<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:89455.wais]
ONDCP REAUTHORIZATION: THE HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS
PROGRAM AND CTAC
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 8, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
89-455 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Columbia
CHRIS BELL, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Christopher Donesa, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member and Counsel
Nicole Garrett, Clerk
Tony Haywood, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 8, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of:
Burns, Ron, chief, Lakewood, CO Police Department; and Peter
Modafferi, Chief of Detectives, Rockland County, NY
District Attorney's Office................................. 79
Burns, Scott, Director, Office of State and Local Affairs,
Office of National Drug Control Policy; and Roger Guevara,
Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration....... 7
McCampbell, Christy, chief, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement,
California Department of Justice; Wayne Wiberg, commander,
Narcotics and Gang Investigation Section, Chicago Police
Department; Anthony Romano, chief, Organized Crime
Division, Baltimore Police Department; and Lieutenant
Colonel Steve Moyer, chief, Homeland Defense/Intelligence
Bureau, Maryland State Police.............................. 40
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Burns, Ron, chief, Lakewood, CO Police Department, prepared
statement of............................................... 81
Burns, Scott, Director, Office of State and Local Affairs,
Office of National Drug Control Policy, prepared statement
of......................................................... 9
Guevara, Roger, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 19
McCampbell, Christy, chief, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement,
California Department of Justice, prepared statement of.... 43
Modafferi, Peter, Chief of Detectives, Rockland County, NY
District Attorney's Office, prepared statement of.......... 85
Romano, Anthony, chief, Organized Crime Division, Baltimore
Police Department, prepared statement of................... 57
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
Wiberg, Wayne, commander, Narcotics and Gang Investigation
Section, Chicago Police Department, prepared statement of.. 50
ONDCP REAUTHORIZATION: THE HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS
PROGRAM AND CTAC
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings, Carter,
Ruppersberger, Blackburn, Deal, Bell, and Ose.
Staff present: Christopher A. Donesa, staff director and
chief counsel; Nicholas Coleman, professional staff member and
counsel; John Stanton, congressional fellow; Nicole Garrett,
clerk; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; and Earley Green,
minority chief clerk.
Mr. Souder. Good morning. This is our third hearing on the
reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
and its programs. Today we will focus on two programs that most
directly impact State and local law enforcement against drug
crimes: the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA]
program, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
[CTAC].
Congress originally authorized the HIDTA program in 1988,
and renewed it in 1993 and 1998. The program provides
significant financial assistance to State and local law
enforcement and facilitates strong cooperation among those
agencies and with Federal law enforcement. That cooperation has
led to many successes in our efforts to disrupt the market for
illegal drugs. HIDTA has also been a politically popular
program, as evidenced by its rapid expansion. The program
started with five HIDTAs in areas that we would all agree are
at the heart of the national drug trafficking networks. Over
time, the program has steadily grown to where it now covers 28
separate areas and nearly 60 percent of the population.
While the program unquestionably is a key tool in our
national drug control strategy, that rapid expansion clearly
demonstrates that the subcommittee has many issues to consider
to ensure that the program pursues its original goals, that it
is accountable, and that it delivers results determined under
rigorous performance measures. We must also carefully consider
how to strike the appropriate balance to ensure that the
program remains predominantly focused on national goals while
still ensuring that State and local agencies receive a fair
return for their investments in the program. It is easy to make
a case for the need to send Federal assistance to the hubs of
national drug traffic to disrupt the market and keep drugs from
every city in America. It is much harder to make the case to
take taxpayer money from Indiana and send it to another State
if it is used mainly for local projects or if it is not
effective.
We will also consider today issues related to legislation
that Ranking Member Cummings introduced last week to direct
HIDTA funds to be made available to protect witnesses impacted
in their neighborhoods by national drug traffic. The bill is
fittingly named the ``Dawson Family Community Protection Act.''
I believe that the unconscionable tragedy that befell the
Dawson family in Baltimore well demonstrates the need for
action in this area. As a cosponsor of his bill, I commend Mr.
Cummings for his leadership and look forward to working closely
with him on this issue. With limited dollars and great demands
we will need to work with the Senate and the administration on
the final amount, but I am committed to the principle that part
of winning the battle against the drug lords is protecting
citizens brave enough to stand up to their brutality.
Today's hearing will also review the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center, which was established in 1990 to oversee and
coordinate the Federal Government's anti-drug research and
development. CTAC oversees a number of research programs as
well as the Technology Transfer Program, which provides drug
detection and law enforcement technologies to Federal, State
and local law enforcement. The program is so successful that
there is a long waiting list for the available technology. I
hope we can reaffirm our support for the key research programs,
as well as to try to bolster the TTP program to make the
equipment better available to our communities.
We have quite a mix of witnesses with us today, and we
would especially like to welcome all the representatives of the
State and local law enforcement community who are joining us
here at this time. From the administration, on our first panel
we will hear from Scott Burns, the Deputy Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy for State and Local
Affairs. From the Drug Enforcement Administration, we will also
hear from Mr. Roger Guevara, the Chief of Operations.
Our second panel will focus on HIDTA, and we will hear from
Christy McCampbell, chief of the California Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement and Wayne Wiberg, commander of the Narcotics
Investigation Section of the Chicago Police Department. From
Maryland, Maryland State Police Superintendent Ed Norris, and
Baltimore Police Department Organized Crime Bureau Chief
Anthony Romano will testify.
On our third panel, we will focus on CTAC with Chief Ron
Burns of Lakewood, Colorado Police Department, and Peter
Modafferi, chief of Detectives for Rockland County, NY,
District Attorney's Office.
Again, I thank you all for coming from so many places
across the country to be here today. We very much look very
much forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.003
Mr. Souder. I will now see if any of the other Members have
an opening statement. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. Just very quick.
First, I would like to commend ONDCP for all the work that
you do. Since 1998 I believe that your efforts to maintain a
program of such importance to work with the local, State, and
Federal law enforcement agency has done a lot to do with the
issue of drugs. We know drugs is probably accountable for about
90 percent of all of our crime, especially violent crime, and
the coordination and the teamwork is one of the main avenues
and ways that we are going to at least put a dent into what is
going on. So looking forward to your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Congressman Carter.
OK, I would like to take care of a few procedural matters.
First, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to submit written statements and questions for
the hearing record, and that any answers to written questions
provided by the witnesses also be included in the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents,
and other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses
may be included in the hearing record, and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Now, as our standard procedure, if Mr. Burns and Mr.
Guevara will stand, is it our standard procedure to administer
the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Thank you both for being here today and for
your many years of work in these efforts, and we will start
with Mr. Scott Burns, the director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy for State and Local Affairs.
STATEMENTS OF SCOTT BURNS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL
AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY; AND ROGER
GUEVARA, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Scott Burns. Thank you, Chairman Souder and Congressman
Ruppersberger, Congressman Carter. It is a pleasure to appear
before you today to talk about the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area Program [HIDTA], and the Counterdrug
Technology Assessment Center [CTAC], that are programs under
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I would like to
commend you, Chairman Souder and your staff, and the
subcommittee for the support that you have given us over the
years in making the HIDTA program and the CTAC program
successful arsenals in our efforts to make this problem of
addiction and trafficking smaller.
As stated, the HIDTA program began in 1988 with the
designation of five States. They were initially funded in 1990
and have grown over the subsequent 15 years to 28 HIDTAs in
some 43 States. Membership includes some 35 Federal agencies,
over 100 State agencies, in excess of 1,000 local law
enforcement agencies participating.
I believe that the HIDTA program is one of the most
effective law enforcement and counterdrug tools in the country,
and I say that because the HIDTA program is one of the, if not
the only Federal program that does one, what one would think is
simple, but very important thing, and that is bring together
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and law
enforcement leaders in various areas of the country to
collaborate, to work together, to share information, to use
their intelligence support centers to make the problem of drug
addiction and drug trafficking in this country smaller.
I also believe that under the leadership and direction of
John Walters, the Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, over the past 12 months we have made great
effort to make the HIDTA program better. We have initiated
performance measurement standards; they have been written, they
have been drafted, they have been disseminated to the 28 HIDTA
directors, and we are in the initial process of implementation.
We have also reorganized the Office of State and Local Affairs
to provide greater oversight and greater attention to the
HIDTAs, and we have also, as you well know, joined with the
Department of Justice in launching the CPOT, or Consolidated
Priority Organizational Targeting, program in an effort to go
after the major drug trafficking organizations in this country
and in the world.
I have the privilege, and I know that you have visited
several of the HIDTAs, to work with some of the finest women
and men in this country. I have found, under the direction of
Kurt Schmidt, the National HIDTA Director, folks to be
extremely dedicated from California to Connecticut, and every
State in between, to getting up each day trying to help in this
counterdrug effort.
I am also pleased to speak today on behalf of the
Counternarcotics Technical Assessment Center [CTAC]. As you
know, it is this country's chief R&D, or research and
development, effort in trying to do two corps missions: one, to
locate, to find, and to develop technologies that will help
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to do better
to protect lives of law enforcement folks in the field and to
allow them to do their missions better; and also through the
neuroimaging program, which is a project, as you know, to bring
together our best medical and scientific people in this country
to study and to research addiction so that some day we will
fully understand what it is and be able to treat it.
With that, I would respectfully request that my written
statements be submitted into the record, and I look forward to
any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott Burns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.011
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Guevara.
Mr. Guevara. Good morning, Chairman Souder and
distinguished members of this subcommittee. It is a pleasure to
appear before you today to discuss ONDCP and the High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area program which was established by Congress
over a decade ago. On behalf of Acting Administrator John B.
Brown III and myself, I want to thank the subcommittee for
their unwavering support on behalf of the men and women of DEA.
The HIDTA-funded program is a regional strategy providing
Federal assistance in coordinating law enforcement efforts at
the local, State, and Federal level. The program is designed to
impact on the manufacturing, importation, and distribution
networks. The HIDTA program complements our mission to destruct
and dismantle major drug trafficking organizations. By
leveraging the resources, manpower, and equipment of numerous
law enforcement entities, we can, and have, achieved tremendous
success.
I have benefited from seeing firsthand how a successful
HIDTA-funded program operates. From 1997 to 1999, I was charged
with oversight of the HIDTA Southern California Drug Task
Force. In September 2000, I was promoted to Special Agent in
Charge of the Caribbean Division in San Juan, Puerto Rico. With
this promotion came the responsibility of serving as the vice-
chair of the HIDTA executive board for the Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands HIDTA. Difficult decisions had to be made on
which initiatives to undertake and how best to utilize our
funds, but our cooperation and collaboration did breed success.
Federal resource constraints require that DEA continue to
pursue the cooperative investigative efforts of other Federal,
State, and local law enforcement officers. There are presently
18 DEA field divisions, plus the El Paso Intelligence Center
[EPIC], that participates in the HIDTA-funded programs. This
includes 48 DEA HIDTA groups supporting 90 initiatives and
consisting of 527 task force officers. Over 300 DEA special
agents work with HIDTA initiatives.
In support of national ONDCP objectives, each HIDTA is
supposed to consist of an executive board comprised of an equal
number of Federal, State, and local law enforcement leaders.
DEA continues to urge that all HIDTA executive boards hold to
the equal representation requirement mandated by the ONDCP in
order to yield maximum effectiveness, and we pledge to
undertake leadership positions whenever the opportunity arises.
Investigations begin for DEA, including our HIDTA-funded
task forces, when discovering that larger scope of drug crime
arrests merits the consolidation of resources. I would like to
highlight three major programs the administration is
emphasizing to make the greatest impact on America's drug
enforcement efforts.
The first one is the Consolidated Priority Organization
Targets [CPOTs], which is a single national list of major drug
trafficking and money laundering organizations. There are 53
identified international command and control organizations
representing the most significant drug organizations
threatening the United States.
In fiscal year 2002, ONDCP allocated $5.7 million in
discretionary funds in support of HIDTA-funded initiatives
targeting CPOTs. DEA fully supports this in keeping with
HIDTA's mission to target the highest levels of drug
trafficking groups.
DEA's Priority Drug Traffic Organization's [PDTO's],
program is similar to CPOT, but more expansive since it also
includes local and regional drug organizations significantly
impacting the drug supply in DEA's 21 nationwide field
divisions.
And, finally, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force [OCDETF], determines connections to related
investigations nationwide in order to identify and dismantle
drug trafficking organization. DEA's State and Local Task Force
and HIDTA-funded groups are engaged as partners with the OCDETF
program and enforce the effectiveness and success of the OCDETF
program.
DEA currently has 30 HIDTA-funded initiatives that are PDTO
investigations. Eighteen of those are also established as
OCDETF investigations. Each designated HIDTA has at least one
intelligence element, usually called an Investigative Support
Center, which provide tactical investigative and strategic drug
intelligence to HIDTA-supported task forces. HIDTA ISCs serve
as hubs for the sharing of drug intelligence among Federal,
State, and local law enforcement HIDTA-funded participating
agencies. DEA's commitment to HIDTA shows in the assignment of
nearly 10 percent of our analytical resources to the HIDTAs.
But DEA can and should do more. DEA should provide a leadership
role in all of the HIDTA ISCs.
HIDTA-funded initiatives should address the most
significant drug threats. These initiatives must be evaluated
regularly to ensure that they remain relevant. Oversight of
HIDTA initiatives is crucial in order to keep within the
national objectives of ONDCP.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, HIDTA is a concept and not an
agency. Many participants believe HIDTA is a Federal grant for
their own use. However, HIDTA is a funding mechanism designed
to support Federal, State, and local drug investigative
efforts. This point must be recognized by participating
agencies in order to pursue a consolidated regional and
national enforcement objective, as opposed to a fragmented one.
DEA believes the HIDTA program is a critical component in
the administration's drug enforcement efforts. Maintaining the
focus on the HIDTA mission and emphasizing the most significant
targets will go a long way in not only achieving the disruption
and dismantling of national and international organizations,
but also in keeping drugs off our local streets. DEA stands
ready to take on any challenge and continue to lead in
America's fight to reduce drug trafficking and abuse.
In my written testimony which I have submitted is an
overview of DEA's witness protection initiative. At this point
I would be happy to answer any questions this subcommittee may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guevara follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.021
Mr. Souder. I thank you both for your testimony, and as we
continue to work on, as we start to actually prepare for the
markup of the legislation, there are a number of things we are
debating as regards HIDTAs.
And, Mr. Burns, I would like to start with the
proliferation of HIDTAs that has occurred has resulted in a
kind of different focus. In other words, every area, to some
degree, is a drug trafficking area or it wouldn't have any drug
usage; it is because somebody had to traffic in the narcotics.
Historically we had DEA task forces or FBI task forces or local
task forces to deal with that, but when the HIDTA was
developed, they were supposed to be high intensity, which means
higher intensity than other parts of the country drug
trafficking areas. The initial ones, as I said in my opening
statement, as you referred to, were pretty well universally
agreed upon, Miami and Los Angeles, Southwest Border, and the
large areas.
As this has proliferated, we have seen a wide variety of
different types HIDTA focus, and this has also diluted the
funds from going to those highest intensity areas. Do you
believe that some of those areas should be removed from
participation in the program? If we don't remove some from the
program, do you believe that the budget should be allocated and
a certain fixed portion should go to the highest intensity
parts and less to the lower intensity? And if that isn't the
case, there are certainly going to be additional HIDTAs because
there are several HIDTAs right now that aren't as high as some
areas that aren't excluded, so would you favor increasing the
number of HIDTAs?
