Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - DEFENDING AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE: SAFE ACCESS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2005</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	DEFENDING AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE: SAFE ACCESS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND
	CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
	AND HOMELAND SECURITY

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	ON

	H.R. 1528

	__________

	APRIL 12, 2005

	__________

	Serial No. 109-41

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


	Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary


	______

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	20-527 WASHINGTON : 2005
	_____________________________________________________________________________
	For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
	Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
	Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

	COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

	F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
	HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
	HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
	LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
	ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
	BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
	STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
	DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
	WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
	SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
	BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
	MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
	RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
	DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
	JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ADAM SMITH, Washington
	MIKE PENCE, Indiana CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
	J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
	STEVE KING, Iowa
	TOM FEENEY, Florida
	TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
	LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

	Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
	Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
	------

	Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

	HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

	DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
	MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
	TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
	STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
	RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
	MIKE PENCE, Indiana
	J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
	LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

	Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel

	Elizabeth Sokul, Special Counsel for Intelligence

	and Homeland Security

	Michael Volkov, Deputy Chief Counsel

	Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel

	Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel


	C O N T E N T S

	----------

	APRIL 12, 2005

	OPENING STATEMENT

	Page
	The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
	Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
	The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
	the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
	Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2

	WITNESSES

	Ms. Jodi L. Avergun, Chief of Staff, Drug Enforcement
	Administration, U.S. Department of Justice
	Oral Testimony................................................. 5
	Prepared Statement............................................. 7
	Mr. Ronald E. Brooks, President, National Narcotic Officers'
	Associations' Coalition (NNOAC)
	Oral Testimony................................................. 11
	Prepared Statement............................................. 12
	Ms. Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police Department, Thornton,
	Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug Task Force, and
	President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children
	Oral Testimony................................................. 15
	Prepared Statement............................................. 16
	Mr. William N. Brownsberger, Associate Director, Public Policy
	Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School
	Oral Testimony................................................. 19
	Prepared Statement............................................. 22

	APPENDIX
	Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

	Prepared Statement of Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy
	Attorney General, and Director, Organized Crime Drug
	Enforcement Task Forces, United States Department of Justice,
	before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
	Security, July 6, 2004......................................... 57
	Article entitled ``Drug Market Thrives By Methadone Clinics,''
	Serge F. Kovaleski, Washington Post Staff Writer, The
	Washington Post, August 12, 2002............................... 61
	Article entitled ``Probe Confirms Dealing of Drugs Near D.C.
	Clinics,'' Monte Reel, Washington Post Staff Writer, The
	Washington Post, July 7, 2004.................................. 65
	Article entitled ``Kids Caught in Meth Lab Pressure Cooker,''
	Sarah Huntley, News Staff Writer, Rocky Mountain News, March
	15, 2002....................................................... 67
	Supplemental materials from William N. Brownsberger, Associate
	Director, Public Policy Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical
	School......................................................... 70
	Supplemental material from Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police
	Department, Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug
	Task Force, and President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug
	Endangered Children............................................ 89
	Brochure submitted by the National Alliance for Drug Endangered
	Children....................................................... 112
	Position Paper of the American Bar Association (ABA)............. 116
	Letter from coalition of organizations expressing their views on
	H.R. 1528, ``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access
	to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the
	Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John
	Conyers, Jr.................................................... 118
	Letter from former United States Attorneys and Department of
	Justice officials expressing their views on H.R. 1528,
	``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
	Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable
	F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable Bobby Scott...... 121
	Letter from Thomas W. Hiller, II, Chair, Legislative Expert
	Panel, Federal Public and Community Defenders, to the Honorable
	Howard Coble and the Honorable Bobby Scott..................... 124
	Letter from teachers of law expressing their views on H.R. 1528,
	``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
	Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable
	F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 132
	Letter from Frank O. Bowman, III, M. Dale Palmer Professor of
	Law, Indiana University School of Law, to the Honorable Howard
	Coble and the Honorable Bobby Scott............................ 141
	Response to post-hearing questions from Lori Moriarty, Thornton
	Police Department, Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro
	Drug Task Force, and President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug
	Endangered Children............................................ 146
	Response to post-hearing questions from Ronald E. Brooks,
	President, National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition
	(NNOAC)........................................................ 147


	DEFENDING AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE: SAFE ACCESS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND
	CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

	----------


	TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
	and Homeland Security
	Committee on the Judiciary,
	Washington, DC.
	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
	Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard
	Coble (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
	Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
	Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security holds a
	hearing today on H.R. 1528, the ``Defending America's Most
	Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection
	Act of 2005,'' introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner.
	Last year, you will recall, the Subcommittee considered
	H.R. 4547 and examined the problem of drug dealers preying on
	vulnerable individuals, such as recovering addicts and minors.
	The Subcommittee held the compelling--heard the compelling
	testimony of Tyrone Patterson, who was the manager of the model
	treatment center for the D.C. Department of Health, who
	graphically confirmed previous news reports highlighting this
	problem, which is occurring on a daily basis just minutes from
	where we are now here at the Capitol.
	More than 1,000 addicts attend drug treatment in Northeast
	D.C., receiving care at three public methadone centers in the
	area. Drug dealers operate out of a nearby McDonald's parking
	lot next to the largest methadone treatment center in D.C. and
	within three blocks of two other treatment centers. Mr.
	Patterson gave us a firsthand account of the availability of
	drugs and the daily temptations his patients face as they try
	to overcome psychological and physical addiction. We also heard
	the results of an undercover investigation conducted by the
	Government Accountability Office which exposed the revolving
	door of individual dealers arrested for dealing near these
	treatment centers, only to return because they faced little or
	no jail time for their trafficking activities.
	Adult addicts are not the only victims of drug dealers. We
	also learned of cases in which the drug dealers knowingly
	exposed children, including parents who exposed their own kids
	to the seedy and dangerous world of drug trafficking. This
	includes the storage and distribution of drugs for profit in
	their own homes where oftentimes small children reside.
	H.R. 1528 addresses these issues by strengthening the laws
	regarding trafficking to minors and creating criminal penalties
	for individuals who traffick drugs near a drug treatment
	facility. The legislation examined today makes it unlawful to
	distribute to a person enrolled in a drug treatment program or
	to distribute drugs within 1,000 feet of a drug treatment
	facility.
	I have stated previously that the opponents of mandatory
	minimums would have a stronger argument if they could be
	assured that--if they could assure Congress that all Federal
	judges were faithfully adhering to the Federal sentencing
	guidelines, and I think most of them are. But sadly, the
	Supreme Court's recent decision in Booker/Fanfan obliterated 20
	years of national sentencing policy and rendered these
	guidelines advisory. Thus, the bills targeting mandatory
	minimum provisions are all the more important.
	H.R. 1528, while not providing a legislative fix to these
	Supreme Court cases, does provide procedural mandates to ensure
	an adequate sentencing record for appellate courts and for
	Congress and the public as we consider legislation. H.R. 1528
	codifies prior Congressional directives prohibiting the use of
	inappropriate factors in sentencing, as well as others which
	were prohibited or discouraged by the Sentencing Commission and
	the U.S. Court of Appeals that prohibits other such factors
	which have been abused by some sentencing judges.
	I want to thank you, all of the witnesses, for being here
	today and we look forward to your testimony.
	I am now pleased to recognize the ranking Democratic
	Member, the distinguished Member from Virginia, Mr. Bobby
	Scott, for his opening statement.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to join
	you in convening this hearing on H.R. 1528.
	The bill purports to protect drug treatment patients,
	children, and young adults from drug dealers. However, its
	primary focus is on an array of provisions increasing
	sentencing guideline ranges, adding new mandatory minimums, and
	increasing minimum ones by at least five-fold to mandatory life
	without parole, including a ``three strikes and you're out''
	provision. This latter provision, as with mandatory minimum
	sentences, has been roundly discredited as wasteful, racially
	discriminatory, soundbite-based political pandering which will
	have virtually no impact on reducing crime.
	There's a provision, section 12 of the bill, which would
	appear to be designed to overturn Booker/Fanfan decision
	recently decided by the Supreme Court. Professor Frank Bowman
	testified on last year's version of the bill and is considered
	an expert on this issue. He reads the provision as imposing
	mandatory minimum sentences through the sentencing guidelines
	by making the bottom of the guidelines a minimum sentence in
	all but the narrowest of circumstances, other than substantial
	assistance motions by the Government. Many, including yours
	truly, feel that this provision is not in keeping with the
	representations that the Committee would not be taking up
	Booker--the Booker/Fanfan issue this year.
	Further, the bill provides for conspiracies and attempts to
	be punished in the same manner as actually committing the
	crime. This will only increase disparity in sentencing. As with
	mandatory minimum sentencing, there is no ability to
	distinguish between major players and bit players in a crime.
	One of the primary purposes of establishing the U.S. Sentencing
	Guideline was to remove disparate treatment among like
	offenders. Giving unlike offenders the same sentence for crimes
	just as much--creates just as much sentencing disparity as
	giving like offenders different sentences.
	The other provision of the bill eliminates the drug
	quantity sentencing cap established by the Sentencing
	Commission and restricts the application of the safety valve
	and substantial assistance to the Government sentencing
	reduction provisions.
	I have often cited numerous studies and recommendations of
	researchers, academicians, the judicial branch, including the
	Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and sentencing
	professionals reflecting the problems created by the
	proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences. They are cited as
	wasteful compared to alternative sentencing and alternatives
	such as drug treatment. They disrupt the ability of the
	Sentencing Commission and the courts to apply orderly,
	proportional, non-disparate sentencing. They are found to be
	discriminatory against minorities and transfer an inordinate
	amount of discretion to prosecutors in an adversarial system.
	They have also been cited in one of the letters we've received
	from the Judicial Conference as violating common sense.
	Practically speaking, there's no reason to believe that
	H.R. 1528 will have an impact on crimes which it is purportedly
	aimed. In its essence, the bill simply increases penalties for
	drug trafficking. Yet the problem seems to be a law enforcement
	problem, not a sentencing problem. With the GAO, the treatment
	centers, and now the Judiciary Committee, reporting illegal
	drug activity in and around drug treatment centers in specific
	detail, the question is, why aren't we enforcing the current
	laws that are on the books today? Adding more laws to the
	current ones that are not being enforced is of very little
	assistance to the problem.
	The suggestion that current Federal illegal drug penalties
	are not severe enough to incentivize law enforcement is
	unfounded, given the long prison sentences now being served by
	drug offenders and the fact that they constitute a growing
	majority of offenders in the Federal system. Just as unfounded
	is the notion that access to drugs by drug treatment patients
	and children will be significantly affected by having harsher
	penalties is, as I indicated, unfounded.
	Studies of drug quantities, quality, and price indicate
	that they are more plentiful and higher qualities and lower
	prices than ever before. Offenders generally have access to
	drugs within their neighborhoods. There is nothing to suggest
	that they obtained the drugs to which they are addicted near
	the drug treatment center at which they are being treated, and
	this bill would mostly affect minorities who live in urban
	areas where the zones will predominate as compared to suburban
	areas where the drug use is--where drug use is no less
	prevalent, but drug-free zones are. And that's, Mr. Chairman,
	because when you draw all the concentric circles around all the
	schools and drug treatment centers and everything else, in some
	urban areas, you will have--you would have covered the entire
	urban area. In suburban areas, obviously, there'll be areas
	that will not be included.
	Having offenders who happen to violate the law within the
	inner edge of one zone who are not selling to children and--who
	are not selling to children and treatment participants
	receiving vastly different sentences from those who violate the
	law a few feet away makes no sense. Jailing parents or
	custodians of children for long mandatory minimum sentences for
	drug activities in their presence and forcing children into
	foster care and other makeshift arrangements is of obviously
	dubious value to the children.
	So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our witnesses who can
	comment on this and comment on the mandatory minimums and the
	other initiatives that we have in the bill to see how we can
	actually reduce crime.
	Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
	Ladies and gentlemen, it's the practice of the Subcommittee
	to swear in all witnesses appearing before it, so if you would,
	please, stand and raise your right hands.
	Do each of you solemnly swear the testimony you are about
	to give this Subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
	and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
	Ms. Avergun. I do.
	Mr. Brooks. I do.
	Ms. Moriarty. I do.
	Mr. Brownsberger. I do.
	Mr. Coble. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
	has answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
	We have four distinguished witnesses with us today and my
	introduction is somewhat lengthy, but I think it's important
	for those in the audience who are not familiar with the
	backgrounds of our witnesses to know some of their backgrounds,
	which, by the way, are impressive.
	Our first witness is Jodi Avergun, Chief of Staff to the
	Administrator at the Drug Enforcement Administration. Prior to
	joining DEA, Ms. Avergun served as Chief in the Narcotics and
	Dangerous Drugs Section at the Department of Justice. While in
	NDDS, she managed a staff of 47 attorneys in Washington,
	Virginia, and Bogota, Colombia, and exercised general oversight
	of all Federal narcotics prosecutions as well as national drug
	policy decisions. Additionally, Ms. Avergun served as an
	Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York,
	where she worked as Chief of the Narcotics and Money Laundering
	Section. Ms. Avergun has also received more than 20 awards for
	excellence in law enforcement, including the Director's Award
	for Superior Performance as Assistant U.S. Attorney. She's an
	alumna of Brown University and the Brooklyn Law School.
	Our second witness is Mr. Ronald Brooks, President of the
	National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition. As
	President, he represents the interests of the Nation's narcotic
	officers with the White House, Congress, Federal law
	enforcement agencies, and professional associations. Mr. Brooks
	is a 30-year veteran law enforcement officer with more than 24
	years spent in narcotics enforcement. Additionally, he is
	currently a captain with the San Mateo County, California,
	Sheriff's Office. In this capacity, he is responsible for
	administering a $6 million budget and overseeing grants,
	technical and analytical support for drug enforcement
	operations in the 10-county San Francisco Bay area. He was
	awarded a Bachelor of Public Administration degree from the
	University of San Francisco.
	Our third witness is Ms. Lori Moriarty, Commander of the
	North Metro Task Force, a multi-jurisdictional undercover drug
	unit at the Thornton Police Department. Ms. Moriarty has been
	instrumental in implementing protocols for the safe
	investigation of methamphetamine labs and undercover drug
	operations. Moreover, Ms. Moriarty serves as the President of
	the Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, which
	rescue, defend, shelter, and support drug endangered children
	in Colorado. She also trains thousands of professionals across
	the State of Colorado on meth lab awareness. Ms. Moriarty was
	recognized by the President of the United States in 2001 when
	she received the Drug Commander of the Year Award. Ms. Moriarty
	attended the University of Colorado and Regis University.
	Our final witness today is Mr. William Brownsberger,
	Associate Director for the Public Policy Division on Addictions
	at the Harvard Medical School. As Associate Director, Mr.
	Brownsberger develops research and education programs on social
	policy issues regarding addictions. Additionally, he serves as
	a Senior Criminal Justice Advisor at Boston University School
	of Public Health, where he directs a national panel on
	substance abuse treatment quality. Previously, Mr. Brownsberger
	served as Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
	Massachusetts. As Assistant Attorney General, he worked as the
	Asset Forfeiture Chief in the Narcotics and Special
	Investigations Division. Mr. Brownsberger is also the author of
	numerous publications, including ``Drug Addiction and Drug
	Policy'' and ``Profile of Anti-Drug Law Enforcement in Urban
	Poverty Areas in Massachusetts.'' He was awarded his
	undergraduate and J.D. degrees from Harvard.
	We are pleased to have you all with us today. I see we have
	been joined by our friend from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. It is good
	to have you, Mr. Gohmert, with us.
	Ladies and gentlemen, as you all have previously been
	advised, we adhere to the 5-minute rule here. We impose it
	against you all. We impose it against ourselves. So if you all
	could, when you see that amber light illuminate in your faces,
	that is a warning that the ice is becoming thin on which you
	are skating. When the red light appears, that indicates that
	the 5 minutes have elapsed. We have examined your testimony. We
	will reexamine it. So if you could adhere to the 5-minute rule,
	we would be appreciative.
	Ms. Avergun, we will start with you. I'm not sure your
	mike's on. Pull it closer to you, Ms. Avergun.
	Ms. Avergun. I think it's on now?
	Mr. Coble. That's better.

