[Senate Hearing 108-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2004
----------
Thursday, March 6, 2003.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Chairman Wolf's Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will come to order.
Thank you, Attorney General Ashcroft, for appearing before
the subcommittee this afternoon to discuss the Department of
Justice's fiscal year 2004 budget request. This is your third
appearance before this subcommittee, and we welcome you.
This is a budget hearing, but we would like to take the
opportunity, and I am sure all the members would, to
congratulate the Federal law enforcement agents responsible for
the arrest this past week of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Hopefully,
his arrest will further hamper the ability of terrorists to
strike at us and, hopefully, we will arrest Osama bin Laden,
but I want to congratulate you and all the men and women in the
government that were part of that effort.
I would also like to start the hearing by commending you
personally and all the men and women of the Department of
Justice for their efforts over the past year. The collaborative
efforts of the Departments of Justice and State and local law
enforcement to prevent terrorism are greatly appreciated by
both the Congress and by the American public.
The prevention of terrorism both domestically and abroad is
an enormous challenge. While we will provide you with the
necessary resources to perform this mission, we obviously
expect the Department to continue its extraordinary efforts to
protect our families and communities from crime, as you are
currently doing.
The Department of Justice's budget has grown tremendously
over the last several years while at the same time the Congress
has bestowed significant authority and responsibility upon the
Justice Department to accomplish its important missions. Now
the burden falls to you and all the people who work for the
Department of Justice to ensure that we can live in a society
that cherishes and protects its civil liberties while at the
same time is protected from acts of terrorism and other crime.
That is a constant struggle, but we really have to, as we go
through this very difficult time, remember that it has to be
done in a way that protects and respects the civil liberties of
American citizens.
I would also like to take a moment to thank the thousands
of Border Patrol agents, immigration inspectors and other
employees of Immigration and Naturalization and the Office of
Domestic Preparedness. These Federal employees are entrusted
with tremendous responsibilities, and we wish them well in
their new Homeland Department.
On the same note, we would like to welcome the men and
women of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives to the Department of Justice. I recall during the
sniper attack in this region last fall how well they worked
with the FBI and other law enforcement. I am sure they will
continue to enjoy a good, cooperative relationship,
particularly now that they are in the Justice Department where
they probably belonged at the outset.
Let me briefly provide an overview of the request before I
recognize Mr. Serrano. The budget request for the Department of
Justice for fiscal year 2004 is $18.3 billion in discretionary
appropriations. This represents a decrease of almost 5 percent
from comparable fiscal year 2003 enacted levels. The budget
request does not--I stress does not--include funding for INS,
ODP, or the National Infrastructure Protection Center, but
reflects the transfer of these entities to the homeland
security subcommittee. The request does include $852 million
for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
which has been transferred to the Department of Justice from
Treasury.
The budget request includes several notable increases,
including $513 million for the FBI--and I must say last year I
think we were $45 million above in this committee, above what
the administration asked for--$58 million for the Drug
Enforcement Program, and $243 million for the Bureau of Prisons
while other accounts remain largely static, other than
adjustments to base.
The main themes of these increases include funding to
continue to fight and prosecute the war on terror and to stem
white collar corruption. The fiscal year 2003 budget recently
passed by the Congress already provides increases above the
request for the Justice Department to fight corporate
corruption.
The committee, though, will face considerable challenges in
funding these proposed increases in part because the budget
request includes--and I understand, having worked for a Cabinet
member, former Secretary of the Interior Roger C.B. Morton, the
problems of OMB and the Thursday afternoon visits and the
Friday afternoon visits and how they tell you what you have to
do. But there are some problems, the offsets, including $216
million in undefined reductions across the Department for
cross-cutting efficiencies and a $1.2 billion or 35 percent
reduction for State and local law enforcement assistance
grants.
Since the September 11th attacks, crime has increased in
the country and State and local governments are suffering.
Everyone--it seems everyone comes in here wanting something
from a historic budget shortfall. Yet the budget request
dramatically decreases funding for successful State and local
programs for law enforcement hiring, overtime, drug prevention
and technology programs, and juvenile delinquency prevention at
the very time that we see crime going up. So that is really
going to be a difficult issue.
Before I recognize Mr. Serrano, I want to thank you for
your service. You probably have one of the toughest jobs in the
government. If you are successful, sometimes you can't talk
about your success. If you fail, obviously, having been a
Member of this body, you know that it will be brought out. I
know it is a constant balance, and I know you are a good
person.
At times, the criticism of you has been justified, but at
other times, knowing something about some of the issues, I
think it has been totally unjustified. Yet I think you have
been a--I don't want to use the world ``soldier,'' but a good
American who has not tried to explain or complain or anything
else. And it is a difficult job.
As you know very well, 30 people from my district died in
the attack on the Pentagon, some who I knew. The first person
that was killed in fighting in Afghanistan was a constituent of
mine, a CIA employee. The world is a dangerous place.
I led the first congressional delegation to Afghanistan a
year ago January. When we were there, we were told that 15,000
people went through the al Qaeda training camps. We have caught
now maybe 4,000, I don't know; and others have perhaps been
killed in combat. But there is still a significant number of
people who went through those training camps, and the world is
a dangerous place.
So, as there is criticism and perhaps some of the questions
will be aggressive and I think from an oversight point of view,
as you served in this Congress, it is a tremendous
responsibility--the men and women on this committee care
deeply. But, overall, I want you to know that I do appreciate
your service and know how difficult it is. I want to thank you
and thank the men and women of your Department who are working
with you to keep America safe.
I would also say again, just to stress, I think it is
important that we be very careful with regard to civil
liberties and protection. I think you should have someone close
to you in the Department who is, in essence, the conscience on
this issue who people could call, ask the tough question, are
we being sure that we are protecting the civil liberties in
these cases?
But I did want to thank you for your service. I think you
have done an excellent job.
With that, let me just recognize Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you to you,
too.
Mr. Serrano's Opening Remarks
Let me, first of all, echo Chairman Wolf's last comment,
his idea that I totally agree with, that we discuss the
possibility of a situation where someone is assigned other than
yourself to make sure that we make no mistakes as we do what we
have to do.
With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to
welcome the Attorney General to the subcommittee this
afternoon. As always, it is good to see you.
As I said last year, this hearing always presents me with a
dilemma. On one hand, I like you. Usually, you don't hear that
from liberal Democrats, but you are hearing it from this one. I
have the highest regard for the Justice Department and all the
important work it does. The response to the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, was and is deeply appreciated by New
Yorkers, especially this one.
On the other hand, some of the policies the Department has
proposed to combat terrorism are deeply troubling; and I fear
some officials are so intent on fighting against terror that
they forget what we are fighting for. People across the
spectrum fear for our civil liberties. We worry that during a
time of crisis some steps may be taken that cause long-term
harm to the values we stand for. This concern is not unique to
this time. Last year I discussed how other crises, real or
imagined, led to the internment of Japanese Americans and to
decades of persecution of the Puerto Rican independence
movement.
I don't like people reading my e-mails or listening to my
phone calls. The books I buy are my own business. I don't like
people poking around in my personal life when my personal life
is not a threat to my country, and my constituents feel the
same. I know the balance is very delicate between protecting us
from terrorists, finding them, bringing them to justice,
preventing further acts of terror, and preserving our liberties
for ourselves as well as for our children and our
grandchildren.
Maintaining a proper balance is extremely difficult, and I
recognize that. But we must never tip the balance away from the
rights and freedoms that make us Americans and make the United
States a beacon to the world. After all, our struggle is about
freedom. That is what we hear from the President all time time.
It is about our freedom. It is about other people's freedoms.
If we forget who we are and behave badly here or in other
places, then the September 11 crowd have won.
I have heard some people say, Mr. Attorney General, during
a crisis we will give up a few of our rights if we have to. I
disagree. We must never give up our rights. That is what makes
us Americans. I trust you know that I mean no disrespect to
you, but I think this issue is too important not to speak out.
I look forward to your testimony and the discussion to
follow, and rest assured that on budgetary and other items I
continue to be an ally of yours, a supporter. But I will
continue in every way that I can to remind you that your main
goal is to protect our rights and during this crisis you cannot
allow our rights not to be protected.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Attorney General, you may proceed. Read your
full statement summarize or proceed as you see fit.
Attorney General's Opening Statement
Attorney General Ashcroft. Let me first thank you and thank
the members of the committee who are here today. I am grateful
to you. It is an honor for me to be with you, Chairman Wolf and
Ranking Member Serrano. Let me thank you for your statements.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Before I get into my statement, let me indicate that I
don't believe we can ever have too many people who view it as
their responsibility to carefully monitor the safeguarding of
the liberties of the United States of America. That is an
important task. It is the single most important task we have.
It happens to be the role of the Justice Department.
At the beginning of this republic, when there were but four
Cabinet agencies, there was the Department of State to deal
with foreign powers, a Department of War to wage war and
defense, a Department of the Treasury to look at financial
matters; and it is no shock to learn that the Attorney
General's Office became the office which developed a focus on
protecting and nourishing an environment of freedom. That is
why we house the Civil Rights Division under the Attorney
General's office. That is why we have a special sensitivity to
it.
We always need to be reminded and welcome reminding that
the pursuit of civil liberties is the responsibility of the
Justice Department, and we will continue to make that our
highest priority.
The only thing worth securing, if we are seeking security,
is securing freedom; and we must not abandon freedom in the
pursuit of security. So I am pleased to have you mention those
things.
I think mentioning the fact that in the past we have had
circumstances that have been embarrassing to us in the light of
history, like the internment of citizens, something we have
been able to learn from history and know that we don't want to
repeat and refuse to repeat. We will continue to work hard in
defense of the freedoms we enjoy and seek to defend them.
I am honored to be here today to present the President's
budget request for the DOJ. It is true that the first and
overarching priority of this budget and the Department of
Justice is the protection of American freedom and the
protection of Americans in exercising that freedom from actions
of terrorism and, of course, to bring justice to terrorists.
I thank you for your assistance in providing the Justice
Department with the resources to confront this threat, to
detect, to disrupt and to destroy terrorism. We have taken
these resources as well as tools provided by President Bush,
the Congress and the American people and dedicated them to
preventing future acts of terror.
Today, America is better protected and better prepared to
defeat terrorism. Even as the men and women of the Justice
Department continue to fight the war on terror, we do so within
a framework of justice that upholds our other crucial
responsibilities. We remain committed to combating corporate
corruption, drug trafficking, the unspeakably inhumane crime of
human trafficking. We remain focused on preventing and
prosecuting crimes against children, enforcing gun laws, and
protecting the civil rights of all Americans.
2004 BUDGET REQUEST
The budget request I am here to discuss today will
strengthen our capacity to fulfill all of these priorities. The
President's budget request is $23.3 billion for the Department
of Justice, including a $19 billion item in discretionary
funding and $4.3 billion for the Department's mandatory and fee
funded accounts. The fiscal year 2004 budget reflects the
transfer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the
Office of Domestic Preparedness and a portion of the FBI's
National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), to the
Department of Homeland Security. A portion of NIPC is retained
for the investigation of crimes against our infrastructure: the
prevention portion obviously transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security.
The budget also reflects, as mentioned by the chairman, the
transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives to the Justice Department.
COUNTERTERRORISM RESOURCES
Above all, this budget request reflects our intense focus
on preventing acts of terrorism, identifying, disrupting and
dismantling terrorist networks. With the resources we have
already been provided, we have built an integrated prevention
strategy aimed at combating terrorism, and we are improving
every day. The attacks of September 11th made it clear that the
defense of America requires a new culture of prevention,
nurtured by cooperation, built on coordination, and rooted in
our constitutional liberties.
The excessive constraints imposed in the late 1970s erected
barriers to cooperation between government agencies, that
segregated law enforcement and intelligence gathering, and
prohibited information sharing. Those barriers must be replaced
systematically. Today, Americans are safer because we have
strengthened this culture of cooperation and in so doing have
transformed the rules of engagement for investigating and
prosecuting terrorists within our borders.
The Justice Department is fighting the war on terrorism by
integrating, not separating, our law enforcement capacity and
by integrating, not separating, our intelligence capabilities.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation have set new, integrated standards for
cooperation and coordination. The FBI's domestic intelligence
operations are strengthened substantially by the CIA's
information sharing, intelligence analysis and operational
coordination.
It is to the credit of this new ethic of cooperation as
well as an alert, vigilant and supportive public that we have
not suffered another major terrorist attack in this country.
The FBI indicates that, since September 11th, 2001, over 100
terrorist plots have been disrupted as a result of the
excellent work of that agency in cooperation with others. Yet
our survival and our success in this long war on terror demands
that we continuously adapt to improve our capabilities to
protect America from a fanatical, ruthless enemy.
I will continue to seek the assistance of Congress as we
enhance a culture of prevention and ensure the resources of our
government are dedicated to defending Americans.
INTEGRATED PREVENTION STRATEGY
Now I would like to give you just a brief overview of the
results to date of our integrated prevention strategy.
First, we are gathering and cultivating detailed
intelligence on terrorism in the United States. Hundreds and
hundreds of suspected terrorists have been identified and
tracked throughout the United States. Our human sources of
intelligence have doubled. Our counterterrorism investigations
have doubled in 1 year; 18,000 subpoenas and search warrants
have been issued. Over 1,000 applications in 2002 were made to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, FISA court,
targeting terrorists, spies and foreign powers who threaten our
security, including 170 emergency FISA applications. This 170
number is more than three times the total number of emergency
FISAs obtained in the 23 years prior to September 11th.
Second, we are arresting and detaining potential terrorist
threats. There were four alleged terrorist cells--in Buffalo,
Detroit, Seattle, Portland, Oregon--broken up; 212 criminal
charges brought to date, including the recent indictment of
Sami Alarian and seven co-conspirators and the charges unsealed
just 2 days ago against Mohammad Ali Hassan Sheikh al-Moayad
and Mohsen Yahya Zayed; 108 convictions or guilty pleas to
date; including those of shoe bomber Richard Reid; the American
Taliban John Walker Lindh and one member of the Buffalo cell;
and 478 deportations linked to the September 11th
investigation.
Third, we are dismantling the terrorist financial network.
We have been able to designate 36 organizations as terrorist
organizations. $124 million in assets have been frozen and over
600 accounts frozen around the world; 70 investigations into
terrorist financing, with 23 convictions or guilty pleas to
date out of the 70, and progress, on the others.
Fourth, we are disrupting potential terrorist travel and
terrorist threats to the travel industry. More than 50 major
airport sweeps in Operation Tarmac resulted in more than 1,200
arrests for ID and document fraud and other crimes. The major
alien smuggling networks have been disrupted, hundreds of
terrorists and criminals stopped through the National Entry-
Exit Registration System. Among those individuals: eight
suspected terrorists, with at least one known member of al
Qaeda; 551 aliens were stopped at the border who were wanted
criminals, had committed past felonies or violated other laws;
and 46 felons identified through the Domestic Enrollment
Program, the special registration where individuals were called
back in who had already been in the country, who were in the
country illegally, including cocaine traffickers and child
molesters and individuals convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon. This is a result of the entry-exit program mandated by
the Congress first in 1996 and scheduled for comprehensive
implementation by the year 2005.
Fifth, we are building our long-term counterterrorism
capacity. Thanks to the Congress, we have had a 270 percent
increase in counterterrorism funds; over 1,000 new and
redirected FBI agents dedicated to counterterrorism and
counterintelligence; 250 new assistant U.S. attorneys; 66 Joint
Terrorism Task Forces; 337 percent increase in the Joint
Terrorism Task Force staffing; and flyaway expert teams for
rapid deployment to hot spots around the world when the
expertise of investigative skills is especially pertinent.
COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS
These accomplishments demonstrate that our extensive FBI
counterterrorism operations now blend human resources,
intelligence resources, advanced electronic surveillance, deep
undercover operations, terrorist financing savvy, criminal
subpoenas and search warrants, seamless law enforcement and
intelligence cooperation.
We have made tremendous progress, due in no small part to
your continued leadership, but there is more to be done. The
safety and security of America is in our hands, and we must
continue to anticipate and adapt to new and changing threats.
To that end, the budget request includes an increase of $598.2
million for programs that support our mission to prevent and
combat terrorism, including $516.2 million to enhance or
complement the FBI's counterterrorism program.
Even as we have concentrated our efforts and energy upon
identifying, tracking and dismantling terrorist networks, we
have maintained a steady focus on our other crucial
responsibilities. Our efforts to combat terrorism, coupled with
our integrated prevention strategy, have enhanced enforcement
of the law across the board.
CORPORATE FRAUD TASK FORCE
At the same time the Department has fought the war on
terror, we have addressed other core missions. First, the
Department of Justice has taken decisive action to combat
corporate corruption and punish corporate lawbreakers. The
relentless work of the Corporate Fraud Task Force, chaired by
Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, has resulted in 150
investigations opened into suspected corporate fraud, 200
individuals charged, 60 convictions obtained to date, $20
million in assets frozen, $14 million forfeited to date, and we
are asking and seeking to restore more than $2.5 billion of
forfeited funds to the creditors and investors that lost the
money as a result of corporate fraud.
The Department is committed to ensuring a marketplace of
integrity and restoring the confidence of the American
investor. To that end, the fiscal year 2004 budget requests
$24.5 million to support the Corporate Fraud Task Force.
ORGANIZED CRIME DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND DRUG TRAFFICKING
Second, the Department of Justice has continued to fight
the scourge of illegal drugs. Thanks to the tireless efforts of
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, and the DEA,
the Drug Enforcement Administration, we have increased seizures
of drug assets from major trafficking organizations by 20
percent. We have dismantled 305 drug trafficking organizations
in 2002 alone, more than doubled the amount of heroin seizures
from 2000 to 2002, and attacked the nexus between drug
trafficking and terrorism, including bringing charges in San
Diego against individuals for conspiring to trade heroin and
hashish for antiaircraft missiles, which were allegedly
intended to be sold to the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.
These threats call us even more urgently to action as we
continue to battle drug-related crime. The fiscal year 2004
budget request includes $117.9 million to augment our efforts
to reduce the availability of illegal drugs, to identify and
dismantle drug trafficking organizations, and to support drug
treatment.
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
Third, the Department of Justice has prevented and
prosecuted crimes against children. It has done so by
allocating $2.5 million to develop an effective nationwide
AMBER Alert system. It has reassigned three FBI investigative
analysts to work full time at the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children. It has supported Internet crimes
against children tasks forces across the nation. The Justice
effort has dedicated $3.6 million to the FBI's Innocent Images
National Initiative to keep pace with the nearly 2,000 percent
increase in investigations since 1996 and to combat
proliferation of child pornography and child sexual
exploitation via the Internet.
The Department remains steadfast in its commitment to
protect and defend America's children. Along with the $2.5
million set aside to develop a nationwide AMBER Alert, the
proposed budget provides $3.6 million to support the Innocent
Images National Initiative and $13 million to support the ATF's
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative.
PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD
Fourth, the Department of Justice has protected,
increasingly, Americans from gun crime. In the first 2 years of
this administration, Project Safe Neighborhood's initiative to
combat gun crime has provided an increased federal gun crime
prosecution rate, up by 32 percent, which has helped lock up
repeat offenders and lower crime in cities across America.
For example, in Philadelphia robberies at gunpoint dropped
11 percent, and the homicide rate is the lowest it has been
since 1985. In Kansas City, where members of my family happen
to live, the murder rate dropped 23 percent to its lowest level
in three decades. This reduction translates to 27 human lives
that are saved, that continue to live, which would not have had
previous rates continued.
U.S. Attorneys have charged 10,634 defendants for violating
gun statutes. They have convicted and taken 7,747 gun
criminals, off the streets so far. In 2002, the conviction rate
for Federal gun crime prosecutions was nearly 90 percent, and
more than half of those gun criminals were sentenced to more
than 5 years in Federal prison.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Fifth, the Department of Justice has protected vigorously
the civil rights of all Americans by prosecuting more than 90
discriminatory backlash hate crimes in the wake of September
11th, including: securing the conviction of Zachary Rolnik for
violating the civil rights of Dr. James J. Zogby, the President
of the American Arab Institute; securing the guilty plea of
Earl Leslie Krugel for conspiracy to manufacture and detonate
bombs at a mosque and a field office of United States
Congressman Darrell Issa of California; prosecuting 43 non-
September 11th-related hate crimes cases in the last 2 years;
and initiating over 600 additional non-September 11th hate
crime investigations.
We worked hard to secure the civil rights of Americans by
coordinating the voting rights initiative to ensure access,
honesty and integrity at the polls on Election Day. That effort
resulted in a smooth election with far fewer complaints than
were reported in recent years.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
We have investigated, prosecuted, and convicted record
numbers of individuals involved in human trafficking and sex
trafficking cases. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take a moment to
recognize your tireless efforts in defense of human rights and
human dignity, particularly in combatting human trafficking. In
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, in those two fiscal years, the
Department more than doubled the number of trafficking
prosecutions and doubled the number of convictions for
trafficking over the previous 2 years. We have successfully
convicted 36 defendants in sex trafficking prosecutions, 3
times the number of sex traffickers prosecuted in the previous
2 years. We have initiated investigations into human
trafficking in 46 states and in all United States territories.
Chairman Wolf, the Department of Justice shares your
commitment to eradicating the scourge of human trafficking, and
we will continue our aggressive efforts to protect the victims
of trafficking, and to bring those to justice who violate their
human dignity.
I would also like to note that I regularly raise the human
trafficking issue in my discussions with foreign counterparts,
as I did just yesterday with a friend who came to visit us from
around the world.
TERRORISM
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the overarching
priority of this budget is to defend Americans from the threat
of terrorism. As we work to achieve this objective, we will not
relent in our efforts to defend Americans from any threat to
freedom, be it illegal drugs, human trafficking or child
exploitation. We will not allow their civil rights to be
trampled. The budget request that I have highlighted today
builds upon the firm foundation laid down by Congress in the
days and weeks following the September 11th attacks. It is a
foundation of resolve backed by resource. It is a foundation of
American strength backed by American purpose.
Let me close by quoting Stephen Flatow, whose daughter,
Alisa Flatow, was a 20-year-old American student killed in
Israel when a terrorist drove a van full of explosives into the
bus in which she was riding. Stephen said this: When you know
the resources of your government are committed to right the
wrong committed against your daughter, that instills you with a
sense of awe. As a father, you can't ask for anything more.
As a Nation, we demand nothing less. Securing our homeland
and safeguarding the lives and liberties of our citizens is the
responsibility with which history has charged us.
Chairman Wolf and members of the committee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify here and to reiterate the commitment
of the Justice Department, in the words of Stephen Flatow, to
right the wrong committed against America, to pursue justice
and to defend freedom. I thank you for your leadership, your
counsel, and your support for all you do to secure and to serve
the American people, and I am pleased to be responsive to your
questions.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMPREHENSIVE DRUG STRATEGY
Mr. Wolf. In the interests of time, because my district is
right here, I am going to ask one or one and a half questions
and then let the rest of the panel go, and then I will stay. We
can both--since we both live here, we can spend a little more
time at the end, if the Members want to leave.
Since September 11, the FBI's main mission has been to stop
terrorist activities before they occurred. As you know, the FBI
has pulled 567 agents out of drug investigations to focus on
terrorism. That is certainly a correct approach. However, when
we approved those changes to the FBI, and it was the end of
June last year, we asked Justice for a comprehensive drug
strategy to ensure that we can continue to halt the sale of
illegal drugs.
We have not yet received the strategy. So do you have any
idea when we are going to get it? This is important.
Secondly, we note with dismay that DEA's budget includes
program increases of $42.9 million. It also includes $52.9
million in offsetting program reductions and cross-cutting
efficiencies, which will result in a net reduction in DEA
activities for 2004. So you have a net reduction, you then have
taken FBI agents. Either they were doing nothing and all kind
of hanging around, which I don't believe is the case, or they
were doing something, you have taken them away, and you request
this reduction with regard to DEA.
As I mentioned, when I was in Afghanistan, they were
telling us that the poppy trade was beginning for the last
year. I was with a group the other day that said that they had
just gotten back from Afghanistan. Karzai has no control of the
government outside of Kabul, and the poppies are growing, and
there is no program to eradicate it. So you get more poppies,
more drugs coming out of there and other places. So there
really does seem to be a disconnect.
What is the Department's overall drug strategy, and how
does a reduction in DEA's resources advance that strategy?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much.
The President has announced a goal to reduce the drug
supply and drug use by 10 percent over the next 2 years, and by
25 percent through a 5-year interval. He announced that almost
a year ago. So by saying the next 2 years, I mean in this year
and next year.
Our strategy is to target the most significant
organizations responsible for the Nation's drug supply in an
effort to eliminate their infrastructure. And I would make sure
that--I want to try and indicate that if you just want to get
drug convictions, you can do what sometimes is referred to as
street sweeping. You can go through virtually any major city,
go to the right neighborhood, get a lot of people and get
convictions, but you haven't done anything to actually impair
the drug supply, you haven't done something to curtail the
availability.
So we are working on developing a comprehensive plan in
response to what you have asked us to report, because we think
this strategy is very important. The strategy and plan that has
been requested by Congress is at OMB for clearance. I believe
it will be available soon. We have completed our work on it, we
believe, and it should be to you shortly. It embodies, let me
just say, some major--let me give you six major points.
The first is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the major
international drug supply and money laundering organizations.
The second is to eliminate the financial infrastructure of
these organizations. The third is to develop a strategic plan
to prioritize targets on a regional and nationwide basis to
coordinate investigations of entire networks. I may need to
explain that just a little bit.
So often in the past, with an emphasis on racking up
numbers of convictions as soon as a small part of an
organization could be nailed, someone in some part of the
country would simply file a charge and rack that up as a notch
on the enforcement gun. We need to see these organizations not
for how many convictions we can get on the periphery of the
organization, but how we can work up the ladder to get to the
heart of the organization. With that in mind, the strategic
plan prioritizes targets and coordinates the investigations so
that we get to the heart of the network.
Number four, we are expanding and exploiting drug
intelligence information from all investigative agencies to
identify the links. And some of the link analysis that have
been employed in the fight against terrorism can also help us
make the connections in the drug war as well.
Number five, realigning Federal resources and positions to
match principal drug threats and our strategic priorities, and
frankly, we have to be more efficient. You have called our
attention to something that is very important, that in sending
as many resources as we have into the antiterrorism fight, we
can ill afford not to be very efficient in what we are doing in
drug trafficking.
And, number six, establishing new performance standards to
meaningfully measure our process in achieving the goal of
reducing drug availability. So getting the right understanding
of what drugs are available, how we measure the decline in the
available type, and how we restrict the availability of drugs
is very important.
These are the primary components that I think you will find
in the plan, which should be to you shortly, and which I
mentioned is now awaiting clearance at OMB. We look forward to
providing it for your review.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you. I am going to ask the others
later on and follow up. I do think at times OMB and the
administration take advantage of the Congress, of the
committee, and, quite frankly, of me, perhaps, because there
are some areas that I am not going to allow to be reduced. We
are not going to cut money for sexual trafficking. We are not
going to cut money for child pornography. As long as the blood
pumps in my veins, we are not going to do that.
So sometimes they know that Mr. Rogers is concerned about
drugs with regard to OxyContin, Mr. Serrano is concerned with
regard to this, and they are going to take care of those
issues. So we will cut, cut, cut, and the Congress will fill in
the holes. And it almost becomes a little bit like a gimmick. I
would hope those issues are so important that you would instead
reduce programs that don't impact people.
Every time there is a person addicted from drug abuse, it
is not just a person that is addicted to the drug abuse, it
just doesn't impact that person, but the entire family. So if
the son, or the daughter, or the husband, or the wife is
addicted, the whole family gets devastated.
So I do think there is a little bit of sleight of hand
sometimes done by OMB, and we will follow up after that.
Let me recognize Mr. Serrano, then Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first comment on your last comments. In the hearing
this morning with Secretary Evans, I made the same comment to
him, that there are some budget cuts that come before us that
the committee agrees it is going to restore. And I am really
wondering if there is a plan out there to say we will cut here,
because they will put it back, and then we will still get this
money over here.
Well, if this economy keeps hurting like it is we may not
be able to do that. So I would suggest to some people at OMB
and other places that they begin to tell us exactly what they
want, and keep in mind what we want, because after all, some
people propose and others dispose.
SEPTEMBER 11TH DETENTIONS
Mr. Attorney General, can you tell me to date how many
people have been detained or arrested within our country as a
result of the September 11th investigations? On average how
long are these individuals being held? How many have you
released? And how long do you think these types of detentions
will continue?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I think I have some data on
that. I am not sure I can satisfy all of those.
To date, the INS has detained 766 aliens who have been or
are being investigated in connection with the September 11th
attacks. The vast majority of those, about 489--now, first of
all, the people who were detained are people who were
violators. We didn't detain people who were not in violation.
The vast majority of those 489 have been deported on
immigration charges or have left the country voluntarily,
saying, don't bother to deport us, we are on our way out.
Currently there are only 29 aliens of this category that remain
in INS custody.
As you well know, INS maintains in custody large numbers of
individuals, but not related necessarily to the 9/11 sort of
concerns. Of those 29 that remain in INS custody, only 3 have
been identified by the FBI as individuals that it has a
continuing investigative interest in.
Now, of the individuals who--aliens who remain in the
country, most are no longer of an investigative interest. They
fall into these three categories: aliens in criminal
proceedings or subject to convictions, those who were accused
of criminal activity and were convicted--they are being
detained; aliens who remain in immigration proceedings and are
pursuing relief from removal--in other words, they have been
ordered to be removed and have not and are appealing or, three,
aliens who have succeeded in obtaining relief from removal,
have lawful immigration status, and, therefore, they just are
free.
There are only 29 that remain in custody. Only three are
the subject of any interest on the part of the FBI as it
relates to the 9/11 attacks.
DETENTION RELATED TO TERRORISM
Mr. Serrano. Now, all of the ones you mentioned seem to
have some relation to an immigration issue. Am I correct in
that, or is it that INS has been given the opportunity to be
the one that apprehends those people? In other words, I want to
know why it is INS. And if it is not only INS, then are there
other people detained, arrested at this point who don't qualify
under some INS criteria? I mean, I know of one we will get to
in a second who is an American citizen. But are there other
people who are not INS-detained, if you will?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, there are individuals who
have been detained for committing crimes, and they are----
Mr. Serrano. Related to September 11th.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Related to terrorism. For
example, the so-called shoe bomber and the American Taliban
individual. These individuals have been convicted of criminal
activity and are serving sentences. There are individuals who
are detained as a result of conviction for criminal activity as
well.
I am not in a position to name all of the individuals. I
would be happy to try and develop the information for you that
might help you be aware of what numbers there are. My staff
just handed me information that there have been 212 criminal
charges brought to date; 108 convictions or guilty pleas to
date based on criminal charges and not INS charges.
Mr. Serrano. These criminal charges are related to
terrorism?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, these were individuals
that we believe were related to terrorism, the criminal charges
are not always. Some of the criminal charges are related, for
example, to document fraud. Some of the document fraud for
which they were--these individuals were charged were related to
documents that were provided to terrorists.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Attorney General Ashcroft. So document fraud is not always
terrorism-related, but certainly can be terrorism-related.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Attorney General, what I am trying to get
at here is there are many instances where you hear Americans
say, and the media for that matter, that we are not sure that
we know the number of people that are being held in this
country related to our war on terrorism. I don't need to say
this, but I will anyway--we are not asking these questions in
any way, shape, or form to be supportive of anybody who is
caught up in this situation.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I understand that.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Mr. Serrano. But we all should be supporting everybody's
civil rights and civil liberties. So, with that in mind, what I
am trying to find out from you is, are there people detained
related to perceived or suspected terrorist activities that are
not the usual names we heard or we have read about? Because the
ones you gave me who are nameless and shall remain nameless
seem to be a lot of overstaying visas or people related to what
country of origin or what organization they might belong to.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, we have had individuals
who have been convicted of crimes against Arab Americans, hate
crimes that related to 9/11, but certainly they are not the
names you would expect of----
Mr. Serrano. No. I am speaking about people who are, quote/
unquote, rounded up. How many people are being held? These are
the people I am interested in. I am glad you convicted the
other ones. I do seriously commend you for that.
But, yes, that is related to 9/11, but it is not related to
the war on terrorism. Who is suspected of having a link to al-
Qaeda or to terrorism who is being detained in this country at
this moment?
And, by the way, I think my question is totally proper in
view of your opening statement where you say that the one thing
we should not ever do again is what happened to Japanese
Americans, for instance, during World War II. Now, there are
some folks who don't know, but are concerned that maybe this is
happening. So I will throw in also, again having prefaced my
comments by saying we are not here in defense of anybody, there
is an American citizen, I believe his name is Jose Padilla, who
is held, and from what we understand, he was arrested, he is
still detained, he hasn't seen a lawyer, and he hasn't been
charged.
Now, again, after September 11th, being a New Yorker, we
sort of focus on getting the bad guys. But I know that there is
a little terrifying thought about my walking down the street
and being arrested and no charges brought, and this has been
now, what, close to a year?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Let me try and state some things
that I hope will be helpful. No people have been detained who
have not been charged by the Justice Department.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Padilla has been charged?
Attorney General Ashcroft. He is not held by the Justice
Department; I would be happy to address that issue, and I will.
Everyone who has been--no one has just been rounded up.
Individuals have not been detained unless they were the subject
of an express specific violation. Individuals detained by the
Justice Department, either in the former part of the Justice
Department until last Saturday, INS, or in the Justice family
of enforcement agencies, all have access to attorneys. The only
people who were detained and were not the subject of a specific
charge are individuals who are detained on what was called the
material witness warrant. That is, where a circuit court judge
decides, in accordance with the provision of the law, that a
person is a valuable component of a criminal justice
proceeding, and is held in order to make sure that their
contribution to the proceeding is protected and preserved. That
is all judicially supervised by the courts.
JOSE PADILLO DETENTION
Now, let me go to the Jose Padilla situation. Jose Padilla
is being detained as an unlawful enemy combatant. Individuals
who are a part of a war effort against a country, in other
words those taken as enemy combatants, are traditionally not
the subject of specific charges, and are not the subject of
judicial proceedings. They are not taken by the judicial
process, they are held as a result of the military process.
People who are taken on the battlefield or involved in
battlefield endeavors or activities are eligible to be taken
not by the Justice Department, but by the President in exercise
of his Article II powers to protect the country in time of war.
There are, I believe, two individuals in that category who are
American citizens that I know of, and I believe one is Mr.
Hamdi, and the other is Mr. Padilla. Mr. Hamdi was intercepted
on the battlefield in what is the traditional theater of
operations. Mr. Padilla was intercepted in the United States of
America.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just say something to you that perhaps
you already know. The perception is that the Justice Department
is overseeing all of this. That is what people think. So if I
ask you, it is because we would never think of asking a
military person, under civilian rule as we have in this
country, if they are holding someone. I certainly hope the
military doesn't hold anybody, because that is what makes us
different from other countries.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, the military has always
held combatants who are intercepted in the process of fighting
against the country.
Mr. Serrano. That is true. On the battlefield, for the most
part. Hardly ever on the streets of Brooklyn or Waukegan,
Illinois.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I think it is hard not to say
that New York was not a battlefield.
Mr. Serrano. I understand that.
Attorney General Ashcroft. With all due respect, I think
the battlefield is nontraditional in the war against terror.
Mr. Serrano. I understand. In a nontraditional situation we
have to be careful that we don't commit nontraditional civil
liberties and civil rights violations.
Again, I am not discussing that in this case, I am
concerned that this becomes some sort of a pattern.
Now I will close, because obviously I am not going to get
any farther here. I only regret at this moment--I have never
said this--that I am not in Mr. Rogers' or Mr. Wolf's head at
this moment, because they know the law, I don't. I am not a
lawyer. And I am not going to put words in their mouths or
thoughts in their heads, but I have to believe that if you are
a lawyer you have to be concerned that there are American
citizens detained without charges.
Again, I could care less about the individual, but about
the thought of walking down the street during a difficult time.
I remind you that there must have been Members of Congress or
someone asking these same questions during the Second World War
and the answer they got back was, Chicago is a battlefield,
Ohio is a battlefield, and San Francisco is a battlefield. And
now we all realize that that was wrong. And so that is my
concern, not the individual, but the idea of being detained
without charges and not being able to see a lawyer scares the
hell out of me, Mr. Attorney General.
Attorney General Ashcroft. May I respond to that
additionally? First of all, it is a very serious matter.
Whether or not American citizens could be detained as enemy
combatants is not a novel thing that hasn't been considered by
the highest Court in the United States. It has been considered
by the highest Court, and the Supreme Court in the Second World
War indicated that it didn't matter what citizenship you held,
if you were an enemy combatant, you could be detained as an
enemy combattant. And as a matter of fact, the Quirin case
involved a group of individuals who sought to disrupt the
United States with acts of sabotage. A group of Germans that
came ashore were joined by an American to use explosives to
disrupt this country, and in that case, I believe it is fair to
say that the Court ruled very clearly that one's citizenship
does not keep one from being identified as an enemy combatant.