Mr. Scott Burns. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
There is no doubt from 5 HIDTAs to 28 HIDTAs now in 43 States,
the District of Columbia and Puerto, and covering approximately
13 percent of the counties in this country, that the original
HIDTA concept in 1988 is not what it is in 2003. With that
said, I must state that each HIDTA is different. Each HIDTA, as
this program has evolved, has come to deal with specific issues
in their area. Appalachia, certainly, as you know, is not New
York and is not Los Angeles and is not the Midwest, each
attacking the local impact and drug issues that they have in
their jurisdiction, but also dealing with national
manufacturing, transportation, distribution and financial
crimes aspects of this business we call the drug trade.
Certainly in 15 years the threat has moved. Certainly there are
counties that no longer would meet the original designation as
a HIDTA county, and certainly there must be some mechanism in
place to rectify that.
With that said, level funding every year, and with a great
deal of help from Congress with respect to where new or
additional counties or HIDTAs ought to be stood up has had the
effect, as you say, to dilute the pool, if you will, with which
to attack the problem. I believe that the HIDTA program is most
effective when professionals here in Washington and, more
importantly, in the field assess the threat and then, with your
support, drive resources to where we can do the best good.
Mr. Souder. You have, in your testimony, said you have
tried to shift the focus of the HIDTA program to the National
priority targets as well as the regional targets. Will HIDTAs
be required to tailor all of their programs that direction, or
do you see it as a mix?
Mr. Scott Burns. I see it as a mix. Currently our
requirement is that 51 percent of all the funds for the HIDTA
program must be allocated to rural areas or to attack the
problem in rural America. The reality is today about 80 percent
of all of the HIDTA funds are going to State and local
jurisdictions in counterdrug functions.
The CPOT program is an attempt by Director Walters and
myself and Kurt Schmidt and the Department of Justice, and with
support from you, Mr. Chairman, and others to redirect the
HIDTA focus toward the major targets, back in line with what
the original intent of HIDTA was, and to try and make a
difference on a National and international level.
Mr. Souder. This is probably going to be the most difficult
challenge, and I am not sure we can politically get this done,
but the way it is going is that every area of the United
States, if it is to have a coordinated effort, that is a
wonderful goal, and that certainly my home area, which does not
have a HIDTA, even though it was raised initially in the
process whether we would have one, is at this point a lot
higher drug intensity trafficking area than many that are
HIDTAs; and, therefore, the question is why doesn't my area and
other Members of Congress, who don't have an area have a
similar drug coordination effort? But the high intensity
concept was to make sure that the places where most of the
drugs were coming into the county would keep it from getting
into the rural areas and other areas with pockets in myth and
others that may be focused on differently. But I am not sure,
politically, whether we can accomplish this, but it is
definitely a different type of program and we have to, in the
reauthorization, either acknowledge that it is a different
program or figure out how we are going to do battle with the
appropriators to make sure that the program follows through its
authorized language.
And I thank you for your comments.
Mr. Scott Burns. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. After September 11 there has been a lot
of refocus of different Federal law enforcement agencies
working more in the terrorism arena and with homeland security.
How has that affected your agency as it relates to the programs
we are talking about today, as far as resources going more into
terrorism, homeland security? Has it affected manpower,
resources?
Mr. Scott Burns. We have seen, Congressman, some pullback
from clearly the Federal agencies that are involved, the FBI,
which has been well documented, the Department of Defense, whom
we have been working with closely to transition those programs
that have been an assistance in the counterdrug program
eradication, cargo inspections along the border, the schools
that train thousands of State and local law enforcement in
counterdrug efforts each year.
But the most disconcerting, I suppose, would be what is
more in the rumor mill than we have actually seen, and that is
that State and local law enforcement agencies are becoming more
taxed. Budgets, as you know, are not going well across the
country, and if chiefs and sheriffs have additional duties,
counterterrorism or because of the budget, HIDTA is certainly
the first area not that they want to, but that they are going
to pull out of. That is our suspect.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I understand that. And with the locals
and the refocus and all the different law enforcement agencies,
have you seen resources leave your focus on actual drug versus
looking more into the terrorism, from your perspective, from
the Federal level?
Mr. Scott Burns. I have to tell you honestly that the day
after, on September 12, and until today, John Walters has
charged us with making it very clear to all Federal agencies
that we are all Americans, we are here to help, whatever we can
do to assist you we will, but we cannot dilute the counterdrug
mission in light of terrorism, and that we will work together.
So to date I would say I have not seen that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is good. The other thing, first
thing, drugs have no geographical boundaries, and I think the
HIDTA concept is an excellent concept because you have local,
State, Federal. A lot of times leads and sources or informants
come from the local and then you develop like a strike force
relationship. Now, there are always jealousies that exist. I
know in the old days, when I was a narcotics prosecutor, we, as
a local, did not have the money to pursue a high profile
person, to have four or five cars tail some to put somebody in
the witness protection program. I think what the Federal
Government, through HIDTA, brought to the locals was not the
resources and the teamwork concept. You always have issues of
need to know, and the locals and State feel that the Federal
agents are not telling them everything they know; probably more
FBI than DEA, by the way. But where has that evolved? Do you
see that changing or does that still exist? And if it does
exist, what do you suggest we do to keep working through that
problem?
Mr. Scott Burns. I have, likewise, spent a career as a
local prosecutor.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Where were you?
Mr. Scott Burns. In southern Utah. Probably smaller than
where you came from.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Oh, yeah. Baltimore.
Mr. Scott Burns. That is pretty close.
I think one thing HIDTA has done over the years is
establish better relationships. We have had the ability on a
State and local level to work with the DEA, the U.S. attorneys,
the relevant Federal agencies that are involved, and obtained
the resources and the help to go after the higher priority
targets; and, in fact, we have had many discussions in looking
at CPOT, or the Consolidated Priority Organizational Targeting,
program. While the target may be in Colombia or Mexico, we are
certainly cognizant that the intelligence and the assistance
may come from a local prosecutor in Baltimore or Duluth, and
that is part of the beauty of the HIDTA program.
Mr. Ruppersberger. In the high profile targets are
resources used the most effectively wiretapping?
Mr. Scott Burns. Absolutely.
Mr Ruppersberger. OK.
Mr. Scott Burns. Yes. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Well, I have had the pleasure to work with the
capital area task force in Texas on many, many occasions, and
it is a very, very effective group; brought a lot of cases to
my court to try, and we disposed of a lot of those very
effectively. I think it is a great concept, this proliferation
of numerous expansions of offices that they have had. I am just
curious because we are aware, particularly where I live is a
gateway area from Mexico, I-35 supposedly is one of the highest
drug traffic columns in America, and it runs right through my
hometown. It is estimated every fifth car is possibly a drug
trafficker. That is a kind of interesting estimate, I think,
but, anyway, that is what they claim.
And so the five original idea areas of the country were
clearly the areas where we had a high priority, and now there
is some question as to whether resources are being drained from
the high profile areas to other areas that have definite needs.
And I think the task force idea works. Have you ever thought
about switching from a task force to a strike force in some of
the rural areas? Because I have seen our task force deal with
specific problems and go in and attack a specific problem area
as a strike force, which would temporarily take those resources
from the high target areas, but then those resources could be
re-made available for those high priority areas when they are
needed; sort of a big picture allocation: strike a problem in
middle America, and I think you can effectively deal with it,
and then move back to the border and the areas where the high
traffic unit is coming in and out. Has any of that concept been
looked into?
Mr. Scott Burns. Interesting, Congressman, we have had
those very discussions, and as Chairman Souder and his staff,
and you know, Director Walters looks as the drug trade as a
business. How do we hurt them; how do we become the anti-CEOs;
what can we do to cripple or disable an entire trafficking
organization or a part of it, the distribution, the
transportation, the financial crimes aspect. And one of the
tactics that we have looked at, and in some areas tried, is
exactly what you are talking about, concentrate resources on a
particular problem in a particular area and then see if we can
disrupt the market.
Mr. Carter. In our county they did that very thing on a
small town, which you would think wouldn't be a source, but it
seemed to be a congregating area for traffickers as they came
out of Mexico. They, along with locals, have gone in and taken
an area where you wouldn't allow your child to even drive
through the area, and made it a place where you can hold a
Sunday school picnic. They actually dozed down buildings along
with local cooperation and did a beautiful job of cleaning up
that area, and it was a strike by the capital area task force
that did that, and very effective, and then they moved on to
what they normally did with it.
Mr. Scott Burns. Sure.
Mr. Carter. And so that was the reason I thought about
that.
Mr. Scott Burns. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Deal.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here. Obviously sometimes
our questions reflect where we live and what our districts are
made up of, and mine is one of those areas that is in north
Georgia, which is a non-border State, yet from some of the
actual arrests and convictions that have been obtained contain
some of the hot spot areas for major distribution since I-75
goes through my district and I-85 also goes through my
district.
So my first question is since we do have a HIDTA in
Atlanta, but it is restricted, it is my understanding its
content of restricted area is only Fulton County, city of
Atlanta, and DeKalb County, and does not include any of the
counties in my northern district, even though they have had
some of the major drug busts, much more significant even than
Atlanta itself, who, first of all, decides the jurisdictional
area that is included within a HIDTA? Who makes the decision as
to expand it or not?
Mr. Scott Burns. It is a long process, but the short answer
is the ultimate decision is made by the Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy after consulting with Members
of Congress, you, the Governor from the respective State, and
then having an intra-agency review; we would bring in experts
from DEA and FBI and Treasury and others to look at it to see
if it meets the statutory criteria.
But I guess the better answer to your question is, and it
goes back to the chairman's initial statements, we are
currently level funded at $206 million, and have been for some
time, and the question is, then, how do we continue to expand.
And you may have a serious problem in the northern part of
Georgia, but we have to come up with a way of determining
whether or not that is more of a problem than in Brownsville,
TX, currently. And that is why we have looked at options of how
we can reassess and look at the HIDTA program, and we hope that
these performance measures that we are putting in place will do
just that.
Mr. Deal. Well, first of all, would you convey the request
that they contact and discuss this issue with me, as a Member
of Congress who has an issue and an interest in it?
Mr. Scott Burns. Most certainly.
Mr. Deal. And I don't view it necessarily as putting one
part of the country necessarily in competition with the other.
I would like to say I would be willing to be in competition
with the counties that make up the Atlanta division right now,
as to whether or not they can justify all of the resources
there, as opposed to some of the outlying areas on the suburban
areas on the interstates, where much of the traffic is
obviously still moving.
My second question is as an area that just as we have a
problem with drug activity, we also have a problem with illegal
immigrant activity, and since my son is the State prosecutor in
my local area, we obviously know that there is a linkage of one
with the other, and I would like to ask what is your working
relationship with the INS as it relates to the illegal
immigrant population being a source of bringing many of the
drugs in from Mexico; and second, has that relationship changed
or do you anticipate any changes as we move into the new
Homeland Security Department? Would you comment on those areas,
please?
Mr. Scott Burns. Certainly. I would answer that by saying
along the border I think we have had an excellent relationship.
I think that inside the continental United States we have not
done as well as we can. Under the new reorganization and under
the Department of Homeland Security, we have made new efforts
to try and coordinate better with them in the HIDTAs, and just
within the last 6 months we have also made several trips to
Mexico; we have met with State and local prosecutors on the
other side of the border and discussed issues with respect to
how we can help each other on these immigration issues and
prosecution issues.
So we are doing good on the border; we could do better
inside the United States.
Mr. Deal. I am going to ask one last question, if my time
is about to expire.
In that regard, my concern has been, of recent, that we
have not seen the cooperation from Mexico with regard to such
things as extradition. We all understand that capital felonies
they are not going to extradite back, but most recently we
understand that the Supreme Court of Mexico has now issued a
ruling in which they have ruled that even those cases that
would impose life imprisonment, since they now consider that to
be cruel and unusual punishment, will not be extraditable back
to the United States; and that is going to involve most of your
major drug activities. I think that is in stark contrast to
what Colombia's attitude has been, is that they welcome
extradition of their major drug traffickers.
Have you seen any problems developing from that more
restrictive extradition attitude from Mexico? And what impact
will that have on your efforts to focus on major drug
trafficking organizations?
Mr. Scott Burns. It is certainly an issue. I know that
Director Walters has met with persons in the highest levels of
the Mexican Government, I know that it is an issue that the
Department of Justice deals with everyday, and I can only tell
you that I think great strides have been made by Mexico within
the last 12 months because of efforts by Mr. Walters and others
to convince them that we can make the problem smaller by
working together. And as a local prosecutor, my efforts have
been to reach out to local prosecutors along the border. I have
found that sometimes the problem isn't as big as countries, but
as simple as getting to know people on the other side, and we
have great hope that relationship is going to better our
cooperative efforts and take down some of the major trafficking
organizations. But clearly, Congressman, the extradition issue
is a difficult one.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Guevara, do you have anything to add on the
Mexico relationship?
Mr. Guevara. No, sir. At my level, when I have met with
counterparts, as recently as last week, I see an attitude that
is predisposed to trying to cooperate with us more, and I think
that there is a new era that will allow us to move forward and
push ahead with that particular issue. In speaking to a
prosecutor again just last week, I understand there is new
legislation in Mexico that allows for the maximum penalty of 60
years, and in my semi-private discussions with him, he was of
the opinion that if somebody was 50 years old and Mexican law
allowed for punishment up to 60 year incarceration, that, in
his eyes, constituted a life sentence. So I say that just
simply there is a new attitude, and I am optimistic that will
lead us in this very, very difficult issue.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burns, I apologize to both of you for not being here
for your earlier testimony. And if you have already covered it,
I also apologize.
Mr. Scott Burns. It was really good.
Mr. Bell. It was all the talk throughout the Capitol that
it was.
Mr. Scott Burns. That is what I thought.
Mr. Bell. That is why I came.
But I represent part of the Houston region, and I wanted to
talk to you. Some of the concern is focused on the splintering
of the Southwest Border, HIDTA into the five different parts,
and I am curious if you have plans for addressing some of the
problems in regard to cooperation and communication, and how we
get passed some of the turf war mentality.
Mr. Scott Burns. Congressman, I have been the deputy
director for 11 months. There are 28 HIDTAs, including one in
Hawaii and Puerto Rico. I have been to the Southwest Border, I
think, eight times. I have only been to about 14 of the HIDTAs.
I have been there that many times to deal with the very issue
that you raise. I am convinced that this country and the HIDTA
program is best served by, one, cooperating HIDTA along the
Southwest Border, from San Diego to south Texas. We have to
deal with the border as one HIDTA, which it has always been,
and in a cooperative spirit.
Last week we had the board members from, I think, four of
the five partnerships, Arizona had some conflicts, we had all
of the partnership directors here with the exception of
Arizona, met with some of them later, and I believe we are well
on our way to establishing standard operating procedure to meet
the needs and the desires of the respective States, which is
always a priority, and understand that in America it is time to
work together, not splinter off, not my State, not my local
issues, not my section of the border, but all together. And I
hope to report to you within the next month that has happened
and we are going to make it better.
Mr. Bell. Have you been able to develop some consensus
during your trips for the formation of one?
Mr. Scott Burns. It has always been one. There has always
been some idea that individual States want their own, and they
believe that by being called their own HIDTA they may have more
leverage for additional money. I think that, in meeting with
the board members, there has become a consensus that they are
more important to you and to the citizens of this country when
they are combined as opposed to individual HIDTAs. They
currently receive almost a quarter of the entire HIDTA budget.
