[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE
JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
JIM KOLBE, Arizona JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JULIAN C. DIXON, California
RALPH REGULA, Ohio ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
TOM LATHAM, Iowa LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DAN MILLER, Florida
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Gail Del Balzo, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, and Christine Ryan
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 6
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Page
Attorney General................................................. 1
Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................. 131
Drug Enforcement Programs........................................ 203
State and Local Law Enforcement.................................. 349
Immigration and Naturalization Service........................... 499
Prisons and Related Issues....................................... 667
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-570 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Alabama
Washington MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
California SAM FARR, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ALLEN BOYD, Florida
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2000.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order.
This morning we welcome Attorney General Janet Reno before
the Committee on behalf of the Department of Justice's fiscal
year 2001 budget request. The Department is seeking
$20,307,000,000 from this Committee for the Department, which
represents an increase of $1.725 billion or 9.3 percent over
current year spending.
While on the one hand the budget request builds upon the
investments that we have made in the fight against crime, once
again it eliminates $1.4 billion in existing programs to assist
State and local law enforcement, which has the potential to
decimate the significant Federal-State partnership in reducing
crime to fund new unproven and undefined programs. In addition,
a number of the new or expanded initiatives you propose assume
the enactment of almost $600 million in new or expanded user
fees, most of which Congress has rejected in the past. Clearly,
your budget presents some very serious problems and challenges
for this Committee.
This Subcommittee and I personally continue to be strong
supporters of the Department of Justice and its law enforcement
agencies. We have provided increases totaling over $6 billion
since 1995, almost 50 percent, to give Federal, State and local
law enforcement agencies the tools they critically need to
fight crime and at a time when we are also trying to balance
the budget.
I am pleased to see that some of this investment has paid
off. Serious crime has fallen for the seventh year in a row.
But our work is far from done. We must remain vigilant to
ensure that this trend continues. We must redouble our efforts
in the war on drugs, and we must adapt to a changing world to
protect our communities and Nation from increasing threats of
domestic and global terrorism and cybercrime. This subcommittee
and the Congress will do our part to provide the necessary
resources to meet these challenges.
While we will continue to support law enforcement, we will
also hold the Department accountable. There are still some very
serious mismanagement problems that need to be addressed if the
taxpayers are going to get the most out of their investment in
the Department of Justice.
The INS budget, which totals almost $4.3 billion,
represents over 20 percent of the Department's total resources.
Since 1995, the Congress has more than doubled the INS budget,
and what have the American people gotten for their money--
mismanagement, scandals, failure. We no longer can continue to
provide the resources to the INS without fundamental change in
the structure of that agency. It cannot and will not continue.
And we must ensure that the significant resources with which we
have entrusted the Department in other areas are being spent
efficiently and effectively.
Madam Attorney General, as always, this Subcommittee will
continue to work with you to ensure that law enforcement has
what it needs to fight crime. We appreciate your being here
today. We will insert your written testimony in the record.
After I recognize my colleague, we will be happy to listen to
your statement, but now let me yield to my friend, Mr. Serrano.
Statement of Mr. Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome.
I first of all want to congratulate you, Attorney General
Reno, on the work your Department has done and to once again
remind you that I stand ready to support you in every way that
I can to make sure that you get the needed resources and needed
legislation to do the work that you have to do. As you know, I
have interests in some issues before you, and I want to take
just a few minutes to speak of them.
First, I want to thank you for the courtesies extended to
the parents of Amadou Diallo and the rest of us who met with
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder last week. Mr. Holder
clearly understands the deep desire for justice in this case,
and I trust that you and your Department will do all that you
can to achieve justice.
While I understand the bar to bringing a Federal civil
rights suit is high, you can also press for speedy completion
of the pattern and practices investigation of the New York City
Police Department so needed reforms in the NYPD can be
identified and implemented. As you know, this situation took
place in my congressional district and has become not only a
national issue but one discussed in other countries well.
ELIAN GONZALEZ
Next, you know my views on Elian Gonzalez' case. I believe
the INS position, which you and the President support, that he
belongs home with his father is correct, and that the delay in
returning him to his father in Cuba is unnecessary and harmful.
I must tell you, however, that the INS has been very
unresponsive to my office on this case. I wrote to Commissioner
Meissner on January 4 asking several questions about the case,
and I have yet to receive any response.
In general, my concern was 2 months ago, and remains, that
by placing the boy with relatives in a community where he had
already become the subject of posters calling him Castro's
latest victim, INS made it highly unlikely that any decision to
return him to Cuba could be enforced. That decision alone has
led to the delays and legal wrangling that have prolonged
Elian's separation from his father; and any psychological
changes, including his so-called bonding with his cousin in
Miami, are the responsibility of the INS.
I am troubled to tell you that I really see no end to this
and no way out. I want to believe that we will do the right
thing and send this child back to his father, but at this point
I think that when Elian is 20 years old we will still be
discussing why he is still here.
In closing, I reiterate my support for the work that you
do, notwithstanding these troubling situations that I have with
the Department; and I stand ready to support you in any way
that I can and look forward to your testimony.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Attorney General, this is your eighth
year of appearances before this Subcommittee, and it may be
your last one. We are not sure about that, because we may want
to invite you back to be with us. But this is the eighth annual
budget that you have presented to us, and although we have had
differences from time to time in the past, I have always found
our relationship, yours and this Subcommittee and mine
personally, to be warm and friendly and cooperative and
helpful. We still have some disagreements about various
matters, but that doesn't stand between our friendship and
respect for you. It has been a pleasure, I must say, working
with you these several years.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman; and
thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Rogers. You are welcome to give us your statement.
Attorney General's Opening Remarks
Attorney General Reno. Thank you. I think it may be the
last time I appear, but if it is not I will welcome the next
opportunity.
It has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. I
have been so impressed by the thoughtful, careful way that you
have addressed the issues and tried to make sure that the
people's money was spent as wisely as possible. And although it
is an appropriations process, and there are days that I could
have done without, in so many instances it has been just a
model of bipartisan thoughtfulness.
The execution of the great majority of this budget will lie
in the hands of another Attorney General, and I will be home in
Miami, but I will care as deeply as I do now about how and what
happens. And, Mr. Chairman, next year I may call you and say,
what are you doing about this?
Mr. Rogers. Are you going to ask me about the INS?
Mr. Serrano. She may be agreeing with you next year.
Attorney General Reno. I obviously care very deeply about
the Department and its mission, and I want to thank all of the
members of the committee who have done so much for this Nation,
for the Department of Justice and for our system of justice.
You pointed out, Mr. Chairman, how working together we have
added Federal agents and prosecutors, put cops on the beat in
our neighborhoods, expanded prison capacity, provided new
crime-solving tools, improved technology, worked to secure our
Nation's borders and helped to train and equip first responders
to address the growing threat of terrorism; and I think we have
shown once and for all that we can take steps to prevent crime
before we have to endure the tragedy of crime.
As you point out, and as a former prosecutor, Mr. Chairman,
I know these figures can go up, but I think we have an
extraordinary challenge because crime has fallen for the
seventh year in a row--every type of crime in every region of
the Nation. Our communities are safer. Yet, as you point out,
there is still much to do. And I think what this committee and
the Department of Justice has been able to do is to develop a
partnership, and we, in turn, have developed a partnership with
State and local officials, that tries to put aside partisan
politics and work together to see what works in the reduction
of crime.
And I think it is working. I think we have a golden
opportunity in this Nation in the next 5 years to keep up what
we have started, to develop professional model policing that is
sensitive and brings a community together rather than split it
apart, that we can do so much if we work together to develop
cybertools, and that we can end the culture of violence in this
country once and for all if we don't become complacent and keep
the pressure on.
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request recognizes
the need for continued vigilance. It includes $23.4 billion for
the Department of Justice, an increase of $1.8 billion.
My written testimony has been made part of the record, and
it will expand on some of the specifics, but I would like to
highlight some of the issues.
COUNTERTERRORISM
Preventing terrorism is one of the most serious challenges
facing our Nation today. The Department is the lead Federal
agency in the fight against terrorism. Because of this
subcommittee's efforts, the Department has many tools to carry
out its important responsibility.
NDPO
In fiscal year 2000, with your support, we established the
National Domestic Preparedness Office and developed a blueprint
for its operation. We will soon be submitting a reprogramming
to the committee for funds to establish the NDPO as a one-stop
shop for information about domestic preparedness that will
serve Federal, State and local communities. And this is one I
can assure you, Mr. Chairman, I won't forget, because I have
watched first responders on the streets of their community
responding in so many different situations.
I now have a nephew who is a firefighter and a first
responder, and I have learned whole new dimensions of the
challenges that they face, and I think this effort is extremely
important in preparing this Nation.
This subcommittee also helped us to establish the Office
for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support and to
develop a process for equipping and training the State and
local first responders to prepare them.
The budget requests an additional $119.6 million to
strengthen our national response to terrorism, combat hostile
intelligence activities and further prepare State and locals.
This has been an extraordinary 7 years because we have
watched the whole potential of information technology become a
reality as we see extraordinary new opportunities in learning,
in communicating, in education around the world, in commerce.
The development and proliferation of the Internet has expanded
our horizons, but our growing dependence on computers has made
us increasingly vulnerable to criminals, both at home and
abroad.
CYBERCRIME
Mr. Chairman, in the time I have remaining, I would like to
work with you and the committee in developing a 5-year
thoughtful plan for the Department and other agencies that
would give us a long-term, coordinated strategy to deal with
the problems of cybercrime. We have got to develop the capacity
to actively investigate and work with our colleagues around the
world to bring these people to justice and to do whatever we
can to prevent cybercrime in the first place.
We need to develop regional laboratories where Federal,
State and local officials share and avoid expensive duplication
in labs that can enable us to search computers pursuant to a
search warrant, and enable us to develop the evidence according
to standards that will permit the admissibility of the evidence
in court.
We must continue to work with State and local authorities
because we are right at the point where enforcement of
cybercrime issues will make a difference for the way we look at
the Internet for a long time to come. If we let people know
what can and can't be done under the law in a fair, appropriate
manner now, we are going to set the tone, the standard, and the
community's reaction to the Internet. State and local officials
all too often don't have the tools to do the job, and we are
going to have to work with them in terms of training and
sharing as we never have before. Our fiscal year 2001 request
for an additional $37 million will provide a base to strengthen
our expertise and form those partnerships.
One model that we have for those partnerships is the
regional computer forensic laboratory in San Diego. This lab
brings together expertise from State and local representatives,
government personnel including the FBI and the United States
Navy, and it serves as a resource in the San Diego area to
solve crimes involving complex computer forensics.
Request For Prosecutors
Improving our ability to respond to crime, including
terrorism, whenever and wherever it occurs, must include
ensuring that there are prosecutors with the expertise
necessary to do the job. Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests
increases of $74.5 million for the United States Attorneys and
the Department's legal divisions. Balance is critically
important in the criminal justice system. The very best agent
will find his or her efforts thwarted if unable to receive, in
a really current way, specialized legal support in times where
speed is absolutely essential.
Community Law Enforcement
Our budget request continues the Department's commitment to
improve community law enforcement efforts and to build closer
relationships between law enforcement and the communities that
they serve. We are requesting an increase of $616.4 million to
improve community law enforcement. Included in our request is
an additional $32.9 million for new initiatives to address
police integrity training, improve diversity among police
recruits and to ensure that our police understand and respect
the cultural and racial diversities of the communities that
they serve.
Congressman Serrano, this is very much a part of this
budget and one that we are very concerned about.
Our request also includes funding for innovative programs
such as Strategic Approaches, an approach which is under way on
a pilot basis in five cities. It boosts the U.S. Attorney's
role as a community problem solver and uses data and
information, combined with thoughtful, well-trained analysis,
as navigational tools so the crime-fighting approaches are
supported by actual data.
Our Strategic Approach project in Indianapolis tackled the
problem of that city's homicide rate by bringing the community
into the problem-solving process, involving the FBI and
intelligence and analysis and improving communication. The
initial results show that homicides are down 36 percent for the
first 6 months of 1999, as compared to the same period a year
earlier.
Offender Re-Entry Initiative
Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that you said in your
opening statement was that we propose some programs which are
new and untried. But sometimes you have to look at what you
have got and figure out how to work together to address the
issue.
When this issue was first brought to us by State and local
mayors and law enforcement, one of the most difficult issues
that we faced, and it has frustrated me as Attorney General, is
recidivism amongst a core group of criminals. A small number
create a significant percentage of the crime. The reentry of
hundreds of thousands of offenders into society upon their
release from prison is a critical public safety issue.
This year, nearly 570,000 inmates will return to their
communities, many with the same problems as when they entered
prison, and most of them will be re-arrested within 3 years of
release. We must address this problem as a public safety matter
with initiatives that are strengthened by the provision of
adequate services through partnerships with the Department of
Labor and Health and Human Services.
The Administration's offender reentry initiative includes a
request for $60 million for DOJ to provide our communities with
resources that will help them manage this threat to public
safety. One component is the suggested establishment of reentry
courts modeled after our successful drug courts. The drug court
offers a carrot-and-stick approach, which says if you work with
us, if you agree to drug testing, if you come out clean, we
will work with you in terms of job training and placement and
get you off on the right foot. But if you don't, you face a
more serious sanction every step of the way.
A reentry court would use its authority to apply graduated
sanctions and positive enforcement in much the same way as the
drug court. The message of the court would be, work with us,
stay clean, stay out of trouble, get a job, and we will help
you in these efforts. But if you come back, testing positive,
if you commit further crimes, if you violate the condition of
your release, you are going to face a more serious punishment
every step of the way.
If we are to successfully address the growing problem, we
must stop treating this as just a problem that nobody is
addressing and recognize the public safety implications. I
would like to work with you, show you what we are doing along
the way, Mr. Chairman, and see if we can't show that this can
work.
CALEA
The increased sophistication in technology has made
significant changes and improvements in the way we work and
live. Just as society as a whole has become dependent on new
technologies, so, too, has law enforcement.
When I came to the Department in 1993, I found a crumbling
technological infrastructure; and I have worked hard to improve
the tools available to our agents and prosecutors. We have come
a long way, but I need your continued support. We request an
additional $358 million to improve our technology
infrastructure, including an additional $105 million to
continue implementation of CALEA.
Under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee has
spearheaded efforts to move CALEA along, thereby helping to
ensure that law enforcement is able to keep pace with
advancements in technology in the new digital communications
environment. We appreciate your support.
I really value and will remember your thoughtful comments
at the outset, and I look forward to working with you in these
months that I have in trying to do everything we can to make
the agencies of the Department of Justice responsive to the
needs of the people of this country, and to make sure that I
can say that at the end of these months I have done everything
I can to help Harold Rogers have confidence that they are
spending it wisely.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FY 2001 Budget Request
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, General Reno, for your
last comments. It has been a pleasure working with you these 7-
plus years.
Now, at first glance, your budget request looks good, 9
percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 for the war on crime
and drugs. Compared with what OMB gave you last year, a modest
1.7 percent, it looks like you did okay in the budget wars
between Justice and OMB.
Upon closer examination with a microscope, the story begins
to unravel. In fact, there are some big holes in your request,
holes that this committee will have to try to find some way to
fill.
First, you eliminate and reduce $1.4 billion that we have
provided for years now to the State and local law enforcement
programs. That is eliminated again in your budget request, and
we have repeatedly rejected your cutting of that program on a
bipartisan basis. So, even before we start, we are $1.4 billion
in the hole, just for openers.
Then there are the fees gimmicks--$600 million worth of
gimmicks repeatedly rejected by Congress in the past. You know
we are not going to do those fees, and yet here we are again.
To make matters worse, a large chunk of the fees are to pay for
INS programs. In fact, 50 percent of the $503 million in INS
increases is dependent on these new fees.
So I guess I need to ask you right off here, are we
supposed to seriously consider a number of items in your
request, particularly for the INS, given all of the holes and
gimmicks that I have mentioned?
User Fees
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the
challenges that we face on the whole issue of law enforcement
is how we work together to ensure continuation of the
principles of federalism, recognizing that State and local law
enforcement are on the front lines and have the primary burden
and that we do not want them becoming dependent on the Federal
Government for the sources of their funds. So we have tried to
work on programs that focus dollars in ways that can make a
difference; and, if proven successful, State and locals can
take them over.
With respect to user fees, let me give you an example.
The Administration is proposing to establish a voluntary
expedited premium service fee for business cases. The service
will provide businesses with a consistently high level of
customer service and improved processing. It will permit an
investment in the infrastructure that is necessary to ensure
the processing. It will permit other resources to be more
fairly used with respect to the whole population. And I think
it makes good sense. But we will work with you in trying to
address these issues and the concerns that you may have.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I agree that the one you mentioned, INS
voluntary premium processing fee, may be the only one that we
can seriously talk to you about, but that is only $80 million.
There is $590 million in other user fees: gun check fees,
airline inspection fees, new cruise ship fees, new fee on
broadcasters. We rejected all of those before, and here we are
again. I assume that these are not something that you requested
but were given to you by OMB and were told to put in your
budget; is that correct?
Attorney General Reno. I think we need to look at these,
Mr. Chairman, and see if you think something is not
appropriately a user fee, that it doesn't permit an investment
in the process that is serving the people, and that it doesn't
provide for a fairer distribution of funds to others, let's
look at it. But I think a user fee, properly structured, makes
sense.
CALEA
Mr. Rogers. Let me switch quickly to the CALEA,
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. It sounds
like a bureaucratic title, but it is a very essential thing.
CALEA is the effort by the government to update the capability
of law enforcement agencies, Federal, to wiretap in a digital
age. Given the switchover from old equipment to brand new
equipment, all of a sudden the FBI, DEA, and other Federal
agencies were unable or would have been unable to conduct a
very important part of law enforcement investigations, and that
is to tap into telephone conversations. It is an expensive
proposition, and we have been wrestling with it now for years,
but it sounds like we may be nearing a solution.
CALEA, of course, is vital to law enforcement, no more so
than in the war on drugs. Can you tell us about how important
CALEA is to the war on drugs? Just give us a thumbnail sketch
on that.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to do so because, from my experience as a local
prosecutor and now 7 years as Attorney General, it is
absolutely critical to the war on drugs. In fact, 72 percent of
all criminal electronic surveillance orders were related to
drug investigations, and the number of such orders have
increased significantly.
Court-authorized surveillance was vital to the success of
Operation Impugnity and Millennium, two multi-jurisdictional,
multi-agency investigations that tied drug trafficking activity
within the United States to the highest levels of the
international cocaine trade. Operation Impugnity resulted in
the arrest of 93 individuals linked to a drug trafficking
organization linked all over the United States. Millennium
concluded with the arrest of 31 individuals, including members
of the original Medellin cartel.
Criminal enterprises are increasingly using advanced
telecommunications technologies to elude law enforcement
efforts, and we are seeing that, Mr. Chairman. Without the
timely implementation of CALEA, we will risk losing this
extraordinarily important law enforcement tool and make it
impossible for law enforcement to achieve some of the results
that it has.
Mr. Chairman, you and I understand, but I would like to
just make the point when we talk about electronic surveillance,
that this is a very careful process done only through court
order after an application and affidavit, that is very
detailed, and steps are taken to make sure that there is full
compliance with the law with respect to such surveillance.
CALEA IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Rogers. Can you update us on where we are on CALEA--
funding, implementation and the like?
Attorney General Reno. DOJ is negotiating with
telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment. This effort has focused on
reaching agreements for the reimbursement of a carrier's
purchase of a nationwide right-to-use--RTU--license for
manufacturers' CALEA compliant software.
Nationwide right-to-use licensing agreements represent our
attempt to minimize the overall cost associated with the
implementation of CALEA, while simultaneously ensuring law
enforcement electronic surveillance needs are being addressed.
DOJ has reached a nationwide RTU license agreement with
Nortel Networks with regard to its major wire line and wireless
switch platforms. In addition, the Department is working
aggressively with Lucent Technologies, Siemens, Motorola and AG
Communications and has reached an agreement on price with all
of the above manufacturers.
With respect to reaching contractual agreements with the
manufacturers for licenses on their switch platforms in the
very near future, we think that will happen. But any agreement
is contingent on the funding.
Another facet of our CALEA implementation strategy supports
carriers' deferred deployment of CALEA software solutions in
accordance with their normal business cycles, for such
deployment will not delay implementation of the CALEA solutions
in high priority areas. This flexible deployment initiative is
the result of the recognition of the issues facing small rural
carriers and represents an attempt to minimize the cost.
Again, I want to thank you for your leadership. And, Mr.
Chairman, if you will permit me just a moment, we hear so much
about government employees and bureaucrats, but you and I, I
think, share the regard for one amongst many, and he represents
the excellence of so many. Steve Colgate has done a beautiful
job, and I want to thank him.
Mr. Rogers. That is very nice of you to say so, and I join
you in that salute. Steve, raise your hand. He has been at the
center of making this happen between all of the conflicting
parties, and this is a huge amount of money that we are talking
about, of enormous importance to the security of the country.
He has been our mainstay and yours as well. And he and Therese,
who formerly worked for this subcommittee and is now with the
Department, have been very important. I want to join you in
thanking them.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, that raises an issue
that we are all going to have to grapple with in the United
States, and that is there are so many wonderful people working
with Steve, but trying to attract and retain people is
difficult, and particularly in the area of cybertechnology,
when they can make so much money in the private sector. We are
going to have to think of new ways to address issues of
cybercrime and cybertechnology through public-private
partnerships and the like, and I would like to work with you in
the next few months on those issues as well.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR CALEA
Mr. Rogers. A subject for another hearing, maybe.
Back to CALEA, on January 10, you asked us to reprogram
$100 million to begin to implement CALEA. It is my
understanding that, even with that hundred million, you would
still have a shortfall this year; is that correct?
Attorney General Reno. We will be unable to fully implement
the two initiatives just described, namely the right-to-use
agreements and the flexible deployment, without the additional
funding.
Mr. Rogers. While the fiscal year 2001 budget asks for $240
million, as I understand it, you really need the money in this
current fiscal year, fiscal year 2000; and, as a result, we
have included funding as a part of the supplemental that will
be taken up by this full committee Thursday and, hopefully, on
the floor next week. How much do you need this year to
implement CALEA?
Attorney General Reno. In order to complete our agreements
with the manufacturers for the right-to-use licenses and to
reimburse the carriers for the deployments of these solutions
that are already available, at a minimum $231 million in
addition to the $100 million reprogramming which will be
required.
Mr. Rogers. If you don't get a supplemental this year, if
this somehow should fall out or not take place, the money we
are placing in the supplemental appropriations bill, what
impact would that have on CALEA and the drug war?
Attorney General Reno. It could be potentially
catastrophic. DOJ and the manufacturers will be forced to
abandon their current negotiations for the right-to-use
license. Manufacturers will have to market their solutions to
individual carriers on a switch-by-switch basis, which will
result in increased cost to both carriers and to the
government.
CARRIER COMPLIANCE IN RURAL AREA
Mr. Rogers. What we are talking about is providing the
equipment so that telephone carrier companies will be able
mechanically and electronically to carry out a court-ordered
electronic surveillance and that this would apply to all
carriers. I am concerned, have been concerned all along, about
the problem that might be facing the small telephone carriers,
particularly in rural areas that are not capitally endowed,
that would be required to install very expensive equipment.
I have heard recent concerns that flexible deployment might
pose an unrealistic and undue burden on these small rural
carriers. They don't have the resources to be able to meet the
June 30 deadline. As a result, they are very concerned about
their liability since they can't comply with these deadlines.
How would you deal with this concern in a way that relieves
unnecessary burdens on these small carriers?
Attorney General Reno. Our flexible deployment initiative
is a simple approach for carriers to inform the FBI of their
planned deployment cycles in recent electronic surveillance
activity. The limited burden on the carrier providing this
information is reasonable.
Small rural carriers, typically located in areas of low
electronic surveillance activity where there is not much going
in terms of surveillance, can expect the support of DOJ for
their petitions before the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) for extensions of the compliance date. It is my
understanding that in those instances where a carrier and the
FBI are in flexible deployment negotiations, that the FCC will
stay the compliance deadline until such time as the agreement
is reached.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I want to continue to work with you on
that to be sure that their concerns are addressed.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, my senior colleague, Mr. Dixon,
has a meeting to attend, an appropriations meeting. If I can
yield this round to him, then you can call on me later.
Mr. Rogers. You are recognized.
Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member.
I want to add congratulations to the very fine job that you
have done over the last 7 years. I think everyone wants an
independent Attorney General until their issue becomes ripe.
And when you don't agree with them, then in fact you are not a
good Attorney General. But I think the fact that you have stood
very tall and administered the Department of Justice in a fair
and equitable way, notwithstanding criticisms from time to
time, it speaks well for your record, and I would like to
congratulate you on that.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION PRACTICES WITH THE LAPD
Mr. Dixon. I don't have any questions as it relates to the
budget, but I would like to submit for the record a series of
questions. And let me touch upon them basically now and get a
response from you later in writing.
The first one is the practices that the Civil Rights
Division initiated with respect to the LAPD, and if you can
respond in writing what the status of that is and when it will
be terminated.
[The information follows:]
Civil Pattern or Practice Investigation of the Los Angeles Police
Department
The Civil Rights Division opened a civil investigation into
alleged patterns or practices of civil rights violations by the
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in 1996. Our investigation
is looking at allegations of patterns or practices of excessive
force and discriminatory policing practices throughout the
LAPD, including allegations of misconduct by the Rampart
Division. We are currently evaluating the information obtained
through our investigation, along with the relevant data
contained in the LAPD March 2000 Board of Inquiry report, to
determine what action by the Department of Justice is most
appropriate. Although this investigation is large and complex,
we will make every effort to complete our work as quickly as
possible.
INS ACTIVITIES IN LOS ANGELES
Mr. Dixon. The second one deals with the INS and its
activities in Los Angeles. I don't know enough about it to make
any judgment about it, and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and I
have met with Commissioner Meissner. I would suggest to you
that there are serious problems with the INS in Los Angeles,
not necessarily with the way that they have implemented policy
but in management and the rank and file members, and I would
encourage you to look at that.
The first stories broke, the INS was pointing the finger at
the LAPD. Then they said, the FBI made us do it. The most
recent discovery is that there is a memo talking about their
participation and how they could be cooperative. I think there
are some serious problems out there, and I would encourage you
to look at them.
[The information follows:]
Investigation in Los Angeles
The INS' Office of Internal Audit (OIA) is conducting an
investigation to establish the facts surrounding INS and Los
Angeles Police Department enforcement activity connected to the
``18th Street Gang'' in Los Angeles. Some of the issues being
investigated have been raised in the media, including
allegations that INS officials did not act upon reports of Los
Angeles Police Department mistreatment of individuals
apprehended during that enforcement activity. The OIA is aware
of the references made to an ``INS report'' in the media, and
has included authenticating that report in its planned
investigative activity. Due to the fact that the Department of
Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG), at the request of
the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of
California, has recently initiated investigative activity,
which overlaps that planned by the OIA, the OIA is holding in
abeyance interviews of INS employees who could possibly
identify and authenticate the report. The OIA will resume its
investigation as soon as the OIG has concluded its work.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS
Mr. Dixon. The third issue deals with confidential
informants. You may or may not be aware that I am interested in
the whole confidential informant program of the DEA for over a
year, based on some reports that have been published. But, most
recently, a Los Angeles times article on Thursday or Friday of
last week talked about a person who has made over $2 million
being a confidential informant, and his credibility was
attacked. I would like to feel that I can use you as a resource
from time to time, perhaps, if the DEA is not as cooperative as
I would anticipate--thus far, they have been very cooperative,
but I am concerned about the confidential informant program. I
don't know that it is not working properly, but there have been
some red flags which have been raised.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attorney General Reno. Congressman, thank you. We will give
you the details in response to your questions, every detail
that we can consistent with the pattern and practice
investigation--the fact that it is pending. I will follow up.
We are reviewing the INS participation and looking at that very
carefully, and we will try to keep you as appropriately
informed as we can.
I am very concerned about the CI policy. I will tell you
that the acting administrator of DEA has been very responsive
and very keen on this issue. We are looking at it very
carefully. It has arisen now in a number of different
situations with respect to the same CI, and I am very concerned
about it and expect to pursue it.
Mr. Dixon. A postscript there, I am concerned about that
case, but you may be aware that I am concerned about another
case where a confidential informant has been used over and over
again and I suspect inappropriately. I would like to know that
I could at least call on you when DEA resists in coming forth
with what I would think an appropriate manner, and perhaps you
can arbitrate that for me.
Attorney General Reno. Our concern is not with respect to
just the one case, it is a concern with respect to payments and
everything.
Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kolbe.
User Fee Legislation
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Reno, welcome to this subcommittee once
more and, as you said, possibly for your last time. We
certainly appreciate your being here and, I think, the good
relationship we have had with you.
Let me start on following up with something that Chairman
Rogers was talking about with the fees and the gimmicks as he
referred to them, I think correctly, that are in this budget
submission.
We have had this problem every year in Congress, and
Congress has not gone along with these. So my question to you
is, rather than just submitting this budget submission this
year with these things in there, will there be follow-up or has
the Administration submitted legislation for these fee
increases to the authorizing committee? Can you tell me whether
the Justice Department intends to work with the authorizing
committees to draft legislation for this?
Attorney General Reno. Let me just make sure that I can
give you the--Mr. Kolbe, if I may, let us clarify just where
each one is. Mr. Colgate advises me that some are contained in
the general budget document itself, but I will get back to you
this week with the specifics.
Mr. Kolbe. You don't know whether there has been specific
communication with the authorizing committee on these specific
proposals asking for legislation to be introduced or you have
submitted to ranking members for submission of legislation and
asking for a hearing yet?
Attorney General Reno. I don't think it has, but I will
verify that.
Mr. Kolbe. That is the problem. In the case of my
subcommittee, the Treasury Postal, it is Customs where last
year massive fee increases were proposed, and then there was no
follow-up. So there was no real intention on the part of the
Administration to really pursue these fees or some would call
it tax increases; and that is why I think it is not unfair to
describe them as gimmicks since they are just in the budget but
there is no intention to really seeing them enacted into law. I
don't believe that Congress would follow through anyhow, but I
think the Administration needs to make a good-faith effort if
they intend to fund a large part of the Justice Department's
budget with these kinds of fees.
Attorney General Reno. Let me review that.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Legislation on INS Fee Accounts
We plan to and will consult with the Committees on the
Judiciary on the proposed changes in statutory fee language and
the resulting proposed increases in fees.
However, fee-related Immigration and Nationality Act
changes have been made in appropriations bills in past years,
and we did not think it was inappropriate to suggest these
changes in the FY 2001 appropriations bill. Particularly when
these changes are pertinent to the planning and appropriating
of INS funding in light of the limited resources available in
FY 2001.
Title III: Americans With Disabilities Act
Mr. Kolbe. A question on Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and you may not be able to address this at
the moment, but it is a matter of some concern.
ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with
disabilities in places of public accommodation, and that has
been defined by regulations which were promulgated 9 years ago
as saying that public accommodation must take steps to make
sure that no individual with a disability is denied services or
treated differently than other individuals.
And a public accommodation has been defined to include a
doctor's office. The question arises here in the case of this
particular constituent, and I have since learned there are a
number of similar inquiries, is just how far medical
professionals must go in providing interpreters in particular
situations? In other words, they can't be denied medical
service because of their disability or lack of an interpreter,
but if they have one at all times it is obviously a tremendous
expense, but by not providing an interpreter they can open them
themselves up to litigation. There has been some effort by the
medical profession to get guidance. Does your Department intend
to provide some guidance in this area?
Attorney General Reno. We have tried generally throughout
the whole implementation of the ADA to work with professions
and particular industries to provide guidance. In determining
whether a sign language interpreter is necessary, the doctor
should consider the length and the complexity of the
communication involved. For instance, a note pad and written
materials may be sufficient to permit effective communication
when a physician is explaining a simple procedure. It also may
be possible to provide effective communication by using a
computer at which the doctor and patient can type out their
communication.
However, if the information is lengthy and complex, the use
of written materials may not be effective. Usually, the patient
is the best source of guidance for the doctor, because the
patient can inform the doctor about their specific needs.
The Department's Title III regulation generally requires
the doctor to absorb the cost of providing an interpreter or
other auxiliary aid or service which is required to ensure
effective communication. However, the doctor is not required to
provide any aid that would result in an undue burden. The term
undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. The
burden must be determined on a case-by-case basis after
considering factors such as the nature and the cost of the aid
or service and the overall financial resources of the practice.
Mr. Kolbe. I appreciate the response. It still leaves a lot
of room on the part of the doctors as to what is an unnecessary
expense.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Kolbe, think about it. It has
been exciting for me to have people respond with what the ADA
has done. I would like to work with you to make sure that we
provide appropriate instruction, but think about it for a
moment. If you were deaf through no fault of your own and were
going to go through an extraordinarily complex surgery
involving the heart, you would want to be able to talk to them.
Mr. Kolbe. Absolutely.
Attorney General Reno. Let's see if we can't work together.
Mr. Kolbe. I think that is what we need to do. It is
whether at all times there has to be somebody on standby. There
are some implications for the profession which may result in
less care rather than more care.
Attorney General Reno. I will just take a moment. I was,
early on, taken to the town of Takoma Park near Washington to
see what they had done to adapt to the ADA, and some were just
small, reasonable steps, maybe having one person at a hospital
or something like that. But I would like to work with you. I
think this is an important issue.
Mr. Kolbe. I quite agree with that. It is. It isn't that I
don't think anybody in the medical profession doesn't want to
provide that service. It is knowing what the rules are and
where they have to go so they are not open to more litigation
as a result of it.
Cybercrime
You spoke at some length in your brief testimony at the
outset here, you spent a great deal of it talking about
cybertheft and cyberproblems, and I quite agree with you. This
is an enormous problem.
I think everybody understands if you break into a house and
steal somebody's computer, that is theft, but we don't seem to
hold the same standard when it comes to cybertheft in
cyberspace. We know it is a crime to steal software records off
shelves of a store, but we take a fairly casual attitude about
theft over the Internet, and that is why in 1997 we enacted the
No Electronic Theft, or NET Act, to help in the prosecution of
cybertheft.
How many cases have been brought under that act and what is
the Department doing to publicize the fact that cybertheft is
theft, nothing less than that?
Attorney General Reno. First of all, on that issue,
because it covers a whole range, not just theft but intrusion,
breaking into somebody else's conversation or mail, I was
meeting with an advisory committee on the issue of information
technology and one gentleman said, you know, I have just been
thinking about it, listening to you. My 13-year-old knows not
to go into someone else's room when the door is locked, not to
read their mail, not to take their possessions, but I am not
sure that she knows what to do and what not to do on the
Internet. And I think that is an issue that we have got to
address, and we will be working with industry to try to do so
because we have a good partnership in that regard.
But what we have done in the Department is to try to
develop CCIP, which is the Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property section, which has some of the best minds on
technology but also have good backgrounds in the law, to
address these issues and to develop training programs for State
and locals as well as other Federal agencies as to how we are
going to address these issues, how we prove them, what we do.
Now, one of the major problems is that somebody can sit in
a kitchen in St. Petersburg, Russia, and on his computer steal
from a bank in New York. As a consequence, I have raised the
issue in the G-8, which is the group of the eight big
industrial nations, and back in 1998, we held a conference in
Washington on that.
We have followed it up--interestingly enough, in 1999 we
followed it up--or early 1999--followed it up with a video
conference at which the Japanese had to stay until 11 o'clock
at night--I had to get there at 6:30--but we had a 4-hour
videoconference which was impressive in terms of technology.
And we just finished a meeting in Moscow in which we developed
the capacity amongst the eight nations for 24-hour-a-day, 7-
day-a-week capacities to trace intrusions that can result in
theft or other inappropriate activity which is a crime.
So we are recognizing that borders are meaningless in terms
of cybercrime, and we are going to have to link around the
world in our efforts to bring these people to justice. Those
are some of the initiatives that we are undertaking.
Mr. Kolbe. I appreciate that very much.
You might just for the record, if you would, give us some
information about cases that have been brought under that act,
the NET act, in other words, how many criminal prosecutions
have we had. And I would be interested if you would provide any
background about your educational anti-crime efforts that are
devoted to addressing the cybertheft of intellectual property,
how much money in your educational efforts you have spent on
this.
[The information follows:]
Cases Brought Under the Net Act
This past year, the Department has significantly increased
its domestic and international efforts to protect Intellectual
Property rights. In July, for example, Deputy Attorney General
Eric Holder announced the Intellectual Property Initiative,
which is a coordinated enforcement undertaking among the FBI,
U.S. Customs Service, and U.S. Attorneys Offices in seven major
districts. This initiative aims to develop meritorious IP cases
by accomplishing four objectives: (1) train and equip
investigators and prosecutors, (2) work with industry to
generate appropriate criminal referrals, (3) seek additional
reform of domestic laws where needed, and (4) support the
government-wide international coordinated effort on bilateral
and multilateral discussions and training. Part of the
initiative focuses on NET Act prosecutions.
Currently, DOJ attorneys and a special squad from the FBI
have been working with industry representatives to identify
individuals who are offering digital works over the Internet in
violation of the NET Act. Since the initiative was announced,
there have been two successful criminal prosecutions involving
individuals who made digital programs available for downloading
free from the Internet. One case involved a 22-year-old student
at the University of Oregon and the other concerned a 26-year-
old sailor stationed in Virginia. In addition to these
prosecutions, there are currently a number of other open
investigations also involving allegations of NET Act
violations.
Not all our NET Act investigations materialize into
prosecutions. In many instances, for example, agents have
invested considerable resources into investigations only to
later determine that the violators were minors who, as you are
aware, are not generally prosecuted under federal law.
At the international level, the Department of Justice
remains active in addressing concerns over intellectual
property crime. The Department regularly raises piracy and
counterfeiting issues during bi-lateral meetings with officials
from foreign ministries of justice and police. Additionally,
the Criminal Division continues to devote resources to training
efforts in countries where a particularized need is identified.
DOJ attorneys completed a very successful training seminar in
the Czech Republic late last year, and helped provide training
to Russian judges and enforcement officials in cooperation with
the Department of State and the Federal Judicial Center. DOJ
attorneys have also met with officials from a number of
countries and provided technical assistance to legislative
drafters, investigators, prosecutors and judges.
Educational Anti-crime Efforts
The Department has undertaken efforts to educate parents,
teachers, and students on the responsible use of computers and
the Internet. For example, the Department has a web page for
children to visit that answers their questions about
cybercrime, including software piracy issues. Also, the
Department is participating along with the Information
Technology Association of America in the Cybercitizen
Partnership, which focuses on teaching children and parents
about the ethical use of computers and the Internet, including
ethical issues concerning digital piracy. At the same time,
however, we must all recognize that private industry is in the
best position to lead the way in educating the public and that
the Department needs to rely on their resources to accomplish
this objective.
Attorney General Reno. What I would also like to do is
follow up with you and make sure that we have the benefit of
your comments and your staff's comments concerning the 5-year
plan as we develop it.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I do have some other questions, but I will
wait for the second round.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
COPS
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last year, funding for the COPS program created some
difficult times. In fact, it was one of the main reasons why we
couldn't get early bipartisan support for our committee's bill,
because of the funding for COPS. Could you briefly tell me
where we are with the program? And, secondly, what does your
request this year do to enhance the program? And do you foresee
the same problems as last year?
Attorney General Reno. What we have tried to do is to build
a grant program which is properly monitored to make sure that
the dollars are being spent as wisely as possible. So we have
involved the Inspector General, the COPS office, and the
Justice Management Division--JMD--in making sure that it is
done right. And through those monitorings, we have identified
areas where we thought there might be an inappropriate use of
the funds or that people had not complied with the terms of the
grant, and I think we have worked out those issues.
One of the issues is that the COPS program provided moneys
for technology that would free up officers so they could go to
the streets, and to do that well sometimes requires more time
than I think perhaps it should--to plan the automation and the
computer-assisted techniques in a way that uses the money as
wisely as possible. Congressman, we are very carefully
monitoring that to see that it is being done and that the cops
that will be freed up are in fact appropriately counted towards
our goal.
With respect to--I think that addresses most of the issues
that we have faced--number one, the implementation of the more
grant; and, two, making sure that the hiring grants are done
right, that there is a plan for retention of the officers that
is consistent with our guidelines, that there is no supplanting
and that the moneys are being used for community policing.
Mr. Serrano. So you feel that you are still on target for
the 150,000 police officers by 2005?
Attorney General Reno. We are on target for the 100,000 by
2003. The 100,000 have been funded. I think we will meet that
deadline to get them in the field and trained. For the 30,000
to 50,000, I can't say that we will meet it because I won't be
around, but I think we will have the platform and the
foundation prepared for it.
Mr. Serrano. I would make a suggestion which would be very
helpful to both the chairman and I and to all of us here this
year. I suspect that the COPS program may become an issue so
any help we can get early on in ironing out any difficulties in
our views, on both sides of the aisle, and your agency, the
Department, would help us. I would hate for the COPS program to
be, sometime in September and October, another stumbling block
in agreeing on this bill.
Attorney General Reno. We will do so.
Mr. Serrano. And I want to take this opportunity to thank
the Chairman as we wound through the process last year dealing
with this issue.
ELIAN GONZALEZ
Let me move to the two issues that I mentioned in my
opening statement. Can you outline what the INS would normally
have done in a case identical to Elian Gonzalez's in every
respect other than his nationality? If he were Haitian, would
we have handled this differently? What procedures has the INS
carried out with respect to Elian Gonzalez and what is his
immigration status at this point?
And two more questions: Do you feel constrained by the
Florida court's exercising of jurisdiction over Elian? And if
the Federal court--I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that
too many courts got involved. But we live in a system where,
once the courts are involved, we seem to wait for them to tell
us what they have to tell us. If the District court were to
rule later this month that it does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this case, would you be prepared at that
point to collect Elian and return him to his father in Cuba?
Attorney General Reno. You ask his status. Elian Gonzalez
is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(7) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alien not in
possession of proper entry documents.
When he first arrived in Florida on November 25, 1999, the
INS deferred his inspection and paroled him until December 23.
They subsequently continued that inspection again in order to
permit a thorough re-evaluation of the issues in his case until
January 21. The INS again extended his deferred inspection to
give the Federal courts an opportunity to review the INS
decision. He remains on parole status.
You ask if there was--would we treat him differently if he
was anybody else, and I can assure you not--I mean, if it were
another country. We have all racked our brains, and we have
never seen a case such as this, but we would treat it the same
under all of the circumstances, as far as I can see, if the
country involved was the equivalent in terms of background,
just the whole range of issues. If the only difference was a
different country. As long as that country presented the same
issues, we would treat the case the same.
The hearing is tomorrow in Miami; and, Congressman, I don't
think I should comment further, particularly since the judge
has asked us not to comment and to litigate the case. But I am
committed to doing everything I can to see that the law is
enforced, and we are doing that.
Mr. Serrano. I understand--believe it or not, I understand
the situation you find yourself in. In probably every area of
the country there are people from other countries being
deported on a daily basis--including from my congressional
district--while we have been discussing everything from
permanent resident status to citizenship for Elian Gonzalez.
Now, I think I know what you mean when you say we treat
people the same. I think that is the intent of the Department.
But let me tell you that I, personally, am not really looking
forward--I try to be a gentleman and a diplomat at all times--I
am not looking forward to the INS hearing before this
Subcommittee, because I blame INS for this mess we are in. They
had no right, and they had nothing other than some political
agenda to turn this child over to this family in Miami and
create this situation, and I don't know how it will end. It
doesn't matter how it ends. It is a mess already. And I want to
tell you that I am extremely upset at them and their inability
or lack of desire to communicate with me and to let me know
what is happening, but I will save that anger for them. I went
through a period where INS was okay with me. INS is not very
nice in my community, but----
Attorney General Reno. Congressman, direct it at me,
because I have affirmed it, and the buck stops with me.
Mr. Serrano. You have affirmed the only good decision they
made, which is to send him back. They took a child--they could
have picked a foster family--whoever made this decision locally
knew that once you turned Elian over to that particular family,
loving family, caring family, that family--that he was going to
become the 1999-2000 political poster child for everything that
divides people on that particular issue.
Right in front of me I have articles about a child returned
to Jordan, a 6-year old, Chinese children still being held in
detention, eventually to be sent back, and the best quote on
this is by David Abraham, Professor of immigration law at the
University of Miami, ``We hate Castro, and we don't hate King
Abdullah.'' This is the issue. I would hope that you could come
around to say, if the court says he can't stay here, I will
make sure that he doesn't stay here.
Attorney General Reno. The court--again, I didn't make the
initial decision, but be angry at me, because I could change
it. But don't be angry at me because I think if I had the
opportunity and could comment, you wouldn't be angry at me.
Mr. Serrano. You know, English is a second language to me,
but----
Mr. Kolbe. I didn't get it either.
Mr. Serrano. And I am happy to know Mr. Kolbe didn't get it
either.
That is okay. I think I'm ready.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Serrano, I will pledge to you,
at the first point that I can comment, I will be happy to come
up, sit down with you and go through it in detail.
Mr. Serrano. All I want is, please understand that there
are people in this country who are applying a lot of pressure,
and rightfully so, to elected officials: Why Elian and not me,
why Elian and not the Dominican child, and why Elian and not
the Mexican child?
This was a political decision, and it was a terrible
political decision, and I don't know how it is going to end.
You want me to tell you how I think it is going to end? Elian
Gonzalez is going to be 13 years old playing in a Little League
game in Miami, and some kid is going to say, your father wanted
you back home. And he is going to look at the family he is with
and ask, why didn't you let me go back with my father? And then
I think we will look inward as a Nation and say how sick were
we in 1999 and 2000 when we did this.
Attorney General Reno. Congressman, I will come up and go
over it with you to the extent that the laws of the United
States government will permit me as soon as the court
proceeding will permit me.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
POLICE MISCONDUCT
Mr. Chairman, let me take a couple of more seconds here.
Another subject of great interest in my neighborhood and
throughout the country, as I mentioned in my opening
statement--and, again, I appreciate the courtesies shown to the
Diallo family and their supporters by Deputy Attorney General
Holder last week. I also appreciate that the leadership of the
Department at the highest levels understands the deep desire in
the South Bronx and elsewhere for justice in this case and in
other cases which increase communities' fear of the officers
sworn to protect them.
What effort is the Department undertaking to seek justice
and end the crisis of confidence? I assume that you agree that
we are running into a crisis of confidence, if we're not there
already. I see in your budget a $616,000 increase for certain
investigations, and I would like to know if you feel that is
fully appropriate or, as the Chairman said, something that OMB
is asking you to ask for.
One final comment on this issue and why I think it is a
crisis. This is the best way I can explain it. I grew up in a
Bronx Puerto Rican migrant family, migrant because we were
citizens. The minute we came to New York, we saw some young
people who always had a problem with the police, and you always
heard the older members of our community and the families
saying no, no, the police are our friends, the police are here
to protect us, and there was always that wonderful
contradiction where the older folks were always setting the
record straight.
Today I am sorry to tell you the largest number of people
on the picket lines, in the protests, getting arrested in front
of the police stations are the older members of my community,
who no longer feel safe with the police. That is a crisis, and
the Department has to address that not only in this case but in
all cases.
Attorney General Reno. The Department is requesting
additional funding for two initiatives in the Civil Rights
Division budget totaling over $1 million to address police
misconduct and other civil rights' violations.
In our whole approach, I think this is one of the most
important times in policing for just the reasons that you talk
about. We have seen America become safer, but we have seen
concerns develop about policing. At the same time, we have seen
more professionalization in both the administration and the
rank and file of so many departments. We have seen young people
get into trouble or come back from prison feeling like they are
kind of marked, marked to be stopped, marked to be hassled; and
then, Congressman, you see a community where community policing
is working, where the police officer is the person that is the
glue that brings the elderly person out from behind the bars on
the door so she can give the police the what-for at the
community center. You see the young people relating to police
officers.
What we are trying to do through the development of
initiatives that train is prevent it. But, at the same time,
through our pattern and practice investigations that are being
supported by the appropriations process, we are working to make
sure that the standards of a police department in terms of
racial profiling, in terms of collection of data, in terms of
handling of complaints, in terms of unjustified use of force,
that we address those issues in a thoughtful, very careful way,
and we do it in as timely a manner as possible so that people
will have confidence in the police.
What is most encouraging to me, I had the opportunity to
meet recently with the incoming chair of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, and he said we have got to
take community policing one step further. We have got to take
it to problem solving. And when you get good police officers on
the street working with citizens to solve problems, rather than
create problems, it is so important.
I appreciate that you know why I can't comment on Diallo
now, and you know from Eric Holder, the Deputy, that the
process is under way. But it is so important that we take steps
to prevent and problem solve, and this is a critical time, and
I am committed, as much as I possibly can be, to trying to come
out this year with a whole new approach to problem solving in
policing.
In that connection, let's not talk about any of the pending
cases, but we need to teach police officers how to respond to
particular situations, what to do, how to handle things; and we
can do so much if we look at it from that point of view of
problem solving. So I will welcome your continued thoughts, and
I hope you will not hesitate to pick up the phone and call me
if you have suggestions about what the Department can do.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your
generosity with time, and let me reiterate my support for those
police officers who do the job right and try to do what is
right. In fact, just a few minutes ago I was supporting the
hiring of more police officers. I just want to fight the
behavior of some. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Miller.
ATTORNEY GENERAL EFFORTS ACKNOWLEDGED
Mr. Miller. Good morning. Let me start off with a couple of
thank yous. Every year you have met with a group of students
who are high school juniors from my district. This began before
my time on this subcommittee, and you have really impressed
these young people, and I thank you for taking that time.
Let me thank you for your involvement in the Sheila Bellush
murder case in Sarasota, Florida, the young mother of six who
was brutally murdered in November, 1997, the mother of 2-year-
old quadruplets. The accused murderer fled to Mexico. He was
born and raised in the United States, his parents born and
raised in the United States, and we had trouble getting him
back. I know that you personally got involved in that case.
Sometimes we never know all of the things that you end up doing
on a case, but I know that you were in contact with the
attorney general in Mexico, and I thank you because the suspect
was returned last summer, and there is a trial scheduled this
summer.
I also know that the Justice Department got involved in
investigating the related conspiracy. Two other people were
found guilty, and there is another person in Texas whom charges
have now been brought against under Federal law. When you get
involved in issues like this, it can become very personal. Your
personal involvement is appreciated, and I thank you publicly,
as I have said.
I have gotten involved in issues of extradition because of
this one case, and one of the things that I found is how little
leverage you, in effect, have. You can talk to the attorney
general of Mexico or any other country, and there are a lot of
other high-profile cases, but there is not much leverage that
you have. What can be done to improve leverage besides the
personal relationships you may have?
Attorney General Reno. We have made some good progress, and
I appreciate your comments.
First let me tell you about the young people. I try to talk
to young people when they come to the Department of Justice
because there is such a sense of hope. They are shrewd and they
can sometimes be cynical, but they really want to contribute
and they want to make such a difference. And I just think it is
wonderful when you all sponsor them and make sure that they
have such an extraordinary opportunity in Washington because
they go home just aglow, and they come over to the Department
excited about what they have seen and done that week. And the
more we can give young people a voice, the more I think we will
benefit because they have some good ideas, and your students
always impress me.
Mr. Miller. I see young people coming in and out this
morning. I think there is a group of Close Up students in the
back right now. We see them come and go, and you do make a very
positive impression.
EXTRADITION
Attorney General Reno. On extradition, I as a local
prosecutor had Earl Morland's frustration, and it is
frustrating not to get somebody extradited. So when I came to
Washington, I started learning more about the process, and I
have spent an awful lot of time on it.
My theory, particularly in this hemisphere, where it is a
critical issue, we are trying to build a hemisphere based on
trust, and that has been my message. Because the whole theory
about extradition is we don't want to expedite because of a
threat to our sovereignty. My response is, look, I respect the
sovereignty of your country in every way that I can, but I also
am trying to build a relationship of trust with you. And if we
trust each other in trade and other forums, then why don't we
trust each other in the criminal justice system? Because every
prosecutor I know believes that the crime is best tried where
the crime is committed and you shouldn't force people to come
to another country or have long distance prosecution. It should
be tried where the community can understand that the interest
of justice has been vindicated.
I started with that and I used the example, what would
happen, what would you say if you didn't extradite somebody who
had come to your country from the United States, attacked an 8-
year-old girl, raped and left her for dead on the side of the
road and then come back to the United States. If I told you I
would not extradite, you wouldn't like it, and they understand.
As a consequence, I have just returned from a meeting of
the ministers of Justice in San Jose for the Organization of
American States--OAS--meeting, and it was very impressive to me
to see the strides that we have taken in developing processes
and procedures that permit the extradition of nationals, and
that speed up and facilitate the appropriate extradition of
others.
We still have a ways to go, but one of the reasons that I
have discovered that there are delays and confusions, is
because there are so many different processes and forums. We,
through the OAS, are now developing common processes and
procedures with glossaries and translation available
immediately so we can expedite the whole process. I think we
have made some real progress, but we have some ways to go.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I think in the report language last
year we requested the development of a database and the status
of countries. Do you know the status of that?
Attorney General Reno. Let me check on it and let you know.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Status of Database Development for Tracking Extradition of U.S.
Fugitives
In August 1999, the Division upgraded its computer software
from an old tracking system to a new, more functional database.
This change in software will improve the ability of the
Division to give Congress information about extradition (and
deportation) of U.S. fugitives.
The new system has many more data fields than the previous
system, which allows the Division to capture and preserve many
more facts about each case. Other features of the data-base
include query screens, standard reports that were defined by
users at the Office of Information Affairs (OIA), and an ad hoc
reporting capability. The deployment of the new system and the
attendant conversion of data from the old system was largely
completed by September 1999, although some data conversion and
clean-up efforts continue.
The Division's capacity to record data about cases on its
current docket and new cases that are opened every day is much
improved. The data on closed cases from the old system,
however, is quite limited. This means that statistics that
purport to show historical trends, or that use baselines, for
extradition cases open and closed in the years prior to
September 1999 will necessarily be imperfect and incomplete.
The Division is working on supplementing this data to overcome
this shortcoming. To the extent that resources requested for
OIA in FY 2001 are provided, it would have an indirect effect
of allowing this process to move more quickly.
PERCENTAGE OF EXTRADITIONS
Mr. Miller. Dateline NBC last year had a story that claimed
that only one out of every four criminals ever gets returned to
the United States. Is that number correct?
Attorney General Reno. It may well be one out of four
because there may be the burglar who goes home who stole a tire
at a business, or something like that that, got charged but
returned home and is not extradited.
You have the same situation with respect to the extradition
between States, where it used to frustrate me to have to deal
with a poor victim who said, what do you mean you are not going
to extradite him? I would say, it costs too much money. But it
was my favorite piece of jewelry and how can you not extradite
him so you can make him give me back that jewelry? But it is
one of the balances that the criminal justice system has to
undertake.
EXTRADITION PRACTICES OF OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Miller. Which countries are the most difficult to deal
with on this issue or can you generalize?
Attorney General Reno. I don't think that there are any in
particular. Everybody has--I have been so impressed,
Congressman, about the attitude exhibited in San Jose because
we all know that extradition is a matter of trust, and if we
are going to build the kind of hemisphere that we want, we need
to build that trust.
Mr. Miller. A couple of the most famous cases are the
Einhorn case and the Sheinbein case, and I know in the
Sheinbein case Israel changed its laws and became more
cooperative. In the Einhorn case, the possibility remains that
he may get returned. Do you have any more insight on that case
and how we progress? That murder took place in 1977.
Attorney General Reno. It is pending, so I can't comment
except to reaffirm that the Department continues to work very
closely with the State of Pennsylvania, the Department of State
and the French authorities to ensure his return to face
criminal charges.
Mr. Miller. With respect to the Bellush murder, do you have
any comments about the Blackthorne trial where you will decide
whether or not you will seek the death penalty?
Attorney General Reno. No, sir.
INS NON-DEPORTABLES
Mr. Miller. Let me ask one more question about INS
nondeportables. We have a jail in downtown Bradenton, and the
INS basically has taken it all over, and I am told that two-
thirds of the beds in this facility are occupied by
nondeportables, and this is becoming a bigger problem. There
are cases of Cubans, Jamaicans, and others. Where do we stand
on that? You read about these cases, and they are getting more
publicity and stories in the newspaper but can you enlighten us
with where we are going on that problem?
Attorney General Reno. It is a big problem. We meet with
officials from these countries to try to encourage them to take
back their nationals. U.S. officials met last month with
officials from Southeast Asia, in part to talk about
repatriation, and we periodically bring up the issue with other
nations such as Cuba.
INS continually works with all embassies to improve the
travel document process, which is the key. It also works with
the State Department diplomatic security to automate the
notification of the removal process.
But the burden on both the Federal system and the State
system is acute, and it is--you take some of the smaller
countries of the Caribbean--it is a tremendous burden on them
to have so many serious criminals deported back to their
countries. The Dominican Republic has been magnificent in terms
of trying to address these issues and take them back; but its
minister made clear to me that it is creating a terrible
problem for them.
I don't have the answers. I am trying to work through it.
Mr. Miller. It is very costly for us to keep them
continually in jail, and especially with no end in sight. I
have heard the personal stories. It does affect the budget, and
it is going to get worse because it is a growing number.
Attorney General Reno. Again, I think we are going to have
to recognize that in this hemisphere, particularly in the
Caribbean, with the community--comparable communities of
immigrants from those islands that live in the United States,
we are going to have to work with them and come up with new
solutions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Attorney General Reno. I have several questions
that I would like to submit for the record and receive a timely
response on, but I have three issues I would like to ask about.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
The first is rather parochial. Within the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the chairman of the TVA took the Inspector General
out of his position last summer and referenced allegations of
wrongdoing on to the Professional Council on Integrity and
Ethics which led to a referral to the FBI and subsequently to
the DOJ. The General Accounting Office said that the man didn't
do anything wrong and that TVA needed to change their own
policies. Can you tell me today or sometime very soon why this
has taken so long and when we can expect this report to be
issued so this perfectly good Federal law enforcement official
can go back to work or have this case cleared up?