	TESTIMONY OF JODI L. AVERGUN, CHIEF OF STAFF, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
	ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

	Ms. Avergun. Okay. Chairman Coble and distinguished Members
	of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
	on behalf of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Drug
	Enforcement Administration Administrator Karen Tandy, I
	appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding the
	important issue that affects many of our Nation's children.
	The men and women of DEA and many prosecutors throughout
	the Department of Justice spend each day fighting to protect
	our children from the many harms that drugs cause to each and
	every member of society. Drug trafficking and drug abuse
	unfairly, and in alarming numbers, make children victims. Drug
	trafficking and drug abuse steal our children's health,
	innocence, and security. From a drug-addicted parent who
	neglects a child, to a clandestine methamphetamine cook using a
	child's play area as a laboratory site, to a parent using a
	child to serve as camouflage for their stash, to a child being
	present for a drug transaction, the list goes on and on, but
	the end result remains the same: innocent children suffer from
	being exposed to illegal drugs.
	Mr. Chairman, today, my testimony is a follow-up to that
	presented by Ms. Catherine O'Neil last year to this
	Subcommittee regarding H.R. 4547, the ``Defending America's
	Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child
	Protection Act of 2004.'' I request that her earlier testimony
	be made part of today's hearing record.
	We are here today to reiterate our support for key parts of
	the legislation that addresses drug trafficking involving
	minors. The endangerment of children through exposure to drug
	activity, sales of drugs to children, the use of minors in drug
	trafficking, and the peddling of pharmaceutical and other
	illicit drugs to drug treatment patients are all significant
	problems today. Sadly, horrific examples of these types of
	incidents are spread across our Nation.
	To take just one example, a DEA investigation in Missouri
	occurring in November 2004 demonstrates this all too frequent
	occurrence. During a raid on a suspected methamphetamine lab
	located in a home, three children, all under 5 years of age,
	were found sleeping on chemical-soaked rugs. The residence was
	filled with insects and rodents and had no electricity or
	running water. Two guard dogs kept by the cooks to fend off law
	enforcement were also found. The dogs were clean, healthy, and
	well-fed.
	The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously
	prosecuting drug trafficking in all of its egregious forms.
	Prosecutions range from high-level international drug
	traffickers to street-level predators who are tempting children
	or addicts with the lure of profit and the promise of
	intoxication. All of these prosecutions are part of the
	Department of Justice's mandate within the National Drug
	Control Strategy to disrupt the sources of and markets for
	drugs.
	The people who target their trafficking activity at those
	with the least ability to resist such offers deserve not only
	our most pointed contempt, but also severe punishment. We stand
	firmly behind the intent of this new legislation to increase
	the punishment meted out to those who would harm us, our
	children, and those seeking to escape the cycle of addiction.
	The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum
	sentences in appropriate circumstances, such as trafficking
	involving minors and trafficking in and around drug treatment
	centers. Mandatory minimum sentences provide a level of
	uniformity and predictability in sentencing to deter certain
	types of criminal behavior, increase public safety by locking
	away dangerous criminals for long periods of time, and serve as
	important tools used by prosecutors in obtaining cooperation
	from defendants.
	My written testimony addresses several specific provisions
	within H.R. 1528. The Department agrees with the idea that
	individuals who intentionally endanger children, either through
	the distribution, storage, manufacture, or otherwise
	trafficking of drugs, should face appropriate punishments.
	However, we have some reservations about the consequences of
	section 2(m), titled ``Failure to Protect Children from Drug
	Trafficking Activities.''
	Also, we strongly support the proposed amendment to 18
	U.S.C. 3553(f) insofar as it would require Government
	certification that the defendant has timely met the full
	disclosure requirements for the safety valve exemption in
	certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, we are concerned
	that the bill may unnecessarily exclude those who initially
	make a false statement or omit information but later correct
	those statements.
	Additionally, the Department agrees with the principle that
	in almost all circumstances, a defendant who has been found
	guilty should be immediately detained. We also acknowledge that
	the circumstances in which release pending sentencing where
	appeal is necessary are extremely limited. Nevertheless, we
	cannot support this proposal to the extent it requires
	Government certification as to a defendant's cooperation and
	precludes release pending appeal.
	The Department was pleased to see the addition of language
	asking the Sentencing Commission to make recommendations for an
	increase in the guideline range where there is a substantial
	risk of harm to the life in the manufacture of any controlled
	substance as opposed to simply methamphetamine. We support the
	proposal to widen the guidelines from including only the
	manufacture of meth or amphetamine to include the manufacture
	and distribution of any controlled substances.
	The DEA and Department of Justice are committed to
	aggressively investigating and prosecuting drug traffickers. We
	support measures that will aid in the protection of children
	and enhance our abilities to prosecute those individuals who
	seek to involve them in their illegal drug activities and
	support the Committee's efforts to do the same.
	Mr. Chairman, thank you for your recognition and assistance
	on this important issue and the opportunity to testify here
	today. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
	have.
	[The prepared statement of Ms. Avergun follows:]

	Prepared Statement of Jodi L. Avergun

	Chairman Coble, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on
	Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, on behalf of Attorney General
	Alberto Gonzales and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
	Administrator Karen Tandy, I appreciate your invitation to testify
	today regarding this important issue that affects many of our nation's
	children.

	OVERVIEW

	The DEA has seen firsthand the devastation that illegal drugs cause
	in the lives of children. Children are our nation's future and our most
	precious resource, and sadly, many of them are having their lives and
	dreams stolen by illegal drugs. This theft takes many forms, from a
	drug addicted parent who neglects a child, to a clandestine
	methamphetamine ``cook'' using a child's play area as a laboratory
	site, to a parent using a child to serve as camouflage for their
	``stash,'' to a child being present during a drug transaction. The list
	goes on and on, but the end result remains the same: innocent children
	needlessly suffer from being exposed to illegal drugs.

	DRUG ENDANGERED CHILDREN

	The Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies at all
	levels seek to protect the most vulnerable segments of our society from
	those drug traffickers and drug addicted individuals who exploit those
	individuals least able to protect themselves. In 2003, Congress made
	significant strides in this area by enacting the Prosecutorial Remedies
	and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, better
	known as the PROTECT Act. This law has proven effective in enabling law
	enforcement to pursue and to punish wrongdoers who threaten the youth
	of America. Last year Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4547, the
	``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment
	and Child Protection Act of 2004,'' which would have taken these
	efforts even further by focusing on the scourge of drug trafficking in
	some of its most base and dangerous forms: those who use minors to
	commit trafficking offenses, trafficking to minors, trafficking in
	places where minors are present, and trafficking in or near drug
	treatment centers.
	Mr. Chairman, today my testimony is a follow-up to the testimony
	presented in July of last year to this Subcommittee by Ms. Catherine
	O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General, regarding H.R. 4547. We
	request that her earlier testimony be made part of today's hearing
	record. We are here today to reiterate our support for legislation that
	addresses drug-related incidents involving minors.
	The endangerment of children through exposure to drug activity,
	sales of drugs to children, the use of minors in drug trafficking, and
	the peddling of pharmaceutical and other illicit drugs to drug
	treatment patients are all significant problems today. Sadly, the
	horrific examples below are just a few instances where children have
	been found victimized and exploited by people whose lives have been
	taken over by drugs:

	<bullet> From FY 2000 through the first quarter of FY 2005,
	over 15,000 children were reported as being affected in
	clandestine laboratory-related incidents. The term ``affected
	children'' is defined as a child being present and/or evidence
	that a child lived at a clandestine laboratory site. This total
	reflects only those instances where law enforcement was
	involved. The true number of children affected by clandestine
	laboratory incidents is unknown, though it is surely much
	greater.

	<bullet> In 2004, a defendant from Iowa pled guilty to
	conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. Although the meth
	was not manufactured in the defendant's home, where the
	defendant's 4-year-old son also lived, was used as the
	distribution point for large quantities of meth. The son's hair
	tested positive for extremely high levels of meth, indicating
	chronic exposure to the drug. In this case, no enhancement
	could be applied because of the son's exposure, as he had not
	been endangered during the actual manufacture of the meth.

	<bullet> In November 2004, the DEA raided a suspected
	methamphetamine lab located in a home in Missouri. During this
	operation three children, all under five years of age, were
	found sleeping on chemical-soaked rugs. The residence was
	filled with insects and rodents and had no electricity or
	running water. Two guard dogs kept by the ``cooks'' to fend off
	law enforcement were also found: clean, healthy, and well-fed.
	The dogs actually ate off a dinner plate.

	Currently, investigations targeting individuals involved in the
	manufacture of methamphetamine or amphetamine which are prosecuted on a
	federal level have a sentencing enhancement available. This enhancement
	provides a six-level increase and a guidelines floor at level 30 (about
	8-to-10 years for a first offender) when a substantial risk of harm to
	the life of a minor or an incompetent individual is created.
	Unfortunately, investigations targeting traffickers involved in the
	distribution of other illegal drugs, such as heroin or cocaine, do not
	have this same enhancement. For example:

	<bullet> During October 1999, the DEA's Philadelphia Field
	Division initiated a heroin investigation targeting an
	international organization ranging from street level dealers
	and couriers to a source of supply in South America. This
	investigation resulted in ``spin-off'' investigations in New
	York and South America. Indictments and arrests stemming from
	the Philadelphia portion of this investigation began in early
	2001, and resulted in over 20 arrests. The most significant
	charge filed against these defendants was Conspiracy to
	Distribute Heroin (21 USC Sec. 846). Additionally, seven
	subjects were charged with Distribution of Heroin within 1,000
	feet of a School (21 USC Sec. 860).

	<bullet> During August 2003, fire department personnel and
	local law enforcement authorities responded to a hotel fire in
	a family resort in Emmett County, Michigan. The fire was the
	result of a subject's attempts to manufacture methcathinone.
	Authorities subsequently seized a small quantity of
	methcathinone, along with chemistry books, from the room.

	<bullet> In an investigation initiated by DEA's Philadelphia
	Field Division, a subject hid approximately 400 grams of heroin
	under his infant during a buy/bust operation. During the course
	of his guilty plea in March 2004, the defendant admitted that
	he stored the drugs under the infant.

	DRUG PROSECUTIONS

	The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously prosecuting
	drug trafficking in all of its egregious forms. Prosecutions range from
	high-level international drug traffickers to street-level predators who
	are tempting children or addicts with the lure of profit and the
	promise of intoxication.
	We have had some successes. Statistics maintained by the U.S.
	Sentencing Commission indicate that between 1998 and 2002 over 300
	defendants were sentenced annually under the guideline that provides
	for enhanced penalties for drug activity involving protected locations,
	minors, or pregnant individuals. But our tools are limited. And we have
	no specific weapon against those who distribute controlled substances
	within the vicinity of a drug treatment center.
	The people who would sink to the depths of inhumanity by targeting
	their trafficking activity at those with the least ability to resist
	such offers are deserving the most severe punishment. The Department of
	Justice cannot and will not tolerate this conduct in a free and safe
	America, and that is why the Department of Justice stands firmly behind
	the intent of this legislation to increase the punishment meted out to
	those who would harm us, our children, and those seeking to escape the
	cycle of addiction.

	MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES

	The Department of Justice supports mandatory minimum sentences in
	appropriate circumstances. In a way sentencing guidelines cannot,
	mandatory minimum statutes provide a level of uniformity and
	predictability in sentencing. They deter certain types of criminal
	behavior determined by Congress to be sufficiently egregious as to
	merit harsh penalties by clearly forewarning the potential offender and
	the public at large of the minimum potential consequences of committing
	such an offense. And mandatory minimum sentences can also incapacitate
	dangerous offenders for long periods of time, thereby increasing public
	safety. Equally important, mandatory minimum sentences provide an
	indispensable tool for prosecutors, because they provide the strongest
	incentive to defendants to cooperate against the others who were
	involved in their criminal activity.
	In drug cases, where the ultimate goal is to rid society of the
	entire trafficking enterprise, mandatory minimum statutes are
	especially significant. Unlike a bank robbery, for which a bank teller
	or an ordinary citizen could be a critical witness, often in drug cases
	the critical witnesses are drug users and/or other drug traffickers.
	The offer of relief from a mandatory minimum sentence in exchange for
	truthful testimony allows the Government to move steadily and
	effectively up the chain of supply, using the lesser distributors to
	prosecute the more serious dealers and their leaders and suppliers.
	Mandatory minimum sentences are needed in appropriate circumstances,
	such as trafficking involving minors and trafficking in and around drug
	treatment centers.

	SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WITHIN H.R. 1528

	I would now like to turn to a few of the specific provisions
	included in H.R. 1528. As I mentioned earlier, the Department stands
	behind the testimony provided last year by Ms. Catherine O'Neil.

	Section 2: Protecting Children from Drug Traffickers
	The Department agrees with the idea that individuals who
	intentionally endanger children, either through the distribution,
	storage, manufacture, or otherwise trafficking of drugs, should face
	appropriate punishments.
	However, we do have some reservations about the consequences of
	Section 2(m), titled ``Failure to Protect Children from Drug
	Trafficking Activities.'' As drafted, we have some concerns about the
	enforceability of the section due to the vagueness of the language. In
	addition, we are concerned that it will unintentionally create an
	adversarial parental relationship, and discourage (rather than
	encourage) kids to talk openly with their parents about drug
	trafficking. Certainly, we want to encourage parents and other legal
	guardians to do the right thing, but we would encourage the
	Subcommittee to reconsider this section.

	Section 6: Assuring limitation on applicability of statutory minimums
	to persons who have done everything they can to assist the
	Government
	We strongly support the proposed amendment to 18 U.S.C.
	Sec. 3553(f), insofar as it would require Government certification that
	the defendant has timely met the full disclosure requirement for the
	safety valve exemption from certain mandatory minimum sentences.
	We certainly understand the concerns that prompted this proposal.
	Our prosecutors rightfully complain that courts often accept minimal,
	bare-bones confessional disclosures and, in some cases, continue
	sentencing hearings to afford a defendant successive tries at meeting
	even this low standard. The Department of Justice thus is aware that
	some courts and defendants have too liberally construed the safety
	valve and have applied it in circumstances that were clearly
	unwarranted and where no beneficial information was conveyed. For these
	reasons, we strongly support the prosecutor certification requirement.
	Requiring courts to rely on the Government's assessment as to
	whether a defendant's disclosure has been truthful and complete would
	effectively address the problems prosecutors have encountered with
	respect to application of the safety valve.
	However, we are concerned that the bill may unnecessarily exclude
	those who initially make a false statement, but later correct it. We
	expressed this concern informally last year and look forward to working
	with the Subcommittee to address it.

	Section 9: Mandatory detention of persons convicted of serious drug
	trafficking offenses and crimes of violence
	The Department agrees with the principle that, in almost all
	circumstances, a defendant who has been found guilty should be
	immediately detained. We also acknowledge that the circumstances in
	which release pending sentencing or appeal is necessary are extremely
	limited.
	Nevertheless, we cannot support this proposal to the extent it
	requires Government certification as to a defendant's cooperation and
	precludes release pending appeal. Even with sealed pleadings, a
	defendant's intention to cooperate would be much more apparent under
	this provision, and this likely would have an adverse impact on a
	defendant's willingness to cooperate, on the value of the cooperation,
	and on the safety of the defendant. By foreclosing the possibility of
	release for circumstances other than cooperation and, thereby,
	telegraphing a defendant's intention to assist the Government, this
	proposal would severely diminish the value of one of our most useful
	investigative and prosecutorial tools. Moreover, this is a tool that we
	employ not simply post-conviction but, sometimes, pending appeal as
	well. A prosecutor should not be effectively prohibited from seeking
	release after sentencing, if the particular circumstances of the case
	so warrant.
	We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this issue.
	Section 10: Protecting Human Life and Assuring Child Safety
	The Department was pleased to see the addition of language asking
	the Sentencing Commission to make recommendations for an increase in
	the guideline range where there is a substantial risk of harm to the
	life in the manufacture of ANY controlled substance. The case in the
	Western District of Michigan (mentioned earlier) highlights the need to
	expand these guidelines. We support the proposal to widen the
	guidelines from including only the manufacture of methamphetamine or
	amphetamine to include the manufacture of any controlled substance.

	CONCLUSION

	Children continue to be exposed, exploited and endangered by
	individuals involved at all levels of the illegal drug spectrum.
	Regardless of whether they are high-level traffickers, street-level
	dealers, ``cooks'' or addicts, they all are involved in some fashion in
	stealing away our nation's youth. The Department of Justice is
	committed to aggressively investigating and prosecuting drug
	traffickers. We support measures that will aid in the protection of
	children and enhance our abilities to prosecute those individuals who
	seek to involve them in their illegal drug activities, and support the
	Subcommittee's efforts to do the same.
	Mr. Chairman, thank you for your recognition and assistance on this
	important issue and the opportunity to testify here today. This is an
	ambitious bill with important implications for the work of the Justice
	Department. We continue to study the issues presented by the bill and
	stand ready to discuss the matter with you or the Subcommittee's staff.
	I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

	Mr. Coble. Mr. Brooks?

	TESTIMONY OF RONALD E. BROOKS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL NARCOTIC
	OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS' COALITION (NNOAC)

	Mr. Brooks. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Members
	of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on
	the importance of protecting America's most vulnerable citizens
	from the dangers posed by illegal drugs.
	The problem of selling drugs to recovering addicts at or
	near drug treatment facilities is the cruelest side of a cruel
	business, preying on our most vulnerable citizens when they're
	at their weakest. Those brave souls who are fighting their
	addiction in treatment and recovery programs are often targets
	of drug traffickers looking for an easy sale.
	Treatment providers throughout California have told me that
	the predatory drug sellers often lurk near drug treatment and
	recovery centers looking for customers who are susceptible to
	relapse. I've seen those predators firsthand in scores of
	investigations that I've conducted and supervised at or near
	treatment centers and methadone clinics.
	Mr. Chairman, police officers are driven to face the danger
	that they do each day because we witness impressionable young
	lives ruined when they are lured into a culture of crime by
	adults promising quick money. The damage this causes to a
	child's life and collectively to society as a whole is
	incalculable and inexcusable.
	I supervised a raid on a rural super lab that was producing
	more than 100 pounds of methamphetamine per production. As we
	approached the house to execute our search warrant, a large
	cloud of highly toxic gas began to vent from the house. Upon
	entry into the dangerous environment, I encountered four armed
	meth cookers and an 8-month pregnant woman with her two small
	children, who had been in the house during the entire 2-day
	reaction.
	In one operation at a large rave event in San Francisco,
	after collecting payments--my apologies. I thought it was off.
	In one operation at a large rave event at San Francisco, after
	collecting the payment on an undercover buy, a 26-year-old gang
	member directed my agent to his 15-year-old girlfriend to get
	the drugs. The adult seller laughed, saying that if the police
	raided the event, the teenage girl would be the one left to
	face prosecution.
	Another investigation conducted by my office targeted
	rampant drug dealing at a rural high school. At the conclusion
	of the investigation, we arrested 27 juveniles and nine adults
	for sales of methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, and MDMA at or
	near the school. In a raid on a house directly across the
	street from the school, agents seized one-quarter pound of
	methamphetamine and two guns from two of the adults who were
	controlling drug sales at the high school.
	Mr. Chairman, in my mind, there is no question that a
	sustained chemical attack occurs on our streets every day.
	Illegal drugs and their effects kill more than 19,000 Americans
	annually and the impact on our economy is estimated to be more
	than $160 billion each year. This continuous and unrelenting
	attack by international drug cartels, American street gangs,
	meth cookers, and neighborhood drug traffickers is equivalent
	in terms of lost lives to a September 11 tragedy every 2
	months. We must continue our commitment to fighting these
	criminals as aggressively as we fight terrorists who have
	political motives.
	The heroin sold on the street corner in San Francisco began
	as an opium poppy seed in the Mexican highlands. From field to
	vein, there's a network of criminals who know exactly what
	they're doing. This malicious intent must be confronted
	directly up and down the chain.
	Tough drug laws such as the proposed--as those proposed in
	the Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
	Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005 are essential
	weapons in the arsenal of every law enforcement officer. Strong
	penalties deter would-be sellers while providing the incentive
	for those arrested for drug crimes to cooperate with law
	enforcement, allowing investigators to reach higher into drug
	trafficking organizations in an effort to dismantle them. On a
	daily basis, State and local law enforcement use the threat of
	Federal charges associated with tough penalties to induce the
	cooperation of arrestees who are in positions to expose the
	chain of command of drug trafficking organizations.
	The task force model fostered by Byrne and HIDTA programs
	has dramatically increased the effectiveness of drug
	enforcement strategies over the past 15 years. When combined
	with strong penalties, such as those proposed by the Chairman's
	legislation, we get quality investigations and effective
	deterrents.
	As law enforcement officers, we know that we can't arrest
	our way out of the drug problem. We must do everything we can
	to prevent first use by young people. We must embrace efforts,
	such as the President's Access to Recovery Initiative, to
	ensure treatment is there when it's needed. All children and
	all people in recovery must be protected from the purveyors of
	poison that often lurk in or near our drug treatment centers
	and in our schools.
	That's why the proposal in the Defending America's Most
	Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection
	Act of 2005 is critical to the safety of vulnerable Americans.
	This legislation would strengthen deterrence and provide a
	potentially helpful tool for State and local drug
	investigators.
	On behalf of the 60,000 narcotic officers that the National
	Narcotics Officers' Coalition represents, I want to
	congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner on reintroducing this
	important bill, and Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you
	for inviting me here today and for taking the time to hear this
	issue. Thank you.
	Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]

