<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:20527.wais]
DEFENDING AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE: SAFE ACCESS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND
CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1528
__________
APRIL 12, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-527 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ADAM SMITH, Washington
MIKE PENCE, Indiana CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Sokul, Special Counsel for Intelligence
and Homeland Security
Michael Volkov, Deputy Chief Counsel
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 12, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Jodi L. Avergun, Chief of Staff, Drug Enforcement
Administration, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. Ronald E. Brooks, President, National Narcotic Officers'
Associations' Coalition (NNOAC)
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Ms. Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police Department, Thornton,
Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug Task Force, and
President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children
Oral Testimony................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Mr. William N. Brownsberger, Associate Director, Public Policy
Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy
Attorney General, and Director, Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Forces, United States Department of Justice,
before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security, July 6, 2004......................................... 57
Article entitled ``Drug Market Thrives By Methadone Clinics,''
Serge F. Kovaleski, Washington Post Staff Writer, The
Washington Post, August 12, 2002............................... 61
Article entitled ``Probe Confirms Dealing of Drugs Near D.C.
Clinics,'' Monte Reel, Washington Post Staff Writer, The
Washington Post, July 7, 2004.................................. 65
Article entitled ``Kids Caught in Meth Lab Pressure Cooker,''
Sarah Huntley, News Staff Writer, Rocky Mountain News, March
15, 2002....................................................... 67
Supplemental materials from William N. Brownsberger, Associate
Director, Public Policy Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical
School......................................................... 70
Supplemental material from Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police
Department, Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug
Task Force, and President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug
Endangered Children............................................ 89
Brochure submitted by the National Alliance for Drug Endangered
Children....................................................... 112
Position Paper of the American Bar Association (ABA)............. 116
Letter from coalition of organizations expressing their views on
H.R. 1528, ``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access
to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the
Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John
Conyers, Jr.................................................... 118
Letter from former United States Attorneys and Department of
Justice officials expressing their views on H.R. 1528,
``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable Bobby Scott...... 121
Letter from Thomas W. Hiller, II, Chair, Legislative Expert
Panel, Federal Public and Community Defenders, to the Honorable
Howard Coble and the Honorable Bobby Scott..................... 124
Letter from teachers of law expressing their views on H.R. 1528,
``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 132
Letter from Frank O. Bowman, III, M. Dale Palmer Professor of
Law, Indiana University School of Law, to the Honorable Howard
Coble and the Honorable Bobby Scott............................ 141
Response to post-hearing questions from Lori Moriarty, Thornton
Police Department, Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro
Drug Task Force, and President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug
Endangered Children............................................ 146
Response to post-hearing questions from Ronald E. Brooks,
President, National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition
(NNOAC)........................................................ 147
DEFENDING AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE: SAFE ACCESS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND
CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard
Coble (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security holds a
hearing today on H.R. 1528, the ``Defending America's Most
Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection
Act of 2005,'' introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner.
Last year, you will recall, the Subcommittee considered
H.R. 4547 and examined the problem of drug dealers preying on
vulnerable individuals, such as recovering addicts and minors.
The Subcommittee held the compelling--heard the compelling
testimony of Tyrone Patterson, who was the manager of the model
treatment center for the D.C. Department of Health, who
graphically confirmed previous news reports highlighting this
problem, which is occurring on a daily basis just minutes from
where we are now here at the Capitol.
More than 1,000 addicts attend drug treatment in Northeast
D.C., receiving care at three public methadone centers in the
area. Drug dealers operate out of a nearby McDonald's parking
lot next to the largest methadone treatment center in D.C. and
within three blocks of two other treatment centers. Mr.
Patterson gave us a firsthand account of the availability of
drugs and the daily temptations his patients face as they try
to overcome psychological and physical addiction. We also heard
the results of an undercover investigation conducted by the
Government Accountability Office which exposed the revolving
door of individual dealers arrested for dealing near these
treatment centers, only to return because they faced little or
no jail time for their trafficking activities.
Adult addicts are not the only victims of drug dealers. We
also learned of cases in which the drug dealers knowingly
exposed children, including parents who exposed their own kids
to the seedy and dangerous world of drug trafficking. This
includes the storage and distribution of drugs for profit in
their own homes where oftentimes small children reside.
H.R. 1528 addresses these issues by strengthening the laws
regarding trafficking to minors and creating criminal penalties
for individuals who traffick drugs near a drug treatment
facility. The legislation examined today makes it unlawful to
distribute to a person enrolled in a drug treatment program or
to distribute drugs within 1,000 feet of a drug treatment
facility.
I have stated previously that the opponents of mandatory
minimums would have a stronger argument if they could be
assured that--if they could assure Congress that all Federal
judges were faithfully adhering to the Federal sentencing
guidelines, and I think most of them are. But sadly, the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Booker/Fanfan obliterated 20
years of national sentencing policy and rendered these
guidelines advisory. Thus, the bills targeting mandatory
minimum provisions are all the more important.
H.R. 1528, while not providing a legislative fix to these
Supreme Court cases, does provide procedural mandates to ensure
an adequate sentencing record for appellate courts and for
Congress and the public as we consider legislation. H.R. 1528
codifies prior Congressional directives prohibiting the use of
inappropriate factors in sentencing, as well as others which
were prohibited or discouraged by the Sentencing Commission and
the U.S. Court of Appeals that prohibits other such factors
which have been abused by some sentencing judges.
I want to thank you, all of the witnesses, for being here
today and we look forward to your testimony.
I am now pleased to recognize the ranking Democratic
Member, the distinguished Member from Virginia, Mr. Bobby
Scott, for his opening statement.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to join
you in convening this hearing on H.R. 1528.
The bill purports to protect drug treatment patients,
children, and young adults from drug dealers. However, its
primary focus is on an array of provisions increasing
sentencing guideline ranges, adding new mandatory minimums, and
increasing minimum ones by at least five-fold to mandatory life
without parole, including a ``three strikes and you're out''
provision. This latter provision, as with mandatory minimum
sentences, has been roundly discredited as wasteful, racially
discriminatory, soundbite-based political pandering which will
have virtually no impact on reducing crime.
There's a provision, section 12 of the bill, which would
appear to be designed to overturn Booker/Fanfan decision
recently decided by the Supreme Court. Professor Frank Bowman
testified on last year's version of the bill and is considered
an expert on this issue. He reads the provision as imposing
mandatory minimum sentences through the sentencing guidelines
by making the bottom of the guidelines a minimum sentence in
all but the narrowest of circumstances, other than substantial
assistance motions by the Government. Many, including yours
truly, feel that this provision is not in keeping with the
representations that the Committee would not be taking up
Booker--the Booker/Fanfan issue this year.
Further, the bill provides for conspiracies and attempts to
be punished in the same manner as actually committing the
crime. This will only increase disparity in sentencing. As with
mandatory minimum sentencing, there is no ability to
distinguish between major players and bit players in a crime.
One of the primary purposes of establishing the U.S. Sentencing
Guideline was to remove disparate treatment among like
offenders. Giving unlike offenders the same sentence for crimes
just as much--creates just as much sentencing disparity as
giving like offenders different sentences.
The other provision of the bill eliminates the drug
quantity sentencing cap established by the Sentencing
Commission and restricts the application of the safety valve
and substantial assistance to the Government sentencing
reduction provisions.
I have often cited numerous studies and recommendations of
researchers, academicians, the judicial branch, including the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and sentencing
professionals reflecting the problems created by the
proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences. They are cited as
wasteful compared to alternative sentencing and alternatives
such as drug treatment. They disrupt the ability of the
Sentencing Commission and the courts to apply orderly,
proportional, non-disparate sentencing. They are found to be
discriminatory against minorities and transfer an inordinate
amount of discretion to prosecutors in an adversarial system.
They have also been cited in one of the letters we've received
from the Judicial Conference as violating common sense.
Practically speaking, there's no reason to believe that
H.R. 1528 will have an impact on crimes which it is purportedly
aimed. In its essence, the bill simply increases penalties for
drug trafficking. Yet the problem seems to be a law enforcement
problem, not a sentencing problem. With the GAO, the treatment
centers, and now the Judiciary Committee, reporting illegal
drug activity in and around drug treatment centers in specific
detail, the question is, why aren't we enforcing the current
laws that are on the books today? Adding more laws to the
current ones that are not being enforced is of very little
assistance to the problem.
The suggestion that current Federal illegal drug penalties
are not severe enough to incentivize law enforcement is
unfounded, given the long prison sentences now being served by
drug offenders and the fact that they constitute a growing
majority of offenders in the Federal system. Just as unfounded
is the notion that access to drugs by drug treatment patients
and children will be significantly affected by having harsher
penalties is, as I indicated, unfounded.
Studies of drug quantities, quality, and price indicate
that they are more plentiful and higher qualities and lower
prices than ever before. Offenders generally have access to
drugs within their neighborhoods. There is nothing to suggest
that they obtained the drugs to which they are addicted near
the drug treatment center at which they are being treated, and
this bill would mostly affect minorities who live in urban
areas where the zones will predominate as compared to suburban
areas where the drug use is--where drug use is no less
prevalent, but drug-free zones are. And that's, Mr. Chairman,
because when you draw all the concentric circles around all the
schools and drug treatment centers and everything else, in some
urban areas, you will have--you would have covered the entire
urban area. In suburban areas, obviously, there'll be areas
that will not be included.
Having offenders who happen to violate the law within the
inner edge of one zone who are not selling to children and--who
are not selling to children and treatment participants
receiving vastly different sentences from those who violate the
law a few feet away makes no sense. Jailing parents or
custodians of children for long mandatory minimum sentences for
drug activities in their presence and forcing children into
foster care and other makeshift arrangements is of obviously
dubious value to the children.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our witnesses who can
comment on this and comment on the mandatory minimums and the
other initiatives that we have in the bill to see how we can
actually reduce crime.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the practice of the Subcommittee
to swear in all witnesses appearing before it, so if you would,
please, stand and raise your right hands.
Do each of you solemnly swear the testimony you are about
to give this Subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Avergun. I do.
Mr. Brooks. I do.
Ms. Moriarty. I do.
Mr. Brownsberger. I do.
Mr. Coble. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
has answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
We have four distinguished witnesses with us today and my
introduction is somewhat lengthy, but I think it's important
for those in the audience who are not familiar with the
backgrounds of our witnesses to know some of their backgrounds,
which, by the way, are impressive.
Our first witness is Jodi Avergun, Chief of Staff to the
Administrator at the Drug Enforcement Administration. Prior to
joining DEA, Ms. Avergun served as Chief in the Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs Section at the Department of Justice. While in
NDDS, she managed a staff of 47 attorneys in Washington,
Virginia, and Bogota, Colombia, and exercised general oversight
of all Federal narcotics prosecutions as well as national drug
policy decisions. Additionally, Ms. Avergun served as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York,
where she worked as Chief of the Narcotics and Money Laundering
Section. Ms. Avergun has also received more than 20 awards for
excellence in law enforcement, including the Director's Award
for Superior Performance as Assistant U.S. Attorney. She's an
alumna of Brown University and the Brooklyn Law School.
Our second witness is Mr. Ronald Brooks, President of the
National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition. As
President, he represents the interests of the Nation's narcotic
officers with the White House, Congress, Federal law
enforcement agencies, and professional associations. Mr. Brooks
is a 30-year veteran law enforcement officer with more than 24
years spent in narcotics enforcement. Additionally, he is
currently a captain with the San Mateo County, California,
Sheriff's Office. In this capacity, he is responsible for
administering a $6 million budget and overseeing grants,
technical and analytical support for drug enforcement
operations in the 10-county San Francisco Bay area. He was
awarded a Bachelor of Public Administration degree from the
University of San Francisco.
Our third witness is Ms. Lori Moriarty, Commander of the
North Metro Task Force, a multi-jurisdictional undercover drug
unit at the Thornton Police Department. Ms. Moriarty has been
instrumental in implementing protocols for the safe
investigation of methamphetamine labs and undercover drug
operations. Moreover, Ms. Moriarty serves as the President of
the Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, which
rescue, defend, shelter, and support drug endangered children
in Colorado. She also trains thousands of professionals across
the State of Colorado on meth lab awareness. Ms. Moriarty was
recognized by the President of the United States in 2001 when
she received the Drug Commander of the Year Award. Ms. Moriarty
attended the University of Colorado and Regis University.
Our final witness today is Mr. William Brownsberger,
Associate Director for the Public Policy Division on Addictions
at the Harvard Medical School. As Associate Director, Mr.
Brownsberger develops research and education programs on social
policy issues regarding addictions. Additionally, he serves as
a Senior Criminal Justice Advisor at Boston University School
of Public Health, where he directs a national panel on
substance abuse treatment quality. Previously, Mr. Brownsberger
served as Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. As Assistant Attorney General, he worked as the
Asset Forfeiture Chief in the Narcotics and Special
Investigations Division. Mr. Brownsberger is also the author of
numerous publications, including ``Drug Addiction and Drug
Policy'' and ``Profile of Anti-Drug Law Enforcement in Urban
Poverty Areas in Massachusetts.'' He was awarded his
undergraduate and J.D. degrees from Harvard.
We are pleased to have you all with us today. I see we have
been joined by our friend from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. It is good
to have you, Mr. Gohmert, with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you all have previously been
advised, we adhere to the 5-minute rule here. We impose it
against you all. We impose it against ourselves. So if you all
could, when you see that amber light illuminate in your faces,
that is a warning that the ice is becoming thin on which you
are skating. When the red light appears, that indicates that
the 5 minutes have elapsed. We have examined your testimony. We
will reexamine it. So if you could adhere to the 5-minute rule,
we would be appreciative.
Ms. Avergun, we will start with you. I'm not sure your
mike's on. Pull it closer to you, Ms. Avergun.
Ms. Avergun. I think it's on now?
Mr. Coble. That's better.
TESTIMONY OF JODI L. AVERGUN, CHIEF OF STAFF, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Avergun. Okay. Chairman Coble and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
on behalf of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Drug
Enforcement Administration Administrator Karen Tandy, I
appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding the
important issue that affects many of our Nation's children.
The men and women of DEA and many prosecutors throughout
the Department of Justice spend each day fighting to protect
our children from the many harms that drugs cause to each and
every member of society. Drug trafficking and drug abuse
unfairly, and in alarming numbers, make children victims. Drug
trafficking and drug abuse steal our children's health,
innocence, and security. From a drug-addicted parent who
neglects a child, to a clandestine methamphetamine cook using a
child's play area as a laboratory site, to a parent using a
child to serve as camouflage for their stash, to a child being
present for a drug transaction, the list goes on and on, but
the end result remains the same: innocent children suffer from
being exposed to illegal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, today, my testimony is a follow-up to that
presented by Ms. Catherine O'Neil last year to this
Subcommittee regarding H.R. 4547, the ``Defending America's
Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child
Protection Act of 2004.'' I request that her earlier testimony
be made part of today's hearing record.
We are here today to reiterate our support for key parts of
the legislation that addresses drug trafficking involving
minors. The endangerment of children through exposure to drug
activity, sales of drugs to children, the use of minors in drug
trafficking, and the peddling of pharmaceutical and other
illicit drugs to drug treatment patients are all significant
problems today. Sadly, horrific examples of these types of
incidents are spread across our Nation.
To take just one example, a DEA investigation in Missouri
occurring in November 2004 demonstrates this all too frequent
occurrence. During a raid on a suspected methamphetamine lab
located in a home, three children, all under 5 years of age,
were found sleeping on chemical-soaked rugs. The residence was
filled with insects and rodents and had no electricity or
running water. Two guard dogs kept by the cooks to fend off law
enforcement were also found. The dogs were clean, healthy, and
well-fed.
The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously
prosecuting drug trafficking in all of its egregious forms.
Prosecutions range from high-level international drug
traffickers to street-level predators who are tempting children
or addicts with the lure of profit and the promise of
intoxication. All of these prosecutions are part of the
Department of Justice's mandate within the National Drug
Control Strategy to disrupt the sources of and markets for
drugs.
The people who target their trafficking activity at those
with the least ability to resist such offers deserve not only
our most pointed contempt, but also severe punishment. We stand
firmly behind the intent of this new legislation to increase
the punishment meted out to those who would harm us, our
children, and those seeking to escape the cycle of addiction.
The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum
sentences in appropriate circumstances, such as trafficking
involving minors and trafficking in and around drug treatment
centers. Mandatory minimum sentences provide a level of
uniformity and predictability in sentencing to deter certain
types of criminal behavior, increase public safety by locking
away dangerous criminals for long periods of time, and serve as
important tools used by prosecutors in obtaining cooperation
from defendants.
My written testimony addresses several specific provisions
within H.R. 1528. The Department agrees with the idea that
individuals who intentionally endanger children, either through
the distribution, storage, manufacture, or otherwise
trafficking of drugs, should face appropriate punishments.
However, we have some reservations about the consequences of
section 2(m), titled ``Failure to Protect Children from Drug
Trafficking Activities.''