Individual States receive large amounts of moneys to combat the
problem, and I think the reason that they receive so much
attention is because they are the border.
Mr. Bell. Looking at just the Houston HIDTA, 15 State and
local agencies and 10 Federal agencies that have to come
together to formulate a strategy to attack drug trafficking,
and I am just curious if you have seen some of the problems in
that area regarding communications and information sharing and
strategic planning, and how what you would recommend as far as
addressing some of those issues.
Mr. Scott Burns. In Houston? Stan Purse, first, is one of
the HIDTA directors in the country. The coordination in the
Houston HIDTA, which I haven't been to because in many ways it
is an example of what all HIDTAs should be, they have their
finger on the pulse, they understand the threat, and they move
their assets and direct their focus in cases toward the
problem.
Mr. Bell. Thank you.
Mr. Scott Burns. Thank you.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. I would like to do a brief followup. This is
far too complex a subject to do in a hearing, but I want to put
on the record this comment and question.
If we have a Southwest Border HIDTA, which I agree with the
concept, why wouldn't we have, then, regional concepts that are
broad in other areas, such as north border, the northern border
is longer, so maybe east-west? Why wouldn't everything north of
the south border then also be a large zone of southwestern
United States? Great Lakes region, all of Florida be together
in one. In other words, a regionalization concept then with a
local implementation, which might not be called a HIDTA, but we
all agree that the functions of having the State and local
involved have been invaluable in multiple ways. Nobody is
questioning whether HIDTAs are effective, the question is how
do we approach a national strategy to get the drug trafficking
organizations? And if regionalization is good in one place, why
wouldn't it be good in another?
And I would ask Mr. Guevara and then Mr. Burns to comment.
You were involved in southern California. Could you share
some of your thoughts as how the DEA coordinates with this?
Because the fact is we had DEA or FBI task forces in most
regions already. What did the HIDTA add to that? And could you
kind of weigh in on both the Southwest Border, the concept of
regionalization, and then if we went to National, what that
would do to the State and local cooperation?
Mr. Guevara. Yes, sir. The DEA would support consolidation
of multiple efforts. DEA is of the view that if we bring our
resources together and we stay focused, we can impact the
traffic at the highest level and thereby reduce the overall
flow of drugs, reducing the availability. So DEA would support
a consolidation of border HIDTAs. And because these criminal
organizations operate at will and are very fluid, we need to be
able to respond accordingly, and toward that end DEA has
recently been moving toward improving our ability to do just
that. DEA has four border sacks that go from San Diego to
Houston, and it has been one of my projects to improve our
operations there, and that has included meetings as recently as
the previous month and the month prior to that, in which I
brought the four sacks together to improve that communication,
and then I took it a step further by meeting with our Mexican
colleagues in Mexico City to see what more we could do to
improve that communication.
So I am of the view that it is imperative, wherever
possible, that we have common goals and objectives, and that by
working together and pooling our resources, we will hopefully,
at the end of the day, be able to impact the traffic that will
allow my parents in east Los Angeles to go to the grocery
store.
And if you could repeat the second part of the question,
please.
Mr. Souder. You were in the southwest or southern
California border HIDTA yourself as a coordinator. How do you
see, if we nationalize this more, it possibly negatively
impacting the State and local cooperation?
Mr. Guevara. I think that there may be a reluctance on the
part of local law enforcement if they were to see or think that
this would take away from the local impact cases. And my answer
to that point of view would be that it would actually allow us
to improve our overall efforts impacting on local traffickers
if we can identify a cell that is responsible for just putting
out the narcotics on the street. Ultimately, they are getting
it from somebody else, and the challenge needs to be that we
connect those cells operating in the neighborhoods, connect it
to the mid-level violators that will lead to the command and
control operations that we can detect through Title 3 or
wiretap operations. I don't see a conflict whatsoever. I think
what it will do is facilitate the coordination that will allow
us to do exactly those type of operations.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Burns, do you have any comments?
Mr. Scott Burns. It is an excellent question, and it is
something that students of HIDTA, if there is such a thing,
talk about. I guess my response would be that what we have
tried to do is be threat-driven and not necessarily make it all
fit nicely in geographic regions. To some extent, as you well
know, there already is some regionalization. We have five
States in the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, we have six States in the
Midwest, we have six in New England. But those States came
together because the threat was consistent one with another and
they believed that in those areas they could best attack the
problem.
But your idea is a good one, and it is one that I would
like to discuss with you and your staff, because we are always
trying to make this program better.
Mr. Souder. For most of those clusters, they were too small
to get their own HIDTA to justify it to the director or the
appropriations. In the Southwest Border HIDTA it is a different
challenge because they are big enough to do it individually,
and that is the tension. But I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Deal, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Deal. I would just like to ask if there are any
impediments to your functioning that we have any jurisdiction
to deal with. I know that in the past, of course, there have
always been jealousies among various departments. There have
been in the past, of course, suspicions of not involving
certain levels of departments. Many local jurisdictions, I
think, were viewed as, well, don't share information with them,
you are not sure where it is headed. I hope those days are over
with. In fact, the jurisdictions at the local level that I have
had involvement with I think are very willing to cooperate, I
think they have the highest level of integrity of cooperation,
and most of them are hungry for help from the outside because
their resources are so limited.
But are there impediments such as Federal rules,
regulations, laws, etc. that prohibit sharing of information,
that prohibit your transfer of functions or personnel? Are
there things along those lines that we need to be aware of that
we ought to be trying to deal with?
Mr. Scott Burns. In many ways, Congressman, I think HIDTA
is a victim of its own success. In the areas of the country
where it works and is effective, everybody wants one, and I
would say that, and I know Chairman Souder and his staff are
well aware of this, it is a disincentive to the current HIDTAs
where there is level funding in place. If they know the same
money is going to come next year, no matter what, because of
that requirement, we are not able, in ONDCP, I think, to do our
job, and I think that would be helpful.
As I said, in the short time Director Walters has been here
and that I have been here, we are all on the same page in one
vein, and that is we need to stop, take a deep breath, find out
where we are at with this program, get performance measures in
place, and then determine how we can make it better.
Mr. Deal. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ruppersberger?
Mr. Ruppersberger. After the arrests are made, where do the
cases go, the State court or Federal court, or do you determine
where you can get the best result?
Mr. Scott Burns. It depends. Again, the beauty of HIDTA, I
guess, is those issues are dealt with by the women and men who
live in those areas and have firsthand knowledge of the
problem. For example, along the Southwest Border we fund a
number of State and local prosecutors because the cases,
frankly, are overwhelming for U.S. attorneys to handle. And so
it is dealt with by and between the States' attorneys and the
U.S. attorneys in a particular region. Washington State right
now, I am going there next week because there is an issue with
BC Bud coming over the border in large amounts, and there is a
State's attorney up there that some would say is swamped and he
needs help; and there are county commissioners that say their
jail is full, and, by the way, this kind of looks like a
Federal issue.
So part of what HIDTA does is try and assist in working
those issues out by and between the prosecutors as well as
local law enforcement.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Would you say that it is more an issue
of swamped or where you think you can get the best sentence
time, so to speak?
Mr. Scott Burns. I have to answer that honestly.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is what I want you to do.
Mr. Scott Burns. I wish we were to the point of where we
could get the best sentence. I would say it is not that. I am
sure it is that way in certain specific areas, but right now it
is a matter of resources, it is a matter of putting bodies on
cases and getting them charged.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Even with your high profile targets?
Mr. Scott Burns. Well, not with high profile targets. Those
obviously would go to U.S. attorneys, and we would look at
those as cases where the Federal system ought to be used
always.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. One of the problems is that the northwest
border is unusual because the primary markets are so far from
the county where they are catching most of it, it is even way
north of Seattle, and they are mostly headed toward California.
So it has been a really unusual situation on the northwest.
Mr. Bell, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Bell. I have one other question on CTAC. The Technology
Transfer Program is so popular that apparently we have a
significant backlog in applications for next year's
appropriations, and they will be spent as soon as these
applications are approved. Do you think we should have an
additional spending authorization? And if so, at what level?
Mr. Scott Burns. As you state, the 2003 budget was spent in
March, and there are over 1,000 applications already for 2004.
Dr. Albert Brandenstein, who is here, would tell you that $65
million, I think it is $48 million for 2003, $65 million, and
that is without the wireless communication aspect of it, would
meet all of the needs of this important R&D program.
Mr. Souder. With that, we will have additional written
submitted questions, and we will go to the second panel.
Thank you for coming this morning.
Mr. Scott Burns. Thank you very much.
Mr. Guevara. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. If the second panel could come forward.
Mr. Deal [assuming Chair]. We will welcome you to our
hearing today, and it is my pleasure to be able to swear you
in, but I would ask that you rise, please, take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Deal. Let the record show that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative to the oath. I told them I was
accustomed to swearing in folks to a grand jury and to a
witness stand, and that is almost the same, so we welcome you
here.
Does any member of the panel have a special guest on the
panel you would like to introduce?
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would just like to acknowledge Mr.
Romano from the great city of Baltimore.
Mr. Deal. All right, well, thank you.
The witnesses will each be recognized for opening
statements, and we ask if you would, please, to try to
summarize your statements and keep it within a 5-minute opening
period.
And we are pleased to have Chief McCampbell. We will start
with you and then just move down the line. Chief, we are
pleased to have you with us.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTY MCCAMPBELL, CHIEF, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
ENFORCEMENT, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; WAYNE WIBERG,
COMMANDER, NARCOTICS AND GANG INVESTIGATION SECTION, CHICAGO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANTHONY ROMANO, CHIEF, ORGANIZED CRIME
DIVISION, BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL
STEVE MOYER, CHIEF, HOMELAND DEFENSE/INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MARYLAND STATE POLICE
Ms. McCampbell. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss what I see as the immense importance and the
influence that the HIDTA programs have in our States. I speak
representing my home State of California, but I hope that I can
convey to you the benefits that are reflected on all the other
States that participate in the HIDTAs.
I am the Chief of California's Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement and I oversee all statewide narcotic enforcement
operations. I am also a past president of the California
Narcotic Officers Association, which represents 7,000 members;
NASDEA, which is the National Association of State Drug
Enforcement Agencies; and, as well, I am an active member in
the NNOAC, which is the National Coalition of Narcotic Officer
Associations.
With an exploding population of over 34 million residents
in California, it is the most populous State in the United
States. We border Mexico; we face the most severe drug abuse
epidemic ever known, and I attribute that to the ever-
increasing legalization movement which many misguided
individuals seem to be enthusiastically embracing in my State;
and we are considered the source country for the manufacture of
methamphetamine. With these many, many problems, we in
California are fortunate enough to have been granted four
HIDTAs in the State: one in Los Angeles, one in San Diego, one
in San Francisco, one in Fresno. Or perhaps I should say that
we are unfortunate enough to need that much help from ONDCP.
I am not an expert in the everyday administration of any of
the HIDTAs, I leave that to the HIDTA directors, but I do
participate in all four HIDTAs, have personnel assigned to each
one. I have had the experience of being one of the framers of
the San Francisco HIDTA and I chair their Initiatives
Committee.
With this experience I have been able to observe firsthand
the power and the coordination of efforts that the HIDTAs bring
in the overall U.S. drug strategy. In observing the HIDTAs, I
have noted five specific areas which I believe to be
representative of the great success of this program.
First and foremost, of course, is the coordination of
efforts. The designation of a HIDTA demands that the variety of
agencies and personalities must come to the table and forge
partnerships. Law enforcement has a tendency, as was mentioned
before, to work separately and not always share. But HIDTA
members must all work together, we share information and
resources, and we establish those ``pick up the phone'' type
relationships.
Requiring the agencies to co-locate and place as many
resources under one roof is efficient and it builds those
working relationships. Just recently, in my own Bureau of
Narcotic Enforcement, we moved one of our local task forces
under the umbrella of the HIDTA in the Richmond, CA area,
combining our investigative efforts.
Second, enhanced communications and intelligence. Without
the benefit of the HIDTAs, we would not have the communication
levels that we now maintain for officer safety. The HIDTAs have
tremendously enhanced communication abilities, and an integral
part of HIDTA is the need to enhance and increase the free
exchange of information and drug and criminal intelligence.
As a matter of fact, last year our Los Angeles
clearinghouse, which is one of our information HIDTAs, began
providing deconfliction services for not only the Los Angeles
area, but for the northern California HIDTA, Central HIDTA, and
the Nevada HIDTA. In the spirit of cooperation that is fostered
by the HIDTA program, the northern California Narcotic
Information Network [NIN], co-located with the Los Angeles
Clearinghouse, and instead of everyone being territorial, all
agreed to co-locate and work together in integrating our
information. The intelligence component also of the HIDTAs has
connectivity into the National RISS System, which combines
local, State, and Federal narcotic intelligence sharing and has
dramatically improved the communications.
Third, and I consider this very important regarding the
HIDTAs, is regional responses. An essential component of HIDTA
is the flexibility to focus on regional drug issues. Under the
guidance of the board of directors, threat assessments are
developed and then a strategy is built.
The Central Valley HIDTA is centered around Fresno in our
State, an agricultural area that has a tremendous problem with
meth labs and resulting toxic waste sites that are left behind.
The environmental damage is horrendous, and I have personally
seen drug-encrusted canisters, plastic ephedrine bottles
visibly floating downstream in the Fresno area, or strewn about
in the animal pastures in that area. The drug threat is
enormous, and the Central Valley HIDTA almost exclusively
focuses on the meth problem in our State. Other parts of the
State do have different geographical problems and different
drug problems, but the benefit of flexibility for the local
board to decide what the threat is is essential to fighting our
the drug problem.
We try to conduct OCDETF cases, but that is not always
necessarily the case. So through the HIDTA flexibility, if
necessary, we can still take a smaller case to the State's
attorney. This type of flexibility is a key of success to the
HIDTA program.
And I want to say, before I close, that enough emphasis
cannot be placed on the importance of the HIDTA concept that
allows strong local and State agency input into developing the
regional enforcement strategies. HIDTA is the one Federal
program that provides equal balance to all participants and
maintains the identity of each region through our board of
directors. To diminish that balance and exclude the State and
the local input in favor of exclusive Federal control I think
would dramatically dissipate participation and cooperation of
many agencies.
Of course, it goes without saying the fiscal help that we
get from HIDTA no doubt helps us, and we on the HIDTA boards,
we watch that money very carefully, and it was just a week ago
that one of the HIDTA committees sat down together and we
reviewed the initiatives and we redirected some of the funding
from initiatives that had met their mission.
As you know, California is undergoing a severe budget
crisis, and local and State narcotic enforcement units are
being virtually eliminated. I have to say in Oregon I was told
that just recently they are down to eight State narcotic agents
in that State, Nevada has almost eliminated all of their State
narcotic agents, and my own Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, we
have been reduced by 100 personnel and I have had a cut of
almost $10 million in my State BNE budget. It is very severe,
and most of that money is being redirected toward homeland
security.
The bottom line are the results that the HIDTAs produce:
LA, we seized almost 40 tons of dangerous drugs in 2001; the
Central Valley HIDTA, in 3 years, we seized over 1,400 lbs. of
pseudoephedrine tablets; the northern California HIDTA, in 2
years we have made over 5,000 arrests; and the California
Border Alliance Group, we have seized 8,000 lbs. of cocaine.