	Prepared Statement of Ronald E. Brooks

	INTRODUCTION

	Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, members of the subcommittee,
	thank you for inviting me to testify on the importance of protecting
	America's most vulnerable citizens from the dangers posed by illegal
	drug manufacturing, sales and use. My name is Ronald Brooks and I am
	the President of the National Narcotic Officers' Associations'
	Coalition (NNOAC) representing forty-three state narcotic officers
	associations with a combined membership of more than 60,000 law
	enforcement officers across the nation.
	I am an active duty, thirty-year California law enforcement veteran
	with more than twenty-four years spent in drug enforcement. I have
	witnessed the death, disease, violence and devastation that illicit
	drug use regularly brings to individuals, families, and communities,
	and based on my experiences I'm happy to share my thoughts on the
	importance of the ``Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection
	Act of 2005.''
	Although no one is immune from drug addiction, the lives most often
	destroyed by heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and other
	poisons are those persons already suffering from the disease of
	addiction who are in recovery, and young people who think that trying
	dangerous drugs is harmless. People in recovery are vulnerable because
	changes in neuro-chemicals brought on by prior chronic drug use make
	them more susceptible to relapse, and because the craving is constant--
	especially during the early stages of treatment.
	Dr. Darryl Inaba, CEO of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic in San
	Francisco told me that the euphoric recall of persons in recovery is
	very strong and that smells, situations, or other temptations will
	often lead to the re-initiation of drug use. Because all drugs of abuse
	are synergistic, even marijuana may serve as the catalyst for a meth,
	coke, or heroin user to slip back into the bonds of a drug lifestyle.
	Because of that danger, the Haight Ashbury Clinic and all other drug
	treatment programs that I am familiar with prohibit drug and alcohol
	use on or near their facilities and by patients who are in treatment.
	Dr. Inaba and Dr. Alex Stallcup of the New Leaf Treatment Center in
	Concord, California have told me that predatory drug sellers often lurk
	near drug treatment and recovery centers looking for customers who are
	susceptible to relapse. I have seen these predators firsthand in scores
	of investigations that I have conducted or supervised at or near
	treatment centers and Methadone clinics.
	Even more vulnerable than recovering addicts are pre-teens and
	teens. Initiation of drug use by young people occurs every day in all
	types of communities without regard for race, gender or socio-economic
	background. Kids are likely to be lured to drug use because they lack
	the perspective of adults and because they feel pressured to identify
	with ``role models'' who glorify drug use and violence. Drug-abusing
	older siblings, friends, and parents are often terrible influences who
	many times even employ young people to act as middle-men in their drug
	trade. The damage this causes to a child's life--and cumulatively to
	society as a whole--is incalculable and inexcusable.
	My civilian friends often worry about the physical and emotional
	impact that thirty years of facing the danger of ruthless drug dealers
	has taken on me. The truth is, danger is not what takes a toll on
	America's law enforcement officers. What haunts police officers is the
	death, fear, economic despair, and ruined lives we see every day that
	is caused by drug abuse and drug-fueled violent crime.

	JUVENILES IN DANGER

	The most troubling events witnessed by cops involve young people
	suffering from addiction or who are neglected or placed in danger as a
	direct result of illicit drugs. Drug enforcement officers are driven in
	their commitment to fight the scourge of drug abuse by recurring images
	of children languishing in dirty diapers, living in deplorable and
	dangerous conditions and suffering from malnutrition because their
	drug-addicted parents are unable to care for them. We are driven to
	face danger by witnessing impressionable young lives ruined when they
	are lured into a culture of crime by adults promising quick money. We
	see kids become dealers for adults, or lookouts who facilitate the drug
	sales operations of adults. And a disturbing all-too-frequent image is
	a frightened child rescued from the highly toxic and flammable
	environment of a methamphetamine lab.
	I supervised a raid on a rural super-lab that was producing more
	than 100 pounds of methamphetamine per two-day reaction cycle. As we
	approached the house to execute our search warrant, a large cloud of
	highly toxic gas began to vent from the house. Upon entry into that
	dangerous environment, we encountered four armed meth cookers and an
	eight-month pregnant woman who along with her two small children had
	been in the house for the entire two-day reaction cycle.
	During another lab raid, I found a teenage boy, a straight-A
	student, who lived with his father, a meth cooker, in a home where two
	separate chemical fires had flashed through the house threatening their
	lives but which were never be reported to the fire department for fear
	that the meth production would be discovered. That teenager was working
	to survive, despite the daily danger posed by chemical exposure,
	explosion, fire, and armed encounters with rival drug dealers.
	At a large RAVE event at the San Francisco Cow Palace, my agents
	were working undercover purchasing Ecstasy (MDMA) from the dealers that
	were preying upon the mostly teenage attendees. This followed an
	earlier RAVE where two young people had died from Ecstasy overdoses. In
	one drug buy, after collecting the payment, a twenty-five year old gang
	member directed the undercover agent to his fifteen year old girlfriend
	to get the drugs. The adult seller laughed saying that if the police
	raided the event, the teenage girl would be the one left facing
	prosecution while he walked away. In a subsequent undercover buy, a
	twenty-five year old woman directed an undercover agent to her fourteen
	year old brother to get the Ecstasy. She told the undercover agent that
	if the police stopped them, her brother would only go to juvenile hall
	but if she was caught with the drugs, she could face prison.
	In an undercover operation conducted by my agents, a man agreed to
	deliver Ecstasy to an undercover agent. At the time of the arrest, the
	suspect fled in his vehicle and led officers on a high-speed pursuit,
	eventually crashing his car. As officers approached to make the arrest,
	they discovered that the suspect had his eight-month old daughter in
	the car. The man was arrested with more than 20,000 MDMA tablets,
	cocaine, a bullet proof vest and two 9mm pistols.
	One investigation conducted by my office targeted rampant drug
	dealing at a rural high-school. At the conclusion of the investigation
	we arrested twenty-seven juveniles and nine adults for sales of
	methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, and MDMA at or near the school. In a
	raid on a house directly across the street from the school, agents
	seized one-quarter pound of methamphetamine and two guns from two of
	the adults that were controlling drug sales at the high school.
	In a San Mateo County, California Narcotic Task Force
	investigation, a Burlingame High School groundskeeper was arrested when
	it was discovered that he was befriending students and bringing them to
	his house where he sold them marijuana and cocaine.

	TREATMENT CENTERS

	The problem of dealing drugs to recovering addicts at or near drug
	treatment facilities is the cruelest side of a cruel business: preying
	on the most vulnerable citizens when they are at their weakest. Those
	brave souls who are fighting their addiction in treatment and recovery
	programs are often targets of drug traffickers looking for an easy
	sale.
	Many people in the Washington, D.C. area are familiar with the
	open-air drug market that existed in the parking lot of a McDonald's
	right next to the Model Treatment Program in Northeast D.C. A
	subsequent GAO investigation found that drug dealing was rampant in the
	immediate vicinity of treatment centers in numerous locations in
	Washington.
	In a recent San Jose, California Police Department case, a city
	employee was fired after beginning to re-use methamphetamine after
	being enticed to do so by a person that was in her drug treatment
	program. This otherwise productive citizen, who was on her way to
	recovery, has again had her life torn apart by an amoral drug seller
	who cared more about making money than allowing the woman to succeed in
	treatment.
	Within the past three weeks, the San Francisco Police Department
	began investigating a convicted drug dealer who served time in San
	Quentin Prison on state drug charges. The dealer is now operating the
	Happy Days Herbal Relief ``medical marijuana'' clinic on the ground
	floor of a hotel subsidized by the city of San Francisco that is being
	used as a halfway house by formerly homeless persons, many of whom are
	in drug treatment programs. This and eight other San Francisco ``pot
	clubs'' are not far from school campuses. San Francisco Police
	officials tell me that it is not uncommon for them to encounter teens
	who have purchased marijuana from one of these pot clubs and who are
	re-selling the marijuana to other school age kids.
	I could give more examples, and these types of stories could be
	multiplied by the 60,000 police officers represented by the NNOAC.

	THE NEED FOR STRONG PENALTIES

	On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by terrorists based in
	foreign lands. This attack resulted in the murder of almost 3,000
	Americans. Because of the intensity and magnitude of that single
	attack, it is easy to lose sight of the chemical attack that occurs
	daily in cities and towns in every state in the nation. Illegal drugs
	and their effects kill more than 19,000 Americans annually and the
	impact on our economy is estimated to be more than $160 billion each
	year.
	This continuous and unrelenting attack by international drug
	cartels, American street gangs, meth cookers, and neighborhood drug
	traffickers is equivalent to a September 11th tragedy every two months.
	We must continue our commitment to fighting these criminals as
	aggressively as we fight terrorists who have political motives. Tough
	drug laws such as those proposed in the ``Safe Access to Treatment and
	Child Protection Act of 2005'' are essential weapons in our arsenal.
	Vigorous enforcement of drug laws helps to keep families and
	neighborhoods safe from violent criminals and serves as a deterrent to
	first-time drug use for most young people. It also helps many addicts
	reach the road to recovery through drug courts and other corrections-
	based treatment programs.
	Strong penalties deter would-be sellers while providing the
	incentive to those arrested for drug crimes to cooperate with law
	enforcement, allowing investigators to reach higher into drug
	trafficking organizations in an effort to dismantle them. On a daily
	basis, state and local law enforcement use the threat federal charges
	associated with tough penalties to induce the cooperation of arrestees
	who are in positions to expose the chain of command of drug trafficking
	organizations.
	The heroin consumed on the corner of a drug-addled neighborhood in
	Washington, D.C. started as a seed capsule of an opium poppy plant in
	the Andes of South America. From field to vein, there was a network of
	criminals who knew exactly what their activities were leading to. When
	the street-level seller of that heroin is arrested, tough federal
	penalties help us climb up the organizational ladder and frequently
	lead to the dismantling of local and regional drug trafficking
	organizations.
	Indispensable components our nation's overall enforcement strategy
	include tough laws and the multi-jurisdictional, intelligence-based
	enforcement approach that has developed under the system of task forces
	funded through the Byrne JAG and HIDTA programs. The task force model
	employed by these programs has dramatically increased the effectiveness
	of drug enforcement strategies over the past fifteen years which, when
	combined with the strong penalties such as those proposed by the
	Chairman's legislation, leads to quality investigations and effective
	deterrence.

	MAKING PROGRESS

	The problem of drug abuse often seems insurmountable, but it is
	not. The proof of our ability to succeed in this important fight is the
	fifty percent reduction in drug use that occurred between 1979 and 1992
	when America employed a balanced and comprehensive approach of drug
	prevention, treatment, and enforcement. We are once again on the road
	to achieving good results as we embrace a balanced approach and a
	renewed dedication to fighting against drug abuse.
	Although strong penalties for dangerous criminals are important, I
	understand that it is impossible to arrest our way out of America's
	complex drug problem. A strong and consistent education and prevention
	message must reach or kids early and often; and because addicts often
	love the drugs that consume their lives more than they fear prison,
	effective treatment must be readily available. But we must do
	everything we can to prevent first use by young people. And persons in
	recovery must be protected from the purveyors of poison that often lurk
	in our near drug treatment centers and sober living environments.
	That is why the proposals in the ``Safe Access to Drug Treatment
	and Child Protection Act of 2005'' are critical to the safety of all
	citizens. This important legislation would strengthen deterrents and
	provide a potentially helpful tool for state and local drug
	investigators. The 60,000 members of the National Narcotic Officers'
	Associations' Coalition congratulate the Chairman on reintroducing the
	important bill and we stand ready to lend our support. Thank you for
	inviting me to share my thoughts.

	Mr. Coble. Ms. Moriarty?

	TESTIMONY OF LORI MORIARTY, THORNTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
	THORNTON, COLORADO, COMMANDER, NORTH METRO DRUG TASK FORCE, AND
	PRESIDENT, COLORADO'S ALLIANCE FOR DRUG ENDANGERED CHILDREN

	Ms. Moriarty. Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, first
	of all, thank you very much for the invite here.
	I am a Drug Unit Commander in Colorado, and I do represent
	the National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, and I am
	the President of the Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered
	Children, and I can tell you from a Drug Task Force Commander's
	point of view, I've been in law enforcement for 18 years, and I
	can't tell you how many times I've heard people tell me that
	drug use is a victimless crime, and I'm here to tell you that
	it is the crime that creates the most victims. In all of my
	time in law enforcement, I didn't recognize this until I got
	into the drug investigations unit.
	I actually did homicide crimes and crimes against children
	as a detective, and it was easy to recognize the bruises and
	the broken bones and call that child abuse. And when I got into
	investigation, it wasn't until I walked into some of these drug
	homes and recognized the violence that was occurring day in and
	day out in these children's lives.
	As you mentioned earlier in my introduction, I've spent the
	last 2 years educating people across the State and actually
	across the Nation on meth lab awareness and the dangers, and
	the award that I actually won for ONDCP and HIDTA was for
	protecting law enforcement officers who actually went into labs
	day in and day out because of the toxic environment that it
	created. And throughout that time, my guys were wearing
	chemical protective clothing gear and self-contained breathing
	apparatus and we pulled out children wearing diapers. And it
	wasn't until then that I realized that the drug endangered
	environment that these children were living in was just
	horrific.
	I speak to you today by telling you that it is really
	critical to have penalties that are severe enough to have
	people change their behavior. It is never acceptable to expose
	children to drug endangered environments.
	As I speak with you here today, my task force is out at a
	hotel, and we are raiding the entire hotel as an open market,
	and in the hotel are families that live there with their
	children, distributing drugs every day, and there are guns.
	We're also--it's a RICO case and it has three homicides
	associated with that environment, and at no time did any of the
	drug dealers ever pay attention to the children that were
	living in that environment. Additionally, we had a grandfather,
	who every day when we watched him in surveillance going to do
	his drug trafficking, picked up his grandson and used the
	grandson as a decoy during his drug trafficking operations.
	So the areas where people put children in harm is--in drug
	trafficking is serious, and we need to pay attention to the
	environment that we're allowing these children to grow up in.
	As a member of the National Alliance for Drug Endangered
	Children, we have a mission to bring disciplines together to
	work on these exact issues, and accountability is a huge part
	of making the system work. If we can hold the caregivers and
	the parents who traffick around their children and put their
	children in dangerous environments, then it will assist in the
	totality of what we're trying to do to protect the children.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members.
	Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Moriarty.
	[The prepared statement of Ms. Moriarty follows:]

	Prepared Statement of Lori Moriarty

	Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
	I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of The National
	Alliance for Drug Endangered Children as a Committee Member and as the
	President of The Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered Children to
	speak on the important issue of ``Defending America's Most Vulnerable:
	Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005.''
	Though I cannot speak on all points covered in H.R. 1528, as a drug
	unit commander I can say that I have seen children of substance abusing
	parents suffer extreme neglect, physical, sexual and psychological
	abuse. The time has come to take notice and take action, not only in
	the law enforcement community but all professionals involved in the
	welfare of children.

	BACKGROUND

	When law enforcement officers in Colorado were just beginning to
	appreciate the devastating effects methamphetamine was having on
	communities and the users, the focus was to develop safe procedures to
	locate and seize methamphetamine labs. As law enforcement became
	sophisticated in the detection, seizure and arrest of these clandestine
	labs and their operators, what became astoundingly apparent was that
	the real victims of the crime were the children. Law enforcement
	quickly realized they were not equipped to address the special needs of
	the children found in these homes where the manufacturing was taking
	place and realized that other agencies should be involved to address
	the needs of the voiceless and innocent victims. In 2002, public and
	private agencies in Colorado came together to discuss the unique and
	pressing problems facing these children. The professionals agreed the
	issue was a crisis and required an immediate, multi-disciplinary
	response. Colorado reached out to California, where the first Alliance
	for Drug Endangered Children committee was established. Based on the
	Drug Endangered Children Program developed in Butte County California,
	members of the private and public agencies initiated, for the first
	time in Colorado, a group of professionals willing to assess and
	establish the best methods of collectively meeting the needs of the
	children. In 2003, Colorado established a non-profit organization,
	Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children and quickly
	collaborated with California and several other states where similar
	initiatives were being developed. Through these efforts The National
	Alliance was formed in 2003 to promote public awareness regarding the
	plight of drug endangered children and to link and support the many
	professionals that rescue, defend, shelter and support these children
	including law enforcement, child protective services, first responders,
	medical and mental health professionals, prosecutors and county
	attorneys, substance abuse treatment providers, community leaders and
	concerned members of the public.
	The National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children recognized the
	scope of child endangerment went beyond children living where
	manufacturing was taking place but also included environments where
	children were exposed to drug trafficking and the drug subculture
	associated with the use, sale and possession of illegal drugs. The
	desperate plight of these children left behind must be addressed. The
	abuse and neglect of these children is not marginal but real and
	significant. These children are innocent, tragic victims who require
	special and immediate attention.

	NATIONAL ALLIANCE GOAL

	The National Alliance believes drug endangered children are victims
	who, when discovered during law enforcement actions or recognized by
	others to be in danger, require immediate intervention and support. We
	promote the concept of using collaborative, multi-disciplinary teams
	whose primary interest is the health and welfare of the child found in
	a dangerous drug situation. Thus, our goal is to ensure long term care
	as the child moves from the arms of law enforcement, to child welfare
	services and is medically and psychologically evaluated, and thereafter
	placed in an appropriate and safe living situation.
	Over the last eighteen months, the National Alliance has focused
	most of its efforts on causing everyone to understand the harm posed to
	children in many different drug scenarios--ranging from methamphetamine
	or other clandestine labs, environments in which drugs are dealt,
	stored or packaged and in some instances, guarded with guns and other
	weapons, and those which are controlled by caregivers who are addicted
	to or so influenced by drugs that they lose their ability to provide
	even a minimum standard of care often neglecting and in many instances,
	actually abusing children. The National Alliance supports and endorses
	the National Drug Endangered Children Training Program. We also provide
	support and guidance to states as they form individual alliances and
	begin to form multi-disciplinary teams in their communities.