I really want to agree with you, and that is that this--we
have only one individual so treated who was intercepted in the
United States and then has been maintained as an enemy
combatant, and I take that very seriously. I have looked at the
law very carefully on it. And this is being litigated, as a
matter of fact, right now, so I am limited as to what I can
say. But the matter of Mr. Padilla is on appeal after having
been ruled and considered by the courts. So this is not a
matter that is being taken indifferently. We are aware that
this is a matter of serious concern. I thank you, and I respect
your concerns. I respect the concerns of every American that is
concerned about freedom.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just close, Mr. Chairman, by simply
saying, history will judge us all for this period of time. And
as one who started off by saying, I like you, I want history to
judge you as the one who, during a very difficult period, tried
to strike a balance and not one who allowed people to get
carried away to a point where we hurt ourselves and threw away
our Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CIVILIAN PROSECUTION VS MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Mr. Wolf. As I recognize Mr. Rogers, I would say, I think
that case was when they were picked up, I think on Long Island.
There were four or five who came--who infiltrated during World
War II, if my memory serves me, the case you are referring to.
I would say that my sense is, though, they ought to be
prosecuted and brought to justice. I think by doing that, you
probably personally as an individual needlessly get criticized.
I think there is this sort of attention that when something is
going on that people might have a problem with, they say, let's
say it is John Ashcroft's fault, which is not really fair,
because--and yet you are fair--so my sense is, and I would
agree with Mr. Serrano, the appropriate thing is, unless there
is something I am not aware of, and I read every article in
every paper--the appropriate thing would be to prosecute that
individual and bring him to court, as you did to John Walker,
the American Taliban. That way it is the process that everyone
understands. As you have been in this business for a long
while, sometimes perception becomes reality, and that becomes
very unfortunate. So I would agree with Mr. Serrano. I think a
prosecution would probably be the best approach.
Attorney General Ashcroft. May I make a comment? Sometimes
answers seem easy when they are not. The kind of safeguards
that we have that surround prosecutions and the kind of
information that is provided in prosecutions sometimes might
not be in the best interests of the United States immediately.
So that throughout history those individuals who have involved
themselves as combatants in wartime, generally have been
individuals subject to detention, at least until the end of
hostilities. Frequently the kinds of prosecutions, whether they
be through military commission or tribunal, have taken place at
the end of the hostilities.
I would just submit that there may even be a more important
consideration in a setting where the enemy doesn't operate in
ways that are consistent with the traditional laws of war. I
know the ``laws of war'' phrase has a sort of dissonant ring
about it, because war seems to be against the law, but when you
are involved in surreptitious and covert attacks on innocent
civilians and their lives, sometimes judicial proceedings which
lay things out may not be in the best interests of security
during the time of the conflict. That is one of the reasons.
These are tough issues to be balanced. I thank you for
allowing me to say this. We are not discussing someone held by
the Justice Department, but I need to take responsibility. It
is my responsibility to provide a legal framework and context
in which detentions are understood and sustained. The right of
the President to conduct the defense of this Nation in the time
of war is something upon which I give counsel and which I work
to defend, and that encompasses this area.
So, I don't mean to repudiate; in fact, I endorse the
President's activities here.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
allowing some of us to proceed.
DRUG DIVERSION/OXYCONTIN PROBLEMS
General Ashcroft, welcome to our hearing room again. We
thank you for being here with us.
Since we met last year at this time, we have had an
unfortunate set of circumstances in my area of the State and
country. As I left home Monday of this week, a young 21-year-
old former prom king in his high school, star student, stood in
the county courthouse and pled guilty to the assassination of
my sheriff at a political rally last spring, hooked on
OxyContin, he said.
I had to speak at the--give the eulogy for this great 18-
year sheriff of my county, a very popular figure, and I had to
try to console some 2,000 people, law enforcement people, from
all over the country, because he was a widely respected and
highly loved sheriff.
And we didn't know at the time what had motivated this
young man to assassinate the sheriff from the bushes at a
political rally picnic. Now we know it was OxyContin.
There was a series of articles in the State--in the
Lexington newspaper over the last several months now, front
page, enormous stories about the scourge of mainly diverted
drugs that has absolutely swept my district and the eastern
half of Kentucky. It is unprecedented. Nothing like this has
ever happened. Every day there is a story in the paper about
some kid dying or some doctor under indictment for diverting
enormous quantities of this highly addictive OxyContin drug,
which is a great pain reliever for those who are severely in
pain, but whose 24-hour capsule can be consolidated and quickly
taken in a quick dose for an enormous high.
You and I talked about this last year. I appreciate the
fact that in 2003 you requested a significant increase, $24.5
million, for the drug diversion account. I don't see that,
however, requested in the 2004 submission. I am very
disappointed. This is an enormous problem. It is not just my
area. OxyContin has been linked to more than 100 deaths in
southern New Jersey and Philadelphia in the last 2 years. In
the first half of the year, 54 people died in Palm Beach
County, Florida, of oxycodone. In Virginia, Mr. Chairman, 49
people died in the 18 months from January 2000 to June 2001,
direct result of oxycodone intoxication.
I could go on. It is a huge problem, and it is killing
people. This is not a--I mean, I am against marijuana, too, but
we have spent so much money eradicating marijuana, which I
support, and we are spending pennies on things that kill you.
And I don't see in your budget submission anything that would
address this horrific problem.
There was a newspaper article in the Monday newspaper as I
left home coming up here of a doctor in northern Kentucky who
was being disciplined by the State medical association for
dispensing OxyContin pills by the truckload.
And so it is not just a law enforcement problem. It is--the
medical profession bears some huge responsibility here. But
trying to assess blame at this point is not my choice. My
concern is that with the shifting of the FBI duties from
counternarcotics to homeland security, which we have to have,
obviously, I am just wondering how we are going to fill the
void that is being left there of the inability to prosecute
these killers.
I mean, OxyContin will kill you just like a terrorist will.
And, unfortunately, it is the younger people who are getting
hooked on this stuff and killing and dying, and the crime rate
is soaring because they will do anything to get this drug.
Can you help me out?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, let me just say to you
that this is not something that we take lightly at all. The
2004 budget does include the increase that was proposed by the
President in 2003. We want to devote our efforts to crippling
the organizations that work in the area of OxyContin. I think
you know some of these. The Operation Cotton Candy, an ongoing
investigation begun in December of 2001; the investigation of a
distribution organization in northern Virginia, responsible for
the distribution of over 2 million dosage units and other
prescription drugs with a street value of over $18 million
resulted in some guilty pleas. That is an example of one that
has been successful, 19 guilty pleas, over 2,000 dosage units.
DIVERSION OF RESOURCES TO HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Rogers. Let me interrupt you, Mr. General. I want you
to be able to give us your complete statement. I am not really
driving at numbers here. My experience has been--and the
newspaper analysis that has been done, and the series in the
Lexington Herald Leader was a good series, well investigated,
well documented--perverse, widespread use of this drug.
And it was not being distributed by a huge organization.
These are people who perhaps were in a car wreck, and the
doctor prescribed OxyContin as a pain reliever, and they became
addicted to it, and they couldn't get off the addiction when
the wreck injury healed itself. And they will do anything to
get the drug. So they go out and rob a store or double-fill a
prescription at a pharmacy that is not quite on the up and up.
These are individuals by and large. It is not a huge
organization that is doing this, I don't think.
And my problem is, we have diverted so much of the FBI's
budget now to counter--to homeland defense, which we must do,
we have left an enormous void in the ability of Federal law
enforcement to be able to get at these--this problem that we
are infested with.
It is not just my area. It is not just OxyContin. The meth
labs are taking over as well. And I am worried that we are not
filling the void that we created when we shifted FBI to
homeland defense. Do you feel okay by that?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, let me just say that there
are those cases where individuals become addicted as a result
of prescriptions. There are lots of other cases where this drug
is being made available. We are trying to attack this on
multiple levels. Mitchell Wall, the head of a criminal
organization in Maine and New Hampshire, was sentenced to life
imprisonment because his distribution network resulted in
people dying. So it is being taken seriously on the
distribution network level.
Let me address this problem that you have raised, which is
an important consideration. That is, that as we have devoted
resources to counter the threat of terrorism, we have to make
sure that we don't leave an anemic capacity behind in dealing
with these other problems.
The fiscal year 2003 enacted appropriation and the fiscal
year 2004 budget request include a total of 449 new DEA
agents--216 new DEA agents from 2003, that is 233 from 2004. So
we are trying to build back the capacity in terms of anything
that has been diverted. You are talking mainly diversion in the
FBI. We take these matters seriously.
We are working to allocate our resources more effectively
as well, but we believe that OxyContin is one of the most
serious threats. It was at one time sort of an Eastern, east of
the Mississippi, threat. It spread. There are major problems in
St. Louis, major problems in other areas of the country where
we have had reports of its use.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the 2003 budget request that we discussed
with you last year at this time did propose a significant
increase, as I mentioned. You increased the drug diversion
account, which is the one that the DEA uses to prevent, detect
and investigate the diversion of prescription drugs and all
controlled substances, particularly OxyContin. You increased
that last year for DEA.
But, the 2004 budget you did not--you included that amount,
you started out at that level, but there was no further
increase in the drug diversion request. And the problem since
that time has grown enormously, and I am troubled that we--you
did not request more money for that particular account in DEA.
So you will understand when we look at your budget request here
that that is of uppermost importance to some of us.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Indeed.
IMPACT OF PROPOSED ``REALITY'' TV SHOW
Mr. Rogers. Now, quickly, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to cover
another subject, and I will do it hopefully briefly so others
can have time. And I don't want to be parochial entirely today,
but I feel on this one I must. And I don't know what I am going
to ask you to do here. I don't know that you can do anything.
CBS Television is advertising in all of Appalachia to find
a hillbilly couple that they can take to Hollywood and put them
up in a Beverly Hillbillies redo.
Attorney General Ashcroft. The Clampetts?
Mr. Rogers. Yes. And expose them to the new world that is
out there. Now, if you took--if you--if CBS advertised in New
York City for a Puerto Rican couple to take to Hollywood----
Mr. Serrano. Personal privilege.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. And poked fun at, or a Jewish
person in Miami, or an African American in Alabama, and you
were going to expose them and ridicule them, poke fun at them
in that situation, why the Nation's press would go crazy,
rightly so.
But then you advertise for a person from the Appalachian
region, who, per capita, furnished more volunteers in the
service of our Nation's military than any other part of the
country. You take those people out there and poke fun at them,
and no one says a word.
Now, I have written the President of CBS, Mr. Leslie
Moonves. I want to give you a copy of the letter, and for the
record as well.
Mr. Rogers. We have been working in our region to improve
ourselves. We are making great progress. In my area of the
State, and I represent an Appalachian region, I am a life-long
resident of Appalachia, we are now recruiting higher-tech
businesses in there to employ hundreds of people.We have had to
move out over the years to the bigger cities in the north
because we didn't have the jobs. We have reversed that now. The
census now shows we are gaining population and we are doing
good things. I even call my area Silicone Hollow.
But you would never know that from this proposed program of
CBS. And I say in the letter: Despite the progress we have
made, many people, including you, Mr. Moonves, continue to
believe the long since outdated and erroneous stereotype that
Appalachians are lazy, uneducated, barefooted hicks. Making
matters even worse, your network now seeks to reinforce this
grossly inaccurate stereotype and present it to the world as,
quote, reality.
Quote, this show is a slap in the face to all that we have
accomplished and threatens the positive progress and momentum
that have taken years to create. Most significantly, it will
seriously damage the image of our region and our tourism
efforts, which are critical to economic development and job
creation.
I can go on.
Now, I realize you probably can't do anything about this,
but does it smack you as being discriminatory, or does it have
any elements of violations of civil rights or something like
that?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Congressman, I have trouble
maintaining responsibility for my own conduct let alone that of
CBS; I am pleased to say that that is not something which I
would endorse in any way. I regret that you have to come to the
committee with an item like that, but I don't--believe that
what you have described to me is a matter that the Justice
Department can address.
Mr. Rogers. No, and I didn't expect you to do that. But
being the Nation's chief law enforcement officer and a moral
leader, I think this may fall in the--in your--in that category
of----
Attorney General Ashcroft. It is pretty close to the
Ozarks.
Mr. Rogers. What if they took a couple from the Ozarks and
poked fun at them? Would you feel differently?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, CBS has poked fun at me
before, and as long as they leave my wife out of it, I will
consider it a win.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I thank you for listening to me on this,
and I hope you understand my outrage at the vast wasteland that
is public--commercial television these days. I am afraid that--
well, I won't say that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Rogers, and I share your
concern, too.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CUTS TO JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. And I had a couple of
different questions on a couple of different lines of thinking.
One, I didn't know whether you wanted to comment on this
morning's New York Times article that pointed to the fact that
the FBI was not, in the view of the woman that kind of reported
some of the problems of 9/11, ready for, prepared for--Colleen
Rowley, I think it was. I will give you a chance to comment on
that if you haven't already.
But I wanted to go through a couple of specific things with
the budget first, if I could.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
which, you know, the Justice Department, which now bears the
name of my late uncle, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, he was
a major part of that creation of the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention with believing firmly that
prevention could really help save people's lives and keep
people from suffering unduly from crime because of the
investments that would be made to keep kids out of situations
where they might otherwise get caught up in violence and drugs
and the like. And, unfortunately, that block grant, which I
know has been retitled JAIBG, has been totally eliminated from
what I can see. And Title 5 funding, which also deals with
prevention funds, has been cut 18 million below your 2003
request.
So I understand the war on terrorism, you know, taking
precedence, and I--I appreciate that. I just wanted to get your
feeling as to what we are going to do to help keep these
investments and prevention going, and how you feel that they
have paid off, whether you feel that they have paid off or not.
Maybe in your view they haven't done what they need to do, and
maybe you have some other ideas as to what we can do to help to
address juvenile crime so that we can--I will just give you an
example.
In my State we have a family court judge, Chief Jeremiah,
who goes around and sits in every school, brings the kids who
were delinquent, brings their families in, and asks them why
they are delinquent, puts the heat on them, and you know what?
They have increased overall attendance in each of those schools
that these judges visit.
Just as an example, you know that delinquency, when you
look at the trajectory, often leads to other----
Attorney General Ashcroft. Truancy.
Mr. Kennedy. Truancy leads to other problems down the road.
So what I am saying is that kids, hopefully they are malleable
enough that we can keep them from going into a life of hard
crime.
What are we doing in light of the fact that the OJJDP,
which was the original program, has since been cut from what
was $250 million to zero, and that Title 5 funding, which goes
in to help in prevention programs, has been cut by $30 million
below the 2003 budget?
Attorney General Ashcroft. The President's 2004 budget,
which was submitted prior to the enactment of the 2003 fiscal
year appropriation, the President's proposed appropriation for
Title V is funded above the 2003 appropriation was. I think
that recognizes the fact that we would like to----
Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate that Congress in the omnibus bill
did not appropriate the necessary dollars, but previous
Congresses had approved over $97 million, and I would compare
that as well. So that is the point I want to make.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, I would guess--I hope that
we learned something from the previous opportunities we have
had. This takes us a little bit to the philosophy of what
Federal programs are for: to introduce us to innovative and
creative things like your judge who decided to intervene early,
to change behavior early. In many respects, the Federal role is
to help introduce communities to opportunities that can be
fulfilled by the communities in their responsibility for this.
I hope that in the programs we have had in the past, that
we will have learned that there are things that we can do that
make a difference. Obviously the submission by this
administration would provide more funding next year than we had
during this year.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, I look forward to working with your
Department, your office on what exactly--what kinds of things
you are looking forward to doing in the years ahead. Given the
fact that, as you know, this is a constant scenario where we
can avoid crime, and given the fact that we have more per
capita than any other industrialized country of people in jail,
it should concern us as a Nation that we are not doing enough
to prevent crime, that we are only patching up after the crime
happens, which, of course, leaves many families victims. We
should try to prevent those families from ever seeing their
loved ones be victims of crime by investing more in prevention.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
And in that regard, with regard to your policy on the death
penalty and overriding different States, I mean, you just said
that you are interested in--this administration is interested
in States having some of their own views upheld and
appreciated, but that is not the case with your view of the
death penalty. You have tried to override by recommending to
your prosecutors that even in places where they have chosen not
to seek the death penalty, that they are to seek it anyway,
even though it costs, as you know, a great deal more to impose
the death penalty as compared to life without parole.
And if you think of all of those, let alone all of the
arguments that you found within your own Department that it
makes it very difficult for plea bargains that could otherwise
be used to help avert further crime, aside from all of that, it
costs so much more, and all of that extra money is not, you
know, is not falling off the tables here. And if you point to
the fact that just for this Title 5 prevention, we could use
that other money that otherwise goes to all of those trials and
continuances and appeals for those death penalty cases, against
the wishes of the local States, in which they are asked to
enforce these death penalty cases, and you could put all of
those moneys into prevention.
I would be interested in what your response is to that.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I am very pleased to have an
opportunity to respond. The Federal Government has enacted,
this Congress, as the President has--not this particular
Congress, but Congress as an institution has--and the President
has signed into law a capital--a set of capital sanctions for a
variety of infractions of the law.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Attorney General Ashcroft. As part of that, they have
mandated that the Attorney General be a part of every decision,
with a singular, I believe, purpose in mind, and that is to
make sure that we had a Federal law. If you are going to have a
Federal law, you should have some uniformity. A Federal law
shouldn't be one set of penalties in one part of the country
and another set of penalties in another part of the country.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Now, State laws should have the
ability to be varied. But, if you are going to have a Federal
law, I think the Congress reasonably decided that we shouldn't
have capital punishment for some part of the country and not
capital punishment for another, or for some group of people in
the country and not another. We don't want racial disparity.
Mr. Kennedy. I like where you are going with this, Mr.
Attorney General. Believe it or not, I like it.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, good. The point is this:
It is the law. So the Federal Government does not allow for the
repeal of the death penalty in various States because a State
doesn't like the death penalty. If the Congress of the United
States wants to have a Federal law that includes the death
penalty, and it sets up a mechanism where it says to the
Attorney General, we want you to oversee this so it is not
enforced in a disparate way, so that it is not enforced with
economic disparity, ethnic disparity, or geographic disparity,
but so that there is uniformity, because this is one Nation
that should have a uniform deal, when the Attorney General has
that responsibility, I accept that responsibility because it is
part of the law.
We have at the Justice Department what is called a capital
case review committee to say--for laws which are chargeable
under the Federal law which are capital eligible--that there
should be some sense in which the law is the same in various
parts of the country, because it is a national law. It is not a
State law, it is not a municipal ordinance, this is something
that was passed by the Congress. If we have equal justice for
people across the country, equal justice should mean they are
subject to equal penalties and similar penalties. It is with
that in mind that I have done what every Attorney General has
who has followed the law on this--and that is to have a review
committee that says to local prosecutors--very frankly this
isn't designed for a law that reflects the locality. The
Congress of the United States enacted this law as a Federal
law, and it is designed to reflect the will of America as a
whole. And there should be some fairness, some equal
application across America as a whole, with liberty and justice
and equal justice for all. And that means that the penalties
have to be equal.
So my view is that this is my responsibility. I have sworn
to uphold the law. It is one of the jobs that Congress has
asked me to undertake. And I do it with that in mind. If I were
to somehow say that law should be equally enforced and I had to
respect the right of some district, some State, to say there
would be no death penalty, in order to make things equal with
that I would have to, by my own activity, abolish the death
penalty in the face of the law that the Congress had said we
should have a death penalty.
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I don't think that is why I took
my oath of office. I don't think that is my responsibility. I
think my responsibility is spelled out in the law to try and
fairly make sure we have an approach to this that gives a sense
of equality and uniformity to the law across the country in
accordance with the will of the Congress.
DISPARITY IN DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Given that
being your feeling, and you do not like to see any disparity,
groups be treated inequitably, then what is your response to
the former Attorney General Janet Reno's full investigation and
study that reveals that there are great disparities in the
application of the death penalty throughout this country; that
predominantly African Americans and Latinos and minorities
overwhelmingly represent the highest percentage of those who
receive capital punishment, and that if you happen to be coming
from the South, your chances of getting sentenced to death are
quadrupled if you happen to commit that same crime in the
North. And your chief job is to make sure the law is followed
equitably around the country, then what is your response to
that, Mr. Attorney General?
Attorney General Ashcroft. My job is to make sure that the
Federal law is imposed with a sense of uniformity and fairness.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay. In New England we are not giving people
death, but we are doing it down south; so, hey, just to make
things equal, we ought to make sure we fry them everywhere.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Congressman, I would like for
you to let me finish this answer, because I think you are
talking about State cases and Federal cases and studies that
may have mixed the kinds of cases. The studies done by the
Justice Department don't reveal the kind of prejudice you
indicate. I am not prepared to comment on the cases that are
not Federal cases. That is not my responsibility and
jurisdiction.
The studies, I believe, done by my predecessor and
certainly those that have been done in the Department regarding
activity that happened during the time of my predecessor and
goes into my opportunity to serve the American people in this
job, indicate that we don't have an improper disparity as
relates to race or geography. That is one of the things we are
trying to avoid.
Mr. Kennedy. You do have the charge of overseeing people's
civil rights. And, clearly, even though this is a State system,
like you point out, you have a responsibility to make sure the
States don't violate people's civil rights as protected under
the Constitution, one.
Two, in the Federal system, you and I both know that Native
American lands are entirely in the Federal system and Native
Americans as a group suffer disproportionately as a result of
that from all Federal crimes, and there are other instances
like that. So to think that other studies have been done--the
fact is the evidence of this is so overwhelming, to hear you
say as the chief law enforcement officer, as the enforcer of
justice in this country, that that is not your job, that your
job is a narrow ``whatever Congress tells me on the Federal
law,'' in spite of the fact that we are the laughing stock of
the world for our barbaric approach to the death penalty, aside
from the fact that every single person in this country that has
been studying the death penalty sees that it is
disproportionately impacting minorities, you say that is not
your job.
And I don't know, and actually Mr. Rogers who was here
earlier is unsettled by the fact that people in his area may be
singled out, I don't think it is much conciliation to African
Americans who may be listening to this, or Latinos, that you
are going to say to them that that is not your business as the
head of the Department of Justice of this country to look into
the gross disparities in the application of the death penalty.
I don't know if you want to settle for that answer, if that
will be your answer, fine, but I don't know if that is going.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Congressman, it never was my
answer.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell me what your answer is.
Attorney General Ashcroft. My answer, as it relates to my
responsibility to oversee the Federal system, I have made these
judgments. I would particularly like to ask the Chairman if I
may disassociate myself with his statements of what my answers
are so that I may give my own.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. Without objection.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would be happy to answer the
questions, but I do not want the answers ascribed to me to be
considered my answers, when in fact they are not.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, then, will you give your answer?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, my answer is that as it
relates to my responsibility imposed by the law for me to work
to see to it that there is not a disparity in the imposition of
the death penalty at the Federal level. In the Federal system I
have exercised my responsibility to see to it there is
uniformity. As we have reviewed that and that has been
reviewed, not only the performance of that in my setting but
also in the setting of my predecessors--We have found that it
has not been disparate in the way it has been approached.
I would be happy to supply to this committee documentation
of that which is done in a scholarly way and done in an
independent way which reflects the quality of the
implementation of the law at the Federal level.
Mr. Wolf. Without objection, we can put that in at this
point.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record
Attorney General Reno's study that she has submitted to the
Congress before you took the office of the Attorney General,
describing how in the Federal system there were inequities in
the Federal system in terms of the number of people represented
in the Federal system as opposed to their population,
percentage of the population nationwide. And that was the--
Attorney General Reno's commission prior, I think, Mr.
Ashcroft, to your coming in. But I don't imagine it is a whole
lot different than it is today, although I hope it is.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I will be happy to provide the
studies done by the Justice Department historically. And I
think I would be very pleased for the committee to make its own
judgments about the conclusions that the studies have made.
Mr. Wolf. We will do that. We will include both or any
other that you submit for that.
[The information follows:]
Recent Federal Death Penalty Studies
The Department of Justice is providing studies on the Federal Death
Penalty requested by the House Appropriations Subcommittee and
Representative Kennedy at the March 6, 2003 hearing. These studies
represent the historical surveys, analysis, and revised protocols
prepared by the Department on the Federal Death Penalty system.
Due to the significant size of these studies, they are not included
in this hearing volume. Instead, the titles are listed below for
reference:
The Federal Death Penalty System, A Statistical Survey (1988-2000),
United States Department of Justice, September 12, 2000.
The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and
Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review, United States Department of
Justice, June 6, 2001.
Mr. Kennedy. If I could submit the rest of my questions for
the records.
Mr. Wolf. You are welcome to. Since I have been Chairman of
this committee and the other one I have never used a gavel. We
obviously would, you know, have to move on.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sure others will ask questions about the
COPS program.
Mr. Serrano. The gavel questions.
Mr. Kennedy. The gavel questions, right.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Attorney
General Ashcroft. I have a number of questions I as well will
submit for the record.
Mr. Wolf. Without objection.
Mr. Sweeney. And they involve issues of drug interdiction
policy and preventing crimes against children, the Federal
detention system, and the identity theft bill that I have
introduced that I am interested in talking to your staff and to
you about, sale of dietary supplements that I believe you may
share an interest in some of those. But I am going to limit my
questions because for some of us time is of the essence in
terms of transportation needs, and focus specifically on the
post-September the 11th world and back on to the war on terror
and homeland security issues.
I sought appointment to a number of committees, was lucky
enough to be selected and appointed to this committee in part
because of the jurisdictional issues relative to the Justice
Department, as well as the Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
as well as the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and in
part did that in a macro sense because I am quite concerned
about our capabilities in the progress that we make and how
critical I believe the progress we need to make is in ensuring
that the intergovernment communications system that is
established is sound and universal.
I was happy just prior to coming into the hearing to go to
an organization meeting of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security where Chairman Rogers laid out a wide breadth of
agenda items and included at the top of that list this idea
that we needed to work hard on our internal capabilities to
make sure that there was a common architecture in terms of the
various entities. And it is somewhat cumbersome, or clumsy
anyway in its design, that we have homeland security in one
place and intelligence gathering and enforcement capacity
somewhere else. But I recognized the depth of the challenge
that we were going to face last year, in just forming a
Homeland Security Department and concept, that maybe these are
questions, in terms of the integration under one roof, better
left for another time.
TERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING
In two parts I want to say something and really just get
your broad response to: One is, recently some Members of the
Senate concluded that the FBI had failed to take advantage of
some of the sweeping investigative powers that Congress
afforded them and that--essentially saying the FBI and Justice
Department had sometimes confused the basic elements of the
law. And specifically they pointed to the need for
strengthening, or the lack of strengthening of information
sharing as it related to counterintelligence efforts. And
allegations that the FBI--and I hear this still frequently and
I think it is part of the two faces of the culture relative to
the FBI--that the FBI is still not as cooperative as it needs
to be in informing, be they first responders, or really working
with other Federal entities out there.
And I see in your testimony--this is the second part of
it--that you have allocated 72 positions and $4.4 million to
enhance policies to develop and disseminate intelligence
information reports. My question, fundamentally: Is this
enough? What is the time line that you envision? And most
specifically, have there been extra efforts to look at the
timeliness in delivery? You know, the intelligence information
gathered pre-September the 11th, 2001, that has come to light
since that time was of little use because of the timeliness
issue. And I ask the question in part to emphasize the concern
of Congress that you and your partners in the Federal
Government spent a lot of time focusing on that particular
point. If you could answer that, I have a second question
relative in terms to that I would like to ask.
Attorney General Ashcroft. First of all, this is a profound
question that goes to the heart of readiness and prevention.
When it comes to prosecution, you can take your time in
assembling information. When it comes to prevention, time is of
the essence. And there are so many of these things, you have
gone through a broad range of things, and I just jotted down
about seven or eight notes and I could talk for a while on all
of them.
Having the information subject to analysis at a central
location that has all the information and not just parts of
it--because you may not recognize it is a dog if you see just
the leg, but if you see a leg and a muzzle and an ear, and see
a trunk--you can say that is a dog. I hope that was clear.
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER
The President has recently convened what is called the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which is designed to make
available to analysts in all of the Intelligence Community the
information developed in all the other parts of the
Intelligence Community. You have a place where you could have
an integrated analysis that can touch all of the information.
Mr. Sweeney. I don't mean to interrupt you but, as I
understand, that will be housed in the CIA.
Attorney General Ashcroft. It will be initially housed in
the CIA. Subsequently this will be stood up in an area where
the counterterrorism unit of the FBI will be associated with it
and a counterterrorism unit of the CIA will be associated with
it. And the information from all, a number of other agencies,
Homeland Security will also have a place at that table. And at
that central location they will be able to move into all the
databanks. That is very important.
Secondly, the FBI which has historically been a case-
oriented organization so that an office in some part of the
country would be working on a case and a set of facts. It would
be a hard copy case and not necessarily available, that
information, in some other part of the country--and it is very
important to know has going on. You might see things that are
related in the development of its information technology--it is
now building a virtual case electronic data management system
so that cases are kept in an electronic file, so that all the
information available anywhere is available everywhere. So you
coordinate that into the CIA-type system.
The FBI has changed dramatically. We are dealing with a new
FBI. Never before has the FBI done what is called report
writing. I have to explain this. They haven't taken their
intelligence and stripped out the sources and methods of
developing the intelligence so then they can take the
information from their investigation and put it in a central
bank or in a place where it should be available to other
resources. Sources and methods frequently should not be
compromised. The FBI is embracing that new approach, which has
been an approach of the CIA for a long time.
As we make these changes in process and make these changes
in structure, we assemble the sort of critical mass of the
availability as the basis for analysis to be for Homeland
Security, the Defense Department, the Intelligence Community,
the law enforcement community, together at the Threat
Integration Center. That is a very important thing.
That means that the wall we once had between the
enforcement community and the Intelligence Community will not
keep us from sharing that information.
FBI INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEMS
Let me add two other things. The FBI understands that we
not only need to have coordination between agencies at the
Federal level--and the administration does in the TTIC or the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center--but we have to have the
participation of people all the way down to those who have
their feet on the street, the law enforcement officials. The
FBI is in the process of creating information sharing systems.
One is known as Gateway. It is a pilot project in St. Louis.
Another in San Diego, where we literally begin having shared
information with local authorities as well. And by the end of
this year we should train a total of over 40,000 local
officials in using that kind of integrated approach.
We not only need a horizontal sharing at the Federal level,
we need a vertical sharing that takes us down to information on
the street. These local law enforcement officials who are
participants in the antiterrorism Task Forces and the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces at the local level are participants in
the information flow.
These are the kinds of things which make it possible,
especially with the new data processing technology, for
information to be available at the same time it is discovered,
virtually at the same time of discovery, to all the agencies.
This is the timeliness thing. It used to take a while for an
agency to process the information and then make a decision
whether it was eligible to throw the information over the
barriers that had been erected between law enforcement and
intelligence. You all have helped bring that barrier down. The
FISA court of review in its first-ever judgment on a FISA
appeal brought that barrier down. Now we have a structure which
can utilize the information developed in these various places.
I want to bring to your attention one or two important
points about the capacity of law enforcement to develop
intelligence. We think of law enforcement as being
prosecutorial rather than preventional. But in important cases,
the process of prosecution and even the continuity of detention
provides a basis for enhanced intelligence.
There was an individual named Rassam who came--was
intercepted coming from Canada to the United States at the
millennium change. He is known as the Millennium Bomber. He is
now serving time in the Federal Penitentiary. He has decided he
wants to cooperate in an effort that his life sentence is some
time, something less than life. This process of people who
decide they want to cooperate as they are a part of the
prosecution and law enforcement system is a big opportunity for
us to get information regarding terrorism. His cooperation is
important.
We have an individual who pled guilty out of the Buffalo
cell. His sentence was 10 years, but it is understood in the
court that if he cooperates and is very helpful to the United
States it could be reduced but not below 7. The interval set
was between 10 and 7 years; that individual providing that kind
of cooperation can reduce the kind of impact that the sentence
has on him.
That capacity to elicit information and to enhance our
intelligence gathering from those who have been directly
associated with terrorism is important. So that is sort of an
extra that I throw into this information system. The
Intelligence Community and the law enforcement community can
benefit from the fact that they are integrated. This whole idea
of having the Terrorist Threat Integration Center an equal
mutual access jointly on a contemporaneous basis to information
is the strategy that we have that we believe best achieves the
prevention objective, which is the overwhelming number one
objective in terrorism.
Mr. Sweeney. I would agree with you. Let me reemphasize the
point the common architecture is largely what we will all be
judged on in terms of our success. You have highlighted great
plans. And I am still interested and will continue to ask
questions on what we are doing on the Federal level, whether
these changes are incremental, and what the progress is on
them. And I will recognize, as you reported earlier, that we
have had some terrific success. We have built a system--we have
begun to build a system from the ground up and it is critical
that we move forward in a contemplative way, and it really will
be our most important service.
TERRORIST FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Let me finish with this question regarding the indictments
of two Yemeni businessmen who have allegedly supported with
arms and financial support the al Qaeda network. Do you believe
there are many more instances such as those occurring on U.S.
soil? And do you have adequate funds in this proposal to pursue
cases like that? And how will that progress, how will that fit
into the overall system and structure?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We believe that the disruption
of the financial resources of the terrorist network is a very
important thing. And in addition to the apprehension of Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, we believe an individual apprehended with him
was an important component of the financial resource network.
Our ability to interdict people like Al-Moayad, whose
indictment was unsealed 2 days ago, and his accomplice was a
result of outstanding FBI work with human resources, as well as
surveillance techniques, undercover activity and international
cooperation with the Germans who were very helpful to us in
this matter. We believe that is very important.
I believe that the request we have made will allow us to do
those things that are necessary in this arena to continue to
make progress. We look forward to a continuing and expanding
effort to interdict their resources. Obviously as the flow is
curtailed, things will be harder and harder to find. But as the
flow is curtailed we will also make it harder and harder for
terrorists to operate.
Mr. Sweeney. And there are more instances and thus the need
to continue that----
Attorney General Ashcroft. Yes.
Mr. Sweeney [continuing]. That work.
Attorney General Ashcroft. We believe that we have
constricted the stem of nourishment to the so-called head of
terrorism but we do not believe that we have choked it. And our
effort is not only to pursue it on the battlefield but to
pursue it in terms of financial institutions and in the arena
of money transfers.
Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Attorney General, thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Before I recognize Mr. Kirk I want to say you are
right about the FBI. I think you and Director Mueller have done
an outstanding job. The criticism of the FBI that is being made
by some individuals, some who may very well serve in the
Congress and some outside, would be valid if you were talking
about the FBI of 3 years ago. I think what has happened, the
dramatic change, and I would urge all the Members as we--and I
met with Director Mueller yesterday to bring up to the Hill and
let the Members see Trilogy and some of the changes.
I think the problem is you have been moving so fast, making
so many changes--the FBI has been transforming itself, that it
perhaps hasn't actually been explained to individuals--I know
there was one Member of the other body who was very, very
critical, and I happened to watch the other day--you and the
Director were there, I caught 15 or 20 minutes of it, but that
individual said he had been down to the FBI and he had seen
what had been done. So the FBI has dramatically changed. The
criticism, like I say, had it not changed the criticism would
be valid if you were talking about the FBI 3 years ago. But the
changes have been amazing. So I think you make a very good
point.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Kolbe, I didn't know you were here when I
said Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Kolbe. That is fine.
Mr. Wolf. If you can--whoever has the latest plane. Mr.
Kirk.
Mr. Kirk. First of all, thank my Ranking Democratic Member
for mentioning the security of Waukegan, and I am equally
concerned about the security of Brooklyn. I would note you were
the author of a business law book, and we are all waiting for
you to get the next edition out based on your new experience.
We are here all completely----
Attorney General Ashcroft. Don't hold your breath.
Mr. Kirk. People are completely abuzz with the Jerusalem
Post article saying that the President is going to announce the
arrest of Osama bin Laden. And I know the White House has
knocked that down.
INTERNATIONAL DRUG POLICY SUPPORT
When we talk about other international threats, I am
dealing with a threat from a unique part of Europe, as many
other communities are, out of the Netherlands. And especially
Belgium, the Ecstasy and other club drugs coming into the
country. The drug policy of the Government of Belgium, I would
guess, is not number one on Secretary Powell's agenda but would
be much higher on your agenda since you folks are on the
business end of this. And being the Federal law enforcement
guy, the lax policy of the Government of Belgium with regard to
Ecstasy and other club drugs is a real concern. And this is now
surging into the suburban Chicago community, agricultural,
direct from Belgium.
Is there a way for you, inside the Cabinet, to raise this
as a bilateral issue with the Government of Belgium and
forcibly to say knock this off as an ally of the United States?
Attorney General Ashcroft. May I just say to you that I
have taken the matter up with individuals in Western Europe,
the lowland countries, and in Belgium. And I raise this issue
with them and bring it to their attention. It is a matter of
grave concern to me, and I believe it is to my law enforcement
counterparts there, that they have become to that extent a
focal point for this evil. I will continue to do so. We have a
responsibility in terms of doing what we can to interdict it
and to prosecute those who distribute it. We are working hard
to get that done. And it is not a responsibility solely of
those who make the drug available. We are aware, you know. On
February 27th, the DEA and the U.S. Customs Service seized
40,000 MDMA tablets and arrested two individuals at Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport. The Cook County sheriff's, police
department concluded a 2-month investigation with three arrests
during an undercover investigation on the 31st of January.
