METH FIGHT GETS MORE FUNDING

WASHINGTON -- Meth is addicting. So are congressional earmarks. Both
can be unhealthy, in their own fashion.

On Tuesday, a powerful House committee approved a Justice Department
spending bill that includes $99 million for meth-fighting grants. In
a sign that methamphetamine has captured congressional attention, the
grants rise 66 percent above this year's level.

"The bill includes new investments to fight the national epidemic of
methamphetamine abuse," declared Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.

Wolf chairs the House panel responsible for the Justice and Commerce
departments and other agencies that rely on the $59.8 billion bill
approved by the House Appropriations Committee. The full House could
take it up next week.

But even as lawmakers boost anti-meth funding, auditors and law
enforcement agents alike are questioning how well the money gets
distributed. Sometimes, the pie gets divvied up more politically than fairly.

In a scathing audit, the Government Accountability Office contends
members of Congress have used too many "earmarks" to steer anti-meth
grants to their favorite regions. Consequently, the neediest regions
can get shortchanged.

"It's a very competitive market, fighting for funding for your
program," acknowledged Bill Ruzzamenti, director of the Fresno-based
Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. "Often
times, the key to your success is how powerful your congressman is."

California has done well for itself. The state has received $78.8
million in meth grant funding since 1998, which is far more than any
other state.

Boosted by a united congressional delegation, which includes the
chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Bill
Thomas, R-Bakersfield, the Central Valley HIDTA has also picked up
supplemental funding in recent years. The program fights meth labs
and dealers in the region from Sacramento to Kern counties.

The California funding makes sense, GAO auditors and local law
enforcement officials agree, because the state has long been home to
a serious meth industry.

"California has the worst, by far, meth problem of any state,"
Ruzzamenti said. "We have the whole gamut here; we don't have just
the Beavis and Butthead labs."

But with $214 million in meth grants doled out since 1998, and with
one out of every three members of the House of Representatives now
belonging to the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control
Methamphetamine, the funds flow far and wide.

Earmarks, in particular, benefit some regions more than others.
Through such projects as Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere," proliferating
earmarks have become infamous as a costly show of political clout.
One study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found
the number of earmarks grew from 4,126 in 1994 to 15,977 last year.

"As a result of the significant use of congressional earmarks in the
Meth Initiative, available funding is not always directed to the
areas of the country with the greatest need," GAO auditors noted in
their report issued earlier this year.

Citing the "significant imbalances between the reported meth problem
and the amount of money a location receives," GAO auditors concluded
that earmarking "impairs the ability of the program as a whole to
have a noticeable impact on meth" or other drugs.

"Every once in a while, you see a million or two million dollars
going to some little county you've never heard of," Ruzzamenti said.
"It makes you scratch your head and wonder."

Hawaii, for example, reported only 76 lab seizures between 1998 and
2004. But the state, whose senior senator, Sen. Daniel Inouye, is the
highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee,
received more meth grant funding than almost any other state.

Overall, California's anti-meth spending received a generally clean
bill of health from the auditors. Other states did not.

The Vermont State Police, for instance, reported only one meth lab
seizure between 1998 and 2004. Nonetheless, the state used $3 million
in earmarked meth funds -- primarily, to target heroin dealers. In
Iowa, officials used a meth grant meant for a law enforcement
training center and used the money to offer general training in
topics like interviewing techniques and self-defense.

"However, the (Justice Department) allowed these purchases because of
the grantees' earmarked status," auditors noted. "According to
officials, they did not believe that they were in the position to
disallow the expenditures."

The Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services
division, which oversees the grants, challenged auditors' claims that
some funds were spent inappropriately. Rather, COPS officials cited
the "valuable and successful projects" that have been funded.

These projects include California's establishment of a Western
Regional Training Center, which trains meth-fighters from 13 states.
Justice Department officials, while defending the overall grant
program, did agree to make some changes to comply with auditors'
recommendations. It's only Congress, though, that can decide how much
to keep earmarking.