Attorney General Reno. The Department completed its review
of the matter involving him. The Public Integrity Section of
the Criminal Division declined prosecution on March 6, and I
will be happy to try to trace the chronology of it to find out
why it took so long.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Chronology of Inspector General Prosser Investigation
The following outlines the Public Integrity Section's
criminal investigation of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Inspector General George Prosser:
Consistent with long-standing practice, the Integrity
Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency referred the allegations against Prosser to the
Public Integrity Section for a prosecutive determination.
The referral was received by the Public Integrity Section
on July 1, 1999, the Public Integrity Section reviewed the
matter and determined that a criminal investigation was
warranted. It requested investigative assistance from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation on August 5, 1999.
During the next few months, the FBI Special Agent reviewed
documents, conducted numerous interviews, and continuously
updated the assigned Trial Attorney from the Public Integrity
Section.
On January 12, 2000, the FBI Special Agent completed his
investigative report. Unfortunately, through clerical error,
the report was inadvertently sent to the wrong Division in the
Department of Justice.
When the Public Integrity Section and the FBI realized the
error in mailing, a new report was express mailed to the Public
Integrity Section, which received the report on February 12,
2000.
The Public Integrity Section reviewed the report, asked
follow-up questions of the FBI, and prepared a written analysis
of the matter. Supervisors within the Section reviewed the
recommendations and the matter was formally declined on March
6, 2000.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
ATTORNEY OVERTIME PAY
Secondly, you have many very fine attorneys that work for
the Department of Justice across the country. We all know that
there is a dispute among them over overtime pay for those
attorneys and there is pending litigation so you might not be
able to say a lot today. I do have some questions in writing
that I would like you to answer.
I do wonder, looking at the records, a memo between
yourself and Mr. Colgate in 1996 that basically says that you
all may have the liability of overtime pay for these attorneys
and these attorneys are the only attorneys within the Federal
Government that don't receive overtime pay, why wouldn't you
just settle the case and be done with it instead of every year
having to come back up here and kind of cover your tracks and
put it off? Or is there an effort to just put it off?
Attorney General Reno. I can't comment because it is
pending. But at the point I can comment, I would be happy to
try to do so.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Serrano and I are in the same situation. I
have some questions. As soon as you can answer them, I would
like for them to be answered.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Wamp. In 1957, the year I was born, the Supreme Court
ruled that illegal pornography was not covered by first
amendment protection.
Mr. Serrano. You didn't have to throw that in, the fact
that you are so young.
Mr. Wamp. 1957, that was the year that I was born.
Mr. Serrano. That was the Yankee-Milwaukee Braves World
Series?
Mr. Wamp. You were there?
Mr. Serrano. I was.
Mr. Wamp. With your cane, with your wheelchair. He is a
friend of mine.
Illegal pornography was not protected under the first
amendment. I understand that in the late 1980s, early 1990s in
this country, 126 convictions were brought against illegal
pornographers in this country and that it really changed the
way that the pornographers did business in this country because
there was a Federal effort to try to crack down on illegal
pornography.
I also understand, and I would like for you to give me some
input today on this or feedback, that the prosecutions have
been reduced by 75 percent in the last several years; and I
just wonder what the position of the Department of Justice is,
especially with the proliferation of Internet pornography. And
I am most interested in child pornography and what we are doing
about it as a Federal Government to try to really attack this
problem, because it leads to all of these social problems with
violence, violence against women, the breakdown of the family.
It is really a cancer in our society, and I wonder how active
the Department of Justice is today at prosecuting illegal
pornography cases?
Attorney General Reno. Well, first of all, I think the
decision you referred to distinguishes and says that obscenity
is not protected. You can have something that may be enacted
into law as illegal, but the court can define it as protected
by the first amendment. I think what the court said was that
obscenity is not protected.
What we have tried to do is to focus on child pornography.
In 1999, 510 cases were filed concerning 525 defendants; 378
persons were convicted; 36 percent of those sentenced received
terms of more than 3 years. The Criminal Division coordinates
the Department's efforts to aggressively pursue and prosecute
violators of Federal statutes, which prohibit the trafficking
of child pornography. In collaboration with the FBI, the
Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section--CEOS--
helped to coordinate the Innocent Images Project, which was
organized in 1995 to combat the trafficking of child
pornography over computer networks.
The FBI currently assigns all computer child pornography
cases to the Baltimore field office, and the Division continues
to work closely with the FBI on the project. As the FBI creates
regional task forces to work these cases, CEOS, the section,
also participates in training for task force personnel. It also
works with the United States Customs Service and its
cybersmuggling center on undercover operations. It is working
with the customs services on Operation Cheshire Cat, an
international child pornography investigation. The United
States Postal Inspection Service has also developed numerous
undercover operations, and the section works with them as well.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Attorney General Reno. I look forward
to the response to these written questions.
TOBACCO LITIGATION
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Let me ask you, Attorney General Reno, last year you
requested a $20 million increase in your budget specifically
for the tobacco litigation. That request was denied. The
Department told the committee last year that the base level of
resources for this activity within general legal activities was
$1.8 million. How much does the Department plan to spend this
fiscal year from this account on the litigation?
Attorney General Reno. We estimate that we will need
approximately 10 to $15 million for the litigation this year.
We have spent $1.45 million in preparation to date. We are
using the existing resources in the Civil Division's tort
branch, which includes carryover balances from the Automated
Litigation Support Fund and funding provided to the Department
from the health care fraud and abuse control account. In
addition, we are seeking reimbursement of almost $8 million
from three client agencies--the Departments of Defense,
Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services.
Mr. Rogers. Are you proposing to spend out of Justice
Department moneys above the $1.8 million base funding level?
Attorney General Reno. I would anticipate that there would
be more out of the tort branch and from the Department's access
to the health care fraud and abuse control account.
REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS FOR TOBACCO LITIGATION
Mr. Rogers. When would we get a reprogramming request then?
Attorney General Reno. We believe that the funding we
receive from client agencies in the Health Care Fraud and Abuse
Control account does not fall under our reprogramming
notification requirements, and we are taking it from there.
However, what I would be glad to do is review the committee's
concerns, because it is not our intention to violate the
notification requirement.
Mr. Rogers. Well, as you know, section 605 of the
Appropriations Act requires that if you spend out of Justice
Department moneys above $1.8 million in base funding that we
have given you this year for that purpose, then you would be
required to submit a reprogramming request to this committee to
shift moneys from some other portion of your budget into that
account. We have not received that. Instead, you say that you
are taking moneys from other Federal agencies to fund this
lawsuit, and we think that violates if not the letter then
certainly the spirit of the appropriations process, and we will
not look upon that with kind eyes.
Attorney General Reno. Well, we will come see you.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I want more than that. I always enjoy
seeing you.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you, sir. We need to lay it
out for you as to what the situation is. Section 109 for fiscal
year 1995 Appropriations Act contained the following language,
``Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. or any other law, in litigation
involving unusually high costs the Department of Justice may
receive and retain reimbursement for salaries and expenses for
fiscal year 1995 and thereafter from any other governmental
component being represented in litigation.''.
Mr. Rogers. Did the Department seek reimbursement from
these agencies on its own or was OMB and the White House
involved?
Attorney General Reno. We have looked at the possible
sources of funding, and this was a joint effort between the
Department of Justice and OMB.
Mr. Rogers. Did the White House ask you to do that?
Attorney General Reno. No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Rogers. To look at it, at least?
Attorney General Reno. I am not aware of any request from
the White House to look at this. I think we looked at it, but I
will ask Steve to check and see if there was any initial
request. My understanding is that we looked to see what we
could appropriately do under the law, and this was one avenue
we determined.
Mr. Rogers. I want to know whether anyone outside the
Department requested that you seek reimbursement from other
agencies to fund this lawsuit which this committee and the
Congress denied you the funds to do.
Last year you specifically requested funds for the lawsuit.
The Congress specifically rejected that request. And now you
have sought funds by hook into other agencies, and we don't
like the looks of that very much at all. So we are going to be
probing on this.
Attorney General Reno. I understand.
Mr. Rogers. We want to know who is making you do this? Who
is making you mislead the very committee that has been so kind
to you?
Attorney General Reno. I am not trying to mislead you. I am
laying out for you exactly what we are trying to do. We will
come up and talk with you and let you probe and see what we
work out, because we are not intending to avoid the
notification requirement.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we want to know what specific legal
authority you are using to receive reimbursement.
Attorney General Reno. Section 109 of the 1995
Appropriations Act.
Mr. Rogers. As well as the agencies that are giving you
money.
Attorney General Reno. That is the Departments of Defense,
Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we want the legal authorities that allows
them to do that as well.
Attorney General Reno. I would suggest that is section 109.
Mr. Rogers. How much are you requesting for the lawsuit in
the coming fiscal year, within the Civil Division?
Attorney General Reno. Excuse me?
Mr. Rogers. Within the Civil Division of Justice, how much
are you requesting for this lawsuit in fiscal year 2000?
Attorney General Reno. We are seeking additional funding in
the form of reimbursements from the client agencies as well as
continuing to use resources that are available to the torts
branch. The budget request for DOJ contains no program increase
for tobacco litigation.
Mr. Rogers. How much are you spending in fiscal year 2001
in Civil Division torts? How much are you requesting?
Attorney General Reno. We will provide the figure for the
torts branch.
[The information follows:]
FY 2001 Tobacco Litigation Request for Civil Division's Torts Branch
The Department has not requested at FY 2001 program
increase for the Civil Division's Torts Section. Currently,
base funding in the amount of $1.8 million is available in the
Torts Section for expenditure on tobacco case litigation costs.
Torts Section base funding will continue to be available in FY
2001 for tobacco litigation costs, and will be supplemented by
funding from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account.
During the FY 2000 appropriations process, Congress made it
clear that the Department could use existing funding sources to
support its litigation effort. Accordingly, the Department is
drawing on funding sources that it regularly uses to support
litigation on behalf of the United States.
FEW BUDGET REQUEST FOR TOBACCO LITIGATION
Mr. Rogers. How much is being requested from within the
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses account?
Attorney General Reno. What I am aware of is carryover
balances from the Automated Litigation Support and funding
provided to the Department from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse
Control account.
Mr. Rogers. Well, in fact, there is a $56 million increase
in that account. Why would there be such a huge increase in
that very obscure account, Fees and Expenses of witnesses, an
increase of $56 million? Does that have something to do with
the tobacco lawsuit?
Attorney General Reno. I don't know of anything, but let me
double-check, Mr. Chairman, so I don't mislead you.
Mr. Rogers. Surely you or your staff know why there is such
a huge increase in that one area. In the justifications it says
something about tobacco, but there is no justification, no
dollar amount. Can you give us a dollar amount?
Attorney General Reno. We are working on it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Colgate. Mr. Chairman, we are requesting a program
increase of $56 million in appropriations as it relates to
expert witnesses. We have in our budget summary articulated
extraordinary expenses related to Windstar, tobacco cases, mega
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act--CERCLA--defense contribution cases in the
environment and several large tax position cases. We didn't tie
any specific amount related for tobacco, but we have just seen
a significant increase in these large cases, and we articulate
some of these large cases on page 79 of our budget summary.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is a 50 percent increase in that
account, and so you must be planning some hefty expenditures in
the tobacco litigation that we have--again I repeat--
specifically denied you the moneys for on the table. Now if you
want to go under the table, which you are doing here to get
moneys, you will pay a price.
Attorney General Reno. I don't want to go under the table.
I want to come talk to you and show you what we have done, make
sure that I have all of the facts and figures so I don't
mislead you and be straightforward about it.
Mr. Rogers. Yeah, well, you know we denied you the money
last year, this current year?
Attorney General Reno. I do, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And you have gone and requested these other
agencies to pay you some of their money for this very purpose
which we denied you money for; is that right?
Attorney General Reno. That is right, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Now what I am asking you is, did you do that on
your own or did somebody make you do that?
Attorney General Reno. I tried to work with Steve and
everybody. I was not asked to do something but to figure out
how to fund the tobacco litigation because I believe in it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a comment?
Your statement about coming up and explaining it to the
chairman, I am vitally interested in this as well and have a
whole series of questions. I hope you will brief the entire
committee.
Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to come back
serially or however you wish. I want to make sure that you have
the facts and the questions, at hand, answered.
Mr. Rogers. The last I heard, the Congress still controls
the pursestrings of the government; and the last I heard in the
Congress it was the Appropriations Committee that handled that
chore for the Congress; and in relation to the Justice
Department and what you do with your money, it is still this
subcommittee that regulates your spending. When you are
spending moneys contrary to our express wishes, then that calls
for another step; and be assured we will take another step if
that is necessary. But I want to know the details on this, and
I want to know who is behind it and why there is this
subterfuge in getting the moneys to finance a lawsuit which we
denied you the moneys to pursue directly. So I guess you know
that we do have--or I certainly do have a burr under my saddle
on this one.
Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir, I understand.
Mr. Rogers. And we will pursue it, don't you know.
Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham.
ANTITRUST INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and welcome, Madam
Attorney General. It is a pleasure to have you here.
I guess I relate to this in a different way, and we have
talked previous years about the real concerns in agriculture,
about vertical integration, about consolidation, the fact that
the Justice Department has done nothing about it. Last year
after this hearing, the next day you called me, which I
appreciate very much, and said that you would make it a
priority; and a few weeks later I got a call from Joel Klein
saying that he needed more money and without additional funds
he could not do anything.
Going along with what the chairman is talking about, the
frustration that I have is when this Administration started in
1993 we had 250,000 pork producers in this country. Today, we
have lost 60 percent, there are under a hundred thousand. And
the Justice Department has done nothing, and yet we have huge
lawsuits against Microsoft, and I would like to know how much
we have spent on this lawsuit. The money that is spent as far
as the litigation that the chairman is talking about which was
denied but yet money is being expended, and yet you come back
on a real problem out there for real people and nothing is
being done.
You can understand there is great frustration when we see a
very hapless Justice Department doing nothing to help farmers
who are losing their livelihood and we see money being spent on
a lot of other areas that many people believe we should not be
involved in.
Attorney General Reno. Yes. I continue to persist in being
very committed to doing what we can. The Department takes very,
very seriously the concerns that you expressed and have
continued to express. I have met on a number of occasions with
various Members of Congress. Joel Klein has participated in
community meetings to hear firsthand from the farmers
themselves. We have been very active.
Joel has tried to monitor it in every way that he could. He
has gone so far recently to appoint a special counsel for
agriculture who will take another look at the level of
competition in their marketplace, fully exploring any possible
violation of antitrust law. He has looked on previous
occasions. We will look at it again in this effort.
There is a significant degree of concentration in some
parts of the industry. While concentration itself is not in and
of itself illegal, it can increase the potential for antitrust
problems, and we have been monitoring the industry closely and
are taking industry concentration into account as mergers are
proposed.
We have conducted a number of antitrust investigations
pertaining to agriculture in recent years, leading to a number
of enforcement actions, including prosecution of participants
in a worldwide vitamin conspiracy, which artificially inflated
prices for vitamins used in animal feeds and elsewhere, harming
consumers around the globe. Participants in the cartel included
some of the largest multinational companies in the world,
including companies headquartered in the U.S., Japan, Germany,
Switzerland, France and Canada. The Division's work has
generated record-level criminal fines levied against leading
chemical and pharmaceutical giants.
In addition, in July, 1999, we challenged the Cargill-
Continental Grain merger. To resolve our competitive concerns,
Cargill and Continental agreed to divest a number of grain
facilities throughout the Midwest and the West as well as the
Texas Gulf, and the proposed consent decree is in the court
approval process.
The criminal prosecution of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
and others for fixing the price of the feed additive, lysine,
resulted in ADM being fined $100 million and several of its
officers being convicted as well.
Finally, the required divestitures of part of Monsanto-
DeKalb genetics merger of cutting-edge genetic transformation
technology has been one of the efforts.
Because the Department opens antitrust investigations only
where there is information giving a reasonable basis for
believing there might be an antitrust violation, the Department
is always on the lookout for such information, and we have
tried to do outreach to the farmers to make sure that we get
that information.
MICROSOFT
Mr. Latham. How much money have you spent on Microsoft?
Attorney General Reno. I don't know the answer. I will try
to provide it for you, sir.
[The information follows:]
Microsoft Expenses
Over the past 10.5 years, from the start of FY 1990 through
the present, the Division has spent approximately $13.57
million investigating and litigating against the Microsoft
Corporation. This includes actual expenses from October 1, 1989
through February 26, 1999 (the last date at which a
comprehensive review was conducted), of $12.57 million and an
estimated $1 million in additional charges incurred since
February 1999. This composite cost includes such matters as the
investigation and resulting civil action that culminated in a
negotiated consent decree with Microsoft in 1995, the
investigation and filing of a court case challenging
Microsoft's acquisition of Intuit Inc. in 1996 (a proposed
acquisition ultimately withdrawn by Microsoft), and the on-
going litigation in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
LIVESTOCK AND PORK INDUSTRY
Mr. Latham. You can understand the frustration. We are
obviously spending millions and millions of dollars on these
other things that are not believed by many to be authorized or
money appropriated for, and yet when we have a very real, clear
problem, you come back and say we can't do it because--like $2
million or $3 million, when money is being diverted all over
the place for reasons which this subcommittee has not
appropriated money for.
I just came from a hearing with Secretary Richardson. The
frustration in agriculture today is that there is just this
blind eye to anything that is happening out there, whether it
is in consolidation, vertical integration. The Secretary said
he is impotent to do anything about the huge increase in energy
costs, and we are going into the field here in a few weeks.
Farmers are in dire straits out there. We are going to have
huge energy increases, and agriculture is probably the most
dependent industry in the country as far as inputs and energy.
And then we see, you know, 60 percent of the livestock
producers out of business, and no one is doing anything to
help.
Attorney General Reno. We are trying, sir, and we will
continue to try in every way that we can.
Mr. Latham. This is the fourth year that I have brought
this issue up, and nothing has happened.
Attorney General Reno. When I don't have a basis for acting
under the law I can't do it, but I will assure you that I will
do everything within my power to properly pursue these
investigations. I haven't found a basis to do so other than
those I have described here to do so under the evidence in the
law.
Mr. Latham. I just want to make sure that you understand
the frustration. I have had 24 town meetings at home. It is
very, very real.
Attorney General Reno. Joel said it was one of the most
important things that he had done, to hear firsthand from
farmers. When I go out and talk to them, I understand that it
is more than frustration. It is fear, it is anger, it is
heartbreak in some instances, and I think it is one of the real
issues that we face in this country; how we maintain the
American farmer in the tradition that he and she and their
families have been used to. I fully understand exactly what you
are saying.
Mr. Latham. There is a lot of talking and no action, and we
have lost 60 percent of the pork producers in the country.
Attorney General Reno. What would you like me to do?
Mr. Latham. Enforce the law or actually do something.
Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to come up again.
You show me what I can do, and I will try to do it.
METHAMPHETAMINE
Mr. Latham. As you know--to change subjects, which I am
sure that you appreciate--the meth situation, use and
trafficking in Iowa is a major problem. The subcommittee in the
past few years has provided money for several programs such as
the COPS program for meth trafficking and to assist local law
enforcement efforts and giving them equipment, and as in
previous years you have not included any funding in your budget
again. How are we supposed to combat this problem with no
funding? That is the basic tool for our local law enforcement
to give them some type of help and assistance. It is an
epidemic.
Attorney General Reno. What we are embarked on with U.S.
attorneys, DEA and other agencies, is to develop comprehensive
efforts that would focus on a community with regional
enforcement teams from DEA through resources that are
available, and to do it in a comprehensive way. Sometimes it is
a Mexican organization that brings in the meth, sometimes it is
a mom-and-pop operation, and it is going to vary from community
to community.
What I am hopeful that we will be able to do is prioritize
and identify the worst situations, develop a comprehensive
effort within the region or the community to identify every
piece of intelligence we can on the distributor, the source,
whether it is a mom-and-pop lab or other lab, identify
treatment programs that are available in the community that are
meth-specific. Then in a comprehensive take down, arrest the
organizations and the others that are responsible, take down
the lab, get the people into treatment, and try to enforce it
through drug courts.
Where there is an organization in the community, we will
try to move a weed and seed, or other type of organization, in
to fill the vacuum so someone else won't come in and fill it
with illicit activity, and come back and enforce what we have
been able to achieve through the comprehensive effort. That, I
think, can make a difference.
Mr. Latham. The major tool that I hear from my local law
enforcement is the grants that we have been able to give them
as far as assistance with computers, radios, cameras,
educational initiatives and things like that, and there is no
money in your budget for that.
Attorney General Reno. There are some wonderful programs
that can make such a difference in terms of training; and if
you will put me in touch with chiefs of police, I will try to
address them.
Mr. Latham. But as far as equipment and what they really
value--most of them can't use the normal COPS program because
of their budget concerns. What they need is equipment and
assistance in that way, and there is no money in the budget for
that.
Attorney General Reno. I believe there is extensive amounts
of money for technology and equipment, and we are trying to
work with State and locals to ensure that.
Mr. Latham. All right. In isolated cases.
Attorney General Reno. No, we are trying to be as
comprehensive as we can in developing it in a thoughtful way,
Congressman, so that it is not a piece here and a piece here,
but that we develop the use of technology and equipment that
can be shared between departments so there is costly
duplication.
One of the things that we have seen in much of the
technology is that it is getting more and more expensive, and
the more we can plan it in a comprehensive way, I think, the
better we will be able to do it.
Jail Space In Midwest For Meth Offenders
Mr. Latham. It is very expensive, and they need the help of
the local law enforcement block grants.
In the Midwest, and this has a lot to do with the meth
problem somewhat and also immigration concerns, is lack of bed
space in jails and prisons. In our bill last year, there was
money for them, such as the INS detention facility in Grand
Island, Nebraska; and apparently there are some problems in
proceeding with that. It seems to me that the Midwest has been
neglected, and apparently there are more bottlenecks now. Did
you plan on addressing the problem that we have? It is a huge
load that our counties and local law enforcement cities are
having to make up as far as space for illegals and also people
involved in drugs which we could use this facility for.
Attorney General Reno. I would be happy to check out the
specifics of the facility and call you.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Facilities in Midwest for Meth Offenders
Question. What is the status of the Grand Island, Nebraska
detention facility for INS?
Answer. The building of a detention facility requires
extensive infrastructure support, especially for a facility
that could serve the needs of the INS in the Midwest. The Grand
Island, Nebraska area does not have the necessary
infrastructure to support such a detention facility. The
location lacks sufficient legal services for aliens,
transportation support (including available commercial air),
consular offices, medical facilities, housing and other
services.
Neither the Grand Island area nor the Omaha District
generates sufficient apprehensions to justify such a facility.
Grand Island is not a location central to the offices
generating most of the workload or central to the
transportation corridors. It is quite distant from major
centers of INS activity, and due to its severe weather and lack
of commercial air, it would be difficult at times to move
aliens in and out of the facility. The average distance to
Grand Island from the four districts it would support ranges
from 180 miles to Omaha to 520 miles to Chicago. More promising
locations for such a facility would be Des Moines, Kansas City,
and St. Louis. These locations would also be more promising in
terms of providing support to INS eastern region districts.
A detention facility would house large numbers of criminal
aliens, most of which would be from outside the Nebraska area.
These individuals have the right to appear before immigration
judges to determine their immigration status. These aliens are
entitled to legal counsel, which is insufficient in the Grand
Island area, and which would be difficult to entice to provide
legal services for such a population so far away from major
population centers.
In some cases detainees are released from detention on bond
or recognizance. Thus, the Grand Island area would need to
provide the ability to house some of these individuals and
their relatives for short periods of time, and also have the
available transportation for them to move in and out of the
area without much difficulty. Grand Island only has a small
regional airport that operates only 12 hours a day, no train
service except for freight, and bus service via Greyhound with
seven daily runs.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
CYBERCRIME
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one last
brief area.
We keep talking about cybercrime, and I wonder if we all--
starting with me--fully understand what we are talking about.
We shop on the Internet, we read, we do research. We use the
Internet for quite a bit of information and transactions. What
kinds of cybercrimes are being referred to you and what is it
other than the obvious: security of your credit card and the
issue of pornography? What other issues are being discussed
here?
Attorney General Reno. As I mentioned to you, we have
prosecuted or dealt with the case of a man who sat in his
kitchen in St. Petersburg, Russia, and on the Internet, engaged
in fraudulent electronic wire transfers. You have mentioned the
issue of pornography around the world. You have the issue of
illegal gambling over the Internet. You have stalking and
intrusions and threats on the Nation's information
infrastructure. These are just some of the issues. You have
others using the Internet in commerce and then not delivering
on what they said they were going to deliver. There are a whole
range of issues.
Voting On The Internet
Mr. Serrano. Yesterday I believe it was, the State of
Arizona used the Internet for voting, and the way it was
presented on TV, it is the first time ever perhaps in the
history of the world that on-line voting has taken place--and
it is interesting, it wasn't for local prosecutor or local town
supervisor, it was for the President of the United States. What
do you foresee or how have you already been asked to be
involved in making sure that that experiment becomes a reality?
Attorney General Reno. First of all, I think it is
important to make clear, because industry sometimes thinks that
we are trying to get in to regulate them, and we don't want to
regulate them, we want to work with them to develop the
Internet in the wisest way possible and to be prepared to
respond in terms of prevention, but also in terms of
enforcement so that people can have confidence in the Internet.
I think that that is an experiment within Arizona, and I
think people are looking at it, but it, again, is an example of
the wonderful things that can be done with the net if people
have confidence in it and we can respect the privacy of
individuals so that people won't know how you are voting.
It is probably one of the most exciting, complex,
challenging and critical issues that law enforcement will face
in the next century, how we respond in the right way, fairly,
effectively, according to law, while at the same time enforcing
the privacy of individuals who use the Internet and making it
the tool that it can be----
Mr. Serrano. Are you aware whether the State of Arizona did
this on their own or did they contact the Department----
Attorney General Reno. To my knowledge, they didn't
contact us, but I will check and let you know. There may have
been contacts through--I am not aware of any. I, frankly, read
about it in the paper.
Mr. Serrano. So did I. I saw it in the paper.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. It was interesting that the senator from
Arizona was involved in raising so much money on the Internet,
which is a whole different thing than the voting there.
Once again, I thank you for your answers to my questions.
For my part I stand ready to continue to work with you; and,
hopefully, we will be able to resolve any differences on those
other two very small issues.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. This is probably the last opportunity. I have
some questions that I will submit. I just want to express to
you on a personal level how much I admire you and thank you for
the service that you have given. We don't agree on several
things, and that is very obvious, but on a personal level I
very much admire you.
Attorney General Reno. Well, I thank you, Congressman. I
had calves and cows when I was little, and the bottom fell out
of the calf market just after I invested a lot of money in it,
my money being $5 and $10 which I earned. It is a tough issue,
and I admire you for continuing to push it and bring it to
other people's attention, and I thank you for your comments.
INS Issues
Mr. Rogers. We are going to get you out of here very soon,
but not before we bring up our favorite topic, which is the
INS.
I want to update the list that I have been doing with you
every year of disasters, failures, problems, whatever, at the
INS. I want to update you with the very latest, current list.
We have doubled this agency's budget since 1995. In 1995,
their budget was $2.1 billion. It is now $4.3 billion in the
current year. If you go back a few more years, we have
quadrupled INS's budget over the last few years in an effort to
try to stem the problems that were taking place within its
jurisdiction, thinking mistakenly that all they needed was more
money, more staff, more authority; and they have spent the
money, but the problems get worse, not better.
Border Patrol
Here is the latest, an update from last year. Border Patrol
is still not under control. The border is still not under
control, no more under control than it was 4 years ago, despite
the fact that we have increased the number of Border Patrol
agents from a level in 1993 of 3,900 agents to a level of 9,377
agents, a 136 percent increase. In fact, while a stream of
illegal aliens may have been slowed in the San Diego area, it
has moved east to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Yet their
budget request funds less than 1,000 agents over 2 years. In
spite of extensive recruiting efforts, they are still having
problems hiring and keeping Border Patrol agents.
Ahmed Ressam, suspected Algerian terrorist, crossed at a
checkpoint in Washington State with the components of a bomb in
his car, five other suspects have also been arrested, and yet
the northern border of the U.S. only has 322 Border Patrol
agents. Out of almost 9,000 that were authorized for fiscal
year 1999, only 5 percent are on the northern border. INS
remains almost exclusively focused on the southwest border.
Mariano Faget, an INS official in Miami, indicted on
suspected spying for Cuba, in the news right now.
Ident/IAFIS
Failure in the identification system to interface with the
FBI fingerprint database that resulted in the Border Patrol
releasing Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the suspected serial killer,
even though he was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list. INS didn't
know it, hadn't linked up to FBI, and released him. He had been
previously deported by INS three different times and was in INS
custody on eight other occasions.
This agency is inept. The failure to plan for and request
resources, to keep up with their detention needs that Mr.
Latham mentioned, resulting in two large and last-minute
requests for additional space, an $80 million emergency
supplemental in fiscal year 2000, a $230 million budget
amendment request for detention space for criminal aliens. Even
though there are 6 million more illegal aliens now living in
the United States, growing faster than the rate
that INS removes them, in spite of the considerable resources
that we have invested in the Border Patrol, the fiscal year
2001 budget justification says that INS has had its new
interior enforcement strategy in place since January, 1999, and
yet they have yet to provide us with a satisfactory plan.
Justice, as you well know, has had to step in more
frequently to clean up INS disasters, a few of those that we
have dealt with you.
CITIZENSHIP USA
Citizenship, USA. In 1996, when INS naturalized 1.4 million
immigrants waiving all requirements that the FBI furnish them a
background check on these people before they were naturalized,
something we have done since time immemorial, in order to get
1.4 million voters on the rolls in 1996, quadrupled the number
that is normally naturalized. As a result, there are tens of
thousands of felons on the streets of the U.S., perfectly good
citizens now, thank you, because they weren't found by the FBI
or at least the INS didn't ask the FBI if they had a criminal
background.
INS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Financial management problems, the audit of the H(1)(b)s,
temporary visa issuances, INS issued more visas than the law
allowed. No one yet knows and you can't tell me, unless you can
tell me now, how many tens of thousands of visas were illegally
issued by INS. The number of pending immigration benefits other
than naturalization has increased, and the processing time is
growing. The number of applications for benefits other than
naturalization for January, 1999, was 2.1 million and for
January, 2000, 2.7 million pending, unable to be acted upon.
INS has failed to anticipate the production needs for
expiring green cards, and that has resulted in waits of up to 2
years for green cards to persons granted that status. Their
$4.3 billion budget is over 20 percent of your whole
Department's resources. INS was the only Justice agency that
had deficiencies; and, as a result, Justice was unable to
receive a clean audit.
A new report that just came out in the newspaper on
February 29th about the government performance project where an
agency graded the Departments of government on their overall
management, guess what is at the bottom of the list, the
worst--INS. That confirms something we already knew. I didn't
need a study to tell me that. Because we have concluded that in
this subcommittee now for years. They got a D.
Of the 26 reports that we requested in fiscal year 2000, 13
have not been submitted by the prescribed deadline, five are
due from the conference reports, and the fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 reports have never been submitted by this
agency. They just say, we don't have it--but give us our money
for next year.
What are we going to do about the INS and its continued
inability to get its house in order? Maybe there are some other
items on this list of failures, transgressions that I have
omitted. I am sure that there are. Would you like to add to the
list?
INS IMPROVEMENTS
Attorney General Reno. First of all, I would like to put it
in perspective. Have you ever been to the border?
Mr. Rogers. I have.
Attorney General Reno. I wish you would have gone with me
in August of 1993 when you talk about a border out of control.
In San Diego, vast crowds of people waited to cross, and most
crossed successfully. There were little lighting fence sensors.
Residents along the border complained about crime. Now you go
down there and you see, because of your efforts, the Border
Patrol efforts, Justice Department efforts, fencing, state-of-
the-art sensors; and, after peaking in 1992, the violent crime
rate is down by 44 percent in San Diego.
Now your response is, it just moved east. But you go east,
and you see the steps that have been taken, and there are still
more steps to be taken. If Mr. Kolbe were here, he would point
out Douglas, but we are in the process of doing that. Look at
what they have done. They have absorbed 114 percent increase in
agents to date, land border inspectors have increased by 53
percent, miles of lighting have increased by 171 percent,
fencing by 637 percent. Miles of road have been increased,
sensors--12,184 sensors have been installed. There has been an
89 percent increase in vehicles, 105 percent increase in
helicopters, 176 percent increase in NATS case processing.
Total removals have increased by 317 percent. Persons inspected
have increased by 25 percent, and detention beds have increased
by 214 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with you more. There is a
lot more to be done. I realize more work needs to be done to
strengthen our detention and removal and identification
efforts. We recently provided information to the House
Immigration Subcommittee, that of 35,000 criminal aliens
released over the last 5 years from our custody, approximately
37 percent went on to commit additional crimes. Although this
rate of recidivism is similar to non-alien criminals who were
recently released, I am troubled by the information, and I want
to address this very important problem.
To address it, I think we have got to be concerned about
the detention effort; and, as you know, we have created the
concept of a Detention Trustee to pursue these issues. I want
to do everything I can to improve the institutional removal
program so that people go directly from the prison back to the
country of origin.
There are other things that need to be done; and, in the
time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with
you on what we can do to improve the effectiveness of INS.
In that regard, I think INS has been unable to keep up with
the hiring of the thousand Border Patrol agents because it is
very difficult to hire people in a time of low unemployment to
go to a lonely spot on the border for $23,000 a year. Last
year, we fell short by about one-half the Border Patrol hiring;
and we are going to try our best this year. We see some
progress.
In fiscal year 2001, we have requested only 430 new Border
Patrol agents; and I think a large part of our problem is pay
related. We are asking for $70 million to provide grade
increases to Border Patrol agents and inspectors and to reform
the Border Patrol's overtime pay system, and I want to do it so
these Border Patrol agents can have the money and have it go
towards their retirement benefits.
I think it is important that we address the issue of
financial management.
We have made some progress in getting INS's house in order.
We will continue to--I am putting a full court press to get
INS' accounting system and their books cleaned up so that the
INS and the Department have a clean audit opinion in the year
2000. I am requesting that the committee agree with the
establishment of a chief financial officer at INS as a means of
doing this.
In response to a number of concerns raised about INS's
congressional relations, including the issue of reports, which
embarrasses me, I have strengthened the Department's Office of
Legislative Affairs by adding a deputy who will have greater
oversight of INS's Congressional Relations Office.
I think one of the most important issues that we can
address, Mr. Chairman, is the whole issue of INS automation. As
more and more workload is placed on the agency in terms of
application for benefits and the like, so much of the effort
comes down to automation. As we have so many people coming
through the system, we have got to make sure that the IDENT and
the IAFIS system are connected.
INS has a number of automation projects under way, and I am
planning to undertake a bottom-up review of the automation
initiatives, with the focus on developing a comprehensive plan
to get the INS system fully integrated and fully functioning.
I would point out again to you a point I raised at the
outset, though; and that is it is, very, very difficult in this
day and time to get people who have the expertise and the
management expertise to build such efforts, but we are
continuing. I have asked Steve Colgate and Don Prosnitz, my new
science and technology adviser, to head up this effort.
I share your concerns. You and I have talked about it, but
I think much has been done and much has to be done, and I think
these key initiatives can make a significant difference.
INS RELEASE OF CRIMINAL ALIENS
Mr. Rogers. Now, did I hear you say that the percent of
released criminal aliens that go out and commit further crimes
is 37 percent?
Attorney General Reno. That is the--released over the last
5 years from our custody, approximately 37 percent went on to
commit additional crimes.
Mr. Rogers. Number one, why would a person being held as a
criminal alien be released by the INS?
Attorney General Reno. You may have somebody who served
time for shoplifting. You may have somebody who has been
legally in this country for some time that commits an offense
and is released. We are analyzing that now to determine just
what the issues are.
Mr. Rogers. But these people are deportable. If they are
criminal aliens and they have served their time, are they not
deportable back to their country rather than being released?
Attorney General Reno. We are going to look at all of the
issues to see.
One of the things that I want to do is to make sure, when a
person is deportable and should be deportable, that we try to
do that while they are in custody for the offense that they
committed.
Mr. Rogers. Do we know how many of these people commit
serious crimes after they are released?
Attorney General Reno. I don't have the exact figures on
that yet. But I will furnish them to you--unless Steve, do you
have them?
Steve tells me that we are still sorting through that, and
we can come back and testify or give you a briefing when we
have the precise figures.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I want to know how many criminal aliens
we have released onto the streets of America, why they were not
deported back to their home country when their time was up here
in jail, and a breakdown of the types of crimes for which they
were being held and the types of crimes which they committed
after they were released--that is to say the seriousness of the
crimes.
This is shocking, again. Every time, I say nothing that the
INS does next will shock me, but I have lied again. I am
shocked. I just can't fathom this agency. We give them money
that we scrape from every other place by the billions of
dollars, and they just can't get it right.
RESTRUCTURING OF INS
That is why, as you well know, even though this is an
agency that this Subcommittee funds, I find myself in the
unusual, ironic predicament of being the chairman of the
subcommittee and, at the same time, trying to dismantle this
agency. It may be incongruous, those two actions, but I don't
know what else to do. I have tried everything known to
humankind in the 17 years that I have sat on this Subcommittee,
the last 5 of which as chairman, to try to solve this agency's
problems, all to no avail.
I know you have devoted a lot of your time and attention
and your staff's attention to the same problem. Don't you agree
with me that we have got to do something dramatic to deal with
the jurisdiction of this agency that is not being served by
this agency?
Attorney General Reno. As I have told you and as you well
know, I want to work with you on issues of restructuring in any
way that I can. But I think, Mr. Chairman, that in the time I
have, the most important thing that I can do is to do
everything I can to get the financial management of the agency
in order, and we have made real progress, to get the detention
program working correctly through the use of the Detention
Trustee and through enhancement of the Institutional Removal
Program to develop a system of automation that can function.
And, Mr. Chairman, believe me, that is easier said than done
when you go out to try to hire computer experts that understand
what is necessary from a management as well as from a technical
point of view. But we are going to try. I just look forward to
working with you in whatever undertaking to try to leave the
agency in a shape that it can build for the future.
RELEASE OF CRIMINAL ALIENS
Mr. Rogers. Of course, we are talking about real human
beings here that are suffering, American citizens who pay their
taxes, who are citizens of our country, who are being preyed
upon by criminal aliens released by this Justice Department
upon them with no apparent effort to send them back to where
they came from originally. How can we defend that type of
record? One in three--the INS has got to know from these
statistics that more than one in three of these criminal aliens
that are being released by them voluntarily are going to
inflict some pain on another American--kill, rob, maim, cheat,
steal, break in, drugs, whatever--one in three of those people
that they are knowingly releasing--they have got to know that
these people are going to inflict pain on our people. How can
we defend that?
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, we have got to look
at exactly who these people are, why they were released and
take steps to avoid it for the future. But we have got to
recognize--and I look forward to working with you on that
effort--that the same rough fraction holds true for those
United States citizens that are released from our jails.
Mr. Rogers. But we can't deport them, but we can deport
these people that came here illegally, committed a crime while
here and served their time in jail, and then we turn them
loose. We can return them to their own country, not to inflict
pain on Americans. I can't defend that.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, Congress passed an act
in 1996 that said that we couldn't release them. Then I
suddenly start getting letters saying, why don't you use your
discretion to release them? It is easier said than done, but we
have together focused on an issue that has got to be addressed.
We have got to address it both with respect to citizens and
otherwise and do everything we can to properly prepare for the
future.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DOJ BUDGET PROBLEMS
Mr. Rogers. Now you know we have been very supportive of
the Department of Justice. We have increased your budget by
about 50 percent over the last 5 years, despite constraints
that we were under overall in spending. We expect that money to
be used wisely and in the manner for which we provided it, but
we have become increasingly concerned that some DOJ components
are not doing this.
Last year, we learned that DEA moved around almost $330
million without our approval. Last year, we had to bail the
U.S. Marshals Service out when they came up short because they
had not managed their budget within the level that it was
given. We have also, as I have said, had to bail out the INS
financially. Now we have learned that the FBI may be as much as
$65 million short this year. How do we explain this?
Attorney General Reno. One of the things that I have tried
to do is instill respect for sound financial management to
every one of the managers. The result has been now a clean
audit except for INS, and this is a tremendous accomplishment
on the part of these people, and I am very proud of the effort
that has been undertaken.
With respect to the FBI issue, we are not looking for you
to bail us out. We have got to take steps to live within our
budget. The base budget review that is going on will address
the causes for the problem. Managing growth so that it does not
lead to future shortfalls, as I have discovered, is one of the
issues a manager must cope with. I have reminded my managers,
and they need to be mindful that decisions made today can have
an impact down the road.
One of the areas that I think we need to address and just
constantly remind them is that we see situations where a pay
increase is given and it has got to come out of the base where
there are other obligations that are imposed where you think
that there is going to be more money but there is not more
money, and trying to run a big operation in that situation is
not always the easiest thing to do. But we are committed to
doing everything that we can to leave this Department in as
good shape as possible.
Mr. Rogers. Well, of course, all agencies have the same
requirement to manage their moneys. Justice has been one of the
very few agencies that has been flush with money. We provided
you increases when everyone else was getting cuts, and yet we
see mismanagement in these components that I have mentioned.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I think they probably
appreciate your generosity so much that they keep thinking that
it is coming each year, and they don't think of the
consequences sometimes.
Mr. Rogers. Uh-huh. We can fix that.
Mr. Serrano. Wrong guy to get that feeling with.
Mr. Rogers. We directed you in the fiscal year 2000
conference report to conduct complete budget reviews of the
major DOJ components. When can we expect those reports?
Attorney General Reno. Steve says they are in the process
of compiling the information right now, and I will ask Steve or
Therese to let you know when to expect it.
Mr. Rogers. We are going to mark up the bill earlier this
year than normal, and we need them before we mark up the bill.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you for that warning.
Mr. Rogers. Can you assure us that any shortfalls that will
be found will be fixed without the need for us to bail you out?
Attorney General Reno. I am committed to doing that.
Mr. Rogers. I know you are, but are the components going to
do that? Was that a yes?
Attorney General Reno. Yes. I think we should confer with
them.
Mr. Rogers. With whom?
Attorney General Reno. The components that the Chair
referred to.
Mr. Rogers. I would expect that you do.
Attorney General Reno. I am going to, and I have.
Mr. Rogers. Surely they will hear that we want them to take
care of their own problems. And, if not, we will buy an ad in
the newspaper or on TV.
Attorney General Reno. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I have a number of other questions which will
be submitted for the record.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, I am always happy to
stay for as long as you want.
Mr. Rogers. We don't want to punish you any more. You have
been such a nice witness.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano, any other questions?
Mr. Serrano. No, just to thank the Attorney General for her
testimony today. We will continue to work. As the Chairman
said, we are trying to mark up early this year, and we hope
that many of the issues under your jurisdiction that tied up
this bill last year will be resolved prior to that.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Attorney General Reno, for your
testimony and your generous time and your staff, and we look
forward to working with you.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 16, 2000.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WITNESS
LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR
Opening Remark of Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rogers. The Committee will be in order. This afternoon
we would like to welcome the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh,
to appear before the Committee on behalf of the FBI's budget
for fiscal year 2001. You are seeking $3.281 billion from this
Committee for the FBI, which represents a net increase of $240
million, or 8 percent over the total comparable amounts
available to the FBI in the current year. We have tried to
respond to the FBI's needs so that the United States is better
protected and better prepared to respond and better informed on
the threat of terrorism, violent crime, and other violations of
Federal criminal law.
In the last 5 years we have increased funding for the FBI
by $1.03 billion, a 50 percent increase in these 5 years,
including $700 million in new resources to assist you in
responding to the increasing terrorist threats we face both
here and abroad. The FBI's mission is to perform these
responsibilities in a manner that is responsive to the needs of
the public and is faithful to the Constitution of the United
States.
In 1999, law enforcement all over the country received new
tools to fight crime, as we will finally see our large
investment in IAFIS and the NCIC-2000 come to fruition.
Investments in a new crime laboratory, DNA identification
systems, and command and control centers will also allow for a
better response to the crime problems facing the country.
This will be an extremely difficult budget year for this
committee. The FBI will be given no exception to having to
justify every dime that it needs and to demonstrate to us that
the additional resources will make a difference.
Hopefully, this hearing will provide you that opportunity
to do that today; and we appreciate your being here with you
and your staff. Let me yield to my ranking member, Mr. Serrano.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and once again it is
a pleasure to welcome Director Freeh. As always, you have had a
busy year; and I look forward to hearing about the challenges
that you are facing. Particularly, Director Freeh, I am
interested in discussing cybercrime and cyberterrorism; and
then I will ask a series of questions regarding an issue of
special interest to me and to the people who reside in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico regarding FBI actions in the not-
too-distant past. I welcome you here, and I stand ready to
assist you in any way that I can in this budget process.
Mr. Rogers. We will insert your written statement in the
record and welcome your oral statement.
FBI Director Freeh's Opening Statement
Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Serrano and Members of the Committee. This is
actually the seventh budget that we have worked on over the
years, and let me just echo the appreciation not just of the
FBI and the Attorney General, but really all of my colleagues
in Federal, state, local and now even foreign law enforcement
who have benefited from the extraordinary support that you have
just briefly alluded to in very summary fashion.
In all of those programs, all of those endeavors, this
committee has been at the leadership level with respect to
public safety and law enforcement; and we are very, very
grateful for that. There have been a lot of changes as you
mentioned over the years and an unprecedented period of growth
for the FBI for which we are very thankful.
CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS
I was looking at some of our statistics before the hearing,
and not only has the nature of our work changed even over a few
years, but the demographics as well as the composition of our
agency has also changed.
Since October 1993, we have hired 13,188 employees. That
includes 4,788 agents and 8,400 support personnel. That
represents about 45 percent of the current on-board employees
of the FBI, which demographically puts us in a very
historically unique position. In addition to the technology
areas, Congressman Serrano, you noted particularly cybercrime,
we are entering a period of great challenges with probably the
most diverse and, I think, talented personnel, but also, on the
experience level, probably lower than many, many years before.
For instance, in our New York office, 46 percent of our
agents--and we have a total of over 1,100 agents there--have
under 5 years of experience. I was in Los Angeles on Monday for
an office visit, and 47 percent of the agents there have under
5 years of experience. This means that in addition to coping
with the technology issues, we have to, of course, make sure
that we are trained and that we have the ability to improve our
talents and deliver the services that this committee and the
American people expect.
CHALLENGES FACING THE FBI
If I might take a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, with your
indulgence to talk very, very briefly about some of the areas
where we are being challenged and we are responding based on
your support. In the area of technology, integrating our work
into the digital world and being a law enforcement agency in
the information age poses substantial problems. For instance,
in half of our cases, we now require computer forensic
examinations, which is a very new phenomenon. In 1999, we
needed to do 1,800 computer examinations. Next year, it will be
up to 6,000, which is why, among the other reasons, we have
asked for an increase in the number of our examiners.
The nature of our cases also has changed, not just from the
impact of technology, but also globalization.
We had a case 2 weeks ago, just by way of illustration, out
of our New Haven office where the FBI learned from an Internet
bulletin board that an unknown person posted a message, and the
message was ``Sometimes I feel like shooting up my school.''
Our New Haven office working with other FBI components and then
working with an overseas Legal Attache--which is why the LEGAT
program is such an integral part of what we do--was able to
trace the origination of that message to a 14-year-old in a
foreign country. We worked as we always do in those cases with
the foreign police. They issued a search warrant, arrested a
14-year-old who not only had firearms but also had dynamite.
The police force in the other country commended us for the
ability to unravel that kind of a trail, and for the impact
that that preventive action had probably in that country and
perhaps other places.
In the national security area, the Cold War is over. I am
not sure that everybody understands that. We have been actively
involved with increasing frequency in the counterintelligence
area, as exemplified by very significant espionage cases
against three major countries in the last few months. The
terrorist threat is rising not only around the world but around
the United States. The events of the new year period,
particularly in Seattle where on Tuesday I was able to speak
with the agents who worked on that case, and the series of
cases which unraveled in the course of that counterterrorism
investigation which again took FBI agents and personnel not
just around the country but outside the United States and
literally around the world working on cases of immediate threat
and necessity.
GLOBAL COMPUTER CRIME
With respect to dealing with global crime and computer
crime, in February the attacks on the Internet companies made
it crystal clear how this is not only the wave of the future
but in fact, is the reality of today. Using a computer to break
into a New York bank from Russia and move millions of dollars,
and shutting down a 911 system, using computers in the course
of almost every kind of criminal and counterintelligence
activity as well as organized crime and drugs, will pose and
continue to pose great challenges to us.
Meanwhile, we have to work very closely with our state,
local, and foreign partners. We have less than 12,000 FBI
Special Agents as compared to the 12,000 Chicago police
officers. By way of comparison, that makes us not only an
organization that has to maximize our resources--and we are
spread literally all over the world--but to make sure that we
have the tools and the technologies that give us the force
multipliers so that the people working for us, and against the
people we protect benefit.
FY 2001 BUDGET INITIATIVES
With respect to the fiscal year 2001 budget, I believe that
the areas where we have requested additional support, continued
support, is central to all of the things that I have alluded to
and which you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Serrano, have
alluded to. Of the eight different initiatives, three of them
are operational, that is, dealing with particular cases, five
of them are in the areas of operational support, technology,
training and tools and skills that we need to perform our job.
There is a counterintelligence request for $19.1 million. There
is a separate request which is operational support for
information collection, management, analysis, and that is again
using the tools of the digital world for translation activity
and the computer software and hardware we need to perform our
job.
Training is another separate area, again a support
initiative. Investigative support, which includes buying new
digital body recorders which are the state of the art as
opposed to the old reel-to-reel recorders which we use as well
as resources to continue preparing for the 2002 Olympics where
the FBI has the central counterterrorism and intelligence
collection component responsibilities.
CALEA, on which you, Mr. Chairman, have been a particular
leader for many, many years, ensuring that not only the FBI but
our state and local partners have continued lawful access
pursuant to court orders to the conversations as well as the
evidence of people who commit the most serious types of crime.
Technology and cybercrimes are a separate area. Again we
are looking for computer examiners and the ability to use these
tools effectively. We believe that these particular resource
enhancements, together with our 5-year strategic plan with the
counterterrorism and technology plan, will put us in good stead
to begin to manage all of the new threats and burdens that we
deal with.
PAY AND BENEFITS SHORTFALL
I want to mention briefly before I close, as I have
previously advised you as well as Chairman Gregg, we are
projecting a shortfall in the personnel compensation and
benefit area. The shortfall has both internal as well as
external reasons and influences. For the internal factors,
which we take full responsibility for as we do the entire
shortfall, obviously, there are several factors. We have
upgraded many of the support positions, 17 specifically, at a
cost of several millions of dollars. We have provided at my
decision, substantial financial incentives to staff, some of
our hard-to-staff offices where the hardships make it very
difficult and extra expensive for people to serve. Taking
advantage of the congressionally authorized transit subsidy
program has cost us some money, which we think is well spent.
The external factors of course include pay raises as well
as the migration from the Civil Service Retirement System to
the FERS system.
We have taken substantial corrective action to resolve this
problem using both unobligated resources from prior years as
well as reprogramming from this year, and those are now being
finalized and will be presented to the committee. We will work
very hard to ensure that this problem does not occur again.
However, we do need to work very closely both within the
Department and certainly with this Committee and the Senate to
ensure that in the days to come we have not only the tools and
skills to perform our job but the funding and positions that
are requisite to carrying out that mission.
I want to just conclude by again thanking you, Mr.
Chairman, Congressman Serrano, all of the Members of the
Committee, particularly your staff. I also want to thank our
staff who works as you do year on these issues. I am very
proud, that the public accounting firm that audits our
financial statements pursuant to the Chief Financial Officers
Act gave an unqualified opinion in both 1998 and 1999 for the
work represented in those statements. I want to thank my staff
for working and preparing for the hearings. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FY 2000 PAY SHORTFALL
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Now, I am holding a news account
which quotes Deputy Director Thomas Pickard on March 8, which
essentially says that--relating to your shortfall, that
Congress had not approved funding and that is the reason for
the shortfall. Now, you know in the last 5 years, as I have
said, we have increased your budget by 50 percent. You have
gotten increases in this bill like no other agency except INS
and the Bureau of Prisons. This Subcommittee has bent over
backwards. We have scraped the bottom of the barrel, and you
come up $65 million short this current year and say that
Congress has not approved your funding. What do you say about
that?
Mr. Freeh. It is clear that this is not an issue of either
congressional funding or OMB approval or even Department of
Justice funding. This was a shortfall that we were, quite
frankly, very late in realizing and realizing it late is my
responsibility. I take responsibility for that. But as I
mentioned, there are many internal decisions which we made,
which I have the responsibility for, which have caused and
impacted on that shortfall. We did not ask for these funds. We
did not flag this issue for the OMB, certainly not for this
Committee, so the responsibility is with me and I keep it
there.
Mr. Rogers. Well, then maybe you had better talk to Mr.
Pickard about this statement and see that something is put out
differently because I know this Subcommittee resents, and
certainly I do, after trying as hard as we could to find you
money, being blamed for the shortfall which clearly is an
internal problem.
Mr. Freeh. It is, and I take responsibility for that.
Mr. Rogers. We have learned that you hired 300 more people
than you requested or received funding for this current year.
That alone, that overhiring alone created at least a $15
million shortfall. How did that happen?
Mr. Freeh. We were determined, as I think we were
appropriately determined to be, to hire all of the positions
and fill all of the vacancies. I go back particularly to the
period in 1997 and 1998 before this Committee where we were not
filling positions. In fact, for several years in a row, where
supplemental appropriations he provided positions that had not
been filled. So we hired. We brought in people we thought in a
measured manner which would be equivalent to the positions.
But, by hiring up to the position levels, we used more FTEs. We
have taken substantial steps to remedy that. By the end of this
year, due to the internal measures that we have taken, we will
be under the FTEs with respect to agents. We will be over with
respect to support. Overall, we will still have an overage of
227 FTE. But we will, I believe, by that time be in accords
with a track which will put us back where we belong.
Mr. Rogers. There is a difference between authorizations
and appropriations. When Congress authorizes you to have so
many people on your staff and yet we cannot find the money to
fund all of those authorizations, it does not mean that you can
hire them. That is clear, isn't it?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. I think that is what happened. If agencies
could hire the personnel that they are authorized to hire and
yet we cannot find the money to hire, the INS would have 10,000
Border Patrol agents. That is what they are authorized. We
simply cannot find money for that many. It is the same with the
FBI and all of the other agencies. We simply cannot tolerate
any agency exceeding its funded level. So are you going to eat
that fiscal year 2000 shortfall?
Mr. Freeh. Yes. We have a plan to address that. As I said,
by the end of the fiscal year we will still be over but will be
clearly on a track that will eliminate that overage within a
short period of time.
Mr. Rogers. What about 2001, if you eat it and take care of
it for the current fiscal year, what about next year?
Mr. Freeh. If we do not have the necessary funding to have
the number of positions that are authorized filled to the
appropriate FTE level, we are going to have to look to putting
the breaks on additional hiring next year or even asking that
we have a readjustment of the number of positions or FTEs and
do what we can with the very scarce dollars in which this
committee has worked hard to provide.
Mr. Rogers. We all have to live within our budgets. We have
a certain amount of money to spend. DEA has had shortfalls in
the past. The U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service. We did
not bail them out. We made them eat those shortfalls. You will
have to do the same thing. The Attorney General assured us last
week that this shortfall problem would be fixed without the
need for this committee to bail you out. So we expect that you
will do that in the current year and in 2001. We simply cannot
find the moneys next year on top of the other increases that
you are asking for to bail you out in 2001.
The 2000 conference report that this subcommittee produced
directed the Attorney General to conduct a complete budget
review of all of the major DOJ components, including the FBI.
When can we expect your reports from those reviews?
Mr. Freeh. I am told April 10, Mr. Chairman.
FBI ROLE IN PUERTO RICO
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Freeh, there
are a lot of members attending today so I am not going to ask
all of my questions; but as I mentioned, there is an issue of
great importance to me personally, to people in my community
and to over 4 million citizens in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, in view of the fact that more and more, every day, we see
people reconciling with the past and actions of the past.
I think it is important to bring to you something you may
be aware of, and that is this. It was rumored and is now proven
that during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s the government of
Puerto Rico participated in an operation to discredit the
independence movement on the island. Files were kept on doctors
and lawyers and journalists and taxi drivers and workers who
had at any time supposedly made any comment which could support
the independence of Puerto Rico. People lost jobs. Some people
also lost their lives, and there has been serious belief that
somehow there was involvement by the authorities, if you will,
in the loss of these lives.
Recently that has been dealt with in Puerto Rico. People
understand that these files exist, and they were made public,
and a fund was even established by the governor to compensate
people for their losses during that period of time. As recently
as this month, a couple of weeks ago, the Puerto Rico Senate
passed a resolution asking the larger question, that is, what
role did the FBI and other Federal agencies play in what is one
of the darkest moments in the history of the relationship
between Puerto Rico and the United States?
My question to you today is: would it be possible for the
FBI under your leadership to come clean for its past actions
and tell us if indeed there was any involvement, tell the
people of Puerto Rico and tell the American people if there was
any involvement, and how extensive it was. Specifically, is
there evidence, as some former FBI folks have reported, of the
FBI not only being involved in the discrediting of the
independence movement, but also in some violence and violent
acts that were committed and passed off as acts of independence
supporters when in fact they were committed by the government
to discredit the movement?
And where does this fit in to appropriations discussions?
Well, we fund many of your operations, and obviously people who
were around then unknowingly funded that operation, if that
operation took place. So the operation that I would like to
fund this year is the reconciliation with the Puerto Rican
people and the American people as to what happened during that
period.
Lastly, the leader of that movement during the 1930s,
1940s, 1950s, and 1960s was a gentleman by the name of Dr.
Campos. Dr. Campos spent 27 years in prison for his
independence beliefs and died shortly after being released from
prison. Rumors still persist in the government and other places
that the FBI participated with Federal prison officials to
torture him in prison for his beliefs and to try to get
information from him that he obviously did not have. Or died
with.
This is my request. Can the FBI reconcile with the past and
deal with the truth of what happened, and what can we do to
deal with that issue?
