and I would
    ask each of you to summarize your statement in 5 minutes or
    less. To help stay within that time, there is a lighting device
    on the table which will start off green, go to yellow, and red
    when 5 minutes are up.
        We will begin with Mr. Herraiz.

     TESTIMONY OF DOMINGO S. HERRAIZ, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
    ASSISTANCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Herraiz. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, the Department of
    Justice appreciates the opportunity to testify today regarding
    the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Program, the
    Byrne/JAG Program. My name is Domingo Herraiz, and I am the
    director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
        As was mentioned, BJA supports law enforcement, courts,
    correction, treatment, technology, and prevention initiatives
    that strengthen the Nation's criminal justice system. We
    emphasize local control, building relationships in the field,
    providing training and technical assistance, developing
    collaborations and partnerships, streamlining of grants,
    encouraging innovation, and communicating the value of justice
    efforts.
        BJA is committed to providing law enforcement and justice
    partners with the tools to perform their jobs and make
    America's communities safer. We recognize spending challenges
    and the need to identify an approach that allows for
    flexibility in meeting our Nation's law enforcement needs and
    the ability to adapt to ever-changing crime concerns.
        To meet these challenges, the department has focused on
    targeting resources to the areas with the greatest need where
    they can do the most good. The President's fiscal year 2009
    budget request for more than $1 billion would tackle the
    Nation's most pressing needs and support top priority
    initiatives.
        One of the most significant changes proposed by the
    President's budget is the reorganization and consolidation of
    more than 70 existing grant programs into four multiple-purpose
    programs: the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative;
    the Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program; the Child
    Safety and Juvenile Program; and the Violence Against Women
    grants. These new discretionary grants would award funding
    through a highly competitive grant program.
        My testimony today is focus on two of these initiatives,
    the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative and the
    Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program.
        Between 1993 and 2005, the violent crime victimization rate
    declined nearly 60 percent and the property crime victimization
    rates declined by more than 50 percent. While the recent FBI
    Uniform Crime Report data shows fluctuation in rates, the
    violent crime rate during this Administration is still well
    below historic levels. Preliminary FBI data also point to a
    decline in violent crime for the first half of 2007.
        Despite these positive trends, challenges still exist. Some
    regions and communities continue to experience increases in
    violent crimes. As Attorney General Mukasey recently said,
    ``The nature of crime varies not only from one city to another,
    but even from one block to the next. So it is at the block
    level that much of our work has to happen.''
        The department is following through on the attorney
    general's commitment to assist State, local, and tribal
    governments by working with our partners to identify problems
    and develop meaningful strategies to reduce and deter crime.
    One outcome of this effort is the Violent Reduction Partnership
    Initiative based on the department's experience administering
    the Byrne/JAG Program.
        The President's initiative seeks $200 million to build on
    the most successful aspects of the Byrne/JAG Program to help
    communities address high crime rates of violent crime by
    developing multijurisdictional law enforcement partnerships
    among State, local, tribal, and Federal agencies. These
    partnerships are designed to disrupt and prevent criminal gang,
    firearm, and drug activities.
        With discretionary funds provided by Congress in fiscal
    year 2007, we demonstrated this approach with a competitive
    solicitation to fund task force activities, refine task force
    activities, with focused strategies, including intelligence
    that led policing to address specific crime problems. Last
    fall, BJA awarded more than $75 million to 106 sites in 37
    States through this program. With the resources sought by the
    President's larger budget request of $200 million, we can
    expand the success and better assist communities as they reduce
    and prevent violent crime.
        This year, the President's budget proposal includes $200
    million for a streamlined grant program that would combine the
    funding streams of several programs into the new Byrne Public
    Safety and Protection Program. This program consolidates the
    Office of Justice Program's most effective State and local law
    enforcement programs into a single, flexible, competitive
    discretionary grant program for communities to develop
    solutions based on their priority crime concerns.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal would
    enable the department to continue to work with our State,
    local, and tribal partners to effectively target Federal
    assistance to areas with the greatest need. Our goal is to
    provide communities with the opportunity to decide for
    themselves how to fight the problems they are facing to support
    their most critical law enforcement needs.
        Law enforcement officers are the country's front line in
    the fight against crime. They perform dangerous jobs with
    courage and skill. BJA is committed to working alongside law
    enforcement and justice partners to provide the best practices
    and tools to ultimately strengthen the criminal justice system.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify today. I am happy to address any questions you or other
    Members of the Subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Herraiz follows:]

             Prepared Statement of the Honorable Domingo S. Herraiz

        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. McDaniel?

         TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DUSTIN McDANIEL, NATIONAL
                    ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL

        Mr. McDaniel. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Scott,
    Congressman Gohmert, and other Members of the Committee for
    giving me the opportunity to be here today.
        I also thank you, Congressman Johnson, for authoring this
    important legislation.
        My name is Dustin McDaniel, and I am the attorney general
    for the State of Arkansas, and I am here today on behalf of the
    National Association of Attorneys General, NAAG.
        NAAG and each of its individual members across the country
    strongly urges the reauthorization of the Edward Byrne Memorial
    Justice Assistant Grant Program. The Nation's attorneys general
    believe that full funding is critical to State and local law
    enforcement's ability to maintain public safety as evidenced by
    a March 2008 letter to Congress from all 56 association
    members, and if it would please the Chairman, I would like to
    have a copy of that letter from the 56 attorneys general
    incorporated into the record as evidence of our strong
    commitment to this program.
        Mr. Scott. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. McDaniel. One of the reasons the attorneys general
    believe that Byrne/JAG funding is of paramount importance is
    that the most crime prevention efforts occur at the State and
    local level. Homeland security begins at home. But with State
    budgets under increasing financial strain, the job is becoming
    ever more difficult.
        Byrne/JAG has played a role in supporting Arkansas'
    regional drug task forces. In fact, our 19 drug task forces are
    the primary location for the spending of our State's Byrne/JAG
    monies. As the Chairman indicated, like any multijurisdictional
    enterprise, there have been growing pains felt in the
    implementation of these drug task forces. However, State
    statutes, local law enforcement techniques, and other
    evolutions have led to more efficiencies and better effective
    programs.
        I agree with you, Congressman Johnson, supervision and
    accountability is the answer rather than cutting this funding.
        According to prosecutors in Arkansas, last year, nearly 70
    percent of Arkansas' crime lab drug submissions were submitted
    by our State drug task forces. The current multijurisdictional
    drug task force concept is, in fact, more efficient fiscally
    and produces better arrests and prosecutions than any other
    model.
        However, when funding was cut by 67 percent in fiscal year
    2008, law enforcement agencies across the country were forced
    to shut down drug and gang task forces and cease funding
    effective programs.
        According to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin,
    funding cuts there projected the loss of more than 21
    prosecutors in that State alone. Primarily, those losses were
    felt in the State's highest crime areas. Milwaukee County
    alone, the largest prosecutorial unit in Wisconsin, will lose
    10 percent of its entire prosecutorial staff.
        I believe that failing to reauthorize and fully fund Byrne/
    JAG is a step in the wrong direction and will leave a void that
    can only be filled by those who wish to do harm in our
    communities. In Arkansas, for example, if one compares drug
    task force related statistics from 2004 when Byrne/JAG funding
    was higher to 2007 when it was at its lowest, the results are
    grim.
        Since 2004, Arkansas has experienced a 35 percent reduction
    in the number of cases filed by drug task forces and a 41
    percent reduction in the number of arrests made by drug task
    forces. This occurs at the exact same time that methamphetamine
    has become an epidemic. Once limited to Southwestern Pacific
    states, it has taken hold of the entire country, especially in
    rural America.
        Byrne/JAG funding cuts not only impact local law
    enforcement, but they have also hampered a coordinated effort
    by law enforcement at all levels of government to seize drugs
    and prevent drug-related crime. Each year, Byrne/JAG funds more
    than 4,000 police officers and prosecutors working on more than
    750 drug task forces across hundreds of urban and rural
    counties and cities in all 50 States. This funding has led to
    more than 22,000 arrests, 54,000 seized weapons, 5.5 million
    grams of methamphetamine, and the breakup of almost 9,000
    methamphetamine labs annually.
        The successes of the program are clear, the failures of the
    program can be addressed, and I hope that Congress and the
    Administration will renew their commitment to fighting crime
    and protecting our communities by reauthorizing and adequately
    funding this critical program.
        Thank you again for allowing me to testify before the
    Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McDaniel follows:]

              Prepared Statement of the Honorable Dustin McDaniel

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. McDaniel.
        Mr. Fox?

        TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. FOX, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DISTRICT
                 ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA

        Mr. Fox. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert,
    Members of the Committee.
        My name is James Fox. I am the district attorney of San
    Mateo County, California, and the president of the National
    District Attorneys' Association.
        San Mateo County in 1984 recognized the value of a
    multijurisdictional task force, and we did create the San Mateo
    County Narcotics Task Force which to this day continues. It was
    a combined effort for all 20 cities in our county. Our members
    have a joint powers agreement that has been very, very
    successful, and, in fact, just last night, our task force was
    involved in the seizure of over a pound of methamphetamine.
        Unfortunately, methamphetamine is an export from
    California. We are a source State, and that is not something
    that we are proud of, but it, unfortunately, is a fact.
        Prosecutors throughout the country have difficulties in
    being able to adequately train people. The Byrne/JAG money has
    been utilized in a number of the States for training of
    prosecution as well as law enforcement officers, and I think
    that increased training is something that would go a long way
    toward addressing the potential abuses of narcotics enforcement
    because I think that it is rare, but it is definitely important
    that we receive the resources for the training.
        In the State of Pennsylvania, the State prosecutors are
    solely dependent upon Byrne/JAG funding for the training of the
    prosecutors in that State. Tennessee--Shelby County, Memphis,
    Tennessee--the prosecutor in that county has utilized the
    Byrne/JAG funding to create an anti-truancy program to try to
    address quality of life and to try to basically do community
    prosecution. That program would be seriously jeopardized with
    the reduction that has been proposed.
        In Hawaii, the Honolulu district attorney also has a
    community prosecution program that is solely dependent upon
    Byrne/JAG funding.
        Virginia, prosecutors are dependent upon the funding from
    Byrne/JAG for limited training that the State prosecutors do
    receive.
        Unfortunately, from the prosecutor's perspective, we have a
    problem in recruiting and retaining young prosecuting attorneys
    because education costs have gone up, young people cannot
    afford to go into public service, and as a result, there is a
    very, very high turnover for prosecution. That has created a
    burden upon adequate training for prosecutors.
        So it is absolutely imperative that adequate resources be
    provided to continue the great efforts that had been
    implemented since the creation of the Byrne/JAG funding.
    Obviously, we know that there have been pressures to reduce,
    and we are hopeful that there will be some supplemental
    appropriations this year because there are programs that,
    unfortunately, are going to disappear.
        Frankly, I think that it would be tragic because, as was
    said earlier, homeland security begins at home, and we are
    solely dependent in many areas, especially in the smaller
    jurisdictions, on this funding.
        On behalf of our Nation's prosecutors, I would like to
    thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to share my views on
    the Byrne/JAG funding program, and I would urge the
    Subcommittee to take the necessary steps to ensure the
    authorization of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
    Grants at fiscal year 2006 levels through fiscal year 2012.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of James P. Fox

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert and Members of the
    Subcommittee: My name is James P. Fox and I am the elected district
    attorney in San Mateo County, California and have served in this
    capacity for approximately twenty-six years.
        I have been involved in the criminal justice system for forty-one
    years in a variety of positions including juvenile probation, deputy
    district attorney, criminal defense attorney and elected district
    attorney in 1982. I am a past President of the California District
    Attorneys Association and have been a chairman of the Legislative
    Committee of the California District Attorneys Association since 1990.
        I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Subcommittee for
    the invitation to testify today. I appreciate the opportunity to share
    my thoughts and concerns as well as those of my colleagues regarding
    the successes of the Byrne-JAG program and the probable consequences of
    continued reductions in program funding.
        Currently I serve as the President of the National District
    Attorneys Association (NDAA). NDAA is the largest and primary
    professional association of prosecuting attorneys in the United States.
    Formed in 1950 as the ``National Association of County and Prosecuting
    Attorneys'' and given its present name in 1959, NDAA has approximately
    7,000 members, including most of the nation's local prosecutors, in
    addition to, assistant prosecutors, investigators, victim witness
    advocates and paralegals. The National District Attorneys Association
    provides professional guidance and support to its members, serves as a
    resource and education center, follows public policy issues involving
    criminal justice and law enforcement, and produces a number of
    publications.
        As a representative of the nation's prosecutors and other criminal
    justice professionals, I am here today to discuss the detrimental
    impact of reductions to Byrne-JAG funding and to urge this subcommittee
    to do what is necessary to make certain that the program is authorized
    at the FY 2006 level ($1.095 billion) through Fiscal Year 2012. The
    FY08 omnibus appropriations bill cut the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant
    (Byrne/JAG) program by 67%, from $520 million in FY07 to $170 million
    in FY08.
        The Byrne-JAG program is the only comprehensive federal program to
    combat criminal activity with an intergovernmental and interstate
    approach, allowing for increased effectiveness in the responsiveness of
    the criminal justice system to the development of proactive approaches
    to interstate and multi-jurisdictional crime. It allows for a true
    system-wide approach, enabling communities to target resources to their
    most pressing local needs. It has been particularly critical for the
    prosecutorial community. Prosecutors across the nation rely on this
    funding for the training of prosecutors and law enforcement personnel;
    the dedication of prosecutors to task forces and investigation teams;
    the development and implementation of crime prevention programs and the
    creation of innovative programs to reduce recidivism rates. In fact,
    the Byrne-JAG program is in many instances the only source of funding
    to support critical multi-jurisdictional task forces and
    multidisciplinary teams.
        If funding for the Byrne-JAG program remains at the reduced FY08
    level, prosecutors across the country will lose vital training,
    investigative tools, personnel and physical resources, the ability to
    effectively collaborate with other jurisdictions, states and levels of
    government, and the ability to engage in successful crime prevention
    efforts.

      IMPACT OF CONTINUED FUNDING REDUCTIONS IN THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL
                           JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                                   CALIFORNIA

        In my home state of California continued reductions to the Byrne
    Justice Assistance Grants program will have a devastating impact on the
    investigation and prosecution of drug trafficking and various other
    crimes. A survey of county-specific programs illustrates the importance
    of this federal funding.
    Stanislaus County
        The Stanislaus County Drug Enforcement Agency has been an active,
    successful anti-drug abuse (ADA) task force in existence for more than
    34 years. They operate under a supportive Governing Board comprised of
    all the law enforcement leaders in the community and have participation
    from every city agency in the county, along with the Sheriff's
    Department, District Attorney's Office, and Probation Department. As a
    result of this support and commitment to a safer community through drug
    suppression efforts, the Stanislaus task force has remained operational
    despite numerous reductions in grant funding over the past several
    years.
        During the past five years the county has experienced fluctuations
    in OES Byrne Grant (JAG funding) with decreases in excess of 50%. These
    reductions resulted in the loss of critical investigator positions on
    the task force. Further loss of personnel will have a negative impact
    on operations and could limit the task force's ability to conduct some
    large-scale investigations. These investigations are a critical
    component in successfully investigating and identifying DTO's (Drug
    Trafficking Organizations). This will jeopardize the Stanislaus ADA's
    success in controlling and eliminating the major drug trafficking
    organizations responsible for the methamphetamine epidemic throughout
    Stanislaus County and across the nation.
        This essential funding has contributed to recent successes of the
    anti drug abuse task forces. Early this month after a comprehensive
    investigation and weeks of surveillance, a methamphetamine super lab
    was located. Approximately 200 gallons of methamphetamine in solution
    with an estimated street value of over four million dollars were
    seized, in addition to firearms. Over the past six months the ADA has
    arrested several associates of a well known multi-generational drug
    trafficking organization.
        In order for the Stanislaus ADA Enforcement Program to continue
    operating at the same level of sophistication and success, it is
    essential that the Byrne Grant program be funded at adequate levels. It
    is a constant challenge to conduct investigations, which maintain a
    higher level of sophistication/intelligence than that of the drug
    trafficking organizations. With a decrease in funding, resulting in a
    reduction of personnel, the county's investigative abilities will be
    diminished.
    Santa Barbara County
        Santa Barbara County has for many years used these funds as the
    primary funding source for a county-wide narcotics task force. This
    unit is staffed by officers from law enforcement agencies in the
    various jurisdictions. Their mission is to target the major offenders,
    and work in a united effort to benefit the county as a whole. It has
    been quite successful in the past, but with the decreases in funding
    the entire program may be in jeopardy. This task force along with other
    agencies was responsible for implementing the DEC, or drug endangered
    children, program that has served to focus on the children victims of
    drug trafficking and abuse. If the funds are further decreased Santa
    Barbara County may have to eliminate the work of the entire task force.
    Historically, disbanded task forces are found to be extremely difficult
    to reassemble in the future when funding is increased.
    Santa Clara County
        Santa Clara County has two multi-jurisdictional investigative task
    forces funded with Byrne-JAG grants: the Unified Narcotic Enforcement
    Team (UNET) and the Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team
    (SCCSET). Nearly every law enforcement agency in Santa Clara and San
    Benito Counties has law enforcement agents assigned to one of these
    units. A major crimes regional task force, the South Bay METRO, also
    operates in both these counties and others, including San Mateo County.
    The work of these tasks forces and teams significantly reduces the
    amount of illegal drugs on the county's streets and aids in the capture
    of regional and local drug traffickers.
        These task forces have been doing an excellent job and for smaller
    local agencies it is the only way they can receive the quality
    assistance they need in order to make major drug busts. They facilitate
    the transfer of information across and between local, state and federal
    jurisdictions and the sharing of best practices among the participating
    agencies. Between January 2007 and February 2008, the task forces have
    seized 15\1/2\ pounds of methamphetamine with a street value of over
    $750,000.00, 5\1/2\ pounds of cocaine ($199,000.00), \1/2\ pound of tar
    heroin ($20,000.00) and 318 dosage units of MDMA (Ecstasy at 10 to 15
    dollars per tablet). At least six of these investigations had direct
    ties to organized crime groups, such as Nuestra Familia, South
    Vietnamese Gangsters and MS-13. SCCSET also initiated a murder for hire
    investigation, which resulted in an arrest and conviction of the
    perpetrator and prevented a homicide.
        If Byrne-JAG funds are reduced, it is estimated that these task
    forces will be cut by a minimum of 67% severely crippling their ability
    to effectively operate. Law enforcement cannot conduct investigations
    without funding. The local agencies do not have the manpower or the
    resources to tackle these problems on their own. The collaborative work
    must continue and this will in turn reduce the amount of drugs on our
    streets.
    San Bernardino County
        In San Bernardino County the Byrne/JAG funds are used to offset
    designated Street Enforcement and Marijuana Suppression deputy district
    attorneys. Continued reductions in the Byrne-JAG funding will require
    that the department's budget de-fund other positions.
    Ventura County
        Ventura County is fast becoming a supply and distribution point of
    narcotics for much of the state, as well as the western region (i.e.,
    Oregon, Washington, and Nevada).
        During this past year the Ventura County Combined Agency Team
    (VCAT) noticed an increase in outside agencies conducting narcotic
    investigations that have led them directly to Ventura County. There
    have been several occasions where agencies from Los Angeles (LA
    Impact), Orange County (RSNP), San Bernardino (IRNET), San Diego
    (Southwest Border HIDTA), and even San Jose (DEA) have contacted
    investigators in order to advise them that their investigations have
    ties to Ventura County. Many of these investigations have resulted in
    the arrests of members belonging to Drug Trafficking Organizations
    (DTOs), the seizures of narcotics, and the forfeiture of proceeds from
    these DTOs. Many of the Ventura County investigations have led
    investigators out of Ventura County and back to these same
    jurisdictions, i.e., Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties.
    In addition, investigations originating in Ventura County have led
    investigators directly to the source of supply in Baja California
    (Tijuana) and as far north as the state of Washington.
        VCATs primary goal has always been to reduce the impact of illicit
    drugs within Ventura County. Using a multi-jurisdictional collaborative
    approach (i.e., VCAT Task Force) has resulted in a great deal of
    success. For example, within the last few months VCAT has seized over
    50 pounds of methamphetamine, 20 kilos of cocaine, 130 pounds of tar
    heroin, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in narcotic proceeds.
        Continued reductions in Byrne JAG funding, coupled with previous
    years reductions, would significantly impact the county's ability to
    carry out the types of investigations that are currently being
    conducting. The expectant result of a reduction in funding would not
    only impact the narcotic task force and local law enforcement agencies,
    but more importantly, would no doubt create a concomitant effect
    resulting in an increase of drugs and crime in communities, counties,
    states and nation.
        Cuts to the funding such as that which occurred in FY 2008 could
    potentially shut down the task force in Ventura County. At the very
    least, in order to save any investigative positions all ancillary
    expenses would need to be eliminated. This would include such things as
    training, equipment purchases, investigative costs, administrative
    costs, e.g., office space, copy machines, telephones, etc. In addition,
    severe cuts would need to be made to overtime, which would impact the
    quality and outcome of investigations.
        With respect to the elimination of training and equipment, the loss
    of funding in each of these areas would have a catastrophic effect on
    the task force. Training is used to enhance investigators' knowledge,
    skills, and abilities. Training provides a source of networking where
    investigators often meet and discuss the latest DTO trends, case law,
    threats, and the newest types of surveillance equipment necessary to
    stay current in the field. Many of the investigations involve the use
    of cutting edge technology in order to keep pace with the drug
    trafficking organizations. Without adequate funding and training the
    task force could not initiate the types of investigations currently
    being conducted, but instead would be relegated to working street
    drugs, which has a minimal, if any impact at all on drug trafficking
    organizations.
    Alameda County
        In Alameda County the funds from the Byrne JAG program pay for all
    expenses (with the exception of police salaries) for the Alameda County
    Narcotics Task Force. In addition, the funding covers the costs
    associated with dedicating a prosecutor to the task force. Without this
    funding the District Attorney, due to staffing concerns, would be
    unable to assign a prosecutor to the task force. If the reductions
    continue the task force may have to be disbanded. This is the only unit
    in Alameda County that focuses on midlevel and upper level narcotics
    traffickers. In Yuba County a prosecutor is also dedicated to the
    narcotics task force and is in a similar situation as Byrne JAG funds
    are reduced.