Also, we strongly support the proposed amendment to 18
U.S.C. 3553(f) insofar as it would require Government
certification that the defendant has timely met the full
disclosure requirements for the safety valve exemption in
certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, we are concerned
that the bill may unnecessarily exclude those who initially
make a false statement or omit information but later correct
those statements.
Additionally, the Department agrees with the principle that
in almost all circumstances, a defendant who has been found
guilty should be immediately detained. We also acknowledge that
the circumstances in which release pending sentencing where
appeal is necessary are extremely limited. Nevertheless, we
cannot support this proposal to the extent it requires
Government certification as to a defendant's cooperation and
precludes release pending appeal.
The Department was pleased to see the addition of language
asking the Sentencing Commission to make recommendations for an
increase in the guideline range where there is a substantial
risk of harm to the life in the manufacture of any controlled
substance as opposed to simply methamphetamine. We support the
proposal to widen the guidelines from including only the
manufacture of meth or amphetamine to include the manufacture
and distribution of any controlled substances.
The DEA and Department of Justice are committed to
aggressively investigating and prosecuting drug traffickers. We
support measures that will aid in the protection of children
and enhance our abilities to prosecute those individuals who
seek to involve them in their illegal drug activities and
support the Committee's efforts to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your recognition and assistance
on this important issue and the opportunity to testify here
today. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Avergun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jodi L. Avergun
Chairman Coble, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, on behalf of Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Administrator Karen Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to testify
today regarding this important issue that affects many of our nation's
children.
OVERVIEW
The DEA has seen firsthand the devastation that illegal drugs cause
in the lives of children. Children are our nation's future and our most
precious resource, and sadly, many of them are having their lives and
dreams stolen by illegal drugs. This theft takes many forms, from a
drug addicted parent who neglects a child, to a clandestine
methamphetamine ``cook'' using a child's play area as a laboratory
site, to a parent using a child to serve as camouflage for their
``stash,'' to a child being present during a drug transaction. The list
goes on and on, but the end result remains the same: innocent children
needlessly suffer from being exposed to illegal drugs.
DRUG ENDANGERED CHILDREN
The Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies at all
levels seek to protect the most vulnerable segments of our society from
those drug traffickers and drug addicted individuals who exploit those
individuals least able to protect themselves. In 2003, Congress made
significant strides in this area by enacting the Prosecutorial Remedies
and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, better
known as the PROTECT Act. This law has proven effective in enabling law
enforcement to pursue and to punish wrongdoers who threaten the youth
of America. Last year Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4547, the
``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment
and Child Protection Act of 2004,'' which would have taken these
efforts even further by focusing on the scourge of drug trafficking in
some of its most base and dangerous forms: those who use minors to
commit trafficking offenses, trafficking to minors, trafficking in
places where minors are present, and trafficking in or near drug
treatment centers.
Mr. Chairman, today my testimony is a follow-up to the testimony
presented in July of last year to this Subcommittee by Ms. Catherine
O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General, regarding H.R. 4547. We
request that her earlier testimony be made part of today's hearing
record. We are here today to reiterate our support for legislation that
addresses drug-related incidents involving minors.
The endangerment of children through exposure to drug activity,
sales of drugs to children, the use of minors in drug trafficking, and
the peddling of pharmaceutical and other illicit drugs to drug
treatment patients are all significant problems today. Sadly, the
horrific examples below are just a few instances where children have
been found victimized and exploited by people whose lives have been
taken over by drugs:
<bullet> From FY 2000 through the first quarter of FY 2005,
over 15,000 children were reported as being affected in
clandestine laboratory-related incidents. The term ``affected
children'' is defined as a child being present and/or evidence
that a child lived at a clandestine laboratory site. This total
reflects only those instances where law enforcement was
involved. The true number of children affected by clandestine
laboratory incidents is unknown, though it is surely much
greater.
<bullet> In 2004, a defendant from Iowa pled guilty to
conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. Although the meth
was not manufactured in the defendant's home, where the
defendant's 4-year-old son also lived, was used as the
distribution point for large quantities of meth. The son's hair
tested positive for extremely high levels of meth, indicating
chronic exposure to the drug. In this case, no enhancement
could be applied because of the son's exposure, as he had not
been endangered during the actual manufacture of the meth.
<bullet> In November 2004, the DEA raided a suspected
methamphetamine lab located in a home in Missouri. During this
operation three children, all under five years of age, were
found sleeping on chemical-soaked rugs. The residence was
filled with insects and rodents and had no electricity or
running water. Two guard dogs kept by the ``cooks'' to fend off
law enforcement were also found: clean, healthy, and well-fed.
The dogs actually ate off a dinner plate.
Currently, investigations targeting individuals involved in the
manufacture of methamphetamine or amphetamine which are prosecuted on a
federal level have a sentencing enhancement available. This enhancement
provides a six-level increase and a guidelines floor at level 30 (about
8-to-10 years for a first offender) when a substantial risk of harm to
the life of a minor or an incompetent individual is created.
Unfortunately, investigations targeting traffickers involved in the
distribution of other illegal drugs, such as heroin or cocaine, do not
have this same enhancement. For example:
<bullet> During October 1999, the DEA's Philadelphia Field
Division initiated a heroin investigation targeting an
international organization ranging from street level dealers
and couriers to a source of supply in South America. This
investigation resulted in ``spin-off'' investigations in New
York and South America. Indictments and arrests stemming from
the Philadelphia portion of this investigation began in early
2001, and resulted in over 20 arrests. The most significant
charge filed against these defendants was Conspiracy to
Distribute Heroin (21 USC Sec. 846). Additionally, seven
subjects were charged with Distribution of Heroin within 1,000
feet of a School (21 USC Sec. 860).
<bullet> During August 2003, fire department personnel and
local law enforcement authorities responded to a hotel fire in
a family resort in Emmett County, Michigan. The fire was the
result of a subject's attempts to manufacture methcathinone.
Authorities subsequently seized a small quantity of
methcathinone, along with chemistry books, from the room.
<bullet> In an investigation initiated by DEA's Philadelphia
Field Division, a subject hid approximately 400 grams of heroin
under his infant during a buy/bust operation. During the course
of his guilty plea in March 2004, the defendant admitted that
he stored the drugs under the infant.
DRUG PROSECUTIONS
The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously prosecuting
drug trafficking in all of its egregious forms. Prosecutions range from
high-level international drug traffickers to street-level predators who
are tempting children or addicts with the lure of profit and the
promise of intoxication.
We have had some successes. Statistics maintained by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission indicate that between 1998 and 2002 over 300
defendants were sentenced annually under the guideline that provides
for enhanced penalties for drug activity involving protected locations,
minors, or pregnant individuals. But our tools are limited. And we have
no specific weapon against those who distribute controlled substances
within the vicinity of a drug treatment center.
The people who would sink to the depths of inhumanity by targeting
their trafficking activity at those with the least ability to resist
such offers are deserving the most severe punishment. The Department of
Justice cannot and will not tolerate this conduct in a free and safe
America, and that is why the Department of Justice stands firmly behind
the intent of this legislation to increase the punishment meted out to
those who would harm us, our children, and those seeking to escape the
cycle of addiction.
MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES
The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum sentences in
appropriate circumstances. In a way sentencing guidelines cannot,
mandatory minimum statutes provide a level of uniformity and
predictability in sentencing. They deter certain types of criminal
behavior determined by Congress to be sufficiently egregious as to
merit harsh penalties by clearly forewarning the potential offender and
the public at large of the minimum potential consequences of committing
such an offense. And mandatory minimum sentences can also incapacitate
dangerous offenders for long periods of time, thereby increasing public
safety. Equally important, mandatory minimum sentences provide an
indispensable tool for prosecutors, because they provide the strongest
incentive to defendants to cooperate against the others who were
involved in their criminal activity.
In drug cases, where the ultimate goal is to rid society of the
entire trafficking enterprise, mandatory minimum statutes are
especially significant. Unlike a bank robbery, for which a bank teller
or an ordinary citizen could be a critical witness, often in drug cases
the critical witnesses are drug users and/or other drug traffickers.
The offer of relief from a mandatory minimum sentence in exchange for
truthful testimony allows the Government to move steadily and
effectively up the chain of supply, using the lesser distributors to
prosecute the more serious dealers and their leaders and suppliers.
Mandatory minimum sentences are needed in appropriate circumstances,
such as trafficking involving minors and trafficking in and around drug
treatment centers.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WITHIN H.R. 1528
I would now like to turn to a few of the specific provisions
included in H.R. 1528. As I mentioned earlier, the Department stands
behind the testimony provided last year by Ms. Catherine O'Neil.
Section 2: Protecting Children from Drug Traffickers
The Department agrees with the idea that individuals who
intentionally endanger children, either through the distribution,
storage, manufacture, or otherwise trafficking of drugs, should face
appropriate punishments.
However, we do have some reservations about the consequences of
Section 2(m), titled ``Failure to Protect Children from Drug
Trafficking Activities.'' As drafted, we have some concerns about the
enforceability of the section due to the vagueness of the language. In
addition, we are concerned that it will unintentionally create an
adversarial parental relationship, and discourage (rather than
encourage) kids to talk openly with their parents about drug
trafficking. Certainly, we want to encourage parents and other legal
guardians to do the right thing, but we would encourage the
Subcommittee to reconsider this section.
Section 6: Assuring limitation on applicability of statutory minimums
to persons who have done everything they can to assist the
Government
We strongly support the proposed amendment to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 3553(f), insofar as it would require Government certification that
the defendant has timely met the full disclosure requirement for the
safety valve exemption from certain mandatory minimum sentences.
We certainly understand the concerns that prompted this proposal.
Our prosecutors rightfully complain that courts often accept minimal,
bare-bones confessional disclosures and, in some cases, continue
sentencing hearings to afford a defendant successive tries at meeting
even this low standard. The Department of Justice thus is aware that
some courts and defendants have too liberally construed the safety
valve and have applied it in circumstances that were clearly
unwarranted and where no beneficial information was conveyed. For these
reasons, we strongly support the prosecutor certification requirement.
Requiring courts to rely on the Government's assessment as to
whether a defendant's disclosure has been truthful and complete would
effectively address the problems prosecutors have encountered with
respect to application of the safety valve.
However, we are concerned that the bill may unnecessarily exclude
those who initially make a false statement, but later correct it. We
expressed this concern informally last year and look forward to working
with the Subcommittee to address it.
Section 9: Mandatory detention of persons convicted of serious drug
trafficking offenses and crimes of violence
The Department agrees with the principle that, in almost all
circumstances, a defendant who has been found guilty should be
immediately detained. We also acknowledge that the circumstances in
which release pending sentencing or appeal is necessary are extremely
limited.
Nevertheless, we cannot support this proposal to the extent it
requires Government certification as to a defendant's cooperation and
precludes release pending appeal. Even with sealed pleadings, a
defendant's intention to cooperate would be much more apparent under
this provision, and this likely would have an adverse impact on a
defendant's willingness to cooperate, on the value of the cooperation,
and on the safety of the defendant. By foreclosing the possibility of
release for circumstances other than cooperation and, thereby,
telegraphing a defendant's intention to assist the Government, this
proposal would severely diminish the value of one of our most useful
investigative and prosecutorial tools. Moreover, this is a tool that we
employ not simply post-conviction but, sometimes, pending appeal as
well. A prosecutor should not be effectively prohibited from seeking
release after sentencing, if the particular circumstances of the case
so warrant.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this issue.
Section 10: Protecting Human Life and Assuring Child Safety
The Department was pleased to see the addition of language asking
the Sentencing Commission to make recommendations for an increase in
the guideline range where there is a substantial risk of harm to the
life in the manufacture of ANY controlled substance. The case in the
Western District of Michigan (mentioned earlier) highlights the need to
expand these guidelines. We support the proposal to widen the
guidelines from including only the manufacture of methamphetamine or
amphetamine to include the manufacture of any controlled substance.
CONCLUSION
Children continue to be exposed, exploited and endangered by
individuals involved at all levels of the illegal drug spectrum.
Regardless of whether they are high-level traffickers, street-level
dealers, ``cooks'' or addicts, they all are involved in some fashion in
stealing away our nation's youth. The Department of Justice is
committed to aggressively investigating and prosecuting drug
traffickers. We support measures that will aid in the protection of
children and enhance our abilities to prosecute those individuals who
seek to involve them in their illegal drug activities, and support the
Subcommittee's efforts to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your recognition and assistance on this
important issue and the opportunity to testify here today. This is an
ambitious bill with important implications for the work of the Justice
Department. We continue to study the issues presented by the bill and
stand ready to discuss the matter with you or the Subcommittee's staff.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Brooks?
TESTIMONY OF RONALD E. BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL NARCOTIC
OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS' COALITION (NNOAC)
Mr. Brooks. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on
the importance of protecting America's most vulnerable citizens
from the dangers posed by illegal drugs.
The problem of selling drugs to recovering addicts at or
near drug treatment facilities is the cruelest side of a cruel
business, preying on our most vulnerable citizens when they're
at their weakest. Those brave souls who are fighting their
addiction in treatment and recovery programs are often targets
of drug traffickers looking for an easy sale.
Treatment providers throughout California have told me that
the predatory drug sellers often lurk near drug treatment and
recovery centers looking for customers who are susceptible to
relapse. I've seen those predators firsthand in scores of
investigations that I've conducted and supervised at or near
treatment centers and methadone clinics.
Mr. Chairman, police officers are driven to face the danger
that they do each day because we witness impressionable young
lives ruined when they are lured into a culture of crime by
adults promising quick money. The damage this causes to a
child's life and collectively to society as a whole is
incalculable and inexcusable.
I supervised a raid on a rural super lab that was producing
more than 100 pounds of methamphetamine per production. As we
approached the house to execute our search warrant, a large
cloud of highly toxic gas began to vent from the house. Upon
entry into the dangerous environment, I encountered four armed
meth cookers and an 8-month pregnant woman with her two small
children, who had been in the house during the entire 2-day
reaction.
In one operation at a large rave event in San Francisco,
after collecting payments--my apologies. I thought it was off.
In one operation at a large rave event at San Francisco, after
collecting the payment on an undercover buy, a 26-year-old gang
member directed my agent to his 15-year-old girlfriend to get
the drugs. The adult seller laughed, saying that if the police
raided the event, the teenage girl would be the one left to
face prosecution.
Another investigation conducted by my office targeted
rampant drug dealing at a rural high school. At the conclusion
of the investigation, we arrested 27 juveniles and nine adults
for sales of methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, and MDMA at or
near the school. In a raid on a house directly across the
street from the school, agents seized one-quarter pound of
methamphetamine and two guns from two of the adults who were
controlling drug sales at the high school.
Mr. Chairman, in my mind, there is no question that a
sustained chemical attack occurs on our streets every day.
Illegal drugs and their effects kill more than 19,000 Americans
annually and the impact on our economy is estimated to be more
than $160 billion each year. This continuous and unrelenting
attack by international drug cartels, American street gangs,
meth cookers, and neighborhood drug traffickers is equivalent
in terms of lost lives to a September 11 tragedy every 2
months. We must continue our commitment to fighting these
criminals as aggressively as we fight terrorists who have
political motives.
The heroin sold on the street corner in San Francisco began
as an opium poppy seed in the Mexican highlands. From field to
vein, there's a network of criminals who know exactly what
they're doing. This malicious intent must be confronted
directly up and down the chain.
Tough drug laws such as the proposed--as those proposed in
the Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005 are essential
weapons in the arsenal of every law enforcement officer. Strong
penalties deter would-be sellers while providing the incentive
for those arrested for drug crimes to cooperate with law
enforcement, allowing investigators to reach higher into drug
trafficking organizations in an effort to dismantle them. On a
daily basis, State and local law enforcement use the threat of
Federal charges associated with tough penalties to induce the
cooperation of arrestees who are in positions to expose the
chain of command of drug trafficking organizations.
The task force model fostered by Byrne and HIDTA programs
has dramatically increased the effectiveness of drug
enforcement strategies over the past 15 years. When combined
with strong penalties, such as those proposed by the Chairman's
legislation, we get quality investigations and effective
deterrents.
As law enforcement officers, we know that we can't arrest
our way out of the drug problem. We must do everything we can
to prevent first use by young people. We must embrace efforts,
such as the President's Access to Recovery Initiative, to
ensure treatment is there when it's needed. All children and
all people in recovery must be protected from the purveyors of
poison that often lurk in or near our drug treatment centers
and in our schools.
That's why the proposal in the Defending America's Most
Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection
Act of 2005 is critical to the safety of vulnerable Americans.
This legislation would strengthen deterrence and provide a
potentially helpful tool for State and local drug
investigators.
On behalf of the 60,000 narcotic officers that the National
Narcotics Officers' Coalition represents, I want to
congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner on reintroducing this
important bill, and Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you
for inviting me here today and for taking the time to hear this
issue. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald E. Brooks
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify on the importance of protecting
America's most vulnerable citizens from the dangers posed by illegal
drug manufacturing, sales and use. My name is Ronald Brooks and I am
the President of the National Narcotic Officers' Associations'
Coalition (NNOAC) representing forty-three state narcotic officers
associations with a combined membership of more than 60,000 law
enforcement officers across the nation.