There are two cases in less than 4 weeks from your area.
We are facing that problem, we are targeting the delivery.
This is not something--methamphetamine obviously is a problem,
some of which is cooked up in the backyards of Americans. This
is, by and large, a problem that comes through organized
substantial groups and we are pursuing those groups with
intensity.
In November 2002, DEA, launched what is called Operation X-
Out. It is a multifaceted initiative to respond to the
increasing threat of club drugs. It focuses on not just the
organizations, but trying to do something in terms of demand
reduction as well. We will work with you in every way possible.
In DEA's raid of the State Palace Theater in New Orleans, a
rave club, they used the crack house statute. That reduced the
number of overdoses in that city significantly.
We believe that enforcement makes a difference, obviously
this is a very important effort to try and effect some
interdiction at a source level which has been focused where you
have mentioned.
Mr. Kirk. I really appreciate what your folks are doing,
and we are going to support their efforts both at the Bureau
and at the DEA to take this on. But in many ways you are now
the voice of those officers, that we could make their job a lot
easier if the State Department worked harder in Belgium and the
Netherlands.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, you know, the terrorism
situation has caused us to expand our relationships. We have
learned that criminality and terror in particular don't respect
the boundaries of nations, jurisdictions, or States. I have had
to reach out on a number of bases that relate to the pressing
concerns of terrorism, but our cooperation can also extend to
drug interdiction. As of yesterday DEA had disrupted or
dismantled 39 priority organizations trafficking in Ecstasy.
There are 730 Ecstasy priority organizations that are currently
under investigation. This is one of those problems, similar to
that OxyContin problem that Congressman Wolf and Congressman
Rogers have raised. It is just mushrooming and we are doing
what we can to curtail it.
Mr. Kirk. I want to thank you. Also I want to urge the
continued support and the committee's support to understand we
funded the Byrne grants, much of which supports the local law
enforcement activity. The Illinois Drug Enforcement Officers
Association contacted me about the Byrne grants. They are very
happy with what this committee did and what Congress does on
this. And that is critical. But as we fund your people and as
we fund local law enforcement to cooperate with your people, I
am hoping that we have a little heart to heart with our friends
in the Hague and in Brussels about what they are shipping into
our country.
Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. Mr. Kolbe.
BORDER ISSUE
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Ashcroft, thank
you very much for your patience today with all these questions
you have been getting. I want to ask a few questions, as you
might expect, about border issues. I think it is just safe to
say that our border security--and I ask these questions
realizing that INS no longer is a part of Justice Department,
but some of my questions relate to some Justice programs and
particularly with prosecutions which still remain in Justice.
I think, as an overall statement, I think it is safe to say
that our border security is completely dysfunctional, it just
isn't working at all. We are not apprehending people. We don't
have any system for controlling the border. We don't have any
system really for deciding how we should control the border. We
don't have any plan for trying to control the flow of these
people across the border by using guest worker or temporary
worker visas and criteria. We have this just staggering problem
of deaths of people along the border. The numbers--we have
vandalism, we have environmental degradation, we have this
balloon effect. As we push on one part of the border, it
balloons out in another part of the border, and it happens to
be in Arizona where it is all ballooning out. More
apprehensions in Arizona than the rest of the southern border
combined, almost all of those in my congressional district. It
is really a nightmare.
But the first question I have goes to the issue of the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. When President Bush
was Governor of Texas, he thought this was a very important
program and believed that it was something that should be and
was on record as demanding that the then Clinton administration
fulfill its obligations to support States in the incarceration
of undocumented aliens that were of foreign nationals in our
State prisons. I believe that that is correct, that is a
correct statement he made when he was Governor.
My view is pretty simple: If someone comes into this
country illegally or is a foreign national in this country, it
is a Federal responsibility when that individual is
incarcerated in a prison. And I believe the State government
should be--State and local officials should be compensated for
that cost. I am wondering if you could tell me why it is the
view of the Justice Department or the administration that it is
no longer a core responsibility of Justice to support this
incarceration of people, who are criminals in the United
States, in the local and State jails?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Congressman Kolbe, the challenge
of regulating the border is a very serious and difficult
challenge. It is one which has been allocated to the Department
of Homeland Security. But I will try and reflect in some
measure upon the kinds of challenges you face.
First of all, a substantial resource is being invested in
trying to provide some order to the border. You are right; as
enforcement efforts have increased and security has been
developed at other points, it has had a diversionary effect, so
that I believe Arizona is one of the places where we have
increased difficulty instead of a regularized approach.
The objective of the administration is to secure the border
more effectively, to decrease the kinds of costs that are
associated with a border that doesn't work well. Its efforts
have been--our efforts have been a little at a time. We have
recently provided for I think 18 new Federal judges, a number
of them to be available on the southern border. Supporting new
additional Federal resources in that respect, has supported
some serious increases in the prosecution resources along the
border; $50 million in the President's request this year for
the Southwest Border Prosecution Program.
All of these things are things that I think are steps in
the right direction, but these things do not address your
question about the SCAAP program. The SCAAP program is a
program which is necessitated in part because we have not had
the success in regulating the border that we should have had.
We would hope that there would be less need for it as we
improve our performance on the border.
That is no longer a portfolio I control, but I believe that
is the thinking behind the approach we have.
Mr. Kolbe. Although I believe, as you know or may know,
although the administration in 2003 requested no funds for
that, the Congress did include $250 million for that program
and I think that still is administered through Justice.
Attorney General Ashcroft. SCAAP would be, but the other
parts of the equation are out of our hands.
PROSECUTION AND INCARCERATION SUPPORT
Mr. Kolbe. I understand that. So my question was
specifically about SCAAP. Let me turn to the issue of the
prosecutions there. I know funds have just been released so
that there are some funds to help support the prosecution. But
there is nothing for the support for--well, we have cut the
incarceration in half. We don't have anything for the defense
that is required for these individuals or the technical support
that is required. Forty percent in Cochise County, which is one
of the counties along the border, 40 percent of all the
indicted felony drug defendants result from Federal referrals.
These are people that are picked up at the border, picked up by
Border Patrol, and simply turned over to the county for
prosecution. Why should that be a responsibility when it is a
Federal law enforcement agency that arrests these people? Why
should it fall on Cochise County to prosecute and incarcerate
that individual?
Attorney General Ashcroft. The prosecution of crime is a
shared responsibility around the country. Federal prosecutions
and violations of Federal law that are within the capacity of
U.S. Attorneys to prosecute are prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys,
and things which are not within their capacity are frequently
referred to the local governments. In the event there are local
laws that proscribe the behavior or make it illegal, the
reference is made to the local authorities for their
prosecution if they choose to prosecute them.
Obviously this is a very difficult situation because as a
border State you are part of the protection for the entire
country. I understand that when Arizona prosecutes such
individuals, it serves America as well as the interests of
Arizona. But the responsibility for prosecution of criminal
matters under Federal law relates to the Federal prosecutors,
and what they don't do in that respect they frequently refer to
or make available to local prosecutors for their prosecution
under State or local provisions.
PROSECUTION THRESHOLDS
Mr. Kolbe. Should there be a common threshold? I realize
the different U.S. Attorneys have different caseloads and
responsibilities, but should there be a common threshold in
terms of what gets referred? I know you don't like to publicize
it, but we know--actually it has been public information,
because information came to me from the county association,
Border County Association, there is a different threshold in
terms of how many pounds of marijuana have to be seized before
it will be prosecuted in Arizona, and it is about five times
the amount that it would be prosecuted in New Mexico where they
have a smaller caseload, for example. Should there be some
commonality in this?
Attorney General Ashcroft. In my judgment, I think you have
already hinted at it. I think it is bad policy to have an
advertised threshold that says if you stay under this amount,
you will never encounter the Federal officials, you will always
be dealing with someone else because Federal officials don't
care. I think we can ill afford to advertise that you are under
the Federal radar if you are in a certain category.
My own view is that our policy is best if it is not
uniform--it is a little bit like security. If you take the same
route home every time, you increase your risk. I think we
should have a varying policy so that people can absolutely
never be sure that they won't have to deal with the Federal
Government.
There is a second benefit to that, if the Federal
authorities will occasionally at least vary, then if the State
authorities pick someone up and they--as is frequently the
case, don't want to deal with the Federal Government--the
authorities can say, look, we are going to turn you over to the
Federal authorities unless you decide you want to cooperate
here, that becomes a bargaining tool. I know in
methamphetamine--when I sat in the Senate I was sitting on your
side of the table, I was asking your questions and trying to
accept the answers I am now giving.
Mr. Kolbe. Do they go down any easier? Never mind.
Attorney General Ashcroft. You are doing as good a job as I
ever hoped to do. I thought it helped negotiations of these and
other things if we didn't have hard and fast thresholds stated
at the Federal level so that State prosecutors had credible
opportunity to use the leverage, if I may say it that way, in
these cases.
You asked another question about uniformity between one
district and another. My problem with that is that I hate to
drive every Federal prosecutor. If we have to have uniformity
to the place where the law is enforced in the place where we
have--at the level where we have the least resources to enforce
it, instead of where we have--if you have better enforcement
capacity somewhere, you ought to be able to take advantage of
it.
Mr. Kolbe. But your decision, the Federal prosecutor's
decision is made with looking at the resources of that State as
to whether or not they have the resources to take care of it.
Attorney General Ashcroft. No, there is no question in my
mind the Federal prosecutors make the judgments based on
Federal resources, not on the State resources, and I should be
clear about that. They are wonderful people but they are not so
generous as to regard the plight of the others over the
responsibilities they have themselves.
Mr. Kolbe. So do you understand the problem I have got when
in Arizona it is five times what it is in New Mexico? There is
a much greater burden on the counties in Arizona who have to
prosecute more.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Not only is there a burden if
there is a threshold in one area that is clearly stated that is
higher than it is in another. It is an incentive for traffic to
go to that area, and that is a very serious problem. And we
need to do what we can to address that problem. We don't want
to incentivize people to either manipulate their criminal
activity to escape certain kinds of responsibility by knowing
that in one area circumstances are one way and in another,
another. We are not talking about variances in penalties here,
we are just talking about the caseload which allows prosecutors
to move forward. Prosecutors, whether they are state or
Federal, have limits to what they can humanly carry to court,
and the courts have limits to what they can process. You have
told me already that prisons have limits as to what they can do
for incarceration. So these are the kinds of fundamental
challenges that we have to work together to face.
RESPONSE TO LOCAL PROSECUTION DECLINATIONS
Mr. Kolbe. Attorney General, I thank you for your honesty
and candor and grappling with this issue and trying to address
it. I have one last question in this same area. As you know,
States are facing horrendous fiscal problems, all States. My
State is certainly included in that. It is my understanding, at
least in one local country in El Paso, the county declined to
take any of the Federal referrals at all. And I know that from
the Border Counties Association there is consideration all
along the border of counties doing that, of simply saying we
won't take any of these referrals.
If that is the case and all of them are simply released at
the border and put back on the other side, we won't say where,
but if it is 398 pounds of marijuana and they are put back on
the other side, what will be your response, the Justice
Department response to that? Because I think this is a very
real consideration because of the financial problems of the
States which are now being pushed down to the counties; as you
know, they are being pushed right back down to the counties,
and I think this is a very real possibility.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would hate to see that happen.
I think it would be a terrible thing if we were to signal to
those individuals in the criminal community that there were
areas where there were not enough resources, either at the
Federal or State level, to have meaningful prosecution. And in
that setting we--that is unacceptable. We have to find ways to
reallocate. And the allocation of criminal justice resources
needs to be on a need basis. One of the things we are seeking
to do as we reallocate resources in the DEA and otherwise is to
do it in ways that reflect the real needs, not the politics,
geography or other things. But obviously if an area is an area
where a certain category of cases are beyond the reach of
Federal resources and beyond the reach of State resources, too,
that is a definition of a real problem.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, thank you. I think we have a real problem.
I really appreciate again your honesty in answering that.
Because what is happening, of course, is that as the States are
kiting down on the assistance they give to the counties, the
counties are laying off prosecutors in a time when caseloads
are soaring. And as you can imagine, locally elected
prosecutors are going to be responsive to their local citizens
who say I want the guy who shot my brother prosecuted, I want
the guy who stole my car prosecuted. You know, these Feds are
picking up these drug dealers, let them take care of them, just
put them back across the border. And that is exactly what is
going to happen here. So I hope together we can try and find a
way to deal with this problem.
Attorney General Ashcroft. We need to. I will work with
you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Attorney General, I will have a series of questions. I
will go to Mr. Serrano then come back and close up.
Attorney General Ashcroft. May I ask the Chairman how long
do you think that will be and whether it would be appropriate
to have some----
Mr. Wolf. Want to take a 10-minute recess?
Attorney General Ashcroft. If it is not going to be another
half hour.
Mr. Wolf. We will take a 5 minutes recess.
Attorney General Ashcroft. That would be helpful to me.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
PROPOSED BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Mr. Wolf. So we will try to go through these rapidly if we
can, and Mr. Serrano will come back and close.
The budget request includes line item reductions. Some of
these we want to put on the record. I don't want to put you in
a tough spot, I know how OMB is, but really when we mark up, we
want some of this information.
The proposed reductions at Justice are the agencies
throughout the Department including the FBI, DEA, BOP, U.S.
Attorneys, Marshal Service. From the level of detail we have
been given, these reductions have been nothing more than
gimicks to allow the Justice Department to show program
increases for Federal law enforcement while keeping the total
funding level static so there are not real increases for
Federal law enforcement at all.
How are they derived and how will the proposed reductions
impact the administration of justice, the apprehension of
prosecution of criminals, and the war on terrorism?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, the cross-cutting savings
opportunities we are pursuing include consolidation of
facilities, streamlining facilities management, and more
efficient deployment of human resources staff and information
systems, outsourcing fleet maintenance and management,
centralizing procurement for selected services. These are some
of the cross-cutting savings opportunities that we are pursuing
in an effort to try and focus our resources on areas where we
have the greatest need.
Mr. Wolf. We met sometime last year to submit the names of
the examiners of the Office of Management and Budget who look
at these programs because they ought to be held accountable. It
just won't work. Let me read from Monday's Metro section:
``The FBI emphasis on terrorism''--and you know my region
very well--``has prompted the Agency to scale back
investigations of other once high-priority crimes throughout
the Washington region, including white collar offenses, housing
fraud, drug trafficking and street violence. The number of
violent drug cases referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Washington dropped 41 percent in fiscal year 2002 from the
previous years as agents shifted to antiterrorist duties.
Federal prosecutors in Alexandria and Baltimore said they are
getting fewer criminal case referrals from the FBI field
office.
``The impact of the shift has been felt keenly in
Washington where authorities repeatedly have warned of a
terrorist strike. Since September 11, 2001 attacks on the World
Trade Center and Pentagon, more than half of the 300 FBI agents
in the Washington field office assigned to criminal cases have
been transferred to counterterrorism and counterintelligence.
Overall, the field office which is responsible for
investigating an array of crimes in the District and northern
Virginia, including public corruption''--and you are the only
one, Justice is the only one that can deal with public
corruption. And if we start taking the FBI out of public
corruption, we will have public corruption like we have never,
ever seen it. Kidnapping. The FBI is the only one. If somebody
had their loved one kidnapped, the first person they would call
would be the FBI.
This office is devoting roughly 65 to 75 percent of its
resources to terrorism and counterintelligence matters compared
with 40 percent before September 11th. One senior law
enforcement official said the field office has either, quote,
``walked away from some nonterrorism cases or closed them
prematurely and other investigations were never launched.'' And
then it goes on.
I will end with the FBI field office in Washington is
considering creating another Violent Crime Squad to deal with
narcotic rings and violent gangs, although it isn't clear where
the staff would come from.
We have a serious problem, we have a serious gang problem
now in Herndon and in Leesburg and Loudoun County. A serious,
serious problem. So the numbers--and you know, I like you, the
record shows that you are my friend, but the fact is that some
of the proposed cuts are wrong and we will pay the price. The
reason that I do say that the examiner's name ought to be here
is because when increased crime and drugs takes place, the
chances are that the OMB examiner will live in Herndon or live
in Leesburg or live in Arlington or live in McLean, all my
areas.
Another difficult issue is here: The administration has
proposed $3.6 billion domestic preparedness programs for first
responders under the Department of Homeland Security. However,
this funding is offset by a $1.2 billion decrease in the
Department of Justice, State, and local assistance programs and
decreases in firefighting assistance programs previously funded
under FEMA. We are giving with one hand and taking away with
the other.
Now the question we were going to ask--and I am not going
to ask you this question to be answered now--is do you believe
that the Department of Homeland Security program will fund the
needs of State and local law enforcement that are currently
being met through the Department of Justice program? And we are
getting letters now from law enforcement saying, well, why
didn't you fund more with regard to the first responders when
the same Department is asking support grants with regard to the
COPS program or grants with regard to other programs. There is
domestic terrorism. Sexual trafficking--which I commend you for
your activities--sexual trafficking is a form of terrorism; if
you are a young girl who is taken across the border, if you are
a young woman who is taken from the Balkans or Thailand and
places, that is a form of terrorism. And the drug issues
continue.
STATE AND LOCAL GRANTS PROGRAM CUTS
The other concern: increased crime compared to fiscal year
2003 appropriation. Your budget request dramatically decreases
funding available for State and local law enforcement
assistance including law enforcement hiring, overtime,
technology, and drug prevention programs.
The budget request also reduces funding available for
juvenile delinquency prevention, juvenile accountability
programs. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report released
in December from January 2002 to June 2002, crime across the
country increased by 1.3 percent when compared to the same
period 2001. When we talk about percentages, we don't think of
the hurt and the pain and the suffering and the agony in those
families of those individuals. So 1.3, you may say that is not
a very big number. When you look at the raw number it is big,
and when you look at the moms and dads and husbands and wives--
this includes a 2.3 increase in murders, a 1.8 percent increase
in forcible rape.
Given that crimes such as murder and rape are increasing,
how does the Justice Department or OMB justify a $1.2 billion
or 35 percent reduction for State and local law enforcement
grants compared to the funds appropriated in the year 2003? And
I don't need you to answer the question, because I have never
wanted to use this position to put people in difficult spots
and try to separate them. I remember I have been at times where
people try to get people to say something different from what
the administration has, but I want you to know how personally
these questions represent how I feel. And I feel passionate
about it. And all of a sudden we put more money in for the FBI
than the administration does, as I said earlier, I do think
takes advantage of some of these things. So if you want to have
a comment you are welcome to, but I am not asking you to make a
comment. But I want you to know how I feel on these issues.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman,
that I do know how you feel. I learn from you more than I just
do once a year when I come for this hearing. You are insistent
about raising these issues and you are thorough in your
constant advice to the Department. And I know these to be
matters of concern to you not only today but every day of the
year. I appreciate those concerns and will do our best to work
with you.
Mr. Wolf. That is fine.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES
Federal Prison Industries. There have been attempts, and I
believe there will be again this year, to dramatically scale
back the Federal Prison Industries Program within the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. Federal Prison Industries provide inmates
with meaningful employment while incarcerated. I am tough on
crime but if we are going to put a man or woman in jail for 15
years and not expect a very bad, evil person to come out, we
need to give them rehabilitation. I commend what the
administration and Bureau of Prisons do on faith-based prisons
and things like that, but I have been concerned that at the
Office of Management and Budget there are others who are
willing to perhaps abandon or allow the Federal Prison
Industries to be kept back.
Now, there are two reasons. One is budgetary. If you were
to lose this program the cost would be about $400 million to
the budget.
The other side of the coin is we would be having hardened
criminals come out without work skills. If a man is working
with dignity and has an opportunity to learn a skill, and also
with a portion of that money sending it home to their family
and putting it aside, there is a greater likelihood that they
won't go back to prison. I think the study shows people who
work in prison--and I don't mean picking up cigarette butts
like you did in the military, walking back and forth, if you
remember those days, but really doing constructive work--and
also participates in a faith-based program, the likelihood of
them coming back is less. So if you would just make a comment
or two about the Federal Prison Industries, I would appreciate
how you see it.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, very frankly, our system
of Federal prison work would have probably been nonexistent had
you not intervened personally last year. I do know that there
is a strong impetus among some to change it dramatically. I
hope that if it is changed, it has the balance in it that
allows us to protect and preserve this capacity to provide
meaningful opportunities to--for rehabilitation in the prison
system. You have mentioned them. You have described them. I
think those are understood by all observers and we need for our
prison system to be a place where people change their behavior
rather than intensify their revolution.
GAMBLING ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Mr. Wolf. Another issue, and there is no need to comment on
it. But there--Time Magazine did two feature stories, one cover
story on gambling on Indian tribes. The non-Indians have
exploited the Indians clearly and we are in the process of
exploiting them now. Very few Indians, very, very few Indians
get any money from gambling on Indian reservations. But that is
the law of the land. I think there is something like 2 percent
of all Indians, many who are perhaps not even real Indians, get
a majority of the money. The tribes, many of the tribes who do
not have gambling, suffer.
But we have been getting reports, and the Time Magazine
article inference, and I have talked to the people involved who
tell me that there are problems, and so whether you are for
Indian gambling or not, that issue is not there. But we are
getting reports that some Indians in some of these tribes are
not benefitting and life on the reservation is very, very
difficult. Mr. Kennedy was exactly right. The crime rate is
high. Alcoholism, bad housing, poor, poor education, poor, poor
health care, and what the Congress and all administrations have
done because they have given Indians the ability to gamble and
have gambling casinos, that has almost been a reason for the
Congress not to fund the legitimate programs of housing and
health care and education.
So its really a form of exploitation because then they turn
and say, well, you can just open up a casino. But the issue is
this: We are hearing from Indians who are connected with tribes
that have gambling that are telling us that they are being
pushed away, they are being pushed out and they have no place
to go. They feel the IGRA, the Indian Gambling Commission has
not been very, very effective. I think they have
approximately--and we can fill this in for the record--37 to 50
people over there, administering hundreds of Indian gambling
casinos where as in the State of New Jersey, they have about
700 employees administering about 12 to 15 gambling casinos in
Atlantic City.
So, the Congress and the administration and frankly, I
think your department has not really done a good job here--and
let the record show, I mean this with every bit of fiber, I
think Mrs. Norton is not doing her job. I think the Secretary
of the Interior has really failed. If I were--and having worked
in Interior for 5 years, and knowing the exploitation of the
Indian and knowing the trust relationship that she has, if I
were the Secretary of the Interior, and I had seen two articles
in Time Magazine, and had read those articles and did nothing,
I would feel like I had not fulfilled my responsibility.
I don't want you to comment. That is not it. But I think if
there is anybody who knows her, they ought to tell her what I
said. Because she has neglected to deal with these issues and
the conditions on there. But back to the point. If you were a
member of that tribe and you are being pushed out and someone
is determined that you are not going to be part of that or
different things that happen that may be illegal or immoral,
who do you go to? You can't go to your tribal leadership
because they are the ones that are doing it to you. You can't
go to IGRA because they are not doing anything and don't have
anybody. Some of these casinos barely ever get a visit. And so
the only person, the only agency that you can go to is the
Department of Justice.
And I did send a letter down to the Department. Again,
whether you are for gambling or not gambling, that is not the
issue we are going to deal with. But, I mean on this issue, how
do we reach out? What message can Justice send to an individual
who is part of a tribe that is using gambling who has seen
activity taking place and can't get anybody in authority to
come and deal with it.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Mr. Chairman, I would just
mention three things quickly: One, there is new leadership at
the National Indian Gaming Commission and it is a former U.S.
Attorney named Phillip Hogan. Another commissioner is named
Clois Choney, veteran special agent of the FBI, with extensive
experience in fraud and white collar crime cases. We hope these
will be steps forward. Secondly, the Attorney General's
Advisory Committee, which is made up of U.S. attorneys, has an
active Attorney General named Paul Heffelfinger. Pardon me. Tom
Heffelfinger from Minnesota, who is heading up a task force or
a subcommittee on Native American issues, and I have asked him
to look into this because this is something that deserves our
attention.
Thirdly the Department has had two recent cases that have
had success in enforcing gaming laws against Indian tribes. One
was U.S. vs. Absentee Shawnee tribe, which is the western
district of Oklahoma. We secured an enforcement of a matter
regarding a contempt order against a casino manager. And then
U.S. vs Seminole Nation of Oklahoma in the 10th circuit. The
10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the United States
position upholding the ability of the National Indian Gaming
Commission to order a temporary closure of a gaming facility in
order to get compliance.
I hope we will be able to make these circumstances ones
that are characterized by fairness and equity. I know that is a
high aspiration. But if I--when I look at these situations and
I have looked at this in some measure because you keep bringing
these matters to my attention. These are areas where I am
trying to bring my influence to bear to say these are places
where we can make a difference.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate it. We are going to keep
watching this issue. I think, frankly, the Bush administration,
and I think Secretary Norton, too, should have asked for
additional funding for the Commission, IGRA. And I think they
purposely kept it weak because if you want to kill something in
this town, you just don't fund it. And so the people at IGRA
may be good people, and you may have had a new person, but they
have not asked for any increases. They are funded out of the
proceeds coming out of Indian gambling, and so it is almost a
user fee. They are now beginning major political action
committees that are going to give money to both political
parties.
And they purposely keep IGRA funding down, and so if we
were to squeeze your office and squeeze the FBI and squeeze
DEA, they may be able to do the job that they may very well
want to do. So they may want to do it, but there has not been
an increase in the funding and not to fund something is to kill
something. And frankly, I have actually thought about calling
for Mrs. Norton to leave.
I feel so passionately about it and all she has to do is go
on any Indian tribe and see how poorly the Indians live. We put
$2 million in this bill last year to give grants to Indian
tribes that do not have gambling to do some economic
development and give them some opportunities, so they have some
other place to go. The Navajos don't want gambling and don't
believe in gambling. But yet they can't take advantage of any
of those resources. And frankly, I think the American Indian
has been poorly, poorly treated by this administration, by the
Clinton administration, and by previous administrations, and
this may very well be a time for positive change, and the Time
Magazine article may very well be the impetus.
So we would like to follow carefully what your people were
doing and after they maybe have a month or two, if they could
come on by the committee or come on by my office and talk to me
about it.
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
The last issue, and then I will refer to Mr. Serrano, is--
and thank you for your--the effort on sexual traffic. And I
have a long question, but I know what you have done and I read
your letter and I also, you know, looked at your statement that
you made at the conference last week. So thank you for that. I
encourage your people to bring as many cases. 50,000 people are
sexually trafficked into this Nation. One individual at the
conference came up and told me there is a ring of young girls
coming from Mexico into the United States. And they say that
they--the younger ones are more desirable because, they are
concerned about HIV/AIDS, and so they look for young, young
girls.
So the more prosecution there, the better. As you know
there are 4 million people sexually trafficked every year. And
you probably know that the center that coordinates this in
southeastern Europe, you have FBI agents over there in
Bucharest. If you go to Romania, you may want to stop in if you
are in the Balkans. I know you have been to Romania a number of
times to encourage them, so that when the report comes out
these nations know that this is something. They go on a list
and they know that they ought to do something about it and it
is very difficult to have sexual trafficking in a nation if
certain law enforcement are not looking the other way.
CONFLICT DIAMONDS
So I think if you do go to that region a visit by you or a
visit by any top official would send a tremendous, tremendous
message. With that, the other issue is the issue of conflict
diamonds. I gave the Bureau a tape on the issue of conflict
diamonds. There is a lot of information that we believe, and
others who have said that diamonds from Sierra Leone and others
are being used by al Qaeda, and perhaps Hezbollah, with regard
to furnishing funds with regard to terrorism.
I would urge you to make that a priority, to track it down.
If we find the people, you should indict them and bring them to
justice. I also believe that the FBI ought to open up a Legat
office in western Africa. Western Africa is served out of
France and Sierra Leone is a long way from France. And I think
somehow, I think it would be helpful to have perhaps a Legat in
the Ivory Coast, you know so you are close enough. The living
conditions are not that difficult in the Ivory Coast. But I do
believe the FBI needs, particularly with conflict diamonds and
with Fada Sanko and Charles Taylor in Liberia and all the
activity that is going on, I think you would probably want to
have an FBI agent out there. Now, with that let me just turn it
over to Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to keep
the Attorney General here any longer. I have got to be nice to
the Attorney General. He has got a lot of power and I don't
want to create any more problems for myself. What I want to do
is take nine--I am no fool--nine questions and submit them for
the record. Then I will ask you two quick ones. Let me just
make a comment first.
FBI AND DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE
The Chairman touched on and spoke about this issue of the
FBI and how much time it is spending on counterterrorism and so
on. And this is a concern of mine. I hope that we find a way--
and you tell us and the Director tells us what he needs from us
to make sure that we also continue to pay attention to the
other issues, drugs and fraud and white collar crime and all
the other stuff that the FBI has always been good at, because I
get the sense that some folks--you know, I almost sense a TV
show coming of guys sitting around the table and saying, ``Boy,
this is good. They are not after us, they are too occupied over
there.''
And this is something that also concerns me. There are a
lot of relationships or working together between the FBI and
the CIA. How do we assure ourselves that when this is over--and
the war on terrorism is unfortunately an ongoing thing for a
long time, we know that. But how do we assure ourselves that at
no time does the CIA become a de facto domestic intelligence
agency that takes over programs where the FBI should be? How do
you deal with that issue?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I think one, and first of all
this is matter of great concern to me. The FBI has a culture
that is used to working within the limits and framework of the
respect for freedom that we have established in the United
States. There are rules that apply in the United States. The
CIA, when it goes overseas it goes by the rules of other
cultures, in what they allow the CIA to do in collecting
information. You would expect that. When in Rome do as the
Romans do. I am not making any comment on Italian procedures
there. I am using an old phrase. The FBI has serious training,
has significant experience and while they have, from time to
time, perhaps, been accused of not respecting those rules, they
live in a culture where that rule is taught and where I seek to
reinforce it at every moment.
That is why I think it is important that domestic
intelligence be conducted by an agency that is steeped in that
understanding and responsibility, and frankly is always called
to account for it when their cases go to court. If they don't
follow those rules, the courts throw the cases out. That is the
way the system operates.
So the FBI has the habits that are appropriate to
collection of information that are consistent with the
constitutional rights and responsibilities. It has a civil
rights investigative unit in the FBI. This is part of that
culture. There is not a problem with information that is
developed in that culture being available to the CIA. It is
information which is appropriately collected. We want the
collection in the United States to be a collection that
respects the laws of the United States, and is accustomed to
the judicial supervision of that collection.
That is why I think it is so important to have as the
intelligence collecting agency in the country, an agency which
is a law enforcement agency, which is consistently involved in
the courts and constantly accustomed to the supervision of the
courts in that respect. Instead of having a sort of general
intelligence agency, the United States has a system where you
have international collection, which repairs to a number of
standards internationally that relates to the international
collection of information. It has a domestic collection system
that is steeped in this tradition and accustomed to this
involvement in the judicial process that imposes and encourages
a continuing respect for these rights.
So when you get to the threat integration, the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center, you have information there from both
agencies, international information from the CIA, domestic
information from the FBI. It is subject to being understood by
both agencies, but it is collected in ways that respect these
different responsibilities.
I feel deeply about this. I feel that it is important that
the FBI is part of the Justice Department. I didn't have a
chance to extol--I did, in some measure--the record of our
Civil Rights Division, but it has been very aggressive and very
successful in the last couple of years, not just in voting
rights, but in a variety of other ways. To have the FBI as part
of the heritage of the Justice Department is important because
we have the responsibility to enforce civil rights and to
protect them as well as to collect information. That is one of
the reasons I have felt that it is important to keep
intelligence collection as part of the law enforcement
community rather than to set up a distinct organization.
So, the respect for the rights not only in the
Constitution, but the rights also that are enshrined in
statutes that are passed in the Congress, signed by the
President, that is a cultural characteristic of the FBI. And it
is uniform across the country. CIA operates and other
intelligence agencies may operate in a variety of settings
around the world. But the FBI predominates in this with
training and practice. And that is very important in terms of
preserving those rights.
EXPANDING ROLE OF CIA IN DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Serrano. Well, let me tell you that I am extremely
pleasantly surprised with your comments. But then, it still
leads to my question. What, if anything, can you do to make
sure that the increased level of cooperation doesn't create--of
the CIA--a de facto domestic intelligence agency? I mean----
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, you all have rules about
the CIA collecting evidence in the United States.
Mr. Serrano. But a lot of those things seem to have been
put slightly, if not a lot aside since September 11, and that
is my concern. Everything you just said, Mr. Attorney General--
I mean, I could have said it and people would have said Serrano
said it, because you sounded just like me and I sounded just
like you before that. And that is an accomplishment in itself.
But you express my concern. And how do we deal with that
problem?
Attorney General Ashcroft. It is my concern as well.
Mr. Serrano. Right. How do we deal with that problem?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I think the point is what we
have decided to do is to provide a basis for utilizing
information across these barriers which used to be erected
between the organizations but we haven't changed the rules
about collecting information. And----
Mr. Serrano. I know what you are saying. So let me then do
this. Let me suggest something to you. Let me remind you and
remind myself and remind the committee that you are right. From
what we know, from what we have read, from what we suspect, one
agency kind of sets its own rules traditionally and another has
to follow certain rules and when it doesn't, it gets called to
account for that. So then be careful, Mr. Attorney General,
that that other agency doesn't begin to run amuck and begin to
try to behave like it is the new FBI because that would concern
a lot of us.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I don't want to prolong your
evening. But let me just say that I think this is a matter of
great concern to this administration, and I think it is
reflected in the way things have been structured. There were
people who wanted to sort of amalgamate all the collections and
to have a, not a Threat Integration Center, but to have a super
intelligence policy.
When the President made a decision to have a Terrorist
Threat Integration Center that provided information that could
come in and be available from a variety of sources. But which
variety of sources would maintain their distinct identities and
their responsibilities in cultures? I think it was his
understanding that there were values in these distinct
identities.
And those are the values that you care about, that I care
about, that I don't think I am always understood as caring
about, but I still care about them. And I want to--I think we
want to make sure that we continue to respect that collection
in the United States is one responsibility; collection
internationally another.
And I don't mean to say that the CIA, and I hope I haven't
left an impression that they don't follow rules. But, the rules
they follow are different, in different settings because they
are operating in different settings. And that is what should be
expected of them. We want them to maximize their ability to
collect with regard to the rights that are respected where they
are collecting, et cetera. I can't speak for the CIA. I
shouldn't.
But I can speak for the FBI and I can speak for the Justice
Department. We are not the department of law enforcement. We
are the Department of Justice. And justice means something more
than law enforcement. It means fairness, and it means equity,
it means respect. And I want that to be a part of the FBI
culture, and I will do what I can. I know that Bob Mueller
does. He comes from 30, well, 25 years of working in the
Justice Department. He is not just a creature of law
enforcement and investigation, but his responsibility has been
these other issues as well and that is important that he be the
FBI director. I think he is a great choice by the President.
And he reflects those concerns and values. And I will do
everything I can and work with you to make sure that we
continue to do that.
Mr. Serrano. You know, listening to you, I had a thought
that I had not considered before, and that is, when I speak to
the community that I know best, when I speak to Latin Americans
who have come to this country and become citizens, but who
still have ties to the countries they come from, they see the
FBI as part of their new country, as the top agency that
gathers information and so on, they feel comfortable with that.
Now you ask the same people--it is very interesting--what
do you think of the CIA? Oh they remember the CIA back home as
supposedly or allegedly the group that overthrew that President
and did that to that guy and hooked up with that group and so
on. If they--I mean forget the rest of them now. Imagine how
the rest of us would feel. But if all our newest citizens now
begin to think that they left a country where a certain agency
was running amuck and now they find that this agency is going
to handle such important duties here--I should stop now or the
CIA will be looking for me, too.
NYPD EXPANDED SURVEILLANCE POWERS
And one last question, and then I will retire for the day.
New York City recently went to court. The Police Department
wants to get expanded surveillance powers. Is that something
that they were discussing with you folks? Do you support that?
Do they really need to do that? Don't you handle that through
the FBI again and other agencies?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well----
Mr. Serrano. Because the thought, as you can imagine, of
the local police department now having expanded powers to
search your home and so on scares a lot of people.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, we have a dual system in
this country, and local police departments have the right to
conduct searches supervised by courts, just as in many respects
the Federal Government does. There are disparities in both
local laws and federal laws that relate to various areas and
some of the things that, you know, we think about. We have
given special authority for drug cases that we don't even have
for terrorism cases, for instance. I don't know what their
request was. But, you know, if they wanted to say, we have got
this authority for an area we used to think was the highest
priority but now we have got a high priority in terrorism. We
should probably have the same authorities there, that would be
one question. I just don't know what they asked for. And I am
not in a position to comment on it except to say that State and
local law enforcement authorities have certain rights to
develop information to support their cases. In many respects,
those rights are parallel to the Federal rights to do so with
appropriate court supervision in each case.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for
your testimony today. I guess the difference between the
average great citizen that sends us here and a member of
Congress is that they can complain about what they think is not
going right with your agency or any other. We have the
responsibility to try to work with you to make it better. And
so while I criticize a lot, always remember that I am also an
ally in trying to accomplish what you need to do, and what we
need do, and in that sense I continue to work with you as
closely as I can. And I thank you for today.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, I am grateful. Frankly, I
must say to you that you, in saying that you try to improve
things and help us do a better job, you speak the truth. I have
never known you to do other than try and help the Justice
Department deliver justice to the American people more
effectively. I appreciate that very much and we look forward to
working with you. We share a common objective in that respect.
