[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