Mr. Freeh. Well, I believe we can do a couple of things.
The first thing is to say again, as has been said but cannot be
said too frequently, that we deplore anybody in law
enforcement, whether it be the FBI or any other police agency
charged with the protection of the people, using the
instrumentalities, the authorities, the power of police or law
enforcement, to commit crimes, to violate civil rights.
Your question goes back to a period, particularly in the
1960s, when the FBI did operate a program that did tremendous
destruction to many people, to the country, and certainly to
the FBI. Part of that involved some of the instances that you
refer to. In 1976, then Attorney General Ed Levy, who just
passed away, set forth the Attorney General guidelines which
are still in force today and which govern, prohibit, sanction
and, we believe, prevent the recurrence of that type of
institutional behavior. In fact, in the editorial that The
Washington Post wrote on Attorney General Levy on Saturday,
they quoted me talking about the importance of these
regulations on the FBI as well as other agencies.
In 1977, the FBI took some steps to notify the people of
Puerto Rico who were the subjects of some of these inquiries,
and files and investigations and offered to make those files
available to them. I asked, when I read the article on December
28--and I put a direction on there to my deputies to do two
things: one, to go back and give me, at least on a preliminary
basis an inventory and two, a briefing as to the extent of our
involvement. I intend to follow that up, as I did at the time,
with whatever appropriate legal and necessary steps that we can
take as an agency to not only look at what is there, and what
has been there, but also to take steps to make that available,
as we tried, as I mentioned, in 1977. You have my assurances
that I will pursue that.
I will certainly pursue it with the Department of Justice
with regard to the different standards that we use in those
cases. But we have no intent to do anything in this particular
case except make that information available and see if we can
redress some of the egregious illegal action, maybe criminal
action, that occurred in the past. I will do that, and you have
my assurance that we are doing that.
Mr. Serrano. I appreciate your candor on that issue. I
would add on a personal note that I will add to this statement
that I have made today as a member of this Committee by writing
to you and formally asking for these things. And also, while it
is indirectly related, many feel that it is totally related to
the treatment Dr. Campos received in prison. If you can look
into what the files show on that involvement and what we can do
to reconcile.
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying the people in Puerto
Rico and Puerto Ricans throughout the Nation are dealing with
the issue of reconciliation. As we look forward to solving the
status question whether Puerto Rico becomes an independent
nation or the 51st State of the Union, first it needs to
analyze what has happened during this 101-year relationship and
to deal with ourselves as Americans in terms of what went on. I
thank you and I hope that we can follow up as quickly as
possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ERIC Rudolph Investigation
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if you might
be able to give us a quick update on the Bureau's continued
search for Eric Rudolph, who is believed to be in my district,
in western North Carolina. I am aware that he is still one of
the 10 Most Wanted fugitives. Can you give us also an estimate
of what it has cost so far for the search and a timetable of
when the FBI agents are expected to be reduced in the area?
Mr. Freeh. With respect to total expenditures, I would have
to come back with a more exact number, but I would say clearly
with the salaries and all of the infrastructure, we are talking
about several millions of dollars, certainly just on the FBI's
part. He remains, as you pointed out, a Top 10 fugitive. He was
recently the subject of a lot of national publicity as people
marked the 50th anniversary of this program. We continue to
believe that he is in that area. We have reduced substantially
the number of personnel assigned to that investigation. We
still have an active investigation there. I am going to be down
there next week to do a site visit, and I will make some
further determinations as to the number, as well as the scope
of the activity, that will continue. But our theory was, one,
that he was there; and, secondly, that the pressure of being
pursued we believe has contributed to him not doing again what
he has been charged with doing, at least, and that is two
extremely serious bombings involving the death of two people
and the injury of many others.
I will get you an exact accounting of the dollars. With
respect to the time frame, I will have a better idea after I
visit. I will be talking to our State and local counterparts
while I am there. We will continue to pursue this vigorously.
Whether we do this with more or less people in that particular
venue is subject to what I am briefed on. We have not had a
sighting of him for over 18 months, which of course pushes
further into a downscaling mode. Obviously, the charges alleged
against him are very dangerous, and a very highly sought
fugitive he will remain.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Eric Robert Rudolph Investigation
Eric Robert Rudolph has been charged by Federal Criminal
Complaints for three bombings in the Atlanta, Georgia area, and
one bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. The three Atlanta area
bombings for which Rudolph is charged are: the July 27, 1996
bomb explosion in Centennial Olympic Park, resulting in one
fatality and injuries to over 100 other persons; the January
16, 1997 bomb explosions at the Atlanta Northside Family
Planning Services facility in which two bombs were detonated,
the first damaging the building and the second, approximately
one hour later, resulting in injuries to at least eight
individuals, including one FBI Agent and one Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms Agent; and the February 21, 1997 bomb
explosion at ``The Otherside Lounge'' that injured five
persons. A second explosive device was located and detonated
during render safe procedures. Following this incident, letters
signed by the ``Army of God'' and claiming responsibility for
the bombings were received by local news organizations. Based
on forensic evidence, investigative personnel working the three
Atlanta bombings were consolidated into the Atlanta Bomb Task
Force. On January 29, 1998, a bomb exploded at the New Woman
All Women Health Care Center, in Birmingham, Alabama. This
explosion killed an off-duty police officer and seriously
injured a nurse. The ``Army of God'' claimed responsibility for
this incident. Based on forensic evidence and other
investigation, the Bomb Task Force was integrated into the
newly formed Southeast Bomb Task Force.
As a result of investigation, a material witness warrant
was issued for Eric Robert Rudolph on January 30, 1998.
Subsequently, Rudolph was charged on February 14, 1998, for the
Birmingham bombing. On May 5, 1998, Rudolph was added to the
FBI's Ten Most Wanted fugitives list, and a reward of up to
$1,000,000 for information leading to Rudolph's arrest was
offered. On October 14, 1998, the Department of Justice
announced that Rudolph was charge federally in the three
Atlanta bombings and the Birmingham bombing.
Between October 1, 1997, and February 29, 2000, the FBI
estimates it has expended approximately $24,444,000 for the
investigation of the three Atlanta-area bombings, the
Birmingham bombing, and the fugitive investigation for Eric
Robert Rudolph.
High-Tech Privacy Concerns
Mr. Taylor. I want to turn for a moment to the question of
privacy. I know we are having more and more attention focused
on crime and law enforcement issues, such as terrorism and
computer hackers. A lot of the information that you are
gathering is high-tech and a lot of it is so new in the area of
high-tech that there are not many rules about it. I know the
FBI puts forth a message that says we are going after
criminals, and we are going to catch them, and we are going to
punish them. I can support that and agree with that, but we
need to emphasize, I think--and can you speak to this--a
message saying that at the same time, we are going to protect
the rights and privacy of law-abiding citizens. A lot of the
high-tech information, ordinarily, you would not be able to
share or access. While we are trying to catch those criminals,
we need to protect the citizens at the same time. Could you
speak toward that and what your agency does in that area?
Mr. Freeh. Surely. I would be pleased to. The venues in
which we work--and you mentioned computer crimes, chasing
criminals over the Internet as opposed to back fences--we do
both, and the volume of information, the form of that
information, the types of information, the whole issue of
collection, analysis and storage raise the most serious privacy
issues. Although all of our technologies have changed, and
certainly the challenges and difficulties have changed, the
Fourth Amendment has not changed. As the framers put it
together in 1791, it is exactly the same today.
So when we came to the Congress in 1994 and asked for
legislation which would allow the FBI and police departments to
continue to intercept conversations, on a probable-cause basis
found by a neutral and detached magistrate, of people who were
or were about to be committing crimes so that we would have a
technology that would work in a digital world as opposed to the
analog world. But probable cause, showing that judge the
evidence, reporting it back, all of the ceiling and protection
requirements and the sanctions for the abuse of those, none of
that has changed.
We operate on the Internet and we have some very
significant cases that we work in that area. For example we
have a case which is called the Innocent Images, which is a
very carefully controlled undercover operation by which FBI
agents identify and arrest pedophiles. These are people on the
Internet who come into your home, literally, and in many cases,
make arrangements to meet your minor son or daughter in a hotel
room, those are the cases that we work on. We have made over
193 arrests. There have been over a hundred convictions.
Even though we are operating in a new venue and even though
we are on the Internet as opposed to sitting on the street
corner, the Fourth Amendment, the Attorney General guidelines,
the probable-cause standards, the necessity for search warrants
signed by a judge, none of that has changed. We are working in
new environments, and we are working with new tools. There is
no question about that. But the legal standards, the controls,
the guidelines and the ultimate oversight by courts and this
Congress have not in one measure, as far as I can see,
increased our power. They have just adapted to a new venue.
NATIONAL REGISTRY OF GUN OWNERS
Mr. Taylor. Can you speak on the retention of gun-purchase-
background checks? A lot of us have supported that sort of
measure in controling the illegal spread of firearms. I know
that you have wanted to hold the background check information a
little longer. What can you do to assure us that we are not
going to use that information to create a national registry of
gun owners? Can we immediately destroy those checks and not
keep them? I believe that is what Congress intended and what
the citizens expect.
Mr. Freeh. We have taken the position--and I know the
Attorney General has taken the position--that we would like to
retain these records for as long as it takes to do two things:
one, ensure that our system, in this case the NICS system, is
working according to the congressional mandate and according to
the restrictions of that mandate and not going beyond that;
secondly, to make sure from an audit point of view people,
whether police officers or hackers or gun dealers, are not
abusing the system, that we have a system that has integrity
and then to get rid of the records because there is no reason
to keep them. That period varies. Obviously we could argue that
60 days or 90 days is a more efficacious system than one that
keeps them for 48 hours. But the necessity is only a necessity
for the authenticity of the system, the audit controls, the
integrity of it, not for a national database. We have no
authority to do that. We would never do that. There is no
suggestion that we are going to get that authority. We don't
need it to enforce the instant background system. We do need
some modest period of retention, if you want us to have it, so
we can tell you that our system is working and that the wrong
people are not taking access to the records.
Reprogramming Notification
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Obey.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Director, I want to talk to you about the
instant-check system, too; but first I want to follow up on the
comments of the chairman because, very frankly, I think the way
your agency has handled your budget indicates that the FBI is
arrogant. Are you aware of the fact that you have something
known as section 605 which requires your agency to notify this
committee every time you move money around from one account to
another?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Obey. Why don't you follow it?
Mr. Freeh. You would have to give me a specific instance.
Mr. Obey. No, I do not. Your agency knows what those
instances are. The only time we receive notice is at the end of
the year.
Mr. Freeh. We endeavor to make those notifications as soon
as we can.
Mr. Obey. Well, you do a mighty lousy job of it.
Mr. Freeh. I apologize if that is your view. In many
instances we make the notifications. We do them as quickly as
we can. There are some cases where we do not do them. If we
do--again without citing a specific, I would attribute it to
oversight and not arrogance.
Mr. Obey. If I were the chairman, I'll tell you what I
would do if an agency did not notify me before it spent money
that was not in accordance with the appropriation: I would cut
double that amount from your budget every time you did that.
You have got this huge shortfall and in part, in my judgment,
one of the reasons you have it is because your agency has not
consistently informed this committee, and because of that we
were not red flagged on the problem soon enough to help you out
of it. So now you have us in a position where you issue this
kind of ridiculous press release and suggest that it is
anybody's fault but your agency's. And I for one as a person
who is supposed to appropriate the taxpayers' money do not
appreciate that one bit. It is about time that somebody on
Capitol Hill asked the FBI to behave the same way that every
other agency is supposed to behave. You are not supposed to be
above the law as an agency.
Mr. Freeh. May I respond.
Mr. Obey. Absolutely.
Mr. Freeh. We are certainly not above the law. As I said to
the chairman, I take full responsibility for the neglect in
bringing this problem to the attention of the committee and the
Department. We were late in figuring out exactly the scope and
the depth of that. There was no intention, I can assure you,
sir, to not report a problem which is a significant one and for
which I take responsibility. There are occasions where we do
not get reprogrammings or notifications up, and again I take
responsibility for that. It is a very large budget. We do it in
many cases successfully; and we do it in many cases on a
regular basis, but for those occasions where we do not, hold me
responsible, as you should, and I will endeavor to do a better
job.
Mr. Obey. You have us in one mess of a situation because
your agency in my view is a mess in terms of its budget
presentation; and some of the things that you have in this
year's budget make it even tougher. I think you need to give
this committee a detailed explanation of how you intend to
address this problem without setting up Congress as an
institution, because that to me looks like the position that
your agency thinks that it is. And Congress--I may have my
political differences with the chairman, but Congress did not
cause this problem; your agency did.
National Instant Check System Downtime
Now I would like to ask you with respect to the instant-
check system, we spent $37 million on that system, as I
understand it. How many times did it crash or was it down or
off-line last year?
Mr. Freeh. In the 15 months that it has been running, we
obviously have some statistics that----
Mr. Obey. I would appreciate a short answer.
Mr. Freeh. Some months we were 99 percent----
Mr. Obey. How many times did it crash?
Mr. Freeh. I could not give you an exact answer.
Mr. Obey. My understanding is it crashed at least three
times.
Mr. Freeh. I do not dispute that.
Mr. Obey. One of the times when it crashed was just before
Wisconsin's hunting season when we need it most, and it
crashed, I am told, because your agency was engaged in computer
upgrades either with the NICS system or other systems that feed
into it.
Now as you know, we have a lot of controversy in this
country about the use of guns. It would be nice if we could
avoid needless controversy on that issue, and I think it is
very difficult when we cannot count on this system to do what
it is supposed to do. If it could do what it was supposed to be
doing, we would not be having arguments about background checks
because this system would be taking care of it on a virtually
error-free basis.
I am going to submit a number of questions for the record,
but I want to know how many times last year the system was
down, for what duration was it down, how accurate can that
system be in providing information when these interruptions
occur? I want to know what funds are available this year for
system upgrades. If that is sufficient to meet the need, what
upgrades are planned and when will they be completed. I want to
know if you anticipate any additional upgrades this year or in
fiscal year 2001, and I want to ask who is responsible for
determining when these upgrades take place, because it seems to
me when you do upgrades that result in shutting down the system
at a time when a state such as mine needs it the most, it is a
spectacular example of how not to do business.
Mr. Freeh. We will certainly provide all of that
information in the detail that you want. My understanding is
that the shut-downs for what they call the software patches and
upgrades on the occasions that they have been done have been
timed they thought in a way that would be the least disruptive
to a system which I must say has worked extremely well in the
15 months that we have been responsible for it.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
GUN CHECK USER FEE
Mr. Obey. If you think that is true, talk to the people in
my State. They will have some choice words to say about the way
that this is operating. I will ask a number of other questions
for the record, Mr. Chairman. I would like to end with one last
question.
Why are you back here again proposing the user fee? I have
had my argument with the OMB and Administration on this, but my
comments are directed at you and your agency because it is my
understanding when you get your passback from OMB and you are
given choices on how you would rather use your money, or what
choices you want to make to get down to your budget level, you
would prefer user fees for this program to cutting other
programs that you prefer to have.
Mr. Freeh. I do not prefer--since you are asking me
directly, I do not prefer user fees over any other type of
funding. I am asking for a funding source for 642 positions and
at about $71.5 million. Where that comes from, I am not pushing
the user fee.
Mr. Obey. Isn't it true when you get your passbacks, when
you are given a list of choices, you request other items rather
than full funding for this program without user fees?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, that is correct--I'm sorry, I am told that
is not correct. I am told that the user fee is the policy
determined by the Administration. It is not determined by the
FBI.
Mr. Obey. I know that. I have had my argument with the
administration on that. I would like to know what other items
in your passbacks you placed ahead of funding this without user
fees. Do you want to supply that for the record?
Mr. Freeh. I will have to supply that for the record. I do
not have it.
[The information follows:]
Gun Check User Fee
During the FY 2001 budget passback process, restoration of
direct funding for the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) was the FBI's highest-ranked appeal item.
The Department of Justice ranked restoration of direct funding
for NICS as its fifth highest appeal item.
[Clerk's note.--The referenced material is on file with the
Subcommittee.]
Mr. Obey. I appreciate that. It seems to me that Congress
has been clear. There will be no user fees, so you are putting
us in the position where we have to raise a lot of extra money
or deny services, and then it looks like we have been set up
once again and I don't appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham.
METH PROBLEM IN IOWA
Mr. Latham. Welcome, Director Freeh. The meth problem in
Iowa is very, very serious. I would like to commend your
resident agency for their participation in the Tri-State drug
task force in Sioux City. You make a real difference.
I would like an update as to what the activities are with
the Tri-State drug task force and your agency. I know last year
you mentioned that the resident agency was having to do mostly
with crimes on Indian reservations, and you stated then that
meth was a real problem on the reservations. Is that still the
case or is there a different role for the agent in the Tri-
State area?
Mr. Freeh. I am not able to answer your question right now.
I'm sorry, I did not know about your inquiry beforehand. Let me
please get back to you on that, and I will make sure that I
give you that information myself directly. I am not updated on
that.
Mr. Latham. If you would, I would appreciate it. It is very
important for us.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Tri-State Drug Task Force
For 2000, the FBI increased agent staffing in the Sioux
City Resident Agency from three to four. This increase allowed
the FBI to expand its ability to investigate crimes on the
Omaha and Winnebago Indian Reservations and to participate in
the Tri-State Drug Task Force. The Tri-State Drug Task Force is
a DEA-led, nine-agency member task force that investigates all
organized crime and drug matters throughout the Siouxland
region. One FBI agent is assigned to the task force.
Only a small number of crimes committed on the Omaha and
Winnebago reservations are related to either methamphetamine
use or trafficking. However, drug-related problems on the Omaha
and Winnebago Reservations have worsened slightly during the
past year, but the condition is not due exclusively to
methamphetamine. There have been reports that marijuana is
being imported from Montana for distribution both on and off
the reservations, and cocaine has been showing up in small
quantities.
With respect to methamphetamine, however, current
intelligence suggests that there are approximately three groups
in the Walthill, Nebraska, area, which borders the Omaha
Reservation, who may be engaged in the distribution of
methamphetamine. This in an increase of two additional groups
from last year. It is believed that these groups have settled
on the reservation in order to avoid scrutiny by larger
Siouxland area law enforcement agencies. Most of the
methampetamine distributed by these groups ends up off the
reservations. No clandestine methamphetamine laboratories have
been discovered on either reservation.
IDENT/IAFIS INTEGRATION
As you know, a report was recently issued concerning the
integration of the INS's IDENT database and fingerprint system
and the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint System. I have
heard a lot of numbers discussed as to the cost. If you can
give us an idea of the cost, just a summary, the cost estimate
and when it will be done.
Mr. Freeh. There are four studies which have been forwarded
by the congressional report. Three of them are being done by
the Office of Justice Programs, or JMD, a division of the
Department; and the fourth one is being done by the INS. We
need the results of those studies to certainly make an estimate
as to the cost that it will take to integrate these systems
which, as you point out, are different. One is a two-finger
IDENT system, and the other is 10 finger with different timing
designs in the systems for obviously different purposes. We
need the results of those four studies which will cost several
millions of dollars to perform to make those estimates, and let
me find out, if I can, exactly when we are expecting the
results for those. The goal is obviously to integrate them, and
the Attorney General is committed to doing that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
IDENT/IAFIS Integration
The Justice Management Division of the Department of
Justice estimates that the studies are expected to be completed
near the end of calendar year 2000.
SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE
Mr. Latham. Last year we talked about the resources with
the FBI and the DEA and the Southwest Border Initiative, which
is a major factor in our part of the country with meth. Can you
give me any kind of update on that initiative? We really have
not seen any reduction as far as trafficking in our area with
meth, in particular, from the border.
Mr. Freeh. The Southwest Border Initiative continues to
have a very high focus on the methamphetamine importation into
the United States. I think the reason that you are seeing the
results that you describe accurately is the proliferation now
of domestic labs, labs which, as I saw in my trip to Seattle on
Tuesday, are now proliferating all over the states, very small
labs, easy to set up. Ephedra is becoming more and more
available. The Southwest Border focuses on an importation
source and is undermined by the growth of domestic sources.
So the strategy, which was the way that it was designed but
to be effective, is now going to have to deal with the foreign
manufacture exportation; but what is becoming much more the
norm is the very easy establishment of domestic laboratories.
DEA has the lead on this. We are working with them. The
Southwest Border will continue to focus on that issue; but we
are going to have to get beyond that into the domestic
production, and that is a huge and diverse problem.
INTERPOL RELATIONSHIP
Mr. Latham. I just had one more question. I would like to
submit some other questions.
We were at the Interpol headquarters last August, the
chairman led our delegation there, and it was very disturbing,
a report from them that there was very little coordination or
usage of Interpol by the FBI. We are funding Interpol several
millions of dollars a year. From what we understood, basically
those funds were doing us no benefit because of lack of usage
and coordination with law enforcement and the FBI in the U.S.
Mr. Freeh. We have a very long-standing and, I think,
successful relationship with Interpol. There has been a change
in the leadership there as you probably know. Ron Noble, for
whom I made the nominating speech last year, is the designated
new Secretary General. He is a former prosecutor from
Pennsylvania. For the first time I think we will have someone
in that position who will want to integrate the FBI into some
of the senior components, particularly the organized crime
component and the international intellectual property
component. He has indicated to me that he wants very high-level
participation. I have committed that to him. We have not gotten
that type of invitation previously on those level positions. I
think with his new leadership, which takes effect in a couple
of months, you are going to see a more prominent role not only
for the FBI but the other agencies, including the Treasury. He
was the Under-Secretary for Enforcement for the Treasury.
Mr. Latham. Committee members on that trip came away
wondering why we are spending U.S. tax dollars if we are not
using any of the great assets that they have available. I think
the frustration level that day was extremely high.
Mr. Rogers. We spent a lot of time with the U.S. agencies
there, the representative at Interpol, and the cooperation with
Interpol was--I will not say negligible, but it was way down,
not what it should be considering the money that we invest
there. I am wondering why have we not done that up until now.
You are saying you are going to integrate. Why haven't we used
all of the agencies effectively in the past?
Mr. Freeh. The American agencies have had representatives
both in the headquarters previously in Paris, now in Lyon. You
may have met one of my agents whose full time assignment has
been over there. She has been over there several years. We have
not been asked to take senior positions in some of the areas
where we feel we have the most expertise: organized crime,
corruption, counterfeit properties.
What we are getting from the new Secretary General is an
invitation that we had not gotten before, and it goes to the
other agencies, too. We use their red notice and warrant
provisions, and many of the other services which they provide
and which you support. Where we have not been integrally
involved is at very high levels of the components which are the
most essential parts of our mutual interests. I think we are
going to see a change in that as we get more people asked to
work on higher levels.
Mr. Rogers. It just seems to me that it is an asset that
would be of invaluable assistance to us and them as well. This
is after all a worldwide organization of law enforcement
people. While we are expanding your legal attache operations,
the FBI presence overseas in various posts around the world, we
would expect to utilize existing police outfits like Interpol
to further the fight against crime worldwide.
Mr. Freeh. Yes. Mr. Noble and I have been discussing this
for the last year. We have a lot of ideas. He has made some
proposals which we agree with, and I think we can now have an
opportunity to have a much greater participation.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan.
DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMEFIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Mollohan. Director Freeh, I would like to welcome you
to the hearing today. There have been some expressions of
concerns. I know that as appropriators we are always sensitive
about not being informed about reprogrammings and how money is
to be spent other than as it is appropriated. Those are all
legitimate concerns on our part, and I know that you understand
that. Those concerns having been expressed by the Chairman and
the Ranking Member of the full committee, I would like to
express appreciation for the tremendous job I think you do
managing a very complicated agency with a very diverse and
important, if not dangerous, mission. I also commend you on
reaching out into the new areas that the FBI is working in,
breaking new ground in the areas of technology and many
missions which require forcing technology. I also compliment
you on reaching out into areas like terrorism which is becoming
increasing important our country. I note that those are
challenging missions, cutting edge missions; and we appreciate
your efforts, accomplishments, and successes in those areas.
One of the areas that the committee has been very
interested in has been your development of identification
technologies to combat the ever-increasing challenges that your
adversaries present. It is difficult for you to keep up with
the technology that the people who are committing crimes and
representing threats can avail themselves of.
We have appropriated tens of millions of dollars for your
development of cutting-edge identification technologies; and
again I am very familiar with that, so I want to compliment you
on that effort. When you struggled, and the agency and its
contractors stumbled, you stepped in and righted it and worked
with it closely. You have stood up an identification technology
system that reclaims your preeminence in this area in the
world.
IAFIS/IDENT INTEROPERABILITY
One of the issues that the committee has been interested
in, because has provided so much money, not only to you but to
the INS, is how the IAFIS system and the IDENT system should be
integrated Mr. Latham touched on this issue. I know that some
reports have now been submitted, and you are awaiting a couple
of additional reports. I would be interested in your comments,
as director of the FBI, on how you think these two systems
should or should not be integrated and what kind of a
conclusion or resolution we can come to that has the greatest
benefit for law enforcement from every perspective.
Mr. Freeh. Yes. First of all, thank you for your remarks.
The systems need to be interoperable. The much larger IAFIS
database should incorporate by reference the smaller IDENT
database. The need for the information in both databases, when
appropriate to be queried, has to be quickly available whether
we are just using the right index finger or 10 fingers. It is
akin to the interoperability which is almost achieved between
the ATF IBIS system and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system which were
grown up separately a long time ago and were very dysfunctional
because even though the technology was really complementary,
the databases were unavailable to each other. There was no
intraoperability.
That has been corrected by the Treasury Department and the
FBI, and we have now one system with the FBI supporting the
national communications part of it and the ATF responsible for
the logistical and uploading part of it. We have to do the same
thing with the IDENT and the IAFIS systems. The number of
subjects, whether people are in one database or the other, the
information which is appropriately collected and retained by
both agencies has to be quickly, efficiently available to each
other.
The IAFIS system, as it works with electronic submissions,
gives within 24 hours in civil cases and within 2 hours in
criminal cases a direct response, either a no-record or an
identification. The IDENT system was designed for a shorter
response time frame because of the exigencies of processing
people fairly and efficiently at the borders. But the systems
contain in many cases overlapping information, information of
criminality as well as histories that are necessary for the
people with the separate responsibilities in the FBI and the
17,000 police departments we service through IAFIS as well as
the INS to have access to quickly. We need total integration,
and we believe that the studies are going to achieve a very
cost-effective way to do that.
Mr. Mollohan. By integrating the two different
requirements, one being the FBI's 10-print system and the other
being the INS', a two-print system, do you think that they can
be integrated with both retaining their respective requirements
with regard to the method of taking the prints?
Mr. Freeh. I am not a technician in this area, but I think
what is key is whether you have two separately resident
databases or one where there is interoperability, so one can be
queried as quickly as the other. You can maintain them
separately but still input them and regulate them separately.
But the question and the key thing for enforcement and safety
is that the information is quickly available each to the other.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mollohan. Let me migrate into another technology issue.
In your budget you have requested a $10 million increase to the
base for your forensic R&D efforts. We appropriated 5 or $10
million to look at explosives detection in the past?
Mr. Freeh. I think it is $5 million.
Mr. Mollohan. And your base was much smaller. As I read
your request, you are coming back with, I think, a $10 million
request. Maybe it is not. $5 million request, would suggest
that you want a new baseline; you would like a new baseline to
carry on this R&D. I am very responsive to that. I think you
are extremely challenged to stay up with your adversaries. I
would like to give you an opportunity to talk about that and
support your written request.
Mr. Freeh. I appreciate that very much. The $5 million is
to continue what is very much in some respects pure research
and development, not predicated on a particular case-specific
technology impediment or challenge but to look broadly. We are
in, I think, 17 or 26 projects which are being done by
scientists, universities, corporations, to look broadly at
areas such as signal management, signal interception,
collection platforms to see if we can solve some of these much
more universal problems that affect, by the way, again not just
the FBI but 17,000 of our state and local departments.
Counterencryption
That is different in kind from another request. For
instance, we have asked for $7 million for counterencryption
equipment. That is specifically for the unraveling and the
access to plain text of commercially encrypted materials of
which we are seeing a lot. We saw some over the millennium
actually in some of the computers that some of the terrorists
overseas were clearly using to plan and carry out attacks
against Americans. So that is a particular request for access
to plain text overcoming commercially available or even
homemade-type encryption technology. The $5 million is much
more broad-based, and I can give you a much more detailed
analysis of the subject matters; but they are universal and
more--much larger issues than the ones that go to encryption,
for instance.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. You say here that as the scientific and
technical aspects of forensics continue to become more complex,
it has become increasingly difficult for the FBI to stay on the
cutting edge of technology. FBI must develop a sufficient
research and development funding base. Lack of planning and
strategic planning now will leave the FBI overwhelmed by the
challenges of the next decade.
I think that is a pretty strong request. I understand what
is going on in technology, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Miller.
FBI Overseas Presence
Mr. Miller. I have a question about the international
precedence of the FBI; and if you can just very briefly
summarize, I know you were in Kosovo and Moscow last year.
Summarize briefly what the size of that, and the global economy
and what direction you are moving with that.
Mr. Freeh. Yes, I am very pleased to. We have right now 35
offices overseas; and they are all within our embassies, places
like Russia. Really on every continent we have an FBI office.
We have a total of 187 people overseas; 113 are agents. Last
year they covered and were responsible for about 28,000 leads
or investigative matters. They literally cover the world. Their
presence in the embassies are known and declared presences. We
work strictly with our liaison counterparts. The ambassador is
our supervisor. Everything is done through him or her.
That is the first line of defense, the forwardly deployed
ability to bring fugitives back to the United States, like
Ramsey Yousef or Miramalkasi. Last week we brought back through
our legal attache operations an individual who was convicted of
a series of rapes in Minnesota and who had escaped from
custody. Last week in the People's Republic of China, two
people were arrested for 1991 homicides charged against them in
Boston. A small number of resources overseas give us the
ability to do our work.
Kosovo
Kosovo was really an anomaly and an exception to that. We
were asked by the State Department and the War Crimes Tribunal
in The Hague to send forensic teams to do identification and
recovery of human remains that would be used in the prosecution
of Milosevic and four other subjects under indictment. We did
that deployment as a response to the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General. We were reimbursed by the State Department.
On a regular basis we are asked either by our government or
foreign governments to go overseas and help. If we can do that,
we certainly comply.
Fugitives Overseas
Mr. Miller. You discussed the international flight after
crimes in the United States, earlier and last year I talked to
you about a man that fled to Mexico. After a year and a half he
was finally extradited and there will be a trial in Sarasota
later this year. This past week I had the family of Holly
Maddux in town, whose accused murderer is the fugitive Ira
Einhorn. Holly's three sisters and brother came to talk about
their frustration over her 1977 murder and subsequent pursuit
of Einhorn, as you are aware. How big of a problem is this? It
is a frustrating problem. I have heard that there are 1,500
suspects that have fled the country, and that we only get a
fourth of these back and that extradition treaties are
nonexistent or date to pre-World War II. How big of a problem
is this?
Mr. Freeh. The Einhorn case was pursued by the FBI on the
unlawful flight warrant, and he was identified in the place
where he was found because of that investigation. There are
hundreds and hundreds of fugitives from justice, most of whom
are from state and local warrants, and prosecutions; very few
are actually federal fugitives. It varies, as you say, from
country to country. We got a Top 10 out of the Republic of
Vietnam about a year and a half ago even though we have no
extradition treaty. Our legal attache in Bangkok, who worked
very hard with his counterparts in the Republic of Vietnam, got
them to arrest and send him into custody in Thailand, an
individual who committed a murder 10 years ago in upstate New
York in a tiny county that did not have enough resources to
chase him interstate, let alone around the world.
It varies from country to country. In East Africa when we
had the bombings, we were successful in returning two main
defendants from Kenya, who are now going to go to trial in
September. But there are fugitives all over the globe, as I
look at the map behind you. It varies from country to country,
and our job is to use whatever legal means we can to bring them
back here.
Violent Crime Apprehension
Mr. Miller. On the Violent Crime Apprehension Program, how
does that system work where law enforcement suspects that an
individual has fled the country? Does it coordinate with
Interpol and other law enforcement agencies?
Mr. Freeh. Very much so. In many cases, through the North
American Interpol representative who recently was an FBI agent,
the process would be received from the state or local
jurisdiction; and an international warrant or red notice could
be issued, which would make that person arrestable in any of
the Interpol countries that are signatories to the convention.
In many cases, we work through the legal attaches to run
out leads on fugitives. The 28,000 matters that I mentioned are
legal attaches leads. A large number are fugitive matters, and
I can get you the exact breakdown. If we get a lead from a
detective or attorney or a victim or a family member that a
person is in X place, we go through our normal channels, which
are legal attaches and also Interpol and contact our other
liaison partners.
Mr. Miller. Do you have any statistics?
Mr. Freeh. I am sure that we do, and I can provide them to
you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
VICAP and INTERPOL
The purpose of VICAP is to facilitate communication,
cooperation, and coordination between law enforcement agencies
and to provide, support for their efforts to identify,
investigate, track, and apprehend violent serial and repeat
offenders. A case submitted to VICAP is compared to all others
existing in the database to identify common behavioral or
informational characteristics which might indicate a common
offender is responsible for the crimes. VICAP does not directly
involve itself with the actual pursuit of known or suspected
offenders, as this responsibility lies with the originating
investigative agency. VICAP accommodates requests from other
foreign countries through liaison between FBI Headquarters and
the Legal Attaches around the world.
When American law enforcement officials suspect a fugitive
has fled internationally, and it is unknown what county the
suspect has fled, the law enforcement agency can contact the
U.S. National Central Bureau of INTERPOL for assistance--
whether to post an electronic broadcast/lookout through its
worldwide communications system, and/or to request placement of
an INTERPOL ``Red Notice'' placed on the wanted person. A Red
Notice assures any one of the 177 other INTERPOL countries that
if the suspect is located, the requesting agency has sufficient
information to charge the suspect with a felony and they will
actively seek the suspect's extradition.
At any given time, the INTERPOL computer system has
approximately 17,000 active electronic lookouts and Red Notices
for wanted persons. INTERPOL member countries also routinely
place this fugitive information in their national databases.
American and foreign police services actively seek Red Notice
suspects when the originating agency develops specific
information on the possible location of a suspect. Red Notice
suspects are also located when traversing between countries and
a customs officer becomes suspicious of the individual and
checks the suspect's name through the national database or the
suspect is arrested on unrelated criminal activity and
subsequent arrest checks determine the subjects name is wanted.
Legal Attaches around the world interact with foreign
INTERPOL National Central Bureaus based on the individual
protocols established within the various foreign police
agencies. For example, when the FBI has specific information
concerning the possible location of a fugitive in the
international arena, the information will be forwarded to
INTERPOL. INTERPOL will then serve as a clearing house for
requests and assist with the coordination between the Legal
Attache and the appropriate foreign police unit who is
responsible for locating fugitives.
Overseas Fugitives
Approximately 9 percent, or 2,446, of the 28,000 leads and
investigative matters handled by the various Legal Attaches
during Fiscal Year 1999 involved fugitives. As of March 16,
2000, there were 258 known international fugitives.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Los Angeles City Police Department Investigation
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Freeh as
you are aware, there is an ongoing investigation into the
corruption of the Los Angeles Police Department--the Rampart
Division. At the end of February, according to the Los Angeles
Times, the two federal agencies, the INS and the FBI, were
implicated through allegations. Could you explain what is the
legitimate role, if any, of the FBI with regard to the task
force and what is currently being done to investigate these
allegations?
Mr. Freeh. Yes. With respect to the investigation which you
accurately described, the Department of Justice, the Civil
Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney who I met with on Monday and
discussed among other things this case, and the FBI have the
responsibility of conducting the civil rights investigation
which is a broad-based investigation looking at all of the
different allegations that have been made, not only with regard
to the Rampart Division but beyond that. This will be a very
comprehensive and very strongly pursued investigation by the
Department of Justice in conjunction, by the way, with local
authorities.
I cannot tell you too much more about the case. We have set
up in effect a separate squad. I talked with the people who are
responsible, including our Assistant Director out there. There
is no case more important to us or more important to the people
of California, obviously, than the allegations of such a
serious nature. We will work it as we work similar cases around
the country, unfortunately, to whatever result is required.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am sure you are aware of the fact that
there is some concern expressed that the FBI to some degree is
actually investigating itself since it has now been brought
into----
Mr. Freeh. Yes. I have looked at that. I do not believe
that is accurate. There was a letter in the Los Angeles Times
on Monday which our Assistant Director prepared and the local
legal journal had an article about this. We have looked at
those issues. We were not joined up with the INS or the
detective division that was described in last week's paper.
That is not an accurate statement, and we have satisfied
ourselves that is the case.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Whatever information you got to satisfy
yourself--I think what the INS said was that it was ``rammed
down their throats by the FBI,'' end of quote--that you will be
able, at some point, to present whatever information you have
to show that in fact was inaccurate?
Mr. Freeh. Yes. That was an anonymous person quoted as
saying that. The U.S. Attorney is confident there is no
conflict. The FBI officials are confident. If that changes,
obviously we would take steps to correct that.
CORRUPTION ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
Ms. Roybal-Allard. In the Treasury Postal subcommittee that
I sit on, last year a report came out from Treasury that said
that there was widespread belief among law enforcement agencies
that agents that were hired along the Southwest Border were
more suspect and more susceptible to corruption than other
agents that were hired from other parts of the country. When
asked to present data, there was no data to substantiate that.
In fact, the data that was presented showed in fact that that
was not true. I sent a letter to all the different law
enforcement agencies who refute what had been said by Treasury
and said that was not their belief. However, the letter that
came back from the FBI either misunderstood the question or was
not quite on target.
So my question to you is: Is there a belief by the FBI that
somehow agents that are hired that live along the border or
have family along the border are in fact more susceptible to
corruption than others? And depending on your answer, do you
have the data to substantiate that?
Mr. Freeh. Certainly not. It is not my belief and not the
belief of anyone in the FBI, particularly those who have
responsibility of those border offices and the Southwest Border
Initiative which we referred to earlier.
I will endeavor to make sure that we answer your letter
more directly. I apologize if that is not the case. I had heard
about that report. I have seen no data and heard of no credible
evidence to support that. Certainly, it would not be the kind
of assumption that we would make or I would think could be
supported unless somebody had some data.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Public Corrupton on the Southwest Border
The FBI is not aware of any data or research to support the
contention that law enforcement officers living along the
Southwest Border, or having family along the border, are more
susceptible to corruption than others. With respect to
investigations of corruption of U.S. government employees
assigned to the Ports-of-Entry along the Southwest Border, the
FBI has been involved in the investigation of employees who
were both local and non-local hires.
INVESTIGATIONS OF WEN HO LEE AND JOHN DEUTCH
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Which nobody has been able to produce.
Very quickly, this is a concern of my constituents, and this
has to do with the Wen Ho Lee case, and there is a feeling that
he is being treated unfairly. And what they do is they compare
what is happening with Wen Ho Lee with a former director of the
CIA, who according to them, is guilty of essentially the same
act, and that is taking classified information and placing it
in a nonsecure computer.
Could you explain why the former director is not in jail,
has not been charged and in fact is being treated differently?
Is there a reason? Is there in fact a difference in the two
cases?
Mr. Freeh. I cannot actually discuss it much at all. One is
a pending criminal matter, as of course you are aware, and it
is before a judge. Another judge as well as a court of appeals
have looked at the bail aspects of that case, and obviously
found that he was being treated according to the Constitution
and the Ninth Circuit precedents. The trial is scheduled, and
all of the motions that he will be entitled to make he will
make. Whatever hearings will occur will be public and at least
this juncture there will be a trial of the facts and the
government will have to sustain its burden as it always does. I
cannot talk more about the case. The last thing I would want to
do is prejudice the government or Dr. Lee or anyone else.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Even to explain the difference?
Mr. Freeh. That is correct. With respect to the other
matter, we are investigating that. The DOJ has asked the FBI to
look at that entire matter. We are doing that with a prosecutor
who has been assigned by the Attorney General. Again, I could
not talk about it or even compare it. What we do in each of
these cases at some point will be accountable to committees as
well as the courts.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, when I go home and go to church,
people say, I do not want to bother you in church, so can I
walk out with you and talk to you when you are leaving? I do
not want to bother you in church, Director Freeh, but I would
like to walk out and talk with you. I want to talk to him but
not here.
DIGITAL COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Director Freeh, you have spent a lot
of time talking about CALEA, one of our favorite subjects, the
ability of the law that will allow the law enforcement agencies
of the country under court orders to wiretap and seek
electronic information as you now do in the new digital age;
having to refit electronically the telephone companies'
equipment around the country to allow the government agencies
as I said under court order always to wiretap.
The good news is after 4 years of delay, the stalemate is
over, and we are on track to finally realize a successful
CALEA. $382.5 million is needed to fund it. We have included
that funding in the supplemental appropriations bill.
Hopefully, that will ensure that CALEA implementation stays on
track. In addition to the money for CALEA, you request a $25.3
million increase for a multiyear initiative to replace your
current analog-based intercept collection system with a new
computer-based enhanced collection system.
How would that differ from your current system?
Mr. Freeh. The two systems that you refer to--and before I
do that, I want to echo your remarks about CALEA. As I
mentioned in my opening statement, I want to thank the
committee and you personally for your leadership in this area
over many frustrating meetings. But the result has been a
remarkable achievement, not only the two signed agreements but
the four that would follow what the supplemental funding will
give us, us meaning law enforcement, state, local and federal,
90 percent coverage of the platforms, which is a huge
turnaround from where we were a short time ago.
The two systems that you ask about specifically, Spider Net
and Digital Storm, give us the sort of one-stop shopping
digital collection capacity that we do not have right now and
which is a very severe impediment. The collection systems that
we are asking to be supported would allow in one collection
architecture to both collect, analyze, search according to key
words and then prepare for easy translation the streams of data
obtained pursuant to court order. So you are literally
improving from an analog system, reel-to-reel tapes where
people have to listen to it in real time to a digital capacity
that not only records but stores, analyzes, and helps identify
and translate or set up a translation matrix for information.
It would put us literally light years ahead in terms of our
ability to know what we have.
Mr. Rogers. What do you expect would be the out-year
funding requirements?
Mr. Freeh. I am not sure that I have that information.
Mr. Rogers. Provide that for us if you will for the record.
Mr. Freeh. We will get that for you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
sorry, I do not have that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Digital Collection Outyear Funding Requirements
The FBI's estimated outyear funding requirement to deploy
digital collection systems, based on current planning
assumptions, is an accumulated total of $65,000,000 for fiscal
years 2002 and 2003.
Mr. Rogers. Even though it looks like CALEA will be a
reality, it will be some time before it is implemented, not
likely until fiscal year 2002. Given our funding constraints
here, do you think we can stretch out this new initiative for a
longer period of time?
Mr. Freeh. We certainly could. There is no impediment to
doing that. Obviously, the intent behind the 1994 statute and
our operational necessity is to achieve compliance as quickly
as we can. But what we have achieved to date, as I have pointed
out, is a remarkable turnaround from where we were a short time
ago.
Obviously, pushing CALEA out into the outyears does a
couple of things. First of all, the operational capacity is
postponed. Secondly, we might lose some of the licensing
authority and the right to distribute that the industry now is
able to do and by agreement is obliged to do. Those agreements,
if they would expire with a postponement of the funding and the
compliance, we would have to go back and renegotiate that. We
might lose some leverage and capacity to achieve the 90 percent
platform.
Mr. Rogers. We will discuss that as we go along. In view of
our limited dollars, we will work to maximize those dollars.
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTION CENTER STAFFING
Switching gears to the National Infrastructure Protection
Center, under Presidential Decision Directive 63 issued in
1998, various government agencies were assigned
responsibilities for critical infrastructure protection and FBI
was assigned a cyberwarning system, National Infrastructure
Protection Center and investigating cyberthreats. We have now
as you've referred to become familiar with the fact that wave
of the future is upon us with the hack attacks on the major
Internets in the past few weeks. As part of the government-wide
effort to better protect that infrastructure, we provided over
$45 million over the last 3 years. Of that amount $25 million
was provided to establish the center which is to be an
interagency center to provide warnings and information on
cyberattacks. In the current year conference report which we
issued, we expressed some concerns that that center had not
been staffed up to the level that we gave money for. In fact,
it was only about 80 percent of its funded staffing level. Has
that been rectified?
Mr. Freeh. No, not completely. We have 78 of the 94 FBI
personnel assigned there right now. We have 22 individuals from
other government agencies. We are trying to raise that up to
40. We have a little bit of staffing to go to get people a
hundred percent on complement.
Mr. Rogers. This is the center where all of the government
agencies would center their activities and coordinate their
activities on preventing cybercrime, break-ins to computers,
and the like and networks, and to investigate. Is that right?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, it is designed as an investigative and
watch and warning and training center.
Mr. Rogers. Have some agencies been reluctant to
participate?
Mr. Freeh. We have encountered some obstacles with certain
other government agencies. The issue has been funding,
reimbursement issues, in part. We have not gotten the full
agency representation that the center is not only designed to
have but which is still our objective. It is obviously a much
more effective enterprise if we can get the other government
agencies to have full time representatives there.
Mr. Rogers. My information is and this comes from U.S.A.
Today, March 9, that the Pentagon is the only cabinet level
agency represented there; is that right?
Mr. Freeh. I would have to check. I know of some
representatives from some of the security agencies, whether
that is Cabinet level or not, I am not sure.
My information, Mr. Chairman, the center has
representatives from the Department of Defense, the National
Security Agency, Energy, CIA, as well as some state and local
law enforcement. U.S. Postal Service, and the General Services
Administration.
Mr. Rogers. Is there anybody from Secret Service there?
Mr. Freeh. No, I do not believe there is.
Mr. Rogers. Transportation?
Mr. Freeh. Not according to my note.
Mr. Rogers. As in FAA?
Mr. Freeh. I will get you a list of agencies.
Mr. Rogers. Customs or Treasury?
Mr. Freeh. They are not on this list. Subject to me
checking, no.
Mr. Rogers. This news story says that the Department of
Energy is not represented. Are they in error?
Mr. Freeh. According to my note they are. Let me double
check.
Mr. Rogers. And CIA, which has four slots at the center,
has filled only one; is that correct?
Mr. Freeh. I know over the millennium period they were
heavily represented. In terms of their permanent
representation, I would have to check for you.
Mr. Rogers. Are you going to be asking these agencies to
come on in and let's get this together?
Mr. Freeh. Yes. We will continue to pursue that.
Mr. Rogers. It is of utmost importance, obviously. I am
glad that Department of Defense is there because their
computers are the last ones that we want hacked into--but gosh,
the Federal Reserve and all of the financial networks, the
Customs Service, INS and so on, ought to be there; and we want
to know why they are not there. I realize that it may not be
your fault that they are not there, but since you are
commanding the coordination center and it is located on your
property, and you have been assigned the cyber part of
infrastructure protection, we need to know why they are not
there. If there is a problem, we want to help and try and fix
it. Is there some sort of problem that these people are not
there?
Mr. Freeh. I know that financial issues have been
represented by some of the agencies to be their reason for not
having a full-time representative there, and we will continue
to pursue that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Other Government Agency Staffing In The National Infrastructure
Protection Center
As of March 23, 2000, there were 21 other government agency
personnel on board at the National Infrastructure Protection
Center, and 4 individuals under transfer to the center, as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On board Under transfer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Intelligence Agency............. 2 1
Department of Defense 1................. 13 2
U.S. Postal Service..................... 1 1
General Services Administration......... 1 0
Department of Energy/Sandia National 1 0
Laboratory 2...........................
State/local law enforcement............. 1 0
Foreign Government...................... 2 0
-------------------------------
Total............................. 21 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Department of Defense includes: U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy,
National Security Agency, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and
Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
2 The Department of Energy is represented by a contract employee from
the Sandia National Laboratory.
INFORMATION SHARING INITIATIVE
Mr. Rogers. The largest single increase in your request is
$55.3 million for the information-sharing initiative, ISI,
which is a complex and very costly project to completely
upgrade your current computer infrastructure, integrate all of
your files and databases into one bureau-wide database and
acquire new tools for better analysis.
As you know, this committee has been expressing concerns
about the size of the project, the scope of the project, the
cost of the project. The original plan was for a $600 million
project to be completed over 5 years, a huge amount of money
and a very ambitious schedule. Since in the past we had huge
cost overruns in projects that went way beyond their time
scope, NCIC2000 and IAFIS among them, we are skeptical about
whether that project could be implemented and within budget and
within timeframe.
We did provide some funding in fiscal year 1999, $60
million, but we fenced that money and said you could not spend
it until the FBI submitted, and we approved an overall plan for
the project before we started to be sure that it was the right
way to go. The plan was submitted last August. Neither the
House nor the Senate signed off on the plan because of
continued concerns about the size of scope and cost. It is my
understanding that you have developed a new plan, one that is
less costly than the previous plan, and we would like to see
it. Can we see that plan?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, you certainly can. The Office of Management
and Budget has approved, my understanding, this week the
submission. I think it just needs to be transmitted up here.
The plan is not a developmental plan. Unlike IAFIS and
NCIC2000, it is not a developmental plan. This is basically
hardware, getting rid of the 13,000 computers that are not
under service contract any more. We will get that to you. You
will have that tomorrow.
Mr. Rogers. Tomorrow. Good man.
How much does the project cost now?
Mr. Freeh. With the $80 million from the 1999 and 2000
budgets, and the additional $60 million which is in the fiscal
year 2001 request, that is the scope of the plan as currently
requested. I am told that OMB has $40 million instead of $60
million, so the remaining $20 million, would have to come out
of our base.
Mr. Rogers. Over what period of time?
Mr. Freeh. Three years.
Mr. Rogers. Is that total cost?
Mr. Freeh. The total cost is $200 million.
Mr. Rogers. Is that your final answer?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, it is. Eighty, 60 and 60. Three-year
period.
Mr. Rogers. And the new plan fully addresses the needs of
the bureau?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, beginning with the desk top computers.
Mr. Rogers. How confident are you that you can deliver on
time and on budget?
Mr. Freeh. This is acquisition, so I am very confident we
can do that.
FBI LABORATORY CONSTRUCTION STATUS
Mr. Rogers. We previously provided $130 million for the new
FBI lab which was scheduled to begin construction in January
1999 with an original completion date of August 2001.
Construction did not actually begin until September and
completion slipped to February 2002. But as you told me last
week, it appears there could be some further delays due to some
contractor problem which apparently has forced a work stoppage
of the project. What is the status, and when do you expect this
problem to be solved?
Mr. Freeh. The status is the general contractor discharged
the mechanical and electrical subcontractor, which was not our
hire but the hire of the general contractor basically, for lack
of performance. A new subcontractor has been retained. They are
present on the site. They believe they can resume the
construction again by March 31. We do not believe, at least I
was told that we do not believe, that this particular delay
which is a delay, of several weeks of construction, will change
the February 2002 delivery date which is still holding as the
date.
Mr. Rogers. So you will finish when?
Mr. Freeh. February of 2002.
Mr. Rogers. Within budget?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I like that last question, the
question may be asked by another chairman in 2002.
Mr. Rogers. What?
Mr. Serrano. You guys have term limits. Right? I was not
suggesting anything nasty, Mr. Chairman.
BALANCING PRIVACY CONCERNS IN CYBER INVESTIGATIONS
We have discussed, the big issues around cybercrimes and
cyberterrorism, but in your desire and our desire and need to
deal with issue, what about the issue of privacy for the rest
of us? How do you reconcile doing what you need to do to find
out who is trying to steal from us, if you will, our
information in the digital age with our desire as individuals
to have privacy, including about what information we have on
our computer?
Mr. Freeh. Well, I think the balance is very--certainly
maintained by the law enforcement and public safety end of it
in the sense that we are--and continue to be--governed as we
have to be by the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment Privacy
statutes, and all of the data collection regulations causing
the electronic surveillance regime which is court authorized.
We have to go to magistrates to obtain authority to get
information, whether it is 1s and 0s or the data is stored in
somebody's ledger hidden under the bed. The standard is still
the same.
I would argue that it is not the same in terms of the
private sector. The private sector has no limitations short of
the privacy act. They have none of the limitations that law
enforcement has for the most part, and that is an area of great
concern and controversy as we see every day in the papers.
But our authorities and powers are very clearly constrained
by the Constitution, the courts, the magistrates, and
ultimately juries and oversight. We have no more powers in the
digital age than we did in 1792. We still have to convince a
magistrate that a warrant meets probable-cause standards.
Evidence can be suppressed if we are not entitled to it. We can
be sanctioned and sued and prosecuted if we violate those very
clear guidelines.
I think we should be more confident about the regime, at
least to control state law enforcement officers. A lot of
attention I think has to continue to be applied there, but also
on private collectors, entrepreneurs, and companies who do not
have to comply with the same regulations.
Mr. Serrano. Here is what we are hearing, Director Freeh.
In the last good number of years, the FBI has gained a
reputation of being totally separate from its past, and in the
past you had an agency that--in the past--on many occasions
made many Americans feel that their privacy was invaded on a
daily basis for the sake of doing what was right for the
Nation. That privacy, however, in those days was paper-related
or involved physically following somebody around. Now it is
much easier to make a mistake and overreach in trying to do the
right thing and get into everybody's lives, and that is the
fear.
So you can tell me that we are governed by the same laws,
but directors before you who were governed by the same
Constitution did things that we know about now, and it was
harder to do it then. At least I would think that it is easier
with all of the information that is available electronically.
Just from our offices right here, you could--in the old days
you had to ask a Member of Congress for information. He gave it
or whatever. He ran every 2 years on how much information he
provided.
Now you can get into our system for the sake of finding
someone who is doing something wrong, and also find out every
memo we sent and every bill we have planned. That is us. How do
we reconcile the desire to get at what will continue to be a
problem and grow to be even a larger problem that with the
desire that we not invade innocent people's privacy?
Mr. Freeh. I do not want to repeat my answer again, but we
have very strict constraints. We have guidelines. We have
controls. We have the authority of courts, judges, juries,
congressional committees. We do not operate in a vacuum. The
same potential for abuse by the constable in 1792 exists in
2000. If we have a dishonest constable or a group, you are
going to have an abuse whether you are tapping into fiber or
into somebody's hideaway. I do not think that there is any
difference, relatively speaking. What is necessary is first of
all honest people in law enforcement, which I believe is the
case with the FBI and our colleagues in federal law enforcement
with exceptions, of course. Unfortunately we have those but
then very rigorous means to uncover activities and prosecutions
and sanctions that follow. That is the remedy, and that is the
solution to corruption which is what you are describing, but
that is true whether it occurred in the late 1800s or in the
information age.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I certainly accept your comments. Put me
on record as another person who expresses what a lot of people
express and it is a fear that something is not going to go
right.
Civil Rights Training
Speaking about corruption at another level, the FBI works
with other agencies, principally the Civil Rights Division and
the U.S. Attorneys, on investigations of patterns and practices
of civil rights violations by police departments. I am
interested in the status and goal for completion of the
investigation of the New York City Police Department. But on
broader issues, the FBI must have developed knowledge on how to
enforce the law without violating civil rights. What, if
anything, is the FBI doing to disseminate best-practices
information or provide training on such practices?
Mr. Freeh. We have a very extensive civil rights training
program, and I can give you the exact breakdown for it. But
last year we trained 17,000 state and local officers. I will
give you a breakdown on how many of those were civil rights
courses or initiatives.
In New Orleans, for instance, the police commissioner, a
newly appointed police commissioner, asked the FBI to come into
the department and literally take over and run their internal
affairs division so they could be more effective against
internal corruption.
The patterns and practices authority which the Department
of Justice has and which it is considering in two districts in
New York right now is another remedy. Vigorous enforcement of
the civil rights act, whether they be housing discrimination
violations or hate crimes, hate crimes is one of the largest
growing categories of crimes in the United States. We had 884
cases in 1998; we had 1036 last year. We have dozens of people
who work in that program. We have reorganized our headquarters
to give hate crimes a more prominent position. Training,
vigorous enforcement, large scale judicial action initiated by
the Department of Justice, court supervision, which we see in
many cases, those are all a series of steps that need to be
taken together.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any
further questions, and I want to personally thank the director
for being here and to encourage him to work on that other issue
with me.
Mr. Rogers. Anything further, gentlemen?
Mr. Latham. No.
Conclusion
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Director, we have been somewhat probing
today in our questioning, which is the thing that democracies
do, but let me just say this. I do not know of a time in my
reading of history when the director of the FBI has had more
cross-currents and more tight places that he has been in than
you. This has been a tough time for anybody to be director of
the FBI. I guess any time is because you are dealing with such
matters of great import.
The process that we go through in trying to appropriate
aboveboard and before the world of all agencies is particularly
tough to do in the case of the FBI because most of what you do
is confidential and secret and quiet as it should be, but you
have carried that out admirably. This is your seventh
appearance before our subcommittee.
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And perhaps the last as the director, but I
want to say it has been a pleasure working with you all of
these years. You have been fair and open with me and with the
subcommittee. You have been forthcoming and you have been--I
think you have attempted to do the right thing in every
instance. You are a commendable human being, and you have been
a great--are a great director of the FBI. Having said that, we
will expect the reports that we have asked of you.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Those are
very kind remarks, and again I enjoyed appearing here. This is
a necessary and vigorous process. Congressman Serrano, thank
you for your and your staff's efforts.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 23, 2000.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
JAMES K. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MARY H. MURGUIA, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
Opening Remarks
Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order. We are pleased
to welcome this morning Donnie Marshall, the Acting
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; Mary
Murguia, the new Director of the Executive Office of the U.S.
Attorneys; and James Robinson, the Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division to discuss the Department of
Justice's law enforcement efforts on the war on drugs.
Our Nation is being weakened by the prevalence of drug and
drug-related crime in our communities. Without investments of
law enforcement to take down and punish drug traffickers and in
prevention programs that are aimed at stopping children from
using drugs, we cannot and will not succeed in the war on
drugs. Cocaine and heroin are cheaper and more plentiful than
ever on American streets. Methamphetamine, which can be
produced fairly simply in any kitchen in any community, is
spreading fast to all areas of the country. To respond to these
very serious problems, this subcommittee is trying to give you
the resources that you need to respond to this problem. Law
enforcement is a vital component in this committee to seek to
ensure that adequate resources are provided to address this
problem with you.