These are the results that the HIDTAs produce for us.
In conclusion, this program allows enforcement to enhance
narcotic enforcement activities, provide focus to regional
problems, and facilitate cooperation. You would probably ask is
it possible that we would continue on our narcotic efforts
without a HIDTA. Yes, but it would be very painful, and I think
it would hurt what we have built up with the HIDTAs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCampbell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.026
Mr. Souder [resuming Chair]. Mr. Wiberg.
Mr. Wiberg. Good morning. I want to thank you for affording
me the opportunity to be here. My name is Wayne Wiberg. I am
the commander of the Chicago Police Department Narcotic and
Gang Investigation Section.
Chicago has a major problem threatening our communities and
the people whom we are sworn to protect. There is a cycle of
narcotic violence which has been persistent over several years.
The violence in Chicago is directed by sophisticated gangs with
long histories, as the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples,
these gangs whose organizational structures can rival those of
many Fortune 500 companies. The violence inflicted on our
communities by the attempt to control the distribution of
narcotics in our city is apparent in at least 50 percent of all
homicides occurring within Chicago, and are attributed to the
gangs involved in the narcotic trade. The main avenues of
distribution are the open air drug market, which can net
anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000 per day or a staggering
$1.8 to $3.5 million per year at each location. As the gangs
fight between each other and among themselves over the control
of these open market locations, police officers' lives are at
risk, in addition to the young men, women, and children who are
losing their lives and their futures to violent death, lifelong
addiction, and to long periods of incarceration.
We believe we have made a significant impact on these
gangs. Our street corner conspiracy operations have been shown
to effectively remove street corner gang markets in a surgical
fashion, encompassing all entities in the market operation. Our
conviction rates are high and sentences considerable. These
operations have also shown to significantly improve the quality
of life in the neighborhoods where we have been conducting
them. But as important as these operations are, it is not
enough. We are doing what we can to sever the ``tentacles'' of
the drug distribution here in Chicago, but we need really to
sever the ``head,'' which is made up of the cartels that reach
beyond local law enforcement and who supply various bulk
narcotics for further distribution throughout this country.
Chicago has been identified as the premiere intermodal hub
of narcotic distribution for the United States. An example can
be found in one of the many large seizures made by the
Narcotics Section of the Chicago Police Department in the year
2002. Officers from the Narcotic and Gang Investigation Section
from the Chicago Police Department seized the largest amount of
cocaine in department history: 2,000 kilos of cocaine were
recovered from a warehouse in a suburb of Chicago. This seizure
of cocaine had an estimated street value of approximately a
quarter of a billion dollars. The Mexican cartel identified as
bringing this shipment into the area stood to make an estimated
$20 million in the wholesale distribution of these drugs, and
the money was to be smuggled back into Mexico via the same
false truck panels used to hide the bulk drugs.
There are many other examples supporting the fact that drug
cartels are responsible for all the drugs that enter or pass
through the Chicagoland area.
The ability of local law enforcement to attack
international mechanisms that feed the narcotic violence in my
city is not only limited by jurisdictional constraints, but by
financial constraints as well. To be more effective in stemming
the distribution of drugs, there has to be a greater
participation between the Federal Government and local law
enforcement in all investigative aspects of drug trafficking. A
more concerted effort has to be applied to removing and
eradicating the financial resources that generate drug
distribution and the related violence. This can only be
accomplished by a multi-agency effort. That is why the Chicago
HIDTA is so valuable, it is the catalyst to accomplish this
goal.
As with the era of prohibition, when the gangs rose to a
level of sophistication that allowed their influence to reach
beyond the resources of local law enforcement, there was a need
for the Federal Government to help. The Chicago HIDTA is a
conduit for that help. HIDTA has provided us with the resources
and capabilities to identify the hierarchy of these drug
organizations, and to move toward a more effective prosecution
of drug conspiracy cases.
In closing, we in local law enforcement are challenged to
try to make an impact on what really is an international
network of drug delivery and distribution with limited
resources. The Chicago HIDTA has been instrumental in helping
to provide intelligence and link Federal resources to formulate
comprehensive strategies and operations to be more effective by
attacking not only the operatives at the street distribution
level, but also impacting the upper and mid-level supply
sources. We need continued support of these efforts to not only
protect our police officers, but also to make our communities
safer and to help to ensure a chance for a prosperous future
for the next generation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.031
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Romano.
Chief Romano. Members of the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, good morning. I am
pleased that Congressman Cummings extended the opportunity to
the Baltimore Police Department to provide testimony today
regarding the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. I am
Anthony Romano, chief of the Organized Crime Division of the
Baltimore Police Department. I am extremely grateful for the
partnership with HIDTA in Baltimore, and in my previous career
with the New York HIDTA, where I served in the New York City
Police Department for 18 years.
During those 18 years, I spent a period of time, in excess
of 10 years, combating the war on drugs, especially in the late
1980's, the mid-1980's to late-1980's, when crack had
completely overrun our city streets. I was a young narcotics
detective assigned to the Narcotics Division, and we were
tasked with the mission of taking back these streets. All of
this was done with nothing more than a gun, a badge, and our
arrest powers. We had no training other the basic training that
was afforded to us by the New York City Police Department.
There were no avenues available to rehabilitate those who were
arrested. There were limitations on enforcement due to
budgetary restraints.
A young police officer back in the 1980's, while guarding a
witness in a drug trial, was assigned his post to watch the
home of these witnesses, and that night, in doing his job, it
cost him his life; he was executed by members of the gang that
this witness was going to testify against.
I find myself now, after just retiring a year ago from the
New York City Police Department, here in Baltimore, in a city
that bears much resemblance to what I saw in the 1980's in New
York, and as a specific case as it relates to a family here in
Baltimore, namely, the Dawson family, another person who wanted
to stand up against the fight on drugs, and this cost a mother,
a father, and their father's children their lives.
There is just no room for this here. We need help beyond
the help of just having additional manpower and being able to
go out there and take these streets back. The people who are
arrested need to be rehabilitated. Those involved in the fight
need to have the training that is available.
Often, much too often, I have heard in my career in the New
York City Police Department, and I hear grumblings as I begin
my career here in Baltimore City, that there are budgetary
restraints, and it is very difficult to run an operation 24
hours. Drug dealers don't shut down their operations; they
begin in the morning, they work through the night, 7 days a
week. Unfortunately, there aren't enough people for us to put
out on the street to fight this war 7 days a week, 24 hours a
day, so we find ourselves needing people to stay longer.
And what I have found in my career in New York, and I am
starting to see here in Baltimore, and from my own personal
experiences, no one does this work because they have to do this
work. Drug work is a passion. I do this work and I have done
it, and I could have moved on to many different areas in the
police departments, but I chose not to. I could have advanced
up the ladder through promotion. I chose not to, I chose to
stay where I was and fight the war on drugs.
Since 1994, the Baltimore/Washington HIDTA has performed at
an extremely high level. It has assisted law enforcement
agencies in coordinating an interagency response to significant
threats or crises, such as the Washington-area sniper killings
and the local response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
As a result, three law enforcement task forces operating in
Maryland have been recognized by the ONDCP for their exemplary
performance. These units include The Major Drug Traffickers
Initiative, Drug Money Laundering Initiative, and Prince
George's County Safe Streets Initiative.
Communities battling this intensive drug trade and the
violence that accompanies it need to know that HIDTA dollars
and expertise are available for them for strategic and
effective responses to violence and substance abuse. In New
York, and now in Baltimore, I know that we cannot do it alone.
Please consider ONDCP and HIDTA favorably in your
reauthorization deliberation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Romano follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.034
Mr. Souder. Thank you each for your testimony.
I am going to yield first to Ranking Member Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
just read over opening statement, make it a part of the record.
Mr. Chairman, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program is an important weapon in the Government's drug-
fighting arsenal. By coordinating and synchronizing the
regional anti-drug efforts of local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies, HIDTA programs around the country amplify
the impact that participating agencies can make with limited
resources.
I don't think that there is any question as to whether we
should reauthorize this program. Absolutely we should, in my
judgment. And I know, Mr. Chairman, that you agree. Like any
program that undergoes rapid expansion, the HIDTA program has
experienced growing pains. New and evolving drug use transit
patterns of drug trafficking have fueled the growth of the
HIDTA program from five regions in 1990 to more than 25 today.
One of the program's chief attributes is the capacity it
provides to tailor a comprehensive interagency response to a
highly specific regional drug threat. As we consider how to
manage the growth of the HIDTA program into the future, we must
be careful to preserve the advantage of flexibility that the
program presently affords. The value of the HIDTA program is
evident to me in the contribution that the Washington/Baltimore
HIDTA has made since 1994 in helping agencies to fight the drug
trafficking problem that severely affects my congressional
district in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Howard
County.
It is no secret that Baltimore City's local drug problem is
among the Nation's worse. Sadly, the city I represent in
Congress is home to some of the Nation's most violent drug
trafficking organizations, and the impact of their activities
on those who live among the dealers and their client is direct.
Everyday I see the devastation that drug trafficking causes in
the lives of drug abusers, their loved ones, and the entire
neighborhoods crippled and terrorized by drug-related crimes
against people and property.
As bad as conditions are in certain sections of Baltimore
City, they would be much worse without the cooperation of
coordination enabled by the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. Through
interagency task force and innovative and successful drug
treatment component, a regional intelligence center and
sophisticated crime mapping tools, the Washington/Baltimore
HIDTA has dramatically enhanced the ability of law enforcement
agencies to work together to dismantle major drug trafficking
organizations and conduct investigations into large-scale drug
money laundering operations.
The existence of the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA also
enabled a multi-agency response to one of the most tragic
events the city of Baltimore has ever seen: the arson and
murder, as Mr. Romano has already talked about, of the Dawson
family in retaliation for Angela Dawson's efforts to engage
police to keep drug dealers away from her very doorstep. In the
immediate wake of this tragedy, ONDCP Director Walters, to his
credit, authorized the redirection of existing funds within the
fiscal year 2002 Baltimore/Washington HIDTA budget to support a
Baltimore targeting initiative that is helping to increase
safety for residents of specific neighborhoods that are subject
to the ever-present threat of violence from drug distribution
organizations and their affiliates.
And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today, and coming, many of them, in such short notice.
Like the HIDTA program, the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center plays a critical role in our national drug
control strategy and clearly deserves to be reauthorized. CTAC
represents a tremendous resource for our Federal drug control
agencies through its research and development programs and for
local and State law enforcement through the Technology Transfer
Program. As foreign and domestic criminals develop ever more
sophisticated means of threatening harm to the American people,
whether through the illegal drug trade or through terrorist
activities, it becomes more and more essential to develop the
technological means to detect and disrupt their activities. It
is equally important that we enable those applications to be
put to effective use by State and local law enforcement
agencies. CTAC performs both these vital functions, and I
strongly support the extension of its authorization.
A moment ago I mentioned the horrific crime that claimed
the lives of Carnell and Angela Dawson and their five young
children, age 9 to 14. In sections of Baltimore City and places
like them, the drug trade has immediate and severe impact.
Angela Dawson had the courage to stand up to drug dealers. The
dealers responded with a brazen message to the entire
community. We must ensure that the residents of communities
like the Dawsons have the vigorous support of law enforcement
to insulate them from the threat of violent retaliation for
their partnership with the police.
I have often said, and I firmly believe, that the police
cannot do their job effectively without the cooperation of the
public. Witness relocation programs are not an adequate
solution for individuals and families who are so deeply
committed to reclaiming their communities as the Dawsons were.
Moreover, communities can ill afford to lose such committed and
courageous people.
The redirection of funds by Director Walters for the
Baltimore targeting initiative was an appropriate and necessary
initial Federal response to this very difficult problem of
domestic narco-terrorism. The next step must be to ensure that
this kind of effort can continue without eroding the support
for other important HIDTA initiatives.
With that in mind, I have introduced legislation entitled
the ``Dawson Family Community Protection Act'' that would make
the funding of initiatives like the Baltimore targeting
initiative a permanent priority within the Office of National
Drug Control Policy. The bill would require the Director of
ONDCP to devote a minimum of $1 million annually to HIDTA
initiatives that aim to increase safety for and encourage
voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, residents of
neighborhoods that are severely affected by drug trafficking
activity and related violence.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for lending your
support for H.R. 1599 as an original co-sponsor, and I look
forward to working with you to see that the legislation is
enacted either on its own or as part of the ONDCP
reauthorization legislation the subcommittee will consider in
the coming weeks.
In the meantime, I also want to thank all of the witnesses
again for appearing before the subcommittee today, and I look
forward to hearing the answers to the various questions put to
you by our committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Ose, did you have a statement also?
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late. I did want to get down here and make sure that I welcome
Ms. McCampbell here to our committee. She is the chief of the
California Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement, and in that role she has worked closely with my
staff and the communities that I represent across the State to
improve our efforts to fight the use and abuse of dangerous
drugs and narcotics.
Mr. Chairman, I want to add my compliments to those of the
other Members here to your's and Mr. Cummings' continuing
commitment to this effort. I have a statement I would like to
enter into the record, but more than anything, I just want
Christy McCampbell to know she is welcome here.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
I am going to start with a few direct questions on the
HIDTA. And let me start as a followup to the last panel, if I
can ask Ms. McCampbell, the California partnership based in San
Diego is part of the overarching Southwest Border HIDTA. Do you
agree with ONDCP belief that greater authority should be given
to the Southwest Border HIDTA to manage the five regional? Have
you been involved in this discussion at all? How would you
ensure that the individual partnerships do not take actions
that negatively impact other parts of the Southwest Border?
Ms. McCampbell. Well, I would have to say that I have not
been directly involved in those types of discussions, but I
know our CBAG, which is at San Diego and Imperial County, they
do work collectively with the entire Southwest Border, and I do
believe that we all need to be working together; that is the
point of the HIDTAs. And we do work together at this time, so I
am not sure to say it is really a separate entity is a fair
thing. We have worked together; we share intelligence, we share
information, and we share resources. So at this time we are
part of the entire region.
Mr. Souder. We can have all nice general discussions, but
sometimes it comes down to money, that part of the struggle
that we have at the Federal level when we devise a program like
this, and this is what we are trying to work through, is that
each HIDTA sees its money coming in, they make their plans
based on their money. What happens when there are shifts along
the border in particular? Because when we are successful in one
area, they will tend to move to another area. And the question
is how do we make the decision to shift those different funding
mechanisms?
The theory behind Southwest Border that this subcommittee
clearly pushed for many years, particularly when Speaker
Hastert was here, was that it needed to be somewhat fungible
money that could move the intensity of the action where the
gaps were. But then we ran into different problems in each
State. It is one thing to talk theoretically about cooperation;
it is another thing to say we are doing these ongoing
investigations, we don't want the money moved.
Any thoughts on that process of how to work through it?
Because there is never enough money to tackle all the problems.
The bottom line is nobody is saying that clearly there are
parts of the Arizona border that are wide open right now;
whereas, in the California border we have a little more, at
least theoretically, control. That doesn't mean we have begun
to eliminate the drug problem in California.
Ms. McCampbell. In the initiatives that I am familiar with
within our State, we actually do some shifting of funds in the
particular initiatives. We just did that recently. We felt that
in the Bay Area, particularly, that we had met the mission of
some of those original initiatives, so the board of directors
took that upon themselves to say, OK, we have finished up with
that initiative, let's redirect this to some new initiatives
that are coming in. And I think the key to this is to allow
that board of directors who knows the particular areas to have
a lot of say into how those moneys are spent.