PLACEMENT OF TERRORIST THREAT INFORMATION CENTER
Mr. Wolf. Just a closing couple of questions. On the
question that Mr. Serrano said about the Terrorist Threat
Center, it ought not be at the CIA. The CIA is in my
congressional district. There are a lot of good people out
there. They are good people.
But I think for the very reason that Mr. Serrano raised,
and so by having it totally separate at the outset and I know
there has been some talk and perhaps it will be done that way.
You will begin to think that this is going to be a center that
is under the auspices of the CIA and not the FBI. People happen
to be good people that are working there. But they are taking
their direction from the CIA.
I think the sooner you are in an independent building,
wherever that building may be, and you should pick it where you
think it is best for the American people and the country not to
satisfy any particular person, but it ought to be a stand-alone
entity because you are also going to bring in the Homeland
Security people, and if you are at the CIA, they go through the
CIA gate, and people begin to think this is an arm of the CIA.
So the more independent it stands, the better. How soon will
the center be set up?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I think the initial operation of
the--they are likely--they are going to try and confuse me with
the facts here. But I think May is the time when they are going
to first get the joint analysis together. Ultimately when it is
independently located, it will have not just the analysis
section, but it will have counterterrorism people from the FBI
that are at that site, and CIA counterterrorism people at that
site. They will work distinctly, pouring their work product
into the Analysis Center.
Mr. Wolf. Well, when you set it up, I would like to go out
and visit, and I think if you could kind of keep us informed as
to when and how it will be set up, because the committee is
responsible for funding a portion of that and we are very, very
interested.
Attorney General Ashcroft. May 1st according to their item
and there will be about 60 individuals at the start up.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And you will let us know the location or
has the location been selected?
Attorney General Ashcroft. It is my understanding that the
location has been selected until the----
Mr. Wolf. You don't have to tell me where. I mean it has
been discussed.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. So it will not be at the CIA center itself.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I am not sure where it is. But I
think there has been one selected and I think it will be housed
in some relationship to the CIA until it is stood up
independently.
Mr. Wolf. Well there is a lot of empty office space in
northern Virginia. And truly, there is. And it has to be close
to the CIA. It has to be close to the Department of Homeland
Security. And it has to be close to the FBI. You have a lot of
facilities out there. Again, I am not asking you to put it
out--wherever you put it is fine. I think it ought to only be
put where it is in the best interest of the country. But I
think you will create a little bit of a problem if you locate
it at the CIA--an inertia sets in--sometimes to get phones
changed takes a long time. All of a sudden they get in there,
they get comfortable.
There was some thought that the Department of Homeland
Security was going to be in Northern Virginia, and the fact is
there are some in the Department of Homeland Security that said
it was going to be in Northern Virginia. I never said anything
either way. A half an hour after Governor Ridge was confirmed,
they announced it was going to be in the District of Columbia.
I thought that was unusual. I thought if you believe deeply
enough, you ought to be prepared to say it is going to be
wherever it is before confirmation, after confirmation, during
confirmation. There was a game played there. It was a game that
I thought was unfortunate.
It just isn't right to hold off and you have got something
and then telephone calls are made saying it. So I think it
ought to be up front wherever it goes. It ought to only be
where you and Mr. Tenet, and more importantly, the President
and everyone else thinks it ought to be. But there ought not be
a game. And there was a game. There was a game played by the
Department of Homeland Security. And when I see Mr. Ridge, of
course everything I say is public. But when I see Mr. Ridge, I
am going to tell him when he comes before the committee to have
announced where it was going to be a half an hour after the
vote. And if my memory serves me, the vote kind of came late in
the day.
And it's like the old games the government played where
they announce things Friday afternoon at 4:30 or 5:00. It just
isn't right. It's just kind of not the thing you do. So it
ought not be at the CIA. It ought not be where Mr. Ridge is
going to be, wherever he is going to be, and I hope he picks a
spot that is the right spot for the country and not for any
political involvement. It ought to be separate totally and
distinctly separate, or else it will be viewed I think, just
the way, the way Mr. Serrano said, as being controlled by the
CIA.
PROSECUTION OF TERRORISTS
On the issue of the prosecution. I didn't chime in, but I
think Mr. Serrano and I made--I think you--you were talking
about the prosecution of the one individual. This war may not
end. There will not be a surrender. There will not be a formal
surrender on any aircraft carrier or whereby the sword will be
transferred over. The war has been going on. The war has been
going on for 20 years. The shot was fired when 241 Marines died
in Lebanon and we, I think, know who did that and we haven't
done anything about it. The shot was fired when 90-some people
were killed in the American embassy in Lebanon. They were shot
in Tanzania when the people there died.
It was when in Nairobi, Kenya when American citizens died
along with Kenyans. The USS Cole. Just the other day when the
American was killed, the AID employee in Jordan. There will be
no official end. We won't have a date that young kids 20 and 30
and 40 and 50 years will see that D day occurred on this day.
And so knowing that, I believe the war will continue and
you guys have done a great job, but the war will continue.
There will be high points and low points, and I think the
American people have to understand that. That being the case,
you can't keep that individual until the end of the war. And my
sense is whenever you think that you have a case, and obviously
it doesn't compromise national security, and I don't want you
to comment on whatever national security concerns you have, but
at a certain point I think, and I think for an American to do
that, is terrible, is treasonous. There ought to be a time
where that individual has their day in court and then if there
is evidence they convict him and you punish him.
The other thing is, I wonder if at some time, and we don't
know how this thing is going to develop. If you should consider
having a special court location and not the Alexandria District
Court. The Moussaoui case, there is pretty great pressure--and
now that has been postponed--on the neighborhood. It is not my
district, but it is Northern Virginia. Paul McNulty is an
outstanding U.S. Attorney over there. But when I see how I
believe this district of the Eastern District will be used in
the future, my sense is there may be a time that the government
has to look at having a courthouse, if you will, at Quantico or
at some place like that because the pressure that I believe, if
what I said was true, that this war will continue and the
prosecutions will continue.
You just may be putting so much of a pressure and a burden
on that community, and as you build up and spend all that
money. You may very well want to, for safety reasons, for
security reasons and other reasons, put this on a military base
where--not that people can't come and go to the trial, but a
place that doesn't have the same security issues.
PRISON RAPE BILL
I want to thank you for your commitment to come up with a
good bill on prison rape. And I read your letter and I take you
at your word and I thank you. 13 percent of men in prison are
raped. It is brutal and once they are raped the stories are so
gruesome that sometimes they literally stay with the person who
does it as a protection against the others. And many of these
people then get out of prison and do terrible, terrible,
terrible things. And I think this bill will be a good thing.
Mr. Sensenbrenner has given us a commitment to move it
very, very quickly. I think Senator Sessions and Senator
Kennedy are going to move it. So I appreciate your people
working with us to get that thing resolved.
FBI TERRORISM READINESS--NY TIMES ARTICLE
The other issue--and I wasn't going to raise it, but I
will, because I feel an obligation to--is the article in the
New York Times today with regard to the young FBI agent, the
FBI agent out in the Midwest. I don't know if you read the
story. If you didn't then you can't comment. If you did, do you
have any comment that you wanted to make on that? If you
haven't read it, you don't have to comment on it, and you can
just submit the comment for the record.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, I have heard a lot about
this article.
Mr. Wolf. Have you?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would say these things. The
United States faces a relentless threatening terrorist enemy or
a group of terrorist enemies that want to destroy this country
and the values and liberties and lives of Americans. We are
hunting those terrorists down one by one. Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, are the most recent of
those we have apprehended. We are gathering and cultivating
detailed intelligence on terrorism in the U.S. We are arresting
and detaining potential terrorists and terrorist threats. We
are dismantling the terrorist financial network. We are
disrupting potential terrorist travel. We are building our
long-term counterterrorism capacity every single day.
Now, I believe the FBI is prepared to act to defend
America, including the possibility of a war against Iraq.
Thousands of FBI agents here and abroad are working day and
night, and I say day and night because I know during this last
week, my phone has rung at 1:30 in the morning. My phone rang
last night at 3:30 in the morning. And it was a request for me
to confer about things we were doing and things that we do on a
regular basis.
This isn't new. When we had young children, I learned not
to hear the young children, and my wife heard their every cry.
I asked my wife this morning if she heard the phone at 3:30 and
she, after--at the end of the morning, she said no. Well, she
has learned not to hear the phone ringing in the night. But I
sleep in an effort to grab it off the hook before it finishes
the first ring, and I did last night. But it is because there
are people who are working at that time in the day and night in
the FBI, both here and abroad to prevent terrorism and to be
ready to protect Americans.
And the FBI has a comprehensive, ongoing program relating
to the protection of America, including, in the event that the
United States enters into some increased level of hostilities.
And it is designed to confront possible threats. And if there
are any agents who are not prepared to defend America then I
don't know them, but they had better get ready because it is
our job in the Justice Department and in the FBI to defend
America when we are called upon and when America's interests
are threatened.
So from my perspective, if the question is, is the FBI
alert, ready and working, I am working with them hour by hour,
day and night, and I can't imagine--I am overwhelmed with the
commitment that these individuals have been showing. These are
not crank calls to me. But weekend, days, nights, whether the
ball game is on or not, when the rest of the world is asleep,
these people are working, and I believe they are ready.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate the comments. I agree with you
that Director Mueller was an excellent, excellent choice. And I
know they are doing an excellent job, although they are human
and, as we move ahead, perhaps the administration ought to be
asking for additional FBI resources. You have in this budget
but perhaps not enough particularly, if you think in terms of,
I believe, the FBI has about 11,000 agents, give or take.
And the New York City Police Department has 40,000. And
they have the five boroughs, and you have the United States
plus you have Legats and so many other countries. So in some
respects, with the new threat and the new mission, it may very
well be that the FBI needs additional resources, which gets me
back again to this not local issue, but with regard to this
region, the shortfall, I mean, for a neighborhood that is
terrorized by a gang that is stabbing and killing, or for a
mother who is afraid to send her children out at night. That is
a form of domestic terrorism and for public corruption, the
only one that could deal with public corruption would be the
FBI.
So you may want to look at this, and we are going to ask
Director Mueller, when he comes before the committee, about
this. There may be some regions of the country, such as New
York City where Mr. Serrano lives, here and others, whereby all
or many FBI agents are being pulled off other cases and this
really is the case whereby drug cases are being missed,
corruption cases are being missed, and in those areas there may
have to be an additional dramatic increase of agents. I don't
know what I wouldn't want to investigate because who am I to
say, whereby the threat itself is not exactly the same, that
there is a backfilling or fewer pulled off or whatever the case
may be.
But I think it is serious for the region that I represent
to have this type of an article written, whereby as great as
you are doing on foreign terrorism, that there may very well be
something that will drop.
Now there will always be something dropping off. We all
drop things in our own life. But if it is such a problem that
people are saying this to U.S. Attorneys, then I think maybe we
may need some additional people here, and I am sure maybe up in
New York City, and maybe in San Francisco, and maybe in L.A.
and places like that.
In closing, I thank you for your testimony. I hope you will
go back and thank the men and women of the Justice Department
for the great, great job they are doing here. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted by Representative Sweeney
appear on page 456.]
Thursday, March 27, 2003.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WITNESS
ROBERT S. MUELLER, DIRECTOR
Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf [presiding]. The hearing will come to order.
Thank you, Director Mueller, for appearing before the
committee this morning to discuss the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's fiscal year 2004 budget request.
I want to start by saying that I believe you have been
doing a good job transforming this organization from
investigating crimes to preventing terrorist attacks, while at
the same time replacing outmoded technology, all in the midst
of a very terrible conflict, a very difficult time, both in
Iraq and with al-Qaeda and with other terrorist groups.
I fear that we are in a long, protracted battle against
terrorism. To enable you to meet these challenges, you are
requesting $4.6 billion for the salaries and the expenses of
the FBI. This represents a 10 percent increase in funding above
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for the FBI. The request
includes $513 million in programmatic increases, $133 million
for adjustments to base, and $120 million in reductions for
nonrecurring decreases.
Last year, the Congress provided you with $45 million more
than the request, and some $755 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations since September 11th. Your budget
has grown by 36 percent since fiscal year 2000 enacted levels.
That is a big jump in three years.
We will look to you to be accountable for the wise use of
these funds and to ensure that the committee is kept fully
informed of the new funding priorities and requirements of the
FBI.
Before we begin, I would like to recognize the chairman,
Mr. Young, if he has any comments, then Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I first want to welcome the director. He was kind enough,
at your invitation, to spend a lot of time with us earlier this
week. And we appreciate that.
Mr. Director, you were not on the job very long when you
were hit with an attack on the United States. And I agree with
what Chairman Wolf said, you have done a tremendous job in
responding to that.
As you talk to the subcommittee this morning, what I would
like to hear are any comments that you have to make about the
supplemental and any part of the supplemental that you feel is
important and how you would go about using those funds in the
supplemental.
And I would just tell you that it is my plan to move that
supplemental really quick. And I know that my subcommittee
chairmen have all agreed to be very, very cooperative. We are
going to conclude our hearings this week on the supplemental.
And actually plan to be in the committee marking it up on
Tuesday morning. So any comments you would like to make along
with your other prepared comments would be appreciated.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo the two previous speakers' support of the
job you are doing. In fact, as a leftover liberal from the
1960s, I find it hard at times to realize that I am praising
the FBI, but that is the kind of guy you are and that is the
kind of work you are doing. I once said when I first became a
member of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that only in America
can someone who probably had an FBI file in the 1960s now keeps
files on the FBI. And so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. That is the beauty of our system.
I just want to welcome you here today. I also want to hear
comments from you on the supplemental, because I am committed,
with both the committee chairman and the chairman of this
subcommittee, to make sure that you get the resources that are
necessary.
I, of course, will direct my conversation with you today on
my favorite subject, one that I believe you are very, very
honest and sincere about, and that is the balance between
protecting our country and protecting the civil liberties of
the people who live within this country, who are staying within
our borders.
And to that extent, I really was extremely proud and
honored to see you visit Northern Virginia some time ago and
speak to the Muslim community and to Arabs in general, not only
to let them know that it was not the intent of the Bureau to
hurt them in any way, but also to ask for their support. And
that said a lot to me about you and about your behavior. I hope
you continue to do that.
This is a very delicate balance. But if 20 years from now,
Mr. Director, we look back and find out that in securing our
homeland we destroyed a whole community or communities, as we
did--we hurt some people during World War II--I think your
tenure and my tenure will have been tainted rather than fully
glorified.
And so with that, I am looking forward to your testimony
and stand always ready to support you.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Just for the record, so people know, we moved the hearing
back to this room for a major reason. There, I think, are going
to be a series of votes today and when we are over in the other
room, the last time we were breaking and coming back and forth.
So this way we can continue the flow and I think the hearing
will be a better hearing. And one member can be here and go
vote--so that was the reason, for anyone who does not have
enough seats, we moved over here.
With that, your full statement will appear in the record.
And you can summarize or proceed as you see fit.
Opening Statement--Robert S. Mueller, Director, FBI
Mr. Mueller. Well, let me, if I could, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for the opportunity to appear today.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Serrano, thank you for your
remarks.
If I might, I will give a portion of my prepared remarks to
indicate to the committee and the subcommittee our thoughts
about the 2004 budget. The FBI, as all three of you have
indicated, is going through extraordinary and, I think,
positive change to better meet the threats posed by terrorists,
foreign intelligence services, and criminal enterprises. We
have changed our organizational structure to address the
greatest threats facing our country, to be more dynamic and
flexible, and to ensure accountability. And we are dramatically
upgrading our information technology, as we will hear this
morning.
These changes and many others that are ongoing will ensure
that the FBI stays on top of the current and future threats
well into the 21st century.
The FBI's fiscal year 2004 budget request will give us the
resources we need to keep this positive momentum. Our total
request, as you have pointed out, is $4.6 billion, and we are
requesting program changes totaling $513 million, including
2,346 new positions, 503 of which are special agents.
This morning, I would like to briefly walk you through our
progress to date, our assessment of the threat, and the changes
we are making to align our organization and resources to
address the threat.
Before beginning, let me issue one caveat to my
presentation. That is, we are still analyzing the impact of the
2003 omnibus bill on our 2004 request, and it is possible that
some other changes to the request may be required to reflect
the 2003 enacted level. Quite obviously, we will be working
with your staff and your committee on those changes.
COUNTERTERRORISM
In counterterrorism, the prevention of another terrorist
attack remains the FBI's top priority. And we are thoroughly
committed to identifying and dismantling terrorist networks. I
am pleased to report that our efforts have yielded major
successes over the last 17 months. Over 212 suspected
terrorists have been charged with crimes, 108 of whom have been
convicted to date. There are several examples that I could
mention which are in my prepared remarks. The fact that the
Pakistani authorities arrested Khalid Sheik Mohammed
approximately a month ago, a key planner and mastermind of
September 11th, was a great advance on the war on terrorism.
And since his arrest, we, along with our sister agencies in
the federal government, as well as our counterparts overseas,
have been working to disrupt his financial network, identify
his co-conspirators, and ensure that we utilize any information
received from him to prevent another terrorist attack on the
United States or on United States interests overseas.
We have had a number of successes which are recounted in my
prepared remarks, which I will skip over. I might add, though,
that we have addressed terrorism financing over the last 17
months, and we have frozen approximately $113 million from 62
various organizations and we have had 23 convictions arising
out of our investigations into terrorist financing.
Let me just spend a moment on the counterterrorism threat.
Despite our successes, both overseas and within the United
States, tangible threats remain. During this current period, we
are clearly focused on the immediate threats to the nation
because of the hostilities in Iraq. And in order to respond to
these current conditions, the FBI's Strategic Information
Operation Center is operating 24 hours a day. We have
established Iraqi task forces in each of our field offices to
address the current situation, and as of today, in the course
of interviews around the country, we have interviewed more than
5,000 persons who we believe might have information that might
be helpful to us with regard to the hostilities in Iraq. Even
as we guard against this potential threat, we believe that for
the foreseeable future, the Al-Qaeda network is the most
serious threat to this country. We have made substantial
progress, as I have indicated, in disrupting Al-Qaeda at home
and overseas, but the organization still retains the ability to
inflict significant casualties within the United States with
little warning.
As Al-Qaeda and the other terrorist organizations have
changed their tactics, the FBI also has evolved and must
continue to evolve. We have, as you heard the other day, Mr.
Chairman, dramatically increased our analytical capability,
dramatically increased our intelligence analysis capabilities,
as well as increased our intelligence dissemination
capabilities. We will continue to upgrade those capabilities
with the funds that have been provided in the 2003 budget, and
with those funds we anticipate will be provided in the 2004
budget.
We are now, with regard to intelligence, focusing on long-
term strategies to enhance our ability to collect, analyze, and
disseminate intelligence. We are putting into place a much more
formal intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination
capability. I am in the process of selecting an Executive
Assistant Director for Intelligence who will have direct
authority over the FBI's national intelligence program and will
ensure that we have optimum intelligence strategies, structure,
and policies in place. In each of our field offices, we will
have intelligence units staffed with reports officers,
specially trained individuals who can collect and extract
intelligence from our investigations and share that information
with our law enforcement and intelligence community partners.
Our request for fiscal year 2004 includes approximately $1
billion in direct support for counterterrorism. Nearly 50
percent of all requested program changes, or $250 million,
supports counterterrorism. In particular, the 430 positions
proposed in the 2004 budget will strengthen our operational
support around the country and improve counterterrorism
management and coordination at FBI headquarters.
Also, the requested amount would support our 66 Joint
Terrorism Task Forces--critical, multi-agency task forces that
facilitate the cooperation and information sharing, and act as
our first line of defense for preventing terrorist attacks.
These funds would also expand our vital international
partnerships by adding FBI legal attaches in Sarajevo, Bosnia;
Kuwait City, Kuwait; Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Kabul, Afghanistan;
and Belgrade, Serbia, and by enhancing our presence in several
existing locations to handle the growing workload. Approval of
this budget request would also allow us to be better prepared
to respond to the scene of a terrorist attack at home or abroad
quickly and effectively with all the equipment we need.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
Let me turn, if I could, for a moment to our second
priority, which is counterintelligence. Counterintelligence
efforts are also vital to the security of the United States. As
the committee, I am sure, is aware, we have had several
successful investigations recently in this arena.
Last month, Brian Regan agreed to accept a life sentence
for attempted espionage and unlawful gathering of defense
information after he was convicted of the underlying charges.
And in October of last year, Ana Montes was sentenced to 25
years in prison following her plea of guilty to one count of
conspiracy to commit espionage on behalf of Cuba.
The intelligence threats fall into four categories. The
most significant threat and our top counterintelligence
priority is the potential for an agent of a hostile group or
nation to enhance its capability to produce or use weapons of
mass destruction. That is the most important
counterintelligence threat that we face. A second threat is the
potential for a foreign power to penetrate the United States
intelligence community. And a third threat is the targeting of
government-supported research and development. And finally, the
fourth threat is the potential compromise of certain critical
national assets spread around the United States.
To address these counterintelligence threats, we have
worked to transform ourselves and to transform our
counterintelligence program. Last May, we reorganized and, with
the approval of this committee, reassigned agents and resources
to our counterintelligence program. We reprogrammed 216
positions from other investigative responsibilities to
counterintelligence. We now have full-time counterintelligence
squads in 48 of our 56 field offices.
For fiscal year 2004, we have asked for program changes
totalling $63 million and 599 positions, including 94 agents.
These resources will provide us the necessary investigators,
analysts, and surveillance capabilities needed to address
emerging global threats, bolster our fixed and mobile
surveillance capabilities, and improve our ability to detect
espionage activities targeting national assets and our
universities.
CYBER-CRIME
Let me turn to our third priority, which is addressing
cyber-crime.
We have consolidated and created a new Cyber Division at
Headquarters to manage investigations into Internet-facilitated
crimes and to support investigations throughout the Bureau that
call for technical expertise. We also have reorganized to help
us coordinate with both the public, as well as private sectors.
Forty-seven of our field offices have or will soon have a
specialized cyber squad. Eight will have multiple cyber squads.
And Cyber Action Teams are available to assist with specialized
expertise around the country.
This strategy of enhancing our capabilities is proving
successful. For example, last year we identified 2,554
compromised computers. Our efforts resulted in 95 convictions
and $186 million in restitutions from these cases. During 2002
our Innocent Images initiatives addressing the exploitation of
children on the Internet resulted in 692 arrests, 648
indictments or informations and 646 convictions.
Despite using only 5 percent of all FBI resources, the
cyber program is facilitating investigative activities across
all of our bureau programs. Unfortunately, the threat from
cyber-crime is explosive, not only for traditional crime, such
as fraud and copyright infringement that have migrated online,
but also new crimes like computer intrusions and denial-of-
service attacks.
To date, terrorists have posed relatively low-level cyber-
threats, but some organizations and terrorist organizations, in
particular, are increasingly using information technology not
only to attack our infrastructure, but also for their own
communications. As terrorist groups become increasingly more
savvy, we ought to have and must have the capability to address
them and to disrupt and dismantle their efforts.
To meet cyber-threats, we have identified four priorities.
They are: first, neutralizing individuals or groups conducting
computer intrusions and spreading malicious code; second,
addressing, arresting, indicting, and prosecuting successfully
intellectual property thieves; third, pursuing those who commit
fraud on the Internet; and fourth, addressing online predators
that sexually exploit or endanger our children. Our success
will depend on maintaining the state-of-the-art technical
capabilities that we currently have and enhancing those
capabilities to handle the complex investigations that we see
facing us in the future.
In the 2004 budget request, we are requesting $234 million
to protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and
high-tech crimes. This request represents program changes of
$62 million and 194 positions, including 77 agents. These
resources will enable the FBI to staff computer intrusion
squads in field offices, enhance technical capabilities to
identify persons illegally accessing networks, and provide
funding for training and equipment we need to more aggressively
investigate cyber-incidents.
I should also add that the requested resources will enable
us to increase our efforts to detect the sexual exploitation of
children on the Internet. Over the past six years we have seen
these cases grow in number from 113 cases to over 2,300 cases
last year, and we must increase our commitment to address this
expanding problem. Finally, the resources will allow us to
expand our ability to conduct computer forensics examinations.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Let me turn for a second from these three top priorities to
our progress in the technology arena. Over the past two years,
the FBI has made significant progress in modernizing our
information technology infrastructure to better support our
investigative needs. As part of our Trilogy project, to date,
over 21,000 new desktop computers and high-speed local area
networks have been deployed to 622 FBI locations, both in the
United States and around the world. We have had in excess of
3,000 printers and in excess of 1,400 scanners provided to our
agents. And our wide area network is scheduled to come online
at the end of this month, a substantial achievement.
We now have 524 sites of our 594 that are operating on that
new network that will be up totally, hopefully, by the end of
this month.
Finally, the Enterprise Operations Center which becomes
operational this spring, and will manage data, network
hardware, and software applications, as well as security
access.
We are now focusing on implementing a corporate data
warehousing capability that is key to FBI intelligence, and
investigative and information-sharing initiatives, as well as
our Records Management System, which includes the Virtual case
file application you were shown earlier this week. These
technology upgrades will change the FBI culture from a culture
of paper to a culture of digital information. It is a change
that is critical to our capabilities to address the challenges
of the future.
OTHER PROGRAMS
Let me mention for a second what we have done in some of
our other programs.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, we have created a dedicated
Security Division and are consolidating our security functions
under a single management structure.
And let me conclude with a brief mention of our criminal
program, that has been going along during the events of the
last 18 months much as it has before, with some modifications.
For the Criminal Program, which is still critically
important to protecting the American public, we have also made
some requests in the 2004 budget. We have requested $16 million
and 118 positions, including 56 agents, directed at the
corporate fraud investigations that we are currently
undertaking. At the end of fiscal year 2002, we had five
investigations of companies in which there had been a loss in
excess of $1 billion in each of those companies. We currently
have eight investigations ongoing in which we are investigating
companies where the lawsuit is in excess of $1 billion. The
funds we seek in FY 2004 will assist us in addressing these
crimes.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the FBI has, I believe turned a
corner in its history. With the support of Congress, we have
been able to make dramatic and, I believe, substantive changes.
Our transformation continues because the threats facing the
United States homeland continue to evolve, and while we have
made great strides, I believe, in the last 18 months, we still
have a ways to go in a number of these areas.
I want to assure you that we are committed to protecting
this country from those who seek to harm us through acts of
terror, espionage, cyber-attacks, or criminal acts. Every
citizen must be able to enjoy the basic freedoms this great
nation provides. The men and women of the FBI understand their
roles in these challenging and uncertain times. With your
support, we can give them the resources and tools they need and
deserve to carry out our mission.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
make this statement.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Director. We appreciate your
testimony. I am going to first recognize Chairman Young.
I know there are a lot of subcommittees, and we will just
defer to you and further questions and then we will move.
FY 2003 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Director, what is your request in the supplemental?
Mr. Mueller. With the Department of Justice, I had some
time ago indicated what we believe our needs were attributable
to the hostilities in Iraq. My understanding is earlier in this
week, as I think it is yours, a request was made by the
President to Congress for a substantial supplemental. My
understanding is that the Department of Justice, including the
FBI, is allocated approximately $500 million out of those
funds. Those funds for the FBI would be directed to the
extraordinary efforts we are undertaking in this period of time
to address the hostilities in Iraq. That would include overtime
and items like language specialists that are necessary.
Because we have heard, I believe on Tuesday, that $500
million was allocated to the Department of Justice, we are just
now undertaking discussions with the Department as to which of
our priorities will be of that $500 million that was allocated
to the Attorney General.
Let me say that with the supplemental as well as the 2004
request being here pretty much at the same time, it is fair to
say that where we have seen a need in our 2004 budget, we have
also brought that to the attention of those who were looking at
the supplemental. But my understanding is that to the extent
that we do have extraordinary needs attributable to the
hostilities in Iraq, they will be met.
Mr. Young. In addition to the hostilities in Iraq, what
about increased terrorism, anti-terrorism activities,
counterintelligence activities relative to what is happening in
Afghanistan, al Qaeda, the worldwide responsibility? What I am
getting at is, is $500 million enough to take care of your
requirements and the Department of Justice requirements through
our supplemental?
Mr. Mueller. I would beg off speaking for the Department of
Justice. I believe that in our discussions with the Department
of Justice and the Attorney General's decision on the
allocation of that $500 million, it will meet our request.
Mr. Young. So you are comfortable with that window.
Mr. Mueller. I am comfortable. I will tell you, as I have
expressed before that I prioritize those budget items as to
what we need, and the priorities, as I have expressed it here,
go to counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber and
criminal. I, in discussions with the Attorney General and his
staff, have prioritized those requests, and my hope and
expectation is that, whether it be in the 2004 budget or in the
supplemental, that most of those priorities will be addressed.
Mr. Young. We will very likely be, when we get to the full
committee on Tuesday, asked to increase substantially the
amounts going to various homeland security activities. It is
your testimony that your responsibility in that regard, you
believe this adequately covers it for the supplemental, and
that 2004 will pick up whatever needs that you have?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, I believe that to be the case. I must
preface it by saying that my understanding is the $500 million
in the Administration's request has been allocated to the
Attorney General, and so we still have discussions to take
place with the Attorney General and our staff.
Mr. Young. I understand.
Okay. Thank you very much, and again thank you for the good
work that you and the agency have been doing without a lot of
preparation for that type of an attack back on September 11th.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FBI'S ROLE IN THE WAR WITH IRAQ
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Mr. Director, with regard to Iraq, do you have a team ready
to go the minute Baghdad falls to search the wreckage and look
and see what is there?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Have you picked somebody?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Do you know who it is going to be and how they
are going to go?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
FUNDING FBI PRIORITIES
Mr. Wolf. To support the efforts to fight terrorism, you
are requesting an increase of $241 million and an additional
244 agents. The question goes along the same lines that Mr.
Young was asking. How many policemen does New York City have?
Mr. Mueller. I think it is something like 14,000.
Mr. Wolf. No, I think there are 44,000.
Mr. Mueller. Forty-four thousand; I knew there was four in
there someplace, 44,000.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, and do they have people based overseas?
Mr. Mueller. I believe they do have some people based
overseas.
Mr. Wolf. Do you know how many people they might have?
Mr. Mueller. I believe less than 10.
Mr. Wolf. And how many do you have based overseas?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to get you that figure. I know we
have 45 legal attaches offices; we have at least 150 if not
more.
[The information follows:]
FBI Employees Based Overseas
As of April 2003, there are 334 FBI employees assigned overseas on
official business. The 334 employees consist of the following:
Type of Employee Number
Temporary Duty (TDY)--Supervisory Special Agents and Special
Agents.................................................... 137
Special Agents (Legat, Assistant Legat, Deputy Assistant
Legat).................................................... 114
Support Positions............................................. 72
Resolution 6 (FBI Special Agents working with the Drug
Enforcement Agency country attaches)...................... 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 334
Mr. Wolf. My sense is that manpower--the committee has been
very generous in technology, but manpower really is very
important as well. You have taken 567 agents out of other
cases, including drug cases. Drug use is now increasing, rape
is up by 1.3 percent, murder is up by 2.8 percent, and when we
talk about murder in percentages it, sort of, does not sink in.
I mean, how many murders were there last year in the country?
Do you have any idea?
Mr. Mueller. I do not, off the top of my head.
[The information follows:]
Number of Murders in U.S. During 2002
The FBI is compiling data on the number of murders in the U.S.
during 2002 for Crime in the United States, 2002, which is scheduled
for publication in Fall 2003. Based on data submitted voluntarily by
the nation's law enforcement agencies, which was compiled and reported
in Crime in the United States, 2001, there were approximately 15,980
murders in calendar year 2001.
Mr. Wolf. If we could find that for the record, and we add
that 2.8 percent, that is real people, there are families
suffering, and so I worry a little bit about the demand that is
taken from the drug war.
The DEA testified last week and told the Committee that
20,000 people in the United States died as a result of drugs.
Three thousand died in 9/11; 30 people from my district were
killed in the attack at the Pentagon. But we also need to be
careful that we are not decreasing the ability of the bureau to
deal with the issue of drugs, cartels, murder, or gangs that
transit across jurisdictional lines.
So along the lines of what the Chairman said I really worry
that there may be too much of an emphasis for technology and
for other things, which this Committee has been very generous,
and not enough with regard to personnel.
I am not going to put you in a spot with regard to that,
but I think right now my sense of having looked at all this--
and this is your third time before the Committee and having met
with you--the need at the bureau is really in personnel.
And last week with DEA, we discussed the issue of terrorism
at the tri-border area, which includes Argentina, Brazil and
Paraguay. DEA and others have reported the presence of
Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was involved in the blowing up of the Marine
barracks; 241 Marines were killed. Terrorism did not start on
9/11, terrorism started late 1983, when 241 Marines were blown
up, the American embassy in Beirut was blown up, and now we
have had a whole series of things, the disco in Germany,
Tanzania, Kenya, the USS Cole in Riyadh. Hezbollah and Hamas
are in the region.
Last week's Washington Post said there were reports that
bin Laden was in the area in 1995. Do you know if he was down
there in 1995?
Mr. Mueller. I have not seen reporting to that effect.
[The information follows:]
The Presence of Osama Bin Laden in the Tri-Border Area
The FBI has no corroborating reports to indicate that Bin Laden was
in the tri-border area (Argentina-Brazil-Paraguay) in 1995.
Mr. Wolf. Well, with our focus on the Middle East and in
the U.S., flushing out terrorists there while just to the south
are other potential dangers, does the FBI have a presence down
in the tri-border area?
Mr. Mueller. We did have a presence, and we are discussing
reinstituting that presence down there. We have been and are
concerned.
I share your concern about that area. In fact, the Deputy
Assistant Director for counter terrorism was down in that area
in December with a number of senior officials from elsewhere in
the government to address that particular problem. My
expectation is that we will again reinstitute our presence in
that area.
JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE
Mr. Wolf. My sense is that with drugs and terrorism, and
that is very close to the United States, that that would be an
area--which gets back into the issue of the manpower issue.
With regard to the FBI sharing of information with state
and local law enforcement, and for expanding the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces, you requested increases of $11.6 million
for the Joint Terrorism Task Force efforts. What new
capabilities will these increases provide for them?
Mr. Mueller. Well, it will provide, first of all, the
overtime and some of the equipment that is necessary for those
task forces.
I would say at the outset that the Joint Terrorism Task
Force is the foundation for our effort to address terrorism in
the future. The necessity of working closely together, shoulder
to shoulder with state and local law enforcement in these task
forces----
Mr. Wolf. I agree.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Are critically important. And
what these funds will go to is increasing the numbers on those
task forces. In other words, with those additional funds, those
task forces can support additional officers from the state and
local police departments, equipment, and transportation. It
will be space, which has been a substantial expense for us, as
well as computers, that are necessary for all of them to do
their work.
Mr. Wolf. How many state and local law enforcement officers
have received security clearances and are now participating in
Joint Terrorism Task Forces? I assume they cannot participate
until they have had the full security clearance.
Mr. Mueller. We have taken the position that state and
local law enforcement officers that serve on the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces should have access to the same
information that their Federal counterparts on that task force
have access to. And consequently we are clearing them to the
top secret level.
We now have approximately 650 state and local enforcement
agents working on Joint Terrorism Task Forces around the
country. Most of those, quite obviously, have their full
clearances. I am not certain whether all of them do at this
point.
We have granted a total of over 1,000 clearances to Joint
Terrorism Task Force members. Now, many of them are part time.
When I talk about the 649 number, that is 649 full-time members
of the task forces. We have granted a total of over 1,000.
Actually, 1,087 clearances.
Mr. Wolf. What do they get, a conditional clearance, and
then how do you work that?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, that generally is what happens.
My understanding is that there is a conditional clearance
that is given, allowing them to do certain tasks on the task
force, but not giving them access to certain pieces of
information.
[The information follows:]
Conditional Security Clearances for Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)
Members
Upon completing a standard national security form that requires
information on an applicant over the last 10 years, a member of the
JTTF Program is provided an interim Secret clearance. This interim
clearance provides escorted access in JTTF facilities. Upon successful
completion of the background check, typically within 30-45 days, the
FBI grants a Top Secret security clearance, and the JTTF member has
complete access to JTTF facilities and information that is developed
throughout the course of investigations.
Mr. Wolf. Is that scattered? In some offices, almost
everybody has the clearance and in others, almost nobody. There
is one in seven.
Mr. Mueller. I will tell you that there have been problems
with the delays in getting clearances the last time I was here
to discuss this with you, last spring, for instance. And we put
into effect a much-enhanced program to assure that the
clearances were granted much faster than they had been in the
past.
Mr. Wolf. You do clearances, don't you?
Mr. Mueller. Pardon?
Mr. Wolf. You do the background checks?
Mr. Mueller. We do the background, yes, but we put in a
process to enhance that because there were complaints, and
justified in many cases that it was taking too long. I would
say of those that we have out there, almost all of them are
fully cleared at this point. We may have a backlog of some, but
it is very minimal.