We will include your written statements in the record, and
as soon as I recognize my colleague, we will listen to your
oral statements.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
welcome these folks here today. This is a subject that I am
very much interested in, especially coming from a place like
New York, which I do. I would be interested in knowing what we
are doing on this very important issue; and I will be speaking
to you about the involvement of different parts of this country
in the fight, and unfortunately also in the trafficking. So
thank you, and welcome.
Opening Satement of Donnie R. Marshall, DEA
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Marshall, would you begin, please.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee
members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I want
to begin by thanking you for your support. I have been in law
enforcement for 30 years, and I know very well the support of
Congress and particularly this committee and the American
people is really vital to our success. I thank you for that
support.
OPERATION MILLENNIUM
Our successes have been many. We have had some notable
successes lately. We have roughly 4,500, very courageous and
dedicated DEA agents serving around the world. In this past
year, they helped dismantle one of the most powerful Colombian
drug organizations operating in the world today, and perhaps in
the history of the world, and that was through the agency's
Operation Millennium. In that operation we arrested two of the
most powerful drug lords in the world, Fabio Ochoa and
Alejandro Bernal Madrigal and 34 of their associates. We have
expectations that those criminals will be extradited to the
United States to serve time in American prisons. If that comes
about, this will be the most significant, I believe, drug
enforcement operation that we have undertaken in many years.
MOBILE AND REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT TEAMS
We have also continued to wipe out violent drug
organizations in this country through our MET--Mobile
Enforcement Team--operations. We have extended many of our MET
investigations to involve and arrest the sources of supply from
other parts of the country and outside the communities where we
have actually targeted the violent drug gangs. We have followed
up those MET operations with community action programs to help
those communities have a better chance of keeping the drug
dealers out of their neighborhoods after we have taken them off
the streets.
We also have begun deploying our Regional Enforcement
Teams--RETs--to help meet urgent problems like methamphetamine
trafficking, particularly in the Midwest and the Western
regions of the United States. We continue to work with federal,
state, and local law enforcement partners through our state and
local task forces and through other cooperative channels to
target the command and control structure of the major drug
organizations operating internationally, nationally,
regionally, and locally. Through this approach, and it has been
a very successful approach, we have immobilized and had
enforcement successes against Colombian and Mexican traffickers
operating in this country time and again over the last several
years. I have described several of those most recent operations
in my written statement.
DEA'S FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
In our 2001 budget submission, we have three initiatives
that I think will allow us to continue and enhance those
successes. The first initiative is a Domestic Enforcement
initiative, which calls for 18 positions, 11 of which are
special agents, and $3.1 million. That initiative will go, I
hope, to our Special Operations Division in order to more
effectively attack the command and control structures of the
major Southwest border organizations and the Mexico-based
organizations, and also to more effectively attack the
financial structure of these major drug-trafficking
organizations.
The second initiative is our Intelligence initiative. We
have asked for $1.5 million for our El Paso Intelligence Center
Information Systems, which will enable us to improve
information collection, analysis, and sharing. I believe very
strongly that an intelligence-driven approach to our operations
is very vital to our success, and this will help us do a better
job in that area.
The final initiative is our Infrastructure initiative, and
we have asked for 26 positions and $59.9 million. This will go
for technology such as FIREBIRD office automation and our
Financial Management System. It will allow us to better support
and manage these enforcement operations that I have described,
our intelligence operations, and our financial resources.
Again, I want to thank you, the committee, for your
support, and at the appropriate time I will be happy to answer
any questions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall.
[The statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement, James K. Robinson, Criminal Division
Mr. Rogers. General Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join in
expressing our appreciation for the opportunity to appear today
to discuss this very important subject. I am also joined by
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mary Warren, whose major
responsibility is in the Criminal Division in connection with
the supervision of our important activities in this area. We
appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of the fiscal
year 2001 budget request for the Criminal Division and for the
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, the OCDETF
program.
I would like to echo Director Marshall's expression of our
profound appreciation to this subcommittee for the resources
that you have provided to law enforcement over the years to
carry on various attempts to combat illicit drug trafficking
and related criminal activities in this country. In the next
few minutes I would like to outline some of the needs and
accomplishments of the Criminal Division and the OCDETF
program.
CRIMINAL DIVISION'S FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 2001 the Department's request for OCDETF
seeks an addition $12,112,000 to allow the task forces to
continue at fiscal year 2000 levels. For the Criminal Division
we are seeking an increase of $389,000 for five positions to
support the Special Operations Division.
The profits realized by drug-trafficking organizations fuel
and expand their operations substantially. In order to
undermine this growth, we need to expand our money laundering
investigations. The Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money
Laundering Section's involvement in this area has produced some
noteworthy results. For example, in a single case more than
$180 million was repatriated and forfeited, and approximately
$89 million was shared with Switzerland, who cooperated in
connection with that matter. Outstanding accomplishments such
as this demonstrate the extraordinary return on investment we
can achieve by focusing on the financial infrastructure of the
criminal trafficking organizations throughout the world.
We are also seeking to expand our Title III electronic
surveillance capacity. Because of the efforts such as the
Special Operations Division, the amount of new wiretaps related
to narcotics enforcement is growing. The complex investigations
conducted by SOD are highly dynamic and require expedited
treatment of our capabilities in this area. We have asked for
the resources to keep pace with that growth.
FY 2000 APPROPRIATION
This committee's support for these relatively modest
increases are critical. For fiscal year 2000, the Department of
Justice Appropriations Act and the Statement of Managers
included guidance on the distribution of the General Legal
Activities appropriation by each component, and as a whole that
appropriation was cut by 2.1 percent below fiscal year 1999
current services levels. The methodology employed by the
Conference Committee's Management Statement caused the Criminal
Division to be cut by 4.5 percent, something that troubles us,
and we are working on it. This means about a $5 million
shortfall below our fiscal year 1999 current services level. As
a consequence we have implemented measures to limit all hiring
to the point where we will need to produce approximately 90
vacancies in the Criminal Division. By the end of the fiscal
year, we are also attempting to trim another $3 million in
spending by cutting travel, training, and suspending equipment
purchases, including computers.
We very much appreciate the support of this committee and
its willingness to support a reprogramming to help us address
this precarious situation. We have yet, however, to receive the
necessary approval from the Senate, but we are working hard to
try to do that, and we are, I would like to say, cautious but
still optimistic that that would be possible. This is why it
seems important to us to seek your support for current level of
services for OCDETF. We think it is important, and this is why
the modest increases that we seek are extremely important for
next year.
INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
A common theme of our request and my remarks in the
testimony that we have submitted is an increasingly important
emphasis on interagency and international collaboration and
cooperation. Our experience has demonstrated to us that the
value of this cooperation simply cannot be understated whether
it is amongst federal agencies, state and local governments, or
with our trusted international partners. Collaboration is a
critical component of the OCDETF program, the new and very
promising Bilateral Case Initiative, Special Operations
Division, and our participation in Plan Colombia.
EFFECTIVENESS OF OCDETF PROGRAM
We are pleased to report that OCDETF had another exciting
and highly effective year in fiscal year 1999. In fact, it was
the single most productive year in OCDETF history and the
second record-setting year in a row. Figures alone, however,
don't tell the story of the importance of the OCDETF program to
the execution of the Department's Drug Control Strategic Plan
and our overall national drug enforcement efforts.
The effectiveness of the OCDETF program is underscored by
the increased level of OCDETF activity over the past 2 years.
In fiscal year 1999 alone, 1,484 investigations were initiated,
a 9.5 percent increase over 1998; 4,067 indictments were filed
against 10,801 defendants, increases of 9.6 percent and 2.9
percent respectively. This growth is a testament to the
commitment of all participating agencies to work in the most
strategic, targeted, and coordinated fashion.
BILATERAL CASE INITIATIVE
We are focussing on international efforts as well. The
Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section of the Criminal Division,
in coordination with the DEA's Office of Foreign Operations and
SOD and other agencies, has undertaken an international
Bilateral Case Initiative that formed trusted partnerships with
our international colleagues using evidence gathered by them.
We want to ensure that transnational drug traffickers that
cause devastating harm to our citizens and communities are held
accountable under United States law whenever possible to
prosecution in United States courts. This multifaceted approach
is already paying dividends that only a short time ago were
believed to be unattainable. As a result of the Bilateral Case
Initiative, the Colombian Government has been able to arrest,
pending extradition, a number of narcotics kingpins that
Director Marshall has mentioned.
PLAN COLOMBIA
The Division is also involved in Plan Colombia, a
comprehensive plan for peace, prosperity, and the strengthening
of the Colombian state, including efforts to fight narcotics
trafficking and related crimes. Throughout our training
components, we will play an integral role in the crucial
training and institution-building in the justice sector that
will also be critical to combatting narcotics trafficking in
Colombia consistent with our priority of protecting human
rights and fostering the rule of law.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, these are but
a few examples of our needs, our accomplishments, and our
challenges. My statement for the record provides greater detail
of these and other important activities of the Division and
OCDETF. I would like to close by reiterating, as the Director
did, the appreciation that the Division and the Department has
for the substantial resources that have been provided to us by
the committee, and we look forward to your continued support as
we engage in this important work. And I, too, would be happy to
answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement, Mary H. Murguia
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Murguia.
Ms. Murguia. Chairman Rogers, Congressman Serrano,
Congressman Miller, I am pleased to be here today with my
colleagues at the table. I am joined by Joe Famularo, the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
and Jose de Jesus Rivera, the United States Attorney for
Arizona and the Attorney General's Southwest border
representative. With them I represent the 10,000 men and women
of the 94 United States Attorney's offices nationwide, and I
thank you on their behalf for your continuing support of our
critical law enforcement mission.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
To carry out that mission, we are requesting a total
increase of 651 new positions and $58.1 million for 10
initiatives, among them firearm prosecution; violent crime in
Indian Country; computer crime; and intellectual property
theft. I address all 10 of these initiatives in my written
statement, but will focus my oral testimony on the work of the
U.S. Attorneys in combatting drug trafficking, firearms-related
violence, and computer crime.
I will begin my comments by echoing the words of the
Attorney General when she stressed the need for balance in the
criminal justice system. Increased resources for the law
enforcement agencies must be accompanied by resources for the
litigating components of the Department. ``Balance is
critically important'', she said, ``because without it the
system will break down.''
U.S. ATTORNEY'S DRUG STRATEGY
The U.S. attorney's drug strategy focuses on prosecuting
significant drug traffickers and complex drug organizations.
The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force program, more
commonly known as OCDETF, is an effective tool against the
criminal organizations that are responsible for the greatest
volume of drugs and violence in our country. This past fiscal
year was the most successful for OCDETF investigations since
the program began in 1982. As you just heard from Mr. Robinson,
we increased the number of OCDETF cases filed by 36 percent
over the previous year, and we obtained an 89 percent
conviction rate while we were doing it. Ninety-two percent of
those convicted were sentenced to prison, and 113 received life
sentences. In the non-OCDETF drug area the United States
Attorneys filed nearly 14,000 cases against 21,000 defendants
during 1999, achieving a 90 percent conviction rate.
Our 1999 drug case filings reflect a 5 percent increase
over 1998; 1998 was a 22 percent increase over 1997; and 1997
was a 14 percent increase over 1996. These increases, year
after year, clearly demonstrate the United States Attorneys'
commitment to making a significant impact on drug trafficking
in America.
The average number of drug cases handled per attorney work
year raised from 34 in 1997 to 39 in 1999, a 15 percent
increase in productivity over the last 2 years. Taken together,
the total number of narcotics cases filed by the U.S. Attorneys
in 1999 represented 33 percent of all of the criminal cases we
filed.
Prosecuting drug offenders is the single biggest thing we
do, and we do it well. Individuals involved in drug trafficking
are responsible for much of the gun crime in our nation.
Although most violent crimes committed with firearms fall
within the exclusive jurisdiction of state and local
authorities, when there is an appropriate basis to bring
federal charges, we do so.
In 1994, the Attorney General's Anti-Violent Crime
Initiative asked each United States Attorney's office to focus
on particular violent crime problems plaguing communities in
their districts. Last year, in connection with the President's
directive, the Attorney General asked each United States
Attorney to develop and implement a firearms violence reduction
plan in coordination with federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies in each district. U.S. Attorneys filed 25
percent more firearms case in 1999 than in 1998, with 95
percent of those convicted sentenced to prison. Firearms cases
represented 11 percent of all of the criminal cases filed in
1999.
But we believe that we can do even more, and this has led
us to make our budget request to you. We do not wish to
supplant the work of state and local authorities, but to
supplement and support what they are doing. The additional
prosecutors we seek will further enable us to implement locally
tailored projects in each district, such as Project ``Exile''
in Richmond, Virginia, and ``Operation CeaseFire'' in Boston,
Massachusetts. With more resources we can continue reducing gun
violence throughout the Nation.
COMPUTER CRIME
The last topic I will touch on is computer crime. The
United States' technological edge is being threatened by
domestic and international high-tech criminals engaged in the
theft and piracy of trade secrets, copyrighted software, and
other intellectual property owned by our nation's businesses.
Just yesterday the USA Today carried an article saying that 70
percent of systems professionals report being victimized by
serious computer crimes, and when viruses and other pilfering
are factored in, the figure rises to 90 percent.
The growing complexity of computer systems and networks
that enable computers to communicate around the world demands
prosecutors with the technical expertise equal to this
challenge. This is an incredibly fast-moving field, and we must
not fall behind.
In closing, let me reiterate that our requested increases
are intended to ensure balance in the criminal justice system
and will be used to further the coordinated efforts of the
total federal, state, and local law enforcement community. Once
again, I appreciate the continued support for the United States
Attorney's offices and would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for all of your testimony.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MEXICO COOPERATION
Mr. Rogers. I am especially glad to see my friend from
Kentucky Joe Famularo, the Eastern District U.S. attorney. He
is doing a wonderful job in that capacity in an area that has
had significant increases in criminal caseload of late. Good to
see both of you and all of you.
Now, again this year the administration certified Mexico
as, quote, fully cooperating, unquote, with the U.S. in the war
on drugs. Mexico continues to be the greatest transit point for
drugs into this country; 60 percent of cocaine comes from South
America, 80 percent of the methamphetamine precursor chemicals
come from Mexico across the border. Mexico is the major source
country for heroin and marijuana. Last year the administration
justified certification on the basis that, one, the U.S. had
successfully negotiated with Mexico a performance plan to
measure Mexico's progress in the drug effort; and, two, Mexico
agreed to devote $400 million in their drug efforts; and,
three, Mexico had passed money laundering statutes. But the
same problems we have talked about for years remain unsolved,
no evidence that there has been any real progress in the last
year on any of these.
Let me just mention some of them. Corruption. Both the
Bilateral Task Forces, that is the U.S.-Mexico task forces, and
the vetted units have been corrupted. Agents of the newly
created Mexican Federal Preventive Police, FPP, which was
established only in 1999 to address police corruption,
themselves are already being investigated for corruption a year
later. Things are getting worse. The most alarming incident
occurred in November 1999. Two agents, U.S. agents, were
accosted and threatened by a Mexican drug trafficker and 15
Mexican police officers. The agents called the Mexican police
commander for help, were ignored, and they were left to fight
for themselves. Corruption.
Cooperation. Mexico continues to refuse to allow DEA agents
and other U.S. law enforcement agents to carry guns for self-
protection in that corrupt country. The Bilateral Task Forces
and the vetted units have been ineffective not only because of
corruption, but because Mexico has failed to fully staff and
provide funds for those units. Mexico has never extradited a
major Mexican drug trafficker, ever, and in the past year the
Mexican courts have issued rulings which have actually set back
even further those extradition efforts. So once again we have
certified Mexico as fully cooperating, and everyone in this
room knows they are the worst in the world for cooperating with
us. Can you disagree with that, Mr. Director?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, I share all of your concerns.
No, I don't disagree with that. I have to look at this from a
law enforcement standpoint. Certainly you have outlined many of
the problems there as well or better than I could.
I have to say that I am not reluctant to give some small
degree of credit to at least one institution in Mexico, and
that is the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General
himself, Jorge Magroso, I believe to be a dedicated
professional, and his command structure at the Attorney
General's Office, I believe, forms a corps of people who want
to work with us, cooperate with us and do the right thing.
However, once you get outside this very small corps of people,
the corruption, the underfinancing, the lack of training, many
of the problems that you outlined, Mr. Chairman, really have
prevented them from being effective.
You are absolutely correct. I am disappointed in their
progress with regard to extradition, with regard to progress in
dismantling drug organizations there, and with regard to the
progress or lack of progress in providing security for DEA and
FBI agents there. The only other bright spot that I might point
out is that they have begun to try to make some progress in the
area of corruption during the tenure of Jorge Magroso, the
current Attorney General. They have dismissed some 1,400
officers for corruption. Unfortunately early on in that
process, a number of those fired officers were hired back
because of civil service regulations. This year, though, they
have reformed that system, and they have fired approximiately
350 officers. We do not believe they will be hired back.
So there is that small ray of hope, I would say, in the
Attorney General's Office itself, but beyond that there are not
too many bright spots.
MEXICO--A CRIMINAL THREAT
Mr. Rogers. Last year DEA Administrator Constantine,
publicly stated here that Mexico posed the greatest criminal
threat to the United States of anything he had seen in 40 years
in law enforcement. Do you agree with him on that?
Mr. Marshall. I agree with him, and that has not changed a
bit. In my 30 years of law enforcement, I believe the Mexican-
based organizations and their alliance with the Colombian
organizations present the greatest law enforcement threat that
we have ever faced in this country.
Mr. Rogers. The LA Times reported last month the U.S.
Ambassador to Mexico said that Mexico was the headquarters of
the drug trafficking world. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, along with Colombia.
Mr. Rogers. How in the dickens could anybody in their right
mind in the White House certify that Mexico is fully
cooperating with us on the war on drugs? Can you tell me that?
Mr. Marshall. That decision, sir, comes out of the White
House, and from the State Department. My role in this process
is to provide objective, factual information on this subject to
the Justice Department, who then works with the State
Department and others to arrive at the certification.
Mr. Rogers. I know the process, but how could anybody with
any sense--that is saying a lot when you are talking about the
State Department--certify that Mexico is fully cooperating with
the United States in the war on drugs? Tell me how they come to
that conclusion.
Mr. Marshall. Sir, I would suggest that you ask the State
Department that question.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
DRUGS IN THE CARIBBEAN
Mr. Serrano. He walks out and leaves me with this. I don't
want to upset the State Department. Thank you for being here
this morning.
I want to stay close to Mexico and stay on the issue of the
Caribbean. I want to try to clarify something here which has
been a little confusing to me. Some time ago I read comments
which came out of President Castro in Cuba where he said he was
asking the United States, in an unprecedented gesture I think,
asking the United States to help him, to get involved with him,
in fighting drugs in the Caribbean. The response from some
Members of Congress and members of the political community was
to do the opposite and start an investigation of whether anyone
in Cuba in the last 41 years had sold drugs. Then I heard
members of the administration saying that Cuba was, in fact,
trying to fight the drug war, and that they needed help. The
people who did not want us to work with Cuba on the issue of
drugs were actually saying the opposite, that Cuba was the
major drug trafficker in the history of the world and certainly
the Caribbean.
CUBA AND THE FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS
Number one: What is, from your information, the truth on
the issue? Is Cuba, in fact, trying to fight drugs in any way,
shape, or form for their own reasons, for their own community?
And secondly, have we decided to work with them at all, or have
we ignored that petition?
For those of us who understand this relationship, or the
lack thereof, to have Castro suggest as he did at one time that
we have DEA agents stationed in Cuba just baffled me to the
point where I said either this is the greatest political
statement ever made, or this guy is serious about fighting
drugs. Either way it was baffling to me that he would allow you
guys in Cuba. What is going on?
Mr. Marshall. Let me try to give you my best assessment of
that. It is a complicated situation which is more complicated
by the fact that we are not in Cuba to observe and see
firsthand what is going on there. There has been an increase--I
think that we can show through other means that there has
actually been an increase in transit traffic across Cuba. I
think there is an increase in air traffic that brings the drugs
up from Colombia and air drops them either on the island, or
around the island. There have been some indications that Cuba
is a transit point for Colombian cocaine going to Europe. We
are not yet sure if any of that reaches the United States.
In years past there have been some Cuban Government
officials--and this goes back several years--that have been
arrested for complicity in this trafficking. We cannot say
definitively whether that constitutes official Cuban Government
corruption and sanction of the trafficking or whether these are
simply isolated incidences of involvement.
Certainly from a law enforcement standpoint, there would be
some advantages to DEA being in Cuba. Regardless of the level
of cooperation, we would at least be on the ground there and
able to assess firsthand what is really going on there. On the
other hand, the question of whether our relations with Cuba are
normalized to the point that we can go in there, that is not an
issue that I can solve. That is an issue for the Congress and
Administration.
Mr. Serrano. Where are we now? There was a request from
Castro, join me in the war on drugs. Our drug czar got into a
lot of trouble saying that the Cuban Government is making an
effort, but they don't have ships, airplanes, the kind of
equipment they need to fight this. So where does it stand? Does
it stand that we do not move because we couldn't under current
embargo laws----
Mr. Marshall. I could only answer your question from the
DEA standpoint. At this point, we have not been directed to
pursue that. We have not pursued the question of a DEA office
in Cuba.
Mr. Serrano. Not as an official statement on your part, but
do I remember the request correctly including the possibility
of negotiating the idea of having DEA agents in Cuba?
Mr. Marshall. I recall some overtures of cooperation. I do
not recall that it went so far as requesting a DEA office in
Cuba. But yes, there were some overtures of cooperation.
DRUG PROBLEM IN PUERTO RICO
Mr. Serrano. I would hope--and I know that these are not
decisions that you make, but I would hope--in the fight against
drugs, we should team up with anybody. It doesn't matter what
the politics of it are.
Now, Puerto Rico continues to be a place, in my
understanding, where drugs come in and are--I don't know the
official proper language--repackaged, and then they reach New
York and other places. Obviously this is done by airplane. Does
the ability of these drugs to get in have anything to do with
how people are treated when they leave Puerto Rico? Since
people are traveling from a place where American citizenship is
in force, is it that we are not checking people, that we cannot
under law check people to a certain extent? Why is that
happening? Or is it just that people do this well in bringing
it north?
Mr. Marshall. It is some of both, Congressman. And
certainly the Customs Service would be in a much better
position to give you all of the details of how that all
operates. But I think the fact that Puerto Rico is a U.S.
territory and that there is free travel back and forth, these
individuals they are not subject to Customs inspections, as I
understand it, between Puerto Rico and the mainland United
States. My logic tells me that certainly that ease of travel
contributes to the problem.
Now, what else contributes to it, I think, is Puerto Rico's
proximity to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti and the
Dominican Republic are certainly emerging as transit countries,
and there is that kind of traffic between Colombia and those
countries and those countries and Puerto Rico. So it all
contributes.
MEXICO DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr. Serrano. Now the Mexican situation that the Chairman
was speaking about, that traffic is across the border, if you
will; the Colombian traffic comes through that border and
through other places?
Mr. Marshall. Yes. The Colombians ship cocaine. They do it
by aircraft, large vessels, and then off-load into go-fast
boats to get the product into Mexico. The drugs then cross the
border in cargo, private automobiles, trucks, trains, that sort
of stuff.
Now, with regard to Colombian heroin, most of those routes
are through the Caribbean and up through the East Coast.
Mr. Serrano. Is there any reason for deciding that this
particular drug is going to go through the Caribbean and this
through Mexico?
Mr. Marshall. There is not really any logic for deciding
that. It is predominantly different trafficking groups who
handle cocaine versus heroin. There has been some crossover in
some organizations that handle both drugs, but I think what we
saw a few years ago was that the cocaine cartels, that we
disrupted in Medellin and Cali in the late 1980s and early
1990s, changed their way of doing business in the United States
and into the United States. They formed alliances with the
Mexican traffickers, and they started moving that cocaine
product more predominantly through Mexico rather than the
Caribbean.
Colombian heroin trafficking is a more recent phenomenon,
with different groups trafficking heroin, and those groups have
stuck with the traditional Caribbean routes.
COLOMBIA DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr. Serrano. I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. It is
a concern that I have. I don't know if you are in a position to
give me your opinion. In our involvement in Colombia we are
taking supposedly the side of the military government in order
to fight drug traffickers, except in this case there is a civil
war going on, and both sides have been accused of using drug
money. We have referred to the traffickers, the insurgents, if
you will, as narcoterrorists. Now, I make the point that that
is a dangerous thing for us to do, to refer to them as
narcoterrorists, because in this country we don't negotiate
with terrorists, and we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. So
by calling them narcoterrorists, we have just closed the door
on ever speaking to a group of people who are involved in a
civil war where drug trafficking is a part of fighting that
civil war. Does that make any sense to you? Do I make any sense
to you?
Mr. Marshall. I would have to stick to my area of
expertise, and that is drug trafficking. I look at the FARC and
the ELM and the paramilitaries as being involved in the drug
trafficking. They are not traditional drug trafficking
organizations in that they don't have their own production and
supply networks and money laundering operations and that sort
of stuff, and they don't operate in foreign countries. As far
as we know, they don't directly export the product from
Colombia, but they facilitate the trade by providing protection
and logistical support as well as extortion.
Mr. Serrano. That is to finance their revolution.
Mr. Marshall. It is my understanding that is to finance the
revolution. So to the extent they are drug traffickers, they
are legitimate targets for DEA and the U.S. Government. They
have taken over certain areas of Colombia where the national
police can't go in and be effective. I think it is legitimate.
My personal opinion, is that they are a legitimate target for
us to attack.
Mr. Serrano. With your knowledge, sticking to drugs, would
you say that on the government side there is also room to go
after drug traffickers in the military, in the government that
we are going to fund to go after the FARC and others; are there
people there also?
Mr. Marshall. I think the problem that we face there is
probably more of a military problem. The military needs to go
in and deal with the insurgents and reclaim those areas of the
country so that the Colombian National Police, the law
enforcement people, can then go in and do their job.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Wamp.
METHAMPHETAMINE PROBLEM
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions all revolve around methamphetamine. General
McCaffrey said this week, quote, methamphetamine has a serious
potential nationally to become the next crack cocaine epidemic.
He also said methamphetamine remains one of the most dangerous
substances that American has ever confronted. Then he says this
is a war we are winning, but he needs to come to rural east
Tennessee where I live and where in fiscal year 1998 42 labs
were seized, in fiscal year 1999 116 labs were seized, and
already in this fiscal year, just 3 months into it, really,
since the bill was signed, 137 labs were seized. Most of those
are in rural counties, because this is the moonshine of our
generation, but 50 times more deadly and dangerous.
This is a crisis and epidemic, and we are not winning the
war. This committee added $1 million just in east Tennessee to
the Methamphetamine Task Force's budget, yet not a penny of
that has actually made its way into the field yet. I need a
report on the status of that million dollars so they can fight
this problem. No way local law enforcement can deal with this
without Federal help. There is just no way. They are not
equipped. They don't have the men. They don't have the hours.
They don't have the machinery, the labs, the vans, all of the
different things that they need. That is why we are trying to
supplement this effort.
This has migrated from California to the rural counties
because it smells--it is an urban problem, but not near like an
urban problem. We also have got the data showing that rural
children are 70 times more likely to actually experience the
woes of methamphetamine production and use than urban children
because this is out in the sticks, in the hills.
FUNDING FOR METH LAB CLEANUPS
I need to know about that million dollars.
And then the latest real crisis is the DEA Nashville office
has sent a memo to the sheriffs in east Tennessee that they
will no longer help clean up these sites, which are toxic
sites. It costs $5,000 to clean up each one of them, and I have
already defined the problem with local law enforcement
capability of dealing with this. They can't clean them up. This
will shut down their seizures because they are not going to
seize a lab if they have to pay $5,000 to clean it up because
they don't have the $5,000-per-lab seizure.
We need to attack the problem. We need your help, and I
need two answers for the people back home and all of the
children of Tennessee that might come in contact with this
terrible problem of how we are going to--and why we don't see
supplemental requests--the bell is going off, the alarm is
going off, and we need money now to help the cleanup of these
labs when they are seized at the local level.
Mr. Marshall. With regard to the million dollars,
Congressman, that is actually COPS money that is administered
by the Justice Department. While some of that money has come to
DEA in the past, and we used that money in the past 2 fiscal
years for state and local laboratory cleanups, we did not get
any additional money this year in DEA for state and local clan
lab cleanup. It is my understanding, however, that you are
absolutely correct; the FY 2000 COPS Meth Program grants have
not been actually sent out yet. But you would have to address
that with the Justice Department.
With regard to your assessment of the cleanup situation, I
think you are absolutely right. I think that absent sufficient
resources from DEA, a lot of these problems overwhelm the state
and local agencies. There is a long history to this. Prior to
1998, DEA only cleaned up laboratories that we were directly
involved in. We did that out of our operational funds. Now, in
1998, DEA got money through the COPS program and appropriated
some of our own money. In 1999, the same thing happened. In
2000, all of that COPS money went to direct grants, to the
state and locals and DEA did not get any of that money.
What we have had available to us this year is $4.1 million
through a direct appropriation to DEA for that type of cleanup
activity, and $3.9 million in carryover COPS money from
previous years. We have expended all of that, and we are back
now into a situation where we only are able to clean up
laboratories that are directly seized by DEA.
Mr. Wamp. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, as we close, a
handful of Members had sent a letter to Janet Reno asking that
this $4.1 million be released for help in cleanup. Apparently
we are going to have to stay on top of DOJ in order for any of
this money appropriated to make its way in the field. I would
just appeal to everyone involved that we work through the
course of this 2001 appropriations process to try to get this
money released and help with these cleanups, because we are
going to end up with a real problem of not being able to
dispense the money in a timely manner that we have
appropriated.
Mr. Marshall. If I could make one more comment, I have
spoken to the Attorney General about this problem, and I am
working with JMD, Steve Colgate and the Justice Management
Division, and we are trying to find some solution within the
Justice Department to the degree that we can. We are very much
aware of the problem, and we hope there will be solutions.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all that you are doing on this
issue.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
On that point, before I yield to the other gentlemen, it
needs to be clarified while we are on it that this can be
handled--I am inundated with calls from Members on this
problem, the supposed shortfall to pay State and local costs of
cleaning up these meth labs. The administration's budget never
requested money for that activity, but we did make some money
available in prior years under the COPS program for that
purpose. DEA has spent some of its own money from its base for
this purpose, too, but all of the funds have been depleted
because of the huge demand, like the gentleman from Tennessee
just mentioned.
Have you asked the Attorney General to send us up a
reprogramming from the COPS program to fund these local and
State needs this year? The money is there. All they have to do
is ask us to reprogram it for that purpose, and I would happily
sign the letter.
Mr. Marshall. I know that has been discussed. I am not sure
where we are with the reprogramming request, but that has been
discussed.
Mr. Rogers. Let the word go forth. The money is there. Meth
labs are prospering, and the administration is doing nothing.
Mr. Miller.
EXTRADITION
Mr. Miller. Good morning. Let me ask some questions about
extradition. Last year at the hearing I brought up an
extradition problem in my district, and that has been resolved,
and I want to thank you or anyone who was involved in resolving
that issue and also proceeded with Federal charges on the
fourth person, and, once again, let me say thank you for what
you have done.
When I got involved in this issue, I began to see it was a
much larger issue. One of the points I want to bring up is that
we don't know how much of a problem this is. One of the things
that we asked in the bill last year was to develop a database
on extradition cases. Can you give me an idea where we stand in
developing that database so we know which countries are the
real problem countries? I know it will probably be a few more
months on that, but give me an update. Do you have the
resources on that?
Mr. Robinson. Certainly. The suggestion to really get our
arms around the ability to respond quickly with the status of
extraditions is a good suggestion, and we are working hard to
try to implement that. We are making significant progress. The
new system is in the process of being implemented with more
data fields in it to be responsive. Particularly with our
relationships with extradition with Mexico, we have been
working hard to clean up the files and figure out how many of
these matters are stale and how many are current.
I think we are making significant progress to get that
current database together so we can respond effectively and
efficiently. I think we are moving along.
Mr. Miller. In the next few months we would have more
information.
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Last year on Dateline NBC, a report said that
we are only successful in 1 out of every 4 extradition cases.
Is that number about right?
Mr. Robinson. Bringing them to justice, you mean? I would
want to double-check.
Mr. Miller. It was a Justice Department statement to that
effect. That is the kind of thing we are trying to find out, if
we are only successful 25 percent of the time.
Mr. Robinson. That wouldn't surprise me, but I will check
on it.
Mr. Miller. I recently got involved in the Ira Einhorn
case. One of the things that we found out is we don't have a
lot of leverage when we negotiate on extradition. And the
problem is that it appears that you can only make a personal
plea, as I know Mrs. Reno did in this case as well as Mary
Warren. I know that the DOJ was also involved in the Sheinbein
case. What else can we do to give you more ability to
negotiate, more clout, whether it is with France or El Salvador
or anyone else? What can we do to help strengthen your ability
to develop these extradition treaties? Right now it is a
hodgepodge. We don't even have treaties with many countries.
Mr. Robinson. This, Congressman, is going to be a growing
problem as we go forward. Globalization, ease of travel, this
is taxing the resources of our Office of International Affairs.
We now have a number of Criminal Division people including
Elizabeth Farr, who is in Paris working very hard on the
Einhorn matter.
We are going to have to put additional resources into
dealing with this. Each of these countries presents unique
circumstances. Some of them have prohibitions of the
extradition of their nationals. We need to continue our process
of renegotiating treaties to try to eliminate those kinds of
requirements.
One of the major concerns is Mexico. Some of their legal
system have this powerful equivalent of our habeas corpus that
allows things to be caught up in the judicial process of these
countries. We have experts in the Office of International
Affairs working closely with each of the components with the
various countries, but this is going to happen more and more as
we identify people around the world.
Part of what we realized is we are going to have to put
more resources into the Office of International Affairs to not
only deal with getting the treaties up to date, but working on
a case-by-case basis, going through the courts of countries
that have completely different legal systems and bringing to
bear the public attention on some of these issues. That does
make a difference. I think the cry that has occurred over the
Sheinbein case and other cases has put the pressure that is
appropriate on these other countries to try to make sure there
is no safe haven for international criminals.
Mr. Miller. Haven't some countries changed their laws?
Mr. Robinson. Yes, indeed. We meet with our counterparts in
other countries, and we constantly press the international
community to come together on the notion of no safe havens for
international criminals, arrangements that allow people to face
the music where they committed the crime. That is something
that we need to work on, expand the number of treaties, have
the resources to extradite these cases. Some of these areas
where you have a major narcotics trafficker that is going to
spend a lot of money on the legal systems of these other
countries trying to stay out of our clutches.
We have been very encouraged by the relationship we have
developed with Colombia, a real breakthrough in this area. The
more this happens, the more effective job we will do.
U.S. ATTORNEY EARMARKS OF BUDGET
Mr. Miller. We have the more sensational cases that we
could talk about, but there was a story on 20/20 in the past
year about El Salvador where the reporter took a local
detective from here in suburban Virginia, went down there, and
there were five murder cases, and he just walked up and talked
to these suspects. That has to be so frustrating for local law
enforcement. These guys are free down there. They can't even
bring them to stand trial, as I said. Because of the global
economy, this will be a growing problem. We need to develop
some way to give you more ability, to bring these people to
justice. I would encourage you to do anything you can to help
push that along.
Let me ask a question about the U.S. Attorney's Office. I
have not been a lawyer, and I have never dealt with U.S.
Attorneys before, but I visited a Federal courthouse in Tampa
at that attorney's office. I am impressed. It covers a huge
area; my area of Florida is gigantic. I see in this budget that
the U.S. Attorney's office does a lot of earmarking. A few
million here for guns, a few million for something else, it
takes away a lot of the flexibility of the local person. How
much of a problem is that? We do earmarking when we have a
problem, but then the local U.S. attorney doesn't know how to
shift the flexibility that he or she may have. You are
contributing to it, too, not just the Members of Congress.
Ms. Murguia. Your U.S. Attorney used to be Director of the
Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. That is interesting that
you are asking that question--I would like to say that I agree.
We appreciate whatever resources we can get. However, when we
can defer to the people in the field, the U.S. Attorneys who
consult regularly with federal and state and local law
enforcement authorities to distribute the resources--it is more
effective because they know what the needs are. And so to the
extent that we can protect that discretion within the U.S.
Attorney community who are in constant consultation with their
state and local and federal law enforcement agencies on how to
best use the resources that we get, I think that is really
important.
Mr. Miller. But you still do the earmarking, too, like the
gun issue. I am not saying with certainty that we ought to do
that, but it is earmarking, so the U.S. Attorney in each of
these areas, even where they may need more resources for
drugs--have to focus on this gun issue, and we don't have those
resources.
Ms. Murguia. I think that is a pattern that has developed
because we see that the Members of Congress want to hold us
accountable to different areas. We want to demonstrate how we
could use some resources in these designated areas. I think
that is why we put together by subject matter what kind of
resources we are looking for and how we would use them. But
ideally we would like to be given additional AUSAs to fight
crime. The U.S. Attorneys decide how best to use them; that
would be the ideal situation.
I think over time we have seen that there has been an
expectation that we designate requests for how we will be using
them, so we go ahead and submit our request in that manner.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham.
BUDGET REQUEST FOR LAB CLEANUPS
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, all of
you here on the panel.
My number one concern was the lack of funding available for
the cleanup operations. I guess I am curious why there was no
request--did you make a request to OMB for funds for cleanup?
But there was nothing in the President's budget last year, and
why not? This can't be something that you didn't see coming.
Mr. Marshall. Congressman, actually DEA did make a request.
The Justice Department did support that request, and I
understand that once the conference committee came out, Justice
went in with a conference appeal for something on the order of
$18.5 million for methamphetamine cleanup.
Mr. Latham. That is your request for this year?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latham. I was wondering about last year----
Mr. Marshall. I am sorry. That is for Fiscal Year 2000.
Mr. Latham. So you asked for that, OMB said zero, but
Justice came back and said, yes, we do need some money?
Mr. Marshall. That is correct.
TRISTATE DRUG TASK FORCE
Mr. Latham. But OMB zeroed it out, okay.
I would echo what Mr. Wamp was talking about, the huge
problem, as you all know, as far as the meth in the Upper
Midwest. I really want to thank you for the great job that you
are doing with the Tristate Drug Task Force. It has helped a
lot of law enforcement throughout the region with their skills
in fighting the war on drugs, and Chairman Rogers has been
fantastic as far as helping us with the regional meth training
center. We have trained now about 8,000 local law enforcement
up through the whole--actually four-State area up there.
Everywhere I go it has been a great success with law
enforcement officers at all levels.
Could you give me any kind of perspective on the Tristate
Drug Task Force itself and what you are seeing there? How much
is this type of operation being expanded around the country?
Mr. Marshall. We are seeing a lot of methamphetamine
activity in that part of the country. We are involved with the
Tristate Task Force, as we are with many others around the
country. We have had some cooperative successes there. I think
that is one of the basic principles of law enforcement in this
day and age. We all have limited resources, but we all have
unique skills and resources to bring to the job, so when we can
work together as in the Tristate task force, I think that we
really leverage our assets and increase our effectiveness. We
are very much committed to task force arrangements.
We also have in that part of the country one of our
regional enforcement teams. They are deployed based in----
Mr. Latham. That is out of Des Moines, I believe.
Mr. Marshall. And they have deployed to Omaha, I believe.
There will be further deployments of that team in the future.
It is a very effective team.
TASK FORCE COOPERATION
Mr. Latham. I guess it takes a lot of coordination as far
as the task force; you have all of the different agencies
coming together. I wonder, is there cooperation? We had a
hearing yesterday with INS, and part of the task force up there
is INS. Is the coordination and cooperation there as far as all
of the different agencies? I guess specifically because of
INS's problems, I am more sensitive to their----
Mr. Marshall. I think in general, Congressman, that law
enforcement cooperation in this country is better than I have
ever seen it in the past 30 years. That is not to say there are
no problems. Obviously there are problems, and any time you get
agencies together, you are going to have problems. But I think
by and large law enforcement has adopted a different philosophy
over the last 10, 12, 15 years. We have recognized that no one
agency can do this job alone. We have become less possessive.
We have become less jealous of other organizations. We really
have done many things to promote cooperation, and DEA has been
at the forefront of that.
I just spoke to a group of drug unit commander course
graduates last evening. I got some great feedback from them on
law enforcement cooperation across the country. I think my own
personal observation is it is better than ever, and it is
getting even better with some of the things that we are
implementing.
COOPERATION ALONG SOUTHWEST BORDER
Mr. Latham. One of the real concerns that I have in
recognizing that we have a problem with meth labs, but from my
understanding, unless the numbers have changed recently, 90
percent of the drugs, meth in particular, are brought into the
area and are not produced locally. Being aware of the cartels
basically that have set up marketing plans in the Upper
Midwest, I just wonder about the Southwest Border Initiative.
Are we getting cooperation as much as you would like to see,
and are we making a difference?
Mr. Marshall. Among the U.S. agencies on the Southwest
border, yes, I think we are. We have good cooperation along the
Southwest border. Again, there are some rough spots, and there
are always bumps in the road. But among the Justice agencies,
we have the Border Coordinating Initiative, and the U.S.
Attorney from Arizona has recently been named the Chair of
that.
We have a number of other mechanisms, including the HIDTA
mechanism, which really brings a lot of agencies together and
promotes cooperation there. We have the intel centers who we
are trying to hook in and test and try to improve intelligence
exchange, that sort of stuff. I think that cooperation is going
very well, from my perspective.
Also, we have operating mechanisms between DEA and Customs,
between DEA and INS, and DEA and Border Patrol. Sometimes they
overlap, but we have a reasonably good definition of who does
what and how we all fit together.
Mr. Latham. Do we have any numbers as to volume coming in?
Has that changed, been reduced? With meth, a lot of times it is
these components that are brought in. Is there any analysis
available to see what we are actually working or not?
Mr. Marshall. There is, and I could get you a detailed
analysis of that.
Just a couple of overarching observations: I think in the
aggregate we could figure that some 60 percent of all drugs
that are foreign-produced are coming in across that border from
Mexico. That is more or less depending on what drug it is.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION
With regard to your specific concern on methamphetamine,
DEA has put a tremendous amount of resources into the
methamphetamine issue over the last number of years. We have
hosted a national conference. We have been involved in training
many new officers not only in lab certification, but in
investigations and tactics and that sort of stuff.
What we are seeing in the methamphetamine issue is really
two problems. You have the Mexican groups that produce
methamphetamine, and you have what we call the mom and pop
laboratories. The Mexican groups are probably the easiest to
attack because they are organizations. They are producing, by
the way, most of the methamphetamine in the country. They have
to get large volumes of chemicals. We can attack them in
traditional ways, and we have been successful at that.
Operation META from about a year ago immobilized the major meth
trafficking organization. They, unfortunately, were quickly
replaced.
What we are seeing right now, though, is that we are
beginning to have a little bit of an impact on the Mexican
operators. The reason that I say that is because the purities
coming out of Mexican labs have gone down in the last year or
so, and we are seeing that not only in California, but in the
other Western States. State and local law enforcement agencies
confirm this trend. We are seeing the Mexican groups shift
from--in many cases from methamphetamine to amphetamine. That
is a different process. It is a little bit different process
and different chemicals, and that suggests to me we are having
an impact on the chemicals.
That is the good news. The bad news is with the decline
in--a change in the way that the Mexicans are doing their
laboratories, that results in a rise in the mom and pop
laboratories. They produce smaller quantities of the drug, but
it is more dangerous for the public. They try to set them up in
trailer houses, motel rooms, even in the back of moving vans.
They are a tremendous danger to the public, law enforcement
people, and there are no organizations associated with them,
just small groups of people cooking a batch of methamphetamine
for their own and their close associates' use. They make enough
money to cook the next batch, and then they go about their
business. When you immobilize one of those groups, it is a
smaller group, you don't have as much impact. And by the way,
the latter group accounts for most of the laboratories that you
are seeing and most of the cleanup problems.
Mr. Latham. Is the percentage still about the same, 90
percent with the cartels----
Mr. Marshall. Eighty to ninety percent to the
organizations, and the rest mom and pop, yes.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S WORKLOAD
Mr. Latham. I wanted to ask you about the workload, and we
are hearing a lot from our prosecutors, obviously, about what
their situation is. Is there anything besides more money that
we could do?
Ms. Murguia. We appreciate your moral support, however----
Mr. Latham. You get a lot of that around here.
Ms. Murguia. Additional allocations in terms of money and
resources would be the most helpful.
I mentioned earlier in my statement the need for balance. I
think what is happening is we are seeing the effects of
previous allocations given to some of the law enforcement
agencies. I will give you an example. FBI over the last 2 years
got an increase of 90 agents to work on cybercrime, computer-
related crime. We are desperately trying to keep up. I am
concerned because the percentage of matters pending has
increased almost 400 percent since 1992. And as those
additional agents generate cases, you will need to fund the
U.S. Attorney allocation, I think, to correspond effectively to
that.
Another example is the Border Patrol. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service's Border Patrol has an allocation for
4,500 additional agents that have been given in recent years. I
know that they have been allocated. INS has almost 5,000
additional Border Patrol agents and inspectors. I know they are
not hired to full capacity. I know they are not up to full
capacity, but they have hired most of those. All of them will
generate cases for the U.S. Attorneys.
We were fortunate to get some drug AUSAs in 1997, 1998, and
1999; however, the cases that are coming in are coming in at
really an exponential level.
Mr. Latham. Is the problem access to courts? Is that where
the big backup is and the time available?
Ms. Murguia. You will see it on every level; the cases
coming in and prosecutors trying to deal with them. It is
affecting U.S. marshals' ability to transport them and the
courts ability to detain them, and most likely the Bureau of
Prisons is dealing with this issue as well. So it is really
affecting every level.
Mr. Latham. I have gone on too long. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TRANSPORTING DRUGS
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Latham, for your line of
questioning.
Let me get back briefly to Puerto Rico with you. The
Attorney General of Puerto Rico visited the other day and
reports that there is a big and growing smuggling operation
going on of illegal immigrants and drugs from the Dominican
Republic across the 80-mile straits to Puerto Rico's west side,
and once they get there, they are home free because they can
get on a plane and come to the U.S. without inspection. And he
says that the number of illegal Dominican immigrants crossing
that strait into Puerto Rico and being used by the organized
crime to transport drugs from Colombia into the U.S. system
through Puerto Rico is a real weak spot in our efforts to
combat drugs. What do you see about that?
Mr. Marshall. I know that immigration question has been the
subject of a lot of debate and dialogue among law enforcement
agencies here and in Puerto Rico. I know there is a lot of
problems with illegal immigrants, both Dominican and Colombian.
I think that is correct, that once they get into Puerto Rico,
the free access to travel certainly does contribute to the
abuse and trafficking problem.
Mr. Rogers. There is a big problem?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, it is a big problem.
Mr. Rogers. What are you doing about it?
Mr. Marshall. You would have to ask the Immigration
Service.
Mr. Rogers. I am asking you. I know this is the Customs
Service--it is everybody, but you are a big part of that.
Mr. Marshall. On the drug problem what we are trying to do
about that is investigate the organizations that are moving
those drugs. We have had some successes in Puerto Rico and
throughout the Caribbean, as a matter of fact. We recently
mounted an operation called Columbus, where we pulled together
six or seven of those island nations including Haiti and the
Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. We shared intelligence
where----
Mr. Rogers. The problem apparently is they come across the
80-mile strait by night in boats from Dominican Republic to
Puerto Rico, and we have no way of spotting them at night, so
they just flood across in the nighttime. I know from my other
work in the transportation subcommittee, and I fought to get
more forward-looking infrared radar on the C-130s to spot
nighttime fast boats and the like. We have assets in the
region. This apparently is a major, fairly new way to defeat
the system.
Have you talked with the Coast Guard about having them look
at night for drug smugglers across the strait?
Mr. Marshall. Yes. We are engaged with the Coast Guard,
with Customs, with INS in these joint operations.
Mr. Rogers. The Puerto Rican Attorney General doesn't know
about it if you are.
Mr. Marshall. Well, there is interagency cooperation in
that part of the world, yes.
Mr. Rogers. I want to know, and you can tell the
subcommittee later, what you are and the Coast Guard and
Customs are doing to close down that strait.
Mr. Marshall. I will provide you that report. I will point
out that that type of high seas interdiction is the major
responsibility of the Coast Guard.
Mr. Rogers. I understand that, but we all work for the U.S.
Government. If you can't get along with the Coast Guard or get
them to do something, we need to discuss that.
Mr. Marshall. We get along with them very well.
Mr. Rogers. I know you get along with them, but do they do
what you want them to do on these problems?
Mr. Marshall. Yes. We have continual dialogue with them. Do
they do everything we ask? No, but we do work well. I will get
you a report.
[The information follows:]
Illegal Immigrants and Drug Transport
Historically, DEA and the law enforcement community in
Puerto Rico have gathered intelligence, which clearly indicates
that there is a nexus between drug and illegal immigrant
smuggling between Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. Transportation
groups provide services to smuggle both drugs and illegal
aliens through this region.
To address this problem, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has a
permanent operation in the Mona Pass gap between the Dominican
Republic and Puerto Rico. Despite this effort, the interdiction
of migrant vessels is a difficult task, even if there is
intelligence indicating that a migrant boat is en route to
Puerto Rico. These vessels do not necessarily take a direct
approach to Puerto Rico; on the contrary, they navigate well to
the north or south and then approach Puerto Rico through remote
beach spots along the northern and southern regions of the
territory instead of spots along the West Coast. Additionally,
might vessels are sometimes utilized by transportation groups
as ``bait'' to draw all interdiction assets away from another
vessel also en route to Puerto Rico but loaded with a multi-
hundred kilogram shipment of drugs.
In FY 1999, nearly 90,000 Coast Guard cutter operating
hours and over 16,000 aircraft flight hours were applied
against the Caribbean threat, amounting to nearly one-third of
the hours available for all missions within the Coast Guard
Atlantic Area. Based on this threat, the Coast Guard has nearly
all of their counterdrug efforts focused on the Caribbean
Transit Zone.
The USCG continues to seek solutions to the growing
regional smuggling problem by expanding their efforts in the
transit zone. Operation New Frontier--the use of force from
aircraft combined with over-the-horizon cutter boats using
night vision goggles, has been a tremendous success. The
Maritime Interdiction Support Vessel has sailed to the
Caribbean with deployable pursuit boats that can match and
exceed the speed of the smuggler's go-fast boats. The USCG also
continues its efforts to negotiate a series of bi-lateral
maritime counternarcotics agreements with foreign governments
to enable more effective and efficient coordination of
interdiction forces in the region.
The primary counterdrug focus of USCG efforts in the
Atlantic Area in the upcoming year will be on Puerto Rico,
where the smuggling infrastructure is well established. The
USCG is continually working with other agencies, including DEA,
to develop a systematic approach to attack this threat and
force smugglers away from Puerto Rico. The focus will be to
engage in cooperative interagency efforts and achieve
breakthrough results by linking interdiction and investigative
operations to permanently dismantle regional smuggling
operations.
MEXICO LACK OF COOPERATION
Mr. Rogers. Back to Mexico a minute. We have been very
patient, the Congress. Back to--I want to recall my
conversation with you earlier on--about the failures of Mexico
to help in the drug war. We have been told for years that
progress was being made with Mexico, that give us a little more
time and they are going to cooperate. But it just seems to
slide backwards. We are not making any progress. In fact, it is
getting worse, in my judgment.
We provided additional resources to augment DEA's
activities as well as the cooperative effort with the Mexican
law enforcement agencies. For example, the U.S. Government made
a major commitment to joint U.S.-Mexican task forces in what is
called vetted units. I want to ask you, are those units working
as planned?
Mr. Marshall. No, they are not.
Mr. Rogers. Still plagued by corruption?
Mr. Marshall. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Better or worse?
Mr. Marshall. Certainly no better, probably a bit worse.
Mr. Rogers. Do you think Mexico has demonstrated their
complete commitment to making these units work, staffing and
resources?
Mr. Marshall. I think that the elements of the Attorney
General's Office--and I referred to that earlier--have tried to
do the best that they can with what they have, but those units
are understaffed. They are underequipped and unfinanced, and
they do have those corruption problems.
Mr. Rogers. What about the safety of your personnel?
Mr. Marshall. That is my gravest concern in Mexico right
now. You outlined one incident where, but for the resourceful
thinking of the two agents, they may not have survived that
incident.
I have to say, Congressman, that I was a bit disappointed
in the Government of Mexico's reaction to that situation. The
Attorney General's Office themselves are investigating that
activity, and while they haven't apprehended the criminals yet,
they are conducting an investigation. However, there were some
elements in Mexico that focused more on whether the DEA and FBI
agents were violating their sovereignty than they did on the
fact that there were 15 corrupt state and municipal officers
involved in attempted kidnapping and possibly attempted murder.
I was disappointed in that.
Mr. Rogers. Let's get this straight. Fifteen Mexican police
officers?
Mr. Marshall. They were identified as 15 or so municipal
and state police officers, who appeared to be working at the
behest of and taking orders from the trafficker, Mr. Cardenas.
Mr. Rogers. What did they do--describe the incident a
little bit for us.
Mr. Marshall. My understanding of the incident is the two
agents were down there essentially debriefing a source of
information, and in the process of their driving through the
city of Matamoros, there they were confronted by Cardenas and
these 15 armed men who apparently had seen them drive by from a
house that we believe, was occupied by this major trafficker.
They brandished weapons, some of those automatic assault
weapons. One said it appeared to be a gold-plated automatic
assault weapon. They tried to get the two agents to give up the
informant so they could take the informant away. The agents
refused to open the car doors or give him up.
At one point apparently Cardenas gave the order to kill the
three men. The DEA agent at that point very resourcefully told
Cardenas, you can do that if you would like, but remember what
happened the last time you killed U.S. agents, and you are
probably going to be biting off more trouble than you can
handle here if you do this. And then apparently Cardenas backed
down and gave the order to not kill them, but warned them that
they better never come back and they better leave them alone.
That was essentially the incident.
Mr. Rogers. Were the DEA agents armed?
Mr. Marshall. I would rather not comment on anything that
might compromise the security of our agents down there in terms
of how we operate or that sort of stuff, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Has there been any progress made in getting
Mexico to agree to allow law enforcement personnel to carry
firearms for their own protection?
Mr. Marshall. We have not come to a satisfactory agreement
for the security of our agents.
Mr. Rogers. It has been going on forever, hasn't it?
Mr. Marshall. We have not come to an agreement.
Mr. Rogers. So under Mexican law they are not allowed to
carry weapons?
Mr. Marshall. Correct.
EXTRADITION WITH MEXICO
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Robinson, any significant progress on
extradition with Mexico?
Mr. Robinson. This is another area of substantial
disappointment on our part. We continue to work hard at it, and
I think it is incumbent on us to do the best we can to work
with the Attorney General's Office in Mexico, and I agree with
the Director that the Attorney General Magroso has worked very
closely with us, but much of the disappointment in the
extradition area is related to the judicial decisions in Mexico
that have made it very difficult for us to carry these matters
out.
I think there needs to be very substantial revisions in the
Mexican legal system's approach to these matters. We need to
recall, I guess, ourselves how long it took to get some measure
of habeas corpus reform in this country. But we think this is a
major problem of having our efforts being thwarted in various
ways. They are pursuing appeals, but these things take a long
time.
We are disappointed. We are not satisfied with the current
status of our relationship in the extradition area. We continue
to work on it and raise it at every opportunity to push ahead
with it, and we need to continue to make that effort, but we
would like to see better results.
Mr. Rogers. How many active extradition requests are
currently pending?
Mr. Robinson. I want to double-check to get the exact
number.
It is 150, I am told by Ms. Warner.
Mr. Rogers. How many of those are for major drug
traffickers?
Mr. Robinson. A significant number.
Mr. Rogers. Is that right?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. That number would include our efforts
for state and local governments extraditions. They are not all
of our extradition requests. We have a number of significant
questions.
Mr. Marshall. My understanding of that, Mr. Chairman, is
the number of major fugitives that DEA is interested in, is
about 12 to 15.
Mr. Rogers. How many extradition requests has Mexico
honored?
Mr. Robinson. Well, it depends. If you mean by honored----
Mr. Rogers. Major cases.
Mr. Robinson. We have yet to receive, as you indicated
earlier, a successful extradition of a major trafficker from
Mexico.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I asked Administrator Marshall whether he
thought we ought to certify Mexico as fully cooperating with us
in the drug war. He said no.
Mr. Marshall. I would have to decline to comment on that. I
believe I said that you needed to ask the State Department why
they recommended that in the face of some of the information
that they had.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Robinson, what do you say to the same
question?
Mr. Robinson. I might have been born at night, so I would
have to say the same thing. I think that obviously this is a
decision that gets, as they say, made above our pay grade. We
provide the information, and it is obviously the decision made
by the President on many sources of information, including our
input. We basically provide the kind of answers that you have
solicited here in that process.
But as I said, we need to continue to work at this. We
can't abandon the playing field, and we will continue----
Mr. Rogers. If we were getting a small supply of drugs
through Mexico, it might be a different question. Perhaps
politics might--you might excuse the recognition of political
questions more than law enforcement, but that is not the case
with Mexico. As I mentioned earlier, 60 percent of the cocaine
comes through Mexico. Eighty percent of the meth drugs that are
rapidly taking over our young people in this country, killer
drugs, are coming from Mexico.
If there were any other type of thing going on where one
nation was causing so much death and destruction in this
country, we would not hesitate, the U.S. Government, to act and
act decisively to take appropriate actions. But for some reason
this administration just simply refuses--they have their eyes
absolutely shut and their head turned while most of the killer
drugs are coming into this country across the border from our
neighbors in Mexico, who do nothing to help us fight the
battle.
For the life of me I can't understand that. I think they
are going to be held accountable for this. People understand
what is going on, but it doesn't excuse what they are doing. I
am very much saddened by it and disappointed, frustrated, just
like I think you are and all right-thinking people and people
who know what is going on. The decision may be announced by the
State Department, but it is not made by the State Department.