I am an active duty, thirty-year California law enforcement veteran
with more than twenty-four years spent in drug enforcement. I have
witnessed the death, disease, violence and devastation that illicit
drug use regularly brings to individuals, families, and communities,
and based on my experiences I'm happy to share my thoughts on the
importance of the ``Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection
Act of 2005.''
Although no one is immune from drug addiction, the lives most often
destroyed by heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and other
poisons are those persons already suffering from the disease of
addiction who are in recovery, and young people who think that trying
dangerous drugs is harmless. People in recovery are vulnerable because
changes in neuro-chemicals brought on by prior chronic drug use make
them more susceptible to relapse, and because the craving is constant--
especially during the early stages of treatment.
Dr. Darryl Inaba, CEO of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic in San
Francisco told me that the euphoric recall of persons in recovery is
very strong and that smells, situations, or other temptations will
often lead to the re-initiation of drug use. Because all drugs of abuse
are synergistic, even marijuana may serve as the catalyst for a meth,
coke, or heroin user to slip back into the bonds of a drug lifestyle.
Because of that danger, the Haight Ashbury Clinic and all other drug
treatment programs that I am familiar with prohibit drug and alcohol
use on or near their facilities and by patients who are in treatment.
Dr. Inaba and Dr. Alex Stallcup of the New Leaf Treatment Center in
Concord, California have told me that predatory drug sellers often lurk
near drug treatment and recovery centers looking for customers who are
susceptible to relapse. I have seen these predators firsthand in scores
of investigations that I have conducted or supervised at or near
treatment centers and Methadone clinics.
Even more vulnerable than recovering addicts are pre-teens and
teens. Initiation of drug use by young people occurs every day in all
types of communities without regard for race, gender or socio-economic
background. Kids are likely to be lured to drug use because they lack
the perspective of adults and because they feel pressured to identify
with ``role models'' who glorify drug use and violence. Drug-abusing
older siblings, friends, and parents are often terrible influences who
many times even employ young people to act as middle-men in their drug
trade. The damage this causes to a child's life--and cumulatively to
society as a whole--is incalculable and inexcusable.
My civilian friends often worry about the physical and emotional
impact that thirty years of facing the danger of ruthless drug dealers
has taken on me. The truth is, danger is not what takes a toll on
America's law enforcement officers. What haunts police officers is the
death, fear, economic despair, and ruined lives we see every day that
is caused by drug abuse and drug-fueled violent crime.
JUVENILES IN DANGER
The most troubling events witnessed by cops involve young people
suffering from addiction or who are neglected or placed in danger as a
direct result of illicit drugs. Drug enforcement officers are driven in
their commitment to fight the scourge of drug abuse by recurring images
of children languishing in dirty diapers, living in deplorable and
dangerous conditions and suffering from malnutrition because their
drug-addicted parents are unable to care for them. We are driven to
face danger by witnessing impressionable young lives ruined when they
are lured into a culture of crime by adults promising quick money. We
see kids become dealers for adults, or lookouts who facilitate the drug
sales operations of adults. And a disturbing all-too-frequent image is
a frightened child rescued from the highly toxic and flammable
environment of a methamphetamine lab.
I supervised a raid on a rural super-lab that was producing more
than 100 pounds of methamphetamine per two-day reaction cycle. As we
approached the house to execute our search warrant, a large cloud of
highly toxic gas began to vent from the house. Upon entry into that
dangerous environment, we encountered four armed meth cookers and an
eight-month pregnant woman who along with her two small children had
been in the house for the entire two-day reaction cycle.
During another lab raid, I found a teenage boy, a straight-A
student, who lived with his father, a meth cooker, in a home where two
separate chemical fires had flashed through the house threatening their
lives but which were never be reported to the fire department for fear
that the meth production would be discovered. That teenager was working
to survive, despite the daily danger posed by chemical exposure,
explosion, fire, and armed encounters with rival drug dealers.
At a large RAVE event at the San Francisco Cow Palace, my agents
were working undercover purchasing Ecstasy (MDMA) from the dealers that
were preying upon the mostly teenage attendees. This followed an
earlier RAVE where two young people had died from Ecstasy overdoses. In
one drug buy, after collecting the payment, a twenty-five year old gang
member directed the undercover agent to his fifteen year old girlfriend
to get the drugs. The adult seller laughed saying that if the police
raided the event, the teenage girl would be the one left facing
prosecution while he walked away. In a subsequent undercover buy, a
twenty-five year old woman directed an undercover agent to her fourteen
year old brother to get the Ecstasy. She told the undercover agent that
if the police stopped them, her brother would only go to juvenile hall
but if she was caught with the drugs, she could face prison.
In an undercover operation conducted by my agents, a man agreed to
deliver Ecstasy to an undercover agent. At the time of the arrest, the
suspect fled in his vehicle and led officers on a high-speed pursuit,
eventually crashing his car. As officers approached to make the arrest,
they discovered that the suspect had his eight-month old daughter in
the car. The man was arrested with more than 20,000 MDMA tablets,
cocaine, a bullet proof vest and two 9mm pistols.
One investigation conducted by my office targeted rampant drug
dealing at a rural high-school. At the conclusion of the investigation
we arrested twenty-seven juveniles and nine adults for sales of
methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, and MDMA at or near the school. In a
raid on a house directly across the street from the school, agents
seized one-quarter pound of methamphetamine and two guns from two of
the adults that were controlling drug sales at the high school.
In a San Mateo County, California Narcotic Task Force
investigation, a Burlingame High School groundskeeper was arrested when
it was discovered that he was befriending students and bringing them to
his house where he sold them marijuana and cocaine.
TREATMENT CENTERS
The problem of dealing drugs to recovering addicts at or near drug
treatment facilities is the cruelest side of a cruel business: preying
on the most vulnerable citizens when they are at their weakest. Those
brave souls who are fighting their addiction in treatment and recovery
programs are often targets of drug traffickers looking for an easy
sale.
Many people in the Washington, D.C. area are familiar with the
open-air drug market that existed in the parking lot of a McDonald's
right next to the Model Treatment Program in Northeast D.C. A
subsequent GAO investigation found that drug dealing was rampant in the
immediate vicinity of treatment centers in numerous locations in
Washington.
In a recent San Jose, California Police Department case, a city
employee was fired after beginning to re-use methamphetamine after
being enticed to do so by a person that was in her drug treatment
program. This otherwise productive citizen, who was on her way to
recovery, has again had her life torn apart by an amoral drug seller
who cared more about making money than allowing the woman to succeed in
treatment.
Within the past three weeks, the San Francisco Police Department
began investigating a convicted drug dealer who served time in San
Quentin Prison on state drug charges. The dealer is now operating the
Happy Days Herbal Relief ``medical marijuana'' clinic on the ground
floor of a hotel subsidized by the city of San Francisco that is being
used as a halfway house by formerly homeless persons, many of whom are
in drug treatment programs. This and eight other San Francisco ``pot
clubs'' are not far from school campuses. San Francisco Police
officials tell me that it is not uncommon for them to encounter teens
who have purchased marijuana from one of these pot clubs and who are
re-selling the marijuana to other school age kids.
I could give more examples, and these types of stories could be
multiplied by the 60,000 police officers represented by the NNOAC.
THE NEED FOR STRONG PENALTIES
On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by terrorists based in
foreign lands. This attack resulted in the murder of almost 3,000
Americans. Because of the intensity and magnitude of that single
attack, it is easy to lose sight of the chemical attack that occurs
daily in cities and towns in every state in the nation. Illegal drugs
and their effects kill more than 19,000 Americans annually and the
impact on our economy is estimated to be more than $160 billion each
year.
This continuous and unrelenting attack by international drug
cartels, American street gangs, meth cookers, and neighborhood drug
traffickers is equivalent to a September 11th tragedy every two months.
We must continue our commitment to fighting these criminals as
aggressively as we fight terrorists who have political motives. Tough
drug laws such as those proposed in the ``Safe Access to Treatment and
Child Protection Act of 2005'' are essential weapons in our arsenal.
Vigorous enforcement of drug laws helps to keep families and
neighborhoods safe from violent criminals and serves as a deterrent to
first-time drug use for most young people. It also helps many addicts
reach the road to recovery through drug courts and other corrections-
based treatment programs.
Strong penalties deter would-be sellers while providing the
incentive to those arrested for drug crimes to cooperate with law
enforcement, allowing investigators to reach higher into drug
trafficking organizations in an effort to dismantle them. On a daily
basis, state and local law enforcement use the threat federal charges
associated with tough penalties to induce the cooperation of arrestees
who are in positions to expose the chain of command of drug trafficking
organizations.
The heroin consumed on the corner of a drug-addled neighborhood in
Washington, D.C. started as a seed capsule of an opium poppy plant in
the Andes of South America. From field to vein, there was a network of
criminals who knew exactly what their activities were leading to. When
the street-level seller of that heroin is arrested, tough federal
penalties help us climb up the organizational ladder and frequently
lead to the dismantling of local and regional drug trafficking
organizations.
Indispensable components our nation's overall enforcement strategy
include tough laws and the multi-jurisdictional, intelligence-based
enforcement approach that has developed under the system of task forces
funded through the Byrne JAG and HIDTA programs. The task force model
employed by these programs has dramatically increased the effectiveness
of drug enforcement strategies over the past fifteen years which, when
combined with the strong penalties such as those proposed by the
Chairman's legislation, leads to quality investigations and effective
deterrence.
MAKING PROGRESS
The problem of drug abuse often seems insurmountable, but it is
not. The proof of our ability to succeed in this important fight is the
fifty percent reduction in drug use that occurred between 1979 and 1992
when America employed a balanced and comprehensive approach of drug
prevention, treatment, and enforcement. We are once again on the road
to achieving good results as we embrace a balanced approach and a
renewed dedication to fighting against drug abuse.
Although strong penalties for dangerous criminals are important, I
understand that it is impossible to arrest our way out of America's
complex drug problem. A strong and consistent education and prevention
message must reach or kids early and often; and because addicts often
love the drugs that consume their lives more than they fear prison,
effective treatment must be readily available. But we must do
everything we can to prevent first use by young people. And persons in
recovery must be protected from the purveyors of poison that often lurk
in our near drug treatment centers and sober living environments.
That is why the proposals in the ``Safe Access to Drug Treatment
and Child Protection Act of 2005'' are critical to the safety of all
citizens. This important legislation would strengthen deterrents and
provide a potentially helpful tool for state and local drug
investigators. The 60,000 members of the National Narcotic Officers'
Associations' Coalition congratulate the Chairman on reintroducing the
important bill and we stand ready to lend our support. Thank you for
inviting me to share my thoughts.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Moriarty?
TESTIMONY OF LORI MORIARTY, THORNTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THORNTON, COLORADO, COMMANDER, NORTH METRO DRUG TASK FORCE, AND
PRESIDENT, COLORADO'S ALLIANCE FOR DRUG ENDANGERED CHILDREN
Ms. Moriarty. Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, first
of all, thank you very much for the invite here.
I am a Drug Unit Commander in Colorado, and I do represent
the National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, and I am
the President of the Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered
Children, and I can tell you from a Drug Task Force Commander's
point of view, I've been in law enforcement for 18 years, and I
can't tell you how many times I've heard people tell me that
drug use is a victimless crime, and I'm here to tell you that
it is the crime that creates the most victims. In all of my
time in law enforcement, I didn't recognize this until I got
into the drug investigations unit.
I actually did homicide crimes and crimes against children
as a detective, and it was easy to recognize the bruises and
the broken bones and call that child abuse. And when I got into
investigation, it wasn't until I walked into some of these drug
homes and recognized the violence that was occurring day in and
day out in these children's lives.
As you mentioned earlier in my introduction, I've spent the
last 2 years educating people across the State and actually
across the Nation on meth lab awareness and the dangers, and
the award that I actually won for ONDCP and HIDTA was for
protecting law enforcement officers who actually went into labs
day in and day out because of the toxic environment that it
created. And throughout that time, my guys were wearing
chemical protective clothing gear and self-contained breathing
apparatus and we pulled out children wearing diapers. And it
wasn't until then that I realized that the drug endangered
environment that these children were living in was just
horrific.
I speak to you today by telling you that it is really
critical to have penalties that are severe enough to have
people change their behavior. It is never acceptable to expose
children to drug endangered environments.
As I speak with you here today, my task force is out at a
hotel, and we are raiding the entire hotel as an open market,
and in the hotel are families that live there with their
children, distributing drugs every day, and there are guns.
We're also--it's a RICO case and it has three homicides
associated with that environment, and at no time did any of the
drug dealers ever pay attention to the children that were
living in that environment. Additionally, we had a grandfather,
who every day when we watched him in surveillance going to do
his drug trafficking, picked up his grandson and used the
grandson as a decoy during his drug trafficking operations.
So the areas where people put children in harm is--in drug
trafficking is serious, and we need to pay attention to the
environment that we're allowing these children to grow up in.
As a member of the National Alliance for Drug Endangered
Children, we have a mission to bring disciplines together to
work on these exact issues, and accountability is a huge part
of making the system work. If we can hold the caregivers and
the parents who traffick around their children and put their
children in dangerous environments, then it will assist in the
totality of what we're trying to do to protect the children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Moriarty.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moriarty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lori Moriarty
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of The National
Alliance for Drug Endangered Children as a Committee Member and as the
President of The Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered Children to
speak on the important issue of ``Defending America's Most Vulnerable:
Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005.''
Though I cannot speak on all points covered in H.R. 1528, as a drug
unit commander I can say that I have seen children of substance abusing
parents suffer extreme neglect, physical, sexual and psychological
abuse. The time has come to take notice and take action, not only in
the law enforcement community but all professionals involved in the
welfare of children.
BACKGROUND
When law enforcement officers in Colorado were just beginning to
appreciate the devastating effects methamphetamine was having on
communities and the users, the focus was to develop safe procedures to
locate and seize methamphetamine labs. As law enforcement became
sophisticated in the detection, seizure and arrest of these clandestine
labs and their operators, what became astoundingly apparent was that
the real victims of the crime were the children. Law enforcement
quickly realized they were not equipped to address the special needs of
the children found in these homes where the manufacturing was taking
place and realized that other agencies should be involved to address
the needs of the voiceless and innocent victims. In 2002, public and
private agencies in Colorado came together to discuss the unique and
pressing problems facing these children. The professionals agreed the
issue was a crisis and required an immediate, multi-disciplinary
response. Colorado reached out to California, where the first Alliance
for Drug Endangered Children committee was established. Based on the
Drug Endangered Children Program developed in Butte County California,
members of the private and public agencies initiated, for the first
time in Colorado, a group of professionals willing to assess and
establish the best methods of collectively meeting the needs of the
children. In 2003, Colorado established a non-profit organization,
Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children and quickly
collaborated with California and several other states where similar
initiatives were being developed. Through these efforts The National
Alliance was formed in 2003 to promote public awareness regarding the
plight of drug endangered children and to link and support the many
professionals that rescue, defend, shelter and support these children
including law enforcement, child protective services, first responders,
medical and mental health professionals, prosecutors and county
attorneys, substance abuse treatment providers, community leaders and
concerned members of the public.
The National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children recognized the
scope of child endangerment went beyond children living where
manufacturing was taking place but also included environments where
children were exposed to drug trafficking and the drug subculture
associated with the use, sale and possession of illegal drugs. The
desperate plight of these children left behind must be addressed. The
abuse and neglect of these children is not marginal but real and
significant. These children are innocent, tragic victims who require
special and immediate attention.
NATIONAL ALLIANCE GOAL
The National Alliance believes drug endangered children are victims
who, when discovered during law enforcement actions or recognized by
others to be in danger, require immediate intervention and support. We
promote the concept of using collaborative, multi-disciplinary teams
whose primary interest is the health and welfare of the child found in
a dangerous drug situation. Thus, our goal is to ensure long term care
as the child moves from the arms of law enforcement, to child welfare
services and is medically and psychologically evaluated, and thereafter
placed in an appropriate and safe living situation.
Over the last eighteen months, the National Alliance has focused
most of its efforts on causing everyone to understand the harm posed to
children in many different drug scenarios--ranging from methamphetamine
or other clandestine labs, environments in which drugs are dealt,
stored or packaged and in some instances, guarded with guns and other
weapons, and those which are controlled by caregivers who are addicted
to or so influenced by drugs that they lose their ability to provide
even a minimum standard of care often neglecting and in many instances,
actually abusing children. The National Alliance supports and endorses
the National Drug Endangered Children Training Program. We also provide
support and guidance to states as they form individual alliances and
begin to form multi-disciplinary teams in their communities.
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
There are several aspects of child abuse and neglect in drug-
endangered homes. The environments themselves are frequently so
dangerous that simply allowing a child to live there constitutes child
endangerment. Substance abuse also affects the caregiver's ability to
parent, placing the child at additional risk for abuse and neglect.
Children whose caregivers are substance abusers are frequently
neglected. They often do not have enough food, are not adequately
groomed, do not have appropriate sleeping conditions, and usually have
not had adequate medical or dental care. These children are frequently
not well supervised, placing them at additional risk of injury.