                                  II. ALABAMA

    4th Judicial Circuit
        Alabama's 4th Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force is funded by the
    Byrne-JAG program. The 4th Judicial Circuit covers the largest
    geographical area of any other circuit in the State of Alabama. The
    total project cost for FY 2008 is currently set at $306,113.45. The
    state has requested $153,056.72 in Byrne-JAG funds to support this task
    force.
        The Drug Task Force has made a tremendous impact on the drug trade
    in Alabama's 4th Circuit. The number of violent crimes related to drug
    activity is down substantially. This is attributed to the focus by law
    enforcement on the leaders of the narcotics community, the increased
    quality of investigative skills and improved case preparation.
    Prosecutors in the state have learned through various reliable and
    confidential informants that individuals in the narcotics trade fear
    the abilities of the Task Force to operate and make quality cases that
    send drug dealers to the state and federal penitentiaries for long
    periods of time.
        The 4th Circuit of Alabama would be adversely affected if the Drug
    Task Force is eliminated, and without Byrne-JAG assistance, this
    program would go without sufficient funding, ultimately requiring
    dissolution of the task force. Drug dealers will return to operating
    openly, without the fear of being apprehended.

                                  III. ARIZONA

        In Arizona, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission allocates
    Byrne-JAG funding according to a statewide strategy that also
    incorporates state and local dollars to maximize the use of public
    dollars to combat drugs, gangs and violent crime. Together these funds
    financed 16 narcotics task forces; 15 tandem prosecution programs;
    funding to courts to correspond with the increased caseload; funding to
    the state and municipal crime labs to assist with lab work for drug
    analysis and other related costs; and funding for criminal history
    records improvement projects. These programs resulted in the seizure of
    more than 350,000 pounds of illicit drugs; the discovery and
    dismantling of 16 methamphetamine labs; and the arrest of 5,220 drug
    offenders.
        Due to cuts in Byrne-JAG funding, Arizona's state-funded programs
    expect to see a decrease from $5.6 million in FY07 to an estimated $1.7
    million in FY08. Additionally, the state of Arizona is in fiscal crisis
    as the state legislature is trying to counter a $1 billion shortfall in
    revenue. Subsequently, state dollars distributed with Byrne/JAG funds
    under a state-wide strategic plan are at risk of being swept into the
    general fund by the legislature, further crippling the state's enhanced
    drug and gang enforcement program. In Pima County, AZ, budget cuts to
    the Byrne-JAG Grants directly translate to personnel cuts representing
    one full time attorney position and one team in the narcotics unit
    comprised of two attorney positions, one paralegal position and one
    legal secretary position. The current level of staffing is inadequate
    with attorneys carrying unacceptably high case loads. Further
    reductions in staffing levels will result in increases in attorney
    caseloads and a negative impact on the time required to dispose of
    felony cases.
        The U.S. DEA has recognized Arizona as one of the most active drug
    trafficking corridors in the United States. Given the reduction of the
    Byrne and JAG funding over the past four years, the Byrne and JAG
    programs will be reduced to the point of no longer offering effective
    support. The loss of Byrne funding would result in dismantling of
    several rural task forces, leaving tens of thousands of miles without
    coordinated narcotics intervention efforts. Given Arizona's unwanted
    role as a major trafficking corridor for narcotics smuggled from
    international origins, the loss of these task forces have implications
    nationally, not just for Arizona.

                                   IV. HAWAII

    Honolulu City & County
        The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (City and County of
    Honolulu) utilizes Justice Assistance Grants for the Community
    Prosecution Program and the Drug Court Initiative, programs that assist
    with both the prevention of crime and the reduction of recidivism rates
    in this community. Both of these programs have been recognized by the
    Bureau of Justice Assistance as programs that are effective in
    addressing the quality of life issues associated with communities and
    in giving first time drug offenders an alternative to incarceration.
    The JAG grant funds a prosecutor in each of these areas to spearhead
    the programs.
        The Honolulu Community Prosecution's contributions to the
    advancement of justice in the community has been nationally recognized
    with a 2005 Coordination Honor Award (Truancy Sweeps), 2004
    Coordination Honor Award (Weed and Seed Court), 2003Honorable Mention
    Award (Waipahu Juvenile Task Force), and 2000 Judge C. Nils Tavares
    Award (for departmental systemic improvements, including community
    prosecution). In 2007, Honolulu joined forces with other jurisdictions
    on the NCJFCJ Methamphetamine Project in battling the spread of
    methamphetamine houses across rural America.
        The Community Prosecution program remains a key partner in the
    Methamphetamine Abatement Project sponsored by (NCJFCJ), addressing
    concerns of the Oahu Neighborhood Boards, participating in the Youth
    Violence Prevention Initiative of the D.O.E., in accomplishing the
    mission of the federal Weed and Seed Program, in being a presence
    around the table to discuss Drug Endangered Children, ensuring the
    media receives accurate information about Community Prosecution
    campaigns, presenting the Community Prosecution program to community
    groups and providing interagency training sessions for other community
    prosecution partners.
        The Justice Assistance Grant funds used in support of the Drug
    Court assist in the reduction of recidivism rates in the community.
    Since the inception of Drug Court in 1996, 738 defendants have been
    served. Of that number, 453 clients have graduated and only 57 have
    been convicted of new criminal offenses (26 misdemenaors/31 felony
    convictions). The current recidivism rate is 12.6%.
        The loss of Justice Assistance Grant monies would seriously imperil
    the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney's ability to sustain the
    successful Community Prosecution program and Drug Court Initiatives.

                                V. MASSACHUSETTS

        In the last four years alone, the Massachusetts District Attorneys
    and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association have received more
    than $2,500,000 in Byrne-JAG funding for initiatives to promote
    Internet safety, address drug crimes (heroin, oxycontin,
    methamphetamine), fund apprehension teams for violent fugitives,
    address underage drinking, and purchase technology hardware and
    software to link police and district attorney case management systems.

                                  VI. NEW YORK

    King County
        The King County District Attorney's Office (KCDA) in New York
    currently receives five separate Byrne grants totaling approximately
    $1.5 million. These funds are used in not only the investigation and
    prosecution of narcotics and gang-related criminal enterprises, but in
    the prosecution of domestic violence cases. Additionally, these funds
    are used for innovative offender reentry programs like the Drug
    Treatment Alternatives-to-Prison program, the nation's first
    prosecution-ruin program to divert prison-bound felony offenders to
    residential drug treatment.
        Recently, an investigation funded, in part by a Byrne grant, made
    national headlines. These funds were instrumental in KCDA's Operation
    Final Voyage, an investigation that uncovered an international cocaine
    smuggling operation between Panama and the port of New York using
    container ships. This operation resulted in the seizure of cocaine with
    a street value of $10 million, the indictment of seven Panamanian
    nationals, and the dismantling of an operation that hoped to supply
    cocaine to drug dealers throughout the east coast of the United States.