Mr. Wolf. Is that a manpower issue?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, to a certain extent. And also a
processing issue, prioritizing their clearances.
Mr. Wolf. And Mr. Serrano.
FUNCTION AND MISSION OF AGENTS IN NEW YORK CITY
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, how many agents do you have located in New
York City now? And do we know how many we had prior to
September 11th? And how have the functions and the mission of
these agents changed in New York City, specifically, since
September 11th?
Mr. Mueller. I do not have with me the numbers in the New
York field office. I would have to provide you those numbers of
those we had prior to September 11th and those that we have
now.
[The information follows:]
Number of FBI Special Agents Located at the New York City Field Office
As of April 1, 2003, the FBI had 1,063 agents assigned to the New
York City Field Office. Prior to September 11, 2001, the FBI had 1,096
agents assigned to the New York City Field Office.
The reduction is explained by an internal FBI analysis that
determined there was insufficient compensation and benefit funding
available to pay for FBI reported workyears. In order to address the
funding issue during FY 2001 and FY 2002, the FBI eliminated 1,287
work-years, including 518 vacant agent positions. This action resulted
in across-the-board adjustments to headquarters and field staffing. The
New York City Field Office eliminated 50 vacant positions as part of
the hollow workyear reduction initiative.
Mr. Mueller. I would say that the mission has not changed.
The way we address terrorism throughout the United States has
changed.
Prior to September 11th, New York was the office of origin
for the al Qaeda investigations, for instance. And so, the
responsibility for gathering the information and pursuing the
investigations fell almost solely on New York.
Since September 11th, we understand that it is the bureau
as a whole that has to address al Qaeda. And consequently, the
responsibility for addressing al Qaeda now falls at the feet of
the assistant director for counter-terrorism.
As we understand, prior to September 11th, much of the
information relating to terrorist groups was located in the
field office responsible for addressing that terrorist group.
Since September 11th, what we have attempted to do and are
continuing to do is centralizing that information from all
around the country, whether it be New York, Albuquerque,
Spokane, or San Francisco, and being better able, when it is
centralized, to analyze it and then disseminate that
information, to not only our sister agencies in the federal
government, but also the state and local law enforcement. And
so, while the mission has not changed, they are doing in New
York exactly what they did before. The responsibilities have
changed somewhat.
Mr. Serrano. Now, New York has a substantial population
from the Middle East. And I know you have had different
initiatives, including one that started as recently as the
beginning of the war with Iraq. Within the boundaries of what
you are allowed to tell me, have these special inquiries in
these communities yielded any information that could be useful
to us in general and specifically to New York City, as
unfortunately, a target?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, they have. If I might, Congressman, let
me just say that the Muslim American communities, the Arab
American communities, the Sikh American communities, the Iraqi-
American communities have been tremendously supportive since
September 11th in the war on terrorism. From the perspective of
the FBI, each of our special agents in charge, myself, and
others at headquarters have reached out to these communities to
explain and express our understanding that members of these
communities are as much patriotic Americans as anybody else. We
understand that. We elicit and solicit their support. And that
support has been coming from those communities.
Now, we have continued from the outset, from the time of
September 11th, the outreach program to these various
communities. It has been enhanced since the initiation of
hostilities in Iraq. What we have found in our interviews
around the country is a wealth of information from those who
have spent substantial time in Iraq and learned the location of
places like bunkers and telecommunications networks or
structural information; persons who have served in Iraq over a
period of time in various capacities and in fleeing Iraq have
brought the United States that knowledge. In the course of the
interviews we have conducted, which are voluntary interviews of
those in the Iraqi-American community. And we have been
gratified by the information that we have received, much of it
very helpful to those who are now undertaking the war in Iraq.
PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES DURING THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Mr. Serrano. As you know, Mr. Director, I have made it a
point, during this period on this committee and any other
committee that I get a chance to speak at, to continue to
remind ourselves that we have to protect the homeland and
follow the Constitution at the same time. And as I have said,
this is a very delicate balance.
Now, you oversee roughly 25,000 people. And I preface my
comments again by saying that everything I hear from you
publicly and everything in our private conversations indicates
that you are also concerned about this and want to make sure
that there are no abuses. But when you oversee 25,000 people a
lot of things could happen.
Now, last year, if my recollection is correct, we had some
further conversation, a second hearing that dealt in part with
the reorganization of the Bureau. And at that time GAO had
proposed the possibility of having someone to oversee some of
those actions that you take. Personally I think every agency
involved in the war on terrorism should have someone, kind of,
saying, ``Hold it, guys, you know, and ladies, cannot do it
that way or should not do it that way, or look at the long-term
impact.''
One, do you think that you have something in place already
that deals with that?
Two, notwithstanding the fact that no one wants somebody
looking over their shoulder, do you think that that is
something that is necessary either for the bureau or in
general?
And lastly, how does my concern and the concern of many
other people, in spite of the fact that they do not voice it as
much as I do, make sure that we do not go crazy here?
Because I mean, I will give you an example, the Attorney
General came before us and I asked him, ``Why are you holding a
gentleman accused of having a dirty bomb with no charges, no
lawyer, you know, incommunicado, and he is an American
citizen?''
The chairman, to my pleasant--not surprise--but I was
pleasantly happy to hear him say, ``Yes, at least try this
guy.'' So the next day a judge said, ``We are going to give him
a lawyer.'' And then, the Attorney General sent all the lawyers
in to fight this notion.
So what we get is this feeling that we are going to detain
people. We are going to arrest people. We are going to put them
away. And no one is going to answer for their civil liberties
and their civil rights.
The FBI, before you, had a history at times of horrible,
horrible behavior. How do we try to stop that from happening
again while we secure and protect this country of ours?
Mr. Mueller. I believe, not only the FBI, but also the
Department of Justice, is very concerned about the balancing
and the necessity of assuring the appropriate recognition of
the civil rights protection that is guaranteed to us by the
Constitution. I do not think there is a person that I have
talked to, whether it be in the Bureau or otherwise, that does
not understand that we are here to protect the liberties
afforded us under the Constitution, and we would have lost the
war if we undercut those civil liberties.
From our perspective, we have a number of things, I
believe, in place now that were not in place in years past that
protect the civil liberties of our countrymen; things like the
Attorney General's guidelines, the fact that we now have a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act statute. We cannot, as an
organization, the FBI, go to the Attorney General as you could
in the years past and have the Attorney General sign off on a
slip of paper and undertake a telephonic interception. Now, we
go before an independent court to get that approval. We have
congressional oversight. I am up here quite a bit. That is
effective in terms of assuring that the civil liberties of the
country are protected. We have items such as the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, but also the Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review at the Department of Justice
that looks over each of our applications before it goes to the
court.
We have the Privacy and Information Act of 1996 that has
not been there previously that protects the privacy of our
citizens. So the extent that in the past the FBI has been
looked upon as having abused its authorities, since that time
there have been a number of both statutes, as well as
regulations or guidelines have been put in place to protect the
liberties of our systems.
Additionally, if I might add, our training, the training
that we do for our agents emphasizes the fact that it is a
substantial responsibility we have, and it is an awesome power
that is given to an agent to undertake an investigation of an
individual, to carry a weapon and most particularly that if
that is abused, we undercut that which we are there to protect,
and that is the Constitution.
One of the things we do that Louis Freeh put into place
that I think is tremendously important, is that every agent
coming through new agents class goes to the Holocaust Museum to
see exactly what can happen when a law enforcement or an
intelligence organization oversteps its bounds and abuses its
authorities.
So I believe that there is a great deal put into place that
protects the civil liberties of our citizens. But also I
believe that we, as an agency, understand our role is to
protect those liberties.
The last thing I will say in the same context of our
dealing with communities, whether they be Iraqi American,
Muslim American, Sikh American, Arab American is that, we are
also--and understand that we are there to protect these
citizens from hate crimes. We had in excess of 400
investigations in the wake of September 11th of hate crimes in
these communities, and we have had several since hostilities
have begun. And we have and will pursue those investigations
every bit as aggressively as we would pursue an investigation
of a terrorist or a drug-trafficker.
NUMBER OF DETAINEES IN THE U.S. RELATED TO 9/11 OR THE WAR IN IRAQ
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Director, let me close my part because I
do not want to take too much time from the other members that
are here, but my concern is that what you just presented to us
is either on paper or in theory at the Justice Department and
at the Bureau.
But I am embarrassed to say this on live TV, to be shown
over and over for the next 48 hours, as this particular channel
does, I am embarrassed to say that members of Congress do not
have the information we should have.
There is no member that can honestly tell you they know how
many people are detained in this country right now related to
September 11th or the war in Iraq. No member knows that, not a
chairman, not a Majority Leader or Minority Leader, not a
Speaker. No one knows it, and no one will tell us.
No one knows if we have targeted a specific ethnic
community beyond what we should be doing. No one knows that.
And the history of the Bureau, the history of the CIA, the
history of certain departments, is that years later we find out
about plots to assassinate people, or plots to blow up
airplanes and blame them on foreign governments so we can then
invade that government and start a war with them. I mean, you
name it, some agencies have done it.
You are basically telling me safeguards are in place. I am
appealing to you, as a person who comes across as being sincere
about this, to do a reality check on yourself and on the
department to make sure that it goes beyond theory; that we
have to stop every so often and say, ``Are we, in fact, going
beyond where we should be, and what is the price we are going
to pay 20 years from now?''
Mr. Mueller. Well, if I might respond briefly, in terms of
the numbers, my understanding is that the Attorney General,
either in his testimony or otherwise, indicated that in the
wake of September 11th, what was the INS at that time had
detained over 700 persons who were in violation of the terms of
their being in the United States, and at the time that he
testified, there were 29 of those who remained.
Mr. Serrano. But, Mr. Director, he is telling us how many
people overstayed their visas. He has not told us how many
people are suspected of knowing a cousin who knows a friend who
knows an employee somewhere in the old country that knew
someone that could have been a terrorist that is also detained.
We do not know that.
We have no clue whether that is 29 or 2,229, and we will
never know. And that is scary. That is really scary that we do
not know.
Mr. Mueller. Well, in the wake of September 11th,
individuals who were detained for overstaying their visas or
otherwise being out of status with the INS, I believe those
figures are available and have been provided.
Other individuals were arrested for a variety of criminal
charges, not necessarily related to terrorism, but in the wake
of September 11th. When we did interviews and looked at these
persons, you might find that there was an outstanding warrant
on them. There were a number that were arrested.
Because they were arrested on state charges or local
charges or other federal charges we may not have all that for
you. But I do believe that most of those figures have been
provided already.
[The information follows:]
Number of Detainees in the U.S. Related to 9/11 or the War in Iraq
In conjunction with the conflict with Iraq, 42 persons have been
detained or arrested. The arrests have been for various reasons, not
necessarily related to international terrorism (e.g., visa overstay
matters). Over 9,000 expatriate Iraqis have been interviewed in the
United States since the beginning of the Iraqi conflict. With regard to
the number of people detained related to the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, according to testimony from the Attorney General
given on March 6, 2003, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement has detained over 700 aliens who were in violation and who
have been or are being investigated in connection with the September
11th attacks. As of February 5, nearly 500 individuals have been
deported on immigration charges or have left the country voluntarily.
Also as of February 5, only 29 individuals of the 700 remained in the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's custody. Three of the
29 individuals in custody have been identified by the FBI as
individuals that are still of investigative interest.
Mr. Serrano. Okay, then let me end with this, because I do
not want to beat this to death. Do you disagree with this
statement, that we are behaving in many ways the same way we
behaved with Japanese Americans in World War II all over again
during this period of time?
Mr. Mueller. I would adamantly disagree with that.
Adamantly. I think every time we have gone out and interviewed
an individual, and in the latest round of interviews we have
done so voluntarily, we have done it with courtesy, we have
done it with the understanding that we are eliciting
information. I think that is a far cry from what happened in
World War II.
Mr. Serrano. Well, in my profession we like to be right. I
pray to God that I can openly admit some day that I was totally
wrong.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Before I recognize Mr. Vitter, just to comment a little bit
on that, though. One, I have confidence in your leadership down
there now and your people.
But on the other side, just to cover a little bit of what
Mr. Serrano said, there have been abuses in the past, and I
think it is the responsibility of this Committee and the
Judiciary Committee to be very aggressive. And I think in
fairness to you, at the briefing that you gave the other day
you were, you stressed congressional oversight; it is the
responsibility of the Congress to stay on these issues, and if
something comes up to be very, very aggressive.
I have been very supportive of the Bureau now, but on the
other hand, as you and I we have had a number of meetings, and
there are times that I raise things that perhaps you go home
and think it is perhaps not fair.
So I think it is a balance in the sense I understand what
he is saying, but I would just say that I have confidence now.
And part of the problem was that Congress in the 1960s and
in the 1970s pretty much gave the FBI free rein. It was sort of
a potted-plant theory, they just were there and the bureau
director came by and it was over. And I think the
responsibility in this time is to aggressively ask these
questions, to ask for the numbers, to raise the cases.
So you understand what Mr. Serrano said. But I agree with
you, and I think we should institutionally put in markers and
you are going to be here hopefully for seven more years, or six
more years, whatever the case may be--place road mile markers
to make sure that the Congress is providing oversight. But I am
confident that the Director is and----
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield a second--
Mr. Wolf. I yield.
Mr. Serrano. I believe you are sincere.
But you make the comment about institutionalizing, he
oversees 25,000 people. How many of those have been around
longer than he has and have a mentality that they can abuse and
abuse and he cannot stay on top of all of them?
That is why I am saying what I need from him is to take his
sincerity and make it a behavior pattern at the agency.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree, and one of the questions that we
have here will be about the Boston office. We have had
conversations about the Boston office, I have been very
troubled about the Boston office. So it is one of those things
that I see from both sides.
As long as I have the opportunity to serve on this
Committee, I am going to ask the tough questions, but on the
other side of the coin we want to give you the resources.
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. But you understand how----
Mr. Mueller. Sure, absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, and, okay, go ahead.
Mr. Mueller. Absolutely. And I think debate is healthy. We
may not always see eye-to-eye with each other, but I respect
the views of the Congressman. And I most particularly respect
the concerns.
And one of the things when I meet with the Muslim leaders
is I say, ``I want you to bring me your concerns, but you hear
from your persons. If we are overstepping our bounds in your
communities, I want to hear about it. If there are particular
instances, I want to hear about it.''
I will tell you, from the latest rounds of interviews that
we have had, most of the feedback, almost all, if not all, the
feedback I have gotten has been positive. So I am open to those
instances where there is a perception, wherever it is in the
country, that we have abused our authority in some way.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, five more seconds, and I will
really stop.
The Director and I have an ongoing project that Director
Freeh started, so I speak from experience. It was 60 years of
persecution of a group of people in Puerto Rico and New York
and Connecticut, maybe in your neighborhood, who believed that
Puerto Rico should be an independent nation. For 60 years the
FBI fabricated cases, ruined careers. Some people disappeared;
that is another issue.
And he has been good enough to be releasing those files to
the senate and the assembly in Puerto Rico for scholars and
other people to look at.
And when you look at these 60-year files of what they did
to a group of people on the island I was born in who simply
said: ``Statehood, commonwealth, independence? We prefer
independence.'' And they were driven into the ground. And so it
has happened, and I am afraid it could happen again.
Mr. Wolf. I understand. And I think the Director does. And
I think the Director has transformed the Bureau.
As the Committee knows, and as anyone watching this should
know, we have the National Academy of Public Administration, we
have GAO, and we have your agents providing oversight. And,
again, I think a lot of the responsibility rests with the
Congress, both the House and the Senate, to be mindful.
But, you know, I think the Director is working in those
areas, and I have confidence in the Director, and I have
confidence in the men and women who work for him.
On the other hand, if I saw something, and I hope if I do
in the future, I will be very candid to speak privately, but
also to speak out publicly.
But I think you have transformed the Bureau, you have done
a good job.
Maybe the problem may very well be that you have hid your
light under a bushel basket, that you have not told enough
people of the transformation. Sometimes I hear comments made
about the Bureau that in the context of the 1960s and 1970s may
very well have been accurate, but in the context of this year
they may be mistaken, but everyone does not know about the
improvements, everyone does not have the opportunity to hear
firsthand how things have improved.
The briefing that you gave the Congress several days ago
probably would not be a bad briefing whereby the American
people can see the changes. Maybe they never heard that there
is this program, there is that program, there is this check and
that check.
So sometimes you do something and you just think everyone
knows, and they do not know, and you just have to say it. And I
think, in politics, you have to sometimes say it 10 times
before people focus.
So maybe, if there is a criticism, if you will, it is that
the Bureau has been very modest and has not actually said, ``We
are concerned about these things and here is what we are
doing,'' and saying it over and over and over. And you are
hiding your light under a bushel basket.
With that, Mr. Vitter.
Mr. Vitter. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Two quick
comments with regard to previous comments.
First of all, I share Mr. Serrano's concern about civil
liberties. I know we all do. But I have to say, I do not know
of any single fact or any single confirmed incident that would
cause any reasonable person to mention activity of our
government since September 11 in the same breath as treatment
of Japanese-American citizens in World War II. And if there is
a single fact or incident out there that would justify that
comparison, which is, quite frankly, a very serious statement,
I would love to hear about it, but I am not aware of it.
Secondly, with regard to the Boston office, I just know
from my experience in Louisiana, Ken Kaiser is moving from New
Orleans, as head of that office, to Boston. He is a great
Special Agent in Charge and he will provide great leadership in
that office.
CHANGES IN FBI CULTURE
Thank you, Mr. Director, for being here.
I have some non-terrorism-related points, but first of all,
on your obvious main focus and responsibility. It seems to me
that your biggest challenge is really to change the culture of
the FBI from this culture where FBI agents nailed everything
down dead to rights to prepare a court case, whether it is
drug-related or corruption-related, whatever it is, to being
prepared to act a lot quicker than you can if you want to nail
everything down dead to rights after a gazillion wiretaps and
after you have every aspect of the case figured out.
Could you give us some concrete examples or indications of
what progress is being made in that pretty fundamental culture
shift?
Mr. Mueller. Let me start by saying that, when we talk
about the culture of the FBI, that the essential culture of the
FBI are agents who are exceptionally dedicated to public
service, hardworking, and have the highest degree of integrity.
And their mission has changed many times over the years. If
you look at organized crime, for some point in time the records
and the books will reflect that leadership in the Bureau would
say there is no organized crime, and then all of the sudden,
understood the threat of organized crime and the Bureau shifted
180 degrees to address organized crime, it did that which we
are doing now; that is, developing sources, utilizing the tools
that we have, to build the cases. Building the intelligence.
Although we did not at that time call it intelligence building,
that is exactly what we were doing.
And since September 11, I believe that the agents, almost
to a one, would say that we understand that we cannot look at
pieces of information solely as pieces of evidence in a
courtroom; the information may fit into a larger mosaic that
will enable us, if we utilize our capabilities in analyzing
intelligence, to be more predictive about the next attack. And
I think that shift is undertaken already in the Bureau.
What has augmented and helped that shift is the USA PATRIOT
Act, the recent ruling of the FISA court that has broken down
the walls between the intelligence side of the house and the
criminal side of the house. And we have had many examples now
of intelligence gathering that has brought us to the point
where we believe that we need to neutralize or to address a
threat.
An example would be the five individuals who were arrested
in Lackawanna, and a sixth person rendered from Bahrain, which
was both an intelligence, as well as, ultimately, a criminal
undertaking, and those individuals are all pleading to
sentences ranging from seven to 10 years this week. That is the
kind of work that we are doing around the country now.
So I do believe there has been a shift in our focus and
that we are utilizing those tools and talents that we have had
all along, but in different ways.
Mr. Vitter. Okay. And again, I agree with you in terms of
the fundamental values of the FBI: hard work and dedication,
but it is very different to prepare a criminal case and try to
cover every aspect of it so that person immediately has to
plead guilty basically trying to disrupt ongoing terrorist
activities, where you do not have the luxury of waiting two
years to do every wiretap that you can conceive of.
Mr. Mueller. Well, there is a balance, and it happens often
when you are dealing with violent crime, as to how far you
investigate before you take the violent criminal off the street
because of the concern that the person may commit another act.
It is not much different than that.
It is different from doing a white collar case, where you
get every piece of paper and you lock it up and you interview
everybody. But I do believe that to a certain extent that the
necessity to change the culture in that way may be somewhat
overstated.
The only other point I would make is that, over the years
we have had a counterintelligence function. And the
counterintelligence function rarely leads to a court case, yet
there are a number of techniques that are used in the
counterintelligence arena that lend themselves to the
counterterrorism arena. The cases that you would get in a
counterintelligence arena are quite obviously the espionage
cases, and those are fairly few and far between. So I do
believe we have both historically, as well as presently, the
capability and the will to address counterterrorism.
PUBLIC CORRUPTION
Mr. Vitter. Okay. Thank you. Quickly, three comments or
questions on topics other than terrorism.
First of all, as you may know, there is a very serious
ongoing serial killer incident in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I
mostly want to compliment you and your office for providing all
of the resources and all of the help that the locals have asked
for. The mayor of Baton Rouge has personally told me that all
have been super. And I certainly look forward to that
continuing so that this person can be caught as quickly as
possible.
Secondly, in New Orleans, as I am sure you know, there is a
very real focus on public corruption. Right now, there are two
public corruption squads in that office, which is the most any
office has in the country, including offices in metropolitan
areas, like New York or Miami, which are far, far larger. And
at least in the local leadership there in that office, there is
a desire for a third public corruption squad or group, whatever
the term of art is.
And I think in terms of the workload, unfortunately, it is
completely justified. And I would encourage your office to be
able to support that sort of continuing focus on public
corruption in that office in particular, particularly as a new
Special Agent in Charge comes in.
You may not have any reaction off the cuff, but do you
think your budget will be able to support that sort of
continuing effort in the New Orleans office?
Mr. Mueller. Certainly, the Baton Rouge. Our organization,
whether it be the New Orleans or the Baton Rouge office or
whatever is necessary to identify that individual responsible
for those crimes, we will move Heaven and Earth. Whatever you
need, we will support that investigation or series of
investigations.
With regard to public corruption, public corruption is our
number one criminal priority. I have taken three national
security priorities, counterterrorism, counterintelligence and
cyber, and said these are national programs to be run by the
Assistant Director--investigations to be in the field, but the
responsibility is with the Assistant Director back at
headquarters.
With regard to the criminal priorities within a particular
field office, I am very open to, in ways that perhaps we have
not done in the past, allowing the Special Agent in Charge to
identify those priorities that are most important to that local
community. So that while public corruption may be important in
New Orleans and San Francisco, it may well be cyber-crime and
the like.
And the Special Agent in Charge should do threat
assessments of the criminal problems there and address those
problems with the manpower according to that office. And if
they need additional--and our number one criminal priority,
public corruption, we would like to provide that.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
Mr. Vitter. Well, great. If public corruption is the number
one criminal priority nationally, unfortunately in the New
Orleans office it is number one, two, three, four and five. And
so, I just repeat my statement and encourage you to be able to
support a third public corruption squad there, which I think is
the desire of the local FBI leadership.
Final question: There is an alarming growth of sexual
exploitation of children on the Internet, which is obviously a
federal issue. What, in your budget, can help us try to turn
the corner on that?
Mr. Mueller. I requested additional agents, as well as
additional support in our 2004 budget to address that
particular problem. We requested 32 positions, including 19
agents, and $3.6 million to support our Innocent Images
undertaking.
Mr. Vitter. Do you know offhand what that compares to in
relation to last year?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to provide you that. I do not
think we have that offhand. I would have to provide that for
you.
[The information follows:]
Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI)
In regards to the IINI Program, the FBI's fiscal year (FY) 2004
President's Request includes a program increase of $3,594,000. In FY
2003, the FBI did not have an enhancement request for Innocent Images.
The total funding for IINI in FY 2003 and FY 2004 are $11,324,000 and
$15,415,574, respectively.
Mr. Vitter. Thank you.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Vitter.
Mr. Mollohan.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, welcome, I join my chairman and ranking
member and members of the committee in welcoming you here.
There have been a number of laws enacted in the past
several years expanding the number of background checks that
are required. There is the Aviation Transportation Security
Act, USA PATRIOT Act, Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness Act, and the Maritime Transportation Security Act.
All of those require that the Justice Department respond in
some way for some purpose, and represent an increased demand
upon the Department of Justice.
And currently, IAFIS, as you and I both know, is performing
extremely well and is the premier fingerprint identification
system in the world. But with these additional background check
requirements, and additional requirements anticipated over the
next number of years, I am concerned that the system could
reach capacity.
I am wondering if you are looking at that and anticipating
that, and what do the trend lines look like, and do we need to
begin now to make adjustments in IAFIS' capacity in order to
accommodate that increased demand?
Mr. Mueller. The answer to both questions is yes. We are
looking at the various requirements, whether it be instituted
by Congress or otherwise, just something that needs to be done,
along with homeland security. We have in the budget at least
two items that I am aware. You take, for example, the checks on
pilots' recertification.
The Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force had completed
over 34,000 of those checks as of March 19th. And we will
continue to do those checks, and we have requested additional
funds in our budget for the Foreign Terrorism Tracking Task
Force.
We also have in our budget an item for the Visa
Identification Terrorist Automated Lookout (VITAL), where we
are requesting $14.2 million to better coordinate with our
consulate overseas with what I will still call the INS to put
into place that lookout system. Now, there are a number of
other areas where background checks are required. For instance,
for HAZMAT licenses, where we are still discussing to what
extent our responsibilities lie in just running fingerprints or
doing a name check, or what responsibilities are our
responsibilities versus, for instance, TSA or Homeland
Security?
And whether it be from Homeland Security or FBI, to the
extent that we do need additional resources on top of those
that we requested in the 2004 budget, then we will be looking
at that in the months to come.
[The information follows:]
Clarification of Visa Identification Terrorist Automated Lookout
(VITAL)
The VITAL concept represents the FBI's proposal to process
fingerprint background checks for visa applicants and verify the
identities of foreign nationals at border entry ports. In this rule,
the FBI would conduct fingerprint-based background checks against the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System's (IAFIS)
criminal master fingerprint file, and eventually against a database of
previous visa applicants (Visa Repository) that will be developed. An
IAFIS response sent to the State Department would be used in the
overall decision-making process concerning visa issuance. An IAFIS
response returned to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(BICE, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) would be
used to verify the identify of a foreign national for entry into the
United States.
The VITAL project consists of two phases. Phase I includes
personnel funding of $4,228,000 and nonpersonnel funding of $10,000,000
to manage and develop the VITAL project. These funds would support 52
project management and information technology personnel (2 Agent and 50
support) who would modify IAFIS to provide the additional storage
capacity needed to retain and store embassy and consulate submissions
for future searches.
Phase II of the VITAL project would support the development of a
Visa Repository within IAFIS to store fingerprints, digital facial
images, and nominal data from visa submissions.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, for example, in the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act, under section 113, the Attorney
General is required to notify the training provider within 45
days that the candidate represents a risk to aviation or
national security, or else the person goes forward.
I am not asking you to detail that act. All I am doing is
suggesting to you that there are real response times required
by much of this legislation.
I am sure you are looking at that and encourage you to do
so, because we have that system up and working. It is the
greatest system in the world, and I would hate for it to be
bogged down by being overburdened by these additional
requirements.
Mr. Mueller. And, as I say, we have put in a request for
funds in the 2004 budget to address some of those needs. And I
will tell you at the same time that my hope is that we face and
hopefully overcome our deficiencies in technology. I do not
believe that technology answers all questions; is the be-all.
But technology in areas such as background checks and the
like, my hope is that that will enable us to be much more
efficient, reducing the necessity for additional manpower to
handle some of these issues.
Mr. Mollohan. You have come a long way technologically from
10 or 15 years ago, when the FBI manually reviewed card files.
I know that is not your primary responsibility, but it
certainly would be something you would be interested in as you
reorganize. There are concerns that maybe in the reorganization
we are not going to have as many people on the line looking at
the information coming in as we have had in the past.
Mr. Mueller. Well, we, in the wake of September 11,
established a terrorism financing section. It was expansive in
the wake of September 11. It is where we had probably all--and
I take this off the top of my head--probably close to 100
people that were working on that or various pieces of it for a
period of time. We still have that section. It is large. It is
very effective.
And the other point I should make is that we are working
closely with the other agencies, whether it be the CIA, the
DIA, NSA, as well as the treasury agencies in addressing this
particular problem. And the degree of coordination between the
various agencies on this problem is something that would have
been unexpected, unanticipated before September 11th.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Director.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sweeney.
COOPERATION AMONG THE FBI, CIA, AND DHS
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Director Mueller. It has been now a year and a
half, I think, since you have been in the position. And I know
as much as anyone in America, you sort of face the shock and
the change of September the 11th and felt that. Along with
being privileged to serve in this committee, I have the
opportunity to serve in a number of other designations that
will involve me with many of the sort of structural issues that
you have to deal with, Director Tenet has to deal with it, and
Secretary Ridge.
I am on Approps Homeland, I am on Select Homeland, I am on
the Subcommittee on Select and Intelligence, I am on Treasury
Postal, here and then this committee. So one of the predominant
concerns that has developed over the course of the last several
months is the capacity that each of the entities are going to
have in developing a structure and a system to share
intelligence, to share work. Mr. Mollohan touched on parts of
those systems.
The homeland security--the section, the chapter of the
president's budget spans something like 20 pages, yet there is
only about one paragraph that deals with the cooperation needed
between the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. And we went
through the debate a year ago, in terms of whether we were
going to be able to deal with our own jurisdictional issues and
developing such emergence. So I understand this is not a
threatening question. It is as much as is anything, a
theoretical question.
Homeland Security and Secretary Ridge are responsible for
establishing threat assessments domestically.
How is that going to work? And how are we going to
establish a system in which you are readily able to share in
real time the kind of information that you need to share with
them, and that they are going to be able to process and
develop, as well as the CIA and their involvement in that?
Tell us a little bit about how that is going and what the
needs are.
Mr. Mueller. Well, we have a system in place now that
shares in real time. Every morning Tom Ridge, George Tenet and
I meet with the President. And we will meet either before or
after those meetings to go over--very briefly I might add--what
may have occurred overnight in terms of terrorist threats. More
particularly, though, we have agents at the CIA. The CIA has
officers and analysts at the FBI. And at Homeland Security, we
have agents over there. And Homeland Security is in our space.
Mr. Sweeney. If I could just interrupt for a second for
clarification. You have FBI agents in each of these locations?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Sweeney. From the perspective that Homeland is a new
entity, probably without the same kind of capacity that either
the CIA or the FBI has, in your opinion, how are they
establishing that capacity?
I am sure they have agents or representatives or people
with you. And what are we doing to develop their capacity?
Mr. Mueller. Well, I would have to leave much of that up to
Tom Ridge. I will tell you that over the last two years that
Tom Ridge has been as the adviser of the President for Homeland
Security. I think we have worked cooperatively with him and his
staff on each of these threat assessments.
And because in this day and age, you do not generally have,
when it comes to international terrorism, a threat that has
information that is just from overseas and just impacts
overseas or a threat that is just domestic that has no
international ties. And in almost all of these threats, it has
to be the CIA working together with the FBI in ways we have not
worked out that way before, because the globe was smaller.
And if you look at September 11, you had terrorists that
came up with a plan overseas, infiltrated the United States.
And we have to work together and we are doing that.
And so, when you come up with a threat assessment, the CIA
will look at the materials, our analysts look at the materials.
In the future, as the Department of Homeland Security builds
up, Tom Ridge's analysts will look at the materials, then give
an assessment on the impact or the threat within the United
States. That is happening now. I believe that the third leg of
that stool will grow substantially as Tom Ridge grows his
intelligence capacity.
But what we do, we look at the operational information
within the United States because we have agents out there. They
are picking up conversations on wires. They are doing
surveillances. They are looking at sources. And they are
bringing in that information to the United States in the same
way that George Tenet's people are bringing it in overseas.
Tom Ridge's individuals will, in small part, be doing it
because he has Customs, he has Coast Guard, he has those
agencies that themselves can develop intelligence. But what he
and his entity will be doing is looking at the intelligence and
seeing how it impacts our infrastructure, what has to be
hardened, are we looking at bridges, are we going to look at
subways, and determining how that intelligence impacts a
particular infrastructure.
Mr. Sweeney. There are two particular points to that that
are of concern, and that is the capacity of Homeland Security
staffing to understand and be able to successfully evaluate
where real threats exists and the ability of the rest of the
systems to both accept that information and provide back
relevant information in, as I said, in real time. And those are
two key points, I think, that will challenge you and the rest
of us pretty substantially as we develop.
I have no doubt we are going to do this, but I think we
need to stay focused on that, because if there are breaks to
occur, I think those would be pretty significant cracks in
foundation.
Mr. Mueller. Can I make one additional point, if I might?
A threat is never static. In other words, you get a threat,
but when you get a threat or a piece of information you have to
follow it up. It may be from a source; you have to do a
polygraph.
And all of us, because we have different areas of
responsibility, whether it be George Tenet or myself, it is a
continuous process of evaluating a threat and having your
resources in the field do the evaluation.
I occasionally think that people think that a threat is
sort of a static: You get the information, then you decide,
based on that piece of information you get on the threat,
``Okay, what do you do to act?''
Mr. Sweeney. Right.
Mr. Mueller. But the fact of the matter is, in all of these
it is an ongoing, evolving situation requiring all of us to
work cooperatively together and often having to go out and
direct additional gathering of intelligence from our assets.
TERRORIST THREAT EVALUATIONS
Mr. Sweeney. And, Director, I think you hit the nail on the
head when you said all of us having to work cooperatively. And,
you know, I know there has been discussion about the cultural
changes that you have been working on briefing to your agency,
and I think that it is a bit contrary for bureaucracies in any
regard to work together. It is their history, it is their
nature, and this is going to be a great challenge.
Based on the question Mr. Mollohan asked, you said
something that seemed insignificant, but it is interesting from
the perspective of how threats evaluations are done, and I
would like to talk about it.
You said that the principal threat comes from Al Qaeda. It
is obvious because of the September the 11th attacks, sort of,
that is the case.
But the simple question: How do you get to Al Qaeda is the
principal threat as opposed to Hezbollah, as opposed to Hamas,
and how does that all work into the process?
We know Al Qaeda was principally responsible for the
attacks of September the 11th. As you develop your networks of
intelligence, you are going to have to be more specifically
focused on entities and groups, so maybe you can explain why Al
Qaeda is that principal threat.
Mr. Mueller. I think there are a variety of reasons to lead
both the agency and us to believe that it is the principal
threat. One is the funding. Over a period of time, it amassed
millions of dollars. The fact that bin Laden himself had access
to the funds was critical to the growth of Al Qaeda. I believe
the organizational structure was such, and it grew up in
Afghanistan over a period of time unhindered. The capabilities,
capacity of those who are adherents to that philosophy to
undertake attacks such as September 11th are somewhat unique.
All of those together, coupled with the fact that the
avowed desire to kill Americans--men, women and children,
regardless of where they are around the world--leads us, I
think, both organizations to believe that the most serious
threat is Al Qaeda.
Mr. Sweeney. Let me say, the capacity that you just
mentioned, attributing to Al Qaeda, would you suggest probably
does exist with many of these other groups as well, to some
degree? Maybe to a lesser degree, but could potentially exist
as well?
Mr. Mueller. It does exist with other groups.
BUILDING INTELLIGENCE CAPACITY
Mr. Sweeney. And prior to September the 11th, we may have
had a sense of some of those capacities with Al Qaeda, but not
the entire picture, and I know this from some of the other
briefings and hearings that we have had, which leads me to the
question of how much focus and capacity have we been able to
expand in the last year and a half since the attacks?
Tell me about the progress of installing intelligence
experts in your field offices, and the recruitments that you, I
assume, are undertaking in the Arab community and places like
that.
Mr. Mueller. Well, our source of recruitments, particularly
in the counterterrorism field over the last year has grown
almost 96 percent in terms of the recruitment of assets in the
counterterrorism program. And I do not want to go in that,
perhaps, more detail than that.
Mr. Sweeney. Sure.
Mr. Mueller. In terms of the intelligence, as I have
articulated, I believe, in my statement, one of the things that
we had not done well in the past, and that is take what
information we have, strip off the sources and methods and
provide that to other agencies that may have use of that
information.
And that is something that a cadre of reports officers do
that we have established in headquarters, and we will be
establishing in each of our field offices, coupled with
sections in each of our field offices that are dedicated solely
to the targeting and development of intelligence, the reporting
of that intelligence, and then after you get the reporting of
the intelligence, the analysis of the intelligence, the
dissemination of the intelligence and then additional taskings.
And so that circle of intelligence gathering and then
action on that intelligence is what we are incorporating as a
part of the Bureau. As I said, I am about to announce shortly
an Executive Assistant Director who will be in charge of that
program at a very high level in the Bureau, and we will have
pieces of that program, you know, the word today is embedded,
but embedded in the Bureau throughout the country.
Mr. Sweeney. What are the resources you need to do that?
Are they in your budget request fully?
Mr. Mueller. They are.
Mr. Sweeney. Do you anticipate those changing with changing
events in the world?
Mr. Mueller. There are actually three components to that.
