[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  RESTORATION OF BYRNE FORMULA GRANTS

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Edward Byrne was a young New York City 
policeman killed in action by drug lords in the 1980's. His heroism 
inspired the greatest crime fighting tool against drug traffickers that 
State and local law enforcement have ever known: the Edward Byrne 
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. Since the 
program was created in 1988, the Byrne granters have provided State and 
local law enforcement agencies across the country a fighting chance 
against well-organized, sophisticated, and violent illegal drug 
operation rings.
  You would think that in his tough talk on crime, the President would 
have remembered this heroic officer whose name has done more to take 
dope pushers off our streets than has any other. But the President has 
proposed that we eliminate funding for the Byrne grants. At a time when 
our families and neighborhoods need effective law enforcement more than 
ever, we can't afford to forget this successful program.
  Let me tell you what the Byrne grants have meant to my State of 
Washington.
  In Yakima, the Lower Valley Narcotics Task Force, called the Law 
Enforcement Against Drugs or LEAD Task Force, was established by a 
$350,000 Edward Byrne grant. Most of the annual grant financed the 
wages of a nine-detective operation coordinated by Washington State 
Patrol officers. Basic equipment from notepads to chairs was borrowed 
or donated to the outfit. The LEAD task force received a $100,000 cut 
last year and subsequently lost two detective positions.
  Despite this minimum amount of support, the LEAD task force has 
arrested 191 people, seized 23,152 grams of cocaine, 108.8 grams of 
heroin, 99,670 grams of marijuana, 1,500 marijuana plants, 208.9 grams 
of LSD, 175 grams of methamphetamines, and over 100 weapons. More than 
half of those arrested were upper level distributors of narcotics. In 
1992, the task force, working with the Yakima County sheriff's office, 
conducted a drug trafficking investigation that resulted in 17 arrests 
and convictions.
  The Spokane Regional Drug Task Force dismantled a cocaine 
distribution ring in 1992 which had been responsible for smuggling over 
40 kilograms in the Spokane area. The task force arrested 10 people, 
seized $75,000 in cash, 11 vehicles, a lake cabin, and over $700,000 of 
assets in Hawaii. Another cooperative investigation with the FBI seized 
5,358 marijuana plants worth approximately $10 million and resulted in 
the arrests of another 10 individuals.
  The Thurston County Task Force arrested a multikilogram cocaine 
dealer who was eventually sentenced to 25 years in jail; $1 million in 
assets was seized.
  The Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force conducted 454 cases in 1992 
resulting in 231 arrests.
  In 1993, the Mason County West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team 
conducted an undercover operation focusing on youth gangs called 
Operation Rock-and-Roll. Fifty people were arrested and gang 
participation in the areas was reduced significantly.
  The Tahoma Narcotics Task Force was responsible for busting a major 
methamphetamine distribution network in 1993 seizing more than 100 
pounds of ice.
  This represents only a small fraction of the impact that these task 
forces have had on stopping the flow of drugs from distributors to our 
school grounds. From Grays Harbor County to Okanogan County and from 
Whitman County to Bellingham, these multijurisdictional task forces are 
the primary source of drug interdiction in Washington State. 
Considering the millions in assets seized annually and the prevention 
of drug abuse, the Byrne grant program in Washington State is among the 
wisest investments of Federal taxpayer money.
  Amazingly, most of these task forces operate on Federal contributions 
of less than $200,000 a year.
  Designed to provide State and local flexibility and control over law 
enforcement strategies, Byrne money is distributed directly to all 
States on a population-based formula. I would like to submit for the 
Record a summary of amounts each State received in fiscal year 1994. 
States or localities must match up to 25 percent of the cost of a 
program and no more than 10 percent of the formula grant to the State 
can be used for administrative purposes. From there, nearly two-thirds 
passes through to local law enforcement and on to the front lines where 
the money can be used for 20 different law enforcement activities 
including demand reduction education programs; multijurisdictional task 
forces that integrate Federal, State, and local drug law enforcement 
agencies and prosecutors; programs designed to target clandestine drug 
labs; community and neighborhood crime prevention programs; and white-
collar crime and organized crime.

  As drug dealers adapt to new law enforcement tactics, these funds are 
a primary source for innovation and experimentation to keep the bad 
guys on the run.
  Of all the activities permitted under the Byrne grants, the 
multijurisdictional task forces are among the most cost effective and 
productive in the fight against crime. In my State of Washington, a 
total of 21 multijurisdictional task forces, the drug prosecution 
assistance program, and several community policing programs were funded 
with Byrne grants totalling $8.2 million in fiscal year 1993. More than 
half of that amount was dedicated toward multijurisdictional task 
forces with the Washington State Patrol playing an important role as 
coordinator and supervisor of many of the teams. In fiscal year 1994, 
the total State allocation was decreased by 14 percent. An additional 
10 percent is currently being withheld due to the State's noncompliance 
with HIV reporting requirements provided in section 1804 of the Crime 
Control Act of 1990.
  Despite these cutbacks, uncommon cooperation among State and local 
law enforcement has made Washington State's task forces renowned for 
their efficiency and effectiveness.
  Since it received $500 million in fiscal year 1992, the Byrne program 
received dramatic decreases to $423 million in fiscal year 1993 and 
$358 million in fiscal year 1994. While States and localities were 
adjusting to this substantial cutback in Federal law enforcement 
assistance, no one was prepared for the administration's dismaying 
recommendation this year to eliminate the Byrne grants altogether.
  After all, this was the President who promised to add 100,000 new 
cops on our streets. This President was a former Governor who said he 
understood the effectiveness of the Byrne grant to States, cities, and 
towns. Unfortunately, law enforcement officials across the country are 
shaking their heads in disbelief as they hear about page 97 of the 
fiscal year 1995 budget summary for the Department of Justice which 
reads:

       The elimination of the Byrne formula grants is requested in 
     order to support expansion of Juvenile Justice Program crime 
     prevention activities and provide some of the funding 
     necessary for the Department to maintain its primary Federal 
     law enforcement responsibilities. Further, the administration 
     believes that the many new State and local assistance 
     programs provisions, offered by the pending Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act, will more than offset the loss of the 
     Byrne Program formula grants. These new State and local 
     programs, authorized in the crime bill, will include grants 
     for community policing, criminal history records upgrades, 
     boot camps, drug courts for youthful and nonviolent 
     offenders, and drug treatment in prisons and jails.

  In other words, the administration is saying again ``don't worry, 
you're covered.''
  The last time we heard that, the President tried to sell a health 
care package that was equally difficult to understand as an actual 
improvement. Law enforcement has a right to be skeptical.
  First, few would argue with the need for more juvenile justice 
assistance programs. Our children face enormous challenges and 
increasingly are becoming both victims and assailants in violent crime. 
In Washington State, violent crimes by youths have doubled in the last 
decade despite a 3 percent decrease in the overall youth population.
  To think that eliminating the main defense against drug trafficking 
will not erode our efforts on behalf of children is absurd. Juvenile 
justice programs and narcotics task forces are part of the same effort 
and cannot be traded off against each other.
  Second, it is not clear what the administration means by ``funding 
necessary for the Department to maintain its primary Federal law 
enforcement responsibilities.'' That could mean anything from ethics 
briefings for the White House to salaries and expenses of a special 
prosecutor. Since much of the Byrne money goes to multijurisdictional 
task forces that include Federal law enforcement and pursue interstate 
drug traffickers, it is hard to believe that these are not considered 
primary Federal law enforcement responsibilities.
  Third, law enforcement personnel cannot reasonably rely on the 
administration's belief that the pending Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act will more than offset the loss of the Byrne Program 
formula grants. Considering the fact that there is a $16 billion 
difference between the Senate-passed crime bill, and the House bill 
currently in the House Judiciary Committee, few can know what, if 
anything, will emerge from a Senate-House conference comparable to the 
Byrne grants. In any case, the administration displays a complete lack 
of appreciation for the role of the multijurisdictional task forces 
when it suggests that boot camps, drug courts for youthful and 
nonviolent offenders, and drug treatment in prisons and jails can 
replace their effectiveness. The Byrne grants fund programs with proven 
success. We cannot trade one for the other.
  Fourth, the administration seems to neglect the substantial sum, 
nearly $2 billion according to some estimates, that these 
multijurisdictional task forces generate in seized assets.
  Finally, the President's enthusiasm over hiring 50,000 new officers 
perplexes many of those in and outside of law enforcement. In doing so, 
he suggests that eliminating experienced narcotics officers who are 
primarily responsible for drug interdiction before the drugs get to the 
cities, can somehow be justified by hiring rookie cops in the big 
cities for a period of 3 years. What makes for a great photo 
opportunity with big city mayors is simply a horrible policy. It 
exemplifies an administration run by a campaign mentality, instead of 
the public interest.
  Mr. President, we desperately need new police officers in our cities, 
but not at the expense of law enforcement in rural areas. In taking 
from rural task forces to pay for new city police, the President is 
blatantly suggesting we rob Peter to pay Paul when both are obviously 
needed.
  Perhaps the reason for the administration's hostility to the Byrne 
grants is simpler. According to an article in the February 28, 1994, 
issue of the Legal Times:

       Reno has long complained about the amount of Justice 
     Department dollars over which the department has little 
     control. Reno aides say she believes the money is often doled 
     out in an ad hoc manner, without the benefit of a well-
     coordinated national strategy. ``Our view is that it makes 
     sense to target these dollars where they are needed most 
     rather than through a formula program,'' says Justice 
     Department spokeswoman Julie Anbender.