Children raised by substance-abusing caregivers are often exposed to
pornographic material, often emotionally abused and have a heightened
risk for sexual abuse. Additionally, they frequently do not get the
appropriate amount of support, encouragement, discipline, and guidance
they need to thrive.
Specific hazards to children living in these labs are numerous. The
children are exposed to toxic chemicals and are at risk on inhalation
of toxic fumes. Clothing and skin contact of improperly stored
chemicals, chemical waste dumped in play areas, and potential
explosions and fires (the specific risks of the different chemicals are
outlined in the Clandestine Lab section) are also possible. They are
frequently exposed to a hazardous environment which often includes
accessible drugs, exposure to drug users, cooks and dealers, hypodermic
needles within reach of children, accessible glass smoking pipes, razor
blades and other drug paraphernalia, weapons left accessible and booby
traps placed to ``protect'' the clandestine laboratory and its contents
from intruders.
The use of illegal drugs affects the caregiver's judgment,
rendering them unable to provide the consistent, supervision and
guidance that children need for appropriate development. Therefore,
substance abuse in adults is a critical factor in the child welfare
system. With specific reference to methamphetamine, children are
frequently neglected during their caregiver's long periods of sleep
while ``crashing'' from a drug binge. The caregiver's also frequently
display inconsistent and paranoid behavior, especially if they are
using methamphetamine. They are often irritable and have a ``short
fuse'' which may ultimately lead to physical abuse. Children in these
homes are often exposed to violence as well as unsavory individuals.
Unfortunately, these caregivers were often not parented well themselves
and therefore did not learn effective parenting skills. Finally, the
caregiver's ability to provide a nurturing home for a child is
complicated by the caregiver's own mental health issues which may have
contributed to or resulted from substance abuse.
TESTIMONY OF A CHILD
It was five o'clock in the morning on October 23, and the street
was empty. The house was dark where five undercover detectives were
conducting surveillance, preparing for the execution of a search
warrant on a drug lab. The traffic on the police radio had been silent.
Suddenly, as SWAT officers began their initial approached from several
blocks away, one of the detectives watching the house keyed the
microphone of his radio and yelled for everyone to stop. As he spoke,
everyone could hear the uncertainty and hesitation in his voice as he
tried to describe what he was seeing. When the words finally came out
he stated, ``There is a skeleton coming out the front door.'' As we
processed the information, wondering if the detective was hallucinating
after the long hours of surveillance, he went on to explain that the
skeleton figure appeared to be the four-year-old child we knew was in
this particular drug house. He further described how the boy was out
onto the front porch looking up and down the street. As we discussed
the child's behavior, he came back out onto the porch and began looking
up and down the street again. Being narcotics officers the only
explanation we could come up with was the possibility that he was
counter surveillance and acting as a look out for his parents. With
this information, we told the SWAT officers to move forward and execute
the search warrant, using extreme caution.
After the raid was over, the SWAT team placed several adults into
custody and removed the four-year-old boy and another eight-year-old
girl. During my interview with the boy I explained that I was curious
why he was dressed in a skeleton outfit, standing on his front porch
and looking up and down the street so early in the morning. His eyes
lit up and he got excited as he explained that today was his Halloween
party at school. His shoulders then slumped when he went on to tell me
that he really wanted to go to the party but he hasn't been able to
wake his mom up for the last few days and he didn't know where the bus
stop was. He said that he thought if he got up early enough in the
morning and put his costume on, he could just watch up and down the
street and catch the bus as it drove by. I couldn't imagine at that
moment that this child could educate me any more until I realized that
he couldn't count to ten, but he could draw a picture, in detail, of an
entire operational meth lab. To this day, my mind cannot erase the
visual this four-year-old child left me with. I realized we had a
responsibility to identify these children and work with other
disciplines to meet their needs. Early identification can activate a
multi-disciplinary response within our communities where all of us must
work together as partners to rescue, defend, shelter and support the
children.
RESEARCH
In the year 2002 the National Clandestine Laboratory Database
reported 8,911 clandestine laboratory seizures. Over ninety percent of
these were methamphetamine production and over 2,078 incidents involved
children. First responders and children alike are exposed to toxic and
hazardous chemical exposure. Many of the hazards of this illicit
process and the type of exposure have not been studied extensively, and
are therefore unknown. According to the El Paso Intelligence Center,
the increase of methamphetamine production has resulted in at least one
methamphetamine laboratory in every state of the union in 2002. In
January 2003, National Jewish Hospital and Research center began to
study the harmful effects of methamphetamine labs to first responders
and children through various methodologies, including: controlled lab
studies, field controlled lab studies and surveys. The study expanded
its scope throughout the year with results that may impact the way in
which first responders and investigators perform their duties.
Throughout the duration of this study, the spirit of collaboration and
cooperation has been a predominant factor.
The initial study concerns included the potential, exposures,
related health concerns, medical monitoring, and the comprehensive use
of personal protective equipment. Throughout the study additional
questions arose regarding the airborne properties of methamphetamine,
the decontamination process and the degree of danger to children.
The standards used for measuring exposure were those utilized for
an occupational setting. These guidelines and standards are formulated
based on a predominantly male workforce, 20-30 years of age and
healthy. These standards are not applicable to children, those with
health conditions or pregnant women. To date, there are no suitable
standards established regarding exposures to children during the
production of methamphetamine. Therefore, a significant amount of
future research is still needed in order to accurately determine the
degree of dangers to children.
During the study, a teddy bear was placed in a room where chemists
from DEA manufactured methamphetamine to determine the amounts a
contamination produced. When the teddy bear was tested the results were
alarming. The bear tested highly positive for methamphetamine and was
extremely acidic. The methamphetamine levels on the bear were 3,100 ug/
100 cm2 on the outer portion of the sweater and 2,100 ug/100 cm2 under
the sweater, compared to the ``clean'' standard in Colorado, used to
determine if a residence where a lab was discovered is acceptable for
re-occupancy, which is .5ug/100 cm2. The pH level of the bear was 1.
For a full report on the results of the National Jewish Medical and
Research Methamphetamine Study go to www.nationaldec.org
CONCLUDING REMARKS
For decades, law enforcement teams across America have been
fighting ``the war on drugs'' by arresting those responsible for the
use, possession, trafficking and manufacturing of illegal substances.
However, at no time during these battles did we recognize the neglect,
the physical, sexual and emotional abuse to include the developmental
and psychosocial issues our children were suffering at the hands of
their drug-abusing parents.
It is most important that we send a clear message to those that
chose to endanger children: It is never acceptable to expose children
to drug environments and drug dealing and that there will be an
additional price to pay if they do.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Brownsberger?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM N. BROWNSBERGER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
PUBLIC POLICY DIVISION ON ADDICTIONS, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Members of the Committee.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Brownsberger, a little closer to you, if you
will, and activate it.
Mr. Brownsberger. Let me try that again. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And thank you, Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the invitation to be here.
I'm the father of three daughters, a 10-year-old, a 13-
year-old, and a 16-year-old, and proud to tell you they're all
growing up sober. I'm a member of the governing board of the
community in which I reside and I'm committed to addressing the
problems of youth substance abuse. I've been an Assistant
Attorney General in the Special Investigations and Narcotics
Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and there
prosecuted drug dealers. I have done a good amount of research,
and I guess that's what I owe my honor to be here today, is the
research I've done on school zone sentencing and the profile of
anti-drug law enforcement in Massachusetts.
I've also today practice as a defense attorney. I worked a
lot in drug courts and I know what the damage of drug addiction
is, what it does to people's lives, what it does to the lives
of families. I'm also a defense attorney and I have the
occasion to represent drug dealers who are charged with
violations of these laws. All of these experiences have given
me insight, and some of that insight may be helpful to the
Committee.
The first issue I'd like to speak to is the issue of the
geographic provisions of this bill, the provisions which would
enhance penalties within certain geographic areas. You can call
those areas drug-free zones. And the bill would expand the
radius around zones, these zones that are protected, from 100
to 1,000 feet for some kinds of facilities, and then it would
add a whole lot of new facilities in the form of drug treatment
facilities, including, by the way, take note, individual drug
treatment providers. So if a psychologist is providing drug
treatment, there will be a 1,000-foot radius around that
psychologist's facility.
Now, I understand that a lot of what we have to do in
making legislative policy is to respond to rhetoric and to
anecdotes because that's all we have, but this is a case, Mr.
Chairman, in which we actually have the ability to put some
fine numbers on what we're doing here and make a decision based
on information.
I have some slides, which I guess are not available to be
up on the screens, but the first slide just shows an aerial
view of the town of--city of New Bedford, Massachusetts. And
the second slide dots onto that using the geographic
information from that community, the schools and parks. The
green are the parks and the blue are the schools. As you can
see, there are a number of them within this large downtown
area.
When you put the 1,000-foot radii on them--that's the third
slide showing the yellow--that shows the school zones, the
drug-free zones around these facilities, and as you can see,
they cover most of the downtown area of that community. Take
note to the far left, the green plot there is a park and has a
relatively small zone around it. That's because it's a 100-foot
zone around parks in Massachusetts, whereas it's a 1,000-foot
zone around schools. That's the way the structure of our law is
in Massachusetts.
Now, you can imagine that if you add drug treatment
facilities and video arcades and individual psychologists'
offices to this map, the whole map will be yellow. That's a
conjecture because we don't have that data. But it would be
easy, in fact, for you to acquire that data before passing this
legislation. It would be easy to identify a number of
communities and see how this would actually work. But based on
my experience, my knowledge of the density of these
communities, my conjecture would be with a lot of confidence
that every major metropolitan area in this Nation would be
yellow, would be covered within these drug-free zones.
So the consequence of that legislation is not to push
people away from any particular place but simply to multiply
the penalties. If you wanted, Mr. Chairman, to protect drug
treatment facilities, you'd be much better advised to use a
much narrower radius, for example, 100 feet, and then people
would know where they needed to stay away from. But this
legislation will just serve to elevate the penalties generally.
And I hope that's not the goal of the Committee because I
do believe that these penalties are, in fact, high enough, if
not too high. The impact of these penalties is, in fact, to
raise the incarceration rate of young African American and
Hispanic males. That's who is involved in the drug trade
predominately in this country. That is, unfortunately, the
reality. That's the color and the ethnicity behind that
business today, just as every other business commonly may have
an ethnicity that's more heavily involved in it. And if we put
this law in place, you're just putting more of those young men
in jail.
As a defense attorney, it's been my privilege to get to
know some of these young men and they're not the animals that
you might imagine. We're characterizing them as drug dealers.
We're caricaturing these people. These are people that just
have led into a role which they have no concept of what their
other options in life are. I've talked to young defendants who
say, well, it was stealing cars, robbery, or drugs, and I
actually was kind of--I'm not the kind to rob people, so I went
into drugs. That's the kind of conversation people have. They
have no concept of where they can go.
And so this legislation is damaging legislation and I hope
the Committee will study it a great deal further before taking
any action on it.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Brownsberger.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brownsberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of William N. Brownsberger
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ATTACHMENT
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Coble. And thanks to each of the witnesses.
We have been joined, ladies and gentlemen, by the
distinguished gentleman from California, the distinguished
gentleman from Florida, and the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia. It's good to have you all with us.
As I told you all at the outset, we will begin our
questioning and we comply with the 5-minute rule, as well, so
if you all could keep your questions terse, we would be
appreciative.
Ms. Avergun, provide the Subcommittee with additional case
information, if you will, regarding the hotel fire case
involving meth cat, sometimes called cat. Was there a
sentencing enhancement applied, A, and B, was there a
sentencing enhancement available? Pull that a little closer to
you.
Ms. Avergun. I'll just keep it on. I can tell you a little
bit more about that case. In August of 2003, at a family
resort, there was a fire involving a particular hotel room. The
local department responded to the hotel. They discovered the
defendant had started the fire while manufacturing a substance
called methcathanone. There was a lab actually in his hotel
room. The hotel room--the hotel was part of a family resort.
There were chemistry books and a jar of methcathanone already
made.
The defendant pled guilty in that case. He was sentenced to
151 months in prison and 3 years supervised release and
restitution for costs of the fire. The defendant received a
significant sentencing enhancement due to his criminal history.
However, he did not receive any kind of sentencing enhancement
due to the fact that he had endangered children or families in
the hotel room, in the hotel where he was. There were no
guideline enhancements available because, right now, the law
only provides for enhancements for the manufacture of
methamphetamine or amphetamine. This is a completely different
substance.
And any substance can be--many substances can be produced.
Synthetic drugs are more prevalent now, and they can all be
produced with relative ease by looking up recipes in commonly
available places. This----
Mr. Coble. Okay. I don't mean to cut you off, but I need to
get to other witnesses.
Ms. Avergun. That's okay.
Mr. Coble. Thank you.
Mr. Brooks, drug trafficking, as we all know, is violent
business. Share with us, if you will, any experience you may
have had with drug dealers employing violence, that is, that
included the possession of firearms to protect the operation,
to enforce the collection of drug debts, how kids may simply
get in the way.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying
that drug dealing is a violent profession. It's one where
firearms, bulletproof vests, and other methods are readily
employed. The biggest threat in drug dealing is in turf battles
and in the collection of debts and in ensuring that people
don't cooperate with law enforcement. That's frequently done by
homicide or other violent means and kids do get in the way.
There is no discrimination against hurting children when
there is violence in a home. We have had children caught in the
crossfire of drug turf battles. And I could rely on one of my
own personal experiences. A young gal that I went to high
school with, shortly after I was a narcotic officer, she had
decided to live with a drug trafficker. There was a rip-off, a
theft at the home. She crawled under the mattress as the rip-
off was occurring. Three shotgun blasts into the bed, killing
her. This wasn't a person that chose to live--and she was an
adult, she had made her own choice, but it wasn't somebody that
had chose to involve themselves in the drug trafficking
business. That can happen just as easily to any child caught in
a drug house.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brownsberger, if I read you correctly, you seem to
suggest that the goal of school zones is to move the drug
dealing somewhere else. Would you not also recognize that the
goal is to assure that traffickers who do engage, you know, ply
their wares in a school zone will likely be awarded an active
prison sentence?
Mr. Brownsberger. I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman. I would
assume the goal is to protect children. That's our overall
goal, and the goal of punishing drug dealers is to keep them
from endangering children.
Now, my work showed that about 80 percent of the cases in
which the school zone statute was used involved transactions
that occurred at night, on the weekend, or in the summer. They
just didn't have anything to do with children, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Moriarty, I think I have time for one quick
question. What promoted you to become a member of the Steering
Committee of the National Alliance?
Ms. Moriarty. When law enforcement started finding the
children living in these environments, we realized that we
couldn't do it alone, that just removing the children and then
placing the caregiver in custody and, you know, holding them
accountable for the position that they're putting the children
in wasn't enough. We had to actually focus on the child. And so
we realized that all of the disciplines need to come together--
medical, psychological, the social services, just a multitude
of multi-disciplines, to actually be with the child and take
him through the process.
In Colorado, I can give you an example, we have 68,000
parents who are in some kind of treatment. I won't necessarily
say recovery, but in treatment. And of those 68,000, there are
114,000 children. And so somewhere along the line, all of us
disciplines need to come together to support the children.
Mr. Coble. Thank you. I see my red light.
I want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Avergun, the DEA is supporting the bill?
Ms. Avergun. The DEA supports certain provisions of the
bill, yes.
Mr. Scott. And opposes certain provisions of the bill?
Ms. Avergun. We'd like to work with the Committee to fix
certain provisions of the bill, yes.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, do you know what the prison impact
would be, what the additional costs in prisons would be?
Ms. Avergun. Mr. Scott, there would probably be some
incremental costs which are fixed based on a fixed cost that
Bureau of Prisons estimates of the costs of incarceration.
However, two things that I would point out. The first is that
we don't anticipate arresting entirely new classes of people as
a result of this. These are people who would already be in
jail. They are drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is already
illegal, and much of this bill amends things that are already
prohibited.
The second thing I would like----
Mr. Scott. Wait. On that point, so you would not be
arresting any new people, you would just be giving enhanced
penalties to those who you already would have arrested anyway?
Ms. Avergun. There are some new provisions in this bill.
For instance, distributing drugs in the presence of children is
a new provision. But by and large----
Mr. Scott. You could have gotten them for distribution of
the drugs, period. If you know they've distributed the drugs in
front of a child, you knew they'd distributed the drugs, so you
would have gotten them anyway.
Ms. Avergun. Perhaps.
Mr. Scott. Perhaps?
Ms. Avergun. Yes.
Mr. Scott. I mean, can you prove beyond a reasonable--have
you got evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they
distributed drugs and that's an offense.
Ms. Avergun. That is an offense, depending on the quantity
and the circumstances and whether law enforcement knew about
it. But----
Mr. Scott. Well, but if you don't know about it, you
wouldn't know about it in front of a child.
Ms. Avergun. That's true.
Mr. Scott. So you've acknowledged that, basically, you're
going to be giving enhanced penalties to those you would have
arrested anyway. My question is, how much more is that going to
cost in prisons?
Ms. Avergun. I don't think that the incremental costs are
that great. Those are fixed costs as estimated by the Bureau of
Prisons. But I would like to add----
Mr. Scott. Wait. Are they going to be in prison longer?