It is made in the White House, and they use the State
Department's PR person to put it out.
COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT
Now let me ask you about CALEA. As you know the Congress
passed the act on the floor to allow law enforcement agencies
to be able to wiretap in the new digital age and to require
telephone companies and others to install equipment that would
allow wiretapping, as we once did in the old system, to be done
in the new system. Highly complex, technical, expensive.
Finally we have been able to get the moneys together, mostly in
the supplemental that the House Appropriations Committee has
passed, headed to the floor hopefully in the next several days,
that would fully fund CALEA. And it has been a long battle.
I would like to have all of your ideas about the importance
of wiretaps in the performance of your jobs. How important is
it to the war on drugs or the war on crime or any other thing
that you be able to conduct court-ordered wiretaps in the
performance of your respective duties?
Mr. Administrator, do you want to start?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, Mr. Chairman. From the DEA's standpoint
it is very important. It has become one of our basic tools
against the command and control structures of the major
organizations. And we find that more and more we are able--
through the intercept of their communications, we are able to
paint pictures of the organizations, we are able to identify
the people in those organizations, we are able to identify how
they do business, we are able to assess their vulnerabilities
and then set about attacking those vulnerabilities.
In virtually every major operation that we have done
recently, we have done court-authorized electronic
surveillance. That is in virtually all of our major
investigations. Now, of the universe of criminal electronic
surveillance orders in this country, upwards of 70 percent, I
believe it is 72 percent, of those are drug-related. So for the
drug issue it is very important. We would be at a serious
disadvantage and our effectiveness would be severely hampered
if we lost that tool.
Mr. Robinson. I couldn't agree more, that our ability with
court authorization and this process is very careful to protect
people's rights. But without the capacity to engage in court-
ordered electronic surveillance, we would be substantially
handicapped in our ability to take down these major narcotics
trafficking organizations. It is also essential with regard to
terrorism; it is essential with regard to organized crime
generally. This is a critical tool for law enforcement, and we
would be very significantly handicapped in our ability to
engage in our functions without the kind of support that is
being provided in this area.
Ms. Murguia. I have to state the same. It has been very
important to the U.S. Attorneys, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys
who are out there every day working to fight crime. Again, it
is not just for major drug traffickers, but also for terrorists
and organized crime. It has been an extremely basic and
critical tool.
I think you can see that by the number of times it has been
used. Since 1991, there has been an increase of about 225
percent to--last year we had over 1,300 wiretaps that helped us
in pursuing drug traffickers. From what I said in my earlier
statement, our conviction rate is 90 percent. I think that this
tool is very helpful in having us be able to go after drug
traffickers effectively.
Mr. Rogers. Would it be an overstatement to say that if all
of a sudden you weren't allowed to do court-ordered wiretaps,
there would be a collapse of law enforcement on organized crime
and drugs?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would deal a body blow that would
be very problematic for us in doing our job. There is a major
difference between having witnesses testify--and some of the
stuff you can't get without this, but having the voices
actually there engaging in criminal activity is a powerful tool
in the courtroom, and what it really means is that many of
these cases don't have to go into the courtroom because the
evidence is there. It is really irrefutable and critical.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman informs me that we are very short on time.
First of all, Mary, I would like to submit a set of questions
to you regarding the Southwest border and the impact that all
of these prosecutions are having on the job you have to do. It
is nice to see you here.
TRAFFICK OF DRUGS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM PUERTO RICO
Mr. Serrano. By the way, Mr. Chairman, every time I see
her, I get confused because her sister was a very prominent
member of the White House staff, who is now a very prominent
member of a campaign in Tennessee. Something is happening down
there. They come from a family of how many judges and lawyers?
Quite a few.
Ms. Murguia. To the extent it is important for the record--
--
Mr. Serrano. Just for the pride factor.
Ms. Murguia [continuing]. We have four lawyers. One of them
is a Federal district court judge, and one is a lawyer in
private practice. I am here with the Department, and then my
twin sister used to work for a Congressman and then worked for
the White House and now has another job.
Mr. Serrano. I don't want to put you on the spot. I just
want to get a report on the story of your family.
My last question, a very brief one. The Chairman made an
excellent point about the traffick of drugs. But there is also,
Mr. Chairman, a traffick of immigrants from the Dominican
Republic to Puerto Rico. Here is my question. That island is
100 miles by 35 miles. So the section we are talking about,
which is where I was born, with today's technology is not a lot
of room to cover. Why is it that people continue to be able to
sneak in at night? It would seem to me--we were talking about
the Mexican and Canadian border, that is a large area. But here
we are talking about a small part of today's world, yet we
don't seem to be able to see people coming in.
Mr. Marshall. Well, unfortunately I am not as familiar with
the Coast Guard and Customs and that sort of technology as I
should be, but----
Mr. Serrano. You work with them, right?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, but I am not aware of their technology,
and I think it would be better to address this to them.
Mr. Serrano. I would hope for the record you would find out
from the Coast Guard why they don't allow you to do the job
that you should be doing, because they are coming in all of the
time. The Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Mr. Chairman,
asked me yesterday to ask Ms. Meissner about the immigration
problem, but immigration also brings the drug problem.
Anyway, I want to thank you. We know that you have a very
difficult job, all of you, and we appreciate your testimony
here today.
FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST FOR LAB CLEANUP
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, may I revisit an issue? I had
an exchange with Congressman Latham. He asked me if we had
requested laboratory cleanup money, and I didn't mentally shift
gears. I thought he was talking about the particular crisis
that we are in right now, fiscal year 2000, and I gave him an
answer that related to 2000. I think his question may have been
what did we ask for 2001, and we did ask for $22 million in lab
cleanup money in this particular budget year. That was not
approved by the Administration for submission to Congress.
Mr. Rogers. We appreciate all of your testimony and of your
staff that is with you. We appreciate, more importantly, the
work that you are doing in your respective jurisdictions. We
talked to you pretty hard, but I want to mention that your work
is paying off. The crime rate is at its lowest level in
recorded history. Violent crime is dramatically down. Drug
business still continues to flourish. The price of drugs
continues to drop, and more new drugs come into the business.
The meth craze is ruining our youngsters, but we are making
some progress. And you are doing a good job in spite of all of
the difficulties that you have to face, including facing this
bunch up here.
Mr. Serrano. That is the least of their problems.
Mr. Rogers. We have attempted in the past to find moneys to
fund things that you do. I know all of you are not happy
perhaps, but we have been under the crunch here, too, in trying
to find moneys from up above us, and this will be another
difficult year here in that regard as well, but there are a lot
of things that we can do to spend our money better.
I am absolutely puzzled why the Administration doesn't
pursue the Mexican problem more vigorously. I think if they
did, we could have some real progress there. But Mexico knows
that they have got a free ride, and they are not about to
cooperate. There is no skin off their back. I find that
appalling, while we have youngsters dying up here, we turn our
heads for political purposes. That to me is a cardinal sin.
But nevertheless, thank you for the good work that you are
doing, and we will be in touch with you. Keep in touch with us.
If we come up with less allocation than you need from our
higher-ups, we may have to begin to ration the funds that we
dispense out to the various agencies we deal with, which means
you may not get all that you want. That means that we would
like to talk with you about your highest priorities as we go
through here. There are bound to be some things more important
to you than others, and we may have to talk to you about
picking and choosing some of those as we go through here.
This will be an abbreviated year. We hope to get things
done quicker than usual, so bear that in mind as well. Thank
you, and be careful out there.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 15, 2000.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
WITNESSES
MARY LOU LEARY, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
THOMAS C. FRAZIER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING
SERVICES
JOHN J. WILSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
Mr. Rogers Opening Remarks
Mr. Rogers. The committee will come to order. We are
pleased to welcome this afternoon Mary Lou Leary, the Acting
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs;
John Wilson, the Acting Administrator for the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and Thomas
Frazier, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, also known as the COPS program.
These agencies represent the government's primary
assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies in the
fight against crime in our communities. You are responsible for
administering grants totaling over $4.8 billion and covering a
full arsenal of programs from adding more police officers,
building new prisons, addressing domestic violence and
combating juvenile crime. I am concerned that the
administration proposes cutting or eliminating important
programs with proven records such as the State Prison Grant,
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, and Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant, the COPS Methamphetamine Drug/Hot Spots
Program and the School Resource Officer Program and initiating
other programs without proven track records.
Obviously, money is not the only answer because not only
has the Federal crime effort substantially increased, but State
and local governments are also spending more and more, all for
the sake of our struggle to reduce crime. We all have ideas
about how best to tackle these problems, and with the
limitations on funding that we face, we will have to pool our
knowledge, talents, and resources together to make sure that we
are investing in truly effective programs.
You are the experts who must look closely at State and
local needs and recommend strategies for them that work and
will make a difference. We will continue to support you as we
have over the past years to the best of our ability to give you
the resources that you need to address the most significant
crime problems.
At this point we will include your written statements into
the record and as soon as I yield to my colleague, Mr. Serrano,
for opening remarks we will hear your testimony. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano's Opening Remarks
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a
pleasure to welcome our witnesses this afternoon. The work that
you do and the assistance you provide to State and local law
enforcement agencies and the communities they serve play a
critical role in improving the effectiveness of our criminal
justice system, and this assistance is needed now perhaps more
than ever.
I have, as you know, a particular interest in efforts to
improve police professionalism and accountability, particularly
through improved recruiting and hiring, training and oversight,
as well as to improve relations between police forces and the
communities they are sworn to protect. I will be especially
interested in hearing what you are doing to further those
goals.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Obey, would you like to say something at
the outset?
Mr. Obey. No, not right now. I have some questions at the
proper time.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Leary, we would like to hear from you.
Opening Statement--Office of Justice Programs
Ms. Leary. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, after much fanfare and a bit of trepidation, the
21st century has arrived. This new millennium brings with it
new challenges for us to ensure safety in our communities
across the country. I am really pleased to have this
opportunity to talk with you today about the Office of Justice
Program's fiscal year 2001 budget that will help State and
local communities meet those challenges.
Mr. Chairman, while I have served as the Acting Assistant
Attorney General of OJP for less than 3 weeks now, I do have a
long history with the Department of Justice. In my 15 years
with the Department I have worked closely with OJP and I have
been impressed with OJP and their commitment to figuring out
and building on what works in the public safety arena. Through
its innovative programs and its partnerships with State and
local criminal justice practitioners and its bipartisan working
relationship with you and the other members of this
subcommittee, OJP has helped shape our criminal justice system
and has been at the forefront of the dramatic reductions we
have seen in crime and delinquency.
Along those lines, I would like to acknowledge the
exceptional vision and leadership of my predecessor, Laurie
Robinson. My goal is to build on these successes that OJP has
had in urban, suburban, tribal, and rural communities alike.
As a former United States Attorney in the District of
Columbia I have seen devastation, the ruined lives and the
blighted communities that result from crime, especially from
violent crime. But I have cause for optimism as well because I
have also seen how these crime-torn communities, with a lot of
hard work and dedication at the local level and some targeted
resources from the Federal level, can turn their neighborhoods
around.
Mr. Chairman, given the limited time I have this afternoon,
I would like to take a few minutes to just highlight a few of
the priority program areas in the OJP budget, and those are
areas that have been identified for us by our State and local
partners as critical to public safety.
COMMUNITY-BASED INITIATIVES
First our community-based initiatives. I believe that real
change is achieved one community at a time. I learned this in
1991, when I was an Assistant United States Attorney here in
D.C., I helped bring one of the Nation's first Weed and Seed
programs to a public housing development in the 5th district
here in D.C. Through that experience I saw firsthand how you
can take some strategic law enforcement efforts and couple that
with the work of a few dedicated citizens and mobilize a
community.
I worked in a public housing development there that was
plagued by drugs and by crime. Through law enforcement efforts
and those neighborhood folks, that community was transformed
into a vibrant neighborhood, with a safe haven at the local
junior high school, child care facilities, a job training
program, and a ``Grannies in the Hood'' senior citizens
program. It was a remarkable experience. It taught me, and we
know from other experiences, that Weed and Seed and other
community programs work. Now, we want to build on the success
of those kinds of programs.
One example of that is the Strategic Approaches to
Community Safety Initiative, better known as SACSI. That
program is modeled after Boston's very successful program to
reduce youth violence. In SACSI we are adding an analytical
piece to that coordinated community approach that is used in
Weed and Seed. We are teaming researchers together with local
decision makers. They analyze the crime trends and then develop
targeted strategies to respond to a community's specific
problems. This initiative has been piloted in five communities
and we are very encouraged by the preliminary results; for
example, a 36 percent reduction in homicides in Indianapolis in
the first 6 months last year.
We would like to expand that SACSI program in the next
fiscal year. We would also like to expand our community
prosecution efforts. As a former AUSA who worked to bring the
pilot prosecution program to the 5th district in D.C., I can
tell you from personal experience that community prosecution
does work. Those prosecutors work closely with law enforcement,
other criminal justice partners, and the folks from the
community who can prevent, investigate, and respond to local
crime. It shifts their emphasis from assembly line case
processing to identifying local crime problems and proactively
working to improve public safety.
Most of the funds that we have requested for community
prosecution will be used to hire or redeploy up to 1,500
community prosecutors to urban, suburban, and rural communities
that are experiencing high rates of gun violence. By targeting
gun cases, these prosecutors will ensure that offenders who use
firearms in the commission of their crimes are held
accountable.
OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY
That brings me to the second priority for OJP, holding
offenders accountable. More than half a million offenders are
returning to our communities after incarceration every year.
100,000 of them are under no supervision whatsoever. If that
statistic is not enough, try this: Historically, about two-
thirds of those released offenders reoffend within 2 years of
their release. These statistics demand our attention. We must
plan for offenders' return from prison and do everything that
we can to maximize public safety by maximizing the returning
offenders' accountability and productivity. The reentry program
that we propose would fund reentry courts. They are modeled
after our very successful drug courts to use the power of the
court to oversee an offender's return to the community through
graduated sanctions and positive reinforcement. We have worked
out the proposal in coordination with the Department of Labor
and Health and Human Services. They would also contribute to
fund partnerships among law enforcement, corrections, and the
community.
TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES
I would like to speak for a minute about technology. This
new century brings with it endless possibilities for the use of
technology to enhance public safety. Another one of our
priorities at OJP is to ensure that communities benefit from
that technology. Too often we see that public officials can't
communicate in the middle of a crisis. When seconds count and
lives are at stake, the technology fails.
Law enforcement, fire officials, EMS, need, and have
repeatedly requested, our support to help them implement
wireless systems that would allow multiple jurisdictions to
communicate effectively by radio during emergencies. Our State
and local partners met and asked us for help in developing a
nationwide network for criminal justice information systems.
Officials across the criminal justice sector need immediate and
electronic access to information that they are going to need to
make informed decisions.
Unfortunately, technology advances also bring technology
abuses. As the Attorney General said in her remarks before this
subcommittee just last week, we really have to work diligently
to help prosecutors and investigators to contend with cyber
crime. They need specialized training and they need access to
sophisticated commuter labs for forensic purposes. Our budget
addresses all of those needs.
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS NEEDS
As the subcommittee has recognized, we must also include
domestic preparedness in our public safety portfolio. I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of this
subcommittee for your bipartisan support in this critical area.
In 2001, OJP plans to significantly expand its efforts to help
State and local authorities prepare for and respond to domestic
terrorism.
Our request includes new funds to support the Nunn-Lugar-
Domenici preparedness training program, which we expect will be
transferred to OJP from DOD in October of 2000. We are also
asking for additional funds for the first responder equipment
acquisition program. There is a huge need at State and local
levels for critical protective clothing and specialized tools
that the first responders need to safely investigate an
incident.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Leary, let me interrupt you. We have a vote
on the floor. We only have a minute or so left. We will have a
temporary recess while we vote and we will come right back.
Hold that thought.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rogers. I am sorry. You may continue.
Ms. Leary. Thank you. I appreciate it. We also plan to
build in to our counterterrorism technology program support
testing and standards development for counterterrorism
equipment to ensure that federal, State, and local funds are
invested wisely.
YOUTH GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. Chairman, before concluding, in light of recent events
particularly, I think that I would be remiss if I did not
discuss youth gun violence. Most recent data tell us that every
single day we lose 13 children in this country to gunshot
wounds. OJP will continue to play an active role in the
Department of Justice's efforts to stem gun violence,
particularly as it impacts on youth. In our budget request we
propose to help local jurisdictions hire community prosecutors
to focus on gun violence. We will support local media campaigns
that are aimed at advertising tough penalties for gun crimes
and advertising the proper storage of firearms to prevent
access by our children. We will expand and evaluate our
Partnership to Reduce Gun Violence program, which is designed
to reduce illegal firearms use by juveniles.
We propose to further develop the smart gun technologies
that will prevent guns from being used by anyone other than the
owner. My prepared statement describes all of these strategic
plans fiscal year 2001.
Thank you for making it part of the record.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I pledge to you that I will
work with you, members of this committee, and all of the other
Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis to make sure that
States and local criminal justice practitioners have the
resources that they need to protect our Nation's communities in
the 21st century. Thank you very much. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Frazier.
Opening Statement--COPS
Mr. Frazier. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf
of the COPS program. This is a particular honor for me. I have
only recently joined the COPS program. This is my first
appearance before the subcommittee. I am here today to present
the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the COPS program,
provide the update on the progress of the initiative, and
address any questions or concerns that you may have about COPS.
After 33 years of service in law enforcement I have seen
firsthand the impact the COPS program is having. My experiences
over the past 6 months have only confirmed what I already knew
as a law enforcement officer, that community policing and the
COPS program are making a very real difference in the
neighborhoods that we call home. As you know, the COPS program
was created in 1994 and added additional officers to the beat
and advanced community policing nationwide. I am happy to
report that we have made great strides toward that goal.
Last year the COPS program funded its 100,000th officer
under budget and ahead of schedule. Already 60,000 of those
officers are on the beat fighting crime and improving the
quality of life in our neighborhoods. The rest are well on
their way.
As you know, it takes law enforcement agencies an average
of 18 months to hire, recruit, and train a qualified police
officer. This is, however, a necessary delay, ensuring that
local agencies can carefully select and train officers for our
neighborhoods. COPS-funded officers work side by side with
residents to improve their communities in concrete ways.
Officer Holly Johnson of El Paso walks a beat in a low
income community whose residents must contend with decaying
apartment complexes plagued by drugs and violence. The
residents of these complexes know that Officer Johnson is there
to help and together they are ridding that community of the
crime that plagues it.
Officer Johnson's story is not uncommon. Thousands of COPS-
funded officers just like her are on the streets of our
hometowns every day.
In light of recent episodes of school violence, communities
are turning to law enforcement to preserve school safety. Since
the COPS program's last appearance before this subcommittee, we
have enhanced our commitment to this critical issue and funded
the addition of more than 2,200 officers to our Nation's
schools. These officers work with students, teachers, and
parents to address issues of crime and violence before they
escalate, ensuring that our Nation's schools are places where
teachers can focus on teaching and students can focus on
learning.
All said, the COPS program has invested $6.3 billion in
local law enforcement with grants to 12,000 of our Nation's
18,000 law enforcement agencies. The demand for COPS grants is
strong. In the last 7 days COPS received requests for hiring
grant applications from 1,300 law enforcement agencies.
The strategy of more officers on the beat engaging in
community policing is working. In only 6 short years since the
COPS program was created, the crime rate in America has fallen
more than 14 percent to its lowest point in more than a
generation. The violent crime rate is down more than 20
percent. This historic drop in crime coupled with a record high
number of officers is a real testament to the commitment that
we as a Nation have made to public safety through the COPS
program.
Today we have the opportunity to strengthen our commitment
and to answer the needs of local law enforcement. The
Administration has requested $1.3 billion for the COPS program
in fiscal year 2001 as part of its comprehensive 21st Century
Policing Initiative. These programs will allow the COPS program
to fund much needed officers for our streets and schools, vital
crime fighting technologies, valuable training and technical
assistance, innovative crime prevention initiatives, and
community prosecutors. We will work collaboratively with the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to administer this
comprehensive program to local law enforcement.
This request includes $422 million to add up to 7,000
officers to the beat. With these funds law enforcement will be
able to hire additional officers or purchase time saving
technology to redeploy existing officers. The proposal before
you equips law enforcement with 21st century tools to fight
21st century crime. With the $350 million requested, we will
invest in interagency information networks, technology centers,
ballistics testing, DNA research and backlog reduction, crime
lab enhancement, and crime mapping and analysis. This budget
proposes $135 million for community crime prevention. These
initiatives attack the causes of crime and violence at their
roots and invest in programs to enhance police diversity and
integrity. We have also requested $200 million to hire
community prosecutors who will complement our community
policing efforts in helping bring justice to our neighborhoods.
Despite our gains over the past 6 years, crime is still too
high in this country. A violent crime is committed every 21
seconds, a woman raped every 6 minutes, a person murdered every
30 minutes. We must continue to fight this battle against crime
and violence and invest in the COPS program. We will not relent
in this battle. This one is worth fighting for.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, members of the subcommittee, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify about
this very important program and look forward to working with
each of you to continue the tremendous support that you have
provided local law enforcement in recent years. At this time I
would ask that my written statement be submitted for the record
and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. It shall be.
Mr. Wilson.
Opening Statement--Junevile Justice
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, it is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the
activities of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. I am honored to appear with the new head of OJP,
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lou Leary, and COPS
Office Director Tom Frazier to discuss our proposed 2001
funding priorities.
We have seen America's communities make great progress in
recent years in reducing juvenile crime. These reductions are
due in part to strong community efforts to undertake
comprehensive approaches to juvenile violence, approaches that
combine prevention and early intervention programs with
graduated sanctions that hold young offenders accountable.
OJJDP's programming is designed to assist and support in
these efforts to protect children from harm, to steer them away
from crime, drug abuse and gang involvement, and to intervene
early and effectively when high risk and delinquent behaviors
first occur. We carry out this work through individual programs
such as those that focus on mentoring and gangs and through
supportive comprehensive community efforts such as Safe Futures
and our Comprehensive Strategy. Yet even with the recent
declines in juvenile arrests, youth crime and violence remain
very serious problems. Clearly we still have much work to do to
change the lives of troubled children while, at the same time
maintaining public safety and confidence in the juvenile
justice system.
Mr. Chairman, I will focus my oral remarks today on three
priority areas: Guns, drugs, and school violence. Any
comprehensive effort to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency
must make juvenile gun violence a priority. Evidence of this
need is demonstrated by the dramatic increases in the mid-1980s
to the mid-1990s in homicides by juveniles, all of which were
firearm related.
To help communities in their efforts to address this
critical issue, OJJDP recently published Promising Strategies
to Reduce Gun Violence. This was a departmentwide effort that
profiled programs in 60 communities that successfully
implemented innovative gun violence reduction programs and
strategies. The document serves as a basic resource for
communities across the country that are struggling with the
problem of gun violence, providing them with tested program
ideas and solutions. It is one example of how we share best
practices information with the field.
Effective community efforts must also focus on reducing
juvenile drug abuse. We are working hard to implement the Drug
Prevention Program. Its centerpiece, the Life Skills Training
Program, is now reaching 142 middle schools and serving nearly
77,000 students. We expect to dramatically expand the program
this year and are working with the Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention on a new initiative to replicate effective drug
prevention programs that will reach students in all grades.
OJJDP continues to partner with the Office of National Drug
Control Policy and other Federal agencies in implementing the
Drug-Free Communities Support Program. This program supports
communitywide coalitions that engage youth, parents, media,
schools, and law enforcement to reduce and prevent Youth
substance abuse.
OJJDP is also working collaboratively to address school
crime and safety issues, a third priority area. Our work is
fueled not only by recent tragic school shooting events but
also by the fact that students report feeling less safe at
school now than they did just a few years ago, an unacceptable
situation if our youth are to learn and succeed. Schools are
increasingly working with parents, law enforcement, local
juvenile justice systems and mental health service providers to
create comprehensive safety plans to help make schools the safe
havens that they should be. We support this work through
collaborations like Safe Schools, Healthy Students, a hallmark
program of the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health
and Human Services. It is designed to promote school safety and
community safety and create safe environments for learning.
Mr. Chairman, in administering these and other programs,
OJJDP is committed to ensuring that our limited resources are
invested in strategies that work. Through research and
evaluation, we determine the scope of juvenile violence and
victimization issues and identify the most effective approaches
to addressing them. We are committed to sharing information on
research, statistics, and effective programs with the public,
policy makers, and practitioners.
In conclusion, the President's proposed budget will enable
OJJDP to continue our strong support of states and communities.
We believe that the commitment of federal resources to the
priority areas I have highlighted, and to juvenile justice
initiatives in other key areas, will lead to further reductions
in juvenile violence and victimization.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the
subcommittee, for the support that you have provided to OJJDP
in the past. I look forward to working with you to continue the
progress we have achieved under the leadership of Attorney
General Janet Reno and our former Administrator. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS (LLEBG)
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your testimony, all three of you,
and for those new to the subcommittee we want to say a special
word of welcome. This subcommittee and its constituent agencies
are a hard working group that covers a lot of waterfront and
very important subjects, none more important than the one we
are covering today.
Ms. Leary, we are very pleased to have you here. You have
some very large shoes to fill and I mean that not literally----
Ms. Leary. Though it is true.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Because Lavine Robinson was an
exceptional talent we think. She handled this job in a very
efficient way and very effective way and we wish her well in
her new endeavors. But we hope that you can live up to her
standards. But that is quite a high mark--or low mark----
Ms. Leary. I will do my best.
Mr. Rogers. We want you to know this year the budget
eliminates your--your request eliminates the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant again in spite of the fact that we have
been fair about supporting the COPS program over the years,
over the last 4 years. Even though every year the
Administration blocks or continues to eliminate in their
request the block grant programs for local law enforcement
agencies, which we think are terribly important. This puts the
committee in the position of trying to find additional moneys
from other programs so that we can continue to fund the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant and help local communities in their
crime efforts with a little bit more leeway than the COPS
program provides. I am interested, did you request funding for
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants from OMB?
Ms. Leary. We did, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. How much?
Ms. Leary. I can get you those exact figures on how much
the requests were. I would say this, that----
Mr. Rogers. Give me a ball park estimate, surely somebody
with you knows that.
Ms. Leary. I would say that for the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant we requested $250 million and for the Byrne, and
the VOI/TIS we also put in a request.
Mr. Rogers. I'm sorry.
Ms. Leary. For Byrne and for VOI/TIS we also put in a
request.
Mr. Rogers. How much?
Ms. Leary. For Byrne, $400 million. And for Woods VOI/TIS
$250 million.
Mr. Rogers. All three of those were denied by OMB?
Ms. Leary. Well, the Administration made a different call,
Mr. Chairman. We had a lot of competing priorities, limited
resources, and they made a call that a different mix was what
was going to come back to us. I think in fact the block grants
have been very helpful to communities and I would say that OJP
has done a very good job of administering them and in
particular with respect to recent events in, for instance,
putting LLEBG on-line for applications and draw down. So it has
been effective.
However, when you have limited resources you have to
balance your priorities and there were a lot of innovative new
approaches that the Administration wanted to support in this
year's budget.
Mr. Rogers. But do you agree that the block grant programs
together with discretionary grant programs provide a balanced
approach for supporting local law enforcement and firefighting
efforts?
Ms. Leary. We are very grateful for the support that has
come from Congress for these funds over the last number of
years. I would say that they have been helpful but we have
learned from the Maryland report, which this subcommittee
commissioned, and from our experience that sometimes it works
better when you invest your resources in figuring out new
innovative approaches to problems and then demonstrating them,
evaluating them, and disseminating that to the field.
Mr. Rogers. Do you think you are better at doing that than
the people on the ground in the local communities?
Ms. Leary. Every one of the programs that we propose, Mr.
Chairman, is proposed after we have gotten a lot of feedback
and input from our state and local partners. That is really a
large part of what we do at OJP.
Mr. Rogers. But if a local community doesn't need more
salaries for officers, but radio equipment or tires for the
police cars instead, or what have you, shouldn't they be
allowed to have some discretion about how they spend the monies
we give to them?
Ms. Leary. There is still money going out to state and
locals where they really do have discretionary power. There is
a lot of leeway in many of programs that are proposed as well.
Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify one point that I made.
The Administration did not eliminate the Byrne funding. It was
just reduced.
Mr. Rogers. For what?
Ms. Leary. The request for the Byrne was reduced by $400
million.
LLEBG--BALANCED APPROACH
Mr. Rogers. Yes, you are correct. But they did eliminate
the local law enforcement program.
Mr. Frazier, do you agree that the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant program has given a balanced approach for
supporting local law enforcement along with the COPS program?
Mr. Frazier. Mr. Chairman, I think--and I speak as a very
recent local chief--that the needs are immense. There are so
many things that local agencies need. There is far more demand
I think there than there is funding in a number of areas. I
think across the board the results of COPS grants are clear,
but police chiefs would say that there is far more need than
there is ability to fund it.
Mr. Rogers. What I am asking you is in addition to salaries
for policemen there are other very pressing needs, are there
not, in the local police forces?
Mr. Frazier. I think there are, Mr. Chairman. I think that
one of the things that needs to be done is to figure out how we
can get the best kinds of results, the decreasing crime rates
that I think we all strive for within the parameters of the
available funding.
Mr. Rogers. But as a local police chief--where were you a
police chief?
Mr. Frazier. Baltimore.
Mr. Rogers. As a local police chief, don't you know better
where you need moneys spent as a police chief than somebody
sitting in Washington does?
Mr. Frazier. I think, sir, that one of the beauties of the
COPS program was that in the earlier years--I remember well
sitting at Major City Chiefs where representatives of the
Justice Department came and said ``what do you need?'' The
answer was police officers and law enforcement technology. So
in that sense I thought the program was responsive.
Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, also I am sure the committee knows
that Byrne money can be used to purchase equipment for the
police departments.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the so-called COPS technology program
that you referred to, was an initiative of the Congress and
enables local agencies to have moneys available for
technologies. As you well know, we have funded the COPS
program. But many of the local communities are now going to
have to put up 100 percent of the costs of the police that were
added during the COPS program. As we all know, the percentage
of funds that the feds provided decreases over a 3-year period
to zero in the fourth year. Many of them are now hung out on a
limb and are not able to fund the police that were hired. On
the contrary, the local law enforcement program can be used for
cops' salaries and is 100 percent federally paid. There is no
local moneys that go into it.
Would that not be an advantage to a local police chief?
Mr. Frazier. I think the advantage of the COPS grants is
that it is a very much more predictable funding stream. You
know that you have funding coming in a 3-year cycle. It is a
decreasing amount so that you can in essence wean off. The
agreement with local agencies and the Federal Government is
well-known at the outset of the program. I think it is a good
way to provide seed money for advances in local police
departments without setting up, in essence, an entitlement
program.
PIECEMEAL REPLACEMENT OF LLEBG
Mr. Rogers. Well, we have provided over $1.5 billion over
the last 3 years to local communities here--with the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant program and they have used those funds
for everything imaginable in the law enforcement field at their
discretion rather than being told from Washington that this
money will be spent for a particular purpose. We have let them
have some, a good deal of discretion in how they spend those
moneys. We have heard of no fraud or misuse of those moneys,
although I suspect a dollar or two here and there. By and large
the discretion of the local police chief has had the capability
in that program to adjust their needs to the moneys that could
become available to them with much more leeway than the COPS
program.
Now, instead the Administration is expecting to abolish
that program and in place of those very successful block grants
are proposing many unauthorized new programs for things these
block grant programs can already be used for. My question is
why are you proposing a series of new piecemeal programs to
replace a very successful and flexible block grant program?
Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the authorization
question--there are some programs that need authorization and
that language will be coming up to Congress soon. But with
respect to going forward with these other kinds of programs, we
recognize that some very popular programs have been eliminated
that address a very real need in local communities. But at the
same time we have to balance it out and make difficult choices
here. There were a lot of areas of real concern like offenders
coming back into the community, violence against women, police
use of force, the issue of cyber training that really cried out
for the development of targeted programs so that we could take
innovative approaches to these kinds of problems and build on
that. The Administration made a call that was how to best serve
the public.
Mr. Rogers. These block grant moneys that I have mentioned
has been used by localities to hire police officers. Do we know
how many officers were hired with that funding in fiscal years
1997, 1998, 1999, and if these were in localities that couldn't
afford the COPS program?
Ms. Leary. I know in 1999 about 14 percent of the LLEBG
money went to hiring. I can get you the specific numbers for
the number of officers and the numbers for the other areas as
well. I would be happy to provide that to the committee. That
fund is also used not just for hiring but for equipment and for
overtime. So it covers a broad range. It is not enough to meet
the needs for hiring or for equipment, overtime, and the like.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. But it filled a great void, did it not?
Ms. Leary. It was certainly helpful.
Mr. Rogers. I have more questions but in fairness I want to
make sure that all of other members have an opportunity. Mr.
Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Obey has another hearing to
attend. I would like to take a pass now and let him go ahead.
Mr. Rogers. We yield to Mr. Obey.
CURRENT PRISON POPULATIONS AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Obey. I appreciate that very much. Let me say that I
take a backseat to no one in my support for tough law
enforcement. My brother-in-law, who is a district attorney, was
shot in the line of duty, and I had a wife who came at me with
a knife so it was sort of an equal opportunity weapon approach
to life. But I nonetheless have just three questions I would
like to ask. The first has to do with a question of whether we
are being smart as well as tough in the way that we deal with
the criminals today. In 1976 Wisconsin spent $26 million in its
whole adult prison system. Today it spends $311 million. We
have had a 1200 percent increase on what it spends in adult
prisons. We have had 500 percent increase in the adult prison
population. In 1969 the entire State general fund budget was
$890 million. Today the budget for the corrections department
alone for our State is $675 million. That puts into context how
much more we are spending today.
I would like to ask one simple question on this point. Has
your agency done any analysis of who is in prison today in
comparison with who was in prison 10 and 15 years ago, the
nature of their crimes, what percentage of persons in prisons
are those who have committed what we regard to be dangerous
crimes, those who committed other kinds of crimes? I don't want
you to because of the time squeeze to respond to that now, but
I would like you to respond in depth for the record. My staff
will discuss with you how I would like to have it down so that
we can have some view of what we are doing.
Ms. Leary. We would be happy to work with you on that. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics has done work in that area.
Mr. Obey. The second question: Are prisoners human beings?
Ms. Leary. They certainly are.
Mr. Obey. They are not supposed to be in some subhuman
category just because they have committed a crime?
Ms. Leary. Certainly not.
Mr. Obey. We just had an incident in Wisconsin where an
inmate by the name of Michelle Greer, who was an inmate at the
Taycheedah prison, died February 2 in the prison dining hall
from an asthma attack. She had complained to guards for an hour
that she could not breathe. She begged to see a doctor. Guards
were told by the prison nurses that it was not an emergency
because she could still talk. She died an hour later.
I would like you to review that incident because there had
been a concern expressed by the Milwaukee district attorney on
that issue. I would like you to review that incident and get
back to me with an analysis, not just of what happened but how
that kind of thing can be prevented in the future. I would also
like to know whether or not there are any other cases around
the country, cases of inmates who have died while they have
been asking for medical attention.
I recognize that accidents can happen. My old friend
Archie, the Cockroach, observed that there is always comfort in
time of trouble when it is someone else's trouble. But I would
nonetheless like to know what the policies are in Federal
prisons with respect to making certain that people are aware of
the health needs of prisoners so that if they run into problems
they wind up in some condition other than on the slab
somewhere.
Ms. Leary. Certainly.
[The information follows:]
Inmate Health Care and Treatment
On March 27, 2000, staff from the Office of Justice Program's (OJP)
National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and
Corrections Program Office, as well as staff from the National
Institute of Corrections, met with Andy Tantillo from Mr. Obey's staff
and Sally Chadbourne from House Appropriations to discuss several
issues related to inmate health care and treatment.
OJP and NIC provided Mr. Tantillo and Ms. Chadbourne with a variety
of facts, statistics, and policies related to inmate care and
identified training and technical assistance resources available to
assist corrections personnel to more effectively identify potential
problems and better manage these issues. We have not received further
requests from Mr. Obey's staff since this meeting.
IMPACT OF TRANSFERRING PRISONERS OUT OF STATE
Mr. Obey. Thirdly----
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Obey, if the gentleman would yield, was
this a State prison?
Mr. Obey. Yes. But that brings me to the next question.
Wisconsin ships about 4,000 prisoners out of State to West
Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Mississippi. I am curious to know
whether within the field of criminology either in your agencies
or in the academic world anyone pays attention to this stuff,
whether there has been any analysis of what happens to our
ability to rehabilitate prisoners when they are shipped long
distances away from home and whether there is and if there is,
what kind of impact there is on the children of those inmates
in cases where they are shipped long distances from their home.
I recognize in the Federal penitentiaries that is the norm. I
frankly don't think it ought to be the norm with respect to
State penitentiaries and our State prisons.
So I would simply like to have you scout the literature and
tell me what is out there because I think we ought to consider
those factors--something other than which party can prove it
has the biggest muscles in being tough on crime in an election
year.
Ms. Leary. Those are important issues, Mr. Obey, and work
has been done in those areas that you have described. We would
be happy to get together with your staff and provide you this
material.
Mr. Rogers. Briefly, there is a report that we are
expecting momentarily from the Bureau of Prisons dealing with a
lot of this that we should get any moment.
Ms. Leary. There are a number of reports in the works. On
the health concern issues, for instance, the National Institute
of Justice is working on a survey of State prisons with respect
to the health status of their inmates and what kind of
protocols and resources they have in place. They are also doing
something extremely innovative, which is pioneering
telemedicine in prisons. One of the problems is getting enough
medical staff to go into the prisons and work there. So through
the use of telemedicine, that is being piloted in two places
now----
Mr. Obey. That gives new meaning to the term house calls by
doctors.
Ms. Leary. Right. But we have done a lot of work in the
areas that you have described and we would be happy to provide
you with that information.
Mr. Obey. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. I would also like to allow Mr. Dixon to ask a
question. I have a theory that if I get rid of my senior
members they will not know how little I know about this.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon.
PARAMETERS FOR USE OF COPS FUNDING
Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
yielding, Mr. Serrano. Director Frazier, my question is
directed to you and it is concerning a parochial matter. As I
understand it, you had a meeting yesterday with some members of
the City Council of Los Angeles and you have received a letter
from the city dated March 13, 2000, and I am wondering if you
had a chance to review it.
Mr. Frazier. Very briefly. March 13?
Mr. Dixon. Yes. Let me ask you this way. What are the
parameters of the use of COPS money with the exception of
hiring new police officers, if any?
Mr. Frazier. I think--and just with a very brief read of
this letter the question is one of supplanting, does this
proposal--the letter is a bit vague. It needs to be a little
more specific.
Mr. Dixon. I will interpret the letter for you. I don't
think it is vague at all. He wants to use the COPS money that
he has not spent for 1998 to pay the salaries of supervisors
and experienced officers in critical functions. I am quoting
from the letter. So I am not challenging you, I am just asking
you whether under the existing guidelines whether that is
already permissible?
Mr. Frazier. If that means to use a hiring grant to promote
existing officers, it is not.
Mr. Dixon. Right. And that is the normal procedure,
certainly with LAPD, they don't hire somebody from outside as
sergeant. It would be a promotion and what he wants to do is
use the money for that purpose.
Mr. Frazier. I suspect that it does not fall inside our
funding parameters but it is----
Mr. Dixon. In order to pay the salaries of more experienced
officers in critical functions; is that correct? That is just
saying that we want to pay somebody that has been on the force
for some time.
Mr. Frazier. That is supplanting in essence.
Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is it.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
TENSION BETWEEN POLICE AND COMMUNITIES
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about
a subject that I am sure all three of you can speak to, perhaps
especially you, Mr. Frazier. As you know, one of the issues
that we deal with and that has really blown up to a crisis is
the tension that exists more than ever between police officers
and the communities that they police. I represent the district
in the Bronx where Diallo was killed. I am in the city where
Abner Louima was tortured, if you will. I am in a district
where Andrew Baez was killed. And you know those names and you
know the situation in LA. The best way to describe what I think
is happening, something that I have said at some public
gatherings in the past and at this subcommittee, comes from a
personal experience. I grew up in a community where whenever a
young person, usually a young person, complained about the
police, the older folks always stood up and whether it was in
Spanish or English, broken English or broken Spanish, they
would tell the young person, listen, they are here to help us
and serve us and they are our friends and you are wrong and you
will realize that you are making a mistake about how you feel
about them. In many ways that was part of growing up. In some
cases it was a real problem and in some cases just part of
anger at authority.
But in the last few years I have seen senior citizens from
my community on picket lines complaining about the treatment
that they get from the police and making statements like ``we
don't feel safe any longer from the police''. We are told that
crime has gone down. That is true. But crime in the police
departments has gone up. And so my question to you, to all of
you--while I agree with the chairman that localities usually
know what they need to do their job and they know more than we
do, in the case of how to train police officers, how to make
them behave in a different way, I don't think that we will get
a fair statement from communities because no police department
wants to admit that there is a problem. Very rarely are you
going to hear ``you are right, there is a problem here''.
Whether it is from racial issues, arrogance, lack of training,
lack of supervision, there is a problem here. And nobody wants
to admit that.
We have a problem in New York City and no one in the police
department wants to admit that there is a problem. The
community knows there is a problem. So administering the
programs that you do at any level, what should we be doing at
the Federal level to send a strong message that there is a
problem in this country and many communities are feeling that
the price they are paying for lower crime rates is perhaps not
worth lower crime rates because the innocent are suffering?
What can we do?
Mr. Frazier. I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Serrano. I
would like to frame my answer just a bit. There are nearly
640,000 police officers in America. I think by and large those
men and women do an extraordinary job every day under very
difficult circumstances. There is a small percentage who engage
in misconduct--specifically unnecessary force, or profiling--
kinds of things of which you speak. Those things are simply
wrong and I think that that is why that is very much a focus of
the COPS budget this year. We have asked for in this budget $20
million for integrity and hate crimes training, data collection
that have identified racial profiling through our original
community policing institutes, integrity training, technical
assistance grants to promote police accountability, all of the
things that get at diminishing the crime rate without losing
trust. It is very much a focus of our budget this year.
Two of our original Community Policing Institutes
specialize in ethics and integrity training. In those
Institutes we have trained 77,000 police officers and community
leaders. Oftentimes they are trained in the same classroom,
with the same curriculum, and the same instructors. I think
where COPS and the Justice Department, and other components,
such as Civil Rights Division and Community Relations Service,
focus is on issues of integrity and accountability.
I think there is one other very important piece in this
budget proposal. There is $5 million in this budget for a
police recruitment initiative, and there is a theoretical model
about what community policing is. However, all of these things
are driven by who is selected to come into law enforcement
service in the first place. How do we find men and women who
want to be police officers in the spirit of service, not the
spirit of adventure?
Mr. Serrano. Let me speak to that for a second. You have
figures here like $422 million. You have other numbers yet you
tell me $20 million is requested for this particular area. I
realize $20 million is not a few pennies, but in comparison to
what you are spending in other areas, is that enough to attack
a very serious problem? I do agree that it is a serious
problem.
By the way I should have prefaced my comment by saying that
I also, we all support the work that is done by most police
officers. Most do what we want them to do and those other guys
get all of the publicity when they do something wrong. There is
a big difference. In our profession when we do something wrong
the system lends itself to having a lot of people criticize you
for it.
That blue wall of silence, for instance, in New York City
and other departments, and that 48-hour rule, which doesn't
allow a police officer who kills somebody, shoots somebody, to
speak to anyone for 48 hours. Assuming that the person wants to
cover something up, my God, even a nervous guy like me could
come up with an explanation about what happened in 48 hours.
How can we justify only $20 million for that and so much more
for other things? Not justify, why would you want only $20
million is my question. Is $20 million enough?
Mr. Frazier. In my experience--and in today's environment
that we all are well aware of, I think the need for this
training goes across America. We have a delivery system in the
Regional Community Policing Institutes to deliver that. I think
some Federal assistance, particularly in terms of who is hired
in the first place, is timely and beneficial, but I certainly
think that this is an enormous training need----
NEED FOR QUALIFIED TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS
Mr. Serrano. I understand. I don't want to beat this to
death. But in all due respect, sir, I sense a very cautious
approach to this. I am not going to second guess what you have
done, but there is a major problem here, a crisis. We are
losing more and more young people every day who believe that
the police are not there for them. We are losing more and more
citizens every day, good tax paying citizens who believe the
police are not there for them. We have to do something
aggressively. I am going to tell you there is a problem.
So you have two problems and you have to look at them and
maybe come back to us later and tell us what you think we could
do from the Federal level. One is the general recruitment of
people and how you find out who is fit to be a police officer.
Then there is a specific problem which exists in New York City
and other places, which is a real problem. I will tell what it
is. A large number of police officers in New York City are born
and raised in the suburbs and they are, in many cases, non-
minority. And so what happens when a young man or young woman
is born and raised in a community, say on Long Island or the
mid section of New York State where he hears in the school
yard, maybe in the church yard, maybe in the synagogue, maybe
at the dinner table that those people who live in the Bronx or
in Brooklyn who don't speak English or whatever are a problem
and they have this and that. How can we try to screen folks out
who come with those preconceived notions? Because when you have
a person faced with four police officers in plain clothes with
guns out, and that person is trying to show them his ID card
because he comes from an African nation where the first thing
you do is identify yourself; he doesn't know they are police
officers and they don't identify themselves; but he tries to
show an ID card that is in a wallet and they think it is a gun
and they shoot at him 41 times. They were afraid, they said.
Well, if you are afraid 100 percent of the time you shouldn't
be a police officer. If you don't understand them, don't police
them.
I will close with this. If you don't believe in God, you
shouldn't be a priest or a minister. If you don't like saving
people's lives you shouldn't be a doctor. If you are afraid or
you think you are better than the people you police, you
shouldn't be a police officer. That is the problem that we
have. I am the biggest supporter of the COPS program and the
chairman knows that last year we fought to the bitter end and
he supported us to get more money into the COPS program.
You know, more money to hire police officers that are going
to behave like some others are behaving does nothing for me. So
I am not one-sided. I support more police officers, but I care
how they handle the job. I am tired of having my son and his
friend stopped on the street by police officers because they
are driving a car they are not supposed to be driving, because
nobody knows they are college graduates and they earn money,
and they pay taxes, just because they look different. I am
tired of that. Believe me, it doesn't matter that they are a
Congressman's son. In fact I tell them not to tell them that.
It might get me in trouble.
Ms. Leary. If I might respond for a moment, this is an
issue of great concern to the entire Department of Justice. In
fact we have been collaborating across the Department on this
very issue with the Civil Rights Division at the Department,
COPS, and OJP in trying to get at the very issues that you are
raising, which is how do you build a legacy of trust, which is
really at the core of the problem here. There are a number of
things that the Federal Government can and should do, and some
are things we are doing already. One is the kind of training
that Mr. Frazier was referring to. Training dollars actually
can go very far when you train trainers who then can go out and
teach others. So that is an important vehicle for instilling
attitudes and values and teaching people how to handle
themselves in a way that provides effective law enforcement, as
well as sensitive and respectful conduct in the community in
which you are policing.
The other thing is that we need to know a lot more about
what is going on with police use of force. One of the things
that we are doing at OJP is we started a number of studies and
research efforts, for instance, surveying 90,000 people about
their encounters with police to find out what really is going
on; an analysis of homicides that have been labeled justifiable
police homicides, to find out what went on there and what are
the factors that lead to these kinds of situations. We have
been working on surveys of best practices for recruitment and
hiring, training tapes that can be used at roll call and a
number of initiatives like this.
So I want you to rest assured that we are extremely
concerned about this. We have stretched the budget, we are
taking all of the available dollars we can to put them into the
kind of initiatives that will teach us what we need to know to
address the problem effectively instead of just react, and,
secondly, to help others learn what works and model those good
practices in their own communities.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just close with this, Mr. Chairman. As
I said before, I am a big supporter of the COPS program and I
think that you will find that a lot of folks, from the inner
cities to the Congress, are supportive of it. And to go a step
further, I think you will find the vast majority if not all of
the members of the Black and Hispanic Congressional Caucuses
supportive of the COPS program. But if we continue to get a
sense of more of the same we might do a whole turnaround. On
the one hand I want more cops but on the other hand I have no
interest in sending more problems into my community. I want you
to be aware of that, that that is a problem that could actually
happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Is that your final question?
Mr. Serrano. That is their final answer.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Does that mean you are giving them a life line
or something?
Mr. Serrano. It is called the appropriator's life line.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS
Mr. Latham. Welcome. I think the chairman has brought up a
subject with the local law enforcement block grants. Obviously
I think they are extremely important to a district like mine,
the State of Iowa. I am disappointed from the earlier testimony
that OMB zeroed it out. You had asked for $250 million. Were
there any of the funds or--was there $523 million that we put
in that weren't used last year?
Ms. Leary. I can get those numbers for you.
Mr. Latham. But we pretty well used up the money that was
in the program last year?
Ms. Leary. I think so.
Mr. Latham. So you cut it in half and OMB zeroed it out; is
that right?
Ms. Leary. We did put in a request and the administration
put in a different call.
Mr. Latham. But your request was only for $250 million,
right?
Ms. Leary. Right.
PARTICIPATION IN POLICE CORPS
Mr. Latham. Hopefully we can rectify that situation. One
thing that has been brought to my attention, I guess, in the
Police Corps, I was looking at the states that are involved and
it looks like there are only maybe half the states that are
participating. Maybe you could explain why it is that there
also appears there should be like $31 million that is not
obligated and maybe explain where that is or what is happening.
If you only have half the states, I would question should we
continue the program that apparently hasn't caught fire on out.
Ms. Leary. I think there are 24 states and the Virgin
Islands that are participating in Police Corps now. They are
working very hard on their recruitment into Police Corps and I
think they have made some real inroads in that regard. It is a
program that started small and it is catching on. They have
more and more interest. I would note for Mr. Serrano, they are
doing some interesting innovative training with Police Corps on
use of force and techniques, specific techniques for dealing
with difficult situations in the community in a way that
minimizes the use of force. So we are working with them. With
respect to the funding when Police Corps transferred to OJP we
were able to enter into agreements with States that allowed us
to send the money to State agents up front. That seems to have
expedited the flow of funds considerably.
Mr. Latham. I would be interested--New York doesn't
participate. Iowa doesn't participate. I don't know if it is
doing you any good or not up there. What about the unobligated
funds? There should be $31 million according to the--from the
GAO report that there is $31 million that is----
Ms. Leary. Those funds will be fully obligated this year.
Mr. Latham. Are we going to have more States involved in it
this year?
Ms. Leary. Yes, we will.
Mr. Latham. It appears that the number of States going into
this is declining each year. You are not getting a lot of new
starts.
Ms. Leary. Well, as I said, they are working hard on
recruitment efforts. I think there is still interest, states
are still signing up. I also think, as people learn more about
the kinds of efforts that the Police Corps is making with
respect to, for instance, this kind of training they will
continue to be interested.
Mr. Latham. How long has it been in effect, since 1996?
Ms. Leary. Police Corps? 1996, right.
Mr. Latham. Maybe we ought to get the message out to more
people.
Ms. Leary. We do need to get the message out.
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COPS GRANTS
Mr. Latham. I guess one question I would have on the--some
of the grants I guess under the COPS program and from my own
information I guess there seems to be a real disparity about
the amount of the grant between say Forest City, Iowa, and
Spirit Lake. There is like $30,000 a year difference in the
model grant for one officer. Can you explain that?
Ms. Leary. Mr. Frazier might be better at that.
Mr. Frazier. I would think that if it is for a police
officer, there are salary differences and benefit package
differences in officers from city to city. Those perhaps would
depend on the type of grant. It is difficult to say without--we
will fund $75,000 over 3 years.
Mr. Latham. That is the maximum, so if you gave $107,000
one year that would be deducted from the total that they would
get over 3 years? You wouldn't get 3 years of $107,000.
Mr. Frazier. It depends on--the amount decreases from year
1 to 2 to 3. There are a number of variables. It is very
difficult to.
BULLET PROOF VESTS
Mr. Latham. Do you have a bullet proof vest at all? I am
just curious. It is something that I think is of benefit to law
enforcement. I just wondered where we are on the status of the
program and how many grants you have had this year on bullet
proof vests.
Ms. Leary. Actually, the bullet proof vest program is going
quite successfully. This year we instituted an online process.
Jurisdictions can apply for the vests online. They can draw
down and get all of the information they want. It includes some
very interesting Web sites about the types of equipment they
are able to buy through this program. This is funded at $25
million this year and we have requested that in the coming
year. We are very pleased with that and we have gotten great
feedback on how helpful this is from state and local
governments.
Mr. Latham. Good to hear. Maybe we can take some money from
the Police Corps which nobody cares about and help Mr. Serrano
in New York in another way here.
Just a statement. I certainly hope that we can work to
restore the funds for the local law enforcement block grants.
That is so important to a state like Iowa and small communities
who can't afford the COPS program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Latham. Ms. Roybal-Allard, any
questions?
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE REORGANIZATION PLAN
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say
first in support of what Congressman Serrano was saying and the
concerns that he raised, that you only need to look at what is
happening in Los Angeles. Not only has tremendous distrust
emerged from the community but unfortunately it has even
tarnished our Federal agencies with allegations. I think he
raises some very valid points that need to be looked at and
addressed.
It has been brought to my attention that there are a lot of
concerns about the reorganization plan. One of the concerns is
that it is going to reduce the departments and the offices'
ability to respond to the needs of victims and of various
agencies.
For example, I was given three concerns. One was that the
proposed structuring would fragment and divide the current
coordinated functions of the office by dividing them into three
divisions housed in three different departments and accountable
to three different leaderships. In addition there is concern
that there is a real lack of specificity about how policies are
going to be formulated and implemented and how the Federal
statutory provisions of VAWA would be implemented. And finally
another concern was that the proposal would undermine the goals
of the recent merger between the Violence Against Women Office
and the Violence Against Women Grants Office within the
Department of Justice, which to my understanding was merged in
the first place in order to coordinate the policy and grant
functions in the office. Could you address those concerns?
Ms. Leary. Sure, I would be happy to. I would like to start
by reassuring you that the Department of Justice remains very
committed to the Violence Against Women Act goals and to
protecting and helping victims ensure that they have a safe
home and life, and their children are safe as well. Because of
that, we strongly support the Violence Against Women Office. I
would say that, in fact, I think that the proposed
reorganization will strengthen the VAWO Office in many
respects. First of all, the Violence Against Women Office would
remain the central place in the Department of Justice for the
development of policy and programs and for statutory
interpretation with respect to the Violence Against Women Act.
In fact, now there are other components at OJP who also deal
with domestic violence and give grants for addressing domestic
violence. Under the proposed reorganization all of that would
come under the VAWO Office. It would be a good consolidation
and enhance their effectiveness and their ability to work in
the field and disseminate best practices and fund deserving
programs.
The state desk concept is actually envisioned as kind of a
support mechanism for a program office like VAWO. VAWO would be
the subject matter of experts. They would continue to make
decisions about who gets the grants. The state desks would
support VAWO through routine grants administration freeing them
up to focus more on policy and direction for programs, being
close liaisons with the states, getting the pulse on what is
happening in the states, and feeding that information back to
the program office so they can make decisions that are informed
by that. So I think actually it will work out quite well for
the VAWO office.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So the concerns you think have been
raised are not really valid but in the different areas this
would actually be a strengthening of VAWO and how it is
implemented under the grant?
Ms. Leary. I think so. Whenever there is any kind of
proposal for change, somehow misinformation gets out because
change breeds questions and sometimes some anxiety. But I
really do believe it will be a strengthened office.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Just going back to--and I have not seen
the proposal. I am just raising issues that have been raised
with me. They said in the restructuring that the current
coordinated functions of the office were going to have three
different divisions housed in three different departments with
three different, leaderships. Is that true? And if it is true,
how does that strengthen when you are dividing a function?
Ms. Leary. All of the program and policy development would
still be vested in the Violence Against Women Office. State
desks would do more of the grants administration function and
liaise with the states to keep their finger on the pulse of
what is happening in the individual states. The third component
would be what we call information central so that you, for
instance, could call and find out what is available through OJP
to address this domestic violence problem of kids who are
witnessing violence in the home in Los Angeles. You would be
able to go through this information central and they would know
what is in the VAWO offices and elsewhere across the Department
and give you that information, instead of having to go to one
place and see what is going on in the area of domestic violence
and then to the VAWO office and see what is going on there.
We need to make our services and our information more
available to the general public. That is the goal.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Once I have the opportunity to read the
proposal perhaps I will get back to you with some more
questions.
FUNDING FOR YOUTH ANTI-GANG INITIATIVES
On pages 8 through 10 of your testimony you mentioned that
you are undertaking two new major youth gang initiatives while
maintaining the $12 million current funding level. Since these
are major youth initiatives and you are not asking for any more
money, what is it that you are giving up in order to institute
these new problems? What is being reshuffled?
Mr. Wilson. We have two new programs. One is to develop a
closer working relationship between schools and other community
organizations in addressing gang issues. Our intent this year
is to fund four sites to do the planning and process there.
Fortunately for us the total cost of that program for this year
is $975,000 of which the Department of Education may contribute
$500,000 and the Center for Mental Health Services may
contribute $300,000, which leaves OJP with $175,000 for this
planning effort. After this year of planning our intent or our
thought process would be to fund the implementation of those
programs at somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 per
program, per year, over a 2-3 year period. Hopefully those
partners will still be with us so the cost to the office for
our part of gangs program would remain fairly modest.
With regard to the Gang Free Communities Program, we have
learned a lot from funding five different jurisdictions to do a
comprehensive gang initiative. Three of those programs have
completed their work and two of them have been funded for a
final year in fiscal year 2000. What we are doing with these 12
new communities is taking the lessons that we have learned from
the 5 original communities and 6 other pilot sites and putting
them through a planning process which we also learned we needed
to do to bring the community together, identify what the gang
issues are and how they are to be addressed.