                               VII. PENNSYLVANIA

        The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute (PDAI) received
    $469,035 in Byrne-JAG funding in FY 2007. Most of this funding is used
    by the Institute to conduct statewide training of prosecutors and law
    enforcement personnel. In fact, the PDAI is the only source of
    accredited in-state training for Pennsylvania's 67 district attorneys.
    This training is critical to most Pennsylvania counties which are
    predominantly rural jurisdictions with small prosecutor offices lacking
    in the necessary resources to provide their own training. While
    prosecutors could participate in training sponsored by the Pennsylvania
    Bar Institute, the cost of this training is typically triple that of
    the PDAI; often geared toward defense counsel; and lacks the prosecutor
    networking and interactive component that is found in PDAI trainings.
        The loss of this funding would devastate PDAI--the Byrne-JAG
    funding received in FY 2007 covered 50% of payroll, benefits, and
    overhead for both the PDAI and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys
    Association. Personnel who work primarily on training courses for the
    Institute are compensated almost entirely by the Byrne-JAG program. If
    Byrne-JAG funding is lost or continues to languish, lay-offs and sale
    of realty would become a necessity. The development of well trained
    prosecutors and law enforcement personnel will become impossible not
    only in Pennsylvania but across the nation if these funds continue to
    be reduced or cut entirely.

                                VIII. TENNESSEE

    Shelby County
        A good example of the use of Byrne-JAG funding for prevention
    purposes is a community outreach program being used in Shelby Count
    (Memphis). The District Attorney in this county dedicates one staff
    member (special assistant) to this program which educates the county
    school students and citizens about the severe consequences of violent
    crimes committed with guns and the dangers of both gangs and drugs.
        The ``Do The Right Thing Challenge'' implemented in Memphis City
    and Shelby County schools is an initiative of the National Campaign to
    Stop Violence, a non-profit organization, composed of business,
    community and governmental leaders who have come together to reduce
    youth violence in communities across America. A reduction in homicides
    with firearms is in part attributable to the community outreach work
    done by this special assistant. Additionally, the special assistant is
    responsible for managing the Mentoring Based Truancy Reduction Program
    for the District Attorney's Office. Five Memphis City schools
    participate in the Mentoring Program. In lieu of prosecuting truant
    students, the District Attorney's Office matches qualified mentors with
    the truant students. The mentoring program has shown success with the
    mentored students by their increased school attendance and
    participation in various community activities with their mentors. The
    lack of funding for this special assistant position would have a
    drastic effect on the community. Without JAG funding, the truancy
    program will not have a manager, causing the program to slow or even
    cease. The strong message from the District Attorney's Office about the
    consequences of violent crimes committed with guns, and the dangers of
    gangs and drugs will unfortunately no longer be communicated to the
    community.

                                  IX. VIRGINIA

        The state of Virginia has received $58,278 of Byrne-JAG funding
    annually, which has allowed the implementation of critical training
    programs for prosecutors, which, otherwise, the state would not have
    had the resources to fund. This funding has and will support drug
    prosecution training for 20 prosecutors and 20 law enforcement officers
    each year from 2006-2009. The Drug Prosecution program trains
    prosecutors and law enforcement to work as teams to more efficiently
    and effectively prosecute narcotics violations. Additionally, Byrne-JAG
    funding provides the state with the ability to annually train 40
    prosecutor and law enforcement officer teams in the latest techniques
    to prosecute homicide cases. These programs have been met with
    significant praise by attendees and have been found to provide much
    needed guidance for prosecutors and law enforcement officers as they
    work together to ensure Virginia's communities are crime-free.
        The loss of Byrne-JAG funding would put a halt to these trainings
    in Virginia, which have proven so valuable to prosecutors and law
    enforcement throughout the state, ultimately stifling their ability to
    ensure public safety in Virginia's communities.

                                  X. WISCONSIN

    Anoka County
        With Byrne-JAG funding, Anoka County has dedicated a prosecutor to
    the county drug task force. The county has found that direct
    interaction between prosecutors and drug task force members, results in
    successful drug prosecutions which constitute about one third of the
    county's caseload. The county has received $49,400 annually in Byrne-
    JAG funding to finance this task force.
        If Byrne-JAG funding is eliminated, there will be less of an
    emphasis on drug prosecutions and a loss of direct contact with
    prosecutors during the investigation of drug cases.

                                   CONCLUSION

        On behalf of the nation's prosecutors, I would like to thank the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to share my views on the Byrne-JAG
    program and I would urge the Subcommittee to take the necessary steps
    to ensure the authorization of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
    Grants at the FY 2006 levels ($1.095 billion) through Fiscal Year 2012.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
        Sheriff Webre?

    TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF CRAIG WEBRE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SHERIFFS'
                      ORGANIZATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA

        Sheriff Webre. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of
    the Committee.
        My name is Craig Webre. I am the sheriff of Lafourche
    Parish, Louisiana, and president of the National Sheriffs'
    Association, representing over 3,000 elected sheriffs and more
    than 22,000 law enforcement professionals. I appear before you
    today to discuss the necessity for Byrne/JAG among State and
    local law enforcement agencies and the urgent need to
    reauthorize funding levels through fiscal year 2012.
        Sheriffs play a unique role in the criminal justice system.
    Beyond providing traditional policing services, sheriffs also
    manage local jails and often provide court security. Over 99
    percent of the sheriffs are elected and, oftentimes, serve as
    the chief law enforcement officers of their counties, giving us
    a keen understanding of the needs of the criminal justice
    system in the local communities we serve.
        The purpose of Byrne/JAG is to assist State and local law
    enforcement in combating crime in their communities. Primarily,
    this task has been accomplished through the establishment of
    multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces. Additionally,
    Byrne/JAG funding has been used for community crime prevention
    programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecutorial
    initiatives, and many other local crime control and prevention
    programs.
        Over the last several years, we have seen dramatic
    decreases in Byrne/JAG funding from a high of nearly $900
    million in fiscal year 2003 to $170 million in fiscal year
    2008. The funding cut in fiscal year 2008 Omnibus bill, a 67
    percent decrease, represents the most significant funding cut
    to drug-fighting initiatives in the last 25 years. This will
    result in as many as half of the longstanding
    multijurisdictional drug task forces shutting down as of July 1
    of this year, and the remaining task forces will face
    significantly reduced operational effectiveness.
        Gangs, drug dealers, and other violent criminals are
    certain to regain a stronghold in the area of narcotics
    trafficking and distribution. Moreover, the inability to
    sustain drug task forces will lead to the loss of veteran
    members possessing years of institutional knowledge, the loss
    of intelligence databases, and the loss of informants.
        The drastic reduction of Byrne/JAG, and other essential
    programs, such as COPS, places an insurmountable burden upon
    State and local law enforcement. As funding for law enforcement
    continues to decrease, we continue to see an increase in crime.
    The numbers are there to prove that this is already happening.
        Additionally, assaults on police officers have likewise
    increased. The level of violence is now bleeding into areas
    where it has never been seen before. One week ago, I received
    the now infamous 3 a.m. phone call with the news of a triple
    homicide that had occurred in Lafourche Parish, a residential
    bedroom community. Three individuals, who themselves had been
    arrested in the past by the Lafourche Parish
    Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force, were ambushed as they sat
    in a parked vehicle. More than 20 rounds from an AK-47 assault
    rifle were pumped into the late-model Mustang, and the
    occupants had no chance to escape from their death chamber.
        The cuts to Byrne/JAG could not come at a worst time. Given
    the fact that hundreds of potentially violent federally
    convicted drug dealers are being released from prison pursuant
    to mandates of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, these offenders
    will soon flood our towns, cities, and counties ready to
    reestablish their turf.
        Some have said that the problems created by street corner
    drug dealers are limited in scope and, therefore, it is a State
    and local issue with no role for the Federal Government. The
    fallacy of this proposition lies in the fact that the success
    of multijurisdictional task forces in reducing the
    proliferation of backyard meth labs has resulted in the
    creation of super meth labs in Mexico and the importation of
    meth into the United States.
        Also, the World Wide Web presents endless opportunities for
    drugs and illegal substances to be brought into the country
    from around the world, and highway interdiction units have
    demonstrated the vast nature of networking of interstate
    trafficking.
        In addition to restoring the fiscal year 2008 funding for
    Byrne/JAG, I urge Congress to reauthorize funding for Byrne/JAG
    through fiscal year 2012 in the amount of $1.1 billion per
    year, which will enable existing task forces to continue
    operations and the opportunity for new task forces to start up.
        I would like to thank Congressman Henry Johnson of Georgia
    and the 53 co-sponsors for supporting Byrne/JAG and introducing
    H.R. 3546.
        Finally, I would like to propose the Committee give serious
    consideration to increasing Byrne/JAG allocations to rural
    communities, which, by my earlier example, now face big city
    problems. Currently, funding is allocated to each area on the
    national crime violent reports. Although rural areas may not
    have violent crime rates competitive with suburban and urban
    areas, this does not mean that rural areas do not have
    significant crime problems.
        In closing, thank you for the opportunity to come before
    you this morning and express our concerns. I hope I have
    conveyed to you the dire situation that sheriffs are faced with
    across the country and how critical the Byrne/JAG Program is to
    us and our local and State counterparts.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Webre follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Craig Webre

        Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is
    Craig Webre and I currently serve as the Sheriff of Lafourche Parish,
    Louisiana and President of the National Sheriffs' Association. The
    National Sheriffs' Association represents over 3,000 elected sheriffs
    across the country and more than 22,000 law enforcement professionals,
    making us one of the largest law enforcement associations in the
    Nation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the necessity for the Byrne JAG program among state
    and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the urgent need to
    reauthorize funding levels through Fiscal Year 2012.
        As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in our criminal
    justice system. In addition to providing traditional policing within
    their respective counties, sheriffs also manage local jails and are
    responsible for providing court security. Over 99% of the sheriffs are
    elected and, oftentimes, serve as the chief law enforcement officer of
    their counties. Consequently, we have a keen understanding of the needs
    of our criminal justice system, as well as of the local communities we
    serve.
        In the early 1990's, Congress joined in a partnership with local
    law enforcement to provide assistance with hiring new officers and
    combating crime throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, in recent years,
    the federal government has strayed from its commitment to local and
    State law enforcement, particularly in regards to Byrne JAG.
        Byrne JAG is named in memory of Officer Edward Byrne, a rookie with
    the New York City Police Department. On February 26, 1988, Officer
    Byrne was protecting the home of a witness in a narcotics case, when he
    was shot five times in the head at point-blank range by drug dealers.
    Officer Byrne was only 22 years old when he was murdered.
        The purpose of Byrne JAG has been simple: to provide assistance to
    state and local law enforcement to combat crime in their communities.
    Primarily, this task has been accomplished through the establishment of
    multi-jurisdictional drug and gang task forces. Additionally, Byrne JAG
    funding has been used for community crime prevention programs,
    substance abuse treatment programs, prosecutorial initiatives, and many
    other local crime control and prevention programs. Currently, Byrne JAG
    is the only formula grant program that is available to local law
    enforcement.
        Sheriffs use Byrne JAG funding in a multitude of ways. While the
    primary usage is to operate the multi-jurisdictional drug task forces,
    sheriffs also use Byrne JAG to purchase vital law enforcement
    technology and equipment; to provide crime prevention education to
    their communities; and to institute School Resource Officers in schools
    throughout their communities. Byrne JAG has enabled state and local law
    enforcement to fund many prevention and intervention programs which,
    while authorized by Congress, have not received specific program
    funding.
        Over the last several years, state and local law enforcement has
    seen a significant and dramatic decrease in funding for Byrne JAG, from
    nearly $900 million in FY'03 to $170 million in FY'08. The funding cut
    in the FY'08 Omnibus Bill slashing Byrne JAG funding from $520 million
    in FY'07 to the current level of $170 million, a 67% decrease--
    represents the single, most significant adverse action leveled against
    crime fighting initiatives in the last 25 years.
        The virtual elimination of funding for FY'08 will result in as many
    as half of the long-standing multi-jurisdictional drug task forces to
    shut down as of July 1st of this year. The remainder of the task forces
    will face significantly reduced operational effectiveness. The
    foreseeable ramifications of these actions will result in gangs and
    drug dealers and other violent criminals regaining a stronghold in the
    area of narcotics trafficking and distribution. The inability to
    sustain multi-jurisdictional task forces will lead to the loss of
    veteran members who have institutional knowledge, the loss of
    intelligence databases, and the loss of a network of informants.
        Once these vital tools are gone, the doors locked and the lights
    turned off, it will take years to reestablish and recreate them. The
    loss of 365 days of funding will create problems that will last for
    years. In that period of time, the dismantling of proven, productive
    and successful crime fighting systems will put us at a tremendous
    disadvantage while giving people in the drug trafficking business the
    opportunity to do even more harm in our communities.
        The drastic reduction of Byrne JAG, as well as other essential law
    enforcement funding such as the COPS Programs, places an insurmountable
    burden upon state and local law enforcement--to fight the rise in crime
    with limited resources. If funding for law enforcement continues to
    decrease, this country can only expect to see an increase in crime.
        The numbers are there to prove that is already happening. We are
    starting to see an increase in all categories of violent crime. After
    decades of reductions in violent crime statistics, we can see a direct
    correlation between funding cuts and the rise in violence. Moreover,
    assaults on police officers have likewise increased (See attachments,
    Exhibits 1, 2, 3).
        The level of violence is now bleeding into areas where we have
    never seen it before. One week ago, I received that now infamous ``3 AM
    phone call,'' with the news of a triple homicide that had occurred in
    my Parish, in a residential, bedroom community. I have provided photos
    depicting the graphic and violent nature of their deaths which is
    becoming increasingly common among individuals in the drug trade.
        Three individuals, who themselves had been arrested in the past by
    the Lafourche Parish Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force, were ambushed as
    they sat in a parked vehicle. The late model Mustang, belonging to the
    sister of one of the victims, became the final resting place for
    Chauncey Adams, Brad Bourda and Terry Hester. More than twenty rounds
    from an AK-47 assault rifle were pumped into the vehicle--through the
    windows. Adams, Bourda and Hester had no chance to escape from their
    death chamber. When the shooting stopped, the interior of the vehicle
    is best described as something straight out of the ``Texas Chainsaw
    Massacre''--blood and brain matter plastered throughout.
        It is often said that drug addicts and drug distributors do not
    live long enough to collect old age pensions because if the drugs don't
    kill you, the lifestyle does. One of the suspects in the cold-blooded
    case I have just described told my detectives just that, quoting here
    ``It's either we gonna kill them, or they gonna kill us.'' Again, the
    potential for violence is ramping up, as Washington considers taking
    away the money to combat the problem.
        In the course of the past fifty-years, our criminal justice
    system's response to combating drugs has evolved from one of primarily
    deep undercover narcotics enforcement operations resulting in long,
    harsh jail sentences to one of a comprehensive strategy encompassing
    prevention, intervention, enforcement and treatment. In particular, we
    have seen the development of successful drug treatment courts, many of
    which are funded with Byrne JAG dollars.
        The average cost of treating an addict through drug court is $2,000
    per year (versus an average of $23,000 for incarceration, according to
    the Office of National Drug Court Policy) and provides real hope for
    that person while aiding them to become a law abiding, contributing
    member of society. Effective, aggressive enforcement of our drug laws
    is a necessary prerequisite for the success and optimism of drug
    courts. Hence, if task forces are reduced or disappear completely, you
    will see a companion reduction in the number of people availing
    themselves of the assistance drug courts provide in helping addicts
    turn their lives around.
        While there is never a good time to reduce law enforcement funding,
    the cuts to Byrne JAG could not come at a worse time, given the fact
    that hundreds of potentially violent convicted drug dealers are being
    released from prison pursuant to mandates of the U.S. Sentencing
    Commission. These offenders represent federally convicted drug dealers
    from the most violent sector of drug offenders and will soon flood our
    towns, cities and counties ready to reestablish their turf. Moreover,
    if, as some suspect we are on the brink of a recession, you can rest
    assured that criminals and drug law offenders will not be taking a
    recess. The problem will only get worse.
        Some have said problems created by the street corner drug dealers
    are limited in scope and therefore, it is a state and local issue with
    no role for the Federal government. It is true the impact is felt on a
    local level, but the source has a national nexus in a number of ways.
    In part, the success of multi-jurisdictional task forces in reducing
    the proliferation of backyard meth labs has resulted in the creation of
    super meth labs in other countries, particularly in Mexico. In turn we
    are seeing a resulting importation of meth into our country.
        Second, the World Wide Web presents another opportunity for drugs
    and illegal substances to be transported from state to state and to be
    brought into the country from around the world for ultimate
    distribution again into our towns, cities and counties. Highway
    interdiction units have demonstrated the vast nature of the network of
    interstate trafficking and transportation which again clearly
    implicates the need for Federal jurisdiction and dollars.
        In addition to restoring the FY'08 funding for Byrne JAG, I urge
    Congress to reauthorize funding for Byrne JAG through Fiscal Year 2012,
    in the amount of nearly $1.1 billion. The reauthorization of Byrne JAG
    at $1.1 billion will enable existing task forces to continue
    operations, and the opportunity for new task forces to start up. I
    would like to thank Congressman Henry Johnson of Georgia, as well as
    the 53 cosponsors, for supporting Byrne JAG and for introducing H.R.
    3546. However, it is critical Congress understands that while
    reauthorization of Byrne JAG is important, Congress must also
    appropriate funding for Byrne JAG at a more significant level than it
    has been allocated at in recent years.
        Finally, I would like to propose the Committee give serious
    consideration to increasing Byrne JAG allocations to rural communities
    which, by my earlier example, now face ``big city'' problems.
    Currently, funding is allocated to each area based on national violent
    crime reports. Although rural areas may not have a violent crime rate
    competitive with suburban and urban areas, this does not mean that
    rural areas do not have significant crime problems nor does it mean
    that they do not rely on the funding. In fact, rural areas may rely on
    funding from Byrne JAG more than larger areas, as it is the only source
    of funding which enables the rural area to combat crime.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and
    express my concerns. I hope I have conveyed to you the dire situation
    that sheriffs are faced with across the country and how critical the
    Byrne JAG program is to us. The strain caused by limited funds for
    Byrne JAG in the face of increasing violence and drug abuse in our
    communities should be a major inducement for government and law
    enforcement alike to share the responsibility for keeping our
    communities safe.

                                   __________

                                  ATTACHMENTS

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Webre.
        Director Rueker?