Ms. Avergun. May I finish my point? The costs to society
for not incarcerating these people for longer sentences are far
greater than the costs that it would impose on society for
keeping them in jail for incrementally longer terms.
Mr. Scott. So I understand your answer to be, you don't
know how much more we're going to be spending in prisons if the
bill passes?
Ms. Avergun. I don't have the exact number, but that is a
number that the Bureau of Prisons has estimated across the
board.
Mr. Scott. What number?
Ms. Avergun. The amount that it costs, the cost of
incarceration in a Federal prison across the board.
Mr. Scott. How much more would the implementation--if we
passed the bill, how much more are we going to be on the hook
for, do you know?
Ms. Avergun. No, I don't.
Mr. Scott. Does it matter?
Ms. Avergun. Yes, it matters, but we have to weigh the
costs to society of not protecting----
Mr. Scott. Well, actually, we have to weigh the costs in
spending it somewhere else, because all of the studies that
we've seen have shown that if you put the money in prevention,
you'll have less drug use going on and society will be better
off than if you just increase the penalty for others. So we've
got to know what our choices are.
Ms. Avergun. I don't think that in passing this bill or
enacting legislation that imposes additional penalties that
that vitiates any efforts or any spending that the Government
does on prevention or treatment. There are three parts to the
President's National Drug Control Strategy, each an equal part.
Mr. Scott. Well, let me ask you, on that hotel case that
you were talking about, what penalties were available to law
enforcement for the people you caught?
Ms. Avergun. The defendant received a sentence of 151
months based largely on his criminal history.
Mr. Scott. And how much would he get if this bill had
passed?
Ms. Avergun. I don't know the quantities of the drugs
involved. That would determine largely the amount of the
sentence.
Mr. Scott. Well, he would have gotten 15 years under
present law.
Ms. Avergun. He got 151 months, yes.
Mr. Scott. There's a provision in here, misprision of a
felony, where you don't report a felony and you go to jail for
it. That would include parents not turning in the children, if
the children had purchased the drugs, they would be also guilty
of a crime and they would be turned in with the rest. Has that
ever been--that's present law.
Ms. Avergun. There is a crime called misprision of a felony
and the section that you're referring to, 2(m), is one of those
that the Department has concerns with and that we seek to work
with the Committee to address.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, my time is just about up, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Coble. If time permits, we may have a second round, as
well.
In order of their appearance, I recognize the gentleman
from Texas, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
not only being considered a gentleman but being considered
distinguished. That was distinguished and not ex, wasn't it? I
wasn't sure.
Mr. Coble. If the gentleman will suspend, I even recognize
myself that way sometimes, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just curious, are they still using pseudoephedrine in the
cooks for meth? Anybody?
Ms. Avergun. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. I was hoping they'd found another way,
because pseudoephedrine keeps me from snoring at night and it's
harder and harder to get, but anyway, with regard to the drug
treatment facilities and schools provision, I realize the
importance of protecting our children, the importance of drug-
free zones, just like the importance of gun-free zones to
protect our children. Let me direct this to Ms. Avergun.
You obviously are familiar, I'm sure, with the Supreme
Court case of Lopez where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
the Federal gun-free zone around the school and said that
that's the State right. The Feds don't have a right to come in.
That's State law.
And, of course, understanding that with this Supreme Court
that they have shown that they routinely may vote for something
before they vote against it, or vote against it before they
turn around and vote for it, they have a real problem with
precedent, including their own precedent--a little editorial
comment there--but I'm curious. Do you see or even anticipate
any Lopez-type problems with a drug-free zone around the school
or a drug treatment facility?
Ms. Avergun. I regret to tell you that I'm not familiar
enough with the Lopez case and haven't performed an analysis of
the statute vis-a-vis Lopez, but I would be happy to get back
to you and provide our position on that.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I'd be very curious about your position.
When we're talking about cost and passing a law like this, we
don't want to be just spinning our wheels, so I'd be very
curious to see if you feel there's sufficient Federal nexus.
With regard to comments about drug treatment and saving
money from people being incarcerated, you folks have obviously
a tremendous amount of experience, and we appreciate all your
testimony. My own experience from handling thousands of
criminal cases as a judge showed me that, if you just lock
somebody up without any treatment and they have a drug problem
or alcohol problem, you're going to probably see them again--
some judge I am if I didn't. If you just treat somebody in a
30-day program, somebody was 99 percent likely to see them
again as a judge, even up to 120 days.
It seemed that the most effective way to avoid my having to
resentence somebody that I sentenced once, it was to make sure
they were locked down for an extended period of time and forced
to deal with their drug or alcohol problem. It seemed to me
that the combination of those two working together were the
best things we could do to ensure, number one, protection of
society, children, and others being lured into that kind of
life, and also punishment. You know the scenario.
But does anybody have any statistical evidence regarding
these things we've been talking about to show that, in your
opinion, or in your opinion, they justify not having
incarceration in conjunction with drug treatment or having
incarceration with drug treatment? Does anybody have any
statistical evidence? I know we've been talking a lot about
anecdotal evidence that each of you have.
Mr. Brownsberger. Mr. Gohmert, there's good statistical
evidence showing the relative cost effectiveness of a dollar
spent on treatment as compared to a dollar spent on
incarceration. Is that responsive to your question?
Mr. Gohmert. No.
Mr. Brownsberger. I'm sorry. Then maybe I'm not
understanding the question well enough, then.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay, thank you. But with regard to the number
of people who are sent to incarceration and have drug treatment
compared to the recidivism rate of someone who simply gets
treatment, because what you're talking about is different.
Mr. Brooks. I don't have all of the--probably the level of
statistics that you would like, but I could tell you overall
that effective treatment programs are effective at the rate of
about 55 percent. Those treatment programs that we have seen to
be most effective are those administered by the drug courts
that use sanctions, graduated sanctions, to keep their people
in treatment, to incentive treatment, and when they use the
power of the bench to do so.
And so we think--my organization thinks this bill is
particularly important for that regard, but it's also important
for another reason, and it's a little hard to put a dollar
figure on it, and that reason is that we use these tools, then,
to try to compel people to cooperate with law enforcement, to
try to then allow us to reach up into these organizations, very
complex, multi-State, multi-national organizations that, quite
frankly, even though it's a seedy side of law enforcement, the
use of informants, if we didn't have the tough Federal
incentive to compel these informants, we would not reach in and
break drug dealing organizations.
When you go after the targets of opportunity on the street,
you're cleaning up a street corner. But if you're going to
really have an impact, in my 30 years of experience in drug
enforcement, the way to truly have an impact is to hit the
organizations, and to hit the organizations, you need
information, and to get the information, you need the
incentive.
Mr. Gohmert. Carrot and a stick.
Mr. Brooks. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the
gentleman.
The gentlelady from California, the distinguished Ms.
Waters, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman and Members, I came in a little
late, but I rushed to get here because I think this is such an
important subject that we're dealing with here today. I think
all Members of this Committee, both sides of the aisle, are
more than frustrated with the level of drug activity and the
lack of effectiveness of our laws and our policies as they
relate to drugs, those who abuse drugs, and those who sell
drugs.
I would like very much to be able to join with my
colleagues in limiting as much as we possibly can the sale of
drugs near drug treatment centers, the exploitation of
children, and the sale and transport of drugs, et cetera, et
cetera. However, I think we may be mixing apples and oranges
here as we deal with this issue. There needs to be, I suppose,
a lot more discussion about mandatory minimum sentencing and
the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing has proven to be
just a terribly ineffective way of dealing with the violation
of drug laws.
We in California, I suppose in other places around the
country, are involved with drug courts and they are proving to
be extremely effective. We have learned that with mandatory
minimum sentencing, we find a lot of low-level drug dealers,
young people who are not criminals, they're just stupid, and
they think they're going to make some money dealing in a few
rock crack cocaines. They end up in prison because the judges
have no discretion, can't take into consideration first-time
offense, can't divert them from the criminal justice system,
cannot do anything to make sure that these young people don't
become real drug dealers. And so this bill that we are
discussing does not appear to take all of this into
consideration.
Having said all of that, too, I suppose it's Ms. Avergun,
in your written testimony, you stated that mandatory minimum
sentences provide a level of uniformity and predictability in
sentencing. Given what I've said, I want to address you and
ask, is this what we really want in our sentencing policies?
Doesn't uniformity and predictability impede on the role of the
judge? Isn't it the judge's role to serve as a disinterested
enforcer of justice, who at his discretion can consider
mitigating circumstances and determine--determining the
appropriate sentencing for defendants? We've heard from a lot
of judges. They don't like mandatory minimum sentencing.
And don't you think we should be involved in prevention and
diverting people away from the criminal justice system, first-
time offenders, young, 19 years old, first mistake, five grams
of crack cocaine? Why do they deserve to have 5 years mandatory
minimum sentence in a Federal penitentiary where they'll be
thrown in with hard-core traffickers who probably will
certainly divert them to being involved in drugs? Can you give
me some insight on why----
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired, but you may
answer the question.
Ms. Avergun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Waters, thank you
very much for your question. There are situations where drug
treatment is more appropriate than incarceration, and Mr.
Brooks has testified that a combination of sanction-based
demand reduction, that's what we call it in the Department,
coupled with the threat of incarceration is one effective way
to go.
However, mandatory minimums do provide uniformity. There
are studies, one recently cited by Judge Cassell in the Wilson
case, that said that there are a variety of studies that
suggest that a drop in crime rate is attributable to mandatory
minimums, and the Department of Justice abides by that--by
those studies. That is a critical part of drug enforcement,
and, in the drug cases, the Department of Justice believes that
mandatory minimums are appropriate.
That's not to say that judges should never have discretion.
That's not to say that treatment and prevention are not both
critical components of the drug control strategy of which drug
enforcement is the third part. But all play a part. In the
majority of cases, the Department of Justice does believe,
however, that mandatory minimums are appropriate and there are
studies that suggest that they do deter crime.
Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to see those
studies, if we could have a formal request for them.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Avergun, can you respond to that and make
that information available to the Subcommittee?
Ms. Avergun. I certainly can.
Mr. Coble. I appreciate that.
The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Forbes. No questions.
Mr. Coble. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I'll just pick up on my colleague from
California. You know, that there are, I would suggest, Ms.
Avergun, that there are more studies, of a substantial order of
magnitude, that indicate that the relationship between minimum
mandatories and their efficacy in terms of dealing with the
drug issue is probably negative.
You know, I think that most people on this panel would
seriously consider supporting this legislation but for, you
know, implicating into this--excuse me, Mr. Ranking Member,
except implicating minimum mandatory sentencing. You know, this
Committee is going to have to deal, you know, at some point in
time with the whole issue of sentencing guidelines. You know, a
good prosecutor is able to target, you know, those at the upper
level, if you will, in terms of a drug syndicate. A good police
officer knows who the individual is and in terms of presenting
a sentencing report that the vast majority of judges would
comply with and accept. It's just part of the job.
You know, I just think it's unfortunate, you know, and I
think that there's going to come a point in time when it will
be opportune to take a look and see what's happened in the
aftermath of Booker. That will give us some idea in terms of
the guidelines. But, to shift everything now into minimum
mandatories, I just don't think it's practical. I just really
don't think it makes a lot of sense and doesn't get us anywhere
in what I think is an objective that we all share.
So, you know, I think that's a message you can take back. I
mean, at some point in time, Congress is going to be faced,
too, I presume, with a request for more monies for the war on
drugs as it is defined in Plan Colombia. What are we seeing in
the--let me address this probably to Officer Brooks. How many
addicts do we have in the country today, hard-core addicts that
are responsible for a disproportionate number--how many hard-
core addicts----
Mr. Brooks. You know, when I was 40, I knew the answer to
that question, but somehow after I turned 50, it's somewhere up
in the recesses here, but I can't tell you.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Brownsberger?
Mr. Brownsberger. The truth is that no one knows because
this is a hidden behavior and it depends on the model that one
chooses and there are parameters in that model that are very
hard to estimate. But the numbers that we've seen are anywhere
between two and six million.
Mr. Delahunt. Okay. I want to--I think we all want results,
whatever the mechanism is, and I think it's really important
that the Department of Justice, working with academia, give us
an idea before we continue to spend a lot of money in a
wasteful way. Are we making a difference in terms of reducing
the number of addicts in this country?
I agree with you, Mr. Brooks. I mean, I think I have, and I
would hope at some point in time to convince the Chairman to
come to Cape Cod, probably around the summertime, and sit and
observe a drug court that we have there and a treatment center
that we have there that is incredibly effective. We know the
answers at this point in time. But you know, we need--we need
some accurate data and empirical information, because we can't
keep pouring money into initiatives that will not end up--will
not allow us to sufficiently gauge whether we're winning. We
don't know whether we're winning.
But I'm going to start asking that question on every dollar
that we spend in terms of--on both sides of the equation, both
the supply and the demand reduction side. We're going to start
to need some good statistics. My memory was three million.
Maybe it's just cocaine addicts. But, you know, we need to know
that. We need to have benchmarks. And if we start to see a
reduction in the number of addicts, we're going to see, I dare
say, a huge reduction in terms of the incidence of drug-related
crime.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman, and I thank you for your
invitation to go to Cape Cod, Bill. I'll talk to you about that
later.
Folks, with the indulgence of the witnesses and the
indulgence of my members, let me make this proposal. We have
two bills to mark up today and a reporting quorum is nine warm
bodies. We have those nine. Often times, it's easier to get
into Fort Knox than it is to get a working quorum--a reporting
quorum here, so if no one objects, I want to go ahead and mark
these two bills up while we have the nine members here, and
then we'll get back to the witnesses.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object?
Mr. Coble. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object
only to suggest that I understand what the Chairman is going to
do. But with my experience both as Attorney General of the
State of California, serving on the national commission
established by the first President Bush on model State drug
laws, and having, in my position as Attorney General, run the
Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement of the State of California, I
feel inadequately prepared to vote on the bill today. So I'm
just telling the Chairman that I would have some difficulty on
this.
The Chairman must proceed as he must proceed. But frankly,
Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Brooks, who used to be one of my top
agents, testifies that the most effective thing we have done in
California is with drug courts and I'm being asked to vote on a
bill that largely occupies the field with no reference to the
Federal courts for drug courts, I, frankly, have grave
difficulty doing that.
So with that, I'll be happy to----
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from----
Mr. Lungren. I'll be happy to yield.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Lungren, I will--let me float this out. You
are referring, I presume, to the bill before us now, 1528.
Mr. Lungren. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Coble. All right. We also have scheduled to mark up the
gang bill. Do you have any problem with that, Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. I do not have----
Mr. Coble. Or does anyone have any problems with that? All
right, why don't we move----
Mr. Scott. I have problems with it, but I don't know if----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Coble. And by the way, and this is a pertinent point
that I failed to mention, I am told that there are no
amendments to be submitted to either of these bills. Otherwise,
I wouldn't have done this.
Well, let's move along, then, on the gang bill, and we will
hold the bill before us, and I thank you, Mr. Lungren, for your
comments.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
[Hearing resumed after markup of H.R. 1528.]
Mr. Coble. We can now return to business at hand and the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief, and I
want to apologize to the panel for just arriving from my
district a little while ago. I will review the testimony in
full. I just have one question for Ms. Avergun, if I could.
We've heard a great deal about sentencing guidelines, but
in terms of deterring drug trafficking and distribution, in
your opinion, do you believe the mandatory minimums included in
H.R. 1528 will be more effective than the sentencing
guidelines, and if so, why?
Ms. Avergun. Thank you, Representative Chabot. The
Department of Justice is happy to use all the tools in its
arsenal to deter crime. Mandatory minimums deter crime and the
guidelines, advisory though they are, deter crime. The threat
of high sentences causes people to cooperate. There is no two
ways about it. I was a line prosecutor for 12 years in New York
and the threat of both the high guideline sentences and the
mandatory minimums are what worked for a prosecutor. So there
is no either/or here. They are both critical tools in a
prosecutor's arsenal.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I have no further
questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California, Mr.--oh, I haven't
recognized you, Dan? I'm sorry. The gentleman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
to welcome all the panelists here, particularly Mr. Brooks,
with whom I had a working relationship for 8 years and who's an
outstanding member of the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement in
the State of California and was involved in many different law
enforcement enterprises and is very knowledgeable on this
subject.
I happen to agree with him that we have an effective means
by which we deal with a significant number of people that we
find who are violating our drug laws, and that's the drug
courts. I was one of those who was not in support of drug
courts initially, but after reviewing them and seeing their
successes and personally visiting a number of drug courts in
California, I'm convinced of their utility. And I have some
concern about the bill that's before us because I don't
understand, frankly, how the drug court proposition fits into
the Federal model currently, and maybe the representative from
DEA could give me some advice on that.
Ms. Avergun. I don't think that we read this bill to
preclude or exclude the applicability of drug courts. Drug
courts are generally for users, people who need treatment----
Mr. Lungren. I understand that, but what I'm asking you is,
do we have drug courts on the Federal level?