So for this year that will be a $2.1 million cost to fund
those sites at $1.8 million total with $150,000 per site. We
will also be providing technical assistance at $300,000. What
we plan to do in subsequent years is not to fund those to
scale, but with the understanding that after the planning year,
the communities will pay for the bulk of the expense so that we
would probably continue to fund those 12 communities that
successfully complete the planning process, continue those at
the--at about the $150,000 a year level. So for the costs to
implement those 12 programs after this year we would use the
money freed up from the original 5 Comprehensive Gang Free
Community Sites. Those sites were funded between $400,000 to
$500,000 a year. I know that one of those sites was Riverside,
California. We had a very successful gang site there in
Riverside. So the checks kind of balance out. We finish up some
activities and start new ones and we will continue our work in
the gang program in the next 2-3 years.
Mr. Serrano. You mean an anti-gang program.
Mr. Wilson. Anti-gang program.
Mr. Serrano. You said successful gang program.
Mr. Wilson. Anti-gang program. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have to leave so could I
stick the rest of the questions in the record?
Mr. Rogers. Sure. Mr. Latham, do you have another question?
METHAMPHETAMINE PROGRAM
Mr. Latham. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I overlooked an
important item in your budget request for Iowa and the Upper
Midwest. I see you are eliminating the methamphetamine hot spot
program, zeroing that out. Was that your request or OMB or what
happened there? What was your request? You are--this is a
tremendous problem in the Upper Midwest and you are zeroing it
out.
Ms. Leary. I am going have to defer to Mr. Frazier on this.
Mr. Frazier. We did request that funding.
Mr. Latham. You requested the funding and OMB zeroed it
out?
Mr. Frazier. Apparently so.
Ms. Leary. There still is a lot of work being done on
methamphetamine, particularly with respect to finding out more
about the problem, defining the problem through the ADAM drug
testing surveys that NIJ does and through several reports that
have just come out--one is Meth in the Heartland and Meth in
Rural America. There is that kind of work going on.
Mr. Latham. It doesn't sound like we are going to do
anything about it if we are going to zero out the funds. We are
going to have all kinds of reports but if we don't have the
ability to do anything about it, it doesn't make much sense. I
don't think that we need a report to know that kids are dying
in my hometown. This is outrageous as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Rogers. How much did you ask for?
Mr. Frazier. I will have to get that information for you.
Mr. Rogers. Surely somebody knows.
Mr. Frazier. I would hesitate to hazard a guess.
Mr. Rogers. No one here knows? You don't care enough about
that--no one in the Department knows?
Mr. Frazier. My best information is that it was in the
range of $35 million.
Mr. Rogers. Current level is $36 million. So you
essentially asked to renew the program and they said no.
Mr. Frazier. I would assume that is the case.
Mr. Rogers. Oh, give me a break. They either said yes or no
and you know. They said no, right?
Mr. Frazier. It is not in the budget.
[Clerk's note--The referenced material is on file with the
Subcommittee.]
Departmental Request for Methamphetamine Funds to the Office of
Management and Budget
The COPS Office requested $15 million for FY 2001 for a
drug reduction and outreach program. This program would have
provided discretionary grants to State and local law
enforcement to address methamphetamine and other drug problems.
JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT
Mr. Rogers. Now the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
which you proposed to eliminate can fund juvenile gun courts,
juvenile drug courts, juvenile detention facilities and
technology. Mr. Wilson's testimony talks about a balanced
approach to juvenile crime. Did you ask for funds for the
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant?
Ms. Leary. No, we did not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Why not?
Ms. Leary. As you know, the legislation is still pending.
The JJ legislation is still spending.
Mr. Rogers. So is COPS. COPS is not even authorized. None
of these things are authorized. That is not an answer. Why did
you not ask for money for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grants, or did you? Did you ask for money?
Ms. Leary. No, we did not. Again it was the same kind of
situation where the determination was made to target the funds
at different kinds of programs in the juvenile arena.
Mr. Rogers. Well, now, juvenile crime--I am an old state's
attorney. Juvenile crime is a local matter. States and
communities deal with juvenile crime. Feds have nothing to do
with juvenile crime. It is a local jurisdiction handled by
local people.
As Mr. Wilson points out in his written testimony, the
States are in the best position to decide the particular
programs that would best address juvenile crime issues in the
communities; is that not right? And yet you eliminate the whole
block of moneys that they have been using to great effect,
frankly, in fighting juvenile crime and helping juveniles in
our communities. I am puzzled why you just scrap that in favor
of these other categorical grants that people have to comply
with and have no discretion?
Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is an important
role for the Federal Government to play in juvenile crime in
the same way that we play a very important role with respect to
local law enforcement--the DA's offices, for instance. And that
is that crime and the criminal justice system are of concern to
the Federal Government even if it is not within the Federal
statute. It is the whole issue of public safety that crosses
those lines. And I think we have an obligation and actually
have played a very effective role in helping communities figure
out what works for crime prevention and for solving crimes and
dealing with public safety issues.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the moneys that you have been funding
have been mainly preventive programs. Not to say they are
important, they are, but almost to the exclusion of the law
enforcement end of juvenile crime. And that's what the block
grants do. I am absolutely puzzled, again, why these agencies
see fit to do away with something that has been very effective
in helping communities and schools deal with this horrendous
problem that we have with juveniles and violence in our schools
and local communities. I am puzzled.
Ms. Leary. Communities are still using the funds. In fact
there is still a lot of 1998 money in the pipeline--the States
have been very slow to spend the 1999 funds. So they are still
working with their JAIBG funds. As I said, the decision with
respect to block grants was target funds instead.
Mr. Rogers. Well, what it is, are you substituting your
judgment for local people's? That is by and large it, is it
not?
Ms. Leary. No. I think what we are doing is using what we
know to help model successful programs that jurisdictions can
adopt.
Mr. Rogers. I just say that they know more than you do, I'm
sorry, because they deal with it every day. You are 3,000 miles
away from it.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, might I add something? Our
funding this year counting the Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant funds is about $580 million for juvenile
justice programming. About two-thirds of that money goes back
to the States in five different block and cumulative grant
funds. Those funds are used, as I said in my testimony, very
effectively by State and local governments. But those block
funds I think address some very basic needs. And I think States
and local governments got behind in supporting their juvenile
justice system in those kinds of functions that are funded with
the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant funds.
So I think that money has provided a significant shot in
the arm in terms of stimulating States and local governments to
work together to bring the juvenile justice system
infrastructure back up to where it needs to be. But I think the
categorical discretionary grant funding stimulates a lot of
innovation and we have seen it with a lot of our programs in
OJJDP from gangs, to gun programs, to mentoring. I think that
is a very valuable contribution.
So it is a matter of achieving some kind of balance. I wish
we had a budget that was a blank check. There are so many
competing interests in the Department that the budget process
every year is a very difficult one to go through. But I do
think that there are so many needs out there it is just very
difficult to make what are very tough choices for the
Department.
Mr. Rogers. We think we know that experience. You also
propose to eliminate a program that has been one of the reasons
why I think the crime rate has been decreasing. That is locking
up those violent criminals with very serious sentences. You
propose to eliminate the $578 million State Prison Grant
program, which as you know gives money to States provided they
have a law requiring violent prisoners serve so much of a high
percent of their sentence. Your own Bureau of Justice
Statistics concluded that the average time served by violent
offenders has increased as a result of States changing their
laws to require the lockup of violent prisoners for a long
period of time. Those grants have resulted in keeping a lot of
violent criminals off the streets for longer periods of time
and I think thereby reducing the violent crime rate.
STATE PRISON GRANT PROGRAM
Did you request moneys for the State Prison Grants program?
Ms. Leary. I think we did request money for that. I would--
--
Mr. Rogers. How much was it?
Ms. Leary. I have got the number for you.
Mr. Rogers. How much was it? I didn't hear how much it was.
Ms. Leary. $250,000,000.
We have been very successful in achieving the goal of
encouraging States to pass truth in sentencing laws. Thirty
States have passed them and we have no indication that any more
States will be passing those laws in 2000 and 2001----
Mr. Rogers. At $250 million and in the current level is
$653 million. So you really decimated even when you request the
amount of money for the program and then the OMB gave you
essentially zero, the White House did. Wouldn't you agree that
the State Prison Grant program has been effective in dealing
with violent criminals?
Ms. Leary. I think it has been effective.
Mr. Rogers. Why did you propose to eliminate it?
Ms. Leary. As I said, the intent was to encourage States to
pass these truth in sentencing laws. Thirty States have passed
them and there is no indication that any other States intend to
pass them this year or next year. It has been a joint venture
with the States all along; for instance, the States picking up
the operational cost once the prisons are built. The intention
all along was this would not be a long-term, forever kind of
proposition.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, but we made the promise to the States,
look, if you will change your laws so that you are locking up
violent criminals for a hefty percentage of their sentence, we
will give you ``x'' dollars in your prisons to help you solve
that problem. Now, after a year or two or three maybe we are
saying, we didn't mean that, sorry.
They have already changed their laws. They have already got
the prisons built and prisoners locked up and now Uncle Sam is
backing away from its commitment. Don't you feel a certain
amount of pain about that?
Ms. Leary. I think the commitment was to help them--when
they passed truth in sentencing laws to give them help to get
going on the prison construction. And it has been very
successful in that regard but it was not a commitment going
beyond----
Mr. Rogers. You are interpreting the congressional intent,
are you?
Ms. Leary. No, I certainly don't----
Mr. Rogers. We passed that law and we admitted it was not a
matter of we will do this for a couple of years and you are on
your own. It was a commitment to do this, change your laws,
which they have, and we will stay with you. We know this was a
long-term problem. That was the congressional intent and you
are reneging.
Ms. Leary. I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, one of the
considerations was the extreme need for funding for Federal
prisons as well, which seems to outstrip the State----
Mr. Rogers. Let us worry about that. We are funding Federal
prisons as fast as we can go. Your not funding the State prison
branch is not helping us out. We are going to fund the Federal
prison structure regardless. That is this committee's
responsibility and we have done that now for many years. There
is not a squeezing of funds. You can't use that excuse. That is
our decision and we are going to see that we build the prisons.
Why else didn't you--give me an another reason?
Ms. Leary. I have given you all of the reasons that we
have, Mr. Chairman.
COPS HIRING
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is a disaster and I am really shocked
at this point.
Now, Mr. Frazier, how many of the original target of
100,000 cops are actually on the street?
Mr. Frazier. 60,000.
Mr. Rogers. So all that we hear out of the White House is
we have 100,000 on the beat. Is this not accurate?
Mr. Frazier. There are 103,000 funded, 60,000 put on the
street.
Mr. Rogers. In 1999 how many applications--applications,
not grants made but applications--for your universal hiring
program came from small populations, that is to say rural
jurisdictions?
Mr. Frazier. I do not know what the application ratio was.
I have--I know for instance that 68 percent of our grantees who
were awarded grants were from cities with less than 25,000
population.
Mr. Rogers. I know that. I want to know applications.
Mr. Frazier. I would have to get that for you.
Mr. Rogers. The truth is, is it not, there are many
applications from rural areas that have not been met?
Mr. Frazier. Have not been----
Mr. Rogers. Met.
Mr. Frazier. There are--there is the formula--it is
statutory that half of our funding funds agencies larger than
150,000, half of our funding funds cities of less than 150,000.
So there are some restrictions in that regard.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the point I wanted to get at was there
are maybe more applications from rural areas that you cannot
fund because of the 50 percent requirement in the law that says
you have to split the moneys 50-50, right?
Mr. Frazier. We believe that to be true.
Mr. Rogers. So if you had more money you could fund a lot
more of the rural applications that are pending, correct?
Mr. Frazier. Correct.
Mr. Rogers. Or if we change the split?
Mr. Frazier. Correct.
Mr. Rogers. Have you funded most of the applications from
the large population jurisdictions?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, we have, historically we have.
Mr. Rogers. And the big unmet demand is from the rurals,
correct?
Mr. Frazier. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Rogers. Now, the July 1999 report of the Inspector
General of the Department of Justice concluded, and I am
quoting, that while COPS projects in its fiscal year 2000
budget that it will fund 107,019 additional officers our audit
findings raise serious questions about whether several
thousands of these funded officers that are currently counting
towards COPS goals will ever materialize, end quote.
In the Legal Times article, the IG also says that ``due to
the failure to retain officers hired with COPS funds cops will
be lost.'' He continues to say, as a large number of these
grants expire over time and State and local governments fail to
continue those programs, we are going to lose those cops, end
quote. And again the goal of 100,000 COPS cops will not be met.
We have referenced to this earlier, in the first year full
funding and then 75 percent, so on, on down to zero Federal
funding in the fourth year.
You are fighting a losing battle, aren't you? Many of those
communities are not picking up that ever increasing local share
because they can't afford it?
Mr. Frazier. The Inspector General's report and the Legal
Times article expressed the view of an ex-Inspector General. In
the actual Inspector General's report, their own survey even of
the Phase One grantees who had no retention requirement was
that 96 percent of those grantees intended to retain those
officers. That same percentage held in the later phases on the
grant funding.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you say that only 60,000 of the goal of
100,000 are on the street. How can you justify continuing
another program for additional 50,000 officers when the
original 100,000 are not yet on the street?
Mr. Frazier. There are two major problems, once the COPS
office obligates the funding to local agencies. One is that it
is a very difficult hiring market for quality police officers.
Our experience is currently that it takes an average of 18
months to recruit, do a background check, and hire an academy
trained and field trained police officer. Likewise in the
technology grants and with many of these grants going to
smaller agencies that have not yet had technology grants
before, they are finding problems in local purchasing issues.
The number of officers on the street is the result of local
issues, not because COPS didn't get the funding out of the
door. However, because of the funding issues at the local level
it is more difficult than anticipated. We actually have pending
1,700 requests for 2,700 more police officers being processed
in our office now.
Mr. Rogers. But if a local community drops a cop they hired
under the original program you are not counting that cop as
being on the beat, are you?
Mr. Frazier. Very few grants have matured through that
closing process. I think our best indication is that the IG's
report said that 96 percent intended to retain.
Mr. Rogers. The question, are you counting cops that were
originally hired under the program but have--since that COPS
grant has expired in the local community, left the beat? You
are not counting that person on the beat, are you?
Mr. Frazier. If the grant funding cycle of 3 years of
Federal funding and the one-year local retention requirement,
if that grant is 4 or 5 years old, yes, we are.
Mr. Rogers. Is that the reason why we only have 60,000 on
the beat----
Mr. Frazier. I don't follow this. The reason that there are
100,000 funded and 60,000 on the street is there is a time lag
between funding and solo deployment.
Mr. Rogers. I guess what I am trying to say and I think you
said it, am I accurate in saying that if the local community
originally hired a cop but then that grant went away or matured
and the cop was laid off, you are still counting that cop as
part of the 100,000?
Mr. Frazier. If they do not retain them we subtract them.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I am puzzled. You have only got 60,000.
You are saying--the White House said you have 100,000. What is
going on?
Mr. Frazier. The difference between--it is accurate to say
that 103,000 officers have been funded. There is a time lag
between funding and deployment. There are 60,000 deployed on
the street.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the next time I hear the White House say
they have 100,000 cops on the beat I am going to quote you. Do
you mind?
Mr. Frazier. Be my guest, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Mr. Latham. I just want to say that this proposal--if we
are going to pass your bill on the floor, this wouldn't get 5
votes. It is outrageous.
Mr. Rogers. We have a vote on the floor. We are going to
call a temporary recess. We will be right back.
[Recess.]
COPS MERGER INTO OJP
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Leary, in previous hearings and in reports
submitted to us by OJP, OJP has said there are duplications and
overlaps in OJP programs causing confusions with applicants. I
think you were asked something about this. We have been working
with OJP over the past few years to see if there are ways to
streamline the process and try to provide that one stop
shopping for State local law enforcement. The COPS office now
has taken on many different types of programs, not just hiring
programs, and I am worried that we will have a repeated
situation where the COPS office would have duplication and
overlaps in their programs, again causing some confusion. Why
shouldn't we merge these two, the COPS program into the OJP
program?
Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that we do at
OJP work very closely with COPS. We put a lot of effort into
collaborating and coordinating our efforts. We at OJP have
longstanding relationships with State and local law
enforcement. I think COPS has developed their own unique
relationships with local law enforcement agencies as well and
particularly through their hiring programs. Now, COPS is moving
more in the arena of technology which makes sense as part of
the next step. If you have more police officers you want them
to work smarter and work faster and have the right tools. We
are coordinating very closely with them to make sure that we
don't have duplication and overlap.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Frazier, why shouldn't they be merged?
Mr. Frazier. Mr. Chairman, I think that the fact that the
COPS office is the only Federal entity whose sole mission is to
directly support local law enforcement is perhaps the reason
that the major police chiefs groups, the police labor
organizations, U.S. Council of Mayors, County Executives of
America, all support COPS as an independent entity. They have
found that the funding streams are very direct. They have found
the relationship positive, found that the COPS office delivered
the officers and technology that they told us they wanted. And
I think that the support of the autonomy of the COPS by all of
those organizations speaks well to that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, in Ms. Leary's testimony she says that
$599 million of the $1.3 billion COPS budget request for fiscal
year 2001, 49 percent is to be administered by OJP, not COPS.
Why shouldn't the money for those programs that are proposed to
be administered by OJP be funded in the COPS program be funded
directly to OJP? Isn't it a charade to give the money to COPS
and then in turn almost half is turned to OJP to be
administered?
Mr. Frazier. I think our budget reflects things that are
well within the scope of what COPS does. The relationship
between COPS and OJP is a good one. The collaborative nature of
these projects I think speaks to that.
Ms. Leary. In some instances the kinds of initiatives,
particularly in the technology area, are things that OJP has
some expertise in. It makes more sense, and it is more
efficient to administer them through OJP.
Mr. Rogers. It is not a question of that. It is a question
of why the money is just not directly funneled to OJP rather
than go through and let COPS handle it towards transferring
over to OJP? Is there any reason for that?
Ms. Leary. I think it is just the nature of collaboration.
Sometimes funding comes into one part of the Department and we
work together and end up seeing who has the expertise and
experience to do the best job on any particular initiative.
Mr. Rogers. That is another argument for merging the two,
it seems to me, wouldn't you think?
Ms. Leary. Of course, we will do whatever Congress decides
you want to do. We are very flexible.
DRUG PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Mr. Rogers. We provided--Mr. Wilson--an $11 million grant
program to your office to develop iniatives that would increase
the perception among teenagers of the risk and harm of drug
use. Can you tell us what you are doing with that funding?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Under the drug prevention demonstration
program our initial efforts under that program have been to
replicate the Life Skills Training Program, which I referenced
in my testimony. The bulk of the funds under that program have
gone to the Center for the Study of Prevention of Violence at
the University of Colorado which administers these funds for
the office in cooperation and collaboration with the Life
Skills Training staff headed by Gil Bachman.
What is unique about this program is that it is a proven
effective Blueprints program which has been found to be highly
successful. It has been replicated in a number of different
sites and found to succeed across sites. So when we take it
into a school as long as the teachers and school administrators
are properly trained and deliver the program with fidelity, we
can be assured that it is going to have its intended effect of
teaching children self-management and social skills and the
skills that they need to avoid the use of drugs.
As you know, this is a program that is targeted at middle
school, whether that is 6th, 7th, and 8th grade or 7th, 8th, or
9th grade in a particular school district. The Life Skills
Training Program actually takes 3 years to deliver. Schools are
now in their second year or beginning their first year.
As I said in my statement, we are now delivering that
program to 77,000 students. We have recently committed an
additional $5 million to the program and hope to double the
number of students participating in the program in the next
year.
COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAM
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Leary, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes
a $30 million increase in counterterrorism programs so that DOJ
can assume funding responsibility for a DOD program, the Nunn-
Lugar-Domenici program. Why are you proposing to fund a program
that was authorized in and funded by the Department of Defense
the last 4 years, including this year?
Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 we held kind of a
stakeholders meeting for participants in the Nunn-Lugar
training program. What we learned from listening was that there
is a lot of confusion out in the field about the plethora of
training and equipment and exercise programs that are available
in the area of domestic preparedness. The Attorney General and
the Secretary of Defense discussed this and the decision was
made that it would make sense to transfer the training program
part of Nunn-Lugar to OJP because it fits with our
comprehensive program on domestic preparedness and it also fits
with our mission to provide training to State and locals on
areas of public safety concern like domestic preparedness. We
think ultimately that it will end up being a better program and
it will be more cost efficient by being administered through
OJP.
Mr. Rogers. Did you consult with or get agreement from this
subcommittee prior to agreeing to assume responsibility for the
program?
Ms. Leary. I think, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of
consultation with this committee over the development of the
program, and we are doing our best to work with the committee
and we are going to continue to work with this committee as we
move down the road towards assuming responsibility from DOD.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the answer is no? The answer is that you
did not consult or get the agreement of this subcommittee
before you agreed to assume responsibility for the program. Now
you are asking us to pick up the bill.
Ms. Leary. I think, as I said, it makes sense. It is a
complementary program. It makes sense for us to be----
Mr. Rogers. That is your statement. I am not sure I agree
with you or the subcommittee agrees with you. This is a two-way
street. If you want funding for a program we expect to be
consulted and agree to it. You have done this without our
approval. I don't agree with it, quite frankly. DOD received
funding in their own budget in fiscal year 2000 to fully fund
the costs of the program, but is DOD fully funding the program
in fiscal year 2000?
Ms. Leary. I think they will have already trained about 68
cities by the end of this year.
Mr. Rogers. The question was they received money in the
current year, DOD did, to fully fund the cost of this program.
Are they fully funding the program?
Ms. Leary. No, they are not.
Mr. Rogers. Why?
Ms. Leary. I think one of the big problems for DOD, Mr.
Chairman, is the equipment. In fact that is one of the reasons
it makes sense to transfer the program to OJP, we can make
direct equipment grants to the jurisdictions.
Mr. Rogers. The question was they got the money for the
program, they are not doing the program, and you are picking it
up. Why are they not funding the program they got money for?
Ms. Leary. They are not, and I can't really answer for
them, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I can tell you why. They are diverting it to
other purposes and asking you to pick up the bill. That is just
not going to happen.
Can you assure us that OJP is not picking up these year
2000 costs of that program?
Ms. Leary. DOD is responsible for the program through 2000
so I can assure you of that.
Mr. Rogers. So you are not picking up any of the costs in
the year 2000?
Ms. Leary. That is correct.
Mr. Rogers. If DOD refuses to fund the program, what impact
will that have on your cost for assuming the program?
Ms. Leary. I think if they refuse, it is going to increase
the costs for OJP, but I don't think it will be an enormous
increase, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. It is not the first time that OJP has agreed to
assume funding for DOD programs and without any real
consultation or much less approval with this subcommittee. Can
you assure us that you will take no further actions to assume
new funding or program responsibilities on this or any other
matter without prior consultation and agreement with this
subcommittee?
Ms. Leary. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work with the
Subcommittee and----
Mr. Rogers. That is not the question. I want the question
answered.
Ms. Leary. I think it is fair to say that if the President
were to direct OJP to do something we would have to do that.
Mr. Rogers. Contrary to congressional wishes? Would you
follow the executive leader knowing that the Congress did not
authorize it?
Ms. Leary. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is very unlikely,
first of all, that we would find ourselves in that situation.
But it is clear that consultation with the Congress is the
preferred way to go and I think actually in the context of our
efforts--for instance, the counterterrorism program----
Mr. Rogers. You already assumed responsibility for a
program that we have not authorized you to do. Do I have to
remind you that it is the Congress that holds the purse strings
and that if you spend money without congressional approval you
are liable and we will crack the leash----
Ms. Leary. I understand that. I know who holds the purse
strings.
Mr. Rogers. That is an elementary thing in this business
that we are in here. But you have assumed responsibility for a
DOD program that we did not authorize you to do and that better
be backed out pretty quick. Can you assure me that you will do
that?
Ms. Leary. I'm sorry, sir----
Mr. Rogers. Can you assure me that you will back out----
Ms. Leary. Out of the Nunn-Lugar program?
Mr. Rogers. Out of assuming responsibility for a DOD
program?
Ms. Leary. I think what I can promise the chairman is that
before we take any action with respect to the Nunn Lugar
program we will consult with this committee.
Mr. Rogers. And get agreement?
Ms. Leary. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Any questions?
Mr. Serrano. No.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your testimony. We have kept you
a long time here. It has been a useful session I think. It is
good to have all of these agencies at the same table because of
the shared responsibilities. This is one of those theme areas
that we try to put up at one place those with similar
obligations and we thank you for your testimony. And we will be
in touch with you during the year and hope to be helpful to
you.
Ms. Leary. Thank you. We look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 22, 2000.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
WITNESS
DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER
Opening Remarks
Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order.
Commissioner Meissner, today we had hoped to have a hearing
on your budget request for 2001, but I'm not sure that we will
have time to delve into your request today because we all have
questions for you about new and continuing failures of the INS.
First, a new INS disaster has recently come to light. The
Attorney General told this subcommittee last week that, over a
five-year period, the INS has released 35,318 criminal aliens,
instead of deporting them, and that 37 percent of those people
have gone on to commit more crimes. It's absolutely appalling.
Ordinarily, if something of this severity had happened to
another agency, I would consider calling for the resignation of
that agency's top official, but I'm sorry to say that, in the
case of INS, that action would not result in an improved INS.
More serious reform of the agency is now, more than ever,
necessary.
Commissioner Meissner, I have always said that you've had a
tough job, and this Committee has supported you, both with
resources and with strong direction--``tough love'', if you
will. I had hoped that, after the Citizenship USA catastrophe
and its continuing cleanup, that we would have been through the
worst and things could only get better. Unfortunately, that was
just wishful thinking.
Next to me on the dias is a pile of Inspector General, GAO,
and other reports on INS failures, inadequacies, screw-ups, for
just a past few years only. Your agency and the Congress and
this committee is becoming buried in documents that plainly
show that your agency is unworkable and ineffective. You and
your agency have given us excuses, blamed others, and provided
empty promises.
As this is most likely your last appearance before the
subcommittee, and your last chance to take responsibility for
the failures and misdeeds of the INS, I intend to proceed
directly to questions from the members of this panel. Your
written statement, if you wish, will be placed in the record.
You will be given every opportunity to respond to my questions
and those of the other members of this subcommittee.
But let me warn you now: I do not want to hear more
excuses, more blame, more empty promises. I have firmly
concluded that the position of the INS Commissioner lacks the
necessary power to address the failures of this agency. You can
do only so much with this organization. Ultimately, we have to
make dramatic changes to this agency in order for change to
truly occur.
INS Restructuring
This morning, the House Immigration Subcommittee favorably
reported my INS restructuring bill, H.R. 3918. This was the
second time the subcommittee took action on this bill, because
after long and productive negotiations with the Attorney
General, we presented to that subcommittee a compromise that
the Justice Department could support. However, at the end of
last year, the Administration backed out of that compromise and
took away the promises they had made to us.
The Administration keeps saying that they are for a
restructuring. However, their actions, unfortunately, are
speaking louder than their words. So we are back to our
original bill.
I am going to recognize my friend and colleague,
Representative Serrano, for some opening remarks. As I
indicated, your written statement will be put into the record,
if you wish, and then we'll move directly to questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in agreement with your feelings about this
agency, I have to say that at this point in a hearing it is
always a tradition for the ranking member to be the one who
comes to the defense of the agency. You and I have exercised
that constitutional right.
Elian Gonzalez
But I, like you, am very troubled by the work of this
agency, especially on the case that I have been involved with
the most, the issue of Elian Gonzalez. I believe, Mr. Chairman,
and I believe, Ms. Meissner, that it was your agency that
created this mess that we're in now. And this is a mess.
Let me from the outset say, as much as people may disagree,
that it pains me deeply to say that I don't think Elian
Gonzalez will ever go home. I think that we will continue to
find ways to keep him here. I think eventually his family may
come here to look for him, and we will find ways to tie them up
in court, also.
My anger is that none of this had to happen, had INS made
the proper and caring decision, rather than the political,
Miami-based decision that was made by your agency. I don't ever
profess to be an intelligent or brilliant man on any issue. But
I do know a little bit about the Miami-Cuba issue. And how come
I knew, sitting in Washington and in the Bronx, that if you
turned the child over to a family in the Cuban community, right
at the time that posters had been printed by anti-Castro
groups, calling Elian Castro's latest victim, it didn't take a
genius--and I'm far from it--to know that this mess was going
to be created, that this was going to become a political
football.
In addition, INS had to be aware of the fact that both
political parties--and I underline ``both'' parties--are trying
at every level to out-Miami/Cuban each other for the
presidential election vote, and we're going to run away from
the issue, or if getting involved would say things like all
candidates have said, ``let the court take its time, let's do
this, let's do that, let's not return him back to a
dictatorship.'' This is what we made of Elian.
I have thought about this, I have discussed it with my
staff, I have discussed it with friends and constituents, to
try to come up with another explanation of who caused this mess
for us. The mess was caused by INS.
I don't know the name, nor do I care ever to face the
person who made that political decision, a person who obviously
wanted to score points with the local community and turned this
little boy over.
By the way, I am not, in any way, shape or form, attacking
the integrity or questioning the integrity or the beliefs or
the love or the care of the family that has this little boy.
But to give them that boy was, in fact, to tell the child he
was never going back. And then to allow people--and yes, INS,
by doing what they did, have allowed other things to happen,
allowed a state court to get in that shouldn't have been
involved, to suggest that the father had to come here and pick
him up, to then allow other elected officials to get involved
because INS didn't act quickly enough, to say he has to bring
his whole family, go before a court and tell us, one, whether
he's fit to be a father, and two, if he wants to stay in this
country with his child.
None of these subjects would even be discussed at this
point if INS had done what it was supposed to do: either turn
the child over to a foster family temporarily, or give him to a
church or a synagogue temporarily, until this was resolved.
But I repeat. I'm not a brilliant person, and I knew the
minute you turned him over to a political situation, he was
going to become a political figure. And he is. Now the saga
will continue because now there's greater interest. My god, the
mini-series now is going to go up. It's not ``Elian goes
home''. It's ``Elian goes to court, Part 2.'' People are
already offering money for this mini-series.
So I have to tell you--and I'll close with this. I wish you
had really thought this through. I wish you had not become a
victim of politics in Miami, presidential election year
politics, which is what I think you became a part of.
On a more personal level, I regret to tell you that I was
treated very badly by your agency. I wrote to the President of
the United States on this issue and got back a letter right
away. I wrote to your agency on January the 4th, putting forth
my position, and it wasn't until I complained publicly, on
March 9th, that I got a letter dated March 10th.
Now, I'm not the chairman of this subcommittee, but this
chairman respects me enough to let me play a role, and he
allows for me to have something to say about the future of your
agency. I don't know what political/legislative school all of
you went to, but you don't ignore the person who's supposed to
be your champion for three months.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will close now because there's no need
to carry this on any further. But I have to tell you--and I'll
say it one more time--Elian is not going home, and all of you
in your agency will be responsible for it.
Mr. Rogers. I understand we have two votes scheduled, so we
will have a temporary recess while we retire to the floor to
vote.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rogers. The Committee will be in order.
Release of Criminal Aliens
Commissioner Meissner, while I had wanted to begin my
questions today with the Resendez incident--and I will get to
that--there is another INS disaster that's upon us that needs
to be aired today for this subcommittee.
During the Attorney General's testimony before this
subcommittee on March 8th, she told us about a startling new
situation, that INS had released 35,318 criminal aliens out
into the countryside, after their terms were up, and that 37
percent of them went on to commit more crimes, a staggering
number of crimes, committed by people who INS should have
deported.
At a recent briefing, Justice told us that, of the 11,605
criminal aliens committing further crimes, 5,913 of them had
records of nonviolent crimes; 3,847 had records of drug-related
crimes; and 1,845 had records of violent crimes, that's 1,845.
Of that number, 98 committed homicides, 98 lives no longer
exist. Of the 1,845 that had records of violent crimes, how
many committed sexual assaults after they were released? The
answer is 142. Rapes, plundering. How many committed
kidnapping? Forty-four. How many robberies resulted from your
release of these violent criminals? Three-hundred and forty
seven robberies. How many committed assaults on Americans? One-
thousand, two-hundred and fourteen.
In the past, we have heard a myriad of excuses as to why
problems, even catastrophes, are not INS' fault. Well, the
excuses stop here and today. I don't want to hear that you
didn't have enough detention space, because we gave you an
additional $280 million over the last year for detention space,
$80 million in the fiscal '99 supplement, $200 million in this
year's bill, the current year's bill. I also don't want you to
point fingers at the Justice Department, OMB, anybody else.
This is your agency.
Now, my question is, are you still releasing known criminal
aliens from your custody, or are you deporting them, as you've
been directed to do?
Commissioner Meissner. Mr. Chairman, the removal of
criminal aliens is the top priority of the Immigration Service,
in its interior enforcement activities. That priority has been
funded, as you have described, by the Congress over the last
five, six or seven years. That effort, on the part of the
Immigration Service, to focus on criminal alien removal, has
resulted----
Mr. Rogers. The question is, are you still releasing
criminal aliens, instead of deporting them, as you were told to
do?
Commissioner Meissner. We have deported----
Mr. Rogers. The question is, are you still deporting or are
you still releasing them on the American public?
Commissioner Meissner. We deport criminal aliens every
single day. In fact, we deport them----
Mr. Rogers. Are you still releasing criminal aliens? Answer
the question, please.
Commissioner Meissner. We both deport criminal aliens, and
we release criminal aliens.
Mr. Rogers. Are you still releasing criminal aliens on the
American people?
Commissioner Meissner. When criminal aliens are released--
--
Mr. Rogers. Answer the question, please.
Commissioner Meissner. I just answered the question.
Mr. Rogers. Are you still releasing criminal aliens on the
American people?
Commissioner Meissner. I just stated that we both deport
and release criminal aliens.
Mr. Rogers. So you're still releasing them on the American
people?
Commissioner Meissner. May I explain the circumstances
under which----
Mr. Rogers. When you answer my question, I will be happy to
hear an explanation.
Are you releasing criminal aliens today?
Commissioner Meissner. I answered your question, yes.
Mr. Rogers. All right. Now you may explain.
Criminal Alien Release Circumstances
Commissioner Meissner. The circumstances under which
criminal aliens are released fall into a variety of categories.
Sometimes criminal aliens are released because their
deportation cases are decided in their favor. Sometimes
criminal aliens are released because judges approve bond for
the release of aliens. Sometimes criminal aliens are released
because INS makes the judgment that they, having served their
sentence in a federal or state facility for the crime that they
committed and for the reasons that we are detaining them, are
no longer a danger to the community in the best judgment of
those evaluating.
Sometimes criminal aliens are released because they are
from countries, such as Cuba, Vietnam, or Laos, that will not
accept the return of their nationals. They have served their
sentences and are judged to no longer pose a danger or a risk
of flight.
Those reasons, and the circumstances under which the
numbers were released, that you have cited in the report that
we provided, are continuing to be analyzed. We will have a full
report of the release of those aliens as soon as we complete
that work.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Commissioner, I am quoting from section
303 of the 1996 Immigration Act, the one that we gave amnesty
in. I'm sorry. I'm mistaken about that. It's not the amnesty
bill.
But section 303 states, in subparagraph (c) of section 236,
``The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is
deportable under sections 237'' and so forth ``on the basis of
an offense for which the alien has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of at least one year.'' It doesn't say you may. It
doesn't say you will think about it or have any other
conditions. It says the Attorney General ``shall'' take into
custody any person who has been sentenced to a felony, when the
alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is
released on parole, supervised release or probation, and
without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or
imprisoned again for the same offense.
What do you say to that? You have released, in the last
five years alone, 35,000-plus, contrary to the law of the land,
not to mention the directions of the Congress.
Commissioner Meissner. We have detained during that period
of time more than 300,000 people. Of those 300,000 people that
we have detained, this number that you cite have been released
based on a variety of reasons, which I have provided, and which
are also part of the statutory framework. The mandatory custody
is a mandatory 90 days minimum. In cases where we are unable to
return people to their country, or where, under other
circumstances, there has been a bond determination, or the
country will not take the person back, those are examples of
the reasons why we release people. But they are released based
on a determination that they do not pose a danger to the
community, or a risk of flight.
Now, these are cases of people who had committed crimes and
had been arrested subsequent to that release having taken
place. That is at a rate of 37 percent, according to the
analysis that we've done. That is a very serious number and it
is a great concern to us. It is also the case that it
represents recidivism that is not atypical for the criminal
population. Criminals recidivate at a very high rate, and
criminal aliens recidivate as do U.S. citizens.
Mr. Rogers. You know that every time you release a hundred
of these criminal aliens, 37 of them are going to go on to
commit crimes, and that a good number of them are going to
commit murders, rape, sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping,
assaults of all sorts, on American taxpaying citizens, and yet
you continue to release them.
How many have you released this year?
Commissioner Meissner. I don't have that number for you.
That's part of this analysis and we will be happy to provide
that number. But I think it's very----
Mr. Rogers. Surely, you know how many you released this
year. I mean, do you consider this a serious matter?
Commissioner Meissner. I just said that we consider this a
very serious number.
Mr. Rogers. And yet you cannot tell me how many you have
released this year? These figures, by the way, go up to May of
'99, so we've got almost a year since these--the numbers that I
have are accurate only until May of '99.
Since May of 1999, how many criminal aliens have you
released?
Commissioner Meissner. I would have to get that figure for
you. But the important thing here is the custody of criminal
aliens is a top priority of the agency, and the removal of
those criminal aliens is occurring at a very rapid rate.
Some of these people do reenter the United States. That's
one of the things that is of most concern to us, that criminal
aliens, once deported, sometimes get back to the United States
and commit subsequent crimes. The difficulty in making a
release decision is to determine how you can predict whether
somebody might commit another crime when they have already
served their sentence.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Commissioner, of the 100 people that
you're releasing, we know from these statistics that at least
37 of them are going to commit crimes.
Now, if we take for the past five years the release of
39,000 as an average, if you will, that's at a rate of 7,700-
plus per year. Are we to say that there have been about that
many released this past year?
Commissioner Meissner. Well, if you take that data, the
35,000 released over the course of the last five years, 7,000 a
year, then you could extrapolate that forward. That would be a
rough estimation.
Mr. Rogers. So, of the 7,700 that probably have been
released this past year, since May of '99, that over a third of
those people have committed crimes; is that a reasonable
assumption?
Commissioner Meissner. That is a reasonable assumption.
Again, this is a situation in which release decisions are made
individually, case by case. They are made carefully, and it is
very difficult to know which person----
Mr. Rogers. The law does not say that you have the
discretion in this. The law says you shall detain and deport
these people. I don't know where it says that you have the
right to decide which one of them you're going to let loose and
which one you're going to try to deport. The law says you
should detain them and deport them.
Commissioner Meissner. That's correct, and that is what we
do. But there are circumstances where either we or judges or
custody reviews lead to a decision to release, which is also
within the statutory framework.
Match with FBI Criminal Records
Mr. Rogers. Well, if we are to take the Resendez case as an
example, here's a case where you didn't even know that this
mass murderer had a record. And of these 35,000 that I have
quoted to you, a great number of those you hadn't even notified
the FBI and received an FBI number on that case. Of the 35,000
aliens that were released from your custody, only 23,000 of
them had FBI numbers; that is, during their processing, through
either a State or Federal criminal justice system, they were
fingerprinted, entered into the FBI's NCIC system, and assigned
an FBI number. And then, when they were transferred to your
custody for deportation, INS was to record the FBI number into
its system. But of those 35,000, INS had failed to keep the FBI
number for 12,000 of those cases, a third of them. So there is
no criminal rap sheets on those 12,000 cases.
So how can you tell us here today that you go through these
matters and you sift some out and you sift some in, when you
don't even know whether or not they had a rap sheet?
Commissioner Meissner. I think there are two separate
processes. The process of the rap sheet and of matching the FBI
number with INS records is a function of the analysis that
we're currently doing, which is to run an INS dataset against
an FBI dataset.
When we make release decisions, we make release decisions
based on a careful review of the individual record, which
includes the arrest records, and includes the information that
we have available to us from state and local authorities, which
are based on the crime that was committed.
Mr. Rogers. Of these 12,000 that I mentioned, there are
12,000 of the 35,000 for which you did not have the FBI record
of their past; is that correct?
Commissioner Meissner. There are 12,000, for which there
was not a numbers match, that is my understanding.
Mr. Rogers. Not a numbers match, meaning that you did not
have the FBI rap sheet on them, their previous record?
Commissioner Meissner. No, my understanding of that is
that's a question of the FBI's records and the INS records on
automated data. When we do a release decision, it is an
individual review and we query the records on that individual.
It is on a dataset that is being matched against another
dataset.
Mr. Rogers. Well, of these 12,000 that I mentioned, when
the decision was made to release them to the public, did you
have the FBI record of their previous criminal history?
Commissioner Meissner. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Rogers. I can. You did not. The records show--and the
subpoena that the Congress sent out, so we have the records
here--show that of those the 35,000-plus, aliens who were
released, criminals, a third of them, you didn't even have the
FBI record of their criminal history. I just find this to be
another, absolutely catastrophic failure of this agency in
dealing with the problem.
Now, what are the consequences? Well, we've got 98 people
who are dead; we've got an untold number of rape victims,
robbery victims, assault victims, all over this country,
because of the ineptitude of this agency, again.
Institutional Removal Program
Now, you've bragged in the past about the Institutional
Removal Program. As I understand it, you go into the prisons,
state and Federal, you find out who are criminal aliens, and
before they're released, you do the necessary prepatory work to
deport them while they're still in the prison.
How many of these 35,000 did you run through that
institutional release program?
Commissioner Meissner. We don't have that in this analysis.
The Institutional Removal Program is a very effective way of
dealing with deportation and a very effective way of conserving
Federal detention dollars. The Institutional Removal Program is
exactly as you say, but it could--if somebody is deported under
the Institutional Removal Program, which we do every day in
increasing numbers--there is always the possibility that that
person could reenter the United States and commit another
crime. Obviously, we do everything that we can to prevent that,
but it does happen. That could be reflected in the statistics
you're citing. But we did not do an analysis of whether the
people that you're talking about were deported under the
Institutional Removal Program or were deported under INS
measures.
Mr. Rogers. Now, you didn't release these people because
you didn't have space to hold them, did you?
Commissioner Meissner. By and large, we released these
people because we believed that they would not commit another
crime, or because they were released by a bond decision,
properly made by an immigration judge.
Mr. Rogers. How many of these people did you release solely
on your own discretion and not because of some legal, technical
bond or whatever?
Commissioner Meissner. I believe about--I would have to
check the report, but I believe--there definitely is a category
that were released under INS discretion, but again, that is a
decision that is made by district directors and made based on a
thorough review----
Mr. Rogers. The question is how many. How many?
Commissioner Meissner. I would have to check for that
number. I don't recall right offhand.
Mr. Rogers. Does anybody in the room have it? You've got
your staff here.
[Witness conferring.]
Commissioner Meissner. I'm sorry, we don't have that
breakdown. We don't have that breakdown complete yet. We're
still in the process of analyzing this data and we don't have
that breakdown.
Knowledge of Criminal Alien Release
Mr. Rogers. Well, when did you discover that there were
35,000-plus criminal aliens that had been released on the
American people and not deported? When did you discover it?
Commissioner Meissner. When did we discover--I'm sorry.
Could you state the question again?
Mr. Rogers. When did you discover the problem?
Commissioner Meissner. We have been aware that criminals
repeat their criminal behavior. That is the most serious
problem that the criminal justice system faces--recidivism. We
face it with criminal aliens just as we face it overall with
American citizens in the criminal justice system. We try----
Mr. Rogers. Let me just interrupt you. There was a subpoena
issued by the Judiciary Committee of the House for records
relating to this. They have boxes of them down there now and
they're going through them. Then the Attorney General, when she
testified here earlier this month, volunteered that there was
this huge number of criminal aliens that had been released.
That's the first knowledge that we had of it.
You didn't tell us about this. We had to discover it. We
discovered it the hard way, and we had to do it even by
subpoena. It was not even a voluntary getting out of
information. That's after we had been told for the last two
years that you had to have more detention space, and we scraped
around and, in an emergency supplemental bill, gave you money
for that purpose. And then, in the regular bill for the current
year, gave you plenty more.
Let me just give you a little history of that. In 1997, we
provided $114 million, $70 million more than you requested, for
funds for detention due to the then shortage of detention
space, and then in 1998, we gave you all you asked, $178
million, for detention and related costs. In 1999, we saved $25
million for INS detention, that INS would have eliminated by
denying a portion of a reprogramming, taking $25 million in
detention funds.
Also during the regular cycle, you requested no funds for
detention spaces for either contract facilities or for state
and local prisons, and instead requested funds for the
construction of future detention space. And then we also
provided the requested $80 million in an emergency supplemental
for detention space relating to criminal and illegal aliens,
relating to Central Americans and Hurricane Mitch. In the
current year we provided $200 million of the $230 million
requested in a budget amendment for detention.
So I don't think you're going to tell us that you did not
have the necessary moneys to provide for detention space for
these released aliens, are you?
Commissioner Meissner. I have not said that we did not have
sufficient detention space, and I am not saying that to you
now. What I have said is that criminal aliens are released for
a variety of reasons, some of them in INS discretion, some of
them in the judgment of judges, and because they come from
countries to which we cannot return them.
I have also said that we do the best that we can to
determine the safety and the risk factors in release, but that
recidivism occurs among criminals and among criminal aliens. It
occurs at an alarmingly high rate for U.S. citizen criminals,
just as it does for criminal aliens.
Mr. Rogers. Well, look, I've had it. This agency we have
poured money into since I've been on the subcommittee. We have
quadrupled your budget over the last ten or twelve years,
enormous increases, in the hope that that would solve the
problem.
Obviously, money is not the answer. The answer is an agency
out of control. I have simply had it. I don't know what else we
can do except to dismantle and start over again. That is what I
have reluctantly concluded has to be done. What we're dealing
with here is mayhem on the American people. That cannot be
tolerated.
I want you to tell me in the next week how many criminal
aliens have been released since May of '99, what was the reason
for their release, how many of them have committed further
crimes, and what kind of crimes. I'm going to ask this agency
also to give this Subcommittee a monthly report on the criminal
aliens that you're releasing in the future, why you released
them, what their record was, and I want to know whether or not
the FBI has given you a rap sheet on these people and that you
have it in your custody.
Commissioner Meissner. We will provide that information,
Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
Elian Gonzalez
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Commissioner, given the decision rendered by Judge K.
Michael Moore, is there anything in the decision that prohibits
you from sending Elian back to Cuba?
Commissioner Meissner. Judge Moore's decision upheld the
decision made by the government, made by me initially and
reiterated by the Attorney General. That decision is that
Elian's father speaks for him on immigration matters. We intend
to reunite Elian with his father as soon as possible, as we
have said from the outset in this case.
Mr. Serrano. So nothing in this order says you can't pick
him up tonight and either deliver him to Cuba, if you will, or
have his father meet you in Washington, in LA, New York,
Waukegan, IL and turn him over to his father? There is nothing
in this decision that says you can't do that?
Commissioner Meissner. This decision says what it says. It
says that his father has the right to speak for him on
immigration matters.
Mr. Serrano. I understand that. But is it your
interpretation of this decision that you are not restrained in
sending Elian back to Cuba, that you could do that at any
moment?
Commissioner Meissner. It is our interpretation of the
decision that we want to reunite Elian with his father. We will
work with all of the parties to achieve that as soon as
possible.
Mr. Serrano. Why are you then not picking up Elian tonight
in Miami and taking him to Cuba?
Commissioner Meissner. Well, I think we need to let this
unfold in a way that works for all the parties, and we are
moving as quickly as we can.
Mr. Serrano. This mess that your agency created has
unfolded enough. I don't know what more unfolding it needs.
People are hiding behind the involvement of the court. I'm
not a lawyer, but there are many people who say that, legally
it's kind of a strange thing to say because a court legally
always has the ability to be involved. But in immigration law,
only you as an agent of the Attorney General, can decide what
to do with the child. And even though you did decide, you did
it too late and too little after you had created the mess that
you guys did by turning him over in that situation to the Miami
family.
But if there is nothing here that says he can't go back,
and if everybody, including your agency, has been saying let
the court speak, and the court spoke, then why isn't Elian back
home, or on his way back home tonight? Or is it that your
agency continues to pander to the political climate in Miami
and refuses to confront the truth, which is that this child
needs to be back? I mean, what needs to be done?
Commissioner Meissner. What needs to be done is that Elian
needs to be reunited with his father, and we are working as
expeditiously as possible to achieve that outcome.
Mr. Serrano. Let me ask you a question. Does that mean that
you are trying to get the family in Cuba and the family in
Miami to work out an agreement for him to return?
Commissioner Meissner. Well, I think we need to--I cannot
share with you the details of what----
Mr. Serrano. Why can't you share that with me? I mean,
there are no details to share.
I'm really trying not to join the chairman in being angry,
but I can't help but be angry. The court spoke. I will say it
one last time and I won't say it again. Everybody on both sides
of the aisle was saying let the court speak. I'm not a lawyer,
but I know enough to know that the court spoke.
Now, what is it? Are we waiting for an appeals court, for
the Supreme Court, for The Hague, for the United Nations, for
the public opinion court, for ``Judge Judy''? What are we
waiting for? Why isn't Elian on his way home?
If Elian was Haitian, he would be home already, wouldn't
he, Commissioner? If Elian was Mexican, you would have kicked
him out when he arrived. Why is he still here? Why is he not
home with his father already, and why can't you go pick him up?
Don't you have the ability to go pick him up? Didn't you just
raid 140 people somewhere--incidentally, during the Census
count----, didn't you just raid 140 people? Don't you go to my
district on a weekly, daily, hourly basis and take people out?
Why can't you send this child home, or at least say to me for
the record, ``I can't. It's too politically hot.'' You know, I
understand that. I don't agree, but I understand that.
Why is Elian still here if the court spoke? What are we
waiting for?
Commissioner Meissner. The court has spoken, and I know
this is very frustrating. What I'm telling you is that we are
working as expeditiously as we can to have Elian reunited with
his father, and we will continue to work as quickly as possible
to that end.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Let me tell you what you're going to do.
Since you won't tell me what you're going to do, let me tell
you what you're going to do.
You're going to drag this out even more. You're going to
let every court and everybody get involved in making this even
a bigger political case than it is. In the meantime, you're
going to harm this child more and more. This is at the feet of
your agency.
What you're telling us, and what I have heard from the
Attorney General, who was trying to be supportive of the
mistakes your agency made, supportive in terms of not hanging
you out to dry, is we're going to have them talk to each other.
Well, that's the same as if I was a police officer, and
somebody stole the chairman's car, and I say, ``Mr. Chairman, I
know who stole your car, but go talk to the person who stole it
and see if you can work it out so you can get your car back.''
That's not what I'm supposed to do. I'm supposed to go get the
car and give it back to the chairman, because that's what I do.
You're supposed to return that child, and you haven't returned
that child.
For the record, I want to say that it troubles me, that if
it were any other child, you would have kicked him out of the
country already. This child is here because your agency is
playing politics during a presidential election year in one
county in Florida.
Just to follow up very quickly, Mr. Chairman, we have a
situation here where, on November 25th, Elian is picked up. On
November 27th--we always say the Cuban government orchestrated
this. On the 27th, his father very quickly sent a letter to his
government, saying ``I want my son back.'' It isn't until the
8th of December, which allowed time for him to become the
poster child of the anti-Castro movement----on the 8th of
December Robert Wallace writes to him, to the father, and says,
``Oh, by the way, here are the papers you have to submit to get
your son back.'' Then, on January 10th we wait for a State
court to say well, he should come here and pick him up, which
was really ridiculous. But you folks allowed that to happen.
So I'm asking you one last time for the record, will you be
picking up Elian Gonzalez within the next 24 hours, now that
the court has spoken and the Nation is waiting--and if we're
poll takers, 64 percent of the American people want him back
right away--are you picking him up? And if not, can you tell me
what specific steps you're taking to send him back, and give me
a date certain on which Elian will be back in Cuba with his
father?
Other than that, what you're telling me is it's going to be
another political season and Elian will still at least stay
until after the presidential election.
Commissioner Meissner. Congressman, I very much want to be
able to be responsive to you on this issue. This has been an
enormously difficult issue. We have tried to handle it in a way
that is judicious, where all of the parties are concerned.
It is virtually a unique case. It is virtually
unprecedented, for a whole variety of reasons. The court has
spoken. We intend for the reunification of Elian with his
father to occur as quickly as possible. That must take place in
a way that is prompt, orderly, and fair. We are consulting with
all the parties in order to achieve that goal.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. And I know what ``orderly'' means. You
don't have the will or the desire to confront the mess you
created by going into Miami and saying this child has to go
home.
I'm not going to take the time now, because there are other
members who want to speak, but we all have a list of people you
have deported, children you have deported, children who were
not allowed to stay here 24 hours, children who stayed for
medical care, and you deported their mother and then united
them.
Elian is a political issue. Again, I repeat to you,
Commissioner, if you could just admit that to us, we could all
move on to deal with that issue. But don't tell us that you did
this for the welfare of the child, or you're trying to do it in
a proper and judicious way. This was a political decision that
took place in Miami. The people that you supervise made this
decision, and this has created a mess for us. This issue is
going to haunt this Congress, and the people who have friends
in Congress arguing with each other, not to mention the
American public.
I put this at your feet. You guys did this, and I don't
know how you're going to get out of this mess. But please,
don't insult my intelligence by telling me that you did this
because you wanted to protect this child. You did it because
there's that one county where everything falls by the wayside,
and they have their own rules down there and you guys bought
right into it.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN MEDICAL CARE
Madam Commissioner, I share the concerns that have been
expressed by the chairman, and in a different way by the
ranking member, about the management of this agency. I have the
greatest admiration for you as an individual and respect for
you as a person, but I have to tell you that I think the
leadership of the agency has been woefully inadequate. I think
it's borne out today by the frustrations that you're hearing
today.
I want to talk about at least one area, and I hope to get
to a couple of them, but I want to talk about one in
particular. This has to do with the problem of reimbursements
to local communities when emergency medical service is
provided.
You have Federal case law, the case of the City of El
Centro versus the United States. It says that when an injured
illegal alien is in the custody of the INS, it is the INS' duty
to reimburse the medical facility for the costs of the care
that is given.
But that's a very straightforward case there, the El Centro
case. But what's actually happening on the ground, let me--Mr.
Chairman, if I could, I would like to place in the record a
letter from the Administrator of the Copper Queen Community
Hospital in Bisbee, AZ.
Mr. Kolbe. Let me just quote from one part of this letter.
It's about an incident that occurred last week with a group of
illegal aliens. And I quote: ``Among this group a 49 year old
male apparently had an injury to his ankle. The Border Patrol
called the local ambulance to transport this patient to our
hospital. We evaluated the patient, called in the orthopedic
surgeon, the surgery team the next day, Saturday, performed an
open reduction for an ankle fracture.
``They had to hold the patient until Monday in a hospital
setting--you know what the cost of a hospital room is--so we
could arrange for the Mexican Consulate to arrange to take this
gentleman back to Mexico. The gentleman's care will not be paid
for under preexisting Federal programs because he was never
taken into custody. We could not discharge the patient because
he has no legal residence or health care provider to provide
continuity of care. The Border Patrol will not come on to the
hospital's property to apprehend the patient and perform their
duty.
``We are in an untenable position. When we explain the
nature of our problem to the local Border Patrol offices, we
are offered two explanations. We are told they can do nothing
about it. These explanations get their genesis as a result of
two internal directives to the Border Patrol. The first is that
they cannot go into any church, school or hospital to apprehend
illegal aliens. Second is they cannot delay the rendering of
health care by taking illegal aliens into custody and then
transporting them for care.
``We have at numerous times explained the `Catch 22' that
they have created by these directives. I have requested copies
of these directives from the local office and legal counsel in
Tucson. They will not give them to me.''
My first question is, would you provide to the committee
those directives?
Commissioner Meissner. If they're available to be provided,
I would be pleased to do so.
Mr. Kolbe. They are obviously available. I would like to
have a copy for the committee of whatever directives you have
from the national office or your local offices, in terms of the
policy to be followed in regard to providing emergency medical
services to illegal aliens when they are in the hands, if not
the legal custody, of the Border Patrol. When the Border Patrol
makes the initial contact with the ambulance company, with the
hospital or somebody to transport them to the hospital. I would
like to know what your directives are about that.
Commissioner Meissner. We will provide that.
[The information follows:]
Directives on the Policy for Providing Emergency Medical Services to
Illegal Aliens
No written policy exists directing agents not to enter
hospitals to pickup illegal aliens. In practice, the reverse is
true. When hospitals call to say a possible illegal alien is
being released from treatment, INS will dispatch an agent, if
available, to determine alienage and status. If the suspected
alien is determined to be an illegal alien, the person is taken
into custody if medically cleared to travel.
CARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS NOT IN CUSTODY
Mr. Kolbe. Let me just tell you what happened this morning
at about 7:30. There was a high-speed chase by the Border
Patrol of a van carrying suspected undocumented aliens--UDAs.
Apparently the van overturned and between 20 and 26 UDAs were
injured, requiring medical attention from local hospitals. Now,
this hospital in question is so tiny that they all couldn't be
taken to that one, so they had to be spread out, I'm sure,
between Douglas and Bisbee, and perhaps even to Sierra Vista.
At least one was medivaced by helicopter to the medical center
in Tucson. Not one of these UDAs was taken into custody by the
Border Patrol.
Do you have a Border Patrol internal memorandum to the
effect they are not to take these people into custody?
Commissioner Meissner. I'll have to check on what the
internal memorandum trail is. But the overall issue here is
that we are responsible for the care and medical expenses of
aliens when they are in our custody. We don't take them into
custody simply for the purposes of getting them to medical
care.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kolbe. Wait a minute. You've apprehended a person.
There's no question that if somebody is in one of your
detention facilities, they break their arm, you're going to
transport them to the hospital and you're going to end up
paying for it, and you're going to bring them back to the
detention center.
Commissioner Meissner. Right.
Mr. Kolbe. Now, here is somebody that's coming over the
fence in Douglas. They fall down on the other side and they
break their ankle. The Border Patrol person is there. You call
the ambulance, but you refuse to take them into custody.
Do you think it's right that the local hospital should have
to bear that cost because he fell off that fence, you didn't
prevent him from coming over, and he injured himself inside the
United States?