One is, having agents and those who will be dedicated to
addressing intelligence, and we have individuals within the
Bureau who have had that background.
For instance, we have more than 50 former CIA analysts and
officers in the Bureau. We have over 600 individuals in the
Bureau who spent time in military intelligence functions and
the like.
So we have within the Bureau some of that expertise and
capabilities. Now, the second thing we need, though, is the
analytical capability. And we have made requests over the last
couple of years and additional requests in this budget for
additional analysts.
And the last piece of that is the information technology
upgrades that we are instituting to put in place the databases,
the centralized database with the most modern database
architecture that will enable us to utilize a number of off-
the-shelf analytical tools to better help our analysts to be
more predictive than certainly they were prior to September
11th.
Mr. Sweeney. Presumably connected to the Homeland Security
Agency, at least their intelligence sources and CIA?
Mr. Mueller. And that goes to the point, the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center. That, as a piece of it, is
critically important because that center will be able to pull
the information from each of our various databases on a
particular threat to make certain that it is done on a real-
time basis with immediate access to each of those databases.
RECRUITMENT OF ARAB-AMERICANS
Mr. Sweeney. I think it is going to be critically important
that we provide you the resources to be able to do both the IT
and the technical pieces, but also the recruitment pieces.
I alluded to it a little bit, I will ask it more directly,
the recruitment of Arab-Americans, agents to serve, to
represent you, is there a concerted, there is a concerted,
direct effort?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Sweeney. How is that going?
Mr. Mueller. In terms of our recruiting agents, it is going
well. It could be going better, for a variety for reasons.
Mr. Sweeney. Could you talk just a little bit about some of
those reasons and just to give us a sense of it?
Mr. Mueller. No, we have to make a real effort to go out in
the communities and explain to individuals what a great job it
is being an FBI agent.
There are those communities that have looked askance at the
Bureau over a period of time, and we have to overcome those
hurdles. We also do not recruit right out of college.
There has been a belief over a period of time, and I think
it is wise, that as an FBI agent, one has tremendous
responsibility, and what we look for is maturity and judgment,
and then we look at the skills after that.
And, consequently, we are looking at persons who have had
another career before they come into the Bureau and have
demonstrated often in that other career, in addition to a
particular skill, whether it be specializing in Middle Eastern
studies or Far Eastern studies or computer technology, but have
the maturity, the judgment to be accorded the responsibility
that is entailed by becoming an FBI agent.
Mr. Sweeney. Is there a particular challenge in the Arab
community?
With the recent, this past weekend's alleged fragging
incident in the military operation, there is a sense that there
are at a minimum, to be polite, greater complexities in dealing
with certain groups, certain people, and particularly certain
people in the Arab community.
There is a great deal of concern, I hear this from
constituents constantly, about the proliferation of members of
the Wahabi sect as clerics, either in prisons or serving as
chaplains in the military, those kinds of things, and in many
respects to develop a focus and a handle on it, we are going to
rely on you to do that.
You have your own problems, because you have to recruit as
well. I will refer to the allegations against Abdel Aziz, an
agent that another agent has accused of some improprieties,
refusing to wear wiretaps, wires to record another Muslim,
those kinds of things.
Those are complexities that you have to deal with every
day. I want to ask you a little more specifically about that,
but talk a little bit about that kind of problem.
Mr. Mueller. We have, some of the best agents in the
counter terrorism field come from Middle Eastern backgrounds--
some of our best agents. We are building, we are bringing more
in.
They are absolutely terrific. And I think they changed the
rules so they can take advantage of their frequent flyer miles.
And if they do, we have them around the world in a variety of
places day-in and day-out. And they are terrific. And we are
recruiting and we have had a substantial response from the
community.
What takes time getting persons on board is the elaborate
background process that we go through and the desire to assure
that each of our agents when we bring them on board, display
that responsibility, that maturity, that leadership ability
that we are looking for.
Mr. Sweeney. Are there heightened concerned with certain
sects within the Muslim community?
Mr. Mueller. In any grouping of individuals, we are looking
for the best who want to be FBI agents. And we go through the
background process to assure that we evaluate their capability
for joining the Bureau.
Mr. Sweeney. Is it not relevant, however, if someone has
studied with or worked in certain area that devoutly preaches
an anti-American approach?
I mean, I would assume, Director, that that is a major
concern for you and us.
Mr. Mueller. As you may be aware, probably are aware,
whenever we do a background check to be an FBI agent in
particular, we have to fill out that elaborate form, which is
where you have lived and who your friends are and everything
since you were very young. And we go out and do an extensive
background check to make certain that the individual will be
loyal to, first of all, to the Constitution and to the United
States and will be a fully contributing agent of the FBI.
And so regardless of the community from which a person
comes, we believe that the background check assures us that in
almost all instances--and we have those that do not work out--
but in most instances, if not all, that the background check
will expose those who did not fit that person that we want as
an FBI agent.
Mr. Sweeney. And you are confident we have the resources--
--
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Sweeney [continuing]. And the capacity to do that.
And in these cases, was an investigation done? The
allegation is that there were these allegations, and then a
promotion occurred and the individual was transferred to the
Saudi Arabia office. And that seems confusing to many people.
Mr. Mueller. For a variety of reasons, I cannot address the
specifics of that.
Mr. Sweeney. If at some point, subsequently, I would like
to follow-up with some questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Would the director agree to meet with the Mr.
Sweeney, privately?
Mr. Mueller. Yes. Somebody can meet with you and review
what we can disclose, given the appropriate statutes and the
like.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. I think that would be a good idea, so you will
have that information.
Mr. Cramer.
FOREIGN TERRORIST TRACKING TASK FORCE
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back, Mr. Director. I am always impressed by your
appearance here and before the Intelligence Committee, as well.
You seem to endure this process very well, at least from
appearances anyway.
I would like to direct your attention, to the extent that
you can, to the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force. Mr.
Mollohan seemed to be going that way with some of his questions
there. But you are asking for $60.6 million, that is level
funding from 2003, I believe.
And could you elaborate more, and perhaps in a general way,
on that task force work and its progress since its creation
back in 2001?
Mr. Mueller. I believe you are aware that the principle
reason this was set up was to work with the INS to keep out
those terrorists, who are outside the United States, who would
want to come into the United States utilizing various
techniques.
Mr. Cramer. Now, is that a collaborative effort?
Mr. Mueller. It is. It is a collaborative effort,
particularly with the Department of Defense and with others,
very collaborative.
Let me just check one thing, if I could?
And in terms of the work that the Foreign Terrorist Task
Force has done since it was set up in October of 2001, I think
I already alluded to the fact that we have conducted almost
35,000 checks of FAA certified pilots, assuring that there were
no individuals in that group that would present a threat. And
we have, in the course of that undertaking, identified at least
one or more who should be prevented from getting an FAA
license.
We also have looked at a list of approximately 350,000
individuals that have come from the INS. These individuals are
referred to as absconders, because they are deemed to be in
this country illegally and should no longer be in this country.
We have looked at the list to identify those individuals and
help law enforcement to not only identify those that present
the most serious threat, but also to track them down, locate
them and have them detained. That has been the principle work
of the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force and why we are
seeking the funds we are in the 2004 budget.
And as I also indicated before, there are other background
checks that in addition to those we do for the FAA, for
instance, that we will have to do in the future in a variety of
arenas, such as for HAZMAT licenses, perhaps in what is called
the VITAL program relating to consular checks and the like. So
I would expect that the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force
to be very busy for years to come.
Mr. Cramer. Well, that is noble work and it needs to be
done. And I was just concerned that maybe that was not enough
money. Now, you made reference to your progress with your
technology issues, the Trilogy-System. A lot of what that task
force is doing is tracking information, passing on information,
coordinating information, banking information. And I just
wanted to make sure that the left hand and the right hand were
getting the kind of funding and resources that you need.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, as I am looking at it, I believe we put
in the request for $60.6 million, as you may also identify,
which, I believe, for the next year will cover those expenses.
Mr. Cramer. What amount of that is personnel?
Mr. Mueller. We have requested no personnel. Many of the
personnel are on detail. It is probably as it should be.
Most of that is for a variety of costs that are expended in
keeping that going, particularly with regard to database
management.
HAZARDOUS DEVICES SCHOOL
Mr. Cramer. As we have to do in these hearings, now I want
to shift entirely. I want to comment again as I have before
about the hazardous devices school, your hazardous devices
school that is in my district.
Since ATF is now under the Justice Department, they have a
bomb training program at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. And I know
that we, at the school, in Alabama are spending $23 million to
rebuild or, actually, more completely build a set of villages
so that front-line responders can come in and have an
environment to train in that is as close to real life as you
can get.
It is very much needed, and it is a good school. It has
been there for a while, as you know. I just wondered if you
have your hands around yet this other bomb-training program,
which seems to focus more on post-disaster situations, and
whether there is some dual coverage there, or if you think
those are separate programs, or if you see that they need to be
consolidated.
Mr. Mueller. Now that the ATF is with the Department of
Justice, I believe the Deputy's Office and others in their
department are looking at where there is overlap and where it
can have the two entities join together and perhaps eliminate
any duplication.
INFORMATION SHARING/GATEWAY PROJECT
Mr. Cramer. Right. Keep me posted on that, if you would, to
say the least.
I want to come back earlier in the questions that you were
asked about, we got into the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and
funding for those task forces, $11.5 million for program
support and for an information sharing initiative in 10 FBI
field offices.
Where are those field offices, and can you give me some
background information on--or have I got that wrong? Is that
funding not just for those 10 programs, and is that a focused
program, an initiative?
Mr. Mueller. It is an initiative, and it is a focused
program. It is an initiative and a focused program in St. Louis
called the Gateway Project. And it is an effort to integrate
data from the various state police departments, the St. Louis
Police Department, and the FBI in a database with appropriate
security so that we can have access to information relating to
terrorism or narcotics trafficking or burglaries or homicides
and the like in ways we have not done in the past. And the
funding is to expand on that form of program.
Mr. Cramer. So it is a pilot project and you are going to
share the results of that with the other task forces as well,
when you reach that point.
Mr. Mueller. What we want to do is come up with a model
program that addresses a number of the issues, not just the
funding issues, but the participation, the security issues, to
what extent the information can or should be disseminated, who
has access to it, in a series of pilot projects. And then use
that as a model for information sharing around the country, at
the local level.
Mr. Cramer. I of course will want to pay attention to that
as well. Thank you for your presence here today.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Kirk.
IRAQI UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
Mr. Kirk. Director, thank you for coming. I just noted that
the Fox News channel reported an unmanned aerial vehicle
program in Iraq in which the digital maps loaded into the
brains of these systems were of U.S. cities.
And since this little airplane with chemical spray tanks
cannot reach the United States from Iraq, it would presumably
be launched from a field inside the United States or Mexico or
Canada. That puts it squarely in your jurisdiction.
Are you aware of this threat, working it? Reassure me.
Mr. Mueller. I am not certain whether I am or not. When did
you see it on Fox News?
Mr. Kirk. About two weeks ago.
Mr. Mueller. I did not see the Fox News report. We have
been following--I cannot think of a specific threat, but the
use of UAVs in this context is something that we have been
looking at for a substantial period of time. I will tell you
that we also have undertaken investigations, and with the help
of private industry, to determine exactly from whom and how
Iraq may be gaining access to this type of UAV. And we have
several ongoing investigations into that.
I had not been aware of a specific report of a UAV that was
programmed with maps of the United States. I had heard reports
of maps of the United States being found in Iraq, and I have
heard of UAVs. I am not sure I have heard of them put together.
[The information follows:]
Fox News Report Regarding an Iraqi Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The Director is aware of the threat that Iraq could be planning a
chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of
remote-controlled ``drone'' planes equipped with Global Positioning
System tracking maps.
TERRORIST THREATS TOWARD U.S. CITIES
Mr. Kirk. Well, it may be incorrect, but certainly
something we should be worried about and hope we get on that.
We have seen that the threat, particularly Iraqi or al
Qaeda agents, may be unique to New York or Washington, so
living in Chicago, as I do, I might feel safe.
On the other hand, we are home to the world's busiest
airport and the world's tallest building. Should we feel safe,
should we not? Can you gauge the level of the terrorist threat
to a Midwest metropolis like Chicago?
Mr. Mueller. I think people would say that al Qaeda is
generally known for going back on targets that they have hit
previously, which would mean that quite obviously New York for
that and other reasons, and Washington for that and other
reasons, remain targets. That is not to exclude other targets
such as Chicago, a large city which has some, I would say,
attractive targets.
Over a period of time, not necessarily credible and
generally not credible threats have been made in which the
Sears Tower is mentioned as a particular target. I can tell you
that we do not have any current credible information about
Chicago being a target of any particular attack or threat. By
the same token, we are in a condition of heightened alert by
reason of the hostilities in Iraq.
There are each day, threats from a variety of different
sources, whether it be e-mail or walk-ins to embassies or
otherwise, that make threats against the United States, all
varying in degree of credibility, but there are a number out
there.
So, on the one hand, I do not want to overemphasize the
concern, but on the other hand, we must point out that we are
in a time when for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is the hostilities in Iraq, we are in a state of heightened
alert. Chicago cannot be eliminated as a target.
TRILOGY SECURITY
Mr. Kirk. Thank you. Well, we were very pleased when the
federal government did create the no-fly zone around the Sears
Tower. And I think that was a wise decision.
Now, this committee has supported the Trilogy system of
yours. And we strongly support the bureau moving away from the
index-card culture that it was in, to one in which we have at
least linked electronic databases. I think the public expects
that you already have that, and I am glad we are bringing that
online. This gives enormous power to agents, but then creates a
vulnerability for the bureau itself.
I am wondering if you could reach out to NSA and red-team
your Trilogy system to see if they can hack their way into what
you are building. Make it separate, report just to you and make
sure that the contractors and people supporting you have
thought of every way. Because I would think that this is a very
powerful system, and we want you to be able to have it to your
field people, but it also then creates a unique vulnerability
if someone was able to get in.
Mr. Mueller. Well, two things. One, we have had what I will
call the graybeards: persons from academia, from private
industry, who have a range of expertise in addressing systems--
for instance, an individual from Sandia Labs--to look at
Trilogy both from the perspective of will it work, are we on
target, but also from the security side, and give us some
advice on how to enhance the security.
Secondly, I have Ken Senser, who is the Assistant Director
for Security, who is an expert, and excellent, I might add, at
this arena and has used the red-team approach in other arenas,
and we undoubtedly will use it here.
The last thing I would say is that as we have developed
Trilogy and are upgrading our information technology, we have
done it in consultation with the security side and we do not
take a step without having the input from the security side to
assure that what we are developing and building is going to
meet the security standards.
One of the benefits that we have is that it is a separate
system, encapsulated, if you will, so that we do not go on our
computer system outside.
There are instances where it has occurred and we address it
forcefully, but my expectation is that with the individuals we
have in that arena our growth of the division, the security
division, in the last year and anticipated growth, that we are
making a substantial effort to assure that the security cannot
be breached.
BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION
Mr. Kirk. Well, I would hope you would reach out to the
folks at Fort Meade.
Mr. Mueller. We have and we will continue to.
Mr. Kirk. Okay, thank you. The State Department is relying
very strongly now on the retinal scan bringing in, so that
people seeking entry into the United States will go through
this process.
Are you planning on linking to that and any thoughts about
using a retinal scan for federal prisoners or criminals so that
we might have a more reliable database on the foreign side and
on the domestic side?
Mr. Mueller. Well, yes, we are looking at a number of
biometrics, including the retinal scan. What I will tell is as,
by looking at it, though, and it may be useful in terms of
swiftly allowing persons to pass through an airport.
On the other hand, from the law enforcement, intelligence
perspective I think we will always want to use fingerprints,
principally because you do not leave a retinal scan at a crime
scene, but you do leave a fingerprint.
And consequently I believe in the future we will continue
to rely on fingerprints. I will tell you that we, in the
documents we obtained out of Afghanistan, for instance, we have
fingerprinted many of those, and in some cases the
fingerprinting we did of those documents out of Afghanistan
have led us to identify individuals whom we would not want in
this country, led us to identify individuals who are of
substantial concern to us.
[The information follows:]
Clarification of Latent Fingerprints Obtained From Objects in
Afghanistan
And consequently I believe in the future we will continue to rely
on fingerprints. I will tell you that we have obtained fingerprints
from documents obtained from locations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In
one instance we identified an individual whom we would not want in this
country and would be of substantial concern to us if not presently
incarcerated.
So our principal focus is still the fingerprint. We have
taken fingerprints, for instance, of anyone detained in
Afghanistan so that in the future we could anticipate them
trying to come to the United States and bar them.
[The information follows:]
Clarification of Fingerprints Obtained From Detainees in Afghanistan
and Pakistan
So our principal focus is still fingerprints. We have obtained
fingerprints of several thousand individuals detained in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, which will be used to identify them if they attempt to
enter the United States in the future. The Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System will also be used to identify
fingerprints, which may be found on additional documents located in the
Afghanistan and Pakistan areas.
Mr. Mueller. We have provided training to other countries
such as Pakistan and others in terms of utilizing fingerprints
so that we can be more effective in the war on terrorism.
So while I think the retinal scan is good, we are not yet
going to give up on the fingerprint.
Mr. Kirk. Good, I just hope you are able to, the bureau
will be able to use that database and has a formal way in to,
because it is going to become huge.
Mr. Mueller. I will have to. I am not currently familiar
with how we plan to be integrated, but we will follow up on
that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC)S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HAND-HELD ANTHRAX TESTS
Mr. Kirk. Okay. Last question. John Marburger, director of
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, issued
an advisory recommending that all first responders in the
United States cease using the hand-held anthrax tests that were
so valuable in reassuring people when we had the anthrax
scares, that no, your office or school or church is okay.
We understand, though, that other U.S. government agencies
are exempt from this recommendation, and it was based on an FBI
study. So I am wondering if you could share the details of that
with this committee, because we have an awful lot of first
responders who have come to me in northern Illinois, and I am
sure elsewhere, saying, gee, we have this new recommendation
not to use all of this hand-held anthrax equipment.
That means that when we get a call from a school, we cannot
reassure them that what they see is not anthrax or some powder,
and yet meanwhile other U.S. government agencies are still
using this equipment, all based on FBI technical findings.
So I am wondering if you could get back to the committee on
this and help us sort this out?
Mr. Mueller. I will do so.
[The information follows:]
FBI Study on the Effectiveness of Hand-Held Anthrax Tests
The January 2003 study was an evaluation of hand-held immunoassays
(HHAs) conducted for the FBI by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate available
HHAs to determine whether these devices are suitable for FBI field use.
The results of the study conclusively indicated problems with HHAs
reporting both false positive results (e.g., a positive result when
Anthrax was not present), as well as false negative results. The FBI
cannot accept false negative results because of the serious
implications to public health and safety.
The FBI does not use any of the anthrax HHAs. This is based on the
fact that these HHAs have problems with false positive and false
negative results. The FBI completely relies on definitive testing done
by the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) public health laboratories, of
which there are more than 100 in the United States. Since 1999 when the
LRN was brought into existence, there has never been a reported false
positive or false negative result, and more than 150,000 samples have
been tested since 9/11/01.
The FBI has made no recommendation as to whether or not these HHAs
should be used outside of the FBI.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
EL SHUKRIJUMAH
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Kirk.
We have a number of questions we will go through fast. Can
you say anything for the record here about the Saudi individual
that has been in the newspaper and on the media in the last
couple of days who have not been found?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, I think what has been made public is we
are looking for an individual, I believe his name is El
Shukrijumah. He is an individual whom we believe has the
capability of undertaking terrorist attacks. We are
particularly concerned about him, because he does speak
English, has spent time in the United States, and has been
identified by those whom we have detained as an individual who
has not only the ability, but also the will and the direction
to undertake terrorist attacks.
Mr. Wolf. How old is he? And how long did he spend in the
United States? Where did he live?
Mr. Mueller. His family lives in Florida. I am not certain
of his age, off the top of my head. One of the gratifying
instances that has come out of our putting a lookout for this
individual is that the Muslim community in Florida is working
very closely with our FBI office down there to follow-up on
determining the location of this individual. We hear that he
may be overseas. We have our counterparts overseas looking for
him. And our hope is that our counterparts overseas will find
him and detain him, and hope that he is not in the United
States.
Mr. Wolf. Is Interpol looking for him?
Mr. Mueller. I believe. I would imagine that Interpol is,
but I would have to check on that. I will tell you that since
we put out the lookout, we have received in excess of 1,000
sightings of him. And we are tracking all of those down.
[The information follows:]
El Shukrijumah
El Shukrijumah is 27 years old. Interpol has been alerted to be on
the lookout for him.
VITAL AND CONDOR PROGRAMS
Mr. Wolf. Can you provide us with an update on the efforts
of the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force to strengthen the
visa approval process, and as an anti-terrorism tool?
We understand that changes have been made over the past
year. Are you now able to systematically check all applicants
and report these decisions back to embassies and consulates on
a timely basis, and how fast? You know, that was the problem of
the last----
Mr. Mueller. That was a problem.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. We cannot do that at this point. The
architecture for that is being put in place by the State
Department. It is not yet there. We have put in a request for a
certain amount of money for what is called VITAL. It has two
agents and 50 support and a total of $14.2 million in
anticipation of the increase in our workload when this comes
on-line. It is not on-line yet.
[The information follows:]
Clarification of Visa Identification Terrorist Automated Lookout
(VITAL)
The VITAL concept represents the FBI's proposal to process
fingerprint background checks for visa applicants and verify the
identities of foreign nationals at border entry ports. In this role,
the FBI would conduct fingerprint-based background checks against the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System's (IAFIS)
criminal master fingerprint file, and eventually against a database of
previous visa applicants (Visa Repository) that will be developed. An
IAFIS response sent to the State Department would be used in the
overall decision-making process concerning visa issuance. An IAFIS
response returned to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(BICE, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) would be
used to verify the identity of a foreign national for entry into the
United States.
The VITAL project consists of two phases. Phase I, which is
represented by the request set forth in the FY 2004 budget, includes
personnel funding of $4,228,000 and nonpersonnel funding of $10,000,000
to manage and develop the VITAL project. These funds would support 52
project management and information technology personnel (2 Agent and 50
support) who would modify IAFIS to provide the additional storage
capacity needed to retain and store embassy and consulate submissions
for future searchers.
Phase II of the VITAL project would support the development of a
Visa Repository within IAFIS to store fingerprints, digital facial
images, and nominal data from visa submissions.
Mr. Wolf. Are you coordinating with the Department of
Homeland Security?
Mr. Mueller. We are, we are.
Mr. Wolf. What will be in the office over there? Do you
have a consular from the State Department? Will we have a
Homeland Security person in the embassy, wherever that is?
Mr. Mueller. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of it.
My understanding is that at least in some, if not all, probably
not all consulates, but embassies, there will be someone from
Homeland Security. But I am not intimately familiar with the
homeland security statute to be able to say to what extent
Homeland Security will have a presence in either embassies or
in the consulates.
[The information follows:]
Visa Identification Terrorist Automated Lookout (VITAL) and the
Departments of State and Homeland Security Stakeholders
If the FBI's VITAL proposal were supported, the FBI would expect
the formulation of an interagency group or task force, with
representatives from the stakeholders. This group or task force would
include the Departments of State and Homeland Security and would
address the development and use of the VITAL concept. Items to be
addressed by the task force would include questions concerning staffing
at the Embassies, final system design (including the technical
architecture to be used), the hierarchy of processing, the policies
regarding data security and record integrity, and many other related
issues. This group also would review enhancements and future potential
uses for VITAL-related services.
Mr. Wolf. Has the check stopped anybody from coming in?
Has this check stopped anybody, has somebody come in or
applied for a visa in X country and then, using this process as
poorly as it may very well be, they have not gotten a visa to
come in?
Has it stopped any terrorists from coming in?
Mr. Mueller. Well, we have what is called a Condor Program,
which is not the electronic VITAL program, which I think you
are talking about. In the Condor Program, we have stopped a
number of individuals coming into the United States and
identified persons--I would have to get you the exact figures--
whom we did not want to have come into the United States and
were turned back at the border.
[The information follows:]
Condor Program
Of the 57,300 requests submitted under this program between June
26, 2002 and March 19, 2003, 56,400 were approved by the FBI and
returned to the State Department. The FBI is still reviewing the
remaining 900 requests.
AIRLINE MANIFESTS
Mr. Wolf. Okay, if you would, that is important, because
that keeps it out of the country.
Are you getting cooperation from the airlines? This
committee and Mr. Rogers last year put language in requiring
all of the airlines that service the United States to give a
list of their manifests before they land, as other countries
do. Are all of the airlines that land in the United States now
in compliance with that?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to defer to TSA and Tom Ridge on
that. I believe that from our and my experience with issues
relating to airlines coming in and the necessity for obtaining
manifests, I have not seen an instance where we have not had
the manifest early as is required by the statute and as we need
it to conduct our investigations. But I would have to check as
to what extent there may be foreign airlines that still are not
providing the manifests in the timely fashion.
Mr. Wolf. Could your people check?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, I can check that and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Foreign Airlines' Compliance With the U.S. Manifest Provision
Regulation
Most foreign carriers with inbound flights to the United States
provide passenger manifests to Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (formerly the United States Customs Service and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service) for screening purposes prior to
arrival in the United States. The FBI does not receive these directly,
unless it directly requests the manifest in advance for investigative
purposes. Airlines are not required to participate in this process, but
are strongly urged to do so.
TERRORIST RECRUITMENT IN PRISONS
Mr. Wolf. On the issue of terrorist recruitment in prison,
my sense is now that the bureau is taking that very serious.
Can you tell us a little bit about how serious you are taking
the potential recruitment of terrorists in prison?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, I actually met last week with Kathleen
Hawk Sawyer, who is the outgoing----
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Head of the Bureau of Prisons and
with Harley G. Lappin, who is going to be taking over the
Bureau of Prison and this was one of the topics that we
discussed. And I know that in conjunction with our offices
around the country, they have undertaken the screening
mechanisms that perhaps were not there for those who were
proselytizing in prison and perhaps be recruiting terrorists.
Apart from the Bureau of Prisons, on the state and local
sides, each of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces and our Special
Agents in Charge have this as an issue to discuss with them,
and to liaison with the prison facilities in the states or
communities in which they have a presence and to address, in
particular, this problem.
The one area that we have focused on is looking at those
sources of information that we may have in state or local
institutions who may be able to provide us with information as
to whether or not, if there is not any particular institution
and effort being made to recruit those who would commit acts of
martyrdom.
Mr. Wolf. So all the state prisons and local prisons are
now aware that this is a potential problem, because a couple
months ago, the Bureau did not seem that aware and the Bureau
of Prisons did not seem that aware. And if the Bureau was not
that aware and the Bureau of Prisons was not that aware, my
sense is that a local jail would not be that aware. So now, do
you think it has permeated up and down that everyone is now
aware?
Mr. Mueller. I do.
Mr. Wolf. And they know what to look for?
Mr. Mueller. I do, and I know I had conversations with
Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, several months ago
about this very issue. And since the Bureau of Prisons falls
under him, he had put into place a mechanism to address this
particular issue. We, in the Bureau, have gone out to our
Special Agents in Charge and identified this as an issue along
with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and are following up on
it.
CONFLICT DIAMOND TRADE
Mr. Wolf. I have met over the last couple of months with
agents a number of times and over the last couple of years,
again, urging the Bureau to investigate the conflict diamond
issue. And on March 10, the U.N. Special Court in Sierra Leone
handed down its first indictments charging seven former
government rebel leaders with committing atrocities in the
country's decade civil war. As you know, they had been cutting
off arms and legs of young kids and men and women.
We understand that Lagos, Sierra Leone and most of Western
Africa are covered by the Legat in France. I really believe
with strong feelings, almost to the point that I will likely
write it in the bill, but I really believe you need someone
based in Western Africa to deal with not only conflict
diamonds, but those issues. And if your people are not there,
you cannot cover Sierra Leone from France. And why will you not
put an agent out in Western Africa: Guinea, Sierra Leone,
Liberia? Charles Taylor trained in Libya. Foday Sankoh and all
these others trained in Libya. You have this whole group coming
through there.
Why would you not put an agent in this area?
Mr. Mueller. We are looking at putting an agent some place
in West Africa, number one. Secondly, on the conflict diamonds
issue, which I know is a continuing concern both for you as
well as me, I want to say at the outset that on the tape that I
received, I watched the BBC tape. I requested our people to
look at it and identify each lead in there if it had not been
done before and follow up on it. I will tell you that we
recently had agents in South Africa talking to De Beers and
that we have agents that we anticipate going to West Africa to
follow up on this particular issue.
I also met with David Crane when he was here. Our people
are in discussion with him. We were supposed to have
discussions with him on this issue this week but it was
postponed until, I believe, next week. On this same issue, I
will tell you, going back to what we are doing on terrorist
financing and our multi-pronged approach in addressing
terrorist financing, we have spent a great deal of time with
detainees, whether it be in Guantanamo or others that have been
detained in Pakistan and then moved, on terrorist financing to
determine whether or not the assertions or the allegations that
one finds in the BBC tape or otherwise can be corroborated by
those in Al Qaeda who have had access to the flow of monies
there.
And so we are continuously following up on this particular
issue.
Mr. Wolf. In the case of the one individual up in New York,
in the notes he mentions purchasing equipment for mining of
diamonds. And the man is now in jail in the United States.
Have your people gone to speak to him?
Mr. Mueller. We are following up on that. I know you're
meeting with the Ambassador and that we are following up on
that, yes.
Mr. Wolf. So they are actually going to go into the prison
and speak with that individual?
Mr. Mueller. I would anticipate they do so. The first thing
we are doing is going back and pulling in all the information
from the prosecutors, from the agents that handled that
particular trial and that individual in preparation for going
back in and obtaining that information.
ESTABLISHING A PRESENCE IN LEBANON
Mr. Wolf. That would be good.
On the issue of the Legats, too, the emergency supplemental
enacted in August directed the FBI to use $44.7 million in
Cairo to expand the Legat; also, Beirut, Lebanon. When you are
speaking and talking about the threat of Al Qaeda, and
certainly I am not questioning you or your determination as it
being the most important threat. Again, we all know about 9/11.
But this article here, which dealt with the issue of
tobacco smuggling and Hezbollah, says the following: ``The
Hezbollah rap sheet is long: 19 Americans dead in 1996 in
Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, they were all American military,
Air Force people; 28 murdered in 1992 at the Israeli embassy in
Argentina; 300 killed in 1983 at the U.S. and French barracks,
over 241 Marines and then the French lost a large number; the
Hezbollah was behind the hijacking of TWA flight 847; they were
behind the kidnappings of 18 Americans and the torture and
murder of the CIA Station Chief William Buckley in Beirut,
where they tortured him and killed him,'' and it goes on.
And so Lebanon is next to Syria, which is next to Iraq,
which is next to--and we had asked about putting somebody out
there, and they came back and said, ``Well, there is not room
in the embassy.''
Well, is there an agricultural-plant person there that
maybe might leave for this period of time? The article goes on
to say the individual you were talking about in the smuggling
case, eight of the key suspects in the Charlotte case hailed
from the same neighborhood in Beirut, a long time Hezbollah
stronghold.
It just seems to me that you would put an agent there even
though there is not room. I visited the embassy there, and I
know it is crowded--but we need to develop that relationship,
we have a lot of good friends in Lebanon, we need to have
somebody there.
Mr. Mueller. We have been in discussions with the State
Department on this, and as you indicated, there is concern
about both security and space for individuals, as well as in
the embassy itself. We have been assured that we would have
room there.
In the meantime, we handle it by TDYs, and we will
unfortunately have to continue to handle it by TDYs, but I will
go back and look at whether we can augment our TDY presence
there and make it semi-permanent. And I will discuss with the
State Department augmenting our presence there.
[The information follows:]
Establishment of a Semi-Permanent FBI Presence in Lebanon
As of March 27, 2003, Lebanon is covered by the Legat office in
Athens, Greece. The FBI has recently increased the staffing at Legat
Amman (Jordan) by one agency, who will cover Syria and Lebanon. The FBI
continues to examine the necessity for additional Legat offices.
Mr. Wolf. We can help you. I think the problem with TDY,
they come in, they do a good job, they go back. I think having
somebody there who gets into the Lebanese police, and gets to
know the Lebanese authorities, and perhaps there is a great
Lebanese FBI agent who would be a perfect person, understands
the language, understands the culture.
But I think one of the strong points--and again, I do not
think you take enough credit on the Legat program, is that they
get to know the culture. They get to do confidence building.
And I think you really need a permanent person in Lebanon.
The Lebanese people are wonderful people. It is not a bad
place to be based. And I think as many of the other important
roles that are there in the embassy, then maybe, and I do not
mean that plant inspection is not important, but maybe there is
a different person there whose role is very important, but in
this environment that we are in I do not think you should wait
until the year 2006.
So if you could do and let us know on that. And we can help
you with the State Department.
SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN COOPERATIVE INITIATIVE
Fifty thousand women and children are trafficked in the
U.S. each year, 4 million around the world. To help stop this
crime, and the Committee put $3 million above the request in
the 2003 omnibus appropriation for the FBI's involvement in
Southeast European Cooperative Initiative.
Can you provide the Committee with an update on the FBI's
part of this, and I notice that you opened a Legat in Bucharest
which covers Romania and Moldova in December 2000.
What role does the Legat play in this? Is the Legat working
with this group with regard to sexual trafficking? And what
does that legate cover? What countries does he or she cover?
Mr. Mueller. This is the Legat in----
Mr. Wolf. In Bucharest. And can they speak Romanian?
Mr. Mueller. I am going to have to get back to you on some
of those questions on the coverage there. I will tell you that
we have five agents committed to the program, one program
manager and four supervisory special agents.
Mr. Wolf. They are full-time in Bucharest? How many go to
Bucharest and live and stay?
Mr. Mueller. That I do not know, I would have to get back
to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. You know, Bucharest is not a bad place to live. I
have been there many times. It is really not bad, and the
Romanian people are wonderful people. The Romanian government
is very supportive of the effort with regard to the fight on
terrorism.
Mr. Mueller. I would have to get back to you on where
exactly they are located. In terms of what we have in
Bucharest, we have two agents and one support.
Mr. Wolf. Full time?
Mr. Mueller. Now, to what extent that they----
Mr. Wolf. Full time? Full time?
Mr. Mueller. Full time.
Mr. Wolf. Do they speak Romanian?
Mr. Mueller. I am not certain off the top of my head.
I will tell you that everybody that goes out to our Legat
program, I interview. And one of the things that we are trying
to enhance is the language capabilities of each of our Legats.
What I have come to find out is that you need a person who is
good at liaison. You need a good manager, because they run an
office, and ideally, you would like them to have the language
skill.
With regard to Bucharest and Romania, I am not certain; I
would have to get back to you as to whether or not our legat
there does speak the language.
[The information follows:]
Legat Bucharest
Legat Bucharest covers Moldova and Romania. The office has one
Legat/Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who speaks Romanian, French, and
Russian and one Assistant Legat/SSA who speaks Romanian.
Mr. Wolf. Well, if you could, that is the center of the
fight with regard to sexual trafficking. And it is a very
brutal thing. This Administration is very committed to dealing
with the issue. There was an international conference here in
Washington. Attorney General Ashcroft spoke. Deputy Secretary
Armitage spoke. And the Congress has put a lot of effort in it.
And I think where sexual trafficking takes place in that
region, a lot of times, law enforcement is involved in it. If
you admonish law enforcement, it generally shuts the thing
down.
And I think that is really important, and I think you could
help, because they come out of Romania, go down to Macedonia,
Bulgaria. The Committee put the $3 million in so you could have
more permanent people there, and I think speaking the language.
Mr. Mueller. Well, I would say that the four countries that
we have a presence in, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and
Albania, are the four principal countries where the trafficking
in persons----
Mr. Wolf. Do you have a legat in Albania?
Mr. Mueller. We do not have a Legat in Albania.
Mr. Wolf. You know, Osama bin Laden was in Albania for a
period of time.
Mr. Mueller. We do not at this time.
Mr. Wolf. And does the guy out of Romania cover Albania?
Mr. Mueller. I am going to have to check.
Mr. Wolf. Who covers Albania?
Mr. Mueller. I should know that, but I do not.
Mr. Wolf. And if you could also tell us, how many times has
the person who covers Albania been to Albania in the last two
years.
Mr. Mueller. We can get back to you.
[The information follows:]
FBI Coverage of Albania
The Legat office in Athens, Greece, covers Albania. Since October
2000, an agent from Legat Athens has visited Albania nine times.
Additionally, two agents were sent to Albania in 2001 and 2002 as part
of their temporary assignments to the Southeast European Cooperative
Initiative in Bucharest.
Mr. Wolf. Because they are taking women from that region
into Europe on fast boats. They are smuggling out of Kosovo. It
is the center of this problem.
Mr. Mueller. Well, I know we have at least one agent there
that is participating in the SECI. So I know we have one agent
in Albania, but I am not sure----
Mr. Wolf. You have an agent in Albania?
Mr. Mueller. I believe we do, yes.
Mr. Wolf. A full-time agent?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to check on whether it is full
time. I know we have five agents committed to the SECI
initiative, and my understanding is that we have one of those
individuals in Albania. I will have to check and make certain
on that.