Ms. Avergun. There certainly are drug courts on the Federal
level. There is sanction-based demand reduction as a critical
component of the Federal drug strategy.
Mr. Lungren. And are the Federal drug courts available
throughout the United States?
Ms. Avergun. I don't have an exact number of where they are
available, but they are available throughout the country. I
just couldn't tell you in which Federal districts they are
currently available.
Mr. Lungren. Okay. Mr. Brownsberger, as I understand it
from the map that you've shown us, virtually that entire
community would be covered if we extended it 1,000 feet, that
is, locating schools, parks, and treatment centers.
Mr. Brownsberger. Yes.
Mr. Lungren. My question to you is, do you find a utility
in us having at least some measure of additional penalty, and
therefore deterrent, around such places as parks, schools, and
treatment centers?
Mr. Brownsberger. I think it makes sense, but it has to be
at a much narrower radius.
Mr. Lungren. What would you suggest? You said you don't
agree with 1,000.
Mr. Brownsberger. A hundred feet would be reasonable.
That's a----
Mr. Lungren. What would that take us in terms of blocks?
Mr. Brownsberger. Half a block, a block. It depends on the
size of the block. But that's sort of the area--that would keep
people well off the premises. That would be a meaningful
deterrent for preying on the people involved in those
institutions.
Mr. Lungren. Well, if we're talking about schools, we're
talking about--or parks, we're talking about young people not
only there but close to there, that is, on their way to and
from. Does 100 feet make more sense than 1,000 feet if what
we're trying to do is protect our children?
Mr. Brownsberger. It does, because 1,000 feet--this is just
the schools. It doesn't include all those other things on that
laundry list. But that covers most of the community. So the
effect of 1,000 feet is to create the whole world as a drug-
free zone, and, therefore, you're not giving any particular
protection to your children. Your goal is to give particular
protection to children, as I understand it.
Mr. Lungren. Okay. Let me ask Commander Moriarty on that.
Is there something in the notion that we should give enhanced
protection to children by designating certain zones in
communities that will allow us to give them additional
protection by virtue of our definition, or would you support
such a broad scope that an entire community would be covered,
as is suggested by Mr. Brownsberger?
Ms. Moriarty. Well, I think he's right when he states that
the goal is to protect the children in the areas of the schools
and the drug treatment facilities, and so, when we are doing
our enforcement, it's actually more of an enhancement for the
penalties to actually meet some of the sentencing enhancements
to put some of the people in jail that we're using it for.
Mr. Lungren. Right, but what I'm asking you, conceptually,
do you think that's a good notion? Is that a good enforcement
tool that you do have certain defined areas you're telling the
drug dealers to stay out of?
Ms. Moriarty. I do. I do believe that that's important. I
don't know that 100 feet is enough----
Mr. Lungren. What if you have 1,000 feet and by application
of the map----
Ms. Moriarty. Then you have everything----
Mr. Lungren.--it covers everything. Does that defeat the
proposition or do you think that still is worthy? I'm trying to
figure this out and I'm trying to ask your help, because you're
there doing it all the time.
Ms. Moriarty. Well, sir, I can only answer that when we are
within 1,000 feet of a school, it is a deterrence because the
children are walking up and down that area. I mean, I see what
we're saying as far as then the whole entire neighborhood
becomes, or the whole city becomes covered under his map. But
it is a tool that we use to keep people off of the property,
and I do believe it is a deterrence.
Mr. Lungren. What do you think about drug courts?
Ms. Moriarty. I think drug courts are an exceptional
option.
Mr. Lungren. I don't know what that means. Does that mean
good or bad?
Ms. Moriarty. Good. In the State level for us in Colorado,
I mean, there are times when we go into Federal sentencing, but
more so when we get a chance to stay State and local, drug
courts are a huge part of what the National Alliance is because
it eventually can help the user and maybe bring the families
back together.
Mr. Lungren. This bill has a mandatory minimum life
sentence for someone who is over 21 convicted on the second
time of dealing drugs to someone under 18, mandatory minimum
life sentence. Ms. Avergun, is that appropriate? Would that
help or not help us in our ratcheting up? I'm one of those who
wants to ratchet up, but I want to know how far I should
ratchet up.
Ms. Avergun. I think it depends on a case-by-case basis
whether it's appropriate.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. I also agree, it is very appropriate in some
instances where the person, where these drug dealers are
extremely predatory and where they have a history of being
predators, of using juveniles to facilitate, to be lookouts, to
be sellers, putting them in harm's way, taking advantage of
their vulnerability, their lack of sophistication, their lack
of maturity. And so I think that's a decision for the
prosecutor and the courts to decide when it's appropriate, and
law enforcement, I also think it helps us.
Thinking back to many cases we did when I worked for you,
where we used the threat of Federal sanctions, the threat of
the tough penalties that we can impose if the case were filed
federally, to then get cooperation, to develop informants, to
get people to enter into pleas and to really be effective, it's
a great tool for us.
There are studies in California and New Jersey that have
shown that 76 percent of the kids that choose not to use drugs
consider as part of that choice the fact that there are tough
drug laws and tough sanctions. When they look at that, I mean,
having drug laws aren't going to keep people from using drugs
that are going to use drugs anyway, but they may help make
people make good choices, those people that are willing to
weigh their decision. So I think it is appropriate to have
those sanctions available.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brownsberger?
Mr. Brownsberger. Mr. Lungren, thank you. I just wanted to
add a little bit on that notion of 100 feet. These laws say 100
feet from the real property comprising the school, where
comprise means enclosing the school. So you have a property in
which there's a school sitting. Sitting 100 feet off of that
property is pushing people off of all of the streets that
surround that property. So 100 feet from the real property
comprising the institution really does set people back quite a
ways.
Ms. Avergun. May I supplement my answer on the drug courts?
We were able to gather something quickly. There is one drug
court in the Federal system. It is largely a State court
product. However, there are 1,600 federally-funded drug courts.
So the Federal involvement is on the funding level rather than
on the option for incarceration----
Mr. Lungren. No, I understand that. My concern is if I am
here as a legislator making a decision as to what I'm going to
tell the courts to do and this is in the Federal system and in
the Federal system, I'm saying to the judge, there is one or
two things you can do, but we don't have a Federal drug court,
I don't know how I work that out, how I transfer that court to
State and have them work it out.
Ms. Avergun. That can be done. In many instances, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, for instance, works with State or
Federal prosecutors. It's a matter up to the agency as to which
way they steer their cases. If a case is more appropriate once
it's in Federal court, there are mechanisms to dismiss a
complaint in favor of a drug court option.
Mr. Lungren. Would you object to us having more Federal
drug courts? If we were to raise these penalties but at the
same time have an option under certain circumstances that you
could have a drug court option, would you object to that?
Ms. Avergun. I don't think that anybody objects to the
concept of drug courts. They are proven. I think that they are
good for a limited class of people----
Mr. Lungren. Right.
Ms. Avergun.--most of whom are not targeted under this
statute. This statute is really targeting those who violate our
kids and who prey on our kids.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired, and I
recognize Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, the distinguished lady from
Texas. And after her questioning, then we will go for a second
round, if there are other questions that need to be put to the
panel. So the gentlelady from Texas, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much for his
charity and I apologize for being in another meeting or
discussion dealing with our position in Iraq. I thank the
Ranking Member, as well.
Let me--I was listening to my colleague from California
raise a question of, I think I heard, unreadiness. I don't want
to put any words in his mouth. I know that there is a degree of
unreadiness certainly on my part on this--on several issues,
and I know that we've already marked up the legislation dealing
with the gang deterrence. Let me speak generally, Mr. Chairman,
about these. I have amendments, but we may have to look toward
doing these either tomorrow or on the floor.
I have supported mandatory minimums in the past on certain
heinous and horrific acts against children. At the same time, I
am cautious about the implementation of mandatory minimums by
statute inasmuch as it does not allow the discretion that I
think is appropriate to a court. It's unfortunate when the
Supreme Court has questioned the mandatory minimums, which I
find really wear out their welcome on non-violent criminals
after a period of time, because after a period of time on non-
violent criminals, all you do when you go to the Federal
prisons is see individuals on 10-, 15-, 25-, 30-year sentencing
based upon an action they did when they were 20 and they're now
35, 45, 55. They're filling up beds when they could be with
their family, be rehabilitated. And so mandatory minimums does
not cause me a great deal of excitement.
I think when we started looking at the methamphetamine
issue and we were trying to clean that up in certain regions,
it certainly gives us a reason to deal with that in a
legislative manner.
What I see here, however, gives me pause because seemingly,
what it does is if two individuals in a non-violent manner are
engaging in some sort of drug trade, no matter how small it is,
they wind up in a Federal system and under a mandatory minimum.
And to me, that seems to be unreasonable inasmuch as we've seen
crime go down. It does not respond to those who are really
addicted, both the seller and the buyer, because the seller can
be addicted, too, seeking to get some money. It has a heavy
burden on minorities, particularly African Americans. We still
have not cured, I think, the disease of incarcerating more
African Americans than others as it relates to drug offenses,
particularly under crack, and that's still the drug of
proliferation.
I don't see the rush to go forward with this without--and I
heard my colleague talk about Federal drug courts. I don't
think we have any. I do know that in the Southern District, for
example, the Federal court system is completely overloaded with
immigration cases and criminal cases so that the civil cases in
the Federal system cannot even get inside the courtroom door
beyond four, five, or six years.
Crime, as I understand it, has gone down. But treatment
beds have gone down, as well. So, we're not curing the problem.
And we have legislation here that now adds an additional
Congressional--excuse me, criminal parameter, and, therefore,
does not, to me, answer the solution.
I'm going to go back with Mr. Brownsberger. You were
showing us the geographics. I'm raising some points that
probably have been raised by my colleagues already, and I
apologize, but I really want you to pinpoint the issue of a
problem and then a solution. Are we at such a heightened
problem that the legislation that is before us really answers
the concern, or by passing the legislation, are we now creating
enhanced offenses and then more incarceration and really not
getting to the problem? Are we so devastated by individual drug
dealers on street corners attempting to influence either those
leaving a drug location or a treatment center or school that we
need to put this heavy-handed legislation in place?
Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you, Representative Lee. In my
view, the law is very heavy already. We have very, very heavy
penalties already. You have a lot of people spending a long
time in jail. We have to remember that these are children.
We're talking about protecting children, but a lot of these
young men are children when they get into this trouble. They
are 16, 17, 18, 19 years old. They are children still. And so
the law is already heavy-handed enough. That's my general view.
I've allowed as much as to say that if you targeted
narrowly certain facilities, perhaps you could address a
problem. I do believe it's a problem, the problem of drug
dealers coming on the premises of methadone maintenance
facilities, in particular. That's an issue.
By the way, I'd like to say, if the Committee were to go in
this direction of passing this bill, it would have to
dramatically narrow the definition of facilities involved. The
definition of facilities here would include individual
providers. It would be very hard to identify those and for
anybody to know that they were anywhere near a psychologist's
office who was providing drug treatment. So it wouldn't really
have any benefit in that context.
But a methadone maintenance facility, that's something you
have people lining up outside. That's something you might want
to keep people away from. That's a reasonable thing to try to
do.
I don't want to suggest that this is necessary to do that,
though. I do believe that the task of enforcement is the task
that people face and the laws are already heavy enough. They
have mandatory minimums. They have heavy penalties and they can
put these people in jail. The challenge is to put the police
resources in place to move people away from those facilities.
And I think, if you don't put those police resources in place,
then you're just putting laws on the books. You're not actually
doing anything. So, I think it's really a question of having
the police resources in place to protect those facilities as
opposed to locking people up for a longer period of time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. May I, Mr. Chairman? Ms. Avergun, why
don't you respond to that. Isn't it more reasonable, what Mr.
Brownsberger has just said? It makes common sense to me.
Enforcement is really the issue. What you're doing is, and
you've got some outstanding staff persons down in Texas that I
work with all the time. Let me applaud them, the DEA unit
that's down in Houston, Texas, in particular. And they've got a
big job. They're dealing with smugglers coming across the
border. They're dealing with drug cartels, really major issues,
and, of course, certainly they're dealing with sometimes street
crime.
But, the point is, wouldn't it be more effective to give
the resources to local law enforcement so that they know who is
scouting out the methadone clinic, who is scouting out the
school, as opposed to hampering us again with more time, more
incarceration, and more one-time petty criminals selling
whatever ounce it is and then they're locked up in the Federal
system, which burdens the Federal system and allows them to be
there for 30, 40 years?
Ms. Avergun. Certainly, more resources to the State and
locals would be welcome to police these kinds of crimes. These
people need our protection. But again, it's not an either/or
proposition. There are cases where people prey on people coming
out of clinics. It's not just a one-time deal. And, for those
types of cases where we are dealing with organizational targets
or higher-level suppliers who are taking the most opportunity
of the most vulnerable victims, then that would be an
appropriate Federal resource and appropriate use of the
statute.
But it's not that we only have mandatory minimums and we
target the one-time seller. It is a spectrum, a broad array of
enforcement options starting from State and local resources up
to careful targeting at the Federal level. But we do feel that
these tools are needed in our arsenal.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't think we've changed any of our
drug laws over the past 20 years, and my understanding is that
we really have a sufficient series of mandatory minimums on
drug laws. In fact, we have, a number of us for a number of
years, have been trying to bring equity to the mandatory
minimums between cocaine and crack. That has not changed. So,
apparently, these strictures are still in place. I can't
imagine that they cannot be utilized for an indictment against
those who would be part of a cartel. First of all, you have
conspiracy, the ability for conspiracy.
You are going to wind up roping in, looping in addicted
persons who need treatment as well as the one-times along with
the two times and the three times, and these persons are known
to be either with no alternative, which I'm not giving as an
unilateral excuse, but no alternatives in areas where the
educational system is at a near collapse, that these young
people are out on the streets with no educational resources and
background and left to their own devices. That's what we should
be looking at and funding, alternatives to--or as opposed to
what we're talking about today.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Ladies and gentlemen, let me divert one more
time.
[Whereupon, the Committee proceeded to other business.]
[Hearing resumed for second round of questions, after
markup of H.R. 1279.]
Mr. Coble. Now we will return to regular order at the bill
at hand. Folks, we're going to start a second round. I notice
that Mr.--well, Mr. Green has already gone. Mr. Scott, why
don't you start on our second round.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. And let me ask the Members, folks, if you will,
try to adhere to the 5-minute rule because we've kept our
witnesses here probably longer than they expected, but it's
still good to have you.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brownsberger, you had said that you had some numbers on
relative cost effectiveness of investing in--the little money
we have with the result of reducing drug use. Do you want to
just quickly recite some of those numbers?
Mr. Brownsberger. Yes. There's a study that was----
Mr. Scott. Just in general.
Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you. There's a study that was done
by Carnegie Mellon--actually, I guess it was by Rand, Jonathan
Calkins, Peter Reuter, a quantitative study that came out
several years ago that made an estimate of the quantitative
reduction in drug use associated with a million dollars spent
on incarceration, a million dollars spent on treatment and so
forth, and the ratio of benefits was about 7 to 1, as I recall,
the treatment benefits to the incarceration benefits.
Mr. Scott. And mandatory minimums came in last place in
that study?
Mr. Brownsberger. Well, that's right, mandatory minimums
that cause incarceration.
Mr. Scott. You said mandatory minimums was the least cost
effective, then regular sentencing came in next, and far ahead
was drug treatment for heavy users?
Mr. Brownsberger. Actually, I have to--as I recall the
study, it didn't distinguish between mandatory minimums and
incarceration generally. It just grouped those together, unless
I----
Mr. Scott. If you could provide that study, it would be
helpful.
Mr. Brownsberger. I will do that. Could I just follow that
just for one moment? It's been said that this bill is
compatible with drug courts, but really, this bill, it poses
incarcerations which are so long that they make drug courts
substantially irrelevant and they do that for crimes which
really may have--that may be really committed by people who
should be in drug courts.
Mr. Scott. But we also have, I think, ascertained that
there are no drug courts in Federal court, so if you use a
Federal statute, you've got to be in Federal court to implement
the Federal statute. So if you use the provisions of the bill,
you're not going to be able to access drug courts anyway.
Mr. Brownsberger. Exactly.
Mr. Scott. Let me--Mr. Brooks, you indicated the importance
of treatment. Isn't it true there's no treatment in the bill?
Mr. Brooks. I did not see any treatment in the bill.
Mr. Scott. Okay. And the present penalties that you have
available to you ought to be sufficient to hold over somebody's
head if they're in State court to go to a drug court, to go to
rehab?
Mr. Brooks. Well, no, I think that these more aggressive
penalties do give us a greater tool to incent--as an incentive.
But more importantly----
Mr. Scott. Yes, but if you give them that incentive, you
can't use drug courts because you're in Federal court under
this bill without drug courts.
Mr. Brooks. That's correct, sir, but mostly because this
bill and the Federal drug prosecution statutes don't
generally--aren't generally aimed at the persons that are
eligible for drug courts anyway. Drug courts are more of a
State court initiative because they are focused on drug users
and persons that are on the fringe of the drug selling arena,
not on persons that have met Federal thresholds and are fully
involved in drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, drug
smuggling.