	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

	There are several aspects of child abuse and neglect in drug-
	endangered homes. The environments themselves are frequently so
	dangerous that simply allowing a child to live there constitutes child
	endangerment. Substance abuse also affects the caregiver's ability to
	parent, placing the child at additional risk for abuse and neglect.
	Children whose caregivers are substance abusers are frequently
	neglected. They often do not have enough food, are not adequately
	groomed, do not have appropriate sleeping conditions, and usually have
	not had adequate medical or dental care. These children are frequently
	not well supervised, placing them at additional risk of injury.
	Children raised by substance-abusing caregivers are often exposed to
	pornographic material, often emotionally abused and have a heightened
	risk for sexual abuse. Additionally, they frequently do not get the
	appropriate amount of support, encouragement, discipline, and guidance
	they need to thrive.
	Specific hazards to children living in these labs are numerous. The
	children are exposed to toxic chemicals and are at risk on inhalation
	of toxic fumes. Clothing and skin contact of improperly stored
	chemicals, chemical waste dumped in play areas, and potential
	explosions and fires (the specific risks of the different chemicals are
	outlined in the Clandestine Lab section) are also possible. They are
	frequently exposed to a hazardous environment which often includes
	accessible drugs, exposure to drug users, cooks and dealers, hypodermic
	needles within reach of children, accessible glass smoking pipes, razor
	blades and other drug paraphernalia, weapons left accessible and booby
	traps placed to ``protect'' the clandestine laboratory and its contents
	from intruders.
	The use of illegal drugs affects the caregiver's judgment,
	rendering them unable to provide the consistent, supervision and
	guidance that children need for appropriate development. Therefore,
	substance abuse in adults is a critical factor in the child welfare
	system. With specific reference to methamphetamine, children are
	frequently neglected during their caregiver's long periods of sleep
	while ``crashing'' from a drug binge. The caregiver's also frequently
	display inconsistent and paranoid behavior, especially if they are
	using methamphetamine. They are often irritable and have a ``short
	fuse'' which may ultimately lead to physical abuse. Children in these
	homes are often exposed to violence as well as unsavory individuals.
	Unfortunately, these caregivers were often not parented well themselves
	and therefore did not learn effective parenting skills. Finally, the
	caregiver's ability to provide a nurturing home for a child is
	complicated by the caregiver's own mental health issues which may have
	contributed to or resulted from substance abuse.

	TESTIMONY OF A CHILD

	It was five o'clock in the morning on October 23, and the street
	was empty. The house was dark where five undercover detectives were
	conducting surveillance, preparing for the execution of a search
	warrant on a drug lab. The traffic on the police radio had been silent.
	Suddenly, as SWAT officers began their initial approached from several
	blocks away, one of the detectives watching the house keyed the
	microphone of his radio and yelled for everyone to stop. As he spoke,
	everyone could hear the uncertainty and hesitation in his voice as he
	tried to describe what he was seeing. When the words finally came out
	he stated, ``There is a skeleton coming out the front door.'' As we
	processed the information, wondering if the detective was hallucinating
	after the long hours of surveillance, he went on to explain that the
	skeleton figure appeared to be the four-year-old child we knew was in
	this particular drug house. He further described how the boy was out
	onto the front porch looking up and down the street. As we discussed
	the child's behavior, he came back out onto the porch and began looking
	up and down the street again. Being narcotics officers the only
	explanation we could come up with was the possibility that he was
	counter surveillance and acting as a look out for his parents. With
	this information, we told the SWAT officers to move forward and execute
	the search warrant, using extreme caution.
	After the raid was over, the SWAT team placed several adults into
	custody and removed the four-year-old boy and another eight-year-old
	girl. During my interview with the boy I explained that I was curious
	why he was dressed in a skeleton outfit, standing on his front porch
	and looking up and down the street so early in the morning. His eyes
	lit up and he got excited as he explained that today was his Halloween
	party at school. His shoulders then slumped when he went on to tell me
	that he really wanted to go to the party but he hasn't been able to
	wake his mom up for the last few days and he didn't know where the bus
	stop was. He said that he thought if he got up early enough in the
	morning and put his costume on, he could just watch up and down the
	street and catch the bus as it drove by. I couldn't imagine at that
	moment that this child could educate me any more until I realized that
	he couldn't count to ten, but he could draw a picture, in detail, of an
	entire operational meth lab. To this day, my mind cannot erase the
	visual this four-year-old child left me with. I realized we had a
	responsibility to identify these children and work with other
	disciplines to meet their needs. Early identification can activate a
	multi-disciplinary response within our communities where all of us must
	work together as partners to rescue, defend, shelter and support the
	children.

	RESEARCH

	In the year 2002 the National Clandestine Laboratory Database
	reported 8,911 clandestine laboratory seizures. Over ninety percent of
	these were methamphetamine production and over 2,078 incidents involved
	children. First responders and children alike are exposed to toxic and
	hazardous chemical exposure. Many of the hazards of this illicit
	process and the type of exposure have not been studied extensively, and
	are therefore unknown. According to the El Paso Intelligence Center,
	the increase of methamphetamine production has resulted in at least one
	methamphetamine laboratory in every state of the union in 2002. In
	January 2003, National Jewish Hospital and Research center began to
	study the harmful effects of methamphetamine labs to first responders
	and children through various methodologies, including: controlled lab
	studies, field controlled lab studies and surveys. The study expanded
	its scope throughout the year with results that may impact the way in
	which first responders and investigators perform their duties.
	Throughout the duration of this study, the spirit of collaboration and
	cooperation has been a predominant factor.
	The initial study concerns included the potential, exposures,
	related health concerns, medical monitoring, and the comprehensive use
	of personal protective equipment. Throughout the study additional
	questions arose regarding the airborne properties of methamphetamine,
	the decontamination process and the degree of danger to children.
	The standards used for measuring exposure were those utilized for
	an occupational setting. These guidelines and standards are formulated
	based on a predominantly male workforce, 20-30 years of age and
	healthy. These standards are not applicable to children, those with
	health conditions or pregnant women. To date, there are no suitable
	standards established regarding exposures to children during the
	production of methamphetamine. Therefore, a significant amount of
	future research is still needed in order to accurately determine the
	degree of dangers to children.
	During the study, a teddy bear was placed in a room where chemists
	from DEA manufactured methamphetamine to determine the amounts a
	contamination produced. When the teddy bear was tested the results were
	alarming. The bear tested highly positive for methamphetamine and was
	extremely acidic. The methamphetamine levels on the bear were 3,100 ug/
	100 cm2 on the outer portion of the sweater and 2,100 ug/100 cm2 under
	the sweater, compared to the ``clean'' standard in Colorado, used to
	determine if a residence where a lab was discovered is acceptable for
	re-occupancy, which is .5ug/100 cm2. The pH level of the bear was 1.
	For a full report on the results of the National Jewish Medical and
	Research Methamphetamine Study go to www.nationaldec.org

	CONCLUDING REMARKS

	For decades, law enforcement teams across America have been
	fighting ``the war on drugs'' by arresting those responsible for the
	use, possession, trafficking and manufacturing of illegal substances.
	However, at no time during these battles did we recognize the neglect,
	the physical, sexual and emotional abuse to include the developmental
	and psychosocial issues our children were suffering at the hands of
	their drug-abusing parents.
	It is most important that we send a clear message to those that
	chose to endanger children: It is never acceptable to expose children
	to drug environments and drug dealing and that there will be an
	additional price to pay if they do.

	Mr. Coble. Mr. Brownsberger?

	TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM N. BROWNSBERGER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
	PUBLIC POLICY DIVISION ON ADDICTIONS, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

	Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman. Thank you, Members of the Committee.
	Mr. Coble. Mr. Brownsberger, a little closer to you, if you
	will, and activate it.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Let me try that again. Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And thank you, Members of the
	Committee. I appreciate the invitation to be here.
	I'm the father of three daughters, a 10-year-old, a 13-
	year-old, and a 16-year-old, and proud to tell you they're all
	growing up sober. I'm a member of the governing board of the
	community in which I reside and I'm committed to addressing the
	problems of youth substance abuse. I've been an Assistant
	Attorney General in the Special Investigations and Narcotics
	Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and there
	prosecuted drug dealers. I have done a good amount of research,
	and I guess that's what I owe my honor to be here today, is the
	research I've done on school zone sentencing and the profile of
	anti-drug law enforcement in Massachusetts.
	I've also today practice as a defense attorney. I worked a
	lot in drug courts and I know what the damage of drug addiction
	is, what it does to people's lives, what it does to the lives
	of families. I'm also a defense attorney and I have the
	occasion to represent drug dealers who are charged with
	violations of these laws. All of these experiences have given
	me insight, and some of that insight may be helpful to the
	Committee.
	The first issue I'd like to speak to is the issue of the
	geographic provisions of this bill, the provisions which would
	enhance penalties within certain geographic areas. You can call
	those areas drug-free zones. And the bill would expand the
	radius around zones, these zones that are protected, from 100
	to 1,000 feet for some kinds of facilities, and then it would
	add a whole lot of new facilities in the form of drug treatment
	facilities, including, by the way, take note, individual drug
	treatment providers. So if a psychologist is providing drug
	treatment, there will be a 1,000-foot radius around that
	psychologist's facility.
	Now, I understand that a lot of what we have to do in
	making legislative policy is to respond to rhetoric and to
	anecdotes because that's all we have, but this is a case, Mr.
	Chairman, in which we actually have the ability to put some
	fine numbers on what we're doing here and make a decision based
	on information.
	I have some slides, which I guess are not available to be
	up on the screens, but the first slide just shows an aerial
	view of the town of--city of New Bedford, Massachusetts. And
	the second slide dots onto that using the geographic
	information from that community, the schools and parks. The
	green are the parks and the blue are the schools. As you can
	see, there are a number of them within this large downtown
	area.
	When you put the 1,000-foot radii on them--that's the third
	slide showing the yellow--that shows the school zones, the
	drug-free zones around these facilities, and as you can see,
	they cover most of the downtown area of that community. Take
	note to the far left, the green plot there is a park and has a
	relatively small zone around it. That's because it's a 100-foot
	zone around parks in Massachusetts, whereas it's a 1,000-foot
	zone around schools. That's the way the structure of our law is
	in Massachusetts.
	Now, you can imagine that if you add drug treatment
	facilities and video arcades and individual psychologists'
	offices to this map, the whole map will be yellow. That's a
	conjecture because we don't have that data. But it would be
	easy, in fact, for you to acquire that data before passing this
	legislation. It would be easy to identify a number of
	communities and see how this would actually work. But based on
	my experience, my knowledge of the density of these
	communities, my conjecture would be with a lot of confidence
	that every major metropolitan area in this Nation would be
	yellow, would be covered within these drug-free zones.
	So the consequence of that legislation is not to push
	people away from any particular place but simply to multiply
	the penalties. If you wanted, Mr. Chairman, to protect drug
	treatment facilities, you'd be much better advised to use a
	much narrower radius, for example, 100 feet, and then people
	would know where they needed to stay away from. But this
	legislation will just serve to elevate the penalties generally.
	And I hope that's not the goal of the Committee because I
	do believe that these penalties are, in fact, high enough, if
	not too high. The impact of these penalties is, in fact, to
	raise the incarceration rate of young African American and
	Hispanic males. That's who is involved in the drug trade
	predominately in this country. That is, unfortunately, the
	reality. That's the color and the ethnicity behind that
	business today, just as every other business commonly may have
	an ethnicity that's more heavily involved in it. And if we put
	this law in place, you're just putting more of those young men
	in jail.
	As a defense attorney, it's been my privilege to get to
	know some of these young men and they're not the animals that
	you might imagine. We're characterizing them as drug dealers.
	We're caricaturing these people. These are people that just
	have led into a role which they have no concept of what their
	other options in life are. I've talked to young defendants who
	say, well, it was stealing cars, robbery, or drugs, and I
	actually was kind of--I'm not the kind to rob people, so I went
	into drugs. That's the kind of conversation people have. They
	have no concept of where they can go.
	And so this legislation is damaging legislation and I hope
	the Committee will study it a great deal further before taking
	any action on it.
	Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Brownsberger.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Brownsberger follows:]