Mr. Wolf. You need to check and let us know----
Mr. Mueller. I will let you know.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. If he speaks or she speaks Albanian.
Mr. Mueller. I will get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
The Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI)
Two agents have been identified for a six-month tour to the SECI
Center in Bucharest and are scheduled to be in Bucharest on May 14,
2003. They will travel throughout the eleven country SECI region,
including Albania, and work with the various law enforcement entities
and security services to ensure that the flow of information is steady
and complete. Neither agent speaks Albanian.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Wolf. How do you train people in the languages? Do you
have a relationship with the Foreign Service Institute?
Mr. Mueller. We do. In the past, we used the language
school out in Monterrey, but we do not now for a variety of
reasons. It is a two-year course, and for a variety of reasons
we have not done that.
But we do deal with the State Department. We have a number
of programs where our agents will go, for instance, up to
Vermont. There is a summer program, an in-depth program, that
we send them to. We have a number of programs that we utilize
for enhancing our language capabilities. They are not where I
would like to see them.
One of the issues that I think we need to spend more time
addressing, frankly, is the language capabilities of our
Legats. And what we are trying to do is reengineer the Legat
program so that we identify persons going out to a particular
country who have the experience, the maturity, the liaison
capabilities and the management capabilities to head up an FBI
office in a particular city, but also give them the language
skills before they get out there.
The problem that we have as an organization--and we are
behind; other organizations have done it for years, whether it
be the CIA or the State Department--is that we have too few
agents that have the language capabilities and also have the
other capabilities that are necessary to be a Legat in a city.
And we have to build up those language capabilities.
Mr. Wolf. Do you have any agents at the Foreign Service
Institute now?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to check.
Mr. Wolf. But that is in Arlington. That is in my old
congressional district.
Mr. Mueller. I would anticipate we would, but I would have
to check.
[The information follows:]
Foreign Service Institute
During FY 2002, 19 FBI Agents attended classes at the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI). As of March 27, 2003, 10 FBI Agents attended
classes at the FSI.
Mr. Wolf. But I do not understand why the Bureau does not
have a permanent relationship, whereby in every class you are
given a slot or two. I mean, if you go to a country and you
cannot speak the language, you go in the store and the radio is
on, you do not understand what is going on, somebody has to
tell you, you just miss things. And I think all the Legats
ought to speak the language. Also, it is complimentary to the
country. They are flattered that you know their language. But I
really think that they ought to really know the language.
And if we can help you to put some language in with regard
to the bill, to set aside some slots at the Foreign Service
Institute, we would be glad to do it.
But I think there is an opportunity. And your people who
live here in the region could take classes. Some of them are
half-time days and the agents can still be active in doing
other things. Have you ever been to the Foreign Service
Institute?
Mr. Mueller. I have not.
PROGRESS OF FBI REORGANIZATION
Mr. Wolf. The reorganization hearings that we are going to
have, we do not have a date yet. How is the reorganization
going? Is everything working the way that you thought it would
be with regard to the changes?
Mr. Mueller. I would say yes.
We had basically three stages of changes. Last December I
changed the hierarchy of the Bureau to cut down on the lines of
responsibility and to narrow those somewhat. And that has
worked out well.
The second stage was last spring, where we reassigned a
number of agents to address counterterrorism. And we have over
the last six months increased dramatically the efforts in the
counterterrorism arena.
The current organization addresses the need to enhance our
intelligence capabilities. And we are about to announce the
selection of an individual to be an Executive Assistant
Director for Intelligence. We have selected the Assistant
Director for the Office of Intelligence. We have changed the
job descriptions for our analysts to better reflect the job
descriptions of a very professional, analytical cadre. And we
are extending the intelligence capabilities throughout the
Bureau in each of our field offices. That is the biggest
portion of our most recent reorganization.
In terms of the reorganization that cuts across the board,
not just counterterrorism, but counterintelligence, cyber and
criminal will all benefit by the enhanced intelligence
capacity. And the reorganization in the counterintelligence
arena, where we established an espionage unit or section, has
worked out exceptionally well. And the reassignment of agents
to counterintelligence has enabled us to have a full
counterintelligence squad in 48, I believe, of our 56 field
offices.
Setting up the cyber division has worked out well, because
we now have in one place in the Bureau an entity and
individuals responsible for addressing cyber-attacks and those
issues relating to the use of the Internet for a variety of
illegal purposes.
REENGINEERING PROJECTS
So I believe the reorganization is going well in terms of
establishing these various units. But what is most important is
reengineering our work processes. We have a number of
reengineering projects that are under way--somewhat in excess
of 40--to address, for instance, training.
As opposed to just having a training entity at Quantico, we
are building up a structure where we have training for our
support staff including our analysts. We instituted an
analytical college for our analysts down at Quantico that has
been a success. We ought to have more than 200 analysts go
through the College of Analytical Studies at Quantico.
We want to expand our intranet training capabilities and
set in place a structure that will address training throughout
the FBI, as opposed to really where it has been focused on new
agents and our National Academy, both of which are jewels for
the Bureau. But where we have focused on that, we have not
focused on training the rest of our staff, and we have not
focused on leadership training, management training and
retraining for agents after they got out of new agent school.
So that will be a key component to changing the Bureau.
And we had a number of other reengineering projects that
address similar issues.
Mr. Wolf. The Committee included $10 million above the
request for training in the bill last year.
Mr. Mueller. I know that, yes.
Mr. Wolf. Has anyone started to partake in that program?
Has anyone left to go to Penn State or some school to begin to
get a master's or Ph.D. or something like that?
Mr. Mueller. I cannot say as of this date somebody has left
to do that. The 2003 budget came, you know----
Mr. Wolf. Yes, end of January, yes, I know.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. In January. And my hope is and
expectation is to use those monies as swiftly as possible to
accomplish that type of training.
Mr. Wolf. And people in the Bureau know this is a good
thing and not a bad thing for you to take off.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. Not take off, but to go and get that additional
training.
Mr. Mueller. I have emphasized it at every opportunity I
have had to talk to agents and staff in the FBI. I have
emphasized how important it is to expand and to have
experiences not only outside the FBI, but also elsewhere in the
FBI.
When you talk about a Legal Attache program, one of the
reengineering projects is to give credit to our agents who
spend time overseas because that experience will be
indispensable to future leadership in the Bureau. And one has
to change the way we promote our leaders in order to give
credit for experiences such as that, as well as the experiences
of going out to the National War College or to a university for
a period of time to gather experience on management or Middle
Eastern studies or something along those lines.
I firmly believe that those funds will be helpful.
Mr. Wolf. That is good. The military does really a good job
in that.
Mr. Mueller. Does an excellent job.
[The information follows:]
Usage of the $10 Million FY 2003 Training Enhancement
As of March 27, 2003, there have not been any additional degrees
received in connection with the $10 million enhancement. However, a
spending plan has been submitted internally for executive management
review, which will focus on further training in the counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and cybercrime programs.
BUILDING INTELLIGENCE CAPACITY
Mr. Wolf. Are you intending to shift more resources from
the criminal side of the bureau to counterterrorism? Are there
any plans to shift more?
Mr. Mueller. Now the only area in which currently we may be
making a shift is in the analytical side and perhaps in agents
to go into the intelligence side of the house.
Mr. Wolf. And where would they come from, the criminal
side?
Mr. Mueller. They might come from the criminal side, but
they could as easily come from counterintelligence.
Mr. Wolf. And what number might that be?
Mr. Mueller. I have not focused on a number. It would be
relatively small. It would not be as large as we had for
counterintelligence and counterterrorism.
Many of the field offices around the country have
intelligence units in any event. And they already are staffed,
generally, by analysts. My belief is that you need some agent
staffing in that intelligence unit as well, so there ought to
be a career path for these agents. Those agents can come from
either counterterrorism, from counterintelligence, or criminal.
There may be some that come from criminal, but I do not believe
it would be a substantial number.
Mr. Wolf. What will you do if there is a spike in crime, as
there appears to be?
Mr. Mueller. We will continue to prioritize as we have in
the past. We will continue to look at what the priorities are.
And to the extent that we need to focus or refocus on efforts
where we have pulled persons off, we will discuss with the
Attorney General and with the Administration about seeking
additional funds to address those responsibilities.
I have looked for areas where there is an overlap with
other law enforcement or intelligence entities that can
undertake the responsibilities before I have moved individuals
from some program. But there will come a point in time that I
believe that we will go back to the Attorney General and to the
administration and say, ``In this particular area, we believe
we need to be augmented in order to undertake those
responsibilities.''
Understanding the priority of counterterrorism, what we
have tried to do is to take agents and push them in particular
areas where there are investigations and be a far more
flexible, responsive organization.
If you talk about how we address particular peaks in crime,
I have told the SACs, Special Agents in Charge, that where
there is an issue, particularly violent crime in the community,
and we bring something special to the table, I am very much
supportive of our putting individuals on task forces to address
that particular spike in crime.
This is just my observation. We have in the past been
dictated by the funding by programs in a way that does not
allow us the flexibility to have in a particular area a focus
on--for instance, Mr. Vitter was talking about New Orleans and
the necessity for focusing on public corruption. In my mind, we
ought to be able to push the resources within New Orleans,
within that field division, to public corruption to address
that threat.
And I will give you an example of two cases involving
mayors in Connecticut. And there have been two successful
prosecutions where the jury has come back in the last month.
That office up there took the manpower away from other
priorities to address those situations with those two mayors.
And they instituted Title IIIs, they put a lot of manpower on
it, as well they should.
But that threat has now been resolved. Consequently, they
now look at that community and what do you prioritize? They had
to in the past, prioritize the public corruption of these
individuals, but now they will shift.
My hope is to give more flexibility to Special Agents in
Charge to address those spikes in crime that occur in an area
and where they bring something special to the table and are not
supplanting either state or local resources.
RECRUITMENT
Mr. Wolf. Well, that makes sense and I think you are doing
the right thing. You know, all the questions today dealt with
asking you about doing this and doing that and doing this and
doing that. Every bill that passes gives the FBI more authority
too.
You can only do so much with so many people. You can drive
your people to the ground. And I think a lot of this additional
resources that have been asked for in this supplemental really
ought to go to people. I mean, I think the Committee has been
very forthcoming in the area of technology. I really think you
need people.
And there is a vote on, so we have a little while.
But should you reassess some pilot program on interviewing
directly out of college?
I mean, we looked at the number of agents who are close to
retirement, it is fairly high. Should you be looking at people
that graduate from college at 23 and 24. We have some young men
and women who are fighting in the Gulf who have incredibly
complex decisions and judgments to make. They are 20, they are
21, they are 22, they are first lieutenants.
How old were you when you were a first lieutenant?
Mr. Mueller. Twenty-three.
Mr. Wolf. You think your judgment was pretty good then?
Mr. Mueller. I would not say that. [Laughter.]
Well, I learned, though, I learned.
Mr. Wolf. But my, you see the point I am coming to.
Mr. Mueller. I know, I did not mean to be----
Mr. Wolf. I know, I know. They are making very important
judgments, and we have fighter pilots that make split
decisions. Should the Bureau look at the issue of maybe
recruiting out of college for a period of time and putting them
in, kind of, categories where you develop judgment and language
skills and things like that?
Automatically to say that you have to have another career--
I mean, maybe you are right, I do not know, but I just
wondered--I do not think you have enough people to do what
people expect of you--every bill that passes here gives you
more responsibility, and I think as Mr. Cramer was talking and
Mr. Mollohan was talking, I do not see how you could do it with
11,000 agents when the New York City Police Department has
44,000.
And maybe you ought to look at just recruiting out of
college.
Mr. Mueller. We are looking at that for a variety of
reasons, at least going to colleges and saying, ``Think of us
as a career down the road.''
I have become fairly well convinced that it is good that a
person has not necessarily another career, but the maturity and
the judgment that is required to have that position of
responsibility. I will tell you, though, in the same breath,
that I think those who serve in the military, particularly
those who serve in some leadership position--I do not care
whether it is a sergeant or a first lieutenant--gain that
responsibility and that background and the capability very
swiftly. And it ought to be credited and it is credited in the
course of our hiring.
However, we do not have a lack of candidates for the
Bureau.
Mr. Wolf. No, I know, you have 72,000 apply. I know.
Couldn't you use additional agents and support staff if we put
them in the supplemental?
Mr. Mueller. Well, let me put it this way. I try to husband
our resources. I will tell you one of the things I learned in
the Marine Corps is that what the Marine Corps would do for a
period of years is always send back part of the budget unused
as an indication of the discipline that was undertaken to
address your budgetary responsibilities.
I am not going to do that; I am not going to turn money
back. But I do believe we have a responsibility in the first
level to husband our resources and make certain that I target
them. If Congress gives us additional resources, they will be
used.
Mr. Wolf. I do, too, but you do not have a Legat in Sierra
Leone, you do not have a Legat in Lebanon, you do not know if
all your people speak the language.
How much are you going to use for overtime?
Mr. Mueller. At the outset, right now I do not know.
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER
Mr. Wolf. Well, I mean, the fact that you have overtime is
an indication that--we are down to seven minutes, so I think
there may be another one after this. I will go vote and then we
will come back in about 10 minutes when we do.
But in the midst of the reorganization the President,
rightly so, announced the creation of a Terrorist Threat
Integration Center in the State of the Union. The change will
certainly impact the ongoing reorganization of the Bureau, from
change in physical space needs, information technology, human
capital.
The documents the committee has seen about the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center say the counter-terrorism division
will be co-located with the TTIC. Does this apply only to the
headquarters cadre included in the counter-terrorism division?
And since the counter-terrorism division is now the FBI's
top priority of its field units, as well as most support units,
how will the counter-terrorism division interact with other
headquarters components, including FBI leadership and field
units?
And one of the concerns that I have is you are going to
have people from Homeland Security, Defense, CIA and FBI. But
this individual Brennan is a CIA employee, and the CIA culture
is different than the FBI. That individual is going to be
reporting to Director Tenet. And so what----
Mr. Mueller. Well, number one, we will have the Deputy
Director of TTIC.
Mr. Wolf. So the Deputy Director will be an FBI agent?
Mr. Mueller. Will be an FBI agent, and I think one has to
keep in mind----
Mr. Wolf. Now, that has never been announced before, has
it?
Mr. Mueller. I am not certain whether it was in the
briefing papers or not, but he has and we are on the----
Mr. Wolf. Could an FBI agent ever become the director of
TTIC, and still report to the----
Mr. Mueller. Yes, absolutely, I believe so.
Mr. Wolf. So we want to make that clear, this job is not
just established for somebody who has been a CIA, an FBI agent?
Mr. Mueller. No. It is selected by the CIA with the
concurrence of the Attorney General and, I believe, Tom Ridge
and myself. But in our discussions, both with the
Administration as well as with the CIA, it has been left open
that it could, well down the road, be headed up by an FBI
agent. And I say, we will have the deputy.
But the distinction has to be made between the analytical
capacity, as well, and the line authority, the operational. And
what TTIC will do is focus on the analytical understanding of
threats. In the future, the operational capacity will remain
completely divorced from TTIC or from the CIA. Our people will
run the operations of the FBI, as we always have.
In terms of my ability to interact with them, I probably,
if we are off-site in some place in Virginia or elsewhere, I
would probably have an office there, I would probably spend
part of the week there, but I would expect, video-conferencing
daily. Now I get two briefs a day. I would expect that would
continue, either by having the persons in my office or out
there. The fact of the matter is with telecommunications now,
this kind of arrangement can work if you make it work.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. No, I think it is a good arrangement. I was
concerned that this was going to be more a CIA operation and
that the other agencies would be an appendage.
I think the President is right, I think it makes a lot of
sense to put that group together. But it just cannot be a CIA
activity whereby the other people are, kind of, working for it.
It needs to be a cooperative center, whereby the information is
shared. And I am glad to hear that it could be an FBI agent
that would run it.
We are down to three minutes. Why don't we just recess for
10 minutes or so and come back?
[Recess.]
Mr. Wolf. We are still voting, but I think the next is a
15-minute vote, and if it is I can just wait. And that way we
will not be keeping you and so I will be getting up again.
In the first phase with regard to TTIC, how many of the
counter-terrorists and analytical personnel presently located
in the counter-terrorism division will be relocated to TTIC?
Mr. Mueller. We anticipate about 20.
Mr. Wolf. Twenty. How will the physical separation from
other FBI analytical personnel involved in counterintelligence,
cyber-terrorism and related criminal activities, such as narco-
terrorism, impact on the work of the bureau?
Mr. Mueller. I actually think it is beneficial.
Mr. Wolf. Good.
Mr. Mueller. I think it is beneficial to have analysts as
well as agents have different experiences.
And we have, as I think you are aware, 25 analysts from the
CIA, whom we have had in the Bureau since last spring. And I
will wander down and talk to them, and I think they have found
it has been very beneficial for them to have the experience of
working in the FBI, learning our record system, learning what
we do and then go back. I think they will be far more effective
at the CIA having spent time in the FBI. And I think that is
true also of our analysts----
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. To have the experience of working
in TTIC with others from other agencies.
Mr. Wolf. Where will the FBI's across-the-board analysis of
terrorism be located, in the counter-terrorism division, or in
the FBI headquarters?
Mr. Mueller. Well, for the present it will be at
headquarters, and then it will be relocated in a building with
the CIA.
I would anticipate our counter terrorism division would
stay the same, doing what we are doing, and the threat analysis
would be put out by our counter terrorism division. There may
be an overall threat analysis that is put out by TTIC, or we
may have a part of it. But we still need the analytical
capability, because the analytical capability integrates with
the operational responsibilities to fill in the facts where you
have a, for instance, analytical hypothesis.
So my expectation is that we will continue to maintain our
capabilities, but they will be augmented by the capabilities of
TTIC.
Mr. Wolf. I think we know the answer here, but just to get
it on the record, does the creation of the TTIC signal a first
step in taking domestic intelligence collection
responsibilities away from the FBI?
Mr. Mueller. No.
Mr. Wolf. No? Okay.
BOSTON FIELD OFFICE
Could you say something about the Boston office for the
record, and how long has the individual been in Boston now, the
new SAC?
Mr. Mueller. He is just getting there.
Mr. Wolf. So he has not----
Mr. Mueller. No, he is just arriving there. As I heard, I
think, Mr. Vitter say, he came from New Orleans. He is very
experienced. He is very experienced on the one hand, and,
secondly, he does not have any ties to Boston.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Mueller. Consequently, he comes in without any of the
perceptions or the misperceptions about the Bureau that linger
from what occurred up there. Needless to say, nobody in the
Bureau is happy with what happened in Boston over a period of
time. I do believe that we have addressed those issues. We had
agents that work with prosecutors there to bring to justice
those who were responsible. And the individual or individuals,
I believe, have been brought to justice, in part attributable
to our efforts.
But, to the same token, we have a lot of rebuilding to do
in Massachusetts----
Mr. Wolf. Any special plans on restoring credibility to
this office?
Mr. Mueller. As part of his introduction to Boston, Ken
Kaiser will be meeting with every one of his counterparts. I
have had conversations myself with a number of the law
enforcement executives from Massachusetts who say that things
are going a lot better. I had a discussion with the Attorney
General, a week or so ago, of Massachusetts, who indicated that
it was--actually a fairly long time frame because we had cases
together at one point--who indicated that the cooperation and
the sharing of information has improved dramatically up there.
So I think we are on the road to recovery with expansion of
the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the incorporation of state and
local law enforcement into the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and
with having Ken Kaiser as the new SAC up there.
Mr. Wolf. And maybe go by to visit with the Boston Herald
and the Globe, because everyone in the region is not on the
Joint Terrorist Task Force. I mean, it may be just perfect, but
until the man on the street reads it in the Globe or the
Herald, it may not be perfect.
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The FBI suffered a serious blow to its credibility
following a television program that brought to light problems
in the language translation program. Unfortunately, an agent in
the Office of Professional Responsibility may have been
retaliated against by the head of the office for its
involvement in the program.
The Department of Justice Inspector General's report stated
that the Director of the OPR showed a lack of judgment in the
handling of the situation.
Can you tell me what steps you are taking with regard to
this? Because obviously, the Office of Professional
Responsibility has to be the Office of Professional
Responsibility and above reproach.
Mr. Mueller. The Inspector General found that many of the
allegations directed against this individual were unfounded but
did make findings with regard to his judgment and to the
possible appearance of retaliation and one of the moves he
made.
I went back to the Inspector General and asked for the
Inspector General's opinion and recommendation as to what the
Inspector General found and what steps would be taken. And I am
in the process of reviewing those steps and expect to implement
at least some of them, if not all of them.
THE WEBSTER COMMISSION AND RAND REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Wolf. The FBI has been front and center in the war
against terrorism--breaking up cells here on U.S. soil--but
other important responsibilities must also be aggressively
pursued--counterintelligence activities--I recently read the
RAND report, completed at the insistence of this Committee,
regarding security concerns discovered in light of 20 years
Hanssen spent conducting espionage against the country. Many
people believe it was a good report.
I would like to know what steps are you taking to continue
implementing these recommendations and those of the Webster
Commission?
Mr. Mueller. I have broken down every recommendation of the
Webster Commission, and we track our implementation of each one
of those recommendations.
By far, most of them have been implemented already: things
like enhanced polygraph program; financial--we are looking at
instituting enhanced financial disclosure statement
responsibilities. In the computer side we are implementing as
we put up our audit programs and capabilities in information
technology that will give us capacities and capabilities we did
not have before.
I think we can provide you a matrix which has each of the
recommendations and each of the steps that we have taken to
address those recommendations.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. What about the RAND report? Did you read it, or
what did you think of it?
Mr. Mueller. I did read the RAND report, several months
ago. The bottom line, if I recall correctly, is that we were,
in large part, implementing the recommendations of the Webster
report and did not have any additional recommendations as to
things we should be doing that the Webster report had not
already identified as items that we should undertake.
Mr. Wolf. I thought they had one or two other
recommendations.
Mr. Mueller. They may have. I read it when I first got it,
and I think it was a couple months ago. And my impression was
that it basically made much the same findings as the Webster
Commission. And it may have added one or two things. I do not
have them at the top of my mind at this point.
[The information follows:]
RAND Report Recommendations
The RAND report made the following suggestions for improving
security at the FBI.
Information Systems Security:
Improve the quality of monitoring tools.
Better separate counterintelligence as well as asset and informant
data.
Improve feedback on the responses to security flaws in Legacy
systems.
Continue vigilance over new systems development.
Restore faith in the FBI's investigative mainframe.
Do systematic analysis of Need-to-Know.
Communicate Security requirements clearly.
Personnel Security:
Reevaluate how informants and assets are managed.
Implement financial disclosure program.
Merge suitability with security for new hires.
Oversee and restructure Background Investigation Contract Services.
Provide more opportunities for Security Education and Training.
Physical, Technical, and Document Security:
Provide more pay and flexibility to FBI Police.
Implement Entry/Exit Checks on documents.
Examine new ways of standing up task forces.
Rethink policies toward Wireless Communications.
Work to develop a Technical Research Program.
Better define and train technical security processes.
Mr. Wolf. Has the IG finished reporting on the Hanssen
case?
Mr. Mueller. I do not believe it has. I think it is due to
come out shortly.
Mr. Wolf. And you will be meeting with them?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. Since you have grown so fast, in the Hanssen
situation, I guess you have to be very careful how fast you
grow and----
Mr. Mueller. It is true.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. And who you are growing with.
You are requesting an increase of $6 million for background
investigations. Is that enough money?
Mr. Mueller. I believe it is. In this instance, we would
come back to you if we need more.
TRILOGY REPROGRAMMING
Mr. Wolf. With regard to Trilogy and information
technology, we understand you will be submitting a
reprogramming in the next few weeks for $138 million in
additional funding needs associated with Trilogy.
The original cost of Trilogy was $380 million. In a
December 2001 emergency supplemental, the Congress provided the
FBI with $237 million, including $78 million to speed
implementation.
A total of $458 million has been allocated to Trilogy; $78
million more than requested. If the Committee approves the
reprogramming, this will bring the total cost to deploy Trilogy
to $596 million; an increase of some 56 percent more than the
original cost.
While most of the FBI will have received new computers and
the networks have been upgraded, the virtual case file with the
software that will allow agents and analysts to ``connect the
dots'' and perform the other tasks in a more efficient, smart
fashion, will not be available any faster.
The RAND report was concerned about rolling out Trilogy
without ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place. If the
Committee approves the reprogramming, will this be the end of
the funding increase needed for Trilogy?
Mr. Mueller. Well, I think we have to distinguish Trilogy
from our information technology upgrade more generally. As I
think you have heard in the presentation twice now, after
September 11th, when I came in, I gave directions saying this:
``Our information technology has to be improved immediately.''
And we started to accelerate the improvements, which was not
necessarily the wisest thing to do.
As I became more familiar with the program, I realized that
it would still keep us back in the dark ages in terms of
computer capability, because as, I mean, we have said before,
it would be putting lipstick on a pig. We would have our same
database structure. And we would have a nice GUI, Graphical
User Interface, but it would not enable our agents or our
analysts to do the type of analytical analysis that we needed
to do to be the foremost law enforcement agency in the world.
And so, we went back to the drawing board and said, ``Okay,
what do we need to transform the Bureau?'' And the additional
costs that are attributable to our going back and putting us in
a position so that we will not two or three or four years down
the road have to scrap everything we have done in this year and
last year, but have this as a foundation for a continued
refreshment program that will continuously improve the
capabilities of the Bureau and support each of our agents and
support personnel.
Mr. Wolf. So this is the last amount for Trilogy, but you
call this a refreshment----
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. What does refreshment mean?
Mr. Mueller. Refreshment and augmenting the capabilities.
Mr. Wolf. That is an interesting word, refreshment. Is that
a technical word?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, it is.
Mr. Wolf. It is? Oh.
Mr. Mueller. And what you need to do is you cannot be
static in building a computer or an information technology
infrastructure, because the technology moves forward so quickly
you have to continuously refresh that technology. What we had
not done in the Bureau was do exactly that. And consequently we
incurred substantial costs to redo the Bureau.
And what we have done in the additional cost that we had
requested in the reprogramming we have requested, in my mind,
sets the foundation for future refreshment programs which will
continuously keep us up-to-date when it comes to information
technology, and give us capabilities that were not envisioned
when persons were putting together the Trilogy project.
Mr. Wolf. Is anybody in the Justice Department looking at
the explosion of the IT initiatives. I mean ATF now has
theirs----
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Is there someone looking at all
these IT programs?
Mr. Mueller. There is. The CIO, Chief Information Officer,
of the Department of Justice is responsible for assuring the
integration of the various IT structures.
But we have gone out of our way, as we put something in
place, to assure that it is something that will be useful in
enabling us to correspond or communicate digitally with the
CIA, with Department of Homeland Security and the like. As you
have heard, I think, our Virtual Case File is being looked at
by Customs and INS as a model for the type of virtual data
warehouse that would give each of those agencies the
capabilities that we hope to have when it goes on-line.
GANG ACTIVITY IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA
Mr. Wolf. Okay, we will have other questions that we can
submit for the record.
There is a growing gang problem in my district, which is
incredible. I cannot imagine some of the stuff that is taking
place. Some of it happens in little sleepy towns in areas that
you would have never, never, never thought. With the effort
that is taking place, appropriately so, with regard to counter-
terrorism, how do you deal with this?
I saw the police chief of L.A. quoted as saying that a lot
of crime that he is currently dealing with now has come as a
result of gangs.
Well, as gangs cross borders and state borders, it is very
difficult for the Arlington County Police Department or the
Loudon County Sheriff's Department. What is the FBI
involvement? Can you put additional resources in this?
This is a form of terrorism. If you live in a neighborhood
and you are being terrorized by gangs, if you are a young kid,
you are being terrorized in school, that is terrorism. And so,
do you have any additional resources there or any thoughts
about that?
Mr. Mueller. Well, two thoughts, in particular with regard
to Northern Virginia gangs. I have talked to the Special Agent
in Charge of the criminal division at the Washington Field
Office about it--I understand we have at least a couple of
agents that are working on those gangs.
My expectation is that we ought to work on those gangs in a
task force concept so that we bring together FBI agents, ATF
agents, other federal agents as well as state and local law
enforcement, because on the very basic level, the state police
and then most particularly the local police know the
individuals. While we may bring to it the intelligence
capabilities, the ability to stretch across boundaries,
nonetheless the people to really know the individuals who are
participants in these gangs are their local police officers who
ought to participate in the task force. My goal in each of
these issues is to allow the Special Agent in Charge to
establish those task forces to address a particular problem.
Coupled with that, I think that what we are putting into
the intelligence infrastructure in the Bureau will be helpful
in this area. I do not think we have done a very good job in
establishing the intelligence analytical capability to address
the gang problem throughout the United States, whether it is
Northern Virginia or in Los Angeles. My hope is by carving out
an intelligence component in the Bureau, it will address this
as one of its priorities on the criminal side.
DRUG INVESTIGATION PERSONNEL REDUCTION
Mr. Wolf. With the shift of 567 agents away from drug
investigations, has that had any impact on the Bureau? And has
it been accepted by the criminal side?
Mr. Mueller. I think generally it has been accepted by the
criminal side. But quite obviously, there are always agents who
have done this for a long period of time, who want to do it and
are disappointed that the Bureau is shifting. But I think for
the most part the FBI agents understand our first priority has
to be preventing another terrorist attack.
When we did this shift of resources, my directions to Grant
Ashley, head of the Criminal Division, and to the Special
Agents in Charge was to sit down both here and at Washington
with counterparts over at DEA and in each of our field offices
to review the investigations that we were handling so that no
investigation fell through the crack.
And what I am trying to focus on in the shifting of
resources are those areas where there is overlap in terms of
investigation. For instance, the Colombian or Mexican cartels.
We have jurisdiction to investigate, DEA has jurisdiction to
investigate. I think we bring a lot to the table. But by the
same token, I have seen instances where we are both
investigating the same cartels and that makes no sense. So to
the extent that we do not--and defer to the DEA to investigate
those cartels, I am comfortable in doing that.
On the other hand, there are drug cases at the state and
local level that we had been handling in the past that now with
augmented resources, training, state and local law enforcement
can handle. So, many of those cases around the country are now
going to state and local law enforcement.
I have tried to target those areas where there are other
law-enforcement entities that can pick up the slack.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go vote and I will be right back.
It will be the last series of votes.
You do have a diminishing number of people that are now
working on drugs.
Mr. Mueller. That is true.
Mr. Wolf. You took 567 agents away from drugs and
traditional crimes. The drug problem has not gone away.
Mr. Mueller. That is true.
Mr. Wolf. And the DEA said 20,000 people last year died of
drug overdoses. The administration has actually cut back money
for some of these programs.
And I think you may be approaching a point that you are
taking away people from other activities, obviously to adjust
to a priority with regard to counter-terrorism and stopping
terrorist acts--which nobody would disagree with--but the end
result is we leave neighborhoods exposed and issues exposed
that quite frankly you are the only one that can really deal
with those issues.
And I guess you get back to the first question that Mr.
Young asked you. It gets back to personnel.
There are three votes and then I will be right up and we
will finish.
Mr. Mueller. Okay.
[Recess.]
LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
Mr. Wolf. We really carried this one question about
language. You are not asking any increases for language
translation in the 2004 budget. Is there any supplemental
request?
Mr. Mueller. In our discussions with the Department, we
will be requesting money for enhanced translation because of
the hostilities in Iraq, so it is appropriately added in the
supplemental.
Mr. Wolf. How many Iraqi-speaking agents do you have?
Mr. Mueller. That I do not know. I would have to get back
to the Committee on that.
[The information follows:]
Number of Iraqi-Speaking FBI Special Agents
As of April 2, 2003, 22 FBI agents have tested at a level 2 or
higher on the Speaking Proficiency Test (SPT). SPT scores run from 0 to
5:
0 = no proficiency in a language;
2 = limited working proficiency, (e.g., satisfy routine social
demands, such as greetings, and provide limited instructions,
directions, and explanations); and
5 = proficiency equal to that of a well-educated native speaker in
Modern Standard Arabic.
Mr. Wolf. I have, raised it a couple of times and we could
never get a definitive answer to know how many of your agents
have gone to the Foreign Service Institute. And I think we
ought to maybe put something in the bill just telling them to
give you some slots.
Because the people that live here are so close, rather than
picking the family up and shipping them to California or
someplace like that.
And the advanced-degree issue we covered. If you will let
us know how many agents are doing that.
The advisory board is going well, I assume.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Usage of the $10 Million FY 2003 Training Enhancement
As of March 27, 2003, there have not been any additional degrees
received in connection with the $10 million enhancement. However, a
spending plan has been submitted internally for executive management
review, which will focus on further training in the counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and cybercrime programs.
Mr. Wolf. You have selected the names.
Mr. Mueller. We are looking at names. I actually asked them
to go back to the drawing board and have a larger universe of
individuals that I want to look at. I think that is very
important.
Mr. Wolf. And you have a chairperson or a chairwoman?
Mr. Mueller. Well, I want to look at the chairperson or
chairwoman first. And then as we expand, I want the input from
the chairman or the chairwoman as we expand that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Was the FBI actually on the ground in Pakistan with Khalid
Sheik Mohammed when he was arrested?
Mr. Mueller. I would prefer to answer those questions in
private if I could.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. That is fine.
Mr. Mueller. I do not want to say that we were.
Mr. Wolf. That is fine.
Mr. Mueller. But I think that is something we ought to
handle.
Mr. Wolf. And you do know who will go to Baghdad? You
actually have a person, a team, the Iraqi ops?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
ETHICAL STANDARDS
Mr. Wolf. I think I will ask the last question and then I
will recognize Mr. Serrano. And it is good that Mr. Serrano is
here on this issue and maybe he would want to comment.
Maybe a way to meet Mr. Serrano's concern. And I look at
the reorganization sheet--you have an ombudsman. I do not know
what that ombudsman does precisely. But the Washington Post has
an ombudsman that when something does not quite go right, they
have a place to go.
And I do not know if it would be good for the Bureau to
have an ombudsman institutionalized to address the concerns,
which I think you are addressing--frankly, you do not have a
problem now. I am not inferring again that there are problems,
but to meet the concerns that Mr. Serrano had with regard to
civil rights.
Also with regard to the potential leaking of information
and things like that. In the past you would sometimes hear that
the FBI had a favorite newspaper reporter that they would leak
information here to get stories out and things like that.
Well, it is totally inappropriate. It is immoral. It is
unethical. So someplace that could say this really is not right
or a place that could say we think what is taking place is not
a good idea.
But what does the ombudsman do? And would that make any
sense to have someone in the Bureau that would be someone to
address some of the concerns that Mr. Serrano would have?
Mr. Mueller. I think there are three levels of concerns. We
have an ombudsman in the FBI for FBI employees to call with any
concerns.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. Secondly, I believe where there are concerns
about programs we implement, maybe new techniques and the like,
we have somebody designated in the Office of General Counsel
specifically to look at these issues from the perspective of
privacy infringements and raise those concerns, whether it be
incorporating new security in the Bureau, or new techniques. So
we have identified somebody to address those concerns.
I also have identified a person to address concerns
relating to things like libraries. What are we doing with
regard to libraries? Issues that come up in terms of the
changing of our guidelines to be familiar and address those
concerns and bring to my attention any issues which this person
believes should be brought to my attention. Those are several
of the areas that are important.
And lastly I sent out shortly after I got there a memo
relating to whistle blowing. That there should not be
retaliation against whistle blowers. If I hear of any
indication that there is a whistle blower or retaliation
against a whistle blower, I immediately give it over to the
Inspector General for an independent, objective investigation.
So, I think we have put in place mechanisms to give persons
who want to bring to our attention issues that should be
brought to our attention the forum to do so.
Mr. Wolf. Well, maybe so. And for those of us who are--not
at odds with Mr. Serrano because we are not at odds--but who
have been defenders of, but not to be a patsy for the FBI, not
to be just yes people here, but to really aggressively do what
you feel is appropriate to have congressional oversight. But to
explain at times, it may very well be, because I think Mr.
Serrano raises some legitimate questions.
Right now in our society, you are on the toll road. They
know what time you went through the toll road; what time you
went through the toll meter; what time you went through the
tunnel. Records are out there. What gasoline you purchase; what
time you purchase the gasoline; what station you bought the
gasoline at.
Somebody could leak your medical record. And there was not
too long ago a circumstance in the IRS whereby IRS employees
were looking at tax returns of movie stars and baseball players
and some other things like that.
So institutionally to have things that are publicly
understood--and quite frankly, we just know that things
happened in the past that I think Mr. Serrano is raising. It is
good to kind of have him here and question these things that
institutionally there may be something that would be
appropriate that the public would know of.
The FBI is an awesome agency. And you know, in the old days
when Efram Zimbalist Jr. had the TV shows about the FBI. Well,
you know, that puts fear into people. And somebody is calling
and they say, ``The FBI is on the phone''--``Did I go through a
red light today or what did I do?''
And so I think the more you can raise the comfort level, I
think is positive. Particularly, I worry a little bit about all
the information and the data being collected by banks and by
all these systems and knowing how it can be accessed.
And worrying about the loss of privacy in our life, and I
think that is a concern whether you are a conservative
Republican, as I am, or a, I think it is fair to say, a liberal
Democrat, or however Mr. Serrano wants to categorize himself.