These Federal drug laws, including the tough sentences in
this bill, these are for people that are predators that put
children at great risk, that put their lives at great risk, and
not people that are just using or addicted.
Mr. Scott. If you go get some for yourself and then you go
get some for your friend, and as an accommodation, no profit,
that's included in this, too, isn't it?
Mr. Brooks. You know what, I'm not a lawyer, sir. I'm not
sure.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Ms. Avergun, there are provisions in here
for second offenses?
Ms. Avergun. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Is it a second offense if you have--if you're
charged with a couple of crimes? In our localities, they have a
sweep, you get caught in Newport News and also in the adjoining
jurisdiction in Hampton, and you're tried in Newport News, this
first offense. If you're tried in Hampton without having gone
to jail in between, is that a second offense?
Ms. Avergun. I don't know how that would work under this
statute, Mr. Scott. It would----
Mr. Scott. Well, you've got life imprisonment if you get
busted for that second offense.
Ms. Avergun. Yes. There are very complex rules for what
counts as a prior conviction to trigger these second offense--
--
Mr. Scott. Okay. Since we're talking about life without--
life imprisonment without parole, is marijuana a controlled
substance under this bill?
Ms. Avergun. Marijuana is a controlled substance
everywhere.
Mr. Scott. So if you're in a circle and they're passing it
around, that's all distribution. Get caught twice, what
happens?
Ms. Avergun. Theoretically, that would be--if you were
convicted both times under this statute, that would be the
mandatory life.
Mr. Scott. Well, how do you get a predicate offense to
start off with that second offense? What are the predicate
offenses?
Ms. Avergun. I can't tell you what all the predicate
offenses are----
Mr. Scott. Is marijuana a predicate offense?
Ms. Avergun. Any drug felony--for purposes of the predicate
felony statutes, any drug felony is an initial offense.
Mr. Scott. Is it other felonies? It's not a misdemeanor?
Ms. Avergun. Not a misdemeanor, no. It would have to be----
Mr. Scott. Where is that?
Ms. Avergun. I think it's in section 851 of title 21, not
in this statute.
Mr. Scott. Not in this bill, because this bill just talks
about controlled substances.
Ms. Avergun. That's what the law is.
Mr. Scott. Okay. So if I could, Mr. Chairman, I just want
to know, if you are distributing marijuana or distributing
cocaine amongst friends and get busted, that's first offense.
And, if the arrests come in two different busts or two
different jurisdictions, you're not sure whether or not the
second conviction would give you life without parole or not
under the bill?
Ms. Avergun. I can't tell you under your facts whether the
first counts as a conviction that would count as a first
conviction to trigger the second conviction. I'm just not--I
don't think that that's been thought through enough by any of
us at the Department of Justice to tell you----
Mr. Scott. Well, you don't have to worry. What we've
thought through is we took a poll, and this bill will help us
get elected. That's about all we need to know.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I understand the gentleman from Virginia's question,
it's the life--mandatory life sentence----
Mr. Scott. Two strikes and you're out.
Mr. Lungren.--on two strikes. But as I understand it, as I
read the bill, it would have to be the same offense. That is, a
21-year-old, someone over 21 selling to someone under 18. So
not other----
Mr. Scott. Two fraternity brothers.
Mr. Lungren. Two fraternity brothers, one over 21 and one
under 18. I hope we wouldn't have Federal prosecutors going
after that.
Mr. Scott. I think they----
Mr. Lungren. But let me ask a question. Ms. Moriarty, you
talked about meth and how it was an eye opener to you, what it
meant to children. When I was out in California, we had an
expression which was meth use equals child abuse. Some of the
worst child abuse cases I ever saw or read about were those
involving meth users.
And then the other thing was what you had mentioned was
that there wasn't direct physical abuse by the parent to the
child. We found great levels of exposure to methamphetamine or
its predecessor elements in the children when they did physical
examinations.
What have you found to be the most effective way of dealing
with that? In other words, and I know this generalizes, but in
these cases where you find children on the premises with their
parents who are dealing meth, do you find any sense of
responsibility with those parents, any remorse, any--what I'm
trying to get at is what do you think, from your experience,
would be the most effective means of deterrence to those
parents when they're exposing their children to the meth
environment?
Ms. Moriarty. I would say, Mr. Lungren, on the onset of
that, when we first arrest them, exactly what you said. We call
methamphetamine the walk-away drug, that they literally walk
away from everything in their life, to include their own life.
They don't--I mean, incarceration at that point isn't even an
issue. I have had several of those that we arrested actually
thank law enforcement for taking the first step in changing
their life by putting them into custody, and it does go hand-
in-hand with what we're trying to do with the National
Alliance, is to, you know, drug court is important, and if
they're going to be part of a family again and get clean, there
needs to be consequences at the same time. So we have found
that consequences have actually meant something.
But at the very beginning, I've never seen an environment
that is more dangerous than those of meth users. The paranoia
alone, the fact that they don't eat. I've walked into homes
where they haven't fed their children for weeks, and so it's
really--it's just a sad, hideous, hazardous environment. But
like I said, at the beginning, there's no recognition to
anything. They've literally--we've had addicts give their
children away, and so that's what we see.
Mr. Lungren. See, my biggest concern is the kids. I would
hope that we could salvage the parents, but it seems to me in
those cases the chances are better that we can salvage the kids
than salvage the parents. I would love to salvage the whole
family unit. My question is, what tools do you think we need to
have in the Federal system to try and do that, first to save
the kids, and then second--well, first of all, do you think
it's important, is it possible in your experience to salvage a
family unit under those circumstances?
Ms. Moriarty. I do believe that it's important to always
try to salvage a family unit. I think that the children--you
know, because they're not great parents, they're still their
parents, and I think that that's a significant impact that we
need to have on their lives is as to how to bring the family
back together. I think----
Mr. Lungren. So what tools do we need? What tools would you
recommend, based on your experience, that have been effective
from the Government's standpoint to help achieve that?
Mr. Coble. Ms. Moriarty, as brief as you can because the
time has expired, but go ahead.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, my red light was on as soon as I
started questioning. I don't know what happened, but anyway----
Ms. Moriarty. I think that we need to bring, I don't know
if--I speak from a local level and from doing law enforcement
and from the Alliance for Children, but I think bringing multi-
disciplines together. These children need some psychological
help. I mean, medical, they need treatment themselves. They
need to understand that this is not their fault, and they're
our next generation of users. And so I think that that's part
of our prevention, that is, if we don't put some effort and
energy into the children, we're just creating, like I said
earlier, the next 114,000 that are high-risk at use for using
drugs, if we don't start intervening in their lives and get
them socially connected and put somebody in their lives who can
help change that.
Mr. Coble. Dan, you are correct. Your light was on, so I
think you still have a couple minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Coble. I stand corrected.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brownsberger?
Mr. Brownsberger. I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond
to that, as well. I mean, I, as a drug court attorney, work
with a lot of mothers and fathers who are addicted and have
lost their children and have neglected their children and
deeply regret that they neglected their children. Clearly,
their children are victims.
Number one, as a response, this isn't primarily a Federal
problem. This is a problem for the State and local social
services, number one.
Mr. Lungren. But given the fact we're going to have a
Federal presence.
Mr. Brownsberger. Well, I'm not--if you take that as a
given, I'm not sure that's the right given.
Mr. Lungren. Okay, but let me tell you, we're going to have
a Federal presence----
Mr. Brownsberger. Okay. Well, in that----
Mr. Lungren. --and I'd like to know what the best one is.
Mr. Brownsberger. I would advocate that presence include
active support for treatment for children and for treatment for
parents and for treatment facilities in which children can be
with their parents, because believe it or not, a lot of these
children still love their parents. Ripping those parents away,
sending them for 10 years for the neglect that they've
committed really isn't necessarily part of the solution.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. I agree with Commander Moriarty. It's really
important that we have the tools to intervene, and it's
important that we keep the family unit together, but we're not
always going to keep the family unit together. That's the
ultimate goal. But, first and foremost, we have to protect
those kids. So we have to get the child protective services
folks in. We need to get the psychological folks in. We have to
get the medical folks in and make sure that we're taking care
of--I mean, these are ticking time bombs. We don't really know
yet what the full effect of having these children unprotected
in these toxic environments for years and years, what the full
medical effect is on them. We might have sentenced them to
death and not even known it yet.
And so it has to be a multi-disciplinary approach triggered
by law enforcement when they enter that lab site, bringing
psychological services in, bringing child protective services
in, helping to reintegrate the family, but understanding that
we're not always going to reintegrate the family and sometimes
we just have to then salvage those children.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. And I apologize to you, Dan. I didn't realize
the clock was defective.
The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady was kind enough to allow me
just to--I was unavoidably detained when the Committee voted
on, I believe, H.R. 1528, and I would like to ask unanimous
consent that my vote of ``no'' be placed in the record at the
appropriate place.
Mr. Coble. Without objection, it will be done.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I was unavoidably detained on H.R.
1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of
2005,'' and I'd like to have my vote of ``present'' be
acknowledged and placed in the appropriate place for H.R. 1279.
I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Coble. Without objection, it will be done.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. And the gentlelady from California is recognized
for 5 minutes. Let's get the clock working. Set that clock at 5
minutes. Thank you, Mike.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Sometimes, I think we really don't know what's going on out
there in the streets of America, both in our cities and our
towns. We talk about these children of drug-addicted parents,
and I heard some references to the children of parents who are
addicted on meth. But whether it is meth or crack cocaine,
these children are extremely vulnerable. They are neglected.
Oftentimes--well, there is nothing like seeing children who
actually live in a crack house. I've seen it. There's nothing
like seeing children who are living with a mother who is crack
addicted. In the streets, they refer to them as strawberries,
and they're capable of committing almost any unimaginable act
in order to get crack cocaine, they're so addicted.
I have seen many of these children grow up in these
environments, and many of them are gang members. And I think
the most dangerous gang member in America is one who has
experienced their mother on crack cocaine and have seen what
happens to her in that environment. All the safety nets are
pulled out from under them and, really, there's nowhere for the
children to turn. Nobody really cares. Nobody does anything for
these children.
When the mother ends up dead or in prison, and if there's a
mate involved, both of them dead or in prison, if they're
lucky, there is a grandmother. The grandmother gets no support
from the State to help with these children, and many of the
gang members end up being young people who gather together and
live in vacant houses or with each other and they become the
family, and they're very, very dangerous. They are capable of
killing because their rejection and their pain is so profound,
so difficult. But America doesn't understand any of this and
does nothing about it.
So it's almost a joke as we sit here and we talk about
mandatory minimum sentencing and we talk about whether or not
we lock up parents who abuse their children who are drug
addicts. I mean, come on. There's a great disconnect here about
what really goes on out there.
I've seen it. I understand it. I'm extremely frustrated
about it. And this kind of legislation does nothing to help it.
There needs to be support for children whose parents are drug
addicted in several ways, and you're absolutely right. Many of
them love their parents until they die, until the parents die
before their very eyes, are taken away to prison, and they
don't know what to do about that.
Where do we see anything that will provide the kind of
support for children of crack-addicted parents dealing with
them while they're still in the houses with some of them, or
when they have been removed, or when the parents die or go to
prison? There's just nothing in the system that I see.
Foster care, maybe, when children are taken away, and when
they're thrown into these foster care settings, basically, they
end up perhaps still vulnerable to what is happening in the
neighborhoods that they are relegated to in these foster care
situations where they have these kind of problems.
So I know my time is up, but let me just try and talk
about, if I may indulge for one moment, about these HIDTAs, or
the drug areas that are supposed to be targeting resources to
deal with drug trafficking and all of that. Can anybody here
explain to me what a HIDTA is, and how it works, and how they
get formed, and how they get chosen, and what they're doing?
Yes, sir, Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, ma'am, I can. The HIDTAs, there are 28
around the country. They are Congressionally designated and
certified by the Director of the Office of the National Drug
Control Policy. It brings together, using some Federal dollars
and State and local dollars, Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers in a collocated setting with a strategy
mostly to focus on drug trafficking organizations, those
organizations at the upper end. But it also provides support to
State and local law enforcement working street and mid-level
traffickers, as well.
Every HIDTA has an intelligence center so that the law
enforcement officers there work smarter and better. Every HIDTA
has technical equipment available. But the biggest thing is,
the HIDTAs are managed by balanced boards, eight State and
local officers and eight Federal officers. That balanced
approach gives the State and local law enforcement agencies the
feeling of partnership, and what the HIDTA really does, what it
has truly succeeded in doing is it's brought together law
enforcement agencies that traditionally would never talk
together, never work together----
Ms. Waters. Are they successful in reducing drug
trafficking and drug addiction in, let's say, Los Angeles, in
the South Los Angeles area? You're from that area.
Mr. Brooks. Actually, I'm from San Francisco, but I am from
California----
Ms. Waters. Okay.
Mr. Brooks. It absolutely is.
Ms. Waters. It is. How?
Mr. Brooks. Because when you're able to drive price up,
drive availability down, drive the social stigma, and take--
HIDTAs are focused at the organizational level, not at the
street level but at the organizational level, where they're
able to take down cartel-based, using a partnership between DEA
and the other Federal law enforcement agencies, in your area
the LAPD and the L.A. Sheriffs, Hawthorne Police Department,
you know, all of the 44 agencies in Los Angeles County. They
come together in big initiatives like L.A. Impact, using
information run through the L.A. clearing center, and are able
to focus, then, on those big organizations.
Tom Constantine, who was the DEA Administrator for a number
of years, 6 years, just told me over dinner the other night the
biggest cases that they were able to do in the Los Angeles
area, big organizations, started, although DEA often managed
those cases, they started out of one of the L.A. HIDTA-run
initiatives.
And so, ma'am, it brings together a disparate group of
agencies. It makes them all talk the same language under the
same roof with a coordinated strategy, and they truly do work,
in my opinion.
Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to
tell you this. For those of us who are watching what I
described to you, don't feel the effectiveness of these
bureaucratic agency HIDTAs that you just described. We don't
feel it. We don't see the drug dealers being taken off the
streets. We don't see you stopping the flow of drugs into these
communities.
Crack cocaine has destroyed and devastated--and continues
to do so--communities throughout this country, and many of the
gangs survive based on dealing drugs, and you guys don't know
anything about it--not you guys, but that's a generic ``you
guys.'' There's nothing happening to break it up. There's no
undercover operation that's helping to identify where these
drugs are coming from and how they're getting in there, and we
suffer. We suffer throughout these communities. We're so damned
tired of it.
Mr. Coble. The----
Ms. Waters. And when I sit in these Committees and listen
to us talk to each other, it just blows my mind that we don't
know what the heck we're doing. I'm just--I've had it up to
here.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Brooks, there are 28, do you say----
Mr. Brooks. Twenty-eight HIDTAs with and counting the
partnerships along the Southwest border. Thirty-three
divisions, but 28 designated HIDTAs.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I mean, clearly, you can see the frustration
that I know we all share.
I want to go back to my earlier point about the number of
addicts in the country, and I think it was you, Ms. Avergun,
that indicated two to six million.
Ms. Avergun. That was Mr. Brownsberger.
Mr. Delahunt. It was Mr. Brownsberger.
Ms. Avergun. But he's right.
Mr. Delahunt. But he's right, two to six million. I think
that what we heard, the frustration of my friend from
California, is we're operating in the dark. Let me put a
premise out, that the vast majority of drug-related crime is
committed by drug addicts. I don't see how we can effectively
measure whether we're succeeding unless we develop a
methodology that allows us to more accurately assess whether
we're successful through a combined coherent strategy--supply,
demand. There are great programs out there. We know that
because we know it anecdotally.
But, I mean, I believe the first place to start, and I
would hope that the chair and this Committee at some point in
time would just simply seek to have a panel--and this is an
excellent panel--that would talk about the methodologies of how
we measure success or lack thereof so that we can pass and
support a coherent legislative approach and appropriate the
necessary funding as opposed to simply just taking a stab.
I mean, you know, heroin use is up in the Northeast. We
can't use just simply the standards of availability and price.
We've got to get to the heart and soul of the matter, which is
reducing the number of individuals that are addicted to drugs.
That's the heart and soul, in my opinion. I'd be interested in
hearing--Ms. Moriarty?
Ms. Moriarty. Mr. Delahunt, if I might, I think you bring
up a great question, and that is something that the National
Alliance for Drug Endangered Children and all of the States
that have alliances are looking at, as well, is how are we
measuring success and how do we know if we're doing anything to
change the lives of these children.
So when we sat down as a group of multi-disciplines, to
include treatment, law enforcement, social services, the
judicial system, psychologists, we started trying to determine
how do you measure if a child is coming successfully or safely
out of these environments and not growing up to be our next
drug addicts and falling into the same system. And part of the
measurement that we were feeling could be something that we
could look into is obviously that that's being taken into
consideration is the reduction of recidivism into the system.
You know, if drug courts are working, and, therefore, when
they're under arrest and they've been put into a court and then
they don't get back, or the education, kids that are now
graduating from high school instead of dropping out in school,
and the reduction of recidivism into the social services
system, because social services is carrying the huge burden of
all of this----
Mr. Delahunt. Correct, but that's the beginning of
establishing a set of criteria to measure if we're effective.