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

        Mr. Rueker. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Scott,
    Ranking Member Gohmert, and Members of the Subcommittee.
        My name is Ronald Rueker, and I am the director of public
    safety for the City of Sherwood, Oregon. I also serve as
    president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here with my
    distinguished colleagues today to discuss this critical issue
    facing State, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies. In
    the United States, there are more than 18,000 law enforcement
    agencies and well over 700,000 officers who patrol our State
    highways and the streets of our communities each and every day.
        During the last 15 years, these officers and the law
    enforcement agencies they serve have made tremendous strides in
    reducing the level of crime and violence in our communities.
    This has been accomplished in part because these officers have
    an intimate knowledge of their communities and because they
    have developed close working relationships with the citizens
    they serve.
        Yet, despite the best efforts of our Nation's law
    enforcement officers, the disturbing truth is that each year in
    the United States, well over a million of our fellow citizens
    are victims of violent crime. Unfortunately, in the last 2
    years, we have seen a steady increase in the rate of violent
    crime in the United States in some communities, and while there
    are many different theories as to why violent crime is
    increasing in these communities after years of often double-
    digit declines, there is one fact that all can agree upon: no
    place is immune.
        What were once considered problems of our major
    metropolitan areas--drug addiction and distribution, violent
    crime, gangs, and poverty--have migrated to suburban and even
    rural locations. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report,
    cities with populations from 25,000 to 50,000 are seeing the
    fastest-growing incidents, and from 2004 through 2006, the
    violent crime rate in these communities rose by more than 7
    percent. In towns with populations from 10,000 to 25,000, the
    homicide rate went up by 9.4 percent over the same 2-year
    period.
        It is telling that this increase in crime in America,
    violent and otherwise, corresponds to the substantial decline
    in funding for local and State law enforcement from Federal
    Government assistance programs. In the years since 2003, the
    very programs that allowed State, tribal, and local law
    enforcement to combat crime in our communities, such as the
    Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, have
    suffered significant budget reductions, and, as has been
    mentioned, in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus, Byrne and JAG was
    funded at just $170 million, a decrease of 68 percent.
        Additionally, the Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget
    proposal calls for the complete elimination of the Byrne
    program. Regrettably, these cuts only continue a trend that
    began in fiscal year 2003 of significant funding reductions for
    law enforcement assistance funding at the Department of
    Justice. In fact, when compared to the fiscal year 2002 funding
    level of $3.8 billion, the Administration's fiscal year 2009
    proposal represents a reduction of more than $3.4 billion, or
    90 percent.
        I will not go into a complete analysis of the budget, but
    if it is your pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a
    copy of the IACP's Budget Analysis for the record.
        Mr. Scott. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Rueker. Thank you.
        I would, however, like to express the IACP's profound
    concern over the impact that these cuts have had on the Byrne
    and JAG. It is the IACP's belief that the Byrne and JAG Program
    played an integral role in our ability to combat crime and
    protect our communities.
        For example, as is mentioned in my written statement, the
    value of Byrne and JAG Program was aptly demonstrated earlier
    this year when 41 State drug enforcement agencies participated
    in Operation Byrne Blitz, a 1-day enforcement effort which
    resulted in the arrest of 4,220 individuals and seizure of vast
    quantities of illicit narcotics.
        This successful effort was made possible by the Byrne and
    JAG funds provided to State, tribal, and local law enforcement
    agencies with the necessary resources to partner successfully.
    Unfortunately, if the Byrne and JAG Program is severely reduced
    or eliminated, the effectiveness of proven and successful law
    enforcement in crime reduction programs will suffer.
        For example, in my home State of Oregon, if the Byrne and
    JAG funds continue to decline as they have in years past, these
    programs will be severely reduced or eliminated: all six of our
    multijurisdictional drug task forces that cover all of Oregon's
    36 counties--these task forces target those engaged in the
    production, distribution, and the use of methamphetamine,
    heroin, marijuana, crack cocaine, and ecstasy; four of our most
    successful domestic and family violence prevention programs;
    two alcohol and drug treatment programs; 11 drug court
    programs; four juvenile justice prevention programs.
        In addition, some agencies in the U.S. will no longer be
    able to afford sobriety checkpoint equipment, portable radios,
    less-than-lethal technologies, and training materials and
    equipment. Simply stated, reductions to the Byrne and JAG
    Program have the potential to weaken severely the capabilities
    of law enforcement agencies nationwide, reducing their ability
    to mount aggressive and effective crime prevention and crime
    reduction programs. Sadly, this will undoubtedly lead to more
    crime and violence in our hometowns.
        Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased
    to answer any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rueker follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Ronald C. Ruecker

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Rueker.
        Mr. Brooks?

      TESTIMONY OF RONALD E. BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL NARCOTIC
           OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION COALITION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA

        Mr. Brooks. Chairman Scott, Judge Gohmert, Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
    importance of H,R. 3546, and I want to thank Mr. Johnson as the
    author and for his leadership on this issue.
        I also want to thank the Subcommittee for focusing
    attention on the Byrne/JAG formula program. It is the single
    most important component for sustaining multijurisdictional
    drug enforcement in America. The Byrne formula program provides
    only a small amount of the overall funding that is dedicated to
    State and local drug enforcement, but its role is pivotal in
    allowing us to fight the scourge of drugs and gangs in our
    communities.
        Funding for Byrne provides the necessary incentive for
    multijurisdictional coordination in combating the drug
    epidemic. It is this coordination that has improved the
    effectiveness of drug enforcement and has helped reduce drug
    abuse, meth labs, and violent crime, and it is the reason that
    97 percent of all drug arrests in America are made by State and
    local cops.
        Drug traffickers are not bound by borders of cities,
    States, or nations. Criminal mobility is why
    multijurisdictional task forces are critical in battling the
    threat to our security. Multijurisdictional task forces help
    reduce the impact of drugs and firearm trafficking, fight gangs
    and organized crime in America's community by leveraging
    information and resources to provide a real-time advantage for
    law enforcement. Thanks to Byrne-funded task forces, drug
    investigators are co-located and working cooperatively in
    cities and towns and rural communities throughout America.
        Recent proposals to reduce or eliminate the Byrne/JAG
    program are reckless and disturbing. Drug enforcement was dealt
    a devastating blow when the original Byrne program and local
    law enforcement block grants were consolidated into the Byrne
    Justice Assistance Grant with a significant reduction in
    funding. When the Byrne/JAG Program was reduced in the recent
    Omnibus from $520 million to just $170 million, a cut of almost
    two-thirds, my colleagues across the Nation were stunned. If
    these cuts remain intact, hundreds of multi-jurisdictional drug
    task forces will be forced to close.
        During my 34-year career, I have seen more drug-caused
    death and devastation than I care to think about. I have pulled
    too many children from dens of neglect. I have seen too many
    who have died from drug overdose or the violent crime that is
    always present when drugs are near.
        On 9/11, 3,000 Americans were murdered by terrorists from
    foreign lands. The intensity and sheer evil of that attack was
    a wake-up call to the world. Ironically, the events of 9/11
    overshadowed the chemical attacks that occur each day in cities
    and towns in the form of illegal drug trafficking. Drug
    overdoses kill more than 30,000 Americans each year, and the
    impact on our economy is estimated to be more than $180 billion
    annually.
        But those stark numbers do not paint the complete picture.
    The unrelenting attack by international cartels, gangs, meth
    cookers, and neighborhood drug dealers is a tragedy that
    touches every family. How can we quantify the lives ruined,
    opportunities lost, and heartache caused by drug abuse?
        Since 9/11, no child in American has been injured or killed
    in a terrorist attack, but most children will be asked to try
    illegal drugs. Each child will struggle with the choice that
    has the real potential to ruin their life, a choice that
    wrongly made will cause them to sacrifice health, mental state,
    education, and family.
        Serving as a narcotics officer is not only my job; it is a
    moral responsibility. In my 34 years, no program has enabled me
    to carry out that responsibility more effectively than Byrne.
    If Congress does not embrace H.R. 3546 and if it does not
    restore funding for Byrne/JAG in the fiscal year 2009
    appropriations, then I and my colleagues will be prevented from
    doing what we know works and, more importantly, what we know is
    right.
        Because of the last-minute cuts to Byrne/JAG in the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, a diverse group of law
    enforcement treatment, prevention, corrections, and victims'
    rights groups, labor organizations, and grassroots groups have
    come together in an effort to restore funding for Byrne/JAG. In
    recent letters submitted to the House leadership, 30 of those
    groups representing almost a million combined members of public
    servants and community activists requested funding to offset
    the severe cuts to Byrne in fiscal year 2008.
        In addition to those associations, a bipartisan group of
    218 Members of the House signed a letter sent to leadership and
    appropriators requesting $430 million in emergency funding for
    Byrne/JAG. Additionally, a bipartisan group of 56 senators
    signed a similar letter.
        This broad show of support for a Federal program is
    extremely rare, and it shows how deep the support for this
    program is. I would like to submit those letters for the
    record.
        Mr. Scott. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Brooks. On behalf of America's narcotic officers, I
    urge the Members of this Subcommittee who have been leaders in
    protecting programs that fight back against drug traffickers
    and gang violence to do everything in your power to reauthorize
    Byrne/JAG and to assist us in ensuring that it is appropriated
    at adequate levels.
        Mr. Chairman, Judge Gohmert, and Mr. Johnson, I want to
    thank you for inviting me to share the views of America's
    narcotic officers, the 69,000 narcotic officers that I
    represent, and we certainly appreciate your service to America.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Ronald E. Brooks