	Prepared Statement of William N. Brownsberger

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	ATTACHMENT

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Mr. Coble. And thanks to each of the witnesses.
	We have been joined, ladies and gentlemen, by the
	distinguished gentleman from California, the distinguished
	gentleman from Florida, and the distinguished gentleman from
	Virginia. It's good to have you all with us.
	As I told you all at the outset, we will begin our
	questioning and we comply with the 5-minute rule, as well, so
	if you all could keep your questions terse, we would be
	appreciative.
	Ms. Avergun, provide the Subcommittee with additional case
	information, if you will, regarding the hotel fire case
	involving meth cat, sometimes called cat. Was there a
	sentencing enhancement applied, A, and B, was there a
	sentencing enhancement available? Pull that a little closer to
	you.
	Ms. Avergun. I'll just keep it on. I can tell you a little
	bit more about that case. In August of 2003, at a family
	resort, there was a fire involving a particular hotel room. The
	local department responded to the hotel. They discovered the
	defendant had started the fire while manufacturing a substance
	called methcathanone. There was a lab actually in his hotel
	room. The hotel room--the hotel was part of a family resort.
	There were chemistry books and a jar of methcathanone already
	made.
	The defendant pled guilty in that case. He was sentenced to
	151 months in prison and 3 years supervised release and
	restitution for costs of the fire. The defendant received a
	significant sentencing enhancement due to his criminal history.
	However, he did not receive any kind of sentencing enhancement
	due to the fact that he had endangered children or families in
	the hotel room, in the hotel where he was. There were no
	guideline enhancements available because, right now, the law
	only provides for enhancements for the manufacture of
	methamphetamine or amphetamine. This is a completely different
	substance.
	And any substance can be--many substances can be produced.
	Synthetic drugs are more prevalent now, and they can all be
	produced with relative ease by looking up recipes in commonly
	available places. This----
	Mr. Coble. Okay. I don't mean to cut you off, but I need to
	get to other witnesses.
	Ms. Avergun. That's okay.
	Mr. Coble. Thank you.
	Mr. Brooks, drug trafficking, as we all know, is violent
	business. Share with us, if you will, any experience you may
	have had with drug dealers employing violence, that is, that
	included the possession of firearms to protect the operation,
	to enforce the collection of drug debts, how kids may simply
	get in the way.
	Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying
	that drug dealing is a violent profession. It's one where
	firearms, bulletproof vests, and other methods are readily
	employed. The biggest threat in drug dealing is in turf battles
	and in the collection of debts and in ensuring that people
	don't cooperate with law enforcement. That's frequently done by
	homicide or other violent means and kids do get in the way.
	There is no discrimination against hurting children when
	there is violence in a home. We have had children caught in the
	crossfire of drug turf battles. And I could rely on one of my
	own personal experiences. A young gal that I went to high
	school with, shortly after I was a narcotic officer, she had
	decided to live with a drug trafficker. There was a rip-off, a
	theft at the home. She crawled under the mattress as the rip-
	off was occurring. Three shotgun blasts into the bed, killing
	her. This wasn't a person that chose to live--and she was an
	adult, she had made her own choice, but it wasn't somebody that
	had chose to involve themselves in the drug trafficking
	business. That can happen just as easily to any child caught in
	a drug house.
	Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
	Mr. Brownsberger, if I read you correctly, you seem to
	suggest that the goal of school zones is to move the drug
	dealing somewhere else. Would you not also recognize that the
	goal is to assure that traffickers who do engage, you know, ply
	their wares in a school zone will likely be awarded an active
	prison sentence?
	Mr. Brownsberger. I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman. I would
	assume the goal is to protect children. That's our overall
	goal, and the goal of punishing drug dealers is to keep them
	from endangering children.
	Now, my work showed that about 80 percent of the cases in
	which the school zone statute was used involved transactions
	that occurred at night, on the weekend, or in the summer. They
	just didn't have anything to do with children, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Coble. Ms. Moriarty, I think I have time for one quick
	question. What promoted you to become a member of the Steering
	Committee of the National Alliance?
	Ms. Moriarty. When law enforcement started finding the
	children living in these environments, we realized that we
	couldn't do it alone, that just removing the children and then
	placing the caregiver in custody and, you know, holding them
	accountable for the position that they're putting the children
	in wasn't enough. We had to actually focus on the child. And so
	we realized that all of the disciplines need to come together--
	medical, psychological, the social services, just a multitude
	of multi-disciplines, to actually be with the child and take
	him through the process.
	In Colorado, I can give you an example, we have 68,000
	parents who are in some kind of treatment. I won't necessarily
	say recovery, but in treatment. And of those 68,000, there are
	114,000 children. And so somewhere along the line, all of us
	disciplines need to come together to support the children.
	Mr. Coble. Thank you. I see my red light.
	I want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Ms. Avergun, the DEA is supporting the bill?
	Ms. Avergun. The DEA supports certain provisions of the
	bill, yes.
	Mr. Scott. And opposes certain provisions of the bill?
	Ms. Avergun. We'd like to work with the Committee to fix
	certain provisions of the bill, yes.
	Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, do you know what the prison impact
	would be, what the additional costs in prisons would be?
	Ms. Avergun. Mr. Scott, there would probably be some
	incremental costs which are fixed based on a fixed cost that
	Bureau of Prisons estimates of the costs of incarceration.
	However, two things that I would point out. The first is that
	we don't anticipate arresting entirely new classes of people as
	a result of this. These are people who would already be in
	jail. They are drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is already
	illegal, and much of this bill amends things that are already
	prohibited.
	The second thing I would like----
	Mr. Scott. Wait. On that point, so you would not be
	arresting any new people, you would just be giving enhanced
	penalties to those who you already would have arrested anyway?
	Ms. Avergun. There are some new provisions in this bill.
	For instance, distributing drugs in the presence of children is
	a new provision. But by and large----
	Mr. Scott. You could have gotten them for distribution of
	the drugs, period. If you know they've distributed the drugs in
	front of a child, you knew they'd distributed the drugs, so you
	would have gotten them anyway.
	Ms. Avergun. Perhaps.
	Mr. Scott. Perhaps?
	Ms. Avergun. Yes.
	Mr. Scott. I mean, can you prove beyond a reasonable--have
	you got evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they
	distributed drugs and that's an offense.
	Ms. Avergun. That is an offense, depending on the quantity
	and the circumstances and whether law enforcement knew about
	it. But----
	Mr. Scott. Well, but if you don't know about it, you
	wouldn't know about it in front of a child.
	Ms. Avergun. That's true.
	Mr. Scott. So you've acknowledged that, basically, you're
	going to be giving enhanced penalties to those you would have
	arrested anyway. My question is, how much more is that going to
	cost in prisons?
	Ms. Avergun. I don't think that the incremental costs are
	that great. Those are fixed costs as estimated by the Bureau of
	Prisons. But I would like to add----
	Mr. Scott. Wait. Are they going to be in prison longer?
	Ms. Avergun. May I finish my point? The costs to society
	for not incarcerating these people for longer sentences are far
	greater than the costs that it would impose on society for
	keeping them in jail for incrementally longer terms.
	Mr. Scott. So I understand your answer to be, you don't
	know how much more we're going to be spending in prisons if the
	bill passes?
	Ms. Avergun. I don't have the exact number, but that is a
	number that the Bureau of Prisons has estimated across the
	board.
	Mr. Scott. What number?
	Ms. Avergun. The amount that it costs, the cost of
	incarceration in a Federal prison across the board.
	Mr. Scott. How much more would the implementation--if we
	passed the bill, how much more are we going to be on the hook
	for, do you know?
	Ms. Avergun. No, I don't.
	Mr. Scott. Does it matter?
	Ms. Avergun. Yes, it matters, but we have to weigh the
	costs to society of not protecting----
	Mr. Scott. Well, actually, we have to weigh the costs in
	spending it somewhere else, because all of the studies that
	we've seen have shown that if you put the money in prevention,
	you'll have less drug use going on and society will be better
	off than if you just increase the penalty for others. So we've
	got to know what our choices are.
	Ms. Avergun. I don't think that in passing this bill or
	enacting legislation that imposes additional penalties that
	that vitiates any efforts or any spending that the Government
	does on prevention or treatment. There are three parts to the
	President's National Drug Control Strategy, each an equal part.
	Mr. Scott. Well, let me ask you, on that hotel case that
	you were talking about, what penalties were available to law
	enforcement for the people you caught?
	Ms. Avergun. The defendant received a sentence of 151
	months based largely on his criminal history.
	Mr. Scott. And how much would he get if this bill had
	passed?
	Ms. Avergun. I don't know the quantities of the drugs
	involved. That would determine largely the amount of the
	sentence.
	Mr. Scott. Well, he would have gotten 15 years under
	present law.
	Ms. Avergun. He got 151 months, yes.
	Mr. Scott. There's a provision in here, misprision of a
	felony, where you don't report a felony and you go to jail for
	it. That would include parents not turning in the children, if
	the children had purchased the drugs, they would be also guilty
	of a crime and they would be turned in with the rest. Has that
	ever been--that's present law.
	Ms. Avergun. There is a crime called misprision of a felony
	and the section that you're referring to, 2(m), is one of those
	that the Department has concerns with and that we seek to work
	with the Committee to address.
	Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, my time is just about up, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Mr. Coble. If time permits, we may have a second round, as
	well.
	In order of their appearance, I recognize the gentleman
	from Texas, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr.
	Gohmert, for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Gohmert. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
	not only being considered a gentleman but being considered
	distinguished. That was distinguished and not ex, wasn't it? I
	wasn't sure.
	Mr. Coble. If the gentleman will suspend, I even recognize
	myself that way sometimes, Mr. Gohmert.
	Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Just curious, are they still using pseudoephedrine in the
	cooks for meth? Anybody?
	Ms. Avergun. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Gohmert. Okay. I was hoping they'd found another way,
	because pseudoephedrine keeps me from snoring at night and it's
	harder and harder to get, but anyway, with regard to the drug
	treatment facilities and schools provision, I realize the
	importance of protecting our children, the importance of drug-
	free zones, just like the importance of gun-free zones to
	protect our children. Let me direct this to Ms. Avergun.
	You obviously are familiar, I'm sure, with the Supreme
	Court case of Lopez where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
	the Federal gun-free zone around the school and said that
	that's the State right. The Feds don't have a right to come in.
	That's State law.
	And, of course, understanding that with this Supreme Court
	that they have shown that they routinely may vote for something
	before they vote against it, or vote against it before they
	turn around and vote for it, they have a real problem with
	precedent, including their own precedent--a little editorial
	comment there--but I'm curious. Do you see or even anticipate
	any Lopez-type problems with a drug-free zone around the school
	or a drug treatment facility?
	Ms. Avergun. I regret to tell you that I'm not familiar
	enough with the Lopez case and haven't performed an analysis of
	the statute vis-a-vis Lopez, but I would be happy to get back
	to you and provide our position on that.
	Mr. Gohmert. Well, I'd be very curious about your position.
	When we're talking about cost and passing a law like this, we
	don't want to be just spinning our wheels, so I'd be very
	curious to see if you feel there's sufficient Federal nexus.
	With regard to comments about drug treatment and saving
	money from people being incarcerated, you folks have obviously
	a tremendous amount of experience, and we appreciate all your
	testimony. My own experience from handling thousands of
	criminal cases as a judge showed me that, if you just lock
	somebody up without any treatment and they have a drug problem
	or alcohol problem, you're going to probably see them again--
	some judge I am if I didn't. If you just treat somebody in a
	30-day program, somebody was 99 percent likely to see them
	again as a judge, even up to 120 days.
	It seemed that the most effective way to avoid my having to
	resentence somebody that I sentenced once, it was to make sure
	they were locked down for an extended period of time and forced
	to deal with their drug or alcohol problem. It seemed to me
	that the combination of those two working together were the
	best things we could do to ensure, number one, protection of
	society, children, and others being lured into that kind of
	life, and also punishment. You know the scenario.
	But does anybody have any statistical evidence regarding
	these things we've been talking about to show that, in your
	opinion, or in your opinion, they justify not having
	incarceration in conjunction with drug treatment or having
	incarceration with drug treatment? Does anybody have any
	statistical evidence? I know we've been talking a lot about
	anecdotal evidence that each of you have.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Mr. Gohmert, there's good statistical
	evidence showing the relative cost effectiveness of a dollar
	spent on treatment as compared to a dollar spent on
	incarceration. Is that responsive to your question?
	Mr. Gohmert. No.
	Mr. Brownsberger. I'm sorry. Then maybe I'm not
	understanding the question well enough, then.
	Mr. Gohmert. Okay, thank you. But with regard to the number
	of people who are sent to incarceration and have drug treatment
	compared to the recidivism rate of someone who simply gets
	treatment, because what you're talking about is different.
	Mr. Brooks. I don't have all of the--probably the level of
	statistics that you would like, but I could tell you overall
	that effective treatment programs are effective at the rate of
	about 55 percent. Those treatment programs that we have seen to
	be most effective are those administered by the drug courts
	that use sanctions, graduated sanctions, to keep their people
	in treatment, to incentive treatment, and when they use the
	power of the bench to do so.
	And so we think--my organization thinks this bill is
	particularly important for that regard, but it's also important
	for another reason, and it's a little hard to put a dollar
	figure on it, and that reason is that we use these tools, then,
	to try to compel people to cooperate with law enforcement, to
	try to then allow us to reach up into these organizations, very
	complex, multi-State, multi-national organizations that, quite
	frankly, even though it's a seedy side of law enforcement, the
	use of informants, if we didn't have the tough Federal
	incentive to compel these informants, we would not reach in and
	break drug dealing organizations.
	When you go after the targets of opportunity on the street,
	you're cleaning up a street corner. But if you're going to
	really have an impact, in my 30 years of experience in drug
	enforcement, the way to truly have an impact is to hit the
	organizations, and to hit the organizations, you need
	information, and to get the information, you need the
	incentive.
	Mr. Gohmert. Carrot and a stick.
	Mr. Brooks. That's correct, sir.
	Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the
	gentleman.
	The gentlelady from California, the distinguished Ms.
	Waters, for 5 minutes.
	Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman and Members, I came in a little
	late, but I rushed to get here because I think this is such an
	important subject that we're dealing with here today. I think
	all Members of this Committee, both sides of the aisle, are
	more than frustrated with the level of drug activity and the
	lack of effectiveness of our laws and our policies as they
	relate to drugs, those who abuse drugs, and those who sell
	drugs.
	I would like very much to be able to join with my
	colleagues in limiting as much as we possibly can the sale of
	drugs near drug treatment centers, the exploitation of
	children, and the sale and transport of drugs, et cetera, et
	cetera. However, I think we may be mixing apples and oranges
	here as we deal with this issue. There needs to be, I suppose,
	a lot more discussion about mandatory minimum sentencing and
	the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing has proven to be
	just a terribly ineffective way of dealing with the violation
	of drug laws.
	We in California, I suppose in other places around the
	country, are involved with drug courts and they are proving to
	be extremely effective. We have learned that with mandatory
	minimum sentencing, we find a lot of low-level drug dealers,
	young people who are not criminals, they're just stupid, and
	they think they're going to make some money dealing in a few
	rock crack cocaines. They end up in prison because the judges
	have no discretion, can't take into consideration first-time
	offense, can't divert them from the criminal justice system,
	cannot do anything to make sure that these young people don't
	become real drug dealers. And so this bill that we are
	discussing does not appear to take all of this into
	consideration.
	Having said all of that, too, I suppose it's Ms. Avergun,
	in your written testimony, you stated that mandatory minimum
	sentences provide a level of uniformity and predictability in
	sentencing. Given what I've said, I want to address you and
	ask, is this what we really want in our sentencing policies?
	Doesn't uniformity and predictability impede on the role of the
	judge? Isn't it the judge's role to serve as a disinterested
	enforcer of justice, who at his discretion can consider
	mitigating circumstances and determine--determining the
	appropriate sentencing for defendants? We've heard from a lot
	of judges. They don't like mandatory minimum sentencing.
	And don't you think we should be involved in prevention and
	diverting people away from the criminal justice system, first-
	time offenders, young, 19 years old, first mistake, five grams
	of crack cocaine? Why do they deserve to have 5 years mandatory
	minimum sentence in a Federal penitentiary where they'll be
	thrown in with hard-core traffickers who probably will
	certainly divert them to being involved in drugs? Can you give
	me some insight on why----
	Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired, but you may
	answer the question.
	Ms. Avergun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Waters, thank you
	very much for your question. There are situations where drug
	treatment is more appropriate than incarceration, and Mr.
	Brooks has testified that a combination of sanction-based
	demand reduction, that's what we call it in the Department,
	coupled with the threat of incarceration is one effective way
	to go.
	However, mandatory minimums do provide uniformity. There
	are studies, one recently cited by Judge Cassell in the Wilson
	case, that said that there are a variety of studies that
	suggest that a drop in crime rate is attributable to mandatory
	minimums, and the Department of Justice abides by that--by
	those studies. That is a critical part of drug enforcement,
	and, in the drug cases, the Department of Justice believes that
	mandatory minimums are appropriate.
	That's not to say that judges should never have discretion.
	That's not to say that treatment and prevention are not both
	critical components of the drug control strategy of which drug
	enforcement is the third part. But all play a part. In the
	majority of cases, the Department of Justice does believe,
	however, that mandatory minimums are appropriate and there are
	studies that suggest that they do deter crime.
	Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to see those
	studies, if we could have a formal request for them.
	Mr. Coble. Ms. Avergun, can you respond to that and make
	that information available to the Subcommittee?
	Ms. Avergun. I certainly can.
	Mr. Coble. I appreciate that.
	The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, is
	recognized for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Forbes. No questions.
	Mr. Coble. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts
	is recognized, Mr. Delahunt.
	Mr. Delahunt. I'll just pick up on my colleague from
	California. You know, that there are, I would suggest, Ms.
	Avergun, that there are more studies, of a substantial order of
	magnitude, that indicate that the relationship between minimum
	mandatories and their efficacy in terms of dealing with the
	drug issue is probably negative.
	You know, I think that most people on this panel would
	seriously consider supporting this legislation but for, you
	know, implicating into this--excuse me, Mr. Ranking Member,
	except implicating minimum mandatory sentencing. You know, this
	Committee is going to have to deal, you know, at some point in
	time with the whole issue of sentencing guidelines. You know, a
	good prosecutor is able to target, you know, those at the upper
	level, if you will, in terms of a drug syndicate. A good police
	officer knows who the individual is and in terms of presenting
	a sentencing report that the vast majority of judges would
	comply with and accept. It's just part of the job.
	You know, I just think it's unfortunate, you know, and I
	think that there's going to come a point in time when it will
	be opportune to take a look and see what's happened in the
	aftermath of Booker. That will give us some idea in terms of
	the guidelines. But, to shift everything now into minimum
	mandatories, I just don't think it's practical. I just really
	don't think it makes a lot of sense and doesn't get us anywhere
	in what I think is an objective that we all share.
	So, you know, I think that's a message you can take back. I
	mean, at some point in time, Congress is going to be faced,
	too, I presume, with a request for more monies for the war on
	drugs as it is defined in Plan Colombia. What are we seeing in
	the--let me address this probably to Officer Brooks. How many
	addicts do we have in the country today, hard-core addicts that
	are responsible for a disproportionate number--how many hard-
	core addicts----
	Mr. Brooks. You know, when I was 40, I knew the answer to
	that question, but somehow after I turned 50, it's somewhere up
	in the recesses here, but I can't tell you.
	Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Brownsberger?
	Mr. Brownsberger. The truth is that no one knows because
	this is a hidden behavior and it depends on the model that one
	chooses and there are parameters in that model that are very
	hard to estimate. But the numbers that we've seen are anywhere
	between two and six million.
	Mr. Delahunt. Okay. I want to--I think we all want results,
	whatever the mechanism is, and I think it's really important
	that the Department of Justice, working with academia, give us
	an idea before we continue to spend a lot of money in a
	wasteful way. Are we making a difference in terms of reducing
	the number of addicts in this country?
	I agree with you, Mr. Brooks. I mean, I think I have, and I
	would hope at some point in time to convince the Chairman to
	come to Cape Cod, probably around the summertime, and sit and
	observe a drug court that we have there and a treatment center
	that we have there that is incredibly effective. We know the
	answers at this point in time. But you know, we need--we need
	some accurate data and empirical information, because we can't
	keep pouring money into initiatives that will not end up--will
	not allow us to sufficiently gauge whether we're winning. We
	don't know whether we're winning.
	But I'm going to start asking that question on every dollar
	that we spend in terms of--on both sides of the equation, both
	the supply and the demand reduction side. We're going to start
	to need some good statistics. My memory was three million.
	Maybe it's just cocaine addicts. But, you know, we need to know
	that. We need to have benchmarks. And if we start to see a
	reduction in the number of addicts, we're going to see, I dare
	say, a huge reduction in terms of the incidence of drug-related
	crime.
	Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman, and I thank you for your
	invitation to go to Cape Cod, Bill. I'll talk to you about that
	later.
	Folks, with the indulgence of the witnesses and the
	indulgence of my members, let me make this proposal. We have
	two bills to mark up today and a reporting quorum is nine warm
	bodies. We have those nine. Often times, it's easier to get
	into Fort Knox than it is to get a working quorum--a reporting
	quorum here, so if no one objects, I want to go ahead and mark
	these two bills up while we have the nine members here, and
	then we'll get back to the witnesses.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object?
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman is recognized.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object
	only to suggest that I understand what the Chairman is going to
	do. But with my experience both as Attorney General of the
	State of California, serving on the national commission
	established by the first President Bush on model State drug
	laws, and having, in my position as Attorney General, run the
	Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement of the State of California, I
	feel inadequately prepared to vote on the bill today. So I'm
	just telling the Chairman that I would have some difficulty on
	this.
	The Chairman must proceed as he must proceed. But frankly,
	Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Brooks, who used to be one of my top
	agents, testifies that the most effective thing we have done in
	California is with drug courts and I'm being asked to vote on a
	bill that largely occupies the field with no reference to the
	Federal courts for drug courts, I, frankly, have grave
	difficulty doing that.
	So with that, I'll be happy to----
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman from----
	Mr. Lungren. I'll be happy to yield.
	Mr. Coble. Mr. Lungren, I will--let me float this out. You