Commissioner Meissner. I don't think it's right. I would
like to just make reference to the conversation that we had a
few weeks ago on this issue. I think this is a serious issue
where we need to find some solutions that we don't yet have.
The situation that you describe is not acceptable for the
local hospitals, nor for the INS, because we also are not
funded for these emergency costs. There are different kinds of
authorities sprinkled throughout the Federal Government on how
these kinds of costs should be met. So it seems to me that we
really do need to follow up on the pilot project that we did in
Arizona and work together with you and other border states on
what appropriate machinery needs to be put into place to deal
with this burden.
Mr. Kolbe. Have you asked the Congress--As I said, if this
occurs when it's in your detention facility, you obviously have
something in your budget for that kind of medical cost. Have
you asked the Congress, ``Look, we can't put this burden on
these local hospitals. These people are here in the United
States because of a failure of the Border Patrol to keep them
from coming into the country.'' I think that's an accurate
statement from a legal standpoint. They've gotten into the
country illegally.
It's a Federal responsibility. It ought not be the
responsibility of that local hospital to have to bear that
cost.
Commissioner Meissner. The Administration has asked for
those funds, and those funds have been appropriated. But they
are funds that are for reimbursements to states----
Mr. Kolbe. To states, to Medicaid.
Commissioner Meissner. Exactly.
So then it is the states that dole out the money and small
border hospitals may not be getting----
Mr. Kolbe. If you would take that person into custody right
there at the border, as you're calling the hospital, you just
wave a magic wand over them and say they're in custody, we're
doing the processing here a little later, but we're going to
get you to the hospital for medical treatment. But if you
acknowledge they were in your custody, you would have to bear
that cost and we would have to provide the funds, not through
Medicaid to the states, but from you for it.
Commissioner Meissner. That would probably be one way of
doing it.
Mr. Kolbe. Isn't that the fair way to do it for these
hospitals? I mean, we're killing these hospitals. They're
dying.
Commissioner Meissner. I don't know if that's the fair way
to do it. I mean, the fact of the matter is that that would set
up an entirely new funding line for health care through the
Immigration Service, and that maybe is the way to resolve this.
But that is certainly not a decision that has yet been made by
either the Congress or the Administration.
DETAINING ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM LOCAL HOSPITALS
Mr. Kolbe. So you call the ambulance. You know the person
is an illegal. They fall on the ground, you call the ambulance,
he's transported to the hospital, but you have a directive that
says you will not come on to the hospital property, is that
correct? Apparently that's what----
Commissioner Meissner. I don't----
Mr. Kolbe. I mean, I would like to see if there is such a
directive.
Commissioner Meissner. Okay. For the purposes of providing
health care, particularly in an emergency situation, we would
look to health care professionals to do that.
Mr. Kolbe. If a rancher calls and says there's 20 of them
sitting in my yard here, eventually the Border Patrol will come
and pick those people up. They will come and do their duty of
apprehending them.
Why, if the hospital calls and says we're about to
discharge this illegal immigrant here, why won't you come and
pick them up and transport them back to the border?
Commissioner Meissner. Well, if they were never in our
custody, then we don't have custody of them. But again,
Congressman----
Mr. Kolbe. That's a ``Catch 22'' if I ever heard one.
Commissioner Meissner. Congressman, I am not trying to
create a set of barriers here. I really do believe that this is
a problem that we need to solve.
Mr. Kolbe. You just told me, if I call you as a rancher and
say there's 22 illegal aliens sitting here in my yard, you
don't have custody of them at that point but you'll send
somebody to investigate and get them, right?
Commissioner Meissner. That's correct.
Mr. Kolbe. That's what your agents do all the time. They're
out there following up on leads, when somebody calls, or they
see somebody or somebody spots them, they'll do that.
So here I am, the administrator of a hospital. ``Hello,
Border Patrol. I've got one I'm about to release. Would you
please come and transport him back to the border?''
I think the message you're saying is, ``Mr. Illegal Alien,
the sure way to get to Chicago, to your job, is to sprain your
ankle coming over the fence. Then you'll get to a hospital and
then somebody can take you from the hospital directly to the
bus station and nobody will ever touch you.''
Is that not what you're saying?
Commissioner Meissner. That certainly is not the intended
message.
Mr. Kolbe. I think it's exactly the message that we're
getting from it.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, just very quickly on one other
area.
Mr. Rogers. Very quickly.
HARDENING OF THE BORDERS
Mr. Kolbe. I understand. I know there are many members here
who have questions.
Very quickly somewhat along the same lines. As you know, as
a result of tightening the border at El Paso, San Diego, and
now even at Nogalas, INS is pushing UDAs into the rural areas
of Arizona and now into New Mexico. There are now an enormous
number of people going through our national forests and now
through the national conservation area of the San Pedro
National Conservation Area, which is a natural river that runs
from Mexico into the United States. The result is absolute
devastation. I mean, there's no other word to describe it. It's
devastation, making paths through this riparian area that we
thought we were protecting. It's now in much worse shape than
it was 15 years ago before we created the national conservation
area. Thousands, tens of thousands of water jugs littering the
area through there, campsites, the burning of logs. It's
catastrophic. There's no other way to describe it.
Do you, in the first instance, consider, when you make
these decisions about hardened border--you must know where
you're going to be driving these people--do you have a policy,
a consultation with local officials, about here's the problem,
it's coming your way? Do you alert them to this in advance, or
do you just wait for that to happen?
Commissioner Meissner. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Kolbe. So you're saying the local officials were
alerted before the hardening of the borders, you said to the
local officials in Arizona that this flood is about to descend
on you?
Commissioner Meissner. Yes. But I must tell you that this
is a very temporary situation, and the kind of environmental
damage that you're talking about is something that we have
experienced in other places and have been very successful in
overcoming very quickly. Because as soon as we get control, the
environment is one of the first positive beneficiaries of that.
Outstanding and very vivid examples of that are in the San
Diego area, exactly as you're describing--campsites, water
jugs, damage to the flora and fauna. Those areas are absolutely
revitalized today, and that will happen in Arizona.
CROSS-CERTIFICATION OF AGENTS FROM OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr. Kolbe. My last question, Madam Commissioner, because my
time is up.
What legal authority do you have with other Federal
agencies, like the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
to cross-certify their agents? Do they have any authority to
detain illegal aliens or not, and if not, what legal authority
do we need to have in order for that to happen?
Commissioner Meissner. We do have authority to cross train
and cross designate. We do that all the time.
Mr. Kolbe. You do cross designate?
Commissioner Meissner. We do that all the time with the
Customs Service.
Mr. Kolbe. With Customs. Is that the only agency?
Commissioner Meissner. I don't know. I would have to check
on what the possibilities are with other Federal agencies.
Mr. Kolbe. We have a real need in that area in the Forest
Service, because they say they have no authority to detain
these people.
Commissioner Meissner. We can certainly pursue that and
look into that.
Mr. Kolbe. We will certainly pursue that more.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Cross-Certification of Agents From Other Federal Agencies
Provisions of law and regulation allow the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to delegate or
confer immigration law enforcement authority on National Park
Service and Forest Service officials. Section 103(a)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) charges the Attorney
General with the Administration and enforcement of the INA and
all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization
of aliens. By regulation, the Attorney General has delegated
this authority to the Commissioner of the (INS) and the
authority to delegate this same authority to any officer or
employee of the INS (sec. 8 CFR 2.1 of the Code of Federal
Regulations).
The Attorney General may also confer or impose on any
employee of the United States Government, with the consent of
the employee's department head, any of the powers or duties
conferred or imposed by the INA (sec. 103(a)(6) of the INA).
Likewise, by regulation, the Commissioner may also confer or
impose on any employee of the United States Government, with
the consent of the employee's department head, any of the
powers or duties conferred or imposed by the Act (sec. 28 CFR
0.108). However, such delegation of enforcement authority has
not been made. At this time, a delegation is not being
considered.
Mr. Rogers. We'll have time for the gentleman to pursue
that on a second round.
Mr. Dixon.
AGENT TELLEZ CASE
Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome you to the committee, Commissioner
Meissner.
My first question to you is, did you have a nice morning?
[Laughter.]
I don't want to pile on to you, but I have a series of
questions I would like you to answer in writing. One deals with
the Department of Justice Inspector General's report concerning
an employee that I think has been severed, Agent Tellez. I
would like to know all the facts, circumstances, surrounding
that case and whether your agency did any independent
investigation or relied entirely on the Inspector General's
report. It has really nothing to do with the INS. It's another
issue that I'm pursuing in a different life.
Commissioner Meissner. Okay. We'll be happy to provide
that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Information on Agent Tellez' Case
Upon review of the December 1997 Office of Inspector
General (OIG) special report titled ``The CIA-Contra-Crack
Cocaine Controversy: A Review of the Justice Department's
Investigations and Prosecutions'', the INS Office of Internal
Audit forwarded findings regarding a single INS employee to the
appropriate INS management official for consideration of
corrective action. Specifically, the investigation had
disclosed that through this employee's actions, an individual
with a criminal background was allowed to adjust his status to
that of Lawful Permanent Resident. After the OIG cleared for
release those portions of its report dealing with this
incident, disciplinary action was proposed based on the OIG
findings. The disciplinary action was effected September 26,
1999.
BORDER PATROL AGENT PAY REFORM
Mr. Dixon. I noticed in your prepared statement that you
touch upon changing the pay scale, I guess, of new Border
Patrol agents, and that is to improve retention and
recruitment. I'm wondering if you can provide for me any
written materials or studies--I'm asking how did this
originate? Is this just an idea that has come to someone, or
has there been a study made? Have the unions been contacted and
asked about it and so forth. If you would provide any material
that you are basing this recommendation on.
As I understand it, you're asking for statutory language to
change so that it can occur? It's not clear to me.
Commissioner Meissner. If I could speak to that just
briefly, what we call pay reform, which is a comprehensive pay
reform package, that is part of the Administration's budget
request for 2001. The pay reform package involves Border Patrol
agents, inspectors, and also detention and deportation
officers. It is a mixture of steps, changes that we can make,
and language and authority that's required from the Congress.
It's based on extensive analysis. We would be very anxious
to provide that analysis to you. It is based fundamentally on
the increasing complexity of the jobs that these people
perform. It is, we believe, going to improve our retention and
our overall professionalism. It also will improve the
management of the agency, because it includes overtime reform,
that puts us into line with all other Federal law enforcement
agencies, that has not yet taken place in the Immigration
Service.
Mr. Dixon. All right. I would just like to see that
material.
Commissioner Meissner. We would be happy to provide it.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INVESTIGATION IN LOS ANGELES
Mr. Dixon. There are two other issues that I would like you
to respond to in writing.
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and I had a conversation with
you about the situation in Los Angeles, and I do believe that
in that conversation you indicated that there had been a
request made of the Inspector General of Justice to look into
the INS situation in Los Angeles.
I am now told that there was not really a formal request
made but an inquiry made as to whether they were planning to
look at it. So would you follow up and provide precisely what
happened in that situation? Did you request of the Attorney
General that she request the Inspector General? Was it a very
informal situation or what?
Commissioner Meissner. I'll be happy to provide that
information.
I might also tell you, as an update to the conversation
that we did have, that our Office of Internal Audit has been
intensively investigating the administrative issues in the
LAPD/INS situation. There is a separate investigation, a
criminal investigation, taking place under the leadership of
the U.S. Attorney, involving the FBI and the Inspector General.
That INS administrative investigation has now been going on
for about four weeks. We've made very, very substantial
progress. We have been asked to stand down for the next two
weeks while the civil rights issues involved in the criminal
investigation are investigated. We will then complete our work.
We believe it will be completed soon thereafter, and we will
then share it with you and act upon it.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Investigation in Los Angeles
The INS's Office of Internal Audit (OIA) is conducting an
investigation to establish the facts surrounding INS and Los
Angeles Police Department enforcement activity connected to the
``18th Street Gang'' in Los Angeles. Some of the issues being
investigated have been raised in the media, including
allegations that INS officials did not act upon reports of Los
Angeles Police Department mistreatment of individuals
apprehended during that enforcement activity. The OIA is aware
of the references made to an ``INS report'' in the media, and
has included authenticating that report in its planned
investigative activity. Due to the fact that the Department of
Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG), at the request of
the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of
California, has recently initiated investigative activity,
which overlaps that planned by the OIA, the OIA is holding in
abeyance interviews of INS employees who could possibly
identify and authenticate the report. The OIA will resume its
investigation as soon as the OIG has concluded its work.
Mr. Dixon. Finally, Commissioner, just an observation. I
think the immigration law and the issue of immigration is one
of the most controversial issues in our society today, and it's
probably due to the diversity of our society and the diversity
of ethnicity and political philosophy in our society.
No matter how you handle the situation, because of an
loverlap of what I view as conflicting law on immigration,
because of differences of opinion, you have a very difficult
job. I'm not saying that I don't agree with the chairman and
the ranking members and others who have criticized you, because
as the Commissioner, you take the heat.
I do personally believe that you have some serious problems
in your Service that you are not responsible for creating, but
we look to you to make your mark in remedying them. I think
I've said that to you privately. In Los Angeles, I am convinced
that there are some serious problems among the personnel,
whether it's a conflict with management, or whatever it is,
when you look at the way they have conducted themselves. And
I'm not talking about irregularities, but how they have
postioned themselves with the newspaper in Los Angeles. I mean,
they were the first out of the box to say ``the police made me
do it.'' Then it was ``the FBI made us do it.'' Then there was
a memo that said ``This is how we can cooperate.'' Those, along
with other things, are symptomatic that there's something wrong
out there within the INS, either at the regional level or the
local level.
I would encourage you, as I encouraged the Attorney
General, to look at that very carefully. I'm not accusing them
of violating the law, but there is something with the morale
and/or management structure that I think needs fixing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Taylor.
Citizenship USA
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Commissioner, until a few weeks ago, I had thought
that bringing up the issue of the Citizenship USA program from
1996 would be beating a dead horse, but that horse is very much
alive. I saw that the Charlotte Observer just printed that your
office has ordered the Charlotte INS office to bring in 8,700
people, to naturalize that many applicants between now and
September, a little over five months.
Last year, the entire North Carolina delegation signed a
letter expressing our strong concern with the backlog of cases
across the board in Charlotte--not just naturalization cases,
but all sorts of cases that are backlogged. Now, just when we
think we're making some progress. You remove five people and
assign them this massive number of naturalization cases by
September.
It appears that you only take any attention of the
Charlotte office during a presidential year. Of course, we know
the shameful situation that happened here in 1996, where
pandering politicians, so corrupt and bent on their self
interest that they didn't care about the risk to the American
people of murder or rape or anything else, put this program in
place.
Is that going to happen again? Are we going to have the
same thing happen in 2000 that we had in 1996? If so, can you
tell us why?
Commissioner Meissner. Mr. Congressman, the naturalization
program has been entirely revamped and reworked. It has been
revamped and reworked based on integrity as the most important
objective, and procedures that are consistent and effective.
Those procedures and those integrity processes have been
validated three times by outside audits, and are reviewed
continuously by internal monitoring.
One of the ways that we have been able to get the
naturalization program back on its feet, once procedures and
the integrity was restored, was to manage very closely and
tightly the production of backlogs that had accumulated around
the country. Unfortunately, our Charlotte office had been one
of the most backlogged offices in the country. In fact, it may
have been the most backlogged. I would have to check that.
We have had some serious problems in Charlotte, and we have
been working to address them--problems in staffing, problems in
leadership, and problems in productivity. We have been managing
in order to overcome those issues. I don't know about the memo
that you're referring to, but I suspect that it is a memo that
deals with production expectations that is similar for all
offices around the country.
I will be certain to take a look at it, but I think I can
quite confidently say that we are not asking anything of that
office that we are not asking of our other offices--to ask our
managers to meet national standards and to be productive
according to the resources that we and this committee and the
Congress have provided.
Mr. Taylor. Well, I don't want to blame the Charlotte
office or indicate that it's their fault at all, because--and I
met the head there--I think they were making progress. But the
order came from up here, not in Charlotte, to process and
naturalize these citizens in the next five months. It looks
like we're playing '96 all over again.
We have 3,000 green cards applied for and it takes about 18
months. We're now being told it's going to take about 25 months
for green cards, while we put through this naturalization
process by September.
While we welcome legal citizens into this country, there is
no rush to have them here by election time, as opposed to any
other time during the four-year period. We also have community
colleges and colleges themselves who are asking students to
come in. They're recruiting students. They have to wait on this
process now. We have citizens coming in to conduct business,
which many times will be in our favor as well as the foreign
country's. They have to wait to get in. All these things have
to be put on hold for the September certification of citizens,
and it's primarily for the election process.
It reminds me of what we have seen in the past, and that
gives me real concern. So I would hope we could have a natural
process of naturalization, and an orderly process for the other
concerns that the office handles.
We've had a lot of Eastern European countries from which it
takes a good deal of time to process visas. These people are
coming here to learn about America in most cases, and we're
saying to them, ``We'll let citizens in without checking
perhaps, as in '96, their felony records and so forth. We will
turn felons loose on the American public, but it's going to
take us a long time to see whether you can come in and visit.''
I would hope we could level the flow and not focus on this
election but instead focus on the conduct of the office itself.
Collection of Fees From Foreign Students
One other question, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask.
We require the community colleges and colleges now, in the so-
called CIPRIS program, I believe it is, to collect the fees of
foreign students. It would seem to me that that should be your
office's obligation as they apply to come in, rather than
putting that burden on a lot of the small schools. A lot of
small schools do not have the staff to do it, and keep in
touch, follow up, and do all of the other things required. Is
it possible for your office to do that upon application, rather
than putting that burden on the colleges?
Commissioner Meissner. Mr. Taylor, the requirement that
schools collect the fees is a statutory requirement. It's a
requirement that we have published regulations to implement. We
have received more than 3,000 comments, most of them negative,
in the way that you have described. So there needs to be a
statutory change here. We have some ideas on how that might
occur, and I hope we can work with the Congress to revisit that
statutory requirement as it presently exists.
But I really must say something further about
naturalization, if I might, because I have to very strenuously
disagree with the conclusion that you're reaching.
Naturalization has been, for the last two to three years,
since the Citizenship USA program and the fixing required from
that program, the first priority in our Service's work, for
both the INS and the Congress. We came to the Congress more
than two years ago with our estimates of what it would take. We
laid out our production goals. We have received funding from
the Congress to meet those production goals. We are on track to
meet those production goals. What that requires is that every
office do their part to reach those production goals.
Mr. Taylor. How many citizens did you naturalize in 1999
through the Charlotte office?
Commissioner Meissner. I could get you the number for the
Charlotte office. I know the number nationally, but I don't
know that office individually.
Mr. Taylor. I would bet it's way below 8,700, the number
for the five months that the order has given. That's what gives
us concern.
Commissioner Meissner. Let me provide you with what the
production issues in the Charlotte office have been and with
what we're doing to address them.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Commissioner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Regula.
Immigration Judges
Mr. Regula. Yes, just a couple of questions.
I think we have restricted the judicial discretion of
immigration judges statutorily. Do you think we've gone too
far? Do you think the judges need greater discretion in dealing
with cases?
Commissioner Meissner. We do believe that there is room for
some increased discretion for immigration judges and for INS
officials, yes.
Border Patrol in the Cleveland Forest
Mr. Regula. As you know, I fund the U.S. Forest Service in
the Interior appropriations bill, and I would like to commend
you for the increased Border Patrol agents in the Cleveland
National Forest.
But I understand there's a problem that still exists there.
Illegal immigrants are being told in Mexico that it's just a
six hour walk across the border through the Cleveland Natural
Forest, but in reality, it's a two day walk. One area of the
forest has reported they have found a thousand hot campfires
last year and removed 25,000 pounds of trash.
Are you contemplating increasing the number of Border
Patrol people in the Cleveland National Forest? Is it a serious
problem?
Commissioner Meissner. It is a serious problem, and it is a
problem that, as I said in my conversation with Mr. Kolbe, is a
temporary problem. It is a matter of gaining greater control
across areas of the border that have traditionally been heavily
crossed. As we gain that control, there are temporary shifts
that we will then need to address. The Cleveland National
Forest happens to be one that, right now, represents a weak
link or loophole. We are addressing that and we will continue
to address it. That will be overcome.
Mr. Regula. I understand from the Forest Service that one
of the problems is there's a lot of turnover in your agents
there and they don't really have time to develop a coordinating
relationship with the Forest Service personnel.
Is this a problem, in your view, and are you going to
increase the numbers in the Cleveland National Forest area?
Commissioner Meissner. The numbers are being increased
along that section of the border. We have gone through dramatic
growth, and so we have a very large proportion of very new
agents in our law enforcement cadre. Of course, they need to
establish the relationships, develop the liaison. That
coordination and that communication is central to our
enforcement efforts. That information sharing and, as you say,
that communication, is critical to being able to do law
enforcement effectively. We encourage that and support it, and
continue to promote it at every point.
Mr. Regula. Well, we have urged the Forest Service to work
in cooperation with your agents to deal with this problem,
because I think there is an overlap.
Are there any ways you could suggest to improve the
interagency cooperation between the Forest Service and the
Border Patrol to have more effective enforcement there?
Commissioner Meissner. I think, perhaps, this is a
situation where there actually are very positive relationships
on the ground at the working level. I think when you use the
word ``interagency'', it comes to my mind that we probably have
not sat down at a headquarters level, at least not for a while,
and basically walked through, at a leadership level, what we're
doing and where we're going and what things might be able to be
done to support those efforts on the ground.
Mr. Regula. I might suggest that it probably would be well
for the two agencies to have some additional communications to
see if we can't get a better handle on the problem, because
obviously it's an area where there's a lot of traffic of
illegals trying to breach the border.
Commissioner Meissner. I think that's a very good
suggestion, and I will be pleased to follow up on that.
Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Latham.
IMMIGRATION PROCESSING BACKLOG
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to associate myself with your comments, and
also with Mr. Serrano's comments. I find it amazing how the
political process takes precedent over the law around here.
I have some real concerns. First of all, it is so
unfortunate that people in my district, in my State, have
absolutely no confidence in INS. It seems like everything that
your agency tries to initiate, whether it's QRTs or Operation
Vanguard or whatever somehow blows up and backfires and no one
is happy.
It is so discouraging. I would say 50 percent of the time
spent in my office is dealing with screw-ups at INS. People are
outraged with your agency. It's a horrible indictment of what
has happened, but it's the truth. It is so unfortunate.
Everybody talks about the enforcement part of it, which is
very, very important. I think one of the most disheartening
parts of INS is that the people who are trying to come in
legally, who go through the paperwork, in the Lincoln region,
they send in their application, the check is attached to it,
that's photographed and deposited that day, and the application
then is just stuck away in a box. There are rooms full of boxes
of applications that sit there for months.
Can you address that at all? I have a lot of folks at home
that are waiting and waiting and waiting for a response. The
check has been cashed but there's no answer, nothing.
Commissioner Meissner. The workloads on our four service
centers, which includes Lincoln, are extraordinary. They have
grown at very rapid rates in recent years, just as our legal
immigration has grown, as are increases that have been made
to--for instance, statutes that have been passed, the Haitian
refugee adjustment legislation, the increase in H1Bs from
65,000 to 115,000. There have been a whole series of measures
that have been enacted in recent years that have extended or
exacerbated workload issues, where legal immigration and
services to legal immigrants and U.S. citizens are concerned.
Now, we have been doing as aggressive a job as we can at
streamlining procedures, at introducing automation, at
developing telephone call centers. Recently the chairman and I
had the pleasure of opening one of those centers in Kentucky.
We have just opened a new centralized file and records center
in Missouri, where we will be centralizing 25 million new paper
A files so that we will eliminate the problem of lost files.
But I think we have to face up to the fact that,
realistically, the way things are established right now, we
must pay for all of those activities out of fees that are paid
to us by the immigrants; those checks you're talking about that
are taken from the applications. That fee revenue is simply not
sufficient, both to process timely and to make the
infrastructure and capital investments that we need to make in
order to modernize the machinery through which we do this work.
This budget has a proposal in it for what's called an
Immigration Services Capital Investment Account. It is an
account that is intended to address that deficiency by
providing a source of revenue and a mechanism for funding
infrastructure improvements, capital improvements, automation,
and backlog reduction. It rests heavily on a business premium
fee, which is discussed in the budget documents, and which I
would be happy to elaborate on if people have questions. But it
is absolutely critical that we enact that kind of a
strengthening of the revenue base and funding for our services,
in order for us to deal with these workloads and with the
modernization that is required.
Mr. Latham. It's interesting that there's no other agency
that has gotten larger increases than INS.
Commissioner Meissner. I don't know that there's another
agency that has had as large workload increases.
QUICK RESPONSE TEAMS--QRT
Mr. Latham. Well, I'm not sure it's the system in place, or
whether you blame the bureaucracy or whatever, but I will tell
you, in observing this now for four years first-hand, it
doesn't matter what you say in Washington because nobody in the
region listens to you, and nobody out in the field listens to
them. There is absolutely no order of command that anyone
listens to each other. You have your little regional kingdoms
out here and it doesn't seem to matter at all. The message
somewhere is not getting through to anyone. That is a
management problem, when you have no accountability inside the
system, and no one is responsible for anything.
We have people who are designated in our QRT in Sioux City
who are working way out of the area that specifically they're
assigned to. Who made that decision? We're supposed to have
five people in Sioux City working in the QRT. Half the time
they're out in western Nebraska somewhere, not even part of the
region. Who made that decision?
Commissioner Meissner. That is not something I've been
aware of, and I will be very anxious to know that and to look
into it.
Mr. Latham. Who has the authority?
Commissioner Meissner. That QRT is responsible to the
District Director.
Mr. Latham. Isn't there a directive and an assignment when
the QRTs are set up, that they have specifically so many
counties in Iowa, so many counties in Nebraska, to operate in?
Commissioner Meissner. They have a territory that they're
responsible for.
Mr. Latham. And they're not in their territory. They're out
doing something else. And there's a management problem. No one
is accountable for anything. How you can sit here and say that
we need more money or we need to raise fees or something, when
we can't even manage the system that's in place. I think that
is somewhat outrageous. The people who work for you won't even
listen. How can you expect anything to be accomplished if
there's no accountability in the system? No one seems to give a
damn out there what happens to law-abiding citizens. You're
letting criminals out on the street here. Only 37 percent of
them are convicted felons that you're turning back on our
public.
It is absolutely outrageous. When you read the Inspector
General's report and the railway killer down there, picked up
four times by the Border Patrol, and they had not even been
trained, under a $65 million system that we had put in place to
catch those very people. Most of them didn't even know about
it.
Isn't that correct? Isn't that what the IG said?
Commissioner Meissner. The IG said that the investigators
in the Houston office had no sufficient knowledge of the IDENT
system. The Border Patrol----
Mr. Latham. Some of them didn't even know it existed, or
what it was for.
Commissioner Meissner. Well, the fact of the matter is that
we have checked back on that, and those individual agents
involved in that particular case have each been trained three
separate times regarding IDENT.
Mr. Latham. Apparently it says something about the training
system, then. Because of that, four people are dead, U.S.
citizens, and one of them in the chairman's home state.
Commissioner Meissner. It clearly does. I do not apologize
for that lapse. It was a shocking and serious----
Mr. Latham. You don't apologize for it?
Commissioner Meissner. I'm sorry. I don't defend that
lapse. It was a serious breakdown. But the fact of the matter
is that those agents, indeed, were trained, and we need to
revise the training, obviously, based on what we've learned
from this experience.
NEW DETENTION FACILITIES
Mr. Latham. You know what is most disheartening for me is I
hate to bring up anything new because nothing has worked yet,
but last year, in our bill, we had $500,000 for planning for a
detention facility that was going to be in Grand Island, NE.
Apparently that is not going to happen, now that INS determined
the numbers, don't justify it, even though our jails locally
are overflowing at home. They're trying to build new jails in
every county in my district to take care of the need, but
apparently it is not enough to justify it.
Your statement last year was that there was a compelling
need, in the testimony you gave me, for this facility out
there. Now the INS is saying that no, it's not necessary. There
seems to be some kind of a contradiction here.
If we don't need new detention facilities, what would you
say we should do?
Commissioner Meissner. We do need detention capability in
the Midwest. We don't believe that Grand Island is the place
right now, but we are working with the Marshals Service on
what's called a cooperative agreement program--CAP, which is an
established arrangement for guaranteed space in Nebraska that
will meet those needs.
Mr. Latham. Do you have a suggested location for it?
Commissioner Meissner. I would have to check with the
Marshals Service on where the location is.
Mr. Latham. You say there is a need in your budget request,
but there is no money, no request for a Midwest detention
center.
Commissioner Meissner. There is a very substantial amount
of detention money in our budget, and we will be able to meet
these needs out of----
Mr. Latham. There is no request for a facility in the
Midwest.
Commissioner Meissner. No. We would propose to do this out
of agreements with existing facilities, which is far more cost
effective.
Mr. Latham. I think I just stated that we're overflowing in
the counties, and local law enforcement cannot--they don't have
room. Every county in my district needs to build a jail right
now because of the meth and because of illegal aliens. So I
don't know where you're going to put these people.
I'm getting two different answers. It's yeah, we have a
problem, we need to have detention facilities, but no, we don't
have any money in our budget and we're going to do it some
other way. I don't understand.
Commissioner Meissner. No, that's not what I've said. What
I have said is that we believe----
Mr. Latham. It's not in your budget, and you're saying
we're going to pay somebody else to keep them.
Commissioner Meissner. I've said that we believe that we
can meet the detention needs through an arrangement of
guaranteed space with a state or a local facility. We would, of
course, pay for that out of INS budget moneys.
Mr. Latham. My point is, there is no space. Where are you
finding this space that you're going to pay for?
Commissioner Meissner. I don't know the location, and I
will get the location to you.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Location of the New Detention Facility
The building of a detention facility requires extensive
infrastructure support, especially for a facility that could
serve the needs of the INS in the Midwest. The Grand Island,
Nebraska area does not have the necessary infrastructure to
support such a detention facility. The location lacks
sufficient legal services for aliens, transportation support
(including available commercial air), consular offices, medical
facilities, housing and other services.
Neither the Grand Island area nor the Omaha District
generates sufficient apprehensions to justify such a facility.
Grand Island is not a location central to the offices
generating most of the workload or central to the
transportation corridors. It is quite distant from major
centers of INS activity, and due to its severe weather and lack
of commercial air, it would be difficult at times to move
aliens in and out of the facility. The average distance to
Grand Island from the four districts it would support ranges
from 180 miles to Omaha to 520 miles to Chicago. More promising
locations for such a facility would be Des Moines, Kansas City,
and St. Louis. These locations would also be more promising in
terms of providing support to INS eastern region districts.
A detention facility would house large numbers of criminal
aliens, most of which would be from outside the Nebraska area.
These individuals have the right to appear before immigration
judges to determine their immigration status. These aliens are
entitled to legal counsel, which is insufficient in the Grand
Island area, and which would be difficult to provide for such a
population so far away from major population centers.
In some cases detainees are released from detention on bond
or recognizance. Thus, the Grand Island area would need to
provide the ability to house some of these individuals and
their relatives for short periods of time, and also have the
available transportation for them to move in and out of the
area without much difficulty. Grand Island only has a small
regional airport that operates only 12 hours a day, no train
service except for freight, and bus service via Greyhound with
7 daily runs.
Mr. Latham. I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I've taken
enough time.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Miller. We have two votes on the floor in
series. We could do a few minutes of questioning now or return.
Which would you prefer?
Mr. Miller. I'll take at least five minutes, but we don't
have the time, do we?
Mr. Rogers. No, we don't. Why don't you go ahead and start.
INS RESPONSIVENESS
Mr. Miller. One of the most important things Members of
Congress do is constituent services back home. You're the
ombudsman for the people in your district, whether it's a
Medicare problem, a Social Security problem, or an IRS problem.
But just as everyone else is saying, INS is our biggest
problem, mainly because of the inability to get answers and
cooperation with INS. It has been going on forever. This is my
eighth year in Congress, and INS has been our biggest problem
ever since day one. It's a tremendous frustration, and everyone
else is sharing the same story. It's not a partisan issue. It's
this feeling that when we talk to the INS we're just spinning
our wheels and wasting our time.
The IRS has had a dramatic turnaround in the past few
years. At the level of constituent casework, we just don't have
the problems that we used to have with them. But we deal with a
lot of agencies. Medicare and Social Security are other huge
examples. Our district has more seniors than almost any other
in the country, and we're able to get things done and we get
quick, responsive action. We can get straight answers. The
problem is that people, when they call INS, just can't get
answers. They hit a roadblock. They get so frustrated that they
turn to us, and then we get frustrated.
The one good thing I can say is that the Tampa office has
improved. They at least have one person assigned there that our
office can talk to. This person will give us answers. We
appreciate that. That's our problem, that we just can't get
answers ourselves. But it seems like the Tampa office is short
staffed and this person has so many other things going on that,
you can't always get through to this person.
Most of our problems are with the Texas service center.
Someone else talked about Charlotte, someone talked about Iowa.
Our problem is with the Texas center. It takes forever to get
answers from them. In fact, my staff gave me a list of files
that I have here, the cases we can't get responses from. Here's
a constituent that has files in San Francisco and moved to our
area. We opened the case on June 15th and still have no
response. Here's another case, also opened in June. It was
denied August 2nd. We requested an explanation six months ago,
on September 29th, and we still can't get a response. So it's
list after list where we can't get responses.
A constituent called the INS 800 number and got five
different answers. That's the frustration we're experiencing,
and everyone else is experiencing that same frustration. How
would you advise us to get straight answers? We have to do
something about this. The Texas service center is really a
problem area.
When our district directors from all over the country
gather for a meeting like the one they had here last fall, the
common problem with every district director was the INS.
Whether you're from Florida or Kentucky or New York, you can't
get answers and can't get responses, or you get conflicting
answers.
I want to ask a question about this issue of--I don't know
if I have time.
Mr. Rogers. Let me interrupt you.
Mr. Miller. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. Why don't you hold that thought, and we'll go
vote and return.
Mr. Miller. Okay, great. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. We will be in recess.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there's a
scheduling problem here, but what I would like to do, Mr.
Chairman, is I have a series of questions I would like to
submit for the record, with your permission, and secondly, if
you would allow me, I would like to submit the judge's decision
on the Elian Gonzalez case, since it's very important for this
whole hearing.
Mr. Rogers. Let them be filed.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order.
Mr. Miller, you're recognized.
DETENTION AND REMOVAL PROGRAM
Mr. Miller. Madam Commissioner, let me ask a couple of
questions about the detention and removal programs.
In my area, in Bradenton, FL, we do have a detention
facility, an INS detention facility. It's leased from the local
sheriff. It has been a good partnership. It is staffed by the
local sheriff's office and the INS pays them. It's only a mile
from my office. We have very little contact actually with them,
but when we do, it works very smoothly.
However, we do have a problem there. When that facility was
originally taken over as an INS facility, the intention was a
very short-term stay to process deportations, as you know. Now,
over two-thirds of the beds in the facility are occupied by
permanent, nonreturnable aliens. So now it has changed from the
original intent. The budget for detention has increased, as you
know, dramatically over these years.
In December of last year, there was a group of Cubans who
were held in Louisiana and took some hostages, and created a
stand-off situation, in order to negotiate their return to
Cuba. At the conclusion of this episode, a deal was reached to
return them to Cuba. A deal was reached only after this hostage
situation developed.
So, we were able to return them to Cuba, but we couldn't do
it beforehand, only afterwards. How are we able to do that when
in my area we have people from the Bahamas, Haiti and Jamaica,
and we can't get them returned? What can we do to try to speed
that up? It's very costly.
Commissioner Meissner. Mr. Miller, this is a very
significant issue that you've pointed to. It is part of the
issue that we were talking about earlier, in terms of criminal
aliens and our responsibility to detain them and return them.
Many of the criminal aliens in your district and in that
facility are, indeed, Cubans, and so that is, of course, an
issue with the Cuban government because it does not accept the
return of its nationals.
Mr. Miller. They accepted that one group in Louisiana.
Commissioner Meissner. Well, that, unfortunately, was the
result of a hostage situation. That is not the way in which,
obviously, we would want to carry out returns to a country. But
Cuba is a country just like Vietnam and Laos, where we don't
have normal migration relationships, and where those countries
refuse to accept the return of their nationals. Cuba accepts
some, but not nearly the numbers that are deportable, to return
to Cuba. That, obviously, is something that we work on with
them all the time.
In the cases of the other countries, we are in negotiation.
It is a diplomatic process. We just returned from a trip with a
delegation with Vietnam to try to open up that relationship for
return. Then there are countries like Jamaica, as you say,
where we have a very difficult time getting them to issue
travel documents. We work with the State Department very
intensively on that, as well.
But these issues of returning people are constant issues of
concern; where we have every interest in effecting the return
and in reducing the amount of time in detention. But it is
difficult.
Mr. Miller. Didn't we make it a part of the new immigration
laws to make it possible to start the deportation process when
the people are in jail, to get the process going, rather than
waiting until they got out? That was part of the intent.
Commissioner Meissner. And we do that.
Mr. Miller. Are we doing that?
Commissioner Meissner. Absolutely, absolutely, and we do
that very effectively in Florida, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Miller. But for countries like the Bahamas and Jamaica
and Haiti, countries we have good relationships with, what can
be done? What do we need to do to get these people deported?
It's costly to keep these people in jail in Bradenton, as you
know. What can we do to speed that up?
Commissioner Meissner. There are a variety of things. These
countries also are--some of these countries are very small and
have a very difficult time absorbing the numbers of criminals
that we're sending back. And we're sending back very
substantial numbers of criminals, particularly to some of these
small countries. There is more work going on in some of these
countries for reentry programs, for matching data, so that they
know who they're getting, so that their concerns about
dangerous people can be accommodated.
There ultimately does have to be that kind of response on
the part of these countries, to reintegrate people from their--
--
Mr. Miller. I have dealt with extradition issues and it's
been very frustrating, trying to get U.S. citizens extradited
back to the United States to stand trial. I understand the
problems, where we have no leverage over other countries,
whether it's Mexico or recently the Einhorn case with France.
What can we do to help give you or the Justice Department
the leverage you need? Do we need to pay to send them back? I
don't know. What I do know is that it's costing us money and it
would be cheaper to send them back to the Bahamas than to pay
for them to stay in Manatee County.
Commissioner Meissner. Actually, there have been proposals
over time that perhaps we ought to finance prison construction
in some of the countries where we have very large populations.
I think some of those kinds of solutions over the longer term
may very well be required.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IG REPORT: RESENDEZ-RAMIREZ CASE
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Commissioner Meissner, let me ask you about the Inspector
General's report, released on Monday, which sharply criticized
the INS on its handling of the Resendez-Ramirez case. The IG
concluded that, one, there were numerous mistakes made by INS
employees in the data entered on Resendez' illegal entries into
the IDENT system of the INS; two, INS employees failed to enter
Resendez into the IDENT criminal lookout list, even though INS
was contacted several times by law enforcement officers seeking
Resendez; three, the INS has implementation problems with
IDENT, that employees lack both knowledge about and training on
the IDENT system; and four, he concluded INS' IDENT system and
the FBI's IAFIS system need to be integrated.
What do you have to say about the General's conclusions?
Commissioner Meissner. Let me say first that this case was
obviously a very shocking one. It clearly pointed to problems
within our organization in the way that particular matter was
handled. That is why I asked the IG to investigate it. The IG
has given us a very good report, with a very comprehensive set
of recommendations, which we are implementing.
They fall into two categories: the IDENT/IAFIS issue and
the training issue, fundamentally. On the IDENT/IAFIS issue, we
agree, and well in advance of this report, in response to
conversations with the Congress and the report requested by the
Congress. We, the Justice Department and the FBI have concurred
that there needs to be an interface between our IDENT system
and the FBI's new automated fingerprint information system.
We have given you a plan for how we intend to proceed with
developing those plans. The next steps in that endeavor involve
doing three different pieces of analysis which will help us get
closer to how the IDENT/IAFIS connection will be made. We are
proceeding aggressively with that.
As to the handling of the case and the training of the
agents that were involved, there are two sets of players here--
the Border Patrol and investigators. Actually, the IDENT system
was originally fielded for the Border Patrol. It, in many ways,
is an example of something that has, in some ways, been hurt by
its own success. It's an outstanding system. The Inspector
General's report was very clear in saying that it is a valuable
tool. We have made more than 85,000 criminal hits out of using
that system. We have more than 400,000 criminal history files
in those IDENT records. It's of use to us every single day in
identifying criminals, deporting criminals, and in taking the
appropriate action for prosecution along the border.
But, it is so valuable and it has many other uses which
have moved throughout the agency. We have not been able to
deploy it as quickly throughout the rest of the agency, non-
Border Patrol, nor to do as thorough-going training and
practice as we would like.
As I said earlier, the very distressing thing where
investigators are concerned is that these three investigators
that handled the Resendez-Ramirez matter all had been trained
on IDENT, not once but several times. However, they were not
using IDENT regularly, so they were not practicing the use of
IDENT. That points to a clear problem in the training.
We will now, in the coming months, clarify all of our
standard operating procedures. We will go into a training mode
on IDENT that replicates the way we did our training for the
quality procedures in naturalization, the way we did our
training for expedited removal, and the way we've done them for
asylum. Those have been very, very successful training efforts,
very intensive. They require a great commitment of time and
effort in the agency. IDENT is clearly that important, and we
will redo it.
IDENT TRAINING
Mr. Rogers. The IG says they weren't trained adequately and
don't even know about the system and have not been trained on
it.
I want a plan before us within 60 days about how you're
going to correct your poor training and education of employees
in the IDENT system.
Commissioner Meissner. We have that already. That has been
done as a result of receiving this report. We will share it
with you.
Mr. Rogers. We don't have it.
Commissioner Meissner. I said we have it. I will share it
with you.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. He also recommended that INS make an effort to
educate Federal, State and local law enforcement on the
existence and possible uses of IDENT. What do you say about
that?
Commissioner Meissner. That is something that we are doing
as much of as we can. We will do more of it. IDENT is now
frozen as part of this IDENT/IAFIS effort. We are barred from
putting IDENT into any more places around the country. That's
unfortunate. For instance, the QRTs have----
Mr. Rogers. I'm talking about educating Federal, State and
local law enforcement agencies about the existence of IDENT and
how it could be used.
Commissioner Meissner. But our QRTs, part of their
responsibility is to educate state and local law enforcement on
INS' capabilities. This is part of that liaison and part of
that information that they are imparting.
Mr. Rogers. The IG recommended that you work with the U.S.
Attorneys offices to lower the threshold number of
apprehensions for illegal entry needed before prosecution, and
to correct inconsistencies among jurisdictions.
When will you implement that recommendation?
Commissioner Meissner. Well, I have to say that that is an
issue--that is both a Justice Department and an INS issue, but
it is primarily a Justice Department issue. There is a
longstanding tradition of U.S. Attorneys differences in their
prosecution policies, based on local needs and the crime
problems in particular parts of the country.
We will press as hard as we can for consistency on those
thresholds. It is not entirely in our authority, however.
IDENT/IAFIS
Mr. Rogers. Now, the question of IDENT integration with the
FBI's IAFIS system has been one that this subcommittee has been
very interested in over the years, especially Mr. Mollohan. In
1989, when this committee first funded IDENT, we required that
the system ``address the so-called revolving door phenomenon of
illegal entry by aliens, to clearly define the problem of
recidivism, as well as to immediately identify those criminal
aliens who should remain in the custody of INS.''
In 1996, an INS technology expert told us that IDENT was
integrated with IAFIS. We have since learned, of course, that
IDENT does not do all that it was intended to do or represented
even to do. In the current fiscal year, we directed the
Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Steve Colgate,
who is with us today, to take over the planning and
implementation of integrating IDENT with IAFIS. He also has
control over all current INS IDENT funds.
Can you assure me that you will work closely with the
Justice Department, Mr. Colgate in particular, to correct this
situation as quickly as possible, so that criminals such as
Resendez are no longer released by INS to victimize more
people? I need your full commitment on that issue.
Commissioner Meissner. Yes, I can. You have my full
commitment and my full assurance. We have been working very
closely with Mr. Colgate and the FBI, and we will continue to
do so on that issue.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Colgate is with us today. I wonder if he
has any comments he would like to make about this.
Mr. Colgate. I have been extremely pleased with the
cooperation I have received from the Immigration Service. They
have been extremely cooperative.
I have also received great cooperation from the FBI. I
think we have a plan in which we can ultimately address this
issue, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. So we'll have no more Resendezes slip through
the system?
Mr. Colgate. This is going to take a matter of time, sir.
If you will notice in our report, we talk about the interim
operating capability and final operating capability. Our
interim operating capability will address the Ramirez
situation, but I think that's going to take us three years to
do, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you've had five years, and $200 million.
I mean, that's what you're proposing. We can't wait that long.
I mean, the Resendez-Ramirez case demonstrates that we've got a
simple problem, I think, and the simple problem is we don't
have an Administration that will direct these things be done
and make it happen, and if it doesn't happen, make somebody pay
the price.
Has anybody yet paid the price for the Resendez-Ramirez
goof-up?
Commissioner Meissner. Now that we have the IG's report,
we're looking at individual behaviors; and if action is
required, it will be taken.
VARIOUS INS ISSUES
Mr. Rogers. Now, since the hearing last year, I want to
again summarize the list of failures, problems, even
negligence, new and remaining problems, with INS since the
hearing last year. This has become an annual thing. Here's
today's list.
Criminal aliens released, instead of deported, by the
thousands, and 37 percent of them commit more crimes, including
murder. We know that, of those people that have been released,
there have been arrests out of that group of 98 murder arrests.
Suspected serial murderer Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, released
from INS custody at least eight times, even though he was on
the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List, had Federal and state criminal
records, was previously deported three times, and released by
the INS. Four people dead.
The border is still out of control, in spite of a 136
percent increase in the number of Border Patrol agents that
we've employed. Illegal entries have just moved from California
to New Mexico, Arizona, western Texas, the northern border. INS
is still having problems hiring and keeping agents, in spite of
extensive recruitment efforts.
Suspected terrorists, alien smugglers, drug smugglers, are
using the northern border to enter the U.S. Yet, only five
percent of the total number of Border Patrol agents, 322 people
to be exact, are stationed at the northern border. INS remains
focused exclusively on the southwest border.
In spite of the great need for more protection at the
border, INS' budget request includes less than a thousand
agents over two years, fiscal '00 and '01.
An INS official in Miami, indicted for suspected spying for
Cuba.
A last minute request for $310 million for additional
detention resources. It had to be requested due to INS' failure
to plan for detention space for criminal and illegal aliens.
A failing interior enforcement strategy which does not
comply with this committee's direction removes fewer illegal
and criminal aliens than are added to the population each year.
Bailouts of INS' problems by the Justice Department have
become more frequent and serious: Citizenship USA, financial
management problems, the audit of the H1BS temporary visa
issuances, and now criminal aliens released to commit more
crimes instead of being deported.
INS has contributed to long backlogs of non-naturalization
applications, focusing attention solely on naturalization. In
January of '99, there were 2.1 million applications, and in
January of 2000, 2.7 million applications. The backlog grows in
nonnaturalization applications.
Mr. Serrano could not return, but he was telling me
privately during the hearing that every Monday morning there
are upwards of 600-plus people lined up at his office door in
New York, all with INS problems, most of them non-
naturalization applications for relief that have gone months
without attention. And that's not unusual. Every Member of
Congress will tell you the number one problem in their district
office, including mine, are INS related problems.
INS' failure to anticipate the production needs for
expiring green cards has resulted in waits of up to two years
for green cards. INS was the only Justice agency that had
financial audit deficiencies, and as a result, Justice was
unable to receive a clean audit.
In a new report rating 20 agencies, INS received D's in
financial management and human resources, and a C overall, the
lowest overall grade of the 20 agencies reviewed.
Of the 26 reports requested by this subcommittee in the
fiscal year '00, 13 have not been submitted by the deadline.
Five due from conference reports in fiscal '98 and '99 have
never been submitted.
So that's the annual list of things that have gone wrong in
just this one year. Do you have any comments?
Commissioner Meissner. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me try to
respond to that from where I sit and see it.
Is this agency what I would like it to be? No, it is not.
Is this agency what it should be? No, it is not. Has there been
dramatic progress, has there been substantial improvement on an
infrastructure and problems that are virtually intractable?
Absolutely, there has been. Have the men and women in this
agency shown that they can meet extraordinary challenges?
Absolutely. They do it every single day.
We have been presiding over an era where workloads have
grown exponentially, where Congress has enacted new laws that
have been needed but that have created extraordinary, sweeping
new mandates. We have implemented those mandates. In some
cases, legislation has had to be changed because the time
tables were not realistic. We have had efforts underway to try
to meet them as best an agency can. We have presided over
extraordinary growth. The management of that growth has been
needed, but it is also very, very demanding and requires
enormous effort, and training.
Mistakes can happen under those circumstances, and we have
gone through a period of very dramatic internal reform, changes
on a whole set of processes and ways of doing business that
have been needed for a long, long time, but that have been
bottled up and the pressure has finally been too much. We have
been making changes at a very, very rapid rate, too rapid to
institutionalize as effectively as we would like to. But
rapidly in order to be responsive to the needs of the American
people and of the immigration system.
So if I were to take the list that you put out, the annual
list, it would be a situation of is the glass half empty or is
it half full. You see it half empty; I see it half full.
On every single one of the points you raised, yes, there
have been weaknesses, but at the same time there have been
very, very strong areas of progress. Many of those areas of
progress are areas where the committee and the Administration
have been in agreement, that funding has been required, and
many of them have been things that we have been able to
accomplish through new strategies, through effective management
of resources, and through directing change in a very, very
turbulent time.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham, any final comments?
Mr. Latham. No, Mr. Chairman. It just seems like the more
things change, the more they stay the same. It's very
frustrating.
I would like to submit some questions.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it's been 18 years that I have listened
to this, on this subcommittee, and through different
administrations.
I have to say in conclusion here that not all of this is
your fault. I think a lot of the fault lies in the structure of
the agency, which some of us here are attempting to correct,
with realigning the organization of the INS to respond, I
think, to realities. I think you have two conflicting missions,
one law enforcement, and the other the granting of privileges
or rights, such as naturalization or other applications for
benefits within the INS. Some of us think that those two
missions are in permanent collision and are preventing the
proper carrying out of either by anybody in charge of the INS.
So I think it's the structure that's the real problem that
needs to be corrected and, while we're at it, to give the new
agencies, two of them, more disciplinary authority and more
ability to carry out the dictates and orders down through the
system, so that we can get to the bottom of some of these
problems and not hear them repeated over and over again that
never can be addressed.
The problems that we're hearing today in INS were here when
I first started on this subcommittee 18 years ago, multiplied
many times over because of the workload and the caseload. But
it's still the same problems: lack of structure in the
organization to enforce management; two, the lack of training;
three, the lack of manpower, particularly on the Border
Patrol--and we could go on and on.
So I don't fault Doris Meissner entirely for this because I
think the system has to be changed. Whoever is the new director
of the INS, or whatever is here when the new person comes in,
what kind of an organization it is, that new person will
inherit these same problems and will do no better with them
unless we change the system. So that's the reason some of us
are pushing very hard to help you do your job, and that is to
change the organization to give you the streamlined authority
with which to do that.
We thank you for your extended stay here. I know you have
another important engagement just now, and we're going to get
you out of here in time hopefully to get to that one, although
a little late. So we thank you, Madam Commissioner, for your
time and your attention.
Commissioner Meissner. Thank you, and thank you for the
Committee's support.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 2, 2000.
BUREAU OF PRISONS
WITNESS
KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS
Opening Remarks
Mr. Rogers. This morning we welcome to the subcommittee the
director of the Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, to
discuss the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Federal
Prison System and the challenges of providing for custody of an
ever-growing population of inmates.
For fiscal year 2001, the Bureau of Prisons is requesting a
total budget of $4.4 billion, which includes $836 million for
the construction of new prisons to expand the capacity for the
continued transfer of non-returnable aliens into the Federal
Prison System, as well as the continued, steady growth of the
inmate population in general. Your budget also proposes advance
appropriations of $791 million for construction for fiscal year
2002 and $535 million for construction for fiscal year 2003.
I am happy to report that the prisons being constructed to
absorb the D.C. inmate population have now been fully funded.
As this subcommittee is faced with continuing pressures,
and you take on the additional population of the D.C. inmates
and the non-returnable aliens, we must also ensure that we
fulfill our responsibilities to the growth in the Federal
prison population so that there will be adequate bed space to
continue to lock up violent criminals.
We appreciate you being here with us today, along with your
staff. We will include your prepared remarks in the record, and
we would like to hear your opening comments.
Bureau of Prisons' Director Opening Remarks
Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
I am certainly pleased to appear before you again today to
discuss our 2001 budget. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr.
Chairman, for your continued support for the Bureau of Prisons.
We really appreciate that, and it makes our job much more
doable.
As we enter the new century, we are faced with many
challenges, as you well are aware. We anticipate that by 2007
our population is going to reach 205,000 inmates, a 50 percent
increase over our current level. Our major focus in 2001, as
you indicate, is obviously to add desperately needed new
prisons as quickly as possible. This will include contract
beds, new prison activations and expansions and new
construction. We are also asking for increased funding for
education and vocational training for inmates.
We have made substantial progress with the resources you,
Mr. Chairman, and the Congress have already provided. We have
added 18,000 new prison beds since the beginning of 1996 with
an additional new 29,000 beds currently either in planning
stages or under construction. However, given the 205,000 inmate
projection by 2007, we are back again asking for additional
capacity. Without the new beds that we are requesting, by 2007
our overcrowding levels would reach 94 percent in our
penitentiaries and 74 percent in our medium-security
facilities, which would severely jeopardize the safety of staff
and inmates and public safety.
In addition to getting the D.C. inmates coming our way, we
also have the INS long-term detainees coming our way. These two
prison populations require medium and high-security bed space,
which is where we are suffering the greatest shortage right
now. Since passage of the D.C. Revitalization Act, we have
received nearly 2,200 D.C. sentenced felons into our custody.
We are moving forward on meeting the privatization requirement
for the D.C. sentenced felons for 2000, but we have faced
environmental and ongoing legal challenges to our procurements.
Despite those, we are still housing approximately 2,000
inmates, either within our own facilities or under contract
with the State of Virginia, as we speak. We are confident,
though, that none of these obstacles to privatization will
delay the closure of Lorton by the end of 2001.
Absorbing D.C. felons into our custody presents
extraordinary and daunting challenges as we previously have
discussed before this committee. Our facilities are extremely
overcrowded, and the additional prison bed capacity to absorb
the D.C. felons will not be ready by the end of 2001, which is
the deadline by which we have to take in the inmates. You will
recall that the Administration's plan was to not complete
receiving all of the inmates until 2003, and that got moved up
to 2001 in the Revitalization Act. Despite this, we are working
diligently to meet the Revitalization Act requirements in many
different ways to include acquiring contract beds, expanding
Bureau of Prison existing institutions, using intergovernmental
agreements, and of course, absorbing the inmates into our
already crowded prisons.
Finally, we are seeking greater discretion in the private
placement of D.C. felons. There is language requested in the
DOJ general provisions portion that ensures D.C. felons could
be placed in private facilities in accordance with their needs,
their security needs and requirements, just like every other
Federal inmate, and with security and public safety being of
utmost concern.
2001 BUDGET INCREASES
Now, in terms of our budget request, as you indicated, Mr.
Chairman, it includes $193 million to activate new facilities,
four brand-new prisons and six expansions of existing
facilities. There is also money requested to purchase some new
equipment for two new facilities that are not to be activated
until 2002. The D.C. inmates are coming our way in 2001 and we
need to have those facilities ready to open up the minute they
are ready. If we can get the equipment money in advance, that
will help. We also want to increase our contract beds for
criminal aliens by 6,000 new beds, and money is requested for
that. As I indicated, additional monies are requested for
educational programming for inmates.
For new capacity, we are requesting funds of $681 million
with advance appropriations of $791 million and $535 million in
2002 and 2003. In 2001, the funds can help us construct two
facilities related to absorbing the INS inmates and four
facilities for our own sentenced population. We are also asking
for site and planning money for five new facilities, with a
balance of that funding requested in advance appropriations for
2002, and also new penitentiary funding; and then we are
looking for four more new facilities and a secured female
facility in advance appropriations in 2002, with the balance of
construction in 2003.
ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
I believe that the advance appropriations will provide a
very important advantage to the Bureau of Prisons in
implementing our construction program. The funding provided
through advanced appropriations will enable construction of new
beds to proceed on an accelerated schedule, and since we are
already behind the curve with overcrowding, we need to get the
facilities up as rapidly as possible. The Bureau will be able
to enter into full construction contracts at a lower cost under
the design/build procurement concept before the funds are
actually in our hand in 2002 and 2003.
Since they are being appropriated through the advance
appropriation process, we will know that the money is coming
and can move forward on the contracts earlier. The approach
will add certainty to the construction program by locking in
the resources needed for the projects, while lessening the
impact on the 2001 budget. In addition, it is going to allow us
to maintain lower, unobligated balances that carry forward year
to year, and I know that has been a concern of this committee
historically.
We recognize that the 2001 budget is larger than any
previous request we have ever come before you to request, but
it truly is necessary to meet the enormous challenge we are
facing now and in the future. We really struggled to prepare
this budget request and tried to maximize every possible safe
alternative to adding capacity to meet the needs of a growing
population.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Mollohan, and members of the committee; and I thank you again
for your continued support. This concludes my prepared
comments. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you for your statement.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
D.C. REVITALIZATION ACT
Mr. Rogers. One of the biggest challenges we all face has
been absorbing the D.C. inmate population into the Federal
system. The Revitalization Act, as you mentioned, requires that
you place 50 percent of the D.C. inmates into private contract
facilities by October 1, 2003. Tell us the status of the
transfers from Lorton to BOP and then to private contract
facilities.
Ms. Sawyer. In addition to the 50 percent provision you
have referenced, the first provision required us to have 2,000
inmates from the D.C. population in private contracts by the
end of 1999, and we have two contracts that we have awarded.
The first one was for 1,000 inmates to be placed in
Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania. For that one, immediately upon our
contract award, we had litigation filed by a local group who
were opposed to the prison going there. They raised
environmental issues.