Now, that doesn't directly answer your question as to what
do we do with that vacant part over there in Arizona at the
border. I do agree that there has to be a shifting of funds; we
don't stay on the same mission day in and day out forever. But
I would like to emphasize that I think that those boards of
directors, working in conjunction with ONDCP and with the HIDTA
director, should have the authority to be able to perhaps in
fact do shifting changing moneys.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Wiberg, we have a HIDTA in Chicago and a
HIDTA in Lake County. I am from the northeast part of Indiana,
where we tend to view Lake County as Lake County views itself,
as almost an adjunct of Chicago. Why would those two HIDTAs be
separate? In other words, part of what we are getting at the
Southwest Border we need to look at in the Midwest as well, and
that is drug dealers don't divide along State lines because
they elect officials along State party lines; they work in
geographic areas in distribution networks that aren't our
political subdivisions.
I know political reasons why it is helpful in Indiana to
have HIDTA. And I would ask a broader question. Not only Lake
County, Chicago, but also why not a Great Lakes HIDTA or a West
Great Lakes and an East Great Lakes, knowing Chicago and
Detroit face slightly different things? But, in other words,
why wouldn't you look at it as a hub, if we are saying this for
the Southwest Border, and say how is it moving through the
Great Lakes region?
Mr. Wiberg. To be very honest with you, it would be very
difficult for me to try and evaluate what occurs in other areas
outside of the city of Chicago.
Mr. Souder. OK, let us say Chicago and Lake County.
Mr. Wiberg. OK.
Mr. Souder. Because your guys are moving across the border.
Most people who live there don't even know where the border is.
Mr. Wiberg. We have worked in conjunction with the Lake
County HIDTA, and it was very effective because they brought to
our table something that we were looking at with respect to
another street gang that was involved in the sale of PCP. And
please understand, it is very difficult for me to make a
judgment. I can tell you the HIDTA in Chicago is very
effective; it works. I would like to see more of it, to be
honest with you, for the surrounding Chicagoland area. We need
more initiatives. How that would compare with Indiana, to be
honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it would be very difficult for
me to respond to that.
Mr. Souder. My assumption is that, for example, in my
hometown the narcotics were mostly coming from Detroit, but we
found gangs, kids who had moved in from Chicago. The logical
connection in most cases are going to be out of the major metro
areas moving through into the other areas, and this isn't hard
for an outsider to see, and it is kind of exasperating to look
at it from the outside and not see a willingness inside the
organizations to see the networking pattern that comes with the
narcotics coming from a long distance, moving to regional
networks, down into subregional networks, down into smaller
networks. And if we don't, as a country, focus on that, we are
just going to continue to drown in the individual cases.
The HIDTAs certainly have improved that coordination, and
what we are trying to get to is are there ways to further
improve that or are HIDTAs starting to become, in a sense,
another jurisdictional potential problem inside this system if
they start coming in to the adjacency areas.
So you have had some cooperation with Lake County. Do you
get into the Milwaukee zone at all?
Mr. Wiberg. Yes.
Mr. Souder. In other words, presumably narco chains are
going to run up toward Milwaukee. Rockford?
Mr. Wiberg. Yes. Oh, definitely Rockford.
Mr. Souder. How do you interact with St. Louis?
Mr. Wiberg. From the time that I have been there, minimal.
We really don't have that much involvement with St. Louis. A
lot more closer to, you know, Milwaukee, Indiana, obviously.
From the investigations that I have been involved in or know my
group involved with, St. Louis has been minimal. But please
understand, from a person who lives in Chicago and was a police
officer for 37 years, I am glad the gangs are moving out of the
city. You know, I apologize if they are coming your way, but I
am glad they are moving that way. And I think that is one of
the things that we need to be aware of, because when the gangs
move, they bring everything with them; they bring the violence
and they bring the drugs. And, again, I was stressing the fact
that these drugs are not just limited to gangs, but they have
that head behind them, which is the drug cartel.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, your comment kind of
concerned me about the fact, and I am sure this is happening
everywhere, the resources that are being taken away from the
drug enforcement going into homeland security and terrorism.
And there is no question we have to deal with both issues, but
if you take one away from narcotics and transfer it, and I
would like to know from maybe each one of you on the panel is
that happening in all of your jurisdictions, that the resources
of manpower and moneys are going more into the terrorism and
drawing away from your operations?
Ms. McCampbell. Yes, I can respond to that. It has been
devastating to California. I try not to take it personally, as
heading up narcotic enforcement, but, you know, in California
the Governor and the attorney general created CADIC, which is
an acronym for our intelligence system for homeland security
for terrorism, and they created that out of nothing. They had
no budget when September 11 occurred. There was no budget and
so to create this bureau they took it out of narcotic
enforcement. And they took it out of narcotic enforcement
because who knows how to deal with things going on the streets
but the narcotics officers? We had informants; we knew there
were Middle Eastern connections to pseudoephedrine sales that
we, as narcotic enforcement officers, had worked.
So 100 agents were taken out of Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement to create CADIC. We were promised eventually that
would be refunded and made up, but then in the meantime we have
energy crises and everything else, and so we have not received
any allotments or funding back from our own State government.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Romano, how about you in Baltimore?
Chief Romano. Sir, as you know, we are in Charlie status. A
lot of our moneys are going toward paying for overtime for
officers and try to secure a city against terrorist attacks.
Being new to this city and my initial impression of how serious
the mayor and the police commissioner are to fighting this war
on drugs, even though a lot of the moneys that I would normally
be using to spend on training and for rehabilitation and for
overtime as it relates to the war on drugs, there seems to be a
huge commitment on the part of the mayor and, again, the police
commissioner to go out there and do the job, and that is what
we do. At some point I can only imagine that the strain on the
budget is going to affect the work that we do.
Mr. Ruppersberger. All the more reason why we need to
encourage our President to give more money to first responders.
I mean, it has to be done, because it is not only affecting
what we are doing with our first responders, our police, our
firefighters, and our health officers, but it is affecting your
enforcement abilities. And after September 11 the terrorism
issue will stay, we have to do that, but we can't take away
from this drug situation. I think the statistics are clearly 90
percent of all crime is drug-related. That is about the
national average. And we have to continue to focus on that.
My investigation, which is limited, on HIDTA, I think most
of the jurisdictions like the fact that we have Federal, State,
and local; love the fact that we get some resources from the
Feds because they have more money than anybody; but some of the
complaints that I hear that HIDTA, in certain areas, might be
putting too much money into infrastructure and not enough into
investigations, infrastructure being salary, rent, whatever
that is. Do you see that in any of your jurisdictions?
And I want to start with you, Mr. Romano, since I am from
Baltimore and you are from Baltimore.
Chief Romano. Sir, if you could just repeat the question.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Basically the question is the one
complaint I hear about HIDTA is that there should be more money
put into basic investigations than into infrastructure,
infrastructure meaning salaries, rent, those type of things.
Chief Romano. HIDTA moneys that are utilized need to go
beyond just certainly the infrastructure; we need to allocate
moneys toward that. There is another huge component which has
to be addressed, and that is in just dealing with witnesses and
securing their safety and spending moneys to relocate them. In
Baltimore City, approximately 25 percent of the cases are
dropped because witnesses fail to appear, and this comes as a
result of issues like the Dawson case, where a family who vowed
to stand up and fight lost their lives in that fight.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I don't mean infrastructures in the
communities. Really what I am trying to get to, because we are
in reauthorization, do you feel that the Federal part of HIDTA
needs to put more money into focusing on your target, on your
investigations, you know, whatever the issues, or you don't see
that that is an issue?
Chief Romano. No.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK.
Chief Romano. It has gotten more and more expensive to get
this job done in purchasing equipment, in dealing with, as it
pertains to Title 3, wiretapping, in dealing with companies
that supply the services. Back in the early 1980's, when Title
3 on cellular phones were very rare, it seemed as though a lot
of the companies were willing to help out law enforcement to
the best of their ability. Now it has actually become business
for them; we have become just another customer, and the amounts
of money that are spent are exorbitant.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Deal.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank all three of you for coming
today, and to thank you personally for what you do to fight the
problem of drugs and to ask that you express the appreciation
of this committee and this Congress to your colleagues who do
it on a daily basis. I think sometimes almost we are at a point
in the history of our country where we take for granted that
drugs are just an endemic part of everyday life, and I think we
need to get much more serious about this so-called war on
drugs, and I thank all of you and your departments for what you
do in that regard.
I think all of us can hopefully agree that we need to
reauthorize and hopefully to continue to enhance funding for
all of these efforts, HIDTA and CTAC and every other effort
that we have in that regard. I would like to ask you a little
different question, though.
Ms. McCampbell, you are the only one of the panel whose
State actually borders one of the two countries that border us.
I would like to ask you have you made any overall general
determination of the country of transport, the last country of
transport through which the drugs are coming?
Mr. Wiberg, of course, you are closer to the Canadian
border. Where are these drugs actually being transported
through? I know we have done a lot to try to deal with the
country of origin, with Colombia and others, but what country
are these drugs primarily coming through to get to our country?
Ms. McCampbell. Well, it depends on which drugs. We
certainly know the issues, the pseudoephedrine dealing with
methamphetamine in my State of California. We have found that a
good portion of the pseudoephedrine is coming over the Canadian
border down to California. Fortunately, we were able to create
some laws that restricted sales and the ability to get
pseudoephedrine in the State. Unfortunately, now they are not
getting it in California, it is coming from Canada, and then
being manufactured.
When you say the drugs themselves, we grow a lot of our own
marijuana there, but there is marijuana being imported from
Mexico as well. But, frankly, that is not our most serious
problem. If you are going to prioritize, methamphetamine is our
most serious problem, and that I would have to say Canadian
border and the cookers, if you will, those manufacturing meth
are coming across themselves, body-wise, from Mexico.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Wiberg.
Mr. Wiberg. I think DEA probably can answer that question
better than myself, but as an observer from the Chicago Police
Department standpoint, Mexico has to take the lead with us. We
don't really deal that much with the Canadian aspect of the
pseudoephedrine coming through. Customs has made some excellent
cases out of that. I know DEA has made some also. Most of it is
the cocaine that comes into our city. And now we are graduating
to white heroin, and that is Nigerian cartels now are becoming
involved with that very strongly. How they are getting it in, a
lot appears to be coming out of New York. That is what we see
here in Chicago.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Romano, how is it getting into New York?
Where is it coming from?
Chief Romano. Well, you know, spending a lot of time in
debriefing those who have been arrested, especially high level,
when I retired, I retired out of a New York drug enforcement
task force office, and I spent a lot of time there doing money
laundering, you know, looking at the money leaving the country,
back to the origin countries, and in doing that it was no
different than tracking the drugs coming in. Basically, this is
big business, and it is like being in a maze, you get to a wall
and you find yourself having to look around for an alternate
means to get through it, and these guys are no different.
Mr. Deal. Where was the country of transport, at least, or
where was the money going back to?
Chief Romano. The money was usually going back to South
America, finding its way back there. But, again, the money
aspect, there is a lot of big business here in the United
States and a lot of people who are willing to assist these
individuals in getting money out.
But as far as the drugs coming in, when we stopped up the
ports of entry, the Mexican borders, when we beef that up and
we go down to Miami and we beef up the borders and go into New
York and Canada, we are attacking those individuals coming in
from South America, from Mexico, so what they do is they have
actually found a way to go into Europe and come through Europe
and work their way back into the United States, because we pay
less attention to individuals coming in from Europe than we do
those coming in from South America, because the mind-set is
that drugs come in from South America, so we beef up on the
borders and we pay no attention to a flight coming in from
Spain. Spain is a huge, huge point of origin where the drugs
actually go from South America into Spain, or somewhere in
Europe, and find their way back into the United States.
Mr. Deal. Can I ask one quick followup? And, Ms.
McCampbell, I think it might be appropriate, since you are on
the border State, are you seeing any more cooperation on the
other side of the border, on the Mexican side, to assist us to
try to stop it before it ever gets across the border, or is
this all just what we are having to play defense on our side of
the border? Are you seeing any more cooperation?
Ms. McCampbell. Well, we are definitely playing defense on
our side, but I think we have definitely received more
cooperation from Mexico with their attorney general there. He
seems to be cooperating with us. We have intelligence that
works with Mexico, I know DEA is working with Mexico, and I
think there has been a definite improvement over the last few
years than what it used to be.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
We have been joined by Lieutenant Colonel Steve Moyer. If
you will stand, we need to swear you in, and then get your
testimony.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that the witness responded
in the affirmative.
And, Mr. Bell, if I could go ahead and take summary of his
testimony before we move to you for questioning.
Yes, Lieutenant Colonel Moyer?
Colonel Moyer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. It is my understanding that the
State Police is here to support the reauthorization of issues
as it relates to the HIDTA. The Maryland State Police has been
actively a part of this, in cooperation with the Washington/
Baltimore HIDTA since 1994. We have participated in showing
that the development of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy are utilized in the management of investigative
initiatives and administrative responsibilities assigned in the
Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area.
Most of the significant accomplishments has been the
pioneering and the use of a crime mapping tool for drug
enforcement and operations planning and evaluation in this
region. It also offers a case explorer software, a case
management system for law enforcement agencies to help
facilitate information sharing and intelligence gathering on
these types of operations.
Additionally, we have also worked with supporting
enhancement of technology such as the CAPWIN project, which is
a communications software piece which helps us have
interactions with other law enforcement agencies in the region
so we are not operating on different frequencies when we are
involved in these types of drug operations.
Since Colonel Norris has been on board as of January 15,
his priority has been to focus on homeland security, and over
the last 18 months, in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney's
Office, the Baltimore Police Department and Baltimore County
Police Department, and other entities in the Baltimore/
Washington metropolitan area, we are trying to foster a joint
analysis center where we can take all information related to
crime and/or terrorism-related type activities so that we can
have all the information coming into one center so that it is
shared with all Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies in the region.
With this, the Maryland State Police stands behind the
HIDTA and the initiatives, and with the hopes in future
cooperation along the lines of information sharing. The three
major cases of recent that brings rise and shows the exposure
of how well we do interact would be the Washington area sniper
killings. HIDTA actually assisted us with the case management
process on that.
I am the chief of the Homeland Security and Intelligence
Bureau. The State Police was tasked with taking those thousands
of leads, you know, whether it be Federal, State, or local, and
putting that information together so that law enforcement could
stay focused on making a successful conclusion to that case.
I think if you remember the tag number was actually
obtained by the Baltimore Police Department on a non-
enforcement type contact which linked the adult suspect in that
case with the tag number, which resulted in the arrest being
made in Maryland, and we have to give a lot of credit to HIDTA
for bringing that software forward to be used in that case,
which brought it to a successful conclusion.
And that would be the summary of State Police testimony.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. We will put your whole statement in
the record.
Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to something that was said about the
diversion of funds to homeland security and away from the war
on drugs in the various States.
And I believe, Chief McCampbell, you commented on that.
Certainly it was the desire of many of us that after September
11 that we move away from the protect the turf mentality that
seemed to exist throughout law enforcement, regardless of what
area we were talking about, and based on what we are told these
days, that has happened in regard to terrorism.