	are referring, I presume, to the bill before us now, 1528.
	Mr. Lungren. Yes, sir, I am.
	Mr. Coble. All right. We also have scheduled to mark up the
	gang bill. Do you have any problem with that, Mr. Lungren?
	Mr. Lungren. I do not have----
	Mr. Coble. Or does anyone have any problems with that? All
	right, why don't we move----
	Mr. Scott. I have problems with it, but I don't know if----
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Coble. And by the way, and this is a pertinent point
	that I failed to mention, I am told that there are no
	amendments to be submitted to either of these bills. Otherwise,
	I wouldn't have done this.
	Well, let's move along, then, on the gang bill, and we will
	hold the bill before us, and I thank you, Mr. Lungren, for your
	comments.
	[Whereupon, the Subcommittee proceeded to other business.]
	[Hearing resumed after markup of H.R. 1528.]
	Mr. Coble. We can now return to business at hand and the
	gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, is recognized for 5
	minutes.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions.
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
	Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief, and I
	want to apologize to the panel for just arriving from my
	district a little while ago. I will review the testimony in
	full. I just have one question for Ms. Avergun, if I could.
	We've heard a great deal about sentencing guidelines, but
	in terms of deterring drug trafficking and distribution, in
	your opinion, do you believe the mandatory minimums included in
	H.R. 1528 will be more effective than the sentencing
	guidelines, and if so, why?
	Ms. Avergun. Thank you, Representative Chabot. The
	Department of Justice is happy to use all the tools in its
	arsenal to deter crime. Mandatory minimums deter crime and the
	guidelines, advisory though they are, deter crime. The threat
	of high sentences causes people to cooperate. There is no two
	ways about it. I was a line prosecutor for 12 years in New York
	and the threat of both the high guideline sentences and the
	mandatory minimums are what worked for a prosecutor. So there
	is no either/or here. They are both critical tools in a
	prosecutor's arsenal.
	Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I have no further
	questions, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
	The gentleman from California, Mr.--oh, I haven't
	recognized you, Dan? I'm sorry. The gentleman from California
	is recognized for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
	to welcome all the panelists here, particularly Mr. Brooks,
	with whom I had a working relationship for 8 years and who's an
	outstanding member of the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement in
	the State of California and was involved in many different law
	enforcement enterprises and is very knowledgeable on this
	subject.
	I happen to agree with him that we have an effective means
	by which we deal with a significant number of people that we
	find who are violating our drug laws, and that's the drug
	courts. I was one of those who was not in support of drug
	courts initially, but after reviewing them and seeing their
	successes and personally visiting a number of drug courts in
	California, I'm convinced of their utility. And I have some
	concern about the bill that's before us because I don't
	understand, frankly, how the drug court proposition fits into
	the Federal model currently, and maybe the representative from
	DEA could give me some advice on that.
	Ms. Avergun. I don't think that we read this bill to
	preclude or exclude the applicability of drug courts. Drug
	courts are generally for users, people who need treatment----
	Mr. Lungren. I understand that, but what I'm asking you is,
	do we have drug courts on the Federal level?
	Ms. Avergun. There certainly are drug courts on the Federal
	level. There is sanction-based demand reduction as a critical
	component of the Federal drug strategy.
	Mr. Lungren. And are the Federal drug courts available
	throughout the United States?
	Ms. Avergun. I don't have an exact number of where they are
	available, but they are available throughout the country. I
	just couldn't tell you in which Federal districts they are
	currently available.
	Mr. Lungren. Okay. Mr. Brownsberger, as I understand it
	from the map that you've shown us, virtually that entire
	community would be covered if we extended it 1,000 feet, that
	is, locating schools, parks, and treatment centers.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Yes.
	Mr. Lungren. My question to you is, do you find a utility
	in us having at least some measure of additional penalty, and
	therefore deterrent, around such places as parks, schools, and
	treatment centers?
	Mr. Brownsberger. I think it makes sense, but it has to be
	at a much narrower radius.
	Mr. Lungren. What would you suggest? You said you don't
	agree with 1,000.
	Mr. Brownsberger. A hundred feet would be reasonable.
	That's a----
	Mr. Lungren. What would that take us in terms of blocks?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Half a block, a block. It depends on the
	size of the block. But that's sort of the area--that would keep
	people well off the premises. That would be a meaningful
	deterrent for preying on the people involved in those
	institutions.
	Mr. Lungren. Well, if we're talking about schools, we're
	talking about--or parks, we're talking about young people not
	only there but close to there, that is, on their way to and
	from. Does 100 feet make more sense than 1,000 feet if what
	we're trying to do is protect our children?
	Mr. Brownsberger. It does, because 1,000 feet--this is just
	the schools. It doesn't include all those other things on that
	laundry list. But that covers most of the community. So the
	effect of 1,000 feet is to create the whole world as a drug-
	free zone, and, therefore, you're not giving any particular
	protection to your children. Your goal is to give particular
	protection to children, as I understand it.
	Mr. Lungren. Okay. Let me ask Commander Moriarty on that.
	Is there something in the notion that we should give enhanced
	protection to children by designating certain zones in
	communities that will allow us to give them additional
	protection by virtue of our definition, or would you support
	such a broad scope that an entire community would be covered,
	as is suggested by Mr. Brownsberger?
	Ms. Moriarty. Well, I think he's right when he states that
	the goal is to protect the children in the areas of the schools
	and the drug treatment facilities, and so, when we are doing
	our enforcement, it's actually more of an enhancement for the
	penalties to actually meet some of the sentencing enhancements
	to put some of the people in jail that we're using it for.
	Mr. Lungren. Right, but what I'm asking you, conceptually,
	do you think that's a good notion? Is that a good enforcement
	tool that you do have certain defined areas you're telling the
	drug dealers to stay out of?
	Ms. Moriarty. I do. I do believe that that's important. I
	don't know that 100 feet is enough----
	Mr. Lungren. What if you have 1,000 feet and by application
	of the map----
	Ms. Moriarty. Then you have everything----
	Mr. Lungren.--it covers everything. Does that defeat the
	proposition or do you think that still is worthy? I'm trying to
	figure this out and I'm trying to ask your help, because you're
	there doing it all the time.
	Ms. Moriarty. Well, sir, I can only answer that when we are
	within 1,000 feet of a school, it is a deterrence because the
	children are walking up and down that area. I mean, I see what
	we're saying as far as then the whole entire neighborhood
	becomes, or the whole city becomes covered under his map. But
	it is a tool that we use to keep people off of the property,
	and I do believe it is a deterrence.
	Mr. Lungren. What do you think about drug courts?
	Ms. Moriarty. I think drug courts are an exceptional
	option.
	Mr. Lungren. I don't know what that means. Does that mean
	good or bad?
	Ms. Moriarty. Good. In the State level for us in Colorado,
	I mean, there are times when we go into Federal sentencing, but
	more so when we get a chance to stay State and local, drug
	courts are a huge part of what the National Alliance is because
	it eventually can help the user and maybe bring the families
	back together.
	Mr. Lungren. This bill has a mandatory minimum life
	sentence for someone who is over 21 convicted on the second
	time of dealing drugs to someone under 18, mandatory minimum
	life sentence. Ms. Avergun, is that appropriate? Would that
	help or not help us in our ratcheting up? I'm one of those who
	wants to ratchet up, but I want to know how far I should
	ratchet up.
	Ms. Avergun. I think it depends on a case-by-case basis
	whether it's appropriate.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brooks?
	Mr. Brooks. I also agree, it is very appropriate in some
	instances where the person, where these drug dealers are
	extremely predatory and where they have a history of being
	predators, of using juveniles to facilitate, to be lookouts, to
	be sellers, putting them in harm's way, taking advantage of
	their vulnerability, their lack of sophistication, their lack
	of maturity. And so I think that's a decision for the
	prosecutor and the courts to decide when it's appropriate, and
	law enforcement, I also think it helps us.
	Thinking back to many cases we did when I worked for you,
	where we used the threat of Federal sanctions, the threat of
	the tough penalties that we can impose if the case were filed
	federally, to then get cooperation, to develop informants, to
	get people to enter into pleas and to really be effective, it's
	a great tool for us.
	There are studies in California and New Jersey that have
	shown that 76 percent of the kids that choose not to use drugs
	consider as part of that choice the fact that there are tough
	drug laws and tough sanctions. When they look at that, I mean,
	having drug laws aren't going to keep people from using drugs
	that are going to use drugs anyway, but they may help make
	people make good choices, those people that are willing to
	weigh their decision. So I think it is appropriate to have
	those sanctions available.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brownsberger?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Mr. Lungren, thank you. I just wanted to
	add a little bit on that notion of 100 feet. These laws say 100
	feet from the real property comprising the school, where
	comprise means enclosing the school. So you have a property in
	which there's a school sitting. Sitting 100 feet off of that
	property is pushing people off of all of the streets that
	surround that property. So 100 feet from the real property
	comprising the institution really does set people back quite a
	ways.
	Ms. Avergun. May I supplement my answer on the drug courts?
	We were able to gather something quickly. There is one drug
	court in the Federal system. It is largely a State court
	product. However, there are 1,600 federally-funded drug courts.
	So the Federal involvement is on the funding level rather than
	on the option for incarceration----
	Mr. Lungren. No, I understand that. My concern is if I am
	here as a legislator making a decision as to what I'm going to
	tell the courts to do and this is in the Federal system and in
	the Federal system, I'm saying to the judge, there is one or
	two things you can do, but we don't have a Federal drug court,
	I don't know how I work that out, how I transfer that court to
	State and have them work it out.
	Ms. Avergun. That can be done. In many instances, the Drug
	Enforcement Administration, for instance, works with State or
	Federal prosecutors. It's a matter up to the agency as to which
	way they steer their cases. If a case is more appropriate once
	it's in Federal court, there are mechanisms to dismiss a
	complaint in favor of a drug court option.
	Mr. Lungren. Would you object to us having more Federal
	drug courts? If we were to raise these penalties but at the
	same time have an option under certain circumstances that you
	could have a drug court option, would you object to that?
	Ms. Avergun. I don't think that anybody objects to the
	concept of drug courts. They are proven. I think that they are
	good for a limited class of people----
	Mr. Lungren. Right.
	Ms. Avergun.--most of whom are not targeted under this
	statute. This statute is really targeting those who violate our
	kids and who prey on our kids.
	Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired, and I
	recognize Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, the distinguished lady from
	Texas. And after her questioning, then we will go for a second
	round, if there are other questions that need to be put to the
	panel. So the gentlelady from Texas, you are recognized for 5
	minutes.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much for his
	charity and I apologize for being in another meeting or
	discussion dealing with our position in Iraq. I thank the
	Ranking Member, as well.
	Let me--I was listening to my colleague from California
	raise a question of, I think I heard, unreadiness. I don't want
	to put any words in his mouth. I know that there is a degree of
	unreadiness certainly on my part on this--on several issues,
	and I know that we've already marked up the legislation dealing
	with the gang deterrence. Let me speak generally, Mr. Chairman,
	about these. I have amendments, but we may have to look toward
	doing these either tomorrow or on the floor.
	I have supported mandatory minimums in the past on certain
	heinous and horrific acts against children. At the same time, I
	am cautious about the implementation of mandatory minimums by
	statute inasmuch as it does not allow the discretion that I
	think is appropriate to a court. It's unfortunate when the
	Supreme Court has questioned the mandatory minimums, which I
	find really wear out their welcome on non-violent criminals
	after a period of time, because after a period of time on non-
	violent criminals, all you do when you go to the Federal
	prisons is see individuals on 10-, 15-, 25-, 30-year sentencing
	based upon an action they did when they were 20 and they're now
	35, 45, 55. They're filling up beds when they could be with
	their family, be rehabilitated. And so mandatory minimums does
	not cause me a great deal of excitement.
	I think when we started looking at the methamphetamine
	issue and we were trying to clean that up in certain regions,
	it certainly gives us a reason to deal with that in a
	legislative manner.
	What I see here, however, gives me pause because seemingly,
	what it does is if two individuals in a non-violent manner are
	engaging in some sort of drug trade, no matter how small it is,
	they wind up in a Federal system and under a mandatory minimum.
	And to me, that seems to be unreasonable inasmuch as we've seen
	crime go down. It does not respond to those who are really
	addicted, both the seller and the buyer, because the seller can
	be addicted, too, seeking to get some money. It has a heavy
	burden on minorities, particularly African Americans. We still
	have not cured, I think, the disease of incarcerating more
	African Americans than others as it relates to drug offenses,
	particularly under crack, and that's still the drug of
	proliferation.
	I don't see the rush to go forward with this without--and I
	heard my colleague talk about Federal drug courts. I don't
	think we have any. I do know that in the Southern District, for
	example, the Federal court system is completely overloaded with
	immigration cases and criminal cases so that the civil cases in
	the Federal system cannot even get inside the courtroom door
	beyond four, five, or six years.
	Crime, as I understand it, has gone down. But treatment
	beds have gone down, as well. So, we're not curing the problem.
	And we have legislation here that now adds an additional
	Congressional--excuse me, criminal parameter, and, therefore,
	does not, to me, answer the solution.
	I'm going to go back with Mr. Brownsberger. You were
	showing us the geographics. I'm raising some points that
	probably have been raised by my colleagues already, and I
	apologize, but I really want you to pinpoint the issue of a
	problem and then a solution. Are we at such a heightened
	problem that the legislation that is before us really answers
	the concern, or by passing the legislation, are we now creating
	enhanced offenses and then more incarceration and really not
	getting to the problem? Are we so devastated by individual drug
	dealers on street corners attempting to influence either those
	leaving a drug location or a treatment center or school that we
	need to put this heavy-handed legislation in place?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you, Representative Lee. In my
	view, the law is very heavy already. We have very, very heavy
	penalties already. You have a lot of people spending a long
	time in jail. We have to remember that these are children.
	We're talking about protecting children, but a lot of these
	young men are children when they get into this trouble. They
	are 16, 17, 18, 19 years old. They are children still. And so
	the law is already heavy-handed enough. That's my general view.
	I've allowed as much as to say that if you targeted
	narrowly certain facilities, perhaps you could address a
	problem. I do believe it's a problem, the problem of drug
	dealers coming on the premises of methadone maintenance
	facilities, in particular. That's an issue.
	By the way, I'd like to say, if the Committee were to go in
	this direction of passing this bill, it would have to
	dramatically narrow the definition of facilities involved. The
	definition of facilities here would include individual
	providers. It would be very hard to identify those and for
	anybody to know that they were anywhere near a psychologist's
	office who was providing drug treatment. So it wouldn't really
	have any benefit in that context.
	But a methadone maintenance facility, that's something you
	have people lining up outside. That's something you might want
	to keep people away from. That's a reasonable thing to try to
	do.
	I don't want to suggest that this is necessary to do that,
	though. I do believe that the task of enforcement is the task
	that people face and the laws are already heavy enough. They
	have mandatory minimums. They have heavy penalties and they can
	put these people in jail. The challenge is to put the police
	resources in place to move people away from those facilities.
	And I think, if you don't put those police resources in place,
	then you're just putting laws on the books. You're not actually
	doing anything. So, I think it's really a question of having
	the police resources in place to protect those facilities as
	opposed to locking people up for a longer period of time.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. May I, Mr. Chairman? Ms. Avergun, why
	don't you respond to that. Isn't it more reasonable, what Mr.
	Brownsberger has just said? It makes common sense to me.
	Enforcement is really the issue. What you're doing is, and
	you've got some outstanding staff persons down in Texas that I
	work with all the time. Let me applaud them, the DEA unit
	that's down in Houston, Texas, in particular. And they've got a
	big job. They're dealing with smugglers coming across the
	border. They're dealing with drug cartels, really major issues,
	and, of course, certainly they're dealing with sometimes street
	crime.
	But, the point is, wouldn't it be more effective to give
	the resources to local law enforcement so that they know who is
	scouting out the methadone clinic, who is scouting out the
	school, as opposed to hampering us again with more time, more
	incarceration, and more one-time petty criminals selling
	whatever ounce it is and then they're locked up in the Federal
	system, which burdens the Federal system and allows them to be
	there for 30, 40 years?
	Ms. Avergun. Certainly, more resources to the State and
	locals would be welcome to police these kinds of crimes. These
	people need our protection. But again, it's not an either/or
	proposition. There are cases where people prey on people coming
	out of clinics. It's not just a one-time deal. And, for those
	types of cases where we are dealing with organizational targets
	or higher-level suppliers who are taking the most opportunity
	of the most vulnerable victims, then that would be an
	appropriate Federal resource and appropriate use of the
	statute.
	But it's not that we only have mandatory minimums and we
	target the one-time seller. It is a spectrum, a broad array of
	enforcement options starting from State and local resources up
	to careful targeting at the Federal level. But we do feel that
	these tools are needed in our arsenal.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't think we've changed any of our
	drug laws over the past 20 years, and my understanding is that
	we really have a sufficient series of mandatory minimums on
	drug laws. In fact, we have, a number of us for a number of
	years, have been trying to bring equity to the mandatory
	minimums between cocaine and crack. That has not changed. So,
	apparently, these strictures are still in place. I can't
	imagine that they cannot be utilized for an indictment against
	those who would be part of a cartel. First of all, you have
	conspiracy, the ability for conspiracy.
	You are going to wind up roping in, looping in addicted
	persons who need treatment as well as the one-times along with
	the two times and the three times, and these persons are known
	to be either with no alternative, which I'm not giving as an
	unilateral excuse, but no alternatives in areas where the
	educational system is at a near collapse, that these young
	people are out on the streets with no educational resources and
	background and left to their own devices. That's what we should
	be looking at and funding, alternatives to--or as opposed to
	what we're talking about today.
	Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back. Thank you.
	Mr. Coble. Ladies and gentlemen, let me divert one more
	time.
	[Whereupon, the Committee proceeded to other business.]
	[Hearing resumed for second round of questions, after
	markup of H.R. 1279.]
	Mr. Coble. Now we will return to regular order at the bill
	at hand. Folks, we're going to start a second round. I notice
	that Mr.--well, Mr. Green has already gone. Mr. Scott, why
	don't you start on our second round.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you.
	Mr. Coble. And let me ask the Members, folks, if you will,
	try to adhere to the 5-minute rule because we've kept our
	witnesses here probably longer than they expected, but it's
	still good to have you.
	Mr. Scott?
	Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Brownsberger, you had said that you had some numbers on
	relative cost effectiveness of investing in--the little money
	we have with the result of reducing drug use. Do you want to
	just quickly recite some of those numbers?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Yes. There's a study that was----
	Mr. Scott. Just in general.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you. There's a study that was done
	by Carnegie Mellon--actually, I guess it was by Rand, Jonathan
	Calkins, Peter Reuter, a quantitative study that came out
	several years ago that made an estimate of the quantitative
	reduction in drug use associated with a million dollars spent
	on incarceration, a million dollars spent on treatment and so
	forth, and the ratio of benefits was about 7 to 1, as I recall,
	the treatment benefits to the incarceration benefits.
	Mr. Scott. And mandatory minimums came in last place in
	that study?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Well, that's right, mandatory minimums
	that cause incarceration.
	Mr. Scott. You said mandatory minimums was the least cost
	effective, then regular sentencing came in next, and far ahead
	was drug treatment for heavy users?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Actually, I have to--as I recall the
	study, it didn't distinguish between mandatory minimums and
	incarceration generally. It just grouped those together, unless
	I----
	Mr. Scott. If you could provide that study, it would be
	helpful.
	Mr. Brownsberger. I will do that. Could I just follow that
	just for one moment? It's been said that this bill is
	compatible with drug courts, but really, this bill, it poses
	incarcerations which are so long that they make drug courts
	substantially irrelevant and they do that for crimes which
	really may have--that may be really committed by people who
	should be in drug courts.
	Mr. Scott. But we also have, I think, ascertained that
	there are no drug courts in Federal court, so if you use a
	Federal statute, you've got to be in Federal court to implement
	the Federal statute. So if you use the provisions of the bill,
	you're not going to be able to access drug courts anyway.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Exactly.
	Mr. Scott. Let me--Mr. Brooks, you indicated the importance
	of treatment. Isn't it true there's no treatment in the bill?
	Mr. Brooks. I did not see any treatment in the bill.
	Mr. Scott. Okay. And the present penalties that you have
	available to you ought to be sufficient to hold over somebody's
	head if they're in State court to go to a drug court, to go to
	rehab?
	Mr. Brooks. Well, no, I think that these more aggressive
	penalties do give us a greater tool to incent--as an incentive.
	But more importantly----
	Mr. Scott. Yes, but if you give them that incentive, you
	can't use drug courts because you're in Federal court under
	this bill without drug courts.
	Mr. Brooks. That's correct, sir, but mostly because this
	bill and the Federal drug prosecution statutes don't
	generally--aren't generally aimed at the persons that are
	eligible for drug courts anyway. Drug courts are more of a
	State court initiative because they are focused on drug users
	and persons that are on the fringe of the drug selling arena,
	not on persons that have met Federal thresholds and are fully
	involved in drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, drug
	smuggling.
	These Federal drug laws, including the tough sentences in
	this bill, these are for people that are predators that put
	children at great risk, that put their lives at great risk, and
	not people that are just using or addicted.
	Mr. Scott. If you go get some for yourself and then you go
	get some for your friend, and as an accommodation, no profit,
	that's included in this, too, isn't it?
	Mr. Brooks. You know what, I'm not a lawyer, sir. I'm not
	sure.
	Mr. Scott. Okay. Ms. Avergun, there are provisions in here
	for second offenses?
	Ms. Avergun. Yes.
	Mr. Scott. Is it a second offense if you have--if you're
	charged with a couple of crimes? In our localities, they have a
	sweep, you get caught in Newport News and also in the adjoining
	jurisdiction in Hampton, and you're tried in Newport News, this
	first offense. If you're tried in Hampton without having gone
	to jail in between, is that a second offense?
	Ms. Avergun. I don't know how that would work under this
	statute, Mr. Scott. It would----
	Mr. Scott. Well, you've got life imprisonment if you get
	busted for that second offense.
	Ms. Avergun. Yes. There are very complex rules for what
	counts as a prior conviction to trigger these second offense--
	--
	Mr. Scott. Okay. Since we're talking about life without--
	life imprisonment without parole, is marijuana a controlled
	substance under this bill?
	Ms. Avergun. Marijuana is a controlled substance
	everywhere.
	Mr. Scott. So if you're in a circle and they're passing it
	around, that's all distribution. Get caught twice, what
	happens?
	Ms. Avergun. Theoretically, that would be--if you were
	convicted both times under this statute, that would be the
	mandatory life.