The judge, in hearing the case, asked us to complete some
further portions of the environmental process. We thought we
had done enough to meet the requirements of the law. The judge
said there were a couple of portions which we should have done,
and that was to publish their environmental study that had been
completed and to have public hearings on it. Those were the
only two portions we hadn't completed. Those have now been
completed, and we envision that the environmental litigation
will be resolved within the next few weeks and that we could
then move forward with the facility.
The other problem that arose, though, in Phillipsburg is
the State of Pennsylvania, the Attorney General is challenging
the company who was awarded the contract on their ability or
their authorities to run a private prison in the State of
Pennsylvania. The company believed, and our legal staff
supported, their interpretation that State law allowed for a
private facility to be operated there. The Attorney General is
challenging that. So we anticipate that possibly, once the
environmental issues are resolved, the state of Pennsylvania
may file another suit against this private contract and prevent
it from going forward.
We are going to be patient for a little while. If this
thing is not resolved in the near term--and I don't know
exactly how many days that means--but if it is not resolved, we
are going to have to go out and relet the contract, or rebid
the contract somewhere else, because we need to meet the
requirement of the law, and we need to move forward. But these
two litigations were not anticipated.
The contract for the second 1,000 inmates has been awarded
for a facility in Winton, North Carolina. We have met with
them. We believe the environmental issues are going to be
worked out; we have signed the FONSI, which is the finding of
no significant impact on environmental issues. That contract
should be fully awarded, again within a matter of weeks, and
that project hopefully will not face any further litigation,
and we can move forward.
Now, despite the delays in the privatization, as I
mentioned, we still absorbed the 2,000 inmates by the end of
1999, because we saw that as our responsibility. We put 1,000
of those into a contract that we were able to get with the
State of Virginia; they had a facility they weren't utilizing.
The State of Virginia staff runs it for us, and it has been
going quite well. The other 1,000 inmates were simply absorbed
into our own population.
Once the contracts come along and once they open up, we
will then move those populations from Virginia and from our
institutions out into the private institutions, as the Act
requires.
Mr. Rogers. How long do you plan to wait on the
Pennsylvania matter?
Ms. Sawyer. We can't wait very long. We just can't wait
very long, because we need to get the beds up. We have absorbed
the inmates, and we don't have the extra space to absorb all of
these inmates into.
Mr. Rogers. Is it a matter of weeks?
Ms. Sawyer. I would say it will depend upon what happens
when we resolve the environmental issues, which will be
resolved in a couple of weeks. If Pennsylvania turns around and
files suit and puts another temporary restraining order on the
construction of that facility, then we have to step back and
say how long can we wait here.
Mr. Rogers. Is this the State of Pennsylvania?
Ms. Sawyer. The first litigation, the environmental
litigation, was a local group or a community group that was
opposed to the prison. Most of the community is very welcoming
of it. There are some folks there who oppose it. They filed the
first litigation, and while that was going through, the
Attorney General came into the picture and is threatening to,
once that restraining order is lifted on the environmental
issue, file suit subsequently, saying they have no authority to
run a private prison in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Rogers. Well, let the word go forward that if
Pennsylvania doesn't want this prison, we have them backed up
18 miles in line wanting it, and we would be delighted if
Pennsylvania turned us down.
Ms. Sawyer. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. So tell the folks over there to make my day.
Ms. Sawyer. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.
50 PERCENT PRIVATIZATION OF D.C. INMATES
Mr. Rogers. Now, the other question, or the problem, is the
50 percent requirement which you have in previous years
expressed concern about. This year, you propose to loosen the
requirement to allow discretion to be used and transfer only
those inmates ``determined to be appropriate'' for such
placement, after consideration of all of the relevant factors,
including the threat of danger to public safety.
Help us to understand that. Why are you requesting that
provision, and what do you mean by ``determined to be
appropriate''?
Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we have
had these discussions in prior hearings of our concern about
that 50 percent. The 2,000 figure was agreed upon I think with
some rationale and some discussion in terms of the first 2,000
privatized. The Administration and the Bureau of Prisons
believe that the private sector has demonstrated that they are
capable of running minimum, low security, female and youth
facilities. They have demonstrated they can run safe and
effective prisons in that population. The 2,000 number that was
agreed upon matches the number of minimum, low security,
females and our Youth Rehabilitation Act inmates in the D.C.
Department of Corrections. So the 2,000 actually meet the
requirement that is in the language that we are asking for, the
provision in the bill, because it says that it should be an
appropriate population privatized, and that group, those 2,000
inmates, are an appropriate population to privatize.
When the 50 percent was arbitrarily thrown into the mix
with no rationale, no discussion, no study of what 50 percent
was going to mean, it failed to consider the fact that that was
going to mean privatizing a substantial number of medium- and
high-security inmates who are very difficult inmates to manage,
and very difficult for private corrections to manage when you
look at the significant problems they have had throughout the
country over the last few years managing medium- and high-
security inmates.
What our provision is asking for is to just allow the
Bureau of Prisons to make decisions, as it does now, about
which populations are appropriate to privatize. It would not
impact the original 2,000 to be privatized, because they are
low security, they are minimum, they are female, they are an
appropriate population to consider privatizing. What we would
like to do is not be required by the arbitrary privatizing of
50 percent of D.C. inmates, which would mean privatizing medium
and highs.
Now, this is not at all to say that we want to limit the
amount of privatization to be done. As you know, we asked for
6,000 contract beds last year from this committee in our budget
and received that, and we are moving forward on those 6,000
beds. We are asking again in this year's budget to contract
6,000 more beds. So it is not an issue of the numbers of
contract beds we are willing to have. Right now, 11 percent of
our population are in privatized contracts. If we get the
additional beds we are asking for, then 15 percent of our
population will be in privatized contracts.
What we want is the ability to make a professional judgment
on which of these populations are most suited for privatization
and which are not, so that we can protect the staff, we can
protect the inmates, and we can be very concerned about public
safety. The 50 percent would require us to privatize elements
of the population simply because of numbers to meet the number
requirement. We would have to privatize elements of the D.C.
population that we believe would not at all be a group that you
would want to place in privatized facilities.
Mr. Rogers. What are the relevant factors that you
mentioned when it comes to housing and privatization?
Ms. Sawyer. In determining who should be?
Mr. Rogers. Yes. You used the words ``the relevant
factors.'' .
Ms. Sawyer. The relevant factors would be exactly--I am
sorry, let me find the exact wording. The relevant factors.
First, there are the inmates. Which populations do not provide
the significant public safety concerns or threat to staff and
inmate concerns? So part of it is looking at your population
relevant factors.
The other relevant factors are looking at how well the
private companies have been doing. The one study that we were
directed to do by Congress that was actually proposed by
Congressman Traficant asking us to look at the amount of people
privatized, how it is going in terms of their custodial and
security standards, and misconduct kinds of issues, and that
study will be to this committee within the next couple of
weeks. But the findings are clearly showing that private
corrections companies have a significantly higher rate of
escapes, a significantly higher rate of drug utilization in
their institutions, and a significantly higher rate of staff
turnover.
Now, those issues are not major concerns--I mean they are
concerns, but they are not major concerns if you are talking
about minimum-security inmates, female populations, and lower-
security inmates. They don't pose a serious threat to public
safety. But if--and the facts demonstrate, this is all data
that was received by the private institutions that are
functioning around the country--if, in fact, their escape rates
and staff turnover rates are significantly higher, it is very
dangerous then to consider placing violent, dangerous inmates
in those institutions.
Mr. Rogers. About how many, or what percent, I guess, of
the D.C. inmates might still be appropriate for private
facilities?
Ms. Sawyer. In our classification of the D.C. inmates, it
comes out to about the 2,000 that I was referencing, and that
is where the 2,000 number came from in the first place. Two
thousand of the roughly 7,500 D.C. inmates meet the minimum
low-security, male, the female requirement, or the Youth
Rehabilitation Act requirement. They fit into that 2,000. Our
original estimate was it was going to be between 2,000 and
2,300. So our contracts are actually for 2,200 beds. That has
been reconfirmed by our further reclassification of D.C.
inmates to determine what types of prisons we needed to build
to absorb the new capacity. When we reclassified the D.C.
inmates under our standards, the vast majority of those
inmates, the difference between the 7,500 and the 2,200, were
all medium- and high-security inmates.
GENERAL PROVISIONS EFFECT ON PRIVATE CONTRACT FACILITIES
Mr. Rogers. If this provision were to be enacted, would
your need and expected use of private contract facilities
decrease over the next several years?
Ms. Sawyer. No, sir, it would not at all, Mr. Chairman. As
I indicated, all of our projections are to have 15 percent of
our population privatized by--actually it would be if we
receive the funding we are asking for this year. It would be as
soon as those contracts are up and running; 15 percent of our
population would be privatized. The difference between this
provision passing or not passing would simply be who the
inmates are that are placed in those beds.
We believe that low-security inmates, especially the
criminal aliens which are the perfect population to privatize.
We are getting more and more and more of them every year. We
had our largest growth in history this past year, and the main
reason was the huge number of aliens coming in because of all
of the new Border Patrol agents given to INS. We believe it is
a perfect population to privatize. We have been privatizing
care for them over the last several years. We have been
increasing that over the years, and we envision putting 6,000
more contract beds in the mark if we receive the monies we are
asking for in this budget. So we will privatize 6,000 beds this
year either way. We will probably be privatizing more beds in
the next few years either way, whether this provision passes or
not.
What this gives us is the ability to make the kind of
professional decisions that I think Congress wants the Federal
Prison System to make in terms of what are the wise and prudent
decisions about who to place in privatized contracts and who
not to place. It wouldn't change the numbers; it simply changes
whether they are going to be lower-security inmates or whether
they are going to be medium and higher-security inmates,
therein risking public safety.
PRIVATIZATION OF CRIMINAL ALIEN POPULATION
Mr. Rogers. What percent of the criminal aliens would,
under your new standards, be left to privatize?
Ms. Sawyer. I don't know the exact number, but I know that
29 percent of our current population of 138,000 inmates we have
are criminal aliens.
Mr. Rogers. Twenty-nine percent?
Ms. Sawyer. Twenty-nine percent. It has been inching upward
over the last few years. I know that we have probably 3,000 or
more criminal aliens already privatized. We are wanting, in
this last year's budget, to privatize and we have the money for
6,000. Two thousand of those beds were for D.C. inmates; the
other 4,000 were for criminal aliens, and we are asking for
6,000 more in this budget. So that is 10,000 more criminal
aliens to be privatized on top of the ones we already have.
There is plenty of contract money around to open lots of
new private beds. We are not opposed to using them. In fact, we
are the ones raising the 6,000 we are requesting this year. No
one has made us do that. It is our choice. Simply, there are
different security levels. These inmates would not pose a
threat to public safety or to staff and inmates that the higher
security inmates would.
Mr. Rogers. But a very high percent of the criminal aliens
would be eligible for privatization?
Ms. Sawyer. Yes. I don't know the exact percentage.
Mr. Rogers. How many of the 6,000 contract beds that we
gave you in the current year have you privatized?
Ms. Sawyer. Two thousand of those were for the D.C.
inmates, so I explained where those are. We have a request for
a proposal for all of those beds. We have actually secured thus
far, I believe it is over 1,000 of them, and the others will
hopefully become reality before this year is out. That is the
spending window of money.
Mr. Rogers. 1,000 of the 2,000?
Ms. Sawyer. No, of the 4,000. 2,000 are D.C., so they are
separate, and then there is the other 4,000. We have already
contracted out for at least 1,000 of those, and the remaining
are to be contracted out hopefully by the end of this fiscal
year.
Mr. Rogers. Are you on track for that?
Ms. Sawyer. Pretty close. We are running into, again, some
environmental issues and some litigation kinds of issues. But
separate from that, the request for proposal went out in plenty
of time. We have had bids coming in, not as many bids as we
were hoping for because of, again some environmental issues in
some of the states. Some states are becoming a little more
active in terms of placing requirements on the private
companies. So it is not happening as fast as we thought, but we
still hope to expend the funds before the year is out.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan.
INCREASE IN PRISON POPULATION
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the hearing. You had described the tremendous
growth in the prison population. What is driving that?
Ms. Sawyer. Historically over the last several years, the
driving force has been not only that there are more law
enforcement agents on the streets, and that is certainly
bringing more inmates our way, but the sentence length, with
new sentencing guidelines that were created several years ago
have really been the primary large driving force. We get more
inmates and we keep them for a much longer period of time, and
it accumulates. The cumulative numbers have just grown so
dramatically.
In the last 2 years we have experienced our largest growth
rates ever in the history of the bureau. We grew by 10,000
inmates last year, 1998; and we have grown by over 11,000
inmates in 1999; and all projections are that we will grow at
similar rates the next few years--the big influx has been, as I
indicated, the Southwest border initiatives. A large number of
staff was given to Border Patrol to protect the borders and to
apprehend anyone coming across, not just illegal, because most
of the ones who come across just illegally are simply turned
back. The ones who are coming across illegally are often
committing some other criminal act, such as, bringing drugs in,
bringing in other illegal aliens. So the Southwest border has
been a major driving force for this past year.
In addition, some increased law enforcement in the area of
methamphetamines has brought inmate increases. There has been a
major push in many cities and states around the country on
methamphetamines at the federal level, so we have seen a
significant increase in those numbers coming our way too.
Mr. Mollohan. What does this trendline look like? I know
you are anticipating an increase based upon all of these
requests. Where does it start dropping off?
Ms. Sawyer. The trend-line just goes significantly upwards.
As I indicated, by 2005, our projections only go up. They go
up--yes, by 2007, our numbers will go up to 205,000 inmates.
There is no indication of anything dropping off.
Mr. Mollohan. What percentage increase is that from this
year?
Ms. Sawyer. Well, we are talking about 50 percent. There
are roughly 138,000 now; and by 2007, we will increase by
another 50 percent.
The other things to keep in mind--and we have discussed one
of these before this committee--and that is the crack powder
cocaine issue, the disparity issue. There is a provision right
now in the bankruptcy bill that is going forward that would
reduce the disparity between the crack and powder cocaine issue
by not lowering the sanctions for crack, but rather raising the
sanctions for powder. If that occurs, that is not even factored
into our population projections. That would be another 5,000
inmates or 4,000 inmates within 5 years on top of that.
Then, if you add in any of the things that are being
proposed from the Administration regarding weapons, getting
more prosecutions on guns, those numbers are not factored in
here either, because we wouldn't feel that effect for a couple
of years, but those numbers would be added on top of the
205,000.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you have projections based upon those
contentions?
Ms. Sawyer. Yes, we do. The crack powder would raise us by
4,000 more inmates within 5 years and the weapons initiative as
proposed, would increase the convictions by 25 percent, and
increase our population by 2,000 more inmates in 5 years. So if
those two pass, that is 6,000 more inmates on top of our
projected number for 5 years from now.
Mr. Mollohan. Not including what you have just spoken
about, and assuming these legislative initiatives, are not
factored in, where does the population start leveling off?
Ms. Sawyer. It doesn't.
Mr. Mollohan. How far have you projected it out?
Ms. Sawyer. Only to 2007.
Mr. Mollohan. So up to 2007, there is no leveling off?
Ms. Sawyer. No. It is going to take some significant
changes in sentencing, in addition to any changes in law
enforcement conduct, or even in the crime rate; because the
crime rate has been dropping a little bit, as you well know. It
is really going to take some major changes in our approach to
sentencing in this country before we are ever going to really
start sensing any downturn or even flattening out of the
population.
Mr. Mollohan. What is the impact on your budget of this
trend line projected out to 2007?
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
FY 2007 Bureau of Prisons Budget Projections
The Department projects that by FY 2007 the Bureau of
Prisons' (BOP) operating budget will reach $5.6 billion, which
is a growth of 58.4 percent from the FY 2001 request level.
Included in this figure are normal inflationary increases and
program increases for activations, residential drug treatment,
contract and institution population adjustments. This amount
will provide for the custody of 204,527 inmates.
For Buildings and Facilities, BOP anticipates requesting
funding for two or three new facilities each year to provide
sufficient capacity to maintain current overcrowding rates for
the projected growth in the inmate population. For example,
BOP's total inmate population is expected to increase by nearly
71,000 inmates between FY 2000 and FY 2007. Historically,
funding for these facilities has been requested over two years
to provide initial site and planning one year, followed by the
remaining construction funds the following year. Funding has
usually been requested with three to five years lead time to
complete construction before the capacity comes on-line.
Beginning with the FY 2001 budget request, BOP plans to utilize
advance appropriations to significantly collapse the amount of
time necessary to bring new facilities on-line. BOP projects
that the use of advance appropriations for design/build
construction contracts will help reduce overcrowding at prison
facilities, and save the government money be accelerating the
delivery of new prison beds. For FY 2007, BOP anticipates a
total Buildings and Facilities request of approximately $600
million.
Ms. Sawyer. It continues to go up.
Mr. Mollohan. I know it continues to go up.
Ms. Sawyer. Do we have the numbers with us in terms of what
the budget would look like commensurate with the 2007? We can
provide that to you. We don't have it with us.
Mr. Mollohan. Would you please?
Ms. Sawyer. Sure, sure.
Mr. Mollohan. And all of those projections, please supply
them for the record.
Ms. Sawyer. Certainly.
Funding for Educational Programs
Mr. Mollohan. You have requested additional funds for
education. Please talk about your educational programs a little
bit, what this money is for and how it is adequate or
inadequate.
Ms. Sawyer. We require that every inmate coming in that
does not have a GED must enroll in our GED program for at least
120 days. During that period, we try to encourage them to stay
in. So, I would say the majority of the inmates who don't have
a GED, historically have, always received their GED before
being released from the Bureau of Prisons.
The reason we are asking for more money is that there were
provisions in the Violent Crime Control in Law Enforcement, the
VCCLA Act, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) a few
years ago that indicates that an individual's good time would
be impacted by whether or not they actually accomplished
getting their GED or work aggressively toward it. You cannot
have your good time vested if you are not getting it, and with
the PLRA, it affects even the amount of good time that you can
earn at all if you are not working toward getting your GED. So
obviously, that has resulted in even more inmates who want to
get their GED before they get released.
So what it has done is create additional numbers for us.
Our base population request, our base budget request would have
continued our regular education program, which ensured that the
majority of the inmates received their GED before release. This
has now upped the ante. We have 8,000 inmates on our waiting
list for a GED class, and we simply need more staffing and
funding to accomplish that.
The other area is vocational training. We have done a
prison release impact study that you received copies of in the
past, that indicates a direct correlation by either being
involved in vocational training or working in prison industries
has a significant impact upon recidivism and on how well one is
employed when they get released. So what we want to do is
increase our vocational training offerings. Ninety-seven
percent of the inmates we have are released back to the
community, and suddenly people are becoming very concerned in
the community. A lot of people supported everyone getting
locked up, but they didn't think a lot about the fact that they
are all going to come out some day. So we have a huge number
coming back to the streets, and we want to make sure that we
are doing everything we can possibly do to make sure that they
have the educational programs that are required--they have drug
treatment needs if those were needed by the inmate--and that
vocationally, they are equipped with some skills to do the work
once they are released.
Mr. Mollohan. I can only imagine that if you are so far
behind in building the spaces to provide custodial care to
them, that you are really behind in the educational and
vocational training areas.
Ms. Sawyer. Well, we are not too bad because we have always
had a major emphasis on education. I mean that is something
that we have embraced for years, and you have always given us
the funding we have asked for to increase education for the new
institutions that come along. It is the sudden increase that
came about as a result of VCCLA and PLRA that set us back kind
of abruptly. So we are just running very fast trying to ensure
that they all get into the programs they need.
Mr. Mollohan. I think you said 8,000?
Ms. Sawyer. 8,000 on the waiting list.
Mr. Mollohan. Just to take GED courses?
Ms. Sawyer. Right. Now, remember, not all of those 8,000
will be released soon. Our goal is to make sure that they get
the drug treatment before they are released and that they get
the education, the GED, before they are released. Many of these
inmates have long sentences, so we give priority, in terms of
the placements that we have, to those who are getting out
sooner.
On the vocational training, the reason why we are not too
badly behind, although there is a lot more we can do, is our
Federal Prison Industry program with which you are both very
familiar. That program enables us to employ 25 percent of the
eligible inmates, those that are sentenced: they don't have
medical problems, they are not pre-trial, they are not criminal
aliens, because they can be removed--they have an actual
deportation determination, so they can't go into prison
industries. But the prison industries program has been able to
employ 25 percent of the remaining inmates, and therein, they
learn work skills and work habits.
The prison industries program, as you know, is under duress
from Members here on the Hill, and there are some new bills
being floated. If we are able to continue at the levels of
employment that we have, then we will be able to meet the
requirement relatively well with this additional vocational
training money, and we will be able to do, I think, a very
respectable job of skill training. If we lose any ground at all
on prison industries, then you are exactly right, we are going
to be way behind on trying to address the job skill needs for
inmates.
GED Training in Private Prisons
Mr. Mollohan. With regard to the GED training how do you
provide educational offers to inmates in private facilities? Do
you do it in-house, or do you privatize?
Ms. Sawyer. In all of our own institutions we do it in-
house. For the private contracts that we have, we write it
right into our statement of work that they are required to
provide education offerings similar to what they would be
getting in the Bureau of Prisons. They are required to have GED
class, some vocational training programs and all of that.
Mr. Mollohan. Is the problem with not being able to service
this 8,000 population just a matter of getting the personnel to
do it?
Ms. Sawyer. Right. That is why we are requesting more
funding now for some additional staffing.
Mr. Mollohan. Would privatizing that service be an
alternative?
Ms. Sawyer. Well, some of our teachers--and when I say we
provide it in-house, some of our teachers are contractors, some
of them we contract with are local schools in the area, whether
they be technical schools or whatever, and many of our
teachers, especially in the vocational training area, are
absolutely contracts, because the field changes out there. What
might be the big job market today--maybe in computers, maybe
something different 10 years from now--and if you hire a
computer teacher and you committed to them a 20-year career, it
ends up getting dated. So most all of our vocational training
is done by contractors.
We need more funds to add more vocational training
programs, whether we hire BOP employees or whether we contract
for it. We are still at a fund shortage, whether the decision
is made to contract it or to hire our own staff. We are short
funded either way.
Advance Appropriations
Mr. Mollohan. With regard to your request for advance
appropriations, that is not something that is usually well
received here. I know I share that feeling with the Chairman.
Could you talk a little bit about the request for advance
appropriations and make a case for it, if you can?
Ms. Sawyer. Okay. I will be very happy to do that, because
I realize it is not something that is done a lot. I know that
the Department of Defense has that ability and they are able to
do some things. We have looked very carefully at what their
history has been and what they have been able to accomplish.
What we believe very strongly is that, number one, it would
speed up our process. As I said, we are so far behind on
getting these inmates' beds built and constructed in time; the
inmates are coming our way much faster than we are getting the
new institutions built. What we need is to get these beds on-
line as rapidly as possible, and advance appropriations would
clearly accelerate that. Because, as I indicated in my opening
comments, we would be able to go out with our design/build
contracts, upon getting the initial site and planning money,
and then in an outyear we get the final construction money.
The site and planning money is not enough. There is a
percentage that you have to be able to have in hand before you
go out and do a contract to design/build. What we used to do is
simply use that money to do the design, the site planning and
some design work, and then we go out on a second contract for
the construction. Within the last few years--since 1997, we
have been allowed to do the design/build contracts, and you all
have supported us on that in the last couple of years.
This would mean, with the advance appropriation, we would
be able to do the design/build contract from the very
beginning. We would be able to get these things up and running
much faster, because even though we don't have the money
absolutely in hand, because it is not going to come to us until
the later year, it is guaranteed. It is guaranteed monies; and
therefore, by regulation, we would be able to actually award
those contracts well in advance.
The reason why we would like for you to consider it for us
is because we have a long history of building prisons. We have
gotten more experience than we have wanted in the last several
years in building prisons. You know our track record. We have
been able, in most all instances, in the vast majority of our
new prisons, to come in within budget and within the time frame
expected, on time and within budget. We have a history of doing
that. We also already have sites for most every one of these
facilities we are asking for.
We do site work in advance, as you know, and we are out
there looking at sites all the time. We have many sites on our
books that we would be able to move forward on. Some of these
sites are on existing property where we already have an
institution. So we know what we are doing in terms of building
new facilities. We have demonstrated that, and we think we have
your confidence on that. We actually have sites to move forward
right away on them, and all we need is the guarantee that that
money is going to be coming for these new facilities, and we
could get them up and running quicker.
Not only is it quicker, we believe it will be cheaper,
because we will be locking in these contracts at today's rates,
not 2002 and 2003 rates, which are going to be more expensive,
and our estimate is that we are going to be able to save just
in the budget request we are asking for here. If we had
advanced appropriations, we would save somewhere between $60
million to $130 million by being able to advance these and get
them moving up quicker. It would save time, and it would save
money.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that you
can understand me. I apologize.
Ms. Sawyer. My throat is scratchy too.
GAO REPORT: SEXUAL ABUSE IN PRISONS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Last year there were a lot of news
reports about sexual abuse in prisons and this was primarily in
State prisons, but as a result of that, the GAO did a report,
and they reported that the Bureau wasn't keeping comprehensive
enough data on the number and the nature of sexual misconduct
within the system.
My question is, are you beginning to implement the
recommendations of GAO and what is the status? What is it that
you have learned since then about sexual abuse?
Ms. Sawyer. We certainly are implementing their
recommendations. Again, as you indicate, the recommendations
were primarily about our data-keeping. We didn't have an
elaborate-enough system to capture all of the nuances of a lot
of the elements of sexual abuse.
Although most of the focus was on the states, we are not
without our own problems with sexual abuse of inmates. It is
probably the most angering and frustrating thing that I deal
with as the Director in terms of us placing these inmates in
the care and custody of our staff who we hire and screen and
believe are good people, and then we have this kind of
misconduct occurring. We have not only implemented the GAO
recommendations of data keeping, but we have also implemented a
number of other changes over the last few years in terms of how
we screen our staff upon hiring, and in terms of how we train
them and teach them about issues of their responsibility and
this type of misconduct. We pursue, very aggressively, any
report that we get from any inmate of sexual abuse or any
sexual misconduct of the staff. It is immediately subject to
investigation, be either the Inspector General's Office within
the Department, or by the Bureau of Prisons. If there is any
indication of validity, we move for prosecution.
At the federal level we can prosecute as a felony or a
misdemeanor. Not every state has that in their law and many are
trying to change it. But we go for felony prosecutions in every
instance where this is occurring. We are not successful in
every instance because many times the U.S. Attorneys offices
are very busy, and if it appears to be consensual, they may be
willing to settle for a misdemeanor plea agreement, but we push
for felony prosecutions.
The other thing we have learned, and this was something
that took me a little while to learn; I believed that most of
the problem of sexual misconduct on the part of the staff and
inmates was because we had bad staff and the staff was doing
bad things. I have learned, because of working so much on this,
that there are some things that we do in prison systems that
can make some of our staff a little more vulnerable. So, the
agency has a real responsibility also, especially for those
staff who are placed on posts where they are kind of away from
all of the other staff and the only people they interact with
every day are the inmates, those who are on midnight shifts,
and those who work in some areas that just have a couple of
staff. Their whole network of association is more with inmates
than with staff, and it is very easy for them to begin
identifying a little more closely with the inmates than with
staff.
So we are doing a number of things in the bureau to
identify who are the staff that might be vulnerable, not just
the bad staff, but who are the ones who might be vulnerable and
get kind of pulled into a relationship that we could have
otherwise helped them to prevent.
We are making a number of changes trying aggressively to
improve. I don't know that we will ever eliminate sexual
activity between staff and inmates, because unfortunately,
there is an element of human nature, that whenever you lock
them in a confined environment, relationships tend to develop.
But, there is a lot more we need to do and can be doing to
limit those numbers.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have any idea as to what extent
any of these relationships are actually abusive? In other
words, they are forced relationships?
Ms. Sawyer. Right. And it is the forced ones where the
inmate comes forward.
Let me say one of the other things that we changed that
helps us a lot here is we have a tremendous amount of training
with our inmates over the course of the last couple of years to
help them realize that they need to tell us. They need to tell
us immediately. We have made it much easier for them to let us
know what is happening. We remove them from the environment,
immediately, because of the claim, so that they are not subject
to any retaliation or fear of retaliation of anybody there. We
have really tried to make it much more capable for inmates to
let us know. Because there are two different types of sexual
activity. Both of them are illegal and both of them are not
acceptable, because these inmates are under the care of our
staff. Even if it is a consensual relationship, it is not
acceptable, and it is illegal, and we will prosecute. But the
ones that concern us the absolute most are the forced ones.
That is where we have not only worked with the staff, but the
inmates to help them understand they should not tolerate any of
that, and if any of that is occurring, even suggestively, then
they need to let us know, or someone higher up in the
organization, know immediately, and we will protect them and
not let them even fear harm in any way so that we can pursue
their allegation.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have any idea at this point how
serious a problem it is?
Ms. Sawyer. I don't have the numbers with me. The number of
actual prosecutions that we had for sexual misconduct with
inmates, and this would include both forced as well as
consensual, is I believe has been like 12, maybe, a year, in
the last couple of years. So when you are talking about
misconduct--these acts are not necessarily all male staff on
female inmates. It really goes in all directions. So when you
consider we have 138,000 inmates, and the 12 even include some
of the contractors, not just our employees, but those we
contract with, because that is our responsibility too, that
number does not appear huge. But any one of those is not
acceptable, but we could get you those details.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was submitted for the record.]
Number BOP Staff Prosecuted for Sexual Misconduct With Inmates
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has a zero tolerance
standard for sexual abuse of inmates. Every allegation is
investigated vigorously and thoroughly. Every allegation is
reviewed and, where warranted, referred for criminal
prosecution. During FY 1998, 13 BOP staff were convicted and
sentenced for sexual misconduct, and eight were criminally
prosecuted. In FY 1999, eight employees were convicted of
criminal sexual abuse violations.
The 32,000 federal correctional professionals at more than
95 federal prisons protect the public by confining more than
139,000 inmates across the country. The vast majority of prison
officials carry out their responsibilities faithfully, under
difficult circumstances. But, when any prison employee engages
in misconduct, the BOP does not hesitate to take appropriate
action.
How Inmates Reporting Alleged Sexual Abuse Are Protected
Over the past decade the Bureau has taken additional steps
to eliminate sexual abuse in its facilities, by training all
staff on how to prevent it, by conveying the severity of the
consequences for engaging in it, and by informing inmates on
how to report it.
BOP policy includes procedures for recognizing, preventing,
and confidentially reporting the sexual abuse of inmates by
staff and provides that any inmate who alleges that he or she
has been sexually assaulted be offered immediate protection
from the assailant. Each warden has discretion to either place
an inmate in Administrative Segregation pending investigation,
or transfer an inmate to another facility.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Also some of the steps that you are
taking in terms of letting the inmates know that they will be
protected from retaliation, I mean potentially, the number
could increase.
Ms. Sawyer. The accusations have been going up. The
accusations have been going up, which you would expect to occur
if you are opening the door more. The number of actual
prosecutions or positive charges we have not seen increase very
significantly in that level. But we will be tracking all of
this, and that is the data issue. We need to have more data
available, more detailed data so that we can track in terms of
what are the initiatives that we have been doing, and which of
them are making any difference in terms of the outcome. The new
way in which we will be keeping the data will enable us to do
much better research and analysis on it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You can't always base it on
prosecutions, I mean even in the outside world you will find
that there are more accusations than prosecutions and that that
doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't those abuses taking
place.
Ms. Sawyer. Exactly. Because sometimes if a U.S. Attorneys
office will turn down seeking prosecution because it is very
overloaded, we still go after them administratively. So there
are those that are prosecuted, those that are dealt with
administratively, those that simply resign and run out the door
as soon as they know they are being questioned, and then there
are just accusations that you can't just quite get a handle on.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR FEMALE INMATES
Ms. Roybal-Allard. One of the other questions I had is that
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), substance
abuse in Federal prisons has been rising, and there is that
same trend among women prisoners, yet they found that the
percentage of those women prisoners being treated has actually
declined. Could you explain that?
Ms. Sawyer. Yes. Thank you for asking that question,
because it really is kind of a misinterpretation of data.
GAO came out with a study on a similar issue on the female
offenders and therein they mixed a lot of different State and
Federal data, and it was very difficult to determine what the
bottom line was. But regarding the BJS data, when they did
their first look at how we do training, they talked about the
number of people who had a drug problem and were released with
drug treatment, and they came up with a number, a percentage.
Then, when they came back and looked at it the second time,
they looked at how many inmates we have existing in our
institutions, who have a need for drug treatment, and how many
are enrolled in drug treatment on that day, and they said, it
is less, proportionately less, but that is a misinterpretation
of the data.
We made a willful decision about 10 years ago when we
totally reconstructed our drug program to emphasize the
treatment on the back or later part of the sentence. We used to
do it when an inmate first came in and we would put them
through drug treatment. They would look like they were fine,
they would be released 8 years later and then fall back into
drugs. The research we did to try to improve our program said
``you are doing it backwards. You really need to do the drug
treatment when the temptation is going to be the greatest and
that is at the latter part of their sentence, and then you need
to transition it with the inmate back into the community. You
can't just drop them off at the end of the day.'' So we have
moved all of our drug treatment to the back end.
Today, every inmate who has a drug treatment need, and I
would say for the last 6 to 8 years, every inmate who has a
drug treatment need and wants drug treatment, gets drug
treatment before they walk out the door. So when BJS looked at
it in terms of total numbers, a lot of those inmates are going
to be with us for a long, long time. We haven't even begun to
work with them on the final drug treatment program. We do drug
training, we work with them in terms of developing better
values programs and other elements of their life, but the drug
treatment emphasis comes at the end of the sentence and we add
to that 6 months in the halfway house in the community under a
similar drug treatment program that carries them through that
very vulnerable time, when they are back on the streets where
the drugs are readily available.
So clearly, we are doing a far better job today than we did
10 years ago to ensure that all the inmates who have a need and
who are willing to enroll in treatment get that treatment. In
fact, it is now a requirement of law that any inmate who has a
drug treatment need must get in drug treatment, and this
committee has been very supportive in terms of giving us the
funds we need to ensure that treatment is available.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one
more question?
Mr. Rogers. Sure. Hearing the way you sound, I am not sure,
though.
Telephone Use By Inmates for Criminal Activity
Ms. Roybal-Allard. There was an Inspector General's report
that discovered that there were significant problems with
Federal inmates using telephones to arrange for murders and
drug deals and other illegal activity. And they also found that
those prisoners that were found to be doing this still had full
telephone privileges.
Could you tell me what the situation is and what you are
doing to take care of that problem?
Ms. Sawyer. I appreciate you raising that issue too so that
I can speak to it.
The Inspector General's report talked about, or recited the
cases that occurred over the course of the last several years,
let's say up to 8 years, in terms of inmates who have been
found in our institutions to be engaging in criminal activity
on the phones. In all of the cases that the Inspector General's
report reported, they were kind of old cases. They had already
been identified. Those individuals had been addressed.
Now, I won't say that our staff sometimes won't make an
error or they fail, and they may have knowledge and if the
inmate gets moved around to one institution and then another. I
won't say that 100 percent of the time we always make sure we
put them again on phone restriction. Occasionally, we fail. But
all of the cases that are in there have already been addressed
long before the Inspector General's report came out.
We do have a significant issue with our phones, though, and
I believe we have talked before this committee about that. We
have been trying, actually since I was the warden at a facility
in 1987, we have been trying to institute a new phone system
that will give us much better technological controls over the
telephones. We believe that the inmates who have good contacts
with their families and the community, and research supports
us, have a much better likelihood of going back to the
community without recidivism. We support family contact. We
don't want to do things that are going to inhibit good, healthy
contact. But whenever you have any kind of contact, somebody is
going to abuse it.
We have been trying to put in new fixes to our phone
systems since 1987 that will let us use the new technologies.
We were, though, enjoined in a lawsuit by a grouping of inmates
who prevailed, basically, with the courts in saying that some
of the things we were trying to do were limiting inmates'
access to phones more than we should be allowed to do by law.
And it put basically a halt, or huge delays, on our ability to
put in these new phone systems. We finally resolved the
litigation. We are back again trying to put in these new
resources.
What the new resources will allow us to do--and we are
trying to do now with the technology we have, and what we are
trying to do manually is clearly identify who are the bad guys.
Who are the ones who have a history of abusing the phones or
because of their criminal activity on the street, we have
reason to suspect them, or for whatever information you have,
you suspect them. We could actually limit their ability to
access the phone with the new coding system where you have to
put in your own pin number and you can only access the phone
with your PIN number. You can only call numbers that we have
already approved for you to call, and that we would then be
able to simply target those inmates, cut them off if they are
abusing, listen to their phone calls all the time because we
know that they are the target group that we are listening for.
That will significantly improve our ability to stay on top of
the bad guys without inhibiting the good, healthy contacts by
the inmates who are trying to restore family connections.
We are back on-line now with installing those phone
systems. The target date is to have them all installed by about
this time next year. We are going institution by institution.
We should have them all installed by this time next year which
will enable us, as I said, to not inhibit the contact with the
inmates who are not abusing, but to really target the abusers.
We still have a number of things to do there, but we can't do
it as well until these new technologies allow us to do that
better.
Visitation Access For Female Inmates
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You mentioned the fact that there is
less of a recidivism rate when inmates have contacts with their
families. And my understanding is that about two-thirds of the
women in prison have at least one minor child, and yet half
never get to have a visit with their children or their family
because of transportation problems; a lot of times the prisons
may be 500 miles away. Is there anything that can be done to
address that at all?
Ms. Sawyer. It is a continuing struggle for us and for most
state systems actually, because the number of women coming in
is increasing. Our average distance from home for males and
females both in our policy says that we will designate them
within 500 miles from home, at the least, and every opportunity
we have we try to get them closer.
The reality is, 70-some percent of our female population
are low-level, nonviolent offenders. The fact that they even
have to come into prison is a question mark for me. I think it
has been an unintended consequence of the sentencing guidelines
and the mandatory minimums. Most of these women would have
gotten probation years ago, because their offenses were
nonviolent, they have no criminal history, they have never
committed an offense before; and if they had probation, then
there is a whole lot more you can do in their locale, even if
they had a short enough sentence that you could simply place
them in a community corrections facility closer to home and
allow them better access to their families.
It is a struggle that we continue to battle with. Our
goal--in our budget request we are asking for a new secure
facility for females in the northeast quadrant, because that is
where many of our female inmates come from. We have been
opening up more and more satellite camps. For example, at our
facility at Phoenix--the inside is medium-security male--but
the satellite camp outside is female and we can run them very
cost-effectively and place these satellite camps around the
country. We have been trying to increase them more and more. In
fact, near your district in Victorville, California, the new
facility there is going to be female, because most of the
females from California are either in Phoenix or they are up in
Dublin. This camp will give us something closer to southern
California.
So we continually struggle to get facilities closer to
their homes. But as long as they are getting sent in for
significant time, that really restricts our opportunities to do
more community-based or probation-based kinds of things.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That does concern me, the point that you
mentioned that a lot of these women that are now going to
prison for long periods of time for really what would have been
considered in the past a minor offense. Or really by
association sometimes to the real drug dealer who should
actually be in prison rather than them.
Ms. Sawyer. Most of these are very low-level players, no
prior history. They are carriers or mules for the drugs or
whatever it might be. They used to not go to prison, and now
they do.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We need to look at that a little bit
too. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Activations Delays
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Well, we have a tremendous amount of activity going on
within your agency. In your 2001 request, if you include the
advanced appropriations for 2002 and 2003, you have under
development 17 new institutions.
Ms. Sawyer. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Three for transfer of INS, non-returnable
aliens, and 14 facilities for increased capacity of the
sentenced population. So we have a tremendous amount of
activity going on in addition to your tremendously growing
population. In the past, we have always worked with you and
given you some flexibility in terms of year-end carry-over,
because it is almost necessary that it work that way.
For the last several years, for example, we have allowed
you to carry over up to $90 million into the following fiscal
year to give you some flexibility to allow you to use funds
given to you, even if delays in spending might occur, such as
for activation or something, and we will want to continue to do
that. So give us some idea of any delays that you might foresee
in openings of new prisons in either fiscal 2000 or 2001. Can
you give us a little bit of help on that?
Ms. Sawyer. Sure. As of right now, all of our new
construction of major facilities are either right on time or
expedited. We are really trying to do some things to speed up
construction again, because we need these beds so badly. The
only thing that has slipped a little bit, but right now we
think we will able to get them back on target, are some of
those smaller, low-security conversions where we are trying to
convert some existing minimum-security space to low-security
space. On the activations, we are asking for x number of new
facilities to be activated, plus the new low security
expansions. A couple of those have gotten delayed a little bit,
but they don't amount to much operational money. If they
continue to be delayed, then we would be able to come back and
say we will have some money to carry over into the next year.
The big money, though, is on the full prison activations. As of
right now, those are either on schedule or a little bit ahead
of schedule. Nothing right now looks like it is going to be
delayed.
Mr. Rogers. So you don't anticipate any budget requests
because of those delays?
Ms. Sawyer. Budget request or carry over money, you mean?
Right now we don't think that we are going to have significant
carry over. But you may recall, Mr. Chairman, that we did carry
over $90 million from 1999 to 2000, but that $90 million then
was not in the 2000 budget; it was cut from the 2000. So we are
basically even right now. The only way we will have carry-over
money into next year is exactly as you indicate, if we have
delays in activations. We will watch those very carefully, and
when that target time comes when we need to let you know, if we
are going to have some projected carry-over, we will clearly
communicate that with the Department and with the Committee.
Mr. Rogers. We are going to be pushed again this year. For
all of the other things we do in this subcommittee, it is going
to be really a tight year again, maybe even tighter than last.
It is good to see you and your staff again. We appreciate
the work you are doing. I have told a lot of people behind and
in front of your back that this is the best-run Federal agency
that I am aware of.
Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Certainly the ones we deal with.
Ms. Sawyer. We have wonderful staff, Mr. Chairman. They do
a great job.
Mr. Rogers. And the staff usually reflects the leader.
Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I am very proud of what you and your staff are
doing, and that is the reason we continue to give you all the
money that we can, because you have a heavy load on your
shoulders, but you carry it very well.
The subject matter with which you deal normally is a very
controversial, contentious matter, and I am sure within the
agency you deal with that; but from all outward appearances,
you handle the contentious issues very well, and we appreciate
that.
Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. So good luck to you.
Ms. Sawyer. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Frazier, T. C.................................................... 349
Freeh, L. J...................................................... 131
Leary, M. L...................................................... 349
Marshall, D. R................................................... 203
Meissner, Doris.................................................. 499
Murguia, M. H.................................................... 203
Reno, Attorney General Janet..................................... 1
Robinson, J. K................................................... 203
Sawyer, K. H..................................................... 667
Wilson, J. J..................................................... 349
I N D E X
----------
Page
Attorney General................................................. 1
Americans with Disabilities Act: Title III................... 63
Antitrust Investigations..................................... 80
Attorney General Efforts..................................... 71
Attorney Overtime Pay.......................................75, 119
Biography, Attorney General Janet Reno....................... 53
Border Patrol................................................36, 90
Budget:
Problems, Departmental................................... 97
Request.................................................. 4, 54
CALEA.....................................................7, 41, 55
Carrier Compliance........................................... 57
Child Pornography...........................................76, 121
Community Law Enforcement.................................... 6, 22
Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS)................... 66
Confidential Informants.....................................59, 109
Counterterrorism............................................. 4, 9
Crime:
Combat, Technology....................................... 40
Educational Efforts...................................... 66
Initiatives.............................................. 49
Cybercrime Initiative.................................5, 14, 64, 85
Detention and Incarceration.................................29, 114
Detention Trustee............................................31, 99
Drug Enforcement Administration.............................. 42
Drugs, Breaking the Cycle of................................. 228
Elian Gonzalez............................................... 2, 67
Extradition.................................................72, 114
Federal Bureau of Investigation.............................. 42
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses (FEW)......................... 79
Fingerprint Identification System IDENT/IAFIS................ 91
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE)..... 112
Gun Violence................................................. 19
Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Border Patrol............................................36, 90
Budget Request........................................... 32
Citizenship USA.......................................... 91
Criminal Aliens, Release of..............................94, 95
Detainees................................................ 114
Detention................................................ 100
Financial Management..................................... 91
Elian Gonzalez........................................... 2, 67
Improvements............................................. 92
Information Technology................................... 104
Issues................................................... 90
Los Angeles, INS Activities in..........................58, 108
Non-Deportables.......................................... 74
Restructuring............................................ 94
User Fees................................................54, 62
Indian Country, Law Enforcement Initiative................... 44
Information Technology....................................... 101
Livestock and Pork Industry.................................. 82
Mental Health Courts......................................... 126
Mental Illnesses, Florida Treatment.......................... 126
Methamphetamine.............................................83, 111
Microsoft.................................................... 82
Narrowband Communications.................................... 43
National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO)................. 4, 10
NET Act Cases................................................ 65
Offender Re-entry Initiative................................. 6
Office of Justice Programs................................... 34
Overtime Pay, Attorneys.....................................75, 119
Police Misconduct:
Civil Rights Division...................................58, 107
Diallo Case.............................................. 69
INS Activities in Los Angeles...........................58, 108
Prosecutors, Request for..................................... 5
Questions for the Record..................................... 99
Ritalin, Link to Violence.................................... 115
Statement:
Formal, Reno, Janet...................................... 8
Opening, Reno, Janet..................................... 3
Opening, Chairman Rogers................................. 1
Opening, Mr. Serrano..................................... 2
Tennessee Valley Authority on the Inspector General.......... 74
Tobacco Litigation..........................................77, 116
U.S. Marshals................................................33, 99
Voting on the Internet....................................... 74
Bureau of Prisons................................................ 667
Activations Delays........................................... 699
Advance Appropriations................................669, 677, 692
Biography: BOP Director, Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer............. 681
Budget:
Request...........................................668, 676, 690
Projections, FY 2007..................................... 689
D.C. Revitalization Act...................................... 683
Detainees, INS............................................... 675
Educational Programs, Funding for............................ 690
Felons, District of Columbia................................. 672
Female Inmates:
Substance Abuse Treatment................................ 696
Visitation Access........................................ 698
General Issues............................................... 679
Growth of Prison Population...........................677, 688, 702
Health Care:
Co-Payments.............................................. 702
Substance Abuse Treatment................................ 696
Prisoners, U.S. Marshals..................................... 674
Private Contract Facilities.................................. 686
Privatization:
D.C. Inmates............................................. 684
Criminal Alien Population................................ 687
Questions for the Record..................................... 702
Sexual Abuse in Prison, GAO Report........................... 693
Statement, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer:
Formal................................................... 670
Opening.................................................. 667
Substance Abuse Treatment for Female Inmates................. 696
Supermax Prisons............................................. 704
Telephone Use................................................ 697
Visitation Access for Female Inmates......................... 698
Drug Enforcement Programs........................................ 203
Criminal Division:
Bilateral Case Initiative................................ 220
Biography, James K. Robinson............................. 259
Budget Request.........................................219, 226
Counterdrug Activities................................... 244
Counterterrorism......................................... 228
Drug Control Strategic Plan.............................. 236
Electronic Surveillance.................................. 233
FY 2000 Appropriation.................................... 219
Interagency and International Cooperation................ 220
International Crime....................................228, 250
Money Laundering......................................... 230
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement.............220, 224, 225, 237
Plan Colombia..........................................221, 249
Protecting Communities................................... 228
Questions for the Record................................. 338
Statement, James K. Robinson............................. 222
Strategic Goals.......................................... 234
Drug Enforcement Administration:
Budget:
Request............................................204, 216
Strategies........................................... 211
Biography, Donnie R. Marshall: Acting, DEA Administrator. 218
Drugs:
Demographics, Abuse in America....................... 210
Trafficking.......................................... 208
Local Initiatives........................................ 215
Mobile and Regional Enforcement Teams.................... 204
Operation Millennium..................................... 204
Questions for the Record................................. 338
Statement:
Formal............................................... 206
Opening.............................................. 203
Targets:
International........................................ 212
Regional............................................. 213
United States Attorneys:
Attorney Workload........................................ 328
Biography, Mary H. Murguia............................... 299
Budget Request....................................261, 270, 309
Caribbean:
Drugs................................................ 302
Child Pornography........................................ 284
Child Support Enforcement................................ 291
Civil Defense Litigation................................. 281
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) 334
Computer Crime.........................................262, 278
Counterterrorism......................................... 278
D.C. Superior Court...................................... 293
Drugs:
Cuba................................................. 302
Columbia Trafficking................................. 304
Puerto Rico........................................303, 335
Strategy............................................. 261
Tristate Drug Task Force............................. 310
Transporting by Illegal Immigrants................... 329
Extradition.......................................307, 332, 346
Firearms Prosecution..................................... 272
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.................... 344
Illegal Immigrants, Transport of Drugs by................ 329
Immigration.............................................. 286
Indian Country........................................... 275
Infrastructure........................................... 289
Methamphetamine:
Lab Cleanups..................................304, 310, 336
Problems............................................. 305
Production........................................... 328
Mexico:
Cooperation........................................300, 331
Criminal Threat, As a................................ 301
Trafficking.......................................... 303
Office Opening in Asheville, NC.......................... 343
Operation Pipeline....................................... 340
Questions for the Record................................. 338
Short-Term Protection Program............................ 295
Southwest Border..................................311, 313, 338
Statement:
Opening, Mary H. Murguia............................. 261
Formal, Mary H. Murguia.............................. 263
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)............................ 131
Analytical Capabilities, Development of...................... 141
Biography, FBI Director, Louis J. Freeh...................... 157
Budget:
Initiatives.............................................. 134
Law Enforcement Services................................. 152
Overview................................................. 136
Pay and Benefits Shortfall.............................134, 158
Related Funding Requests:
Grants............................................... 154
State and Local Bomb Technician Equipment............ 154
Telecommunication Carrier Compliance Fund............ 154
Challenges................................................... 132
Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)..... 144
Computer Crime, Global....................................... 133
Counterencryption..........................................151, 174
Counterintelligence.......................................... 137
Corruption, Southwest Border................................. 182
Counterterrorism:
Research and Development................................. 147
Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness................. 145
Crimefighting Technologies, Development of................... 172
Criminal Case Funds.......................................... 142
Cybercrime:
Global Computer Crime.................................... 133
Privacy Concerns.......................................162, 188
Data Forensics.............................................150, 151
Demographics, Changing....................................... 132
Deutch, John and Wen Ho Lee, Investigation of................ 183
Digital Body Recorders....................................... 144
Digital Collection:
Systems................................................137, 138
Outyear Funding Requirements............................. 184
Eric Rudolph Investigation................................... 161
FBI Academy Firearms Range Modernization..................... 142
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994............ 193
Gun Check User Fee........................................... 169
Health Care Fraud............................................ 200
IAFIS/IDENT:
Integration.............................................. 170
Interoperability......................................... 173
Indian Country:
Forensic Examinations.................................... 148
Victims/Witness Services...............................148, 149
Information Sharing Initiative.............................138, 187
Intellectual Property Rights................................. 152
Intelligence Analysis........................................ 139
INTERPOL Relationship........................................ 171
Investigative Support........................................ 142
Jewelry and Gem (JAG) Program................................ 195
Laboratory Construction Status............................... 188
Legislative Proposals:
Danger Pay............................................... 155
Foreign Cooperative Agreements........................... 155
Los Angeles City Police Department Investigation...........181, 197
Methamphetamine Problem, Iowa................................ 169
National Infrastructure Projection Center (NIPC):
Other Government Agency Staffing......................... 186
Staffing Center.......................................... 185
National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network (NIBIN) 153
National Registry of Gun Owners.............................. 163
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS):
Downtime................................................. 164
Questions................................................ 167
User Fee................................................. 169
Opening Remarks:
Chairman Rogers.......................................... 131
Congressman Serrano...................................... 131
Freeh, Louis J........................................... 132
Overseas Presence:
Fugitives..............................................179, 181
Kosovo and Moscow........................................ 179
Violent Crime Apprehension............................... 180
Pay and Benefits Shortfall.................................134, 158
Privacy Concerns...........................................162, 188
Puerto Rico, FBI Role In..............................159, 160, 161
Questions for the record..................................... 193
Rampart Investigation........................................ 197
Research and Development..............................147, 174, 176
Reprogramming Notification................................... 164
Rudolph, Eric Investigation.................................. 161
Safe Trails Task Force....................................... 148
Southwest Border:
Initiative............................................... 171
Public Corruption on..................................... 183
Statements:
Freeh, Louis J:
Formal............................................... 136
Opening.............................................. 132
Summary...................................................... 155
Training:
Civil Rights Training.................................... 190
FBI Academy Training..................................... 140
Hazardous Devices School................................. 147
Interactive Multi-media Courses.......................... 140
Specialized Training..................................... 141
Technology:
Cyber Crimes............................................. 149
Digital Systems...................................137, 138, 144
Privacy Concerns......................................... 162
Telecommunications Services/ATM Circuits..................... 143
Tri-State Drug Task Force.................................... 170
VICAP and INTERPOL........................................... 181
Violent Crimes.............................................147, 180
Weapons of Mass Destruction.................................. 145
Wen Ho Lee and John Deutch, Investigation of................. 183
Winter Olympic Preparation................................... 146
Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).................... 499
Adjudications................................................ 522
Agents, Border Patrol:
Hiring Efforts........................................... 641
Northern Border.......................................... 645
Pay Reform............................................... 554
Biography, INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner.................. 527
Border Enforcement:
Cleveland Forest......................................... 563
Hardening of Borders..................................... 552
Care for Illegal Aliens:
Custody, Not in.......................................... 543
Medical................................................542, 544
Census.....................................................650, 657
Charlotte Office of Naturalizations in 1999.................. 562
Citizenship U.S.A..........................................559, 636
Criminal Aliens:
Enforcement in Full-Service Economy...................... 651
Release of...................................530, 536, 538, 635
Criminal Records, FBI Match with............................. 534
Detention:
Facilities............................................... 566
Hospitals, Detaining Illegal Aliens from................. 551
Program................................................621, 654
Elian Gonzalez...................................529, 539, 570, 649
Enforcement.................................................. 503
Fees:
Collections from Foreign Students........................ 561
Waivers, Naturalization.................................. 665
Financial Problems........................................... 636
General Issues............................................... 635
Hospitals, Detaining Illegal Aliens from..................... 551
IDENT/IAFIS:
IDENT Training........................................... 624
Integration.............................................. 634
Illegal Aliens, Removal of................................... 511
Immigration Services......................................... 517
Information Technology....................................... 640
Infrastructure, Professionalism and.......................... 523
Inspector General Recommendations..........................639, 644
Institutional Removal Program................................ 535
Intelligence Analysts and Aides.............................. 644
Judges, Immigration.......................................... 563
Labor Union Organizing....................................... 666
Late Amnesty (Section 377)................................... 655
Los Angeles Investigation..................................558, 662
Naturalizations..................................519, 562, 652, 665
Operation Vanguard........................................... 646
Pay Reform for Border Patrol Agents.......................... 554
Processing Backlog.........................................564, 636
Public Charge Regulations.................................... 663
Questions for the Record...................................570, 639
Quick Response Teams (QRT)................................... 565
Removal:
Illegal Aliens........................................... 511
Institutional Removal Program............................ 535
Resendez-Ramirez Case: Inspector General Report.............. 622
Resource Deployment.......................................... 643
Responsiveness.............................................568, 647
Restructuring.........................................500, 525, 656
State and Local Law Enforcement Clearance.................... 663
Statement:
Formal, Doris Meissner, Commissioner..................... 501
Opening, Doris Meissner, Commissioner.................... 499
Tellez, Agent................................................ 553
Visa Fraud................................................... 652
State and Local Law Enforcement.................................. 349
Opening Remarks:
Mr. Rogers............................................... 349
Mr. Serrano.............................................. 350
Witnesses, Introduction of................................... 349
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).................. 369
Biography, Director COPS, Thomas C. Frazier.............. 392
COPS Hiring........................369, 373, 383, 415, 428, 447
Grants, Different levels................................. 421
Merger into OJP.......................................... 430
Methamphetamine........................................424, 446
Parameters, Use of COPS Funding.......................... 415
Police Corruption........................................ 415
Priority between COPS or Drug Testing and Treatment...... 447
Questions for the Record................................. 446
School Resource Hiring Program.........................378, 446
Statement, Thomas C. Frazier:
Formal............................................... 371
Opening.............................................. 369
Technology Program.....................................384, 410
Tension Between Police and Communities................... 415
Training, Police Officers, Need for...................... 417
Juvenile Justice............................................. 393
Biography, Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, John J. Wilson..... 407
Drug Prevention Program.................................. 431
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants..................... 425
Statement, John J. Wilson:
Formal............................................... 395
Opening.............................................. 393
Technology Initiatives................................... 352
Youth Anti-Gang Initiatives Funding....................401, 423
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)............................. 350
Biography, Acting Assistant Attorney General OJP, Mary Lou
Leary...................................................... 368
Block Grants, Juvenile Accountability.................... 425
Bullet Proof Vests....................................... 421
Community-Based Initiatives.............................. 351
Counterterrorism Program...............................432, 436
Crime Analysis Unit...................................... 496
Crime Identification Technology Act (CITA)............... 435
Drug Treatment Programs.................................. 442
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants..................... 425
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG):
Administration Action on............................. 408
Balanced Approach.................................... 409
Expenditures by Purpose Area......................... 412
Piecemeal Replacement................................ 410
Program............................................408, 419
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Program.............................. 432
Offender Accountability.................................. 351
Offender Reentry Program................................. 439
Police Corps Participation............................... 420
Prison Populations and Conditions........................ 413
Prisoners Sent Out of State............................414, 451
Prisoner Trends.......................................... 448
Questions for the Record..........................435, 448, 495
State Prison Grant Program.............................427, 444
Statement, Mary Lou Leary:
Formal............................................... 354
Opening.............................................. 350
Technology In Crime Prevention........................... 495
Taycheedah Incident....................................413, 449
Use of Force............................................. 418
Violence Against Women Reorganization Plan............... 421
Youth Gun Violence....................................... 353