Mr. Serrano. It is modest, liberal is modest.
Mr. Wolf. Modest, okay. I think it is a legitimate worry,
and you bear the burden of having things that have happened in
the past, and so I think maybe you ought to look at something
that could raise the comfort level.
You know, we are all human, we all fail, we all sin, we all
make mistakes, but the system can put certain checks in there,
and the checks that you explained to the Committee the other
day was very, very positive.
I think Mr. Serrano was somewhat comforted by it. The
country as a whole does not know all those things, but I think
that to do something in a public way may very well meet some of
the concerns, and that would enable those of us who want to be
supportive of the Bureau, as I am, to say I am confident that
everything possible that can be done should be done, in this
Committee and other Committees that are having oversight.
It is something to think about, and with that let me just
end, I will not have any more questions. Thank you for your
service. I do think you have done a good job, and thank you for
your men and women that are serving so well, working so hard,
and the Committee stands ready to help you.
I do not have a question, but we were going to ask on the
supplemental, we are not going to ask it, but just to sort of
state it, in the supplemental there were no details on how the
funding should be spent.
They asked for total freedom to spend as the Attorney
General sees fit, without further congressional input. The
Founding Fathers--Madison, who happens to be from my state,
Jefferson and Mason and Ben Franklin, from my old home town,
those guys set up a system that worked whereby there are checks
and balances.
And I do not think it is appropriate, as much as I support
this Administration and support what you are trying to do,
whereby the Congress carte blanche gives authority and just a
bundle of money to any agency, $500 million to the Attorney
General, with absolutely no congressional input.
And then how much do you get? How much does the Bureau of
Prisons get? I just do not think, so my sense is what the
Committee ought to do, and quite frankly what the Congress
ought to do, particularly since we have had these hearings and
there is good cooperation back and forth, that the Congress
ought to find out and earmark and watch this.
Otherwise we will slip into whereby we will make a mistake
that has been made before, we just dump a lot of money down and
nobody checks and nobody watches.
So I think the Administration's request of the number that
may be accurate, but I do not think it is a good idea just to
dump $500 million and not have any specification of where it
should be spent or how it should be spent.
I have no more questions, with that I recognize Mr.
Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Just a brief statement, not to clarify but the
Chairman in his desire to be courteous to me continues to refer
to him as one who supports the FBI. I do not want anybody to
think that then that puts me on the side of not supporting.
You know that I am a big supporter, you know that I will do
whatever I can to make your budget work the way you want it to
work. My comments are always based on the historical problems
that existed at the agency at a time when it stopped serving
the people and became the people's enemy, or at least some
people's enemy.
I believe that you are very sincere in your desire to make
sure that does not happen. But you are not director during the
1990s, you are director during our biggest war ever on a hidden
enemy. I understand what you need to do at times, but I will
just continue to remind you that those of us who have faith in
you as a person want you to apply that personal integrity to
that army of 25,000 which can go crazy at times, as it has in
the past.
So I am still a supporter, and if I was not, something you
should know about me personally, when I do not care about
someone or something I ignore them. When I care about someone
or something I get engaged.
So if I did not care about you or your agency or had given
up on it and said, ``my God, they are going to do whatever they
are going to do'', then you would just hear me with an opening
statement and I would keep quiet the rest of the time.
So I will support you, I will continue to support you.
Just, every so often, when you are shaving in the morning, say
Serrano told me to keep a check on these guys. Thank you so
much.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, thank you.
Mr. Wolf. The hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, sir.
Thursday, March 20, 2003.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
JOHN B. BROWN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DEA
Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf [presiding]. Good afternoon. Welcome.
I apologize for being late. The attorney general of my
state was by talking about OxyContin. All the attorneys general
are in town. And I apologize again for being late.
So let me welcome you. I will put my opening statement in
the record and recognize Mr. Serrano for an opening statement.
Mr. Serrano. Welcome, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
You may proceed, Mr. Brown. Please summarize your statement
as appropriate. Your full statement will appear in the record.
Opening Statement of John B. Brown, DEA Administrator
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano
and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to address the Subcommittee on the President's fiscal year 2004
budget proposal for the Drug Enforcement Administration. I am
very grateful for your unwavering support of DEA's fight
against drug trafficking organizations that threaten our
communities. I will proceed with my oral remarks and request
that my written statement be included for the record.
Thank you, sir.
DISRUPTING THE DRUG MARKET
The Department of Justice drug enforcement strategy
supports the President's goal of reducing illegal drug use in
America by implementing priority three of the President's
National Drug Control Strategy, and that is disrupting the drug
market. By addressing the drug trade as a business, every
action that makes this business more costly and less profitable
is a step toward breaking the market.
DRUG TRAFFICKING LINK TO TERRORIST ACTIVITY
Disrupting the drug market can also play a critical role in
the war against terrorism. DEA's drug enforcement
investigations have highlighted the link between groups and
individuals being investigated for drug trafficking and
terrorist activity.
In 2002, drug trafficking charges were brought in the
United States against high ranking members of terrorist
organizations for the first time in United States history. Drug
enforcement may play a critical role in our war on terrorism by
starving the financial base of criminal organizations and
depriving them of drug proceeds that may be used to fund
terrorist acts.
DEA BUDGET REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for DEA of
$1.7 billion and 8,815 positions responds to the challenge we
face, reducing the availability of illegal drugs in America by
disrupting the drug market. To this end, DEA's fiscal year 2004
budget request includes three programmatic enhancements and
five program offsets which follow.
First, to target priority drug trafficking organizations,
DEA requests $38.9 million and 329 positions, which includes
123 special agents and 20 diversion investigators. This
initiative includes a request for administrative support
positions to free up the equivalent of 80 special agents' work
hours for enforcement activities, and $4 million to support 100
state and local task force officers. These resources are
necessary to fully support DEA's plan for addressing the
Nation's illegal drug threats in the post-September 11, 2001
environment.
Next, to continue the international training program, DEA
requests $1.5 million and 20 positions, to include 16 special
agents. These resources will address an anticipated shortfall
in reimbursable resources the Department of State currently
provides for this program.
Next, to improve DEA's financial and asset management
programs, DEA requests $2.5 million and 20 positions. This
enhancement will allow DEA to make systematic improvements
necessary to ensure our continued success in future financial
audits.
And for the Diversion Control Fee account, the Fiscal Year
2004 President's Budget continues the increased level of
funding that was requested in fiscal year 2003 to strengthen
our enforcement capabilities for investigating the diversion of
controlled substances, including OxyContin'.
Additionally, the President's Budget includes $23 million
and 150 positions, including 110 special agents, for DEA, under
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
Program, to support the Department's strategy by targeting the
Consolidated Priority Organization Targets.
The President's Budget proposes the following offsets for
DEA.
The reduction of $18.3 million and 40 special agent
positions to eliminate the Regional Enforcement Teams (RET) and
Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) programs.
The remaining 367 RET/MET positions, which includes 293
special agents, will be redirected toward Priority Targets.
A reduction of $5 million and 11 special agent positions to
eliminate DEA's Integrated Drug Enforcement Assistance, the
IDEA initiative, from DEA's Demand Reduction Program.
A reduction of $10 million in base resources for rent,
alterations and travel.
A reduction of $5 million in resources for relocating
personnel.
And the reduction of $14.4 million from anticipated savings
resulting from a Department streamlining effort.
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
will ensure that DEA has sufficient resources to focus on
priority targets, those having a significant impact on
America's drug supply today.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would again
like to thank you for your support--your continuing support to
DEA. I am proud to be a special agent for the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration who for more than 31 years has
had the opportunity to serve alongside outstanding, dedicated
men and women of this agency who go to work every day in all
parts of the world to try to make a difference.
And that concludes my oral remarks, sir. I'd be glad to
answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DEA BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Let me just say
that I want to thank you for your service, too, and for all the
good work that your people do. And if some of your responses
differ with what you say insofar as your testimony, I
understand how things have to go through OMB and things like
that, any criticism voiced today ought not be viewed with
regard to you.
So let me just say that I do appreciate your service, and I
know you are a career person, and thank you for your service
and all of the men and women that have served so well.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. In my opening statement, which I did not read,
and saved the time, but there was a paragraph that I will read,
it said, ``I am disappointed in the DEA budget. The
administration is requesting an additional 318 positions and a
program increase of some $42.9 million, but it also includes
program offsets and reductions of some $52.7 million.''
So it is actually a net reduction to DEA of $9.8 million.
The budget also includes an increase of 151 positions and
$23 million in OCDETF accounts, and in DEA increases include
only 233 new special agents. When you look at the fact that 567
FBI agents under the FBI reorganization have been taken off the
street, you are actually down in agent levels. You are actually
down. And I believe those FBI agents were doing a very good
job.
Now, if you were assuming that they were not, it did not
matter, which I know you would not take that position. That
would be one thing we hear: You have taken 567 agents away from
drug investigations.
And so I do not think that this is really that aggressive
of a law enforcement budget with regard to drugs, because you
are going to end up with fewer people. So you are going to work
smarter. The question is, why did not you all work smarter last
year and the years before.
I know you are a career person, and I have never tried to
ever use this position to aggressively create a problem for
another body. I am trying to think of my words carefully. But
do you really think that the request is adequate? My sense is,
without pinning you down, that it is not adequate, and how do
you feel about it? I mean, the fact that you are going to have
fewer agents.
Mr. Brown. I was an English major, not a math major, so the
number issue I think will work out for us. In fiscal year 2003,
this Committee supported us and provided us with 216 special
agents.
Mr. Wolf. We did.
Mr. Brown. It was a very welcome enhancement to our very
small agency. In the President's proposal for 2004, we will
look to receive 233 special agent positions, and with the
realignment of some of the other programs, we will actually
pick up a redirection of another 362 special agents.
Mr. Wolf. But what about the loss of the 567 FBI agents?
Mr. Brown. By adding the 362 special agents that are being
redirected and the 233 that are being requested, we will
actually have a net gain of 595 special agents now focusing on
priority target investigations.
Mr. Wolf. You will have a net gain.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. That math does not quite fit to what----
Mr. Brown. I was an English major, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wolf. It sounds like that math was run through OMB.
Are fewer illegal drugs coming into the country to justify
the decrease?
Mr. Brown. They continue to come at alarming quantities. We
would welcome additional resources, of course, but we
understand the physical constraints that are placed upon all
the government agencies, so we will take any positions that we
can receive.
DRUG STRATEGY FUNDING
Mr. Wolf. So the answer is fewer illegal drugs are not
coming into the country, so the reduction is not justified.
Two other questions, then I will recognize Mr. Serrano.
On the drug strategy, we have yet to see a drug strategy
that we requested last June. I mean, drugs are very, very
important.
We understand it will propose a redistribution of DEA
special agents around the country, based on the areas facing
the greatest threat. If you are only asking for an additional
233 special agents, we are going to have some holes in certain
areas of the country.
Will some areas of the country be less well covered? You
cannot pull agents out of middle America because of the
problems with methamphetamine. You cannot take agents away from
the northern border or deplete resources at the southern
border. What is the answer? How do we maintain drug enforcement
strategy with fewer resources?
Mr. Brown. You have to work smarter, sir.
The 233 positions will be a great enhancement to our
ongoing priority target plan. We have identified, through our
domestic threat analysis, the significant threat of the
southwest border. We have already deployed a number of
resources there to counter that threat. We worked with the FBI
when they were contemplating their redirection of their special
agents from counter-drug to counter-terrorism. So where the FBI
has been withdrawing resources, we have supplemented that by
placing DEA special agents there.
The southwest border is absolutely critical. So is the
southeast, the Caribbean, the northeast, and all along the West
Coast and across the northern border, and especially across the
middle of the United States of America. So we have to be very,
very judicious in how we deploy our resources to meet threats
that are there.
Mr. Wolf. How about Appalachia?
Mr. Brown. Right in the middle of the heartland,
absolutely. We cannot draw down those resources that are in
critical places now. You just enhance it with the new resources
we hope to receive.
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND OXYCONTIN
Mr. Wolf. I do not think your answer, with all due respect,
is really adding up. And, again, I do not want to take
advantage of your circumstance, as I said, because I know you
are acting and you are a career person. But it just does not
add. Let me just cover one other issue, and then I will go to
Mr. Serrano, and I know Mr. Rogers will probably raise this
issue, too.
OxyContin. Please give us an update on DEA's effort to stem
the spread of OxyContin. Seems like there is a growing instance
of people being much more aggressive and committing armed
robbery in order to get their hands on this drug. Is the
illegal activity surrounding OxyContin getting worse? Yes or
no?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. It is.
Mr. Wolf. Have you seen the problem spreading to
metropolitan areas?
Mr. Brown. Yes, largely it was an East Coast phenomenon.
Now it is spreading all across the United States.
OXYCONTIN--DEFINITION OF USE
Mr. Wolf. Well, why hasn't DEA gone over to the Food and
Drug Administration and told them, with regard to moderate
pain, that they should change the definition of how this drug
can be used?
I am very, very concerned. In fact, there is a reason I was
late was I was meeting my attorney general, Attorney General
Kilgore.
I think that DEA has been very reluctant to engage the
secretary of HHS to deal with this issue.
When I looked at how fast FDA moved, appropriately so, when
the Baltimore Oriole pitcher died because of the drug abuse
with regard to being on a diet pill--ephedra--and how little
action our government, Food and Drug Administration and anyone
else, has taken on OxyContin, it strikes me as very--shocking.
The answer to my question is not going to be in front of
you. It is not going to be in front of you. I think powerful
interests have been hired by this company, because there are
powerful interests connected by it who have a lot of money.
And I think as a result of that, you have neglected the
people in Mr. Rogers' district, you have neglected the people
down in Wise County and Lee County in the state of Virginia,
because they are poor people. They are poor people who have no
power. They have not been able to hire powerful Washington
lobbyists to come and represent them.
And as a result of that, OxyContin is spreading rapidly and
the government is fundamentally not doing almost anything about
it. DEA may be, but other portions of the government are not.
And yet, you find this diet drug, which the FDA moved on
quickly, and should have, because it killed somebody that
everybody knew.
Now, we just had a commonwealth attorney in my
congressional district plead guilty with regard to OxyContin.
It is beginning to come into my area.
Why hasn't DEA gone over to the Food and Drug
Administration and made the recommendation that it should be no
longer used for moderate pain?
My mother died of cancer. My father died of cancer. For
somebody who has cancer, it is a miracle drug, it is a
wonderful thing. But we see it spreading--we, quite frankly,
have not seen the Food and Drug Administration, Secretary
Thompson, do anything to stop it. And my sense is, because
powerful lawyers, lobbyists, the big names, people that may
very well have served in this Congress are now out representing
this company. Every state, I have been told, has in the state
legislatures lobbyists who are now representing this company,
lobbyists lobbying in every state capitol, lobbying here.
What about the people down in Wise County and Lee County
who are dying? What about the people down in Mr. Rogers'
district? What about the people--now it is spreading into the
metropolitan area? Do they not deserve to have their government
advocate for them? And quite frankly, I think the
Administration on this issue has failed.
So my question is, are you prepared, are you, the acting
administrator of DEA, are you prepared to go to the Food and
Drug Administration, and tell them you want to see this no
longer available for moderate pain? Moderate pain is when I go
out, as I do almost every weekend, and I live out in the
country and I cut wood, at the end of the day I am in moderate
pain, maybe even in severe pain. I take Motrin for it. I take
Motrin. I take Motrin the next day. In fact, if you need wood,
I have more wood on my five acres that I have cut this last
winter. And I am in pain, but I do not take OxyContin.
And my sense is by allowing it to be used for moderate
pain, it has opened the door to abuse and people are suffering.
The last comment before you answer: We had a young man from
Mr. Rogers' district.
The question is not going to be in the page. Tell your
staff the question is not going to be on that page. I do not
want you to have to read the page. Speak from the heart, not
from the page. This is not a page hearing. It is a heart
hearing.
This is a compassionate, conservative Administration. I am
a compassionate conservative. I care about this issue. You care
about this issue. We should care about the people.
A pastor from Mr. Rogers' district testified. And he had
his young son testify with him. You remember the hearing. His
son came in. He sat in the back. He had, I remember, a royal
blue jacket on. And the son then came up to the table and the
pastor was very impressed that his son had gone through a rehab
program. It happened to his son.
Let me yield to Mr. Rogers. What happened to the boy?
Mr. Rogers. He overdosed again on Oxy. Went back home and
got readdicted to OxyContin.
Mr. Wolf. A poor family, who has lived in Appalachia with
no money, they do not have the money to hire the big Washington
law firms. You should be their advocate. We will be their
advocate, but you should be their advocate. So are you prepared
to go over to the Food and Drug Administration and say, ``We do
not now--we now believe that this ought not be used for
moderate?''
Mr. Brown. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Brown. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. I want you to schedule a hearing, a meeting, and
I will go with you and Leslie. So you tell us when the meeting
is, and Mr. Rogers will go, too. We will go together, you, Mr.
Rogers, me and Leslie, will go over. You schedule the meeting
with the head of the Food and Drug Administration. And I am
going to hold you to that.
Mr. Brown. I will do it.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Great.
Mr. Brown. Glad to have your support on that, sir.
Mr. Wolf. You got it. Believe me. I support you more than
you even know that I support you.
My father was a Philadelphia policeman. I had been on the
side of the law. I mean, and I do support you. But when I see
the pain and suffering and the agony and the inner city from
drugs and in Appalachia. And then, I see who this company has
hired with regard to the powerful interests, it frustrates me
why this Administration that is compassionate and is
conservative, cannot deal with this issue. And during the time,
the body count is increasing day after day after day.
But we will go with you.
And I will yield now to Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Brown. I appreciate your support on that, sir.
WAR AGAINST DRUGS
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
eloquence on an issue that we all understand so well.
Mr. Brown, just to, kind of, follow up where Chairman Wolf
and Mr. Rogers have left off, you know, I represent a district
in the South Bronx, and we have not seen the new census
figures, but for many years it has been the poorest district in
America which, incidentally, is in walking distance from one of
the wealthiest districts in America, but that is--the way it is
the Silk Stocking district.
If you were to analyze my district and come up with the one
issue that if we had great impact on it we could alleviate many
of the problems in my district, it would have to be the issue
of drug sales, drug addiction, drug trafficking, crime related
to drugs. And since September 11th, so many of our resources,
and rightfully so, have been diverted to our fight on
terrorism, well, at the expense of also having to measure my
words the way Chairman Wolf said at the beginning that he was,
on September 11th there was great terror brought on my city
and, therefore, on my community.
If you analyze over a period of five, 10 years what drugs
have done to New York City, to cities throughout this country,
to rural areas throughout this country, the impact was not the
same as September 11th, but the result was 10 times, 1,000
times greater, in terms of the lives that are lost and the
other crimes and the property lost and the pain.
And so my question to you is, what do you see that we are
doing to ensure that the war against drugs continues on the
pace that it had been for a few years before September 11th, so
that we do not divert all our resources and divert all our
focus?
And tied to that, do you have information that does tie the
issue of terrorism to the drug trade?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The DEA continues; we have never lost
our focus. September 11th was a horrible, tragic day in this
country. Three thousand people died that day.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that nearly 20,000 people
die every year from drug overuse. We have not lost our focus on
that. We have done everything we possibly can to continue in
light of resource allocation and so forth to continue this.
This is an important terrorist act that is perpetrated upon
our communities. We will not stop, we have not stopped.
We see links between drug trafficking operations and
terrorist organizations, absolutely, in this hemisphere
especially. In Colombia, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia (FARC) have been involved in drug trafficking, and
drug manufacture, excising taxes against other drug traffickers
to get the funding that they need to carry out their
revolutionary activities in Colombia. It has held that country
hostage for four decades.
United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC), another
insurgency-type group in Colombia, does the same thing. So
those kinds of links are clear, definitive, and confirmed.
This government, this very small agency, has participated
with the Department of Justice in securing indictments against
the leaders of the FARC and the AUC who are involved, with
confirmed evidence, in drug trafficking activities.
We have been lucky enough to capture one in Suriname,
Carlos Bolas, one of the leaders of the FARC, and bring him
back here to the United States, a terrorist and a recognized
terrorist organization, but he is here in the United States to
stand charges on drug trafficking. We have taken some very
strong actions on that.
But you are right, these criminal organizations that
traffic in drugs are terrorist organizations in every sense.
They terrorize neighborhoods, they terrorize our citizens, and
we have not stopped our efforts to stop them.
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO TERRORISM COMPARED TO DRUGS
Mr. Serrano. Why do you think, as a professional in the
field, that we cannot seem to get the same sense of outrage
about this terror from drugs that we have gotten on the war on
terrorism?
And, again, for the record, I agree with that war on
terrorism and I support it. I may get nervous at times and
confront some of the ways we are dealing with it, in terms of
how we detain people and hold them without accusations and
lawyers and charges.
But you just told me something interesting that most
Americans probably do not know: We lost 3,000 people in one day
and we are horrified by that; we lose 20,000 every year from
drugs, and there does not seem to be a sense of outrage in the
country. There never has been.
Why is that? Or is that part of what Chairman Wolf was
talking about, the fact that there are too many other interests
in the war on drugs?
Mr. Brown. I concur with Chairman Wolf's sentiment on so
many of these things.
The war on drugs is a term that has been used for so many
years and years and maybe that is a worn-out term. But it is no
more worn out than the war on poverty or the war on illiteracy.
You just have to have a contained, sustained effort to stop it.
I do not know if it is getting the same headlines that it
did in the 1980s or the 1990s, but the threat against the
United States and its citizens is just as great, if not
greater.
I am concerned like you are that there is no public outrage
as voiced in years past about this. The problem has increased,
not diminished.
DEA AND FBI RELATIONSHIP
Mr. Serrano. Now, let me ask you, the FBI has been given
quite a bit of new responsibility.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. And we are concerned that they, too, have been
asked to handle one war and have sort of moved away from other
things. And so it could be that a lot of criminals in this
country think that this is a vacation time for them; that they
can get away with everything.
Have you noticed any change in the relationship between
your agency and the FBI? And do you see them at the same level
of involvement in the war on drugs that they had before
September 11th?
Mr. Brown. No, sir, they are not at the same level of
participation. We worked with the FBI when they had to reassign
their special agents from counter-drug to counter-terrorism,
because it was going to impact on us directly. So where they
were drawing down resources and redirecting them, we put
resources in where we could.
They have not lost their will to do that. In fact, they
still have a number of special agents--a significant number in
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, where
we are partners with them. And they still have a number of
direct-funded special agent positions that are working in the
drug enforcement arena. But when they lost 567 positions to
counter-terrorism, that is a drawdown of 567 partners that we
had to work with.
Mr. Serrano. So that was the number of the people that are
no longer involved with you?
Mr. Brown. Five hundred sixty-seven, I believe so. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Serrano. So you basically lost 567 drug enforcement
agents in a way.
Mr. Brown. Yes, we did.
Mr. Serrano. And you made that up by what? I mean, that is
a huge number of people, especially in that particular war. You
made that up by what? You said by filling in some of those
spots with your own people, but----
Mr. Brown. With our own people. In the fiscal year 2003
budget, you were gracious enough to give us 216 positions, and
we are asking for another 233. But there is a realignment.
Special agents are being redirected toward the priority
targets.
What we are asking for, too, in the 2004 budget is a $4
million enhancement to allow us to pay overtime for our state
and local partners in the task force program. That is a force
multiplier that will give us 100 more police officers to work
with. That will help immensely.
DEA ACTIVITIES TO STOP ILLEGAL USE OF OXYCONTIN
Mr. Serrano. All right.
Before I give up my time, Mr. Chairman; Mr. Brown, as you
know, I wrote to you earlier this year with a series of
questions on DEA's activities in Latin America. I know your
staff has worked and is working very hard on providing me with
the answers. And I thank you and them for that. So for the
record, I will submit some related questions. And once my
initial questions have been answered, perhaps we can meet to
discuss them.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. I look forward to that.
Mr. Serrano. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
About two weeks ago, my home town newspaper carried a
headline, picture of a 24- or 25-year-old young man pleading
guilty to assassinating my sheriff. And he claimed at the time
he was hooked on OxyContin. And he was in a conspiracy with,
ironically, another guy running for sheriff against my sheriff
in a primary. And they were being financed by a drug dealer.
But the bottom line is, OxyContin killed my sheriff, a personal
friend of mine of many years; wonderful, wonderful sheriff,
wonderful human being.
The chairman mentioned the pastor, Reverend Koots, from
Hazard, Kentucky, who testified here a couple of years ago with
his son, who later died of an overdose of OxyContin.
Last week, a medical doctor plead guilty--was convicted of
over-prescribing OxyContin; Williams--a doctor named Williams.
The state record showed that in 101 days he wrote prescriptions
for 46,160 prescriptions, an average of 457 a day, one every
minute of an eight-hour day.
That is not uncommon. I mean, these convictions of doctors
who are over-prescribing this medicine, while the FDA sits
quietly by, and DEA sits with them, saying, ``No, OxyContin is
not just for severe pain, it is for a broken finger.'' And
these kids--these are kids that are dying--crush that 24-hour
capsule and take it all of a sudden, and it is an extreme joke.
And once you are on it, you cannot get off we are told by
people who are on it.
Good families are being ruined. Thousands of people are
dying, many of them in my district. And I going to file this,
Mr. Chairman, this sheaf of papers which is photocopies of the
Lexington newspaper series on this problem called,
``Prescription For Pain,'' which graphically describes in ultra
detail the horror that is going on in my part of Kentucky, my
part of the country.
Mr. Wolf. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. It is the worst thing that has ever hit us.
A recent federal review of autopsy data has found that
OxyContin played a major role in 464 deaths throughout the
nation between May 2002 and February 2003, about a quarter of
those have occurred in Kentucky and Virginia alone. But there
is a high incidence of death by overdose nationwide,
particularly in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and
Appalachia. I do not know why those particular regions, but it
is so. And DEA sits back.
You have gone AWOL in the fight against drugs in my
district. I am sorry to say that. I created, in this
subcommittee, the first rural HIDTA operation, based in London,
Kentucky, now, covering the Appalachian area. And it is right
in the middle of this mess. And I do not know how many DEA
agents are in the region, but it's minuscule.
And I do not know what to do. Well, I do know what to do,
too. And I am doing it. We are having to do our own thing. We
are starting an organization called Project UNITE, Unlawful
Narcotics Investigations, Treatment and Education. And we are
going to organize our people. We are going to have law
enforcement task forces that we finance and put up ourselves.
Thank you, DEA, go about your business. We will have to do this
ourselves because you will not help us.
We will do treatment in the treatment centers. And we will
organize people in their homes to take people who are addicted
into their homes and care for them, because there is no room in
the treatment centers. They are overflowed. And we are going
into the schools to educate the young.
Now that is a sad state of affairs that you have let my
area get into.
What do you think?
Mr. Brown. Sir, I appreciate your concern. I am concerned
about that, too.
The issue of having resources to put in your district or
any other district where there is a drug situation comes down
to the request that we are making for additional special agent
positions in the 2004 budget----
Mr. Rogers. Look, I have heard this for 20 years. I have
set on this committee for 20 years. I chaired it six. I have
heard that story every single year: ``Please give us the money.
We will hire more agents and the problem will be over with.'' I
have heard. I am up to here with that. That will not cut it.
You have to do the things like the chairman is suggesting.
Go to the FDA and say: ``Cut out OxyContin for all but the most
severe pain.''
Mr. Brown. We agree with that, sir.
Mr. Rogers. We cannot fight the river that is out there
unless you stop the dam back there. That is the problem with
OxyContin.
Mr. Brown. Between you and the chairman's support we can
take this right to them.
MANUFACTURE OF OXYCONTIN
Mr. Wolf. We will go and I will push it.
Mr. Rogers. There is more to it. One of these stories, and
I will find it here, deals with DEA itself. Now what
authority--do you not have the authority--does DEA not have the
authority to establish how many narcotics medicines are
produced in the country?
Mr. Brown. Quota system, yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. You do? So is it up to DEA to decide to how
many OxyContin pills are allowed to be manufactured?
Mr. Brown. The Drug Enforcement Administration and FDA work
together on that, sir, to meet legitimate medical needs.
Mr. Rogers. And how have you come to conclude that we need
so many OxyContin pills? Because you decided that, didn't you?
Mr. Brown. It was, I guess, determined by submissions from
the manufacturers.
Mr. Rogers. I do not want a guess. I want to know how come
you decided to produce the number of OxyContin pills that we
got produced last year, which is an enormous increase over the
previous year. Why?
Mr. Brown. That is something I will have to get an answer
back for you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. I am amazed you do not know the answer right
here and now. Didn't you know you were going to confront us
with this kind of stuff? You know what is being done with
OxyContin, don't you?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. For God's sakes if you do not, you are dumb;
and you are not dumb. And you come here and say you do not know
why DEA allowed this enormous production of this pill that is
killing people. And you knew the concern of many of us up here
before you came, surely. So how come you do not know that
answer?
Mr. Brown. I will get that for you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. I am amazed.
Well, while we are out there trying to fight the flood of
drugs that is destroying our communities, not to mention the
killing of people like good sheriffs and other officials, and
practically taking over counties--even the governments are
getting corrupted because of the huge amount of money involved
here, and these are poor counties--they cannot fight that flood
if you are going to open the floodgates and flood us more with
more OxyContin pills. Does that make sense to you?
Mr. Brown. No, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Pardon me?
Mr. Brown. It clearly does not.
Mr. Rogers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to have this agency
back up here in a few days. And I want to know the answer to
the questions that you and I and others have asked about this
matter, because it is a matter of life and death.
And I want to know why you do not have more agents in that
region. They all want to go to Lexington, which is a wonderful
city. But the problem is out in the countryside. It is not as
nice to live in the countryside there as it is in Lexington or
Louisville. And DEA clusters in the places where it is nice to
live.
But we are paying the salary, and I want those agents where
the problem is. I want to know why you do not have more of
those agents where the problem is where people are dying.
And I want to know how come DEA, last year, authorized the
maker of OxyContin to flood the market with thousands and
thousands of more pills than they did the year before. I want
to know why. And I can guarantee you, I am going to find out
why.
So you can be helpful or not. I do not, frankly, give a
damn. But if you do not do it, I will know the reason why.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
POOR PEOPLE'S NEED FOR ADVOCATE
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
I think you can see, obviously, that the comments are
really not directed toward you. And I would have to say that I
told Leslie at the beginning of the hearing that we were not
going to have, you know, tough questions. But just leaving the
meeting that I had with Attorney General Kilgore, and knowing
what impact it is having. And I just really feel that it is the
poor who really have no advocate, whether they be in the inner
city or whether they be in the Appalachia or the regional area.
If there is anybody from the media here, frankly, you all
are not doing your job either, because you really have not
covered this story. There probably is not any media person
here, maybe, because this not the biggest issue here. But you
have not covered the story, you have not covered the names of
the law firms that are out representing this company. You just
have not covered it and these people are dying.
And as a father of five children and as a grandfather of
seven kids, this ought to be something that is on the front
burner with everybody.
And I know you have a distinguished career. And you are
probably saying inside, ``Yes, I agree with everything Wolf and
Rogers are saying. Yes, I have to get up here''--so I
understand that. But I think this is the sense of the outrage
when you think of these poor people that are just--and I cannot
get it out of my mind, that young boy in the electric blue--
royal blue jacket, who was with his father. And they were so
happy that he had gone to the rehab program, and now he is
dead. And then I think of who is out representing this company.
OXYCONTIN REFORMULATION
I want to recognize Mr. Cramer.
My attorney general said--and maybe you would have a--and
excuse me for taking Mr. Cramer's time--but if you would just
say yes or no. He said that now Purdue Pharma was now coming
out and telling people that they could not do the reformulation
for four more years. If it takes them four more years, would
their patent not expire during that period of time?
Mr. Brown. I do not know how long their patent period is
for, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Could you check and see? Because now they are
being told--he was told that it would be four more years before
the reformulation. And my sense is the patent would expire from
when they first had it to four more years.
OxyContin' Patent
OxyContin' is covered under several patents.
There are patents that expire in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2013.
With that, Mr. Cramer.
METHAMPHETAMINE PRIORITY TARGETS
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to associate myself with your remarks, and Mr.
Rogers' remarks.
Well, welcome to a tough arena here and to a set of issues
that we feel very passionately about.
I was a prosecutor in my prior life, so I was there on the
front lines watching my law enforcement folks try to get the
tools to go toe-to-toe with the organized drug rings that were
in our area.
I am from North Alabama. I am from that top of Alabama
section there. And I read with great interest your net
information in here, and you concentrate on the areas of the
country, but it seems that my area of the country is at least
unnoticed by the information in here. And in Alabama the year
before last we had the 14th highest number of meth lab busts in
the United States. We had 143 lab busts, and 100 of those were
in one county in my congressional district.
It is an enormous problem for local law enforcement and
something that we have tried to give them help with. We found
available cops, grant money to try to give that sheriff's
department the person power that they need, the resources that
they would need to get out there in the county.
I have learned more about the meth users and the kind of
addicts that they are, and it is a pathetic profile that you
see there.
But I am interested to know, from the terminology that I
read through in here, you talk about 133 open methamphetamine
priority target cases. I do not know what that means. What does
that mean?
Mr. Brown. Went after large organizations. What you see in
your district, and you talked about the 100 laboratories
concentrated in one county, that would probably be independent
laboratories. It is small----
Mr. Cramer. Oh, it is small. It is crude, crude, small
labs----
Mr. Brown. But our priority target organizations are going
after the manufacturers of very, very large quantities, largely
in laboratories in the West Coast area, and especially the
organizations that provide the essential precursor chemical,
pseudoephedrine.
If we can eliminate the source of the essential chemical to
make methamphetamine, we can knock out those small toxic
laboratories that you see in your district, and we can really
eliminate some of the large----
Mr. Cramer. Thank you for leading into that, because that
is exactly what my law enforcement agencies say; they say if we
can just get this basic material out of their hands then we can
combat this.
So I was curious to see that in your focus, your effort to
combat this growing drug problem--and it is a huge problem in
my area, especially--and this is a very rural county, it is a
county in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, and these
are isolated little crude labs with mainly they are supplying
themselves.
But if we do not--if we concentrate on the bigger, more
sophisticated commercial-like labs that are getting the final
product out there, then I think we are missing the boat on some
of these others. So I am glad to hear that that issue----
Mr. Brown. It is a major issue for law enforcement. A
typical drug investigation involves making an arrest and a drug
seizure in these laboratories, and we do that. We make the
arrest, we make the drug seizure, but we confront boiling
cauldrons of toxic materials, and after we have shut that down
we have to clean-up the lab site. And that costs us a fortune
to do.
So it is not just a law enforcement issue, it is actually
an environmental issue and a safety issue, which is a great
concern for all of us.
FUNDING FOR METH LAB CLEAN-UP
Mr. Cramer. Well, I could probably dig this out of here
myself, but how much money are you spending on this?
Mr. Brown. Too much. Too much. Too much. We need to be more
effective. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Program provides laboratory clean-up funds in the tune of
millions of dollars we can provide, but to clean up a
laboratory--a typical lab is $5,000 to $7,000. And that is a
small toxic lab. Some of these large-scale laboratories will
cost considerably more than that.
Mr. Cramer. But are you seeing the problem that I am
describing----
Mr. Brown. Oh, I see the problem pretty clearly.
Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Throughout rural America?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely. Very concerned about that.
Mr. Cramer. I just think we need a more targeted way of
giving those local law enforcement folks the tools to get out
there and try to hold----
Mr. Brown. One of the things that the DEA is trying to do
is to provide more clandestine laboratory training for the
state and local counterparts that we have. That is a critically
important program.
Again, my concern is officer safety. We have officers that
are making stops of vehicles on the highway, and they come
across these toxic chemicals, do not know what they are, and we
have officers being injured by that.
We have officers in your jurisdiction, even probation
officers, going into homes to check on their clients and coming
across a laboratory and not knowing what it was, and having
some real safety and health issues with that.
So our training program and the clanlab arena is very, very
critically important, something we can do for state and local
law enforcement officers.
PRIORITY TARGETS
Mr. Cramer. In your mission and strategic plan section of
your statement, you refer to priority targets. ``DEA has
compiled a comprehensive list of priority targets submitted by
21 field divisions,'' and then you go on from there.
Tell me briefly what that is, what is a priority target.
Mr. Brown. Looking at organizations--criminal organizations
that are involved in drug trafficking that have international,
national, regional, and especially for all of us because we
live in the communities, local impact. We go after those
targets that give us a biggest return for our limited
resources.
Mr. Cramer. So is that an ongoing, fluid--I mean, do you
update it, do you add to it, do you----
Mr. Brown. Yes. Yes, our strategic plan is a five-year
plan, but it is a living document. As the drug trade is very,
very dynamic, we have to modify that.
I mean, new substances and analogues of some of these
synthetics come out, and we need to be able to address that.
AGENTS FOR COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORT
Mr. Cramer. And I am now, obviously, jumping around, but I
want to come back to one last thing that Mr. Serrano, I think,
prompted you. But when you referred to the 567 agents that you
lost--is that figure right, 567?
Mr. Brown. Five sixty-seven.
Mr. Cramer. Out of how many?
Mr. Brown. That is the number of FBI agents that came out
of the counter