  If the Federal Government had a history of wiser spending habits than 
State governments, this argument would be persuasive. Instead, it 
simply sounds like a turf war for control over taxpayer dollars that 
most Americans would like to see spent at the State or local rather 
than the Federal level. Governors and local law enforcement are usually 
more qualified to determine where dollars are needed most than a 
Federal bureaucracy.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to those on the front line. Last 
December, I met with representatives of the Washington State 
Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police to discuss law enforcement 
needs in Washington State. I highly recommend to my colleagues a 
similar meeting if they want to know the truth about the impact of 
eliminating the Byrne grants. According to the Washington State Patrol, 
loss of the Byrne grants would be devastating. An impact analysis 
claims that:

       Interjurisdictional cooperation would be greatly impaired;
       Loss of BJA funding would cause approximately 80 percent of 
     the multijurisdictional task forces to disband. The 
     effectiveness of the remaining 20 percent would be greatly 
     reduced;
       Rural areas would suffer the most because they do not have 
     funds to replace lost federal dollars; and
       Drug control strategy is adversely impacted if task forces 
     fold. Traffickers will move into areas where there is a lower 
     law enforcement presence.

  In the real world, the loss of the Byrne Grant Program is disturbing 
to many and frightening to those in the field. Imagine yourself as a 
narcotics smuggler. You hear through your contacts that the DEA office 
is closing due to budget cutbacks. Good news. You notice that the FBI 
is reassigning agents away from your area due to a hiring freeze. Good 
news. You see that fewer State patrols are doing drug investigation 
because of cuts in the State budget. Good news. You read that the local 
police force lost a vote in the city council to hire additional 
narcotics officers. Good news. Finally, you hear on the radio that the 
President has recommended elimination of those pestering task forces 
that have been trailing you. You win. There is no effective effort to 
stop your poisonous trade. The future looks good.
  Mr. President, there is an awful lot of good news these days for drug 
dealers. And that is bad news for our children, our neighbors, our 
schools, and our Nation. Drugs shatter young lives and they strip them 
of the American dream. In the coming days, I and thousands of police 
officers across the country will be reminding the President and the 
Congress about Officer Edward Byrne.
  We will try our best beginning with the budget resolution to ensure 
adequate funding for the task forces which we cannot afford to 
sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort all the way 
through the appropriations process. The Edward Byrne Task Forces are 
claiming substantial victories in the war against drugs. The drug lords 
would like us to surrender, but our children's future demands that we 
keep fighting until we have won.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the tables to which I 
referred earlier be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage to
                                            Fiscal year      be passed  
   Formula grant program allocation of      1994 State      through to  
                  funds                     allocation         local    
                                                           jurisdictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................      $5,827,000           50.95
Alaska..................................       1,595,000           21.97
Arizona.................................       5,465,000           61.04
Arkansas................................       3,756,000           54.87
California..............................      37,704,000           63.15
Colorado................................       5,033,000           58.82
Connecticut.............................       4,808,000           36.96
D.C.....................................       1,597,000          100.00
Delaware................................       1,717,000           26.87
Florida.................................      16,980,000           61.56
Georgia.................................       8,946,000           53.39
Hawaii..................................       2,278,000           46.45
Idaho...................................       2,167,000           52.41
Illinois................................      14,765,000           64.51
Indiana.................................       7,647,000           56.78
Iowa....................................       4,248,000           40.79
Kansas..................................       3,904,000           47.49
Kentucky................................       5,373,000           32.30
Louisiana...............................       6,007,000           51.92
Maine...................................       2,368,000           41.59
Maryland................................       6,748,000           44.47
Massachusetts...........................       8,048,000           36.64
Michigan................................      12,149,000           53.10
Minnesota...............................       6,237,000           70.29
Mississippi.............................       4,012,000           52.52
Missouri................................       7,088,000           58.22
Montana.................................       1,878,000           58.56
Nebraska................................       2,810,000           60.36
Nevada..................................       2,477,000           62.01
New Hampshire...........................       2,220,000           51.46
New Jersey..............................      10,184,000           57.67
New Mexico..............................       2,780,000           42.23
New York................................      22,502,000           63.29
North Carolina..........................       9,055,000           41.36
North Dakota............................       1,653,000           56.16
Ohio....................................      14,032,000           64.42
Oklahoma................................       4,725,000           45.41
Oregon..................................       4,445,000           46.98
Pennsylvania............................      15,216,000           64.83
Rhode Island............................       2,093,000           41.76
South Carolina..........................       5,192,000           42.53
South Dakota............................       1,743,000           47.16
Tennessee...............................       6,886,000           48.78
Texas...................................      21,950,000           65.60
Utah....................................       3,057,000           49.76
Vermont.................................       1,575,000           25.11
Virginia................................       8,500,000           30.04
Washington..............................       7,020,000           60.25
West Virginia...........................       3,056,000           47.93
Wisconsin...............................       6,866,000           61.98
Wyoming.................................       1,451,000           54.95
Puerto Rico.............................       6,095,000            0.00
Virgin Islands..........................       1,016,000            0.00
Guam....................................       1,054.000            0.00
American Samoa/Northern Mariana Islands.       1,002,000            0.00
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................     358,000,000  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\American Samoa (67%)-$671,340, Northern Mariana Islands (33%)-       
  $330,660.                                                             
Note.--State population figures are based on Bureau of Census estimates 
  as of July 1, 1992. Territory population figures are based on Bureau  
  of Census 1990 Census as of April 1, 1990.                            

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________