Ms. Moriarty. Correct.
Mr. Delahunt. Okay? I mean, that's the issue. If we have
six million addicts in this country today and we can reduce
that figure to 500,000, we will see a tremendous decline in the
number or the incidence of all violent crime in the country.
Ms. Moriarty. Absolutely.
Mr. Brownsberger. I'd just like to endorse absolutely what
you're saying. There's a strong argument that the amount of
crime--if you multiply the number of crimes that drug addicts,
who are interviewed, admit committing, times any estimate of
the number of drug addicts, you get more than the total number
of crimes that are reported in this country, and so there's
every reason to believe that drug addiction accounts for the
vast majority of acquisitive crimes--larceny, robbery,
prostitution, all those crimes that generate income. And so
they are the best community-level measure, perhaps, of the
success of an anti-drug program.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, we have a Drug Czar, and I asked our
other panelists in the--you'll indulge me just for another
minute, Howard. I mean, we have a Drug Czar. We've had a series
of Drug Czars under both Administrations. I'm not going to--
this is absolutely non-partisan. But I would hope that within
that office, there would be an effort, okay, to establish
criteria, and the one that you allude to, Commander Moriarty, I
think makes really good sense, the recidivism rate, and
tracking. We should have long-term studies going on, and we
should be able in real time, on an annual basis, we should have
a report, Mr. Chairman, from the Drug Czar on an annual basis
to come before this Committee to report on the number of
addicts in this country. That is a single statistic that
translates into so much. We can talk mandatory sentences. We
can talk prevention. We can talk treatment. But you know what?
We're going on our gut. We're going on our gut.
Ms. Avergun. May I add something?
Mr. Delahunt. Sure.
Ms. Avergun. The Drug Czar puts out the National Drug
Control Strategy, and part of the National Drug Control
Strategy is reporting results of the President's and the
Administration's drug strategy. One of the important factors
that is measured in the Monitoring the Future Survey, which is
a survey done of eighth, tenth, and 12th graders and drug use.
And, as you may know, in 2002, the President established
national goals for reduction of drug use, and, in fact, we all
together, working together in all our different areas--law
enforcement, treatment, prevention--have achieved success in
that. There is a measure of success.
The survey showed that since 2002, there's been an 11
percent decline in drug use, and this year, up to 17 percent
decline----
Mr. Delahunt. Okay, and that's important, but again,
getting back--this is the Subcommittee on Crime.
Ms. Avergun. Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. Crime--drug crime is committed by drug
addicts in this country, and that has to be--if we're going to
make our streets safer, let me suggest this. That has to be the
target population that we deal with in terms of a substantial
reduction in the level of violence. I know there's all kinds of
social reasons, et cetera, for that. I mean, we can talk about
future use and that.
But I would like--I would hope, okay, that the
Administration, and I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could
just have a panel on the methodologies. You know, Mr. Lungren
asked some very good questions. I think this is--I mean,
everybody is saying here, give us parameters. Give us some
hard--because, if you listen closely to Congresswoman Waters,
she's not feeling it. She wants to see hard data. We can't talk
just about availability with driving the price down. We're
going to be asking this Congress, what's your opinion? Should
we vote to support what's happening in Colombia or should we
better spend it on drug treatment programs or social services
or building more prisons here? I don't know.
But I want to--you know, I spent 20-plus years myself in
law enforcement, so I understand the problems of law
enforcement and the need to do something on the supply side.
But you know what? We don't really know, and we're not going to
know until we're in a better position to ascertain the number
of addicts.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired.
Folks, as you can tell, this hearing today has generated
much interest.
Mr. Scott. Did you want to answer that?
Mr. Brownsberger. Only if the----
Mr. Coble. Go ahead, Mr. Brownsberger.
Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you. I really just wanted to
emphasize, the number of addicts is a very, very hard number to
measure and it's not one that we will ever achieve consensus on
because it is a hidden behavior. And I would just suggest to
the Committee that the best measure of the number of addicts in
a community is the property crime rate. That's how you see
them, is through property crime, and so that is a very good
metric and one that I have recommended to the use of the
fighting back communities, the communities that had community
projects to develop strategies against--to reduce drug use. I
consulted those communities to develop their methodologies to
measure their success, and that was my recommendation to those
communities----
Mr. Coble. Well, as I said earlier, and I thank you, Mr.
Brownsberger, this has attracted much attention. Oftentimes,
Mr. Scott and I will be the only Members here, and I don't say
that critically because there are other hearings conducted
simultaneously. But this has promoted much interest, and I'm
sure it will not expire after we adjourn.
This problem, folks, and I think every Member has expressed
it, I think illegal drugs has the potential of bringing this
country to its knees unless we can get a firm handle on it.
I thank the witnesses for your testimony. The Subcommittee
very much appreciates your contribution.
In order to assure a full record and adequate consideration
of this important issue, the record will be left open for an
additional submission for 7 days from you all. By the same
token, if Members have written questions, they need to submit
their questions also within that same 7-day time frame.
This concludes the hearing----
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Waters. I'd like to also request--I requested Ms.
Avergun to give us the information from those studies. She also
talked about an 11 percent success rate. It just blows my mind.
I don't believe it. But I'd like to have that study, also. I
want to know where that information came from.
Ms. Avergun. Surely, Representative Waters.
Mr. Coble. That'll be forthcoming.
Ms. Avergun. Yes, that will.
Mr. Scott. And Mr. Chairman, we can put--do we have time to
put items in the record by unanimous--do we need to do that
now, or is the record open?
Mr. Coble. The record will be open for 7 days.
The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney
General, and Director, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces,
United States Department of Justice, before the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, July 6, 2004
Mr. Chairman, Representative Scott, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today
regarding the Justice Department's views on H.R. 4547, Defending
America' Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child
Protection Act of 2004.
Protecting vulnerable victims from drug dealing predators,
particularly those who would exploit human weakness by preying on
persons afflicted with addictions to drugs or on those who, because of
their youth and immaturity, are particularly susceptible to influence,
is a laudable goal and one the Department of Justice fully endorses.
Last year, Congress made significant strides by enacting the PROTECT
Act, a law that has proved effective in enabling law enforcement to
pursue and to punish wrongdoers who threaten the youth of America.
The Act now under consideration takes Congress'commendable efforts
even further by focusing on the scourge of drug trafficking in some of
its most base and dangerous forms: trafficking to minors or in places
where they may congregate, and trafficking in or near drug treatment
centers.
Endangerment of children through exposure to drug activity, sales
of drugs to children, the use of minors in drug trafficking, and the
peddling of pharmaceutical and other illicit drugs to drug treatment
patients are all significant problems today. One need only consider the
following few examples:
<bullet> In 2003, 3,625 children were found in the
approximately 9,000 methamphetamine laboratories seized
nationwide. Of those, 1,040 children were physically present at
the clandestine labs and 906 actually resided at the lab site
premises. Forty-one children found were injured. Law
enforcement referred 501 children to child protective services
following the enforcement activity.
<bullet> According to the BBC, a 12-year-old drug mule living
in Nigeria swallowed 87 condoms full of heroin before boarding
a flight from London to New York. He was offered $1,900 to make
the trip.
<bullet> In ``Operation Paris Express,'' an investigation led
by the former U.S. Customs Service, agents learned that members
of the targeted international drug trafficking organization
specifically instructed couriers to use juveniles for smuggling
trips to allay potential suspicions by U.S. Customs. On one
smuggling trip, two couriers, posing as a couple, brought a
mentally handicapped teenager with them while they carried
200,000 Ecstasy pills concealed in socks in their luggage.
<bullet> More recently, ``Operation Kids for Cover,'' an
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
investigation in Chicago and elsewhere, uncovered a cocaine
smuggling group that ``rented'' infants to accompany couriers,
many of whom were drug addicts themselves, who were
transporting liquified cocaine in baby formula containers.
<bullet> In Vermont, prosecutors convicted drug dealer,
Michael Baker, for selling cocaine to, among others, high-
schoolers. A sophomore honors student who got cocaine from
Baker began using extensively and started referring friends
from his peer group to Baker in exchange for drugs. This honors
student never returned to high school for his junior year.
<bullet> As reported in the Washington Post, between 2000 and
2002, more than 200 persons were arrested here in Washington,
D.C., for distributing diverted prescription drugs and other
illicit drugs in a parking lot that abuts one of D.C.'s largest
methadone clinics and is within three blocks of several other
treatment facilities. The dealers in that open air market took
advantage of the drug treatment patients--enticing them with
illicit substances and undermining any progress that had been
made on their road to recovery.
The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously prosecuting
drug trafficking in all of its egregious forms, whether it be a top-
level international narcotics supplier or a street-level predator who
tempts a child or an addict with the lure of intoxication or the
promise of profit.
We have had some successes. Statistics maintained by the Department
of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys indicate that,
in the last two years alone, we have had over 400 convictions under
Title 21, Sections 859, 860 and 861, of persons engaged in drug
activity involving minors. Moreover, statistics maintained by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission indicate that, between 1998 and 2002,
approximately 300 defendants were sentenced annually under the
guideline that provides for enhanced penalties for drug activity
involving minors or in protected locations. But our tools are limited.
And we have no specific weapon against those who distribute controlled
substances within the vicinity of a drug treatment center.
The people who would sink to the depths of inhumanity by targeting
their trafficking activity at those with the least ability to resist
such offers are deserving not only of our most pointed contempt, but,
more importantly, of severe punishment. The Department of Justice
cannot and will not tolerate this conduct in a free and safe America,
and that is why the Department of Justice stands firmly behind the
intent of this legislation to increase the punishment meted out to
those who would harm us, our children, and those seeking to escape the
cycle of addiction.
I would like to spend a few minutes talking specifically about
mandatory minimum sentences and, in particular, the mandatory minimum
sentence provisions of H.R. 4547.
The Justice Department supports mandatory minimum sentences in
appropriate circumstances. In a way sentencing guidelines cannot,
mandatory minimum statutes provide a level of uniformity and
predictability in sentencing. They deter certain types of criminal
behavior determined by Congress to be sufficiently egregious as to
merit harsh penalties by clearly forewarning the potential offender and
the public at large of the minimum potential consequences of committing
such an offense. And mandatory minimum sentences can also incapacitate
dangerous offenders for long periods of time, thereby increasing public
safety. Equally importantly, mandatory minimum sentences provide an
indispensable tool for prosecutors, because they provide the strongest
incentive to defendants to cooperate against the others who were
involved in their criminal activity.
In drug cases, where the ultimate goal is to rid society of the
entire trafficking enterprise, mandatory minimum statutes are
especially significant. Unlike a bank robbery, for which a bank teller
or an ordinary citizen could be a critical witness, typically in drug
cases the only witnesses are drug users and/or other drug traffickers.
The offer of relief from a mandatory minimum sentence in exchange for
truthful testimony allows the Government to move steadily and
effectively up the chain of supply, using the lesser distributors to
prosecute the more serious dealers and their leaders and suppliers.
The Department thinks that mandatory minimum sentences are needed
in appropriate circumstances, and we support the specific mandatory
minimum sentences proposed in H.R. 4547. These sentences are entirely
appropriate in light of the plight of drug-endangered children
throughout this country.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WITHIN H.R. 4547
I would now like to turn to some specific provisions within the
proposed legislation that the Department of Justice finds particularly
noteworthy and offer some comments which might prove useful as the
Committee continues to consider this bill.
Before doing so, however, I must reserve opinion, in light of
Blakely v. Washington--a Supreme Court case decided just two weeks
ago--on those sections of the bill which propose to directly amend the
sentencing guidelines, Having reserved opinion on the particular
language of these sections, I will say that the Department of Justice
supports the concepts and policies behind the proposed legislative
amendments.
Section 3 : Fairness in sentencing: assuring traffickers in large
quantities of drugs receive appropriate sentences and denying
double sentencing benefits
The Department of Justice favors eliminating the guidelines offense
level limitation that applies to drug traffickers who play a mitigating
role in the offense. We believe that there is no need for such an
offense level ``cap'' and that the federal statutes and the otherwise
applicable sentencing guidelines appropriately allow for the
consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. Moreover, we
believe that, in most cases, the controlled substance quantity is an
important measure of the dangers presented by that offense because,
even without other aggravating factors, the distribution of a larger
quantity of a controlled substance results in greater potential for
greater societal harm than the distribution of a smaller quantity of
that substance.
We acknowledge that the Sentencing Commission has undertaken to
lessen the impact of this offense level cap. Pursuant to proposed
guidelines amendments submitted to Congress and published in the
Federal Register in May of this year, the Commission would apply a
higher cap to the initially higher offense levels. For the reasons set
forth above, however, we do not believe that this proposal sufficiently
addresses our concern that the significance of drug quantity be
adequately taken into account and the defendant not receive multiple
benefits based on his lesser role in the offense.
Section 5: Conforming guideline sentencing to conspiracy law
We agree that the scope of accountability for co-conspirator
conduct under the sentencing guidelines should be coextensive with such
accountability for purposes of criminal liability generally. We also
agree that a conspirator can be held accountable for acts of co-
conspirators, in addition to his own conduct. Defendants, therefore,
should be accountable for all conduct occurring during the course of
the conspiracy that was reasonably foreseeable and in furtherance of
the conspiracy.
Section 6: Assuring limitation on applicability of statutory minimums
to persons who have done everything they can to assist the
Government
We strongly support the proposed amendment to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 3553(f), insofar as it would require Government certification that
the defendant has timely met the full disclosure requirement for the
safety valve exemption from certain mandatory minimum sentences.
We certainly understand the concerns that prompted this proposal.
Our prosecutors rightfully complain that courts often settle for
minimal, bare-bones confessional disclosures and, in some cases,
continue sentencing hearings to afford a defendant successive tries at
meeting even this low standard. The Department of Justice thus is aware
that some courts and defendants have too liberally construed the safety
valve and have applied it in circumstances that were clearly
unwarranted and where no beneficial information was conveyed. For these
reasons, we strongly support the prosecutor certification requirement.
Requiring courts to rely on the Government's assessment as to
whether a defendant's disclosure has been truthful and complete would
effectively address the problems prosecutors have encountered with
respect to application of the safety valve.
Section 9: Assuring judicial authority consistent with law in
sentencings
The Department has a number of concerns with regard to the proposed
amendments to Rule 11. Notably, we have been working with Committee
staff to alleviate such concerns and look forward to continuing this
dialogue.
Section 10: Mandatory detention of persons convicted of serious drug
trafficking offenses and crimes of violence
The Department agrees with the principle that, in almost all
circumstances, a defendant who has been found guilty should be
immediately detained. We also acknowledge that the circumstances in
which release pending sentencing or appeal is necessary are extremely
limited. Nevertheless, we cannot support this proposal to the extent it
requires Government certification as to a defendant's cooperation and
precludes release pending appeal. Even with sealed pleadings, a
defendant's intention to cooperate would be much more apparent under
this provision, and this likely would have an adverse impact on a
defendant's willingness to cooperate, on the value of the cooperation,
and on the safety of the defendant. By foreclosing the possibility of
release for circumstances other than cooperation and, thereby,
telegraphing a defendant's intention to assist the Government, this
proposal would severely diminish the value of one of our most useful
investigative and prosecutorial tools. Moreover, this is a tool that we
employ not simply post-conviction but, sometimes, pending appeal as
well. A prosecutor should not be prohibited from seeking release after
sentencing, if the particular circumstances of the case so warrant.
CONCLUSION
We again thank you for this opportunity to share our views. I will
be pleased to answer any questions the members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Article entitled ``Drug Market Thrives By Methadone Clinics,'' Serge F.
Kovaleski, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, August
12, 2002
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Article entitled ``Probe Confirms Dealing of Drugs Near D.C. Clinics,''
Monte Reel, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, July 7,
2004
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Article entitled ``Kids Caught in Meth Lab Pressure Cooker,'' Sarah
Huntley, News Staff Writer, Rocky Mountain News, March 15, 2002
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Supplemental material from William N. Brownsberger, Associate Director,
Public Policy Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Supplemental material from Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police Department,
Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug Task Force, and
President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Brochure submitted by the National Alliance for
Drug Endangered Children
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Position Paper of the American Bar Association (ABA)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter from coalition of organizations expressing their views on H.R.
1528, ``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter from former United States Attorneys and Department of Justice
officials expressing their views on H.R. 1528, ``Defending America's
Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act
of 2005,'' to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., and the
Honorable Bobby Scott
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter from Thomas W. Hiller, II, Chair, Legislative Expert Panel,
Federal Public and Community Defenders, to the Honorable Howard Coble,
and the Honorable Bobby Scott
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter from teachers of law expressing their views on H.R. 1528,
``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment
and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Letter from Frank O. Bowman, III, M. Dale Palmer Professor of Law,
Indiana University School of Law, to the Honorable Howard Coble, and
the Honorable Bobby Scott
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Response to post-hearing questions from Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police
Department, Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug Task Force,
and President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Response to post-hearing questions from Ronald E. Brooks, President,
National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<all>