I am curious as to whether you all believe there is any way
to expand that concept and start building alliances between
those who are engaged in the war on drugs with those who are
engaged in homeland security. And where I am going with this,
looking at like port security. It seems to make perfect sense.
And I represent the Houston region. One of the major entry
points for drugs is obviously the Port of Houston. There seems
to be a natural crossover there and a natural overlap there
where folks could work together.
And I am just curious, Chief McCampbell, could you comment
on that?
Ms. McCampbell. Yes. That is a very good point, and,
actually we are starting to do that in our intelligence system,
No. 1, our RISS, our Regional Information Sharing network,
which the HIDTAs, they connect into, and that is how we all
share our intelligence and put our information in on our drug
cases. But now we are putting some security information in
there, and our war room in the Los Angeles Clearinghouse is
working on deconfliction of our agents going out and looking at
terrorism, possible suspects of terrorism. So we are doing that
and we are doing it through the HIDTAs.
Our ports of entry, I certainly have them in San Francisco,
that is one of our main initiatives. And we have agents at the
ports of entry and at the airport, and we are combining our
efforts with our own Statewide internal homeland security
units.
Mr. Bell. Commander Wiberg, do you have any thoughts on
that?
Mr. Wiberg. I think we are in the embryonic stages of it,
to be honest with you. A lot of my people from narcotics
graduate into the intelligence and are mostly working on the
terrorists. Unfortunately, from my standpoint, I am not getting
anything back, and obviously the experienced police officers
that have that narcotics background fall right into the
training for the work of the terrorists. I think we need more
of it.
I want to say after we recovered that 2,000 kilos, it made
it very apparent to me that if someone can smuggle that much
quantity of drugs in the country, what else can they bring in?
Mr. Bell. Sure.
Mr. Wiberg. And if we don't have a closer association with
those people that are responsible for keeping an eye on those
individuals, then we are banging our heads against the wall, we
are losing it again; and I don't think we should. I think it is
very important that we have this multi-agency exchange of
information, be it on terrorists, be it on drug traffickers.
Mr. Bell. In looking at the HIDTA program overall, since we
are talking about reauthorization, and you are not going to
hurt any of our feelings if you have criticisms of the program,
are there problems that need to be addressed going forward from
this point?
Lieutenant Colonel, we can start with you.
Colonel Moyer. Yes, sir. The amount of success and
cooperation we have had with HIDTA in the Baltimore/Washington
area is phenomenal. As I mentioned, and I can go back to the
statements that were just made, trying to put this joint
analysis center together, we will be taking crime information
as well as the information related to terrorism; and whether it
is Federal, State, or a local law enforcement agency, and even
the military branches want to participate with us, we want to
get all the information into one center so that we can get the
information back out to all of law enforcement.
You know, what was mentioned was, you know, a lot of the
people with the drug experience is from the law enforcement
arena and others, you know, are going into the terrorism
identification type work. But we feel it is a benefit to bring
everything together because, you know, cases that we feel will
lead you into a terrorist type investigation, are those people
out there with false identities or doing some money laundering,
which all can tie back into several of the drug operations.
So we would support that in enhancing and broadening it so
it can work together with both, because we feel there is a lot
of overlap that will show once we put all the data bases
together.
Mr. Bell. Anyone else want to comment on changes or
problems that they would like to see addressed?
Mr. Wiberg. From the Chicago standpoint, I would like to
see more initiatives, is one. I don't feel we have enough. And
that may be because of resources.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain what you mean by initiatives?
Mr. Wiberg. More initiatives relative to working the cases
involving the drug cartels and their correlation with respect
to the open air drug markets that we have so many of. In every
situation that we are involved in, be it a wiretap or an
investigation, it is either popping up to a Nigerian cartel or
a Mexican or Colombian cartel, and it is all the way from the
individual who is buying a $10 bag of dope all the way up, and
it goes that far; and the violence that occurs as a result of
that.
These street corners now are tremendous amounts of real
estate, and they bear a lot of money, and people are willing to
do whatever is necessary to protect them, defend them, and
ensure that no one takes them from them. Consequently, we need
more initiatives along the lines of doing more street
conspiracy cases with HIDTA involvement. We have HIDTA
involvement now; we would like to have more.
Like anywhere else, we are all suffering from manpower
constraints; Chicago Police Department Narcotics Section is no
different. And I think with respect to that, I think by having
the initiatives we can make it more conducive to bring more
police officers in for more training, whatever.
One of the things that has not hit Chicago as of yet, and I
have my fingers crossed, but I am not very optimistic, is the
methamphetamine. We have had three within the last year, which
we consider ourselves very fortunate, but it is very apparent
from surrounding suburbs that it is very close, and it is
getting closer everyday. And I think that is something that we
need to really address from a Federal standpoint, along with
the HIDTA, to be honest with you.
The second thing that I think is even more important is
that because the financial gains that are being made by these
drug operations, we need more involvement from the Federal
Government relative to financial, to the financial end of going
after these individuals. As the mayor of the city said, you
know, you can go in any neighborhood and they will be glad to
tell you who the drug dealers are, and most of the Chicago
policemen could tell you that too. It is just, you know, when
they are driving around in their fancy cars, living in their
homes that are extravagant, you know, who is going after them?
And realistically, right now, nobody. Nobody. And that is the
reality in Chicago, nobody is going after the financial end of
these individuals. And if it is being done, it is being done on
a very small basis, and that is not acceptable when you have a
street corner that can generate the kind of money that they are
generating.
Mr. Bell. Chief McCampbell.
Ms. McCampbell. There has been, if you will, in the rumor
mill, or talk of consolidating the HIDTAs and putting them
under the umbrella of, say, the OCDETFs or some other Federal
being, and I would like to emphasize, and I did mention it in
my testimony, but I would like to emphasize the importance of
keeping the balance of having Federal, State, and local
participation and acting as the board of directors, because it
is my belief that if we went under just the OCDETFs or under
just the straight Federal guidelines, if you will, that we
would lose participation, and I think like a local sheriff
would go why do I need to put my agents in another Federal
program? And I think the structure of the HIDTAs, where you
allow the sheriffs and the chiefs and the State and locals to
be on the board, I think that is an important presence, and I
think it is an excellent part of the HIDTAs and one that I hope
does not go away.
Mr. Bell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I want to thank Chief Romano and the
Lieutenant Colonel Moyer for being here.
Let me just ask you all a few questions. Chief Romano, you
talked about this whole issue of 25 percent of the cases being
dropped because of witness problems and, more specifically, I
guess, witnesses being threatened. I live in the inner city of
Baltimore and I talk to lks all the time, and people are scared
to death. I believe that you can see crimes committed in my
neighborhood and nobody would tell, and I don't think the
Dawson case helped. Matter of fact, I think it hurt
tremendously.
I am just wondering how do you deal with that kind of
issue, I mean, that is, of threatened witnesses? Because I
think if we are not careful in this country, we will find
ourselves in a situation like they find themselves in Colombia,
where you just don't get the cooperation and the drug dealers
take over.
Chief Romano. Well, this problem goes beyond simply having
someone pick up the phone and make a call and having the police
respond and making an arrest. We, as a police department, have
to forge a tremendous relationship with the community.
In dealing with the prosecution and the cases, we have to
make the best cases that we can make so that the community sees
an individual taken off the street, brought to justice, and
then incarcerated, because too often what they are seeing is
that an individual, they will pick up a phone and call in
about, will be back out on the street a week, a month, a year
later. There is no sense of feeling that you e safe when a
person that you are directly responsible for putting away is
back out there an hour, a day later.
So certainly us, as a police department, we need to make
the best cases that we can make. We have to go out there and
speak with the community and let them know that there are
avenues available to them so that they can be safe. Take a
family and relocate them, almost like witness protection. Let
us do this, but, again, to do things like this we need moneys.
But our relationship with the community is probably the
most important part of this whole process, and just trust,
trusting the police, because as much as they don't like the
drug dealers, there are a lot of other issues that they have to
deal with, and in the process we will find a way to forge a
relationship with them and allow them to feel as though there
is safety if they come forward.
Mr. Cummings. Lieutenant Colonel, did you want to join in?
Colonel Moyer. The comment that I can make is I think you
were well aware that I was on loan with the Department of
Juvenile Justice for the last 3 years, helping them get through
their issues there in Maryland, and still what we run into is
what was just mentioned; it is the ability to keep, as far as
juveniles go, keep those youths off of the streets for reasons
of the problems that they are creating in their neighborhoods
when they go back home. But there is also that issue of
offering some type of protection when they are involved or when
they become a target or their family becomes a target because
of their involvement in the drug trade in Baltimore.
I think what was mentioned was through Steve Hess and the
U.S. Attorney's Office there are victim assistance and witness
assistance type programs, but, again, it is a funding issue and
being able to have the capacity to do that for certain cases
which may not be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office and
rests locally with the State's attorney's office.
I know in having personally talked to some of the youth
that were detained at Cheltenham and at the Hickey School,
there were times when they would act up intentionally just to
stay there on the grounds of those two schools so they would
not return to the street and be confronted with people that
they may owe some money to from a drug transaction.
But, again, it boils down to having the right amount of
funding available to offer that type of protection for the
cases, which are not the huge case that is going before the
U.S. Attorney's Office.
Mr. Cummings. I see my time has run out, but I want to
thank all of you for what you do everyday. This drug problem is
a very, very serious problem, and sometimes I don't think that
a lot of people understand how devastating and how far-ranging
it is and the many families that it affects; and you all put
your lives on the line everyday and your welfare on the line
everyday to make a difference, and we really appreciate what
you all do, and we want to make sure that we do everything in
our power to help you do what you have to do. And this
subcommittee has been very, very supportive of law enforcement
and at the same time been very supportive of trying to bring
treatment to our communities so that we can have that dual
approach, addressing the law enforcement portion but also
dealing with the treatment and prevention so that you don't
have as much of a problem to deal with.
And so we thank you all for being here. We really
appreciate it.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. We will have additional written
questions, but I wanted to pursue just a couple of things here
yet at the end of this panel.
We made a tactical decision, in putting this panel
together, not to have HIDTA directors themselves, who would
have a direct vested interest, but to have representatives of a
number of different narcotics agencies to tell you your
reactions of the HIDTAs. We have been meeting with HIDTA
directors all over the country, getting all sorts of
information in, and it is a little like Garrison Keeler and
Lake Wobegone, all the men are good looking, all the women are
strong, and all the kids are above average.
And the problem we get is everybody is above average; we
don't get any problems identifying. But a couple have jumped
out here, and I particularly wanted to ask Mr. Wiberg a couple
of questions.
I don't think you want to give the impression, nor do you
mean to give the impression, that in Chicago it is worse than
everybody else, but you may have given us a window that we do
not often get to see, when you said that there aren't
investigations occurring. I want to zoom in a little bit on
what you meant about the drug markets and the Colombians and
the Mexicans and so on, because we are paying, in Chicago, for
example, we have huge agencies that are dealing with trying to
traffic back and trace that back to Colombia and Mexico. Yet
you are saying they aren't being pursued, and you are the
commander of the Narcotics Division of the Chicago Police
Department.
What precisely are you saying? Are you saying there is not
the efforts; it has been cut back?
Mr. Wiberg. Please understand, Mr. Chairman, we are
pursuing and Federal agencies are pursuing the drug dealers.
What is not being pursued is the financial end at all. At all.
It is not being pursued from the individuals that are the gang
leaders, gang structure of selling drugs.
Mr. Souder. Not going after their assets under asset
forfeiture law? Is that a U.S. attorney's problem?
Mr. Wiberg. To be honest with you, we don't see IRS
involved in anything. These individuals have been conducting
business for a number of years, and I don't think they are
paying taxes, and IRS, we have given them information and it
just falls on deaf ears, to be honest with you. There is no
involvement on their part.
Mr. Souder. Have there been cases made by the police
department working with ATF, with DEA, with FBI, where the U.S.
attorney has gone after the money?
Mr. Wiberg. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And then it is not being followed through is
what you are saying.
Mr. Wiberg. Definitely not. There is no follow-through on
the part of IRS.
Mr. Souder. Are you part of and does the HIDTA in Chicago
have subgroups like was alluded to in Mr. Romano's testimony,
and which we have seen in other areas, where you have multiple
different task forces taking care of different problems?
Mr. Wiberg. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Is this one of them? Why wouldn't this be one?
Mr. Wiberg. Well, let me say this. They have been invited
to the table; they just haven't shown up yet.
Mr. Souder. IRS?
Mr. Wiberg. IRS.
Mr. Souder. But that is the only agency?
Mr. Wiberg. And we have presented to IRS.
Mr. Souder. Have you gone to Treasury as opposed to IRS?
Because Treasury is the prosecuting.
Mr. Wiberg. I understand, sir. The mayor gave to whomever
10 names of people that we had worked, that we know had
tremendous amount of assets, and where that is at, I don't
know.
Mr. Souder. OK. I appreciate your frankness, because that
is what we are trying to figure out.
Mr. Wiberg. But please don't misunderstand. We have a
tremendous effort on the part of working the cartels for
enforcement by everyone, everyone involved. The problem rests
with the financial end, like I said; it is not being done.
Mr. Souder. The other question I wanted to ask, which now
that I am over 50 my mind occasionally drifts. I was reading
something else there.
Let me see if it comes back to me in a second. Well, I lost
it.
Does anyone else on the panel have any additional
questions?
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The prior panel, I think it was Mr.
Burns that testified, and I asked him the question about
resources being taken away from Federal law enforcement because
of the terrorism issue, and all three members of the panel here
said that clearly is an issue.
Now, from your perspective, from more the local, State
level, do you see that resources are also being drawn away from
the Federal law enforcement agencies as a result of what is
happening with the terrorism issue? Because we are trying to do
reauthorization, and we want to focus on what is right, and we
know that we need the resources and we know that we have to
deal with the issue of terrorism and we have to deal with the
issue of drugs, narcotics. Now, you know, if we need more
resources, more probably in the terrorism so that you won't
lose resources, do you see that also on a Federal level too?
Mr. Souder. That is my question as well. Let me try another
angle, if I may.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You gave me the ESP.
Mr. Souder. Yes.
This is a touchy subject, and I am the new homeland
security, and I am particular on the border committee, and we
inserted, with my initiation and the Speaker pushing it, a
narcotics connection inside the new Department of Homeland
Security. But this is indisputable, a couple of the facts. FBI
has been asked to concentrate on homeland security, not
narcotics, and they are pulling officers off the case. Customs
and Border Patrol are trying to sort through what their
responsibilities are, given the fact they are now under
homeland security and that is their No. 1 priority.
Presumably, if they are following orders at the local
level, you have seen a reduction in Federal cooperation in drug
enforcement in those agencies. Is that true?
Colonel Moyer. I think what we are seeing in Maryland is
that we are in a transition, you know, right now, and having a
meeting with Gary Bald, who is the special agent in charge at
the Baltimore office, we know that they are redirecting some
resources, but I don't think we felt the overall impact of what
the Bureau's involvement will be there in the Baltimore area.
And I can hand it off to my colleagues from there.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Also you are DEA also.
Colonel Moyer. And DEA, correct.
Chief Romano. Based on what I have seen so far, it seems as
though our representation in the task forces and the assistance
that we are getting from the task forces has been fine. I
basically arrived here in Baltimore yesterday, but have been
here several weeks ago, over the past couple weeks to start
looking at what needs to be addressed here; and the areas as
they pertain to our Federal task forces, whether they be
Customs task forces, DEA task forces, FBI task forces, there
seems to be a very good working relationship with them.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My questions is not the working
relationship. Are resources being taken away, manpower, and
moved over to the terrorist issue? And if it is the case, I
mean, we want to know about it so we can try to raise an issue.