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
        We will now have questions for the panel, and I will
    recognize myself for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Herraiz.
        You indicated that the Administration is recommending the
    combination of several programs into just four programs? Did I
    understand you right?
        Mr. Herraiz. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Do you need legislation to do that?
        Mr. Herraiz. It is listed under the appropriation. There
    has been no legislation introduced.
        Mr. Scott. And would there be as much money appropriated in
    the combined as it is in the 70 different programs you are
    consolidating or----
        Mr. Herraiz. The programs----
        Mr. Scott [continuing]. Do you propose to cut the funding
    overall?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, the programs themselves that are
    currently funded under the Byrne/JAG Program would still be
    eligible for funding under this initiative. The total dollar
    figure is represented at $200 million for the Byrne Public
    Safety Initiative.
        Mr. Scott. And what is the total appropriation in the four
    that would be left compared to the 70 that you started off
    with?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the figure for
    the Juvenile Justice and Child Safety category and the Violence
    Against Women. I am familiar with the Violent Crime Partnership
    Initiative which is $200 million and the Byrne Public Safety
    which is $200 million. Those are the two pieces that fall
    within the Bureau of Justice Assistance. That would be a total
    of $400 million.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. I was a State legislator during the Reagan
    administration, and frequently you would have a lot of programs
    consolidated, and each of the programs would be told, ``There
    is plenty of money for your program,'' but the total amount of
    money was cut. So we want to make sure that--if you are
    cutting, we would like to know exactly where you propose those
    cuts, or if there is more money, we would like to know that
    too.
        Now which of the grant programs are discretionary and which
    are formula based?
        Mr. Herraiz. In the President's 2009 recommended budget,
    all of the programs are identified as discretionary,
    competitive, flexible grant programs.
        Mr. Scott. And in the awarding of grants, does politics,
    favoritism, or religion trump evidenced-based approaches or
    not?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, we operate, certainly at the
    Bureau of Justice Assistance, a very open, competitive, and
    flexible program, as we have administered the funds that you
    allowed us last year under the Byrne discretionary program as
    well.
        Mr. Scott. Is that, no, it does not---- [Laughter.]
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, there is no politics in the
    decision-making within the Bureau of Justice Assistance for
    those grants.
        Mr. Scott. And religion does not play a part?
        Mr. Herraiz. No, sir, it does not.
        Mr. Scott. And favoritism?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, no, sir.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. McDaniel, you indicated that Byrne/JAG funding is an
    effective model. What is effective about that model?
        Mr. McDaniel. Well, Mr. Chairman, you will find that you
    will have a prosecuting attorney who is dedicated to a task
    force and you will have multijurisdictional resources dedicated
    to that model.
        You talk about your experience in the State legislature,
    and I remember mine as well. But, earlier than that, I was a
    police officer, and it would be very difficult to dedicate
    myself to investigating, for instance, a crack house where we
    knew that there was a great deal of trafficking going out of
    it, when I had all these other responsibilities to attend to,
    the radio would go off. Those are real-world impediments to
    true narcotics investigation.
        When you have a dedicated task force, that does not happen,
    and they are able to pool their resources, work together as a
    team, and they should be accountable to a prosecutor who is
    accountable in Arkansas to the people. They are elected, and
    they are deputies.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I guess the same question of a number of
    people. Why can't that be done without Federal funds?
        Mr. McDaniel. Simply the resources are not available. They
    are strapped. I had committed when I was running for attorney
    general in Arkansas to doing just what I am doing today, which
    is to come and encourage Congress to renew these funds. If we
    do not have them renewed, I think that it is of paramount
    importance that we try to do as much as we can on the State
    level to fill the void because the void will be filled by those
    who want to do harm in our communities. But the truth is the
    States are hurting as well.
        Mr. Scott. And how can we make sure that there is effective
    oversight for these multijurisdictional task forces, and who is
    kind of in charge?
        Mr. McDaniel. I think we have to follow the money. In
    Arkansas, I sit on a council that is responsible or reviewing
    the applications from each of the drug task forces, and then
    we, of course, are responsible to the Justice Department, and I
    think that increased oversight and accountability at all levels
    would be important, and I certainly would support that. I just
    agree with Congressman Johnson that withdrawing funding would
    be the wrong course.
        Mr. Scott. Well, who should do the oversight?
        Mr. McDaniel. I think we should do it at each level and
    oversee, frankly, one another. I think that our drug council in
    Arkansas has a responsibility not just to review the
    applications made by these drug task forces and other entities
    that seek the money. I think we should look over what is their
    structure like, how are they screening officers to be a part of
    the program, not just how are they spending it.
        We have bean counters to make sure that money is not being
    stolen, but how are they actually implementing their programs?
    Are they working with State and Federal law enforcement, or are
    they simply targeting small-time petty operators?
        Mr. Scott. And who should do that oversight?
        Mr. McDaniel. In Arkansas, I think, again, it should be the
    elected prosecutor who is answerable directly to the people,
    who has to dedicate one deputy to a multijurisdictional task
    force. I think it should be the drug council on which the
    attorney general's office, the State police, the drug czar, and
    the governor's office, and others oversee the applications, and
    I think the Department of Justice.
        Mr. Scott. If everybody is doing oversight, sometimes no
    one does the oversight. Sometimes it is a little better if you
    designate one person, but we will follow through on that.
        Judge Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank each of you for your testimony. It is helpful.
        Sometimes in some of these Federal programs, we set up a
    formula whereby the offices that are doing the poorest job,
    have the poorest workers in them, show that they should get
    more money than the most efficient, most effective offices, and
    I like it when we can avoid that happening so that if there is
    an office that is efficient, that does need help, we get them
    money.
        So let me ask Mr. Herraiz is there some way to avoid that
    with the Byrne/JAG Program?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gohmert, we are
    excited about the opportunity we had with the $75 million this
    year for the targeting violent crime task forces that we
    established. We took in developing that initiative all the best
    that we saw with the Byrne/JAG program over the years.
        I have had the opportunity to also administer the funds at
    the State level here in Washington and actually being a Byrne/
    JAG recipient at the local level. So a lot of experience and
    partnership amongst various agencies here on this panel as well
    went into the ideas behind the development of the initiative--
    focusing on ideas of intelligence-led policing, trying to look
    at data-driven models so that we are targeting money in the
    community where the greatest crime need is.
        We have various communities across the country, and
    Attorney General Gonzales put out an 18-city tour. He went to
    various communities to look at crime rates where they were up
    or down, and what were some of the causes, what were locals
    really seeing, because really for us to prescribe a program
    here in Washington that does not have the input of the locals
    addressing their specific crime need would really be less than
    worthy.
        So, in indentifying those needs and those issues, one of
    the things we found is that the best way to affect change in
    public safety in that community is to really allow a program to
    address local needs and concerns and to be targeted for that
    need.
        Over 106 communities are receiving those targeting violent
    crime task force partnership initiatives where they decide
    themselves what their crime issue is and what they want to
    address. Preliminary results for that program so far show that
    in just 2 months--because the program just kicked off in
    January--we see over 1,700 felony arrests; gang member arrests
    for violent felonies, 454; heroin seized in kilograms, 127;
    legal firearms seized, 1,600; and the stats go on.
        We have built in new performance measures with this
    initiative to take again what we have not seen in success of
    other traditional programs that we have tried to address in
    crime fighting to develop this initiative.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, it sounds good. And, you know, those
    obviously that are familiar with the program know it has done a
    lot of good.
        But, apparently, as the Chairman pointed out, there is a
    bad egg every now and then that uses things inappropriately. It
    is because they are human, and one thing we know is, no matter
    how wonderful you are, if there is not adequate accountability,
    you are given temptations you should not have to face.
        But I do appreciate all the testimony. I would just like to
    submit to each of you--I mean, you each represent not only your
    own office, but most of you represent many other people as
    well--you do not have to wait until you are invited to come
    testify to give us feedback on something. If you are unhappy
    about something, then just bombard Chairman Scott's office with
    messages. [Laughter.]
        Seriously, though, I mean, if there is a problem on
    legislation, oftentimes, you know about it or hear about it
    before we do even. There was an example in the last Congress. I
    had a court security bill, and I was asked by the
    Administration would we mind sticking in a provision that would
    allow the DOJ or the attorney general to just select U.S.
    marshals instead of the normal presidential appointment. I
    thought, ``Well, if the White House wants it, if they do not
    mind giving up that, if that is going to be easier, fine.''
        I did not realize, apparently, the National Sheriffs got
    all upset. There were e-mails and wild calls. Somebody called
    my local sheriff and said, ``Do you know this guy?'' He said,
    ``Sure.'' So, anyway, I get the message. It turns out what they
    were doing is they were going to end any chance any sheriff or
    chief of police or DA, anybody, ever had of being a U.S.
    marshal because you would have to be within the civil service
    area already.
        Well, as soon as I heard that was the deal, I pulled it out
    of the bill, I am not sticking that in there, and I told my
    sheriff, ``What the hell? The president of the National
    Sheriffs they do not have to send all this stuff all over the
    country. Just give me a call. Let me know if there is a
    problem. We want to work with them,'' you know.
        And so I am giving that anecdotally to tell you most of the
    people in Congress--and I know everybody up here now--we do not
    want to make your life more miserable. We want to try to work
    together to make things happen. So, when you hear or you learn
    that something is a problem, just let us know as we do want to
    work with you.
        And, if I could just make this final comment, Chairman, bad
    things may happen, people may use some money inappropriately,
    and I hate to put any more pressure than this Mr. Herraiz, but
    if we get embarrassed, it is just the way it is. We are going
    to look for somebody to embarrass. And guess who that is
    probably going to be? So thank you for being here.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Georgia, the sponsor of the bill, Mr.
    Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And from the outset, I would like to say that there is not
    many other occupations that are more worthy than going into law
    enforcement, and law enforcement helps to keep our safe
    streets, which is something that all citizens demand, but,
    unfortunately, we do not really like to pay for it.
        But I will say that being a locally elected official before
    I came to Congress, I was aware as a county commissioner of the
    strains on our budget and how we would have to make choices in
    terms of how much to pay our police officers, how much goes to
    law enforcement, and with declining resources to this, it makes
    it very difficult.
        Just this past January, we had two police officers in
    DeKalb County who were shot down in the line of their work, but
    they were working extra hours security because the county is
    not paying them such that they would be able to go home and
    enjoy, you know, some time with their family. They had to work
    20, 30 hours extra per week just to make ends meet, and so it
