[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.
____________________