My issue, which I stated before, is that we need to encourage
the President to give more resources to first responders so
that the resources do not have to be taken away from your goal
and mission, which is to fight drugs and arrest people with
drugs. And that is what I am looking for in my question.
If you haven't been here that long, you probably don't know
yet, because you don't know what was there and what is not
going to be there, so probably a month from now you will be
able to answer the question a lot better.
Chief Romano. That is correct, sir.
Ms. McCampbell. We have definitely seen, in particular, our
military, our National Guard has been taken off almost all of
our drug cases. They were very dominant in helping us with our
weed and seed programs with our marijuana eradication. They
were actually out there whacking weeds with us up in the
mountains, and they have all been taken off that.
Now, I understand military, it is a whole separate thing,
but this is our State, our National Guard, which has always
been very helpful in drug eradication in our State. That is
one.
The second part of that is FBI. They were very helpful, we
worked very closely with them on drug cases until September 11,
and they were part of our task forces, and almost all of them
have been taken out of the drug business and their resources
are all going to, you know, homeland security type of issues.
DEA I personally have not seen that their mission has been
decreased in working drugs from a State perspective.
Mr. Ruppersberger. So as a result of that, is that
impacting on your abilities to do the job that you need to do?
Ms. McCampbell. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK.
Mr. Souder. She didn't mention Customs and Border Patrol.
Mr. Ruppersberger. What?
Mr. Souder. She didn't mention Customs and Border Patrol.
Have they had a reduction in the amount working on narcotics as
opposed to terrorism?
Ms. McCampbell. Yes, they have. We certainly had much
Border Patrol participation down at the border. Actually, to
some extent they were very helpful, because when they were
looking for terrorists, as opposed to drugs, we were getting
bad people and drugs that were at the border. But really their
mission, I think, has been much more toward homeland security
now than it has looking for drugs at the borders.
And as far as Customs, they certainly participate in our
task forces, but they have been kind of in limbo right now
because some of them, at least on the street level, don't
exactly know who or where they are working because of the
combining of them into homeland security. I think they are
struggling with identity right now.
Mr. Wiberg. If I may, I think it is the situation, at least
in Chicago, that everybody is doing more with less. The
relationships we have had with DEA go back as far as I can
remember. We have good relationships with all the agencies, but
we are all doing more with less. September 11 has affected
every agency within the Chicagoland area. Customs is drifting.
A lot of times we are being involved now with assisting Customs
with cases that they have, taking some of my officers and
assisting them in cases they have, which do not directly have
anything to do with the narcotics end of it, but maybe homeland
security.
But all the agencies that I deal with, all the Federal
agencies are doing more with less, and we are trying to
combine, and I think, you know, it is becoming very apparent
that we become more effective when we are all together because
there isn't a lot of us independently, to be honest with you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. No further questions.
Mr. Cummings. I think basically what Chairman Souder and
Mr. Ruppersberger are aiming at is that we have always been
concerned about balance, having a balance. I have often said
that while we are fighting terrorists and fighting outside
forces, we have to be carful that we don't erode from the
inside or implode. And I just wanted to figure out, I mean, do
you all see the problem as such, just to put the final question
on what they have been saying, are there things that you would
like for us to do as a Congress to help you? Do you think the
problem is that bad or do you feel confident that it is just a
temporary situation?
For example, the National Guard helping you out, is that
something that you feel is very important right now, or do you
feel that, you know, you can kind of go without it? And if you
can go without it, what impact does it have?
You know, those are the kind of things that we have to have
a pretty good understanding of because we are all of us, one
thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on, we don't agree
on a whole, whole lot, but we do agree that the people's taxes
should be spent effectively and efficiently. And so, you know,
we are just wondering what would you have us do, if anything?
Ms. McCampbell. I would like to respond to that. I think
what I am very concerned about, being in the narcotic business,
is that with the creation of homeland security and the
surrounding issues of that, that we in narcotic enforcement are
going to get lost. It certainly has put narcotic enforcement to
the back burner in my State, that is for sure, and I would
certainly ask you for continued support, continued funding. I
need the help of the National Guard, and they are virtually
closing down on their drug interdiction business that they had
been in. I need that help from them. I need the FBI to help on
our local task forces and our local areas. And certainly I
can't work without DEA. I mean, they are as important as
anybody can be in our State.
And so I don't know exactly what the answer is, I suppose
it is always funding, but if there is some way that we can make
sure that narcotic enforcement doesn't fall to the background
under the shadow of homeland security, we need to do that.
Mr. Cummings. When the homeland security legislation came
through, Chairman Souder and I were very concerned about
narcotics efforts, law enforcement efforts not getting the kind
of attention that we thought it should continue to get, and we
had put in an amendment to make sure that there was a person in
Homeland Security to address the issue of drugs in this
country. We didn't get the level that we wanted, but we did
make sure that we got somebody in there to keep their eye on
the drug problems here, because we were so afraid that some of
the things that you are talking about right now would happen,
and we need to kind of figure out how we get to the powers that
be to begin to look at some of these issues.
Ms. McCampbell. Just in response to that, I believe the
appointment is Mr. Mackin. And I had an opportunity to meet
with him very briefly at the National Coalition of Narcotic
Officer Association's meeting last week, which, by the way,
Chairman Souder was awarded a very prestigious award of being
in the House of Representatives, the most honored person in the
House of Representatives. But I did have a chance to meet with
Mr. Mackin last week, and he actually has contacted me and is
going to be coming out to California to discuss these exact
issues. So I was quite pleased to hear that.
Mr. Cummings. So now you know who was responsible for Mr.
Mackin even having a position to get. It is nice to take credit
for something up here for a change.
Congratulations, Mr. Chairman, by the way.
Anybody else want to respond to that?
Colonel Moyer. The only thing that I would like to add to
that is that I think, like I said, we have a great working
relationship with our partners. You know, the FBI has admitted
that they will be backing away. I think we need to see who will
be picking up that extra load. But you have already mentioned,
I think, with the focus on enforcement, as well as treatment,
needs to be paramount, and especially in the Baltimore area,
treatment. I would echo what you have already said, that if
there is dollars that can come toward Maryland in that effort,
that would be great.
But as far as enforcement goes, a lot of the enhancements
that have come through HIDTA have been from a technology point
of view. The ability to have deconfliction so you don't have
officers from different agencies or different task forces
overlapping is very important, but, additionally, the
surveillance equipment ability, to be able to watch particular
hot spot areas or drug corners and marketing type areas where
you don't have to put the human resource there undercover on
the street, where you can monitor the activity from a distance,
would be a huge enhancement for all of us.
Mr. Wiberg. Might I also interject more funding for hiring
more agents and more police officers. Those are the first
responders, and we are running out of them.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Souder. I thank you for your testimony. As Mr. Cummings
said, it was one of only two changes in the original markup of
the bill. We are very concerned about the long-term trends. I
do believe the border security will be a benefit; in other
words, as we tighten that up, we will catch them at the borders
more.
We are concerned in obviously having Asa Hutchinson and Mr.
Bonner from Customs there, they were former DEA guys, but I
think there will be a narrowing in of DEA being the primary
Federal, and that means they can't take a reduction; and that
hopefully less is more will work, because we are in a very
difficult situation as advocates of the anti-narcotics effort.
Either we have to argue that we haven't been efficient in the
past or that when we reduce resources going to narcotics, we
are going to have a rise in narcotics; and we don't like either
one of those points.
But we are now at that position in the U.S. Congress is the
less is more will work to a point, but we have to show the
specifics or we are going to look at longer term questions as
we see resources diverted, as they certainly are and we are
hearing on a regular basis.
But thank you each for your work. Thank you for your
testimony, and appreciate your coming in today. If you have any
further additions you want to add to the record, send them to
us.
Mr. Souder. If the third panel will now come forward. Mr.
Ron Burns, the chief of the Lakewood, CO Police Department; Mr.
Peter Modafferi, chief of detectives, Rockland County, NY
District Attorney's Office.
The third panel is one of the less glamorous, in Washington
terms, issues in the supply of equipment in the OCDETF program,
but it is one of the most important things at the local level.
If both of you will remain standing, I will give you your
oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that both witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
Thank you for your patience. This has been a long hearing,
but it will be most likely the only hearing, particularly on
the subject that you are about to address, and one of the most
important programs in the Nation regarding local law
enforcement. So thank you for taking the time to come to
Washington and be willing to testify.
Chief Burns.
STATEMENT OF RON BURNS, CHIEF, LAKEWOOD, CO POLICE DEPARTMENT;
AND PETER MODAFFERI, CHIEF OF DETECTIVES, ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Chief Ron Burns. Chairman Souder and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for the
opportunity to testify regarding the effectiveness of the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC]. The role of
CTAC in the research and development of technological measures
for Federal and local law enforcement agencies has benefited
the efforts of the Lakewood Police Department and the Federal
and local agencies in the Denver area.
The city of Lakewood is located in the metropolitan Denver
area. There are 43 local, county, and State law enforcement
agencies, in addition to several Federal law enforcement
agencies in that area. Drug trafficking, crime, and exceptional
incidents have no jurisdictional boundaries. Collaboration and
multi-jurisdictional efforts are essential to combating illicit
drug trafficking and crime. Our law enforcement agencies
operate typically with incompatible radio communications
systems. During multi-jurisdictional efforts we cannot
communicate with each other. Our department has experienced
these difficulties on many occasions, including the Columbine
incident.
In September 2000, the Lakewood Police Department hosted an
evaluation of various technologies that link the communication
signals from one radio, and it is typically from a diverse
system, directly into all other radios selected for
interoperability. The evaluation was successful and the system,
the ACU-1000, was selected and made operational in 2001. The
cost of the system, and this was for the equipment, was
$194,971 and was entirely funded through the ONDCP, CTAC, and
the Navy's SPAWAR Systems Center in San Diego. Installation was
very smooth and the cooperation with coordinating Federal
agencies was excellent.
Today the system is operational on a 24 hour, 7 day a week
basis and hosts 15 local, State, and Federal agencies. The
Lakewood Police Department's Technical Operations Unit provides
ongoing maintenance and support. During 2002 the system was
used on the average of once a day, or almost 38 times a month,
for inter-jurisdictional operations. Very frequently, DEA, U.S.
Customs, the FBI, and local law enforcement use the system in
drug investigations. Their surveillance includes the use of
aircraft linked with the ACU-1000 to follow suspected drug
dealers. The system was also used in a bomb threat at the
Denver Federal Center, and in the summer of 2002 to coordinate
emergency response to front line firefighters during the worst
forest fire in Colorado history. This technology has not only
solved a communications problem, but also enhanced the overall
cooperation among participating agencies.
Cooperation among local, State, and Federal agencies is
critical in the investigation of illegal drug operations, crime
reduction, and large-scale events, and now with the threat of
terrorists' activities. The ability of public safety agencies
to communicate is absolutely essential. The ACU-1000 radio
interoperability successfully solves this communications issue
by linking radio systems from various and diverse systems or
signals. Hopefully, this system will be expanded to include
entire metro areas and to link with other areas of
interoperability systems across the country, building a
national network.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a success story of
the cooperation between Federal agencies and local law
enforcement. This project is a resounding success and could not
have been accomplished without the House Committee on
Government Reform, and the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources, and CTAC. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Ron Burns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.036
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. It is good to hear a
success story.
Mr. Modafferi.
Mr. Modafferi. Good afternoon, Chairman Souder. Thank you
for this opportunity to speak to you this morning in support of
the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.
My name is Peter A. Modafferi, and I am the chief of
detectives of the Rockland County, NY District Attorney's
Office. I also chair the Police Investigative Operations
Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
and I sit on a number of boards, working groups, and committees
concerned with issues related to criminal investigations. Those
positions include, among others, serving as a Technical Expert
for CTAC's Technology Transfer Program and serving as a member
of the FBI's Law Enforcement Executive Forum, two projects
which are concerned with how technology affects law
enforcement's ability to conduct criminal investigations.
In the Rockland County District Attorney's Office I am
responsible for the supervision of criminal investigations in
Rockland County, including those conducted by the Rockland
County Narcotics Task Force. The Task Force is an investigative
unit under the District Attorney which is comprised of
investigators and support staff from eight different agencies.
It is under the operational command of a director, Captain
Joseph Tripodo of the New York State Police, and the assistant
director, William Manti, a Supervisory Investigator with the
District Attorney's Office.
I offer this explanation of our Drug Task Force to
emphasize the need for and the successes garnered from
interagency cooperation. Cooperation is essential at all levels
of government, and it is the foundation on which the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center is built.
There are two parts of the CTAC program that Rockland
County and law enforcement nationwide have benefited from: the
Technology Transfer Program and the Research and Development
Program.
The Technology Transfer Program provides State and local
law enforcement agencies with technologies without encumbering
the budgets of the applying departments. Through that program,
Rockland County has been able to maintain its ability to
conduct court-authorized or electronic surveillance while
investigating mid to upper-level drug trafficking
organizations.
As you are aware, the technology in the communications
industry has changed dramatically over the past decade. Those
changes have severely limited the ability of law enforcement
agencies to conduct investigations utilizing electronic
surveillance.
The Technology Transfer Program has supplied Rockland
County with equipment which is critical to our mission. One
such piece of equipment is a digital wiretap system, Voice Box
3. This allows us to conduct electronic surveillance in
accordance with changes brought about by the Communications Act
to Assist Law Enforcement. In addition to supplying these
systems, CTAC maintains contact with the agencies that receive
equipment, and through training and consultation address the
needs and issues that arise. Our experiences with the support
we receive from CTAC has been outstanding.
In addition to TTP, Rockland County has been involved in
research and development projects through CTAC. While these
projects are manpower-intensive for Rockland County, the county
and other agencies benefit greatly when projects that are
developed become products made available to law enforcement
through TTP.
CTAC makes it possible for agencies like Rockland County
Narcotics Task Force to do its job effectively. This was
dramatically proven when, during investigation which culminated
in June 2002, the Rockland County Narcotics Task Force found a
gaping hole in our border security. While in the course of
intercepting conversations pertaining to smuggling of cocaine
through Kennedy Airport, we were shocked to hear the drug
traffickers we were targeting discuss a highly successful and
lucrative alien smuggling operation. We immediately notified
DEA, Customs, and INS, all of whom joined our investigation.
In addition to the 51 drug-related arrests prosecuted by
the District Attorney's Office, the U.S. Attorney's Office of
the Eastern District of New York prosecuted seven individuals
for passport fraud and alien smuggling. The Rockland County
Narcotics Task Force, utilizing equipment made available to us
through CTAC, found and helped address a serious weakness in
the security of our Nation.
Local law enforcement is faced with technological change
everyday. We need the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
to continue to be effective.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has done an outstanding
job of implementing the Communications Act to Assist Law
Enforcement. There are, however, obstacles yet to be addressed.
CTAC helps us address these needs. In my opinion, the
communication industry views law enforcement as a profit
center; they charge exorbitant fees to make connections
necessary to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance.
Law enforcement agencies will continue to work with CTAC to
seek technical solutions to limit the impact of this problem;
however, these exorbitant phone company charges may soon
eliminate our ability to conduct electronic surveillance. This
would be devastating to the safety and security of our Nation.