    is a really difficult situation to be a law enforcement
    officer, and then you may never be able to come back home
    again.
        And so with this very worthy and honorable profession that
    we are not paying them enough to do, it makes it important that
    there is funding from the Federal level to help streamline and
    make more efficient the efforts of our local law enforcement
    officials. I want to thank all of the law enforcement officials
    for what you have done to help keep our streets safe.
        And I want to ask Mr. Herraiz, given the difficulties of
    State and local governments to fund law enforcement operations,
    in your testimony, you point to a nearly 60 percent decline in
    crime from 1993 to 2005, and you credit the Byrne/JAG grants
    for at least some of that success, yet you also endorse
    slashing the program which would essentially hurt those
    efforts.
        How do you reconcile those two positions, and also would
    you answer for me how will these competitive grants that you
    are advocating for be awarded? Will they be awarded from a
    local perspective or from a national perspective?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Johnson, I
    appreciate the opportunity to answer that. As it relates to the
    Byrne/JAG Program in particular and the efforts that we have
    put forth to address those issues of violent crime, over the
    years, we have seen--and I have been in this position for a
    little over 4 years now. Before, as I mentioned, I was at the
    State level and then previously at the local level, so I have
    seen the different facets of Byrne.
        And I will readily admit, in my tenure on the other side, I
    oftentimes did not submit the best reports to communicate the
    value of the criminal justice efforts in particularly the
    Byrne/JAG Program. When I came to Washington, I clearly saw
    within my agency that the information that we were getting was
    not as strong as it could be to really tell a story of the
    value of resources, and without that, many of the issues that
    you have addressed here today surfaced.
        We recognized that we needed a multifaceted approach. We
    recognized that we needed accountability. So we engaged
    discussion with many of the partners here at this table to
    really help define what it is that we need, how do we
    communicate the real value of these initiatives. We recognized
    that we had----
        Mr. Johnson. Well----
        Mr. Herraiz. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, I must interrupt you, and I want to focus
    you on that particular question. How will this new structure
    and the decreased funding that you are proposing help to stem
    the tide of crime which is growing in our communities, which
    will continue to accelerate, given the deteriorating economic
    condition which the country faces, drug trafficking, crimes of
    violence, property crime is going to go up as a result of
    people being strapped for funding, if you will? So I am talking
    about on a personal level. So how will your new formula enhance
    the ability to fight the crime that is foreseeable?
        Mr. Herraiz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Johnson, what we
    have seen in the crime statistics, what it is showing us is, in
    particular if you look at the violent crimes reported in 2005
    and 2006, 16 cities across the Nation account for over half of
    those violent crime increases, which is a huge percentage.
        The discussion we have as it relates to a formula grant is
    by merely sprinkling the resources throughout communities--
    although as you have heard here today and you will hear from
    other jurisdictions, your experience at the county level as
    well, those resources are valuable because they help with the
    necessary dollars in the economy at that local level.
        However, when we look at the crime picture itself, the
    department has tried to approach its efforts and whether it is
    the FBI Safe Streets Initiative, the U.S. Marshals' Safe
    Surrender Program, the Violent Crime Partnership Task Force
    Initiative, et cetera, our PSN and Anti-Gang Initiative, on
    those communities where you have the largest crime increases.
        Mr. Johnson. Who would make the decision as far as the
    grant awardees? Who would award the money?
        Mr. Herraiz. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. Would that be done in Washington?
        Mr. Herraiz. Yes, sir. Congressman, what we have is we have
    a targeted approach where the community decides what the
    problem is, and it is competitive. So, yes, through a
    competitive process the decision would be made at the
    Department of Justice.
        Mr. Johnson. Don't you think it would be more effective if
    the local law enforcement agencies are able to determine how
    best to use the funding?
        Mr. Herraiz. Yes, Congressman Johnson, and that is
    specifically built into the program, that they determine
    whether it is they need a drug court, whether they need a
    reentry initiative, whether they need a crime prevention
    program. You are absolutely correct. But----
        Mr. Johnson. But then an official in Washington, D.C.,
    would make the determination.
        Mr. Herraiz. Congressman, the official in Washington, D.C.,
    would only make the decision based on a competitive external
    peer view grant-making process, not based on someone sitting in
    my chair in my office saying, ``We know what is best for your
    office.'' No, the locals know what is best. They would merely
    have to compete across the country for those resources.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        The gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin?
        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses here today for your
    testimony--I very much appreciate it--and want to quickly echo
    my colleague's sentiments of how critical the Byrne/JAG funding
    is to State and local law enforcement officers and their
    ability to fight crime and assist in the prevention of drug
    use.
        I want to also think Mr. McDaniel for highlighting the
    impact of these proposed cuts in home State of Wisconsin so
    eloquently in your testimony. I was going to go over some of
    those numbers. I will not.
        I do want to probe a little bit further with regard to the
    issue of oversight of the multijurisdictional drug task forces
    because that tends to be one of the areas of criticism we do
    hear, and we need to be able to assure our colleagues as we
    promote greater funding of this program that their concerns are
    unwarranted.
        Just, for example, in Wisconsin, in 2005, the Byrne/JAG
    monies helped fund 26 multijurisdictional drug enforcement task
    forces, providing specialized drug enforcement services to 71
    of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Combined, the task forces reported
    making almost 9,000 arrests for drug offenses stemming from
    incidents involving marijuana, crack and powder cocaine,
    heroin, and other drug offenses, and these collaborative
    multiagency task forces have done a tremendous job in reducing
    the impact of drugs, gangs, and organized crime in our
    communities.
        But as to the oversight issue, it is my understanding that
    there is one lead agency for each multijurisdictional task
    force and an oversight board that meets as necessary. That
    said, I want to just express that I have received anecdotal
    information about problems with oversight in Wisconsin before.
    The anecdotal information that I have heard is particularly
    with regard to State-line multijurisdictional enforcement where
    Illinois-Wisconsin folks were collaborating and not necessarily
    understanding in a traffic stop situation the laws of one
    another's State.
        And so please shed a little bit more light, if you will, on
    Mr. McDaniel and also perhaps, Mr. Herraiz, if you will.
        Mr. McDaniel. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        We have similar questions, as I guess all States do, but
    Texarkana, Arkansas and Texas, have a very unique system where,
    in fact, they have one police department that operates within
    the city on both sides of the State line, having to have a very
    unique charter and compact and understanding of both States'
    laws and multijurisdictional cooperation.
        I did not come today with a model in hand on enhanced
    supervision and accountability. It became very clear to me
    quite some time ago that that was, in fact, needed, and I am
    very open to that, and I believe that the attorneys general of
    this county would be more than willing to cooperate with local
    law enforcement as well as the Department of Justice in coming
    up with the best model possible.
        I think that our primary concern was that, oh, my gosh, we
    are going to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, and
    that was certainly what we considered to be the wrong course.
        I think that there are a lot of saving graces to the
    program, and we are more than willing--as I have mentioned
    earlier, I think that one thing that I can do and that the
    attorneys general can do is to create new criteria when we
    review more than merely a spreadsheet of finances on whether or
    not we approve funding because, obviously, there are
    clearinghouses for this money on the State level, at least that
    is the way ours is structured, and I would be more than willing
    to consider new and additional criteria, not just for how you
    spend it, but who is spending it, what are you spending it on,
    how are you cooperating with other agencies, how you screen
    your officers, who is responsible in the chain of command if
    there are violations of racial profiling, for instance?
        My office is responsible in Arkansas, as many attorneys
    general are, for overseeing and mandating racial profiling
    criteria for law enforcement agencies, and I have received
    hundreds from all over Arkansas that we are in the process of
    reviewing. We can integrate those things in such a way as to
    make this program more effective, I believe.
        Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Herraiz, do you have any additional
    comments? And I am also hoping--well, my time is out--I might
    squeeze in an additional question about victim witnesses
    programs. But, Mr. Herraiz, do you have anything more on
    oversight?
        Mr. Herraiz. Yes, Congresswoman Baldwin. As far as
    oversight, obviously, all the partners involved, whether it is
    State and local law enforcement, the State--in your case,
    Office of Justice Programs there in the State of Wisconsin,
    David Steingraber--Tulia was a wakeup call for all drug task
    forces, for Ron Brooks' organization and many others, including
    here at BJA in Washington, to try to identify what type of
    proper accountability can we put in place. BJA in particular
    had the Center for Task Force Management Initiative which we
    increased funding for so that we can make sure that we had
    properly trained task forces out there.
        So, in developing a more comprehensive approach to the
    training, working in partnership with all the players, if you
    will, that are at this table, and developing that oversight in
    partnership with the State level by creating a greater
    partnership between the Department of Justice and the State
    administering agency who oversees those local task forces, that
    is going to be the strength of it, and we have gained a lot of
    ground in the last several years in doing that.
        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. The gentlelady has an additional question?
        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        This one also directed at Mr. McDaniel. Recently, I had the
    chance to tour my home county's victim witness unit in the DA's
    office, and I was incredibly impressed by the work they do. Not
    surprisingly, a majority of our conversation during my tour
    focused on funding cuts for the program.
        So I want to know if in your opinion is simple
    reauthorization of Byrne/JAG at an adequate funding level
    enough to ensure that these victim witness programs can thrive,
    or would you be recommending that we consider a separate stream
    for authorization and funding of the victim witness elements of
    this?
        Mr. McDaniel. I know that each State handles it
    differently, and I only feel competent to address mine, and I
    would be more than happy to provide additional information to
    the Congresswoman or the Subcommittee, if needed. But I think
    that adequate funding for Byrne/JAG is certainly going to be
    critical to a number of things in addition to the
    multijurisdictional task forces, which are certainly high on
    everyone's attention list.
        But we also see everything from school resource officers to
    victim assistance to drug courts. There are a number of very
    worthy and important causes that fall under this large
    umbrella. We have a diverse set of resources available to
    victims and witnesses in Arkansas, local coordinators through
    the prosecuting attorney's office. I myself administer somewhat
    of an insurance benefits program for victims of crimes in
    Arkansas that do not have the ability to pay for some of their
    out-of-pocket expenses.
        I think that all of those are key components in a larger
    puzzle, and the first big step, of course, is to support the
    measure before the Committee.
        [Audio gap.]
        Mr. Scott. I would like to thank our witnesses for their
    testimony today.
        Members may have additional written questions which they
    will submit to you in advance----
        [Audio gap.]
        Mr. McDaniel's constituents, the gentleman from Arkansas,
    Mr. Berry, in the back, a great supporter of this program----
        Thank you very much. Without objection the Subcommittee is
    now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record