	Mr. Scott. Well, how do you get a predicate offense to
	start off with that second offense? What are the predicate
	offenses?
	Ms. Avergun. I can't tell you what all the predicate
	offenses are----
	Mr. Scott. Is marijuana a predicate offense?
	Ms. Avergun. Any drug felony--for purposes of the predicate
	felony statutes, any drug felony is an initial offense.
	Mr. Scott. Is it other felonies? It's not a misdemeanor?
	Ms. Avergun. Not a misdemeanor, no. It would have to be----
	Mr. Scott. Where is that?
	Ms. Avergun. I think it's in section 851 of title 21, not
	in this statute.
	Mr. Scott. Not in this bill, because this bill just talks
	about controlled substances.
	Ms. Avergun. That's what the law is.
	Mr. Scott. Okay. So if I could, Mr. Chairman, I just want
	to know, if you are distributing marijuana or distributing
	cocaine amongst friends and get busted, that's first offense.
	And, if the arrests come in two different busts or two
	different jurisdictions, you're not sure whether or not the
	second conviction would give you life without parole or not
	under the bill?
	Ms. Avergun. I can't tell you under your facts whether the
	first counts as a conviction that would count as a first
	conviction to trigger the second conviction. I'm just not--I
	don't think that that's been thought through enough by any of
	us at the Department of Justice to tell you----
	Mr. Scott. Well, you don't have to worry. What we've
	thought through is we took a poll, and this bill will help us
	get elected. That's about all we need to know.
	Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
	The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
	Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	If I understand the gentleman from Virginia's question,
	it's the life--mandatory life sentence----
	Mr. Scott. Two strikes and you're out.
	Mr. Lungren.--on two strikes. But as I understand it, as I
	read the bill, it would have to be the same offense. That is, a
	21-year-old, someone over 21 selling to someone under 18. So
	not other----
	Mr. Scott. Two fraternity brothers.
	Mr. Lungren. Two fraternity brothers, one over 21 and one
	under 18. I hope we wouldn't have Federal prosecutors going
	after that.
	Mr. Scott. I think they----
	Mr. Lungren. But let me ask a question. Ms. Moriarty, you
	talked about meth and how it was an eye opener to you, what it
	meant to children. When I was out in California, we had an
	expression which was meth use equals child abuse. Some of the
	worst child abuse cases I ever saw or read about were those
	involving meth users.
	And then the other thing was what you had mentioned was
	that there wasn't direct physical abuse by the parent to the
	child. We found great levels of exposure to methamphetamine or
	its predecessor elements in the children when they did physical
	examinations.
	What have you found to be the most effective way of dealing
	with that? In other words, and I know this generalizes, but in
	these cases where you find children on the premises with their
	parents who are dealing meth, do you find any sense of
	responsibility with those parents, any remorse, any--what I'm
	trying to get at is what do you think, from your experience,
	would be the most effective means of deterrence to those
	parents when they're exposing their children to the meth
	environment?
	Ms. Moriarty. I would say, Mr. Lungren, on the onset of
	that, when we first arrest them, exactly what you said. We call
	methamphetamine the walk-away drug, that they literally walk
	away from everything in their life, to include their own life.
	They don't--I mean, incarceration at that point isn't even an
	issue. I have had several of those that we arrested actually
	thank law enforcement for taking the first step in changing
	their life by putting them into custody, and it does go hand-
	in-hand with what we're trying to do with the National
	Alliance, is to, you know, drug court is important, and if
	they're going to be part of a family again and get clean, there
	needs to be consequences at the same time. So we have found
	that consequences have actually meant something.
	But at the very beginning, I've never seen an environment
	that is more dangerous than those of meth users. The paranoia
	alone, the fact that they don't eat. I've walked into homes
	where they haven't fed their children for weeks, and so it's
	really--it's just a sad, hideous, hazardous environment. But
	like I said, at the beginning, there's no recognition to
	anything. They've literally--we've had addicts give their
	children away, and so that's what we see.
	Mr. Lungren. See, my biggest concern is the kids. I would
	hope that we could salvage the parents, but it seems to me in
	those cases the chances are better that we can salvage the kids
	than salvage the parents. I would love to salvage the whole
	family unit. My question is, what tools do you think we need to
	have in the Federal system to try and do that, first to save
	the kids, and then second--well, first of all, do you think
	it's important, is it possible in your experience to salvage a
	family unit under those circumstances?
	Ms. Moriarty. I do believe that it's important to always
	try to salvage a family unit. I think that the children--you
	know, because they're not great parents, they're still their
	parents, and I think that that's a significant impact that we
	need to have on their lives is as to how to bring the family
	back together. I think----
	Mr. Lungren. So what tools do we need? What tools would you
	recommend, based on your experience, that have been effective
	from the Government's standpoint to help achieve that?
	Mr. Coble. Ms. Moriarty, as brief as you can because the
	time has expired, but go ahead.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, my red light was on as soon as I
	started questioning. I don't know what happened, but anyway----
	Ms. Moriarty. I think that we need to bring, I don't know
	if--I speak from a local level and from doing law enforcement
	and from the Alliance for Children, but I think bringing multi-
	disciplines together. These children need some psychological
	help. I mean, medical, they need treatment themselves. They
	need to understand that this is not their fault, and they're
	our next generation of users. And so I think that that's part
	of our prevention, that is, if we don't put some effort and
	energy into the children, we're just creating, like I said
	earlier, the next 114,000 that are high-risk at use for using
	drugs, if we don't start intervening in their lives and get
	them socially connected and put somebody in their lives who can
	help change that.
	Mr. Coble. Dan, you are correct. Your light was on, so I
	think you still have a couple minutes.
	Mr. Lungren. Thank you, sir.
	Mr. Coble. I stand corrected.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brownsberger?
	Mr. Brownsberger. I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond
	to that, as well. I mean, I, as a drug court attorney, work
	with a lot of mothers and fathers who are addicted and have
	lost their children and have neglected their children and
	deeply regret that they neglected their children. Clearly,
	their children are victims.
	Number one, as a response, this isn't primarily a Federal
	problem. This is a problem for the State and local social
	services, number one.
	Mr. Lungren. But given the fact we're going to have a
	Federal presence.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Well, I'm not--if you take that as a
	given, I'm not sure that's the right given.
	Mr. Lungren. Okay, but let me tell you, we're going to have
	a Federal presence----
	Mr. Brownsberger. Okay. Well, in that----
	Mr. Lungren. --and I'd like to know what the best one is.
	Mr. Brownsberger. I would advocate that presence include
	active support for treatment for children and for treatment for
	parents and for treatment facilities in which children can be
	with their parents, because believe it or not, a lot of these
	children still love their parents. Ripping those parents away,
	sending them for 10 years for the neglect that they've
	committed really isn't necessarily part of the solution.
	Mr. Lungren. Mr. Brooks?
	Mr. Brooks. I agree with Commander Moriarty. It's really
	important that we have the tools to intervene, and it's
	important that we keep the family unit together, but we're not
	always going to keep the family unit together. That's the
	ultimate goal. But, first and foremost, we have to protect
	those kids. So we have to get the child protective services
	folks in. We need to get the psychological folks in. We have to
	get the medical folks in and make sure that we're taking care
	of--I mean, these are ticking time bombs. We don't really know
	yet what the full effect of having these children unprotected
	in these toxic environments for years and years, what the full
	medical effect is on them. We might have sentenced them to
	death and not even known it yet.
	And so it has to be a multi-disciplinary approach triggered
	by law enforcement when they enter that lab site, bringing
	psychological services in, bringing child protective services
	in, helping to reintegrate the family, but understanding that
	we're not always going to reintegrate the family and sometimes
	we just have to then salvage those children.
	Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
	Mr. Coble. And I apologize to you, Dan. I didn't realize
	the clock was defective.
	The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege.
	Mr. Coble. The gentlelady is recognized.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady was kind enough to allow me
	just to--I was unavoidably detained when the Committee voted
	on, I believe, H.R. 1528, and I would like to ask unanimous
	consent that my vote of ``no'' be placed in the record at the
	appropriate place.
	Mr. Coble. Without objection, it will be done.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. And I was unavoidably detained on H.R.
	1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of
	2005,'' and I'd like to have my vote of ``present'' be
	acknowledged and placed in the appropriate place for H.R. 1279.
	I ask unanimous consent.
	Mr. Coble. Without objection, it will be done.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Coble. And the gentlelady from California is recognized
	for 5 minutes. Let's get the clock working. Set that clock at 5
	minutes. Thank you, Mike.
	Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Sometimes, I think we really don't know what's going on out
	there in the streets of America, both in our cities and our
	towns. We talk about these children of drug-addicted parents,
	and I heard some references to the children of parents who are
	addicted on meth. But whether it is meth or crack cocaine,
	these children are extremely vulnerable. They are neglected.
	Oftentimes--well, there is nothing like seeing children who
	actually live in a crack house. I've seen it. There's nothing
	like seeing children who are living with a mother who is crack
	addicted. In the streets, they refer to them as strawberries,
	and they're capable of committing almost any unimaginable act
	in order to get crack cocaine, they're so addicted.
	I have seen many of these children grow up in these
	environments, and many of them are gang members. And I think
	the most dangerous gang member in America is one who has
	experienced their mother on crack cocaine and have seen what
	happens to her in that environment. All the safety nets are
	pulled out from under them and, really, there's nowhere for the
	children to turn. Nobody really cares. Nobody does anything for
	these children.
	When the mother ends up dead or in prison, and if there's a
	mate involved, both of them dead or in prison, if they're
	lucky, there is a grandmother. The grandmother gets no support
	from the State to help with these children, and many of the
	gang members end up being young people who gather together and
	live in vacant houses or with each other and they become the
	family, and they're very, very dangerous. They are capable of
	killing because their rejection and their pain is so profound,
	so difficult. But America doesn't understand any of this and
	does nothing about it.
	So it's almost a joke as we sit here and we talk about
	mandatory minimum sentencing and we talk about whether or not
	we lock up parents who abuse their children who are drug
	addicts. I mean, come on. There's a great disconnect here about
	what really goes on out there.
	I've seen it. I understand it. I'm extremely frustrated
	about it. And this kind of legislation does nothing to help it.
	There needs to be support for children whose parents are drug
	addicted in several ways, and you're absolutely right. Many of
	them love their parents until they die, until the parents die
	before their very eyes, are taken away to prison, and they
	don't know what to do about that.
	Where do we see anything that will provide the kind of
	support for children of crack-addicted parents dealing with
	them while they're still in the houses with some of them, or
	when they have been removed, or when the parents die or go to
	prison? There's just nothing in the system that I see.
	Foster care, maybe, when children are taken away, and when
	they're thrown into these foster care settings, basically, they
	end up perhaps still vulnerable to what is happening in the
	neighborhoods that they are relegated to in these foster care
	situations where they have these kind of problems.
	So I know my time is up, but let me just try and talk
	about, if I may indulge for one moment, about these HIDTAs, or
	the drug areas that are supposed to be targeting resources to
	deal with drug trafficking and all of that. Can anybody here
	explain to me what a HIDTA is, and how it works, and how they
	get formed, and how they get chosen, and what they're doing?
	Yes, sir, Mr. Brooks?
	Mr. Brooks. Yes, ma'am, I can. The HIDTAs, there are 28
	around the country. They are Congressionally designated and
	certified by the Director of the Office of the National Drug
	Control Policy. It brings together, using some Federal dollars
	and State and local dollars, Federal, State, and local law
	enforcement officers in a collocated setting with a strategy
	mostly to focus on drug trafficking organizations, those
	organizations at the upper end. But it also provides support to
	State and local law enforcement working street and mid-level
	traffickers, as well.
	Every HIDTA has an intelligence center so that the law
	enforcement officers there work smarter and better. Every HIDTA
	has technical equipment available. But the biggest thing is,
	the HIDTAs are managed by balanced boards, eight State and
	local officers and eight Federal officers. That balanced
	approach gives the State and local law enforcement agencies the
	feeling of partnership, and what the HIDTA really does, what it
	has truly succeeded in doing is it's brought together law
	enforcement agencies that traditionally would never talk
	together, never work together----
	Ms. Waters. Are they successful in reducing drug
	trafficking and drug addiction in, let's say, Los Angeles, in
	the South Los Angeles area? You're from that area.
	Mr. Brooks. Actually, I'm from San Francisco, but I am from
	California----
	Ms. Waters. Okay.
	Mr. Brooks. It absolutely is.
	Ms. Waters. It is. How?
	Mr. Brooks. Because when you're able to drive price up,
	drive availability down, drive the social stigma, and take--
	HIDTAs are focused at the organizational level, not at the
	street level but at the organizational level, where they're
	able to take down cartel-based, using a partnership between DEA
	and the other Federal law enforcement agencies, in your area
	the LAPD and the L.A. Sheriffs, Hawthorne Police Department,
	you know, all of the 44 agencies in Los Angeles County. They
	come together in big initiatives like L.A. Impact, using
	information run through the L.A. clearing center, and are able
	to focus, then, on those big organizations.
	Tom Constantine, who was the DEA Administrator for a number
	of years, 6 years, just told me over dinner the other night the
	biggest cases that they were able to do in the Los Angeles
	area, big organizations, started, although DEA often managed
	those cases, they started out of one of the L.A. HIDTA-run
	initiatives.
	And so, ma'am, it brings together a disparate group of
	agencies. It makes them all talk the same language under the
	same roof with a coordinated strategy, and they truly do work,
	in my opinion.
	Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to
	tell you this. For those of us who are watching what I
	described to you, don't feel the effectiveness of these
	bureaucratic agency HIDTAs that you just described. We don't
	feel it. We don't see the drug dealers being taken off the
	streets. We don't see you stopping the flow of drugs into these
	communities.
	Crack cocaine has destroyed and devastated--and continues
	to do so--communities throughout this country, and many of the
	gangs survive based on dealing drugs, and you guys don't know
	anything about it--not you guys, but that's a generic ``you
	guys.'' There's nothing happening to break it up. There's no
	undercover operation that's helping to identify where these
	drugs are coming from and how they're getting in there, and we
	suffer. We suffer throughout these communities. We're so damned
	tired of it.
	Mr. Coble. The----
	Ms. Waters. And when I sit in these Committees and listen
	to us talk to each other, it just blows my mind that we don't
	know what the heck we're doing. I'm just--I've had it up to
	here.
	Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired.
	Mr. Brooks, there are 28, do you say----
	Mr. Brooks. Twenty-eight HIDTAs with and counting the
	partnerships along the Southwest border. Thirty-three
	divisions, but 28 designated HIDTAs.
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
	Mr. Delahunt. I mean, clearly, you can see the frustration
	that I know we all share.
	I want to go back to my earlier point about the number of
	addicts in the country, and I think it was you, Ms. Avergun,
	that indicated two to six million.
	Ms. Avergun. That was Mr. Brownsberger.
	Mr. Delahunt. It was Mr. Brownsberger.
	Ms. Avergun. But he's right.
	Mr. Delahunt. But he's right, two to six million. I think
	that what we heard, the frustration of my friend from
	California, is we're operating in the dark. Let me put a
	premise out, that the vast majority of drug-related crime is
	committed by drug addicts. I don't see how we can effectively
	measure whether we're succeeding unless we develop a
	methodology that allows us to more accurately assess whether
	we're successful through a combined coherent strategy--supply,
	demand. There are great programs out there. We know that
	because we know it anecdotally.
	But, I mean, I believe the first place to start, and I
	would hope that the chair and this Committee at some point in
	time would just simply seek to have a panel--and this is an
	excellent panel--that would talk about the methodologies of how
	we measure success or lack thereof so that we can pass and
	support a coherent legislative approach and appropriate the
	necessary funding as opposed to simply just taking a stab.
	I mean, you know, heroin use is up in the Northeast. We
	can't use just simply the standards of availability and price.
	We've got to get to the heart and soul of the matter, which is
	reducing the number of individuals that are addicted to drugs.
	That's the heart and soul, in my opinion. I'd be interested in
	hearing--Ms. Moriarty?
	Ms. Moriarty. Mr. Delahunt, if I might, I think you bring
	up a great question, and that is something that the National
	Alliance for Drug Endangered Children and all of the States
	that have alliances are looking at, as well, is how are we
	measuring success and how do we know if we're doing anything to
	change the lives of these children.
	So when we sat down as a group of multi-disciplines, to
	include treatment, law enforcement, social services, the
	judicial system, psychologists, we started trying to determine
	how do you measure if a child is coming successfully or safely
	out of these environments and not growing up to be our next
	drug addicts and falling into the same system. And part of the
	measurement that we were feeling could be something that we
	could look into is obviously that that's being taken into
	consideration is the reduction of recidivism into the system.
	You know, if drug courts are working, and, therefore, when
	they're under arrest and they've been put into a court and then
	they don't get back, or the education, kids that are now
	graduating from high school instead of dropping out in school,
	and the reduction of recidivism into the social services
	system, because social services is carrying the huge burden of
	all of this----
	Mr. Delahunt. Correct, but that's the beginning of
	establishing a set of criteria to measure if we're effective.
	Ms. Moriarty. Correct.
	Mr. Delahunt. Okay? I mean, that's the issue. If we have
	six million addicts in this country today and we can reduce
	that figure to 500,000, we will see a tremendous decline in the
	number or the incidence of all violent crime in the country.
	Ms. Moriarty. Absolutely.
	Mr. Brownsberger. I'd just like to endorse absolutely what
	you're saying. There's a strong argument that the amount of
	crime--if you multiply the number of crimes that drug addicts,
	who are interviewed, admit committing, times any estimate of
	the number of drug addicts, you get more than the total number
	of crimes that are reported in this country, and so there's
	every reason to believe that drug addiction accounts for the
	vast majority of acquisitive crimes--larceny, robbery,
	prostitution, all those crimes that generate income. And so
	they are the best community-level measure, perhaps, of the
	success of an anti-drug program.
	Mr. Delahunt. Well, we have a Drug Czar, and I asked our
	other panelists in the--you'll indulge me just for another
	minute, Howard. I mean, we have a Drug Czar. We've had a series
	of Drug Czars under both Administrations. I'm not going to--
	this is absolutely non-partisan. But I would hope that within
	that office, there would be an effort, okay, to establish
	criteria, and the one that you allude to, Commander Moriarty, I
	think makes really good sense, the recidivism rate, and
	tracking. We should have long-term studies going on, and we
	should be able in real time, on an annual basis, we should have
	a report, Mr. Chairman, from the Drug Czar on an annual basis
	to come before this Committee to report on the number of
	addicts in this country. That is a single statistic that
	translates into so much. We can talk mandatory sentences. We
	can talk prevention. We can talk treatment. But you know what?
	We're going on our gut. We're going on our gut.
	Ms. Avergun. May I add something?
	Mr. Delahunt. Sure.
	Ms. Avergun. The Drug Czar puts out the National Drug
	Control Strategy, and part of the National Drug Control
	Strategy is reporting results of the President's and the
	Administration's drug strategy. One of the important factors
	that is measured in the Monitoring the Future Survey, which is
	a survey done of eighth, tenth, and 12th graders and drug use.
	And, as you may know, in 2002, the President established
	national goals for reduction of drug use, and, in fact, we all
	together, working together in all our different areas--law
	enforcement, treatment, prevention--have achieved success in
	that. There is a measure of success.
	The survey showed that since 2002, there's been an 11
	percent decline in drug use, and this year, up to 17 percent
	decline----
	Mr. Delahunt. Okay, and that's important, but again,
	getting back--this is the Subcommittee on Crime.
	Ms. Avergun. Yes.
	Mr. Delahunt. Crime--drug crime is committed by drug
	addicts in this country, and that has to be--if we're going to
	make our streets safer, let me suggest this. That has to be the
	target population that we deal with in terms of a substantial
	reduction in the level of violence. I know there's all kinds of
	social reasons, et cetera, for that. I mean, we can talk about
	future use and that.
	But I would like--I would hope, okay, that the
	Administration, and I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could
	just have a panel on the methodologies. You know, Mr. Lungren
	asked some very good questions. I think this is--I mean,
	everybody is saying here, give us parameters. Give us some
	hard--because, if you listen closely to Congresswoman Waters,
	she's not feeling it. She wants to see hard data. We can't talk
	just about availability with driving the price down. We're
	going to be asking this Congress, what's your opinion? Should
	we vote to support what's happening in Colombia or should we
	better spend it on drug treatment programs or social services
	or building more prisons here? I don't know.
	But I want to--you know, I spent 20-plus years myself in
	law enforcement, so I understand the problems of law
	enforcement and the need to do something on the supply side.
	But you know what? We don't really know, and we're not going to
	know until we're in a better position to ascertain the number
	of addicts.
	Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired.
	Folks, as you can tell, this hearing today has generated
	much interest.
	Mr. Scott. Did you want to answer that?
	Mr. Brownsberger. Only if the----
	Mr. Coble. Go ahead, Mr. Brownsberger.
	Mr. Brownsberger. Thank you. I really just wanted to
	emphasize, the number of addicts is a very, very hard number to
	measure and it's not one that we will ever achieve consensus on
	because it is a hidden behavior. And I would just suggest to
	the Committee that the best measure of the number of addicts in
	a community is the property crime rate. That's how you see
	them, is through property crime, and so that is a very good
	metric and one that I have recommended to the use of the
	fighting back communities, the communities that had community
	projects to develop strategies against--to reduce drug use. I
	consulted those communities to develop their methodologies to
	measure their success, and that was my recommendation to those
	communities----
	Mr. Coble. Well, as I said earlier, and I thank you, Mr.
	Brownsberger, this has attracted much attention. Oftentimes,
	Mr. Scott and I will be the only Members here, and I don't say
	that critically because there are other hearings conducted
	simultaneously. But this has promoted much interest, and I'm
	sure it will not expire after we adjourn.
	This problem, folks, and I think every Member has expressed
	it, I think illegal drugs has the potential of bringing this
	country to its knees unless we can get a firm handle on it.
	I thank the witnesses for your testimony. The Subcommittee
	very much appreciates your contribution.
	In order to assure a full record and adequate consideration
	of this important issue, the record will be left open for an
	additional submission for 7 days from you all. By the same
	token, if Members have written questions, they need to submit
	their questions also within that same 7-day time frame.
	This concludes the hearing----
	Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
	Mr. Coble. The gentlelady is recognized.
	Ms. Waters. I'd like to also request--I requested Ms.
	Avergun to give us the information from those studies. She also
	talked about an 11 percent success rate. It just blows my mind.
	I don't believe it. But I'd like to have that study, also. I
	want to know where that information came from.
	Ms. Avergun. Surely, Representative Waters.
	Mr. Coble. That'll be forthcoming.
	Ms. Avergun. Yes, that will.
	Mr. Scott. And Mr. Chairman, we can put--do we have time to
	put items in the record by unanimous--do we need to do that
	now, or is the record open?
	Mr. Coble. The record will be open for 7 days.
	The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]