I would like to thank Dr. Brandenstein, who is seated to my
left, for his leadership in this wonderful program, and I would
like to thank you for this opportunity to speak before you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Modafferi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.041
Mr. Souder. Thank you both for your concise testimony. We
will insert the entire statement in the record. It is important
that we build on the hearing record on reauthorization, the
importance of this program, and it is important to local law
enforcement.
Could you each tell us how you and your agencies first
learned about the Technology Transfer Program?
Chief Ron Burns. I have been with two other agencies,
actually three other agencies other than Lakewood, CO, and we
heard about the Technology Transfer Program primarily through
our involvement with HIDTA, our involvement with DEA, and then
through local and federally based task forces.
Mr. Souder. Do you get the impression in Colorado that it
has kind of been a rolling process, that as more people get
access to the technology, people ask them where they heard
about it and then it is connected, or do you think it is more
top-down?
Chief Ron Burns. No, I think that is the case. You know,
technology is continually developing, and as new items come
into use, as new technologies are discovered, you know, one
agency will get them and then the word will spread.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Modafferi, could you tell us how you and
your agency first learned, and then how you think others learn
in the primary way? Because the difference is that had it come
top-down and every department known about it, we would know
kind of the finite about a demand. But if it has been kind of a
trickle in, it means the demand is going to build as more
people hear about it from other local departments and
subdepartments.
Mr. Modafferi. That is an interesting question. We are very
pleased with what we have received from CTAC, and we hope we
continue to receive as much as it spreads out with our success.
We first heard of CTAC through a former chief investigator
with the New York State Organized Crime Task Force who became
an employee of CTAC. He got us involved; we have had tremendous
successes, and our success has been noted by the media in the
New York metropolitan area and I think has gotten people to
call us and ask how you did that, where did you get that
equipment from, and we have promoted CTAC.
The other way that I am promoting CTAC nationwide is
through the Police Investigative Operations Committee of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. Dr. Brandenstein
has appeared before the Committee and explained the program; he
has stood before it and been grilled on questions, and he has
been very favorably received. So people leave the different
IACP functions and conferences with a better knowledge of CTAC,
and I am sure that played a role in the growing demand for it.
Mr. Souder. What is interesting is when he came to Fort
Wayne and the areas north of Fort Wayne, a fair number of
people were exposed to it for the first time. Some had heard
that other departments had it, and many of the departments
already had applied or had gone off on their own because they
had heard earlier. It is a combination, but my feeling is that
it is a building demand.
Is there anything in the process that you believe could
either be streamlined or improved, as we look at
reauthorization, as far as from the local law enforcement
standpoint as far as clarity, what it takes to go through, the
amount of paperwork, clarity, or even other types of technology
that clearly would help in the anti-narcotics effort?
Chief Ron Burns. Well, actually, I asked that question of
the technicians and the operational people who really were at
the grassroots level developing this system, you know, were
there any problems whatsoever. There were none. I mean, it was
very, very smooth. The development, the testing of the
equipment, the installation all went very, very smooth; I
couldn't have asked for any more cooperation.
Mr. Modafferi. From my experience, it has been an
outstanding relationship. I also sit as a technical expert,
regional expert for CTAC, and I review the applications that
come in from the northeast, and as word spreads of CTAC, the
numbers increase, the volume of the applications, and I do find
that certain departments are asking for equipment that they
couldn't possibly utilize; an eight-man police department in
the State of Maine will ask for a wiretap system that costs a
tremendous amount of money, but they wouldn't have the
personnel to conduct a wiretap.
So it is something that I have spoken to Dr. Brandenstein
about and it is something that we are addressing. I think when
we talk about the CTAC program, we have to make people
understand where they fit into it, as opposed to they can just
get all this equipment that would be great to have; but logic
has to enter into this someplace, and how do you logically put
that equipment to best use.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Is the research and development duplicative
of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, what they do? I mean,
is it the same kind of thing?
Mr. Modafferi. Not at all. The research and development
program that we are involved in with CTAC is specifically
related to conducting drug investigations to a degree that it
is very specific projects that we work on, very specific
equipment that couldn't be used anyplace else in the criminal
justice arena but narcotics investigations. It is region-
specific, it is case-specific, and hopefully it is stuff that
can be used in other areas, but in other areas by people with
similar needs.
Mr. Cummings. You know, they say that as we develop our
technology, the folks who want to skirt the technology are
constantly coming up with new things to get around it. I mean,
do we have that; is that a major problem?
Chief Ron Burns. Well, I would say technology is
continually evolving, and, first of all, we have to adjust our
enforcement and our efforts to be flexible enough to respond to
that, but then the development of our technology I think
continually has to be evolving. And as something is developed,
something else may be developed to counteract that. So I guess
the answer to that question is yes, it is continually changing
but, yes, we have to continually respond to that change
technologically.
Mr. Cummings. Did you have something? I am sorry.
Mr. Modafferi. I am sorry, sir. In preparing my statement
for today, I was going to go into more detail about what we
have actually accomplished through CTAC, but we don't put that
out in our press releases. I would be hesitant to speak about
it anywhere because we have made some tremendous, tremendous
technological advances that we don't want the bad guys to know.
If they knew we knew, they would change their approach, and at
this point I think we are doing some things that they just
don't know we can do.
Mr. Cummings. Well, I will tell you I agree with you. I
think, you know, I don't want them to know what you know
either. And that is the very reason why I asked that question,
because I know that when you have the amounts of money that are
involved here, they can certainly get folks or find people who
are probably almost, if not just, as sharp, as the people who
do what you do. And so I was just wondering about that.
When I see how far technology has come just in the last few
years, I mean it has been astounding. When I think that I can
hold one of these little things and be able to send messages
all around the world from just sitting right here, it is just
astounding to me.
So I just was wondering, you know, exactly how you go about
making sure that you keep up with what they may be trying to do
to counter what you do. And so apparently you feel like you
have been very effective, and I assume you would, like
everybody else, love to see more money in the program. Is that
right?
Chief Ron Burns. Absolutely. And, you know, I think we have
made tremendous strides with technology. I mean, in my days
working narcotics on the street, you know, I had a body bug
system that hardly even worked at all, and the technology today
is just tremendous, and I would like to see more support.
You know, in terms of this radio interoperability system,
it has been so helpful in regional investigations and drug
investigations, or counterterrorism investigations, and that is
something that probably wouldn't have been thought of or we
were able to do. We could not have accomplished this, you know,
5 years ago as easily, so it is just incredible the support
that we have had.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you all.
Mr. Souder. Could you describe to me, Mr. Modafferi
probably would know most here, the process of when new
technologies are added? Is it a combination of something
becomes available at the national level that can be offered and
requests that are coming up from the local communities?
Mr. Modafferi. With CTAC, we have sources meetings
periodically throughout the year in which we, in working with
the SPAWAR people and the Fort Huachuca, who does the technical
assistance for CTAC, we develop what we think should be in the
program and we ask vendors what they think they have to offer
the program, and we come out of these with new products that we
put into the booklet that makes it available to local law
enforcement.
Mr. Souder. One other question regarding the, in general,
on this program as to how it works. You mentioned an example of
Maine possibly wanting a system that they didn't have the
ability to utilize. And I believe I know the answer to the
question, but I want to have it in the record and understand
how you measure that and are there requirements if you get this
equipment you have to take X amount of training, you have to
have somebody to staff it?
Mr. Modafferi. Yes, before any training is given out by
CTAC, they have the mandatory training sessions around the
country. But before it reaches that point, it goes through a
series of evaluations by different CTAC staff people, up to and
including myself, looking at the northeast region, and very
often I will look at an application and I will say, you know,
this really isn't appropriate, and I will call that police
chief and talk to them about what else is available in the
program that he might be able to get a better bang for our buck
with, ours being the public's, it is taxpayer money.
But once it is given out, it is seriously monitored, and if
they can't pass muster on the training, it is not given.
Mr. Souder. And, Mr. Burns, when you received your
equipment and have looked at other departments in your region,
as well as your own, did you see that as also a request to you
about whether you will adequately staff or have maintenance
abilities, those type of things?
Chief Ron Burns. Well, our staff was trained in the
operation of the equipment and then effectively took over the
ongoing maintenance with the help of CTAC. So we conduct our
own maintenance and system upgrades and ongoing maintenance
currently with our own staff, and they were trained through
CTAC.
Mr. Souder. Do either of you have any additional things you
would like to add about the strengths or weaknesses of the
program? You will probably be the only witnesses to this
committee and the full committee as far as what things we might
want to do in the reauthorization, do you have any suggestions?
Chief Ron Burns. I would just suggest, in my perspective,
from a local law enforcement agency in a metropolitan area, and
that would be to continue pushing the envelope looking for new
technologies, and continually offering these products to local
law enforcement agencies or metropolitan task forces in terms
of drug interdiction and terrorism. I think this has just been
a tremendous success for us, and I don't know how we could
actually operate it without it effectively.
Mr. Modafferi. I would like to make a point; I made it in
my oral statement and my written statement. We are generalists
at our level, at local law enforcement; we handle not only
narcotics, but we handle everything from organized crime to
terrorism. And it is important that the committee realize that
at our level the equipment that is being used is used not only
in drug fighting, but also in terrorism. I mentioned our case
with Kennedy Airport.
And there are different things that are available through
CTAC, night vision equipment, hidden compartment detectors,
digital wiretap systems, satellite-based trackers, radio
interoperability systems. All of those are vitally important
not only to the drug arena, but also to terrorism, and I think
when you get to our level, the very local level of law
enforcement, CTAC has to continue acting the way it is acting
in supporting local law enforcement because we do share our
equipment and we do make it available.
The other thing that I mentioned in my statement is not a
CTAC-related issue, but it is one very dear to my heart, and it
is about the communications industry acting like we are profit
centers; and I wish at someplace in Congress they would address
that issue, because we may have the equipment, but with what we
are being charged by the phone companies, we may be soon unable
to use it.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. You mean rates, basically?
Mr. Modafferi. Yes, the things they charge us to hook up.
Mr. Souder. I would like to pursue two other things here.
We are getting ready to vote. I know you have both come a long
way, but you heard the earlier discussions that we had on
HIDTAs. Presumably both of you have seen and had interactions
in that. Do either of you have anything you would like to add
on the record as far as the HIDTA debates?
Chief Ron Burns. In our area, we operate a task force, a
drug task force that is made up of several city agencies,
county agencies, and HIDTA has been very supportive of that
effort, helps fund that effort. And, in addition, from that
task force we assign an officer to the local DEA office, so we
work very closely with DEA. And it seems to tie the Federal
enforcement with our local enforcement very nicely, and, again,
HIDTA has been very cooperative and very supportive in funding
our task force, our local task force.
So I guess I am not talking about just one singular agency,
but a multitude of agencies working a larger geographic area,
and it has worked out very well.
Mr. Modafferi. I am in the New York metropolitan area, and
we are very involved with the New York HIDTA. The New York
HIDTA, over the years, has been tremendously successful, and
especially since September 11. We have, in Rockland County, in
Westchester County, we have set up our own regional
intelligence centers that are separate and distinct from the
main HIDTA center in downtown Manhattan. The New York State
Police are now setting up a regional intelligence center in
Upstate New York. And without New York HIDTA, we wouldn't be
able to have the investigative support that we have in the New
York metropolitan area and throughout New York State, so it has
been a tremendous success.
And I have heard about the changes that are being
considered, but I would hope that, especially in an area like
New York, it would remain pretty much the way it is going.
Mr. Souder. Well, they have called a vote. I guarantee this
will be my last question.
In particular, Mr. Modafferi, I wanted you to see if you
have any thoughts on this. It is somewhat related to the topic
at hand today, but they have done such a good job at ONDCP in
implementing this program that one of the questions are is in
the Department of Homeland Security should we have a similar
type of an outreach? You have raised the question of multi-use
of the equipment; in other words, I don't want to see this
program changed because it enables us to particularly have
things that are of particular use in narcotics, and to somewhat
not lose focus by blending and having Homeland Security squash
the narcotics effort in this area as well because it is like a
1,000 pound gorilla versus a 100 pound gorilla in terms of
Washington spending right now.
On the other hand, were we to set up some kind of a
program, clearly a lot of the equipment would be similar,
because, just like you said, you clearly, in the smuggling
ring, I thought you had a great comment in your testimony about
with just family connections it is very hard to use undercover
agents, and you need the technology. That would be true of
terrorism and homeland security type systems as well.
And I just wondered if you had any thoughts of if we set up
a similar type system for local responders, how we would deal
with the overlaps.
Mr. Modafferi. First off, I don't think you should set up
something similar. That is my opinion. I think you should just
go with what works.
Mr. Souder. Let me tell you what is somewhat behind it. I
and others are seeing potentially, and this is heresy in some
corners, a potential humongous pork barrel project here in
homeland security, where everybody is coming to us for all
kinds of stuff, and we are going to repeat what you said about
Maine 1,000 times over. People are going to get equipment that
they don't know how to use, they haven't gone through training,
and unless we have some kind of an orderly method to distribute
the responder equipment, we are going to drown in dollars that
are ineffectively used, then the criticism is going to come
back you wasted all this money in homeland security, you
diverted anti-drug resources, other crime resources into
homeland security, and you didn't know your head from a hole in
the ground.
That is what is kind of behind how do we control the
technology, much like what you have done such a good job of in
narcotics.
Mr. Modafferi. Well, I think Chief Burns would agree with
me, that the panel before us was comprised of major cities and
large States. We are from the local level and we do work
together and we are very generalists. I think the CTAC program
has been very effective. I don't know how you are going to work
this out, because the equipment has to get out there, but you
should at least replicate CTAC's approach.
But you have to realize that when you are supplying
equipment to the local level, it is incumbent upon us to work
together. Our drug task force is co-located in the same
building as our intelligence unit. If the drug people arrest
somebody who knows something about terrorism or murders or
something, they tell the intelligence unit and it gets out. So
when you do replicate this thing, you really have to have
regional experts that are considering that an eight-man police
department really doesn't need that, or the 40,000-man New York
City Police Department needs 12 of these. You know, it
basically comes down to local level to common sense, and I
don't think that a big bureaucratic shuffle in Washington can
address it as effectively as CTAC has.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Burns, to that?
Chief Ron Burns. I was just going to say why reinvent the
wheel when there is a mechanism already in place. Very
effective.
Mr. Souder. A smile came to my face, it is because the
scale of the way we do things in Washington, and as a practical
matter, we would certainly try to replicate the process, but
you have to be very careful you are not swallowed up by a huge
department that is big right now.
But I definitely agree if a process is working, that is the
process we ought to look at replicating, how you get this local
community input into making that kind of decision, particularly
as it gets to smaller counties, because unlike a statement was
made in homeland security and everybody seems to be uniting, we
are watching the counties and the cities fight over every
dollar right now, and we are actually seeing more turf battles
right now in homeland security than we are seeing in narcotics,
and it is really scary because the money is so huge; it is much
like the way government works. If we say narcotics is the big
issue, everybody repositions their departments around
narcotics; if we say it is missing children, we reposition
around missing children; if it is homeland security, we
reposition all the grant requests around that.
And we really need to both watch to make sure that your
efforts in the drug enforcement areas are still there and, at
the same time, that we are as efficient in these new
departments.
So thank you very much for your testimony. Thanks for
coming a long distance for the hearing today.
And with that, the subcommittee hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9455.056