HEARING 1 BEFORE the SUBOOMMITTEE on ORIME of the OOMMITTEE on the JUDIOIARY HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS Fllst SESSION
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. .1 STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSIST· ANCE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI·DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1986 I 0 q 513 -,r HEARING 1 BEFORE THE SUBOOMMITTEE ON ORIME OF THE OOMMITTEE ON THE JUDIOIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS FllST SESSION ON H.R.1411 "'m A 'f'''' "l\Tn T .nr:AL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1986 APRIL 1, 1987 Serial No. 15 ed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1987 ale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office t U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 l l ~. -"- COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman "I< JACK BROOKS, Texas HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York , ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California DON EDWARDS, California HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan DAN LUNGREN, California ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey Wisconsin MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma BILL McCOLLUM, Florida PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio GEO. W. CROCKETT, JR., Michigan WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, California CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York PATRICK L. SWINDALL, Georgia BRUCE A. MORRISON, Connecticut HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina EDWARD F. FEIGHAN, Ohio D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER, JR., Virginia LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia HARLEY O. STAGGERS, JR., West Virginia JOHN BRYANT, Texas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland M. ELAINE MIELKE, General Counsel ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Staff Director ALAN F. CoFFEY, Jr., Associate Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey, Chairman ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky BILL McCOLLUM, Florida GEO. W. CROCKETT, JR., Michigan LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDWARD F. FEIGHAN, Ohio E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HARLEY O. STAGGERS, JR., West Virginia • "'" , t. , HAYDEN\:\0 GREGORY, Counsel EDWARD O'CoNNELL, Assistant Counsel PAUL J. McNULTY, Associate Counsel LINDA C. HALL, Editor , It "A (II) '. CONTENTS WITNESSES Page Hon. Charles B. Rangel, a Representative in Cong-ress from the State of New York; and the Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the State of New york....................................................................................... 6 Statements of: Hon. Charles B. Rangel........................................................................................... 10 tIon. Benjamin A. Gilman ....................................... ....................................... ........ 21 William J. Landers, Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice ............................................................................................................................ 37 Norma Miller, Secretary-Justice Cabinet, Frankfort, KY; Kathleen M. Sloane, Chair, Triad Committee, Louisville, KY; James S. Kilpatrick, Jr., Cape May County Freeholder, Ocean City, NJ, representing the National Association of Counties; Timothy F. Hagan, President, Cuyahoga County Board of Com- missioners, Cleveland, OH ..................................................... ,.................................... 64 Statements of: Norma Miller ............................................................................................................ 66 Kathleen M. Sloane ................................................................................................. 75 James S. Kilpatrick, Jr ........................................................................................... 97 Timothy F. Hagan, President, Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners, Cleveland, OH ....................................................................................................... 110 Jerald R. Vaughn, Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of PolIce; and Bill Hutson, Sheriff, Cobb County, GA, on behalf of the Nation- al Sheriffs' Association................................................................................................ 120 (ull .. U.S. Department of Justice 109513 National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Pomts of view or opInions stated " in this document are those of the authors and do. not nec~ssanly represent the official position or policies of the Nallonal Institute of Justice. Perm'lssion to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by U.S. Honse of Representatives to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the copyright owner. I STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AS SISTANCE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1986 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1987 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William J. Hughes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Hughes, Mazzoli, Feighan, McCollum, Smith of Texas, Shaw, and Gekas. Staff Present: Hayden Gregory, counsel; Edward O'Connell, as sistant counsel; Paul McNulty, associate counsel; Linda Hall, clerk; and Phyllis Henderson, clerk. Also Present: Representative Darden. Mr. HUGHES. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Crime's hearing on the subject of Federal aid to State and local law en forcement in the drug abuse area. If I were to characterize the pur pose of this hearing today in a nutshell, it would be to evaluate the state of the partnership between State and local law enforcement communities and the Federal Government in their effort to combat substance abuse. Unfortur..ately, from today's perspective, I believe the answer is simple: The partnership has been dissolved. It grieves me to re member the President's grand statement in October of 1986 when he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. He said-and I know my col league from New York would remember because he was there and participated in the signing ceremonies--and I quote: Well, today it gives me great pleasure to sign legislation that reflects the total commitment of the American people and their Government to fight the evils of • drugs. • • • Drug use is too costly for us not to do everything in our power not just to fight it but to do it and conquer it. The magnitude of today's drug problem can be traced to past unwillingness to recognize and confront the problem. • • • In the last few years we have made much progress in the enforcement end of solving the drug problem. Cooperation between governments is better than ever before. This legisla tion allows us to do even more. I agree wholeheartedly with these statements by the President, particularly that part where he says it "allows us to do even more." The sad part is that just three months after those eloquent words, the President in his budget submission proposed the elimi nation of the aid to State and local law enforcement programs, so (1) 2 now we are ;not only not doing more, we are doing much, much less. $225 million, to be precise, in the law enforcement area; more in other areas. In the area of education, which needs to be strengthened, the President's submission cut it in half, from $200 million to $100 million. In the area of treatment, as I recall, there was $220 million projected for this next fiscal year. That is to be stretched out over two years, which means that this part has been diluted by at least 50 percent. To paraphrase that old familiar tune, which I have varied a little bit: Mr. President, why don't you love us in January as much as you did in October. The problem is still there and it is probably getting worse! Just recently, the State Department released its yearly Interna tional Narcotics Control Strategy report which indicated a vast ex pansion in the &rea of opium, coca and marijuana throughout the world, a large portion of which is targeted for us and, despite the best efforts of our Federal interdiction forces, will end up on our street corners. It is precisely there on our street corners and in our schoolyards where it must be met, not by the Federal Government, but by State and local personnel who handle over 90 percent of our criminal caseload on our streets and in the. schoolyards. The worse part of this Administration's proposal is that it not only will jeopardize next year's program, it may well abort the spending of $225 million for this year. What reasonable State plan ning agency would develop a statewide strategy which is mandated by the act and then spend money on meaningful programs when they may face the cutoff of funds in October of 1987? Our drug problem will not be solved by a one-year commitment. It leaves us today with a real question for the Congress as to whether we should go ahead at all with the critical programs of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Specifically, today we will be discussing subtitle (k), the State and local law enforcement assistance portion of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which in its early life was a part of the Drug Enforcement Act of 1986 that the Crime Subcommittee reported on August the 12th of last year. i As enacted, this subtitle provides a $230 million authorization for