	A P P E N D I X

	----------


	Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

	Prepared Statement of Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney
	General, and Director, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces,
	United States Department of Justice, before the Subcommittee on Crime,
	Terrorism, and Homeland Security, July 6, 2004

	Mr. Chairman, Representative Scott, and Members of the
	Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today
	regarding the Justice Department's views on H.R. 4547, Defending
	America' Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child
	Protection Act of 2004.
	Protecting vulnerable victims from drug dealing predators,
	particularly those who would exploit human weakness by preying on
	persons afflicted with addictions to drugs or on those who, because of
	their youth and immaturity, are particularly susceptible to influence,
	is a laudable goal and one the Department of Justice fully endorses.
	Last year, Congress made significant strides by enacting the PROTECT
	Act, a law that has proved effective in enabling law enforcement to
	pursue and to punish wrongdoers who threaten the youth of America.
	The Act now under consideration takes Congress'commendable efforts
	even further by focusing on the scourge of drug trafficking in some of
	its most base and dangerous forms: trafficking to minors or in places
	where they may congregate, and trafficking in or near drug treatment
	centers.
	Endangerment of children through exposure to drug activity, sales
	of drugs to children, the use of minors in drug trafficking, and the
	peddling of pharmaceutical and other illicit drugs to drug treatment
	patients are all significant problems today. One need only consider the
	following few examples:

	<bullet> In 2003, 3,625 children were found in the
	approximately 9,000 methamphetamine laboratories seized
	nationwide. Of those, 1,040 children were physically present at
	the clandestine labs and 906 actually resided at the lab site
	premises. Forty-one children found were injured. Law
	enforcement referred 501 children to child protective services
	following the enforcement activity.

	<bullet> According to the BBC, a 12-year-old drug mule living
	in Nigeria swallowed 87 condoms full of heroin before boarding
	a flight from London to New York. He was offered $1,900 to make
	the trip.

	<bullet> In ``Operation Paris Express,'' an investigation led
	by the former U.S. Customs Service, agents learned that members
	of the targeted international drug trafficking organization
	specifically instructed couriers to use juveniles for smuggling
	trips to allay potential suspicions by U.S. Customs. On one
	smuggling trip, two couriers, posing as a couple, brought a
	mentally handicapped teenager with them while they carried
	200,000 Ecstasy pills concealed in socks in their luggage.

	<bullet> More recently, ``Operation Kids for Cover,'' an
	Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
	investigation in Chicago and elsewhere, uncovered a cocaine
	smuggling group that ``rented'' infants to accompany couriers,
	many of whom were drug addicts themselves, who were
	transporting liquified cocaine in baby formula containers.

	<bullet> In Vermont, prosecutors convicted drug dealer,
	Michael Baker, for selling cocaine to, among others, high-
	schoolers. A sophomore honors student who got cocaine from
	Baker began using extensively and started referring friends
	from his peer group to Baker in exchange for drugs. This honors
	student never returned to high school for his junior year.

	<bullet> As reported in the Washington Post, between 2000 and
	2002, more than 200 persons were arrested here in Washington,
	D.C., for distributing diverted prescription drugs and other
	illicit drugs in a parking lot that abuts one of D.C.'s largest
	methadone clinics and is within three blocks of several other
	treatment facilities. The dealers in that open air market took
	advantage of the drug treatment patients--enticing them with
	illicit substances and undermining any progress that had been
	made on their road to recovery.

	The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously prosecuting
	drug trafficking in all of its egregious forms, whether it be a top-
	level international narcotics supplier or a street-level predator who
	tempts a child or an addict with the lure of intoxication or the
	promise of profit.
	We have had some successes. Statistics maintained by the Department
	of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys indicate that,
	in the last two years alone, we have had over 400 convictions under
	Title 21, Sections 859, 860 and 861, of persons engaged in drug
	activity involving minors. Moreover, statistics maintained by the U.S.
	Sentencing Commission indicate that, between 1998 and 2002,
	approximately 300 defendants were sentenced annually under the
	guideline that provides for enhanced penalties for drug activity
	involving minors or in protected locations. But our tools are limited.
	And we have no specific weapon against those who distribute controlled
	substances within the vicinity of a drug treatment center.
	The people who would sink to the depths of inhumanity by targeting
	their trafficking activity at those with the least ability to resist
	such offers are deserving not only of our most pointed contempt, but,
	more importantly, of severe punishment. The Department of Justice
	cannot and will not tolerate this conduct in a free and safe America,
	and that is why the Department of Justice stands firmly behind the
	intent of this legislation to increase the punishment meted out to
	those who would harm us, our children, and those seeking to escape the
	cycle of addiction.
	I would like to spend a few minutes talking specifically about
	mandatory minimum sentences and, in particular, the mandatory minimum
	sentence provisions of H.R. 4547.
	The Justice Department supports mandatory minimum sentences in
	appropriate circumstances. In a way sentencing guidelines cannot,
	mandatory minimum statutes provide a level of uniformity and
	predictability in sentencing. They deter certain types of criminal
	behavior determined by Congress to be sufficiently egregious as to
	merit harsh penalties by clearly forewarning the potential offender and
	the public at large of the minimum potential consequences of committing
	such an offense. And mandatory minimum sentences can also incapacitate
	dangerous offenders for long periods of time, thereby increasing public
	safety. Equally importantly, mandatory minimum sentences provide an
	indispensable tool for prosecutors, because they provide the strongest
	incentive to defendants to cooperate against the others who were
	involved in their criminal activity.
	In drug cases, where the ultimate goal is to rid society of the
	entire trafficking enterprise, mandatory minimum statutes are
	especially significant. Unlike a bank robbery, for which a bank teller
	or an ordinary citizen could be a critical witness, typically in drug
	cases the only witnesses are drug users and/or other drug traffickers.
	The offer of relief from a mandatory minimum sentence in exchange for
	truthful testimony allows the Government to move steadily and
	effectively up the chain of supply, using the lesser distributors to
	prosecute the more serious dealers and their leaders and suppliers.
	The Department thinks that mandatory minimum sentences are needed
	in appropriate circumstances, and we support the specific mandatory
	minimum sentences proposed in H.R. 4547. These sentences are entirely
	appropriate in light of the plight of drug-endangered children
	throughout this country.

	SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WITHIN H.R. 4547

	I would now like to turn to some specific provisions within the
	proposed legislation that the Department of Justice finds particularly
	noteworthy and offer some comments which might prove useful as the
	Committee continues to consider this bill.
	Before doing so, however, I must reserve opinion, in light of
	Blakely v. Washington--a Supreme Court case decided just two weeks
	ago--on those sections of the bill which propose to directly amend the
	sentencing guidelines, Having reserved opinion on the particular
	language of these sections, I will say that the Department of Justice
	supports the concepts and policies behind the proposed legislative
	amendments.

	Section 3 : Fairness in sentencing: assuring traffickers in large
	quantities of drugs receive appropriate sentences and denying
	double sentencing benefits
	The Department of Justice favors eliminating the guidelines offense
	level limitation that applies to drug traffickers who play a mitigating
	role in the offense. We believe that there is no need for such an
	offense level ``cap'' and that the federal statutes and the otherwise
	applicable sentencing guidelines appropriately allow for the
	consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. Moreover, we
	believe that, in most cases, the controlled substance quantity is an
	important measure of the dangers presented by that offense because,
	even without other aggravating factors, the distribution of a larger
	quantity of a controlled substance results in greater potential for
	greater societal harm than the distribution of a smaller quantity of
	that substance.
	We acknowledge that the Sentencing Commission has undertaken to
	lessen the impact of this offense level cap. Pursuant to proposed
	guidelines amendments submitted to Congress and published in the
	Federal Register in May of this year, the Commission would apply a
	higher cap to the initially higher offense levels. For the reasons set
	forth above, however, we do not believe that this proposal sufficiently
	addresses our concern that the significance of drug quantity be
	adequately taken into account and the defendant not receive multiple
	benefits based on his lesser role in the offense.

	Section 5: Conforming guideline sentencing to conspiracy law
	We agree that the scope of accountability for co-conspirator
	conduct under the sentencing guidelines should be coextensive with such
	accountability for purposes of criminal liability generally. We also
	agree that a conspirator can be held accountable for acts of co-
	conspirators, in addition to his own conduct. Defendants, therefore,
	should be accountable for all conduct occurring during the course of
	the conspiracy that was reasonably foreseeable and in furtherance of
	the conspiracy.

	Section 6: Assuring limitation on applicability of statutory minimums
	to persons who have done everything they can to assist the
	Government
	We strongly support the proposed amendment to 18 U.S.C.
	Sec. 3553(f), insofar as it would require Government certification that
	the defendant has timely met the full disclosure requirement for the
	safety valve exemption from certain mandatory minimum sentences.
	We certainly understand the concerns that prompted this proposal.
	Our prosecutors rightfully complain that courts often settle for
	minimal, bare-bones confessional disclosures and, in some cases,
	continue sentencing hearings to afford a defendant successive tries at
	meeting even this low standard. The Department of Justice thus is aware
	that some courts and defendants have too liberally construed the safety
	valve and have applied it in circumstances that were clearly
	unwarranted and where no beneficial information was conveyed. For these
	reasons, we strongly support the prosecutor certification requirement.
	Requiring courts to rely on the Government's assessment as to
	whether a defendant's disclosure has been truthful and complete would
	effectively address the problems prosecutors have encountered with
	respect to application of the safety valve.

	Section 9: Assuring judicial authority consistent with law in
	sentencings
	The Department has a number of concerns with regard to the proposed
	amendments to Rule 11. Notably, we have been working with Committee
	staff to alleviate such concerns and look forward to continuing this
	dialogue.

	Section 10: Mandatory detention of persons convicted of serious drug
	trafficking offenses and crimes of violence
	The Department agrees with the principle that, in almost all
	circumstances, a defendant who has been found guilty should be
	immediately detained. We also acknowledge that the circumstances in
	which release pending sentencing or appeal is necessary are extremely
	limited. Nevertheless, we cannot support this proposal to the extent it
	requires Government certification as to a defendant's cooperation and
	precludes release pending appeal. Even with sealed pleadings, a
	defendant's intention to cooperate would be much more apparent under
	this provision, and this likely would have an adverse impact on a
	defendant's willingness to cooperate, on the value of the cooperation,
	and on the safety of the defendant. By foreclosing the possibility of
	release for circumstances other than cooperation and, thereby,
	telegraphing a defendant's intention to assist the Government, this
	proposal would severely diminish the value of one of our most useful
	investigative and prosecutorial tools. Moreover, this is a tool that we
	employ not simply post-conviction but, sometimes, pending appeal as
	well. A prosecutor should not be prohibited from seeking release after
	sentencing, if the particular circumstances of the case so warrant.

	CONCLUSION

	We again thank you for this opportunity to share our views. I will
	be pleased to answer any questions the members of the Subcommittee may
	have.
	Article entitled ``Drug Market Thrives By Methadone Clinics,'' Serge F.
	Kovaleski, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, August
	12, 2002

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Article entitled ``Probe Confirms Dealing of Drugs Near D.C. Clinics,''
	Monte Reel, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, July 7,
	2004

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Article entitled ``Kids Caught in Meth Lab Pressure Cooker,'' Sarah
	Huntley, News Staff Writer, Rocky Mountain News, March 15, 2002

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Supplemental material from William N. Brownsberger, Associate Director,
	Public Policy Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Supplemental material from Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police Department,
	Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug Task Force, and
	President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Brochure submitted by the National Alliance for
	Drug Endangered Children

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Position Paper of the American Bar Association (ABA)

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Letter from coalition of organizations expressing their views on H.R.
	1528, ``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug
	Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable F. James
	Sensenbrenner, Jr., and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Letter from former United States Attorneys and Department of Justice
	officials expressing their views on H.R. 1528, ``Defending America's
	Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act
	of 2005,'' to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., and the
	Honorable Bobby Scott

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Letter from Thomas W. Hiller, II, Chair, Legislative Expert Panel,
	Federal Public and Community Defenders, to the Honorable Howard Coble,
	and the Honorable Bobby Scott

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Letter from teachers of law expressing their views on H.R. 1528,
	``Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment
	and Child Protection Act of 2005,'' to the Honorable F. James
	Sensenbrenner, Jr., and the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Letter from Frank O. Bowman, III, M. Dale Palmer Professor of Law,
	Indiana University School of Law, to the Honorable Howard Coble, and
	the Honorable Bobby Scott

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Response to post-hearing questions from Lori Moriarty, Thornton Police
	Department, Thornton, Colorado, Commander, North Metro Drug Task Force,
	and President, Colorado's Alliance for Drug Endangered Children

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

	Response to post-hearing questions from Ronald E. Brooks, President,
	National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC)

	<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


	<all>

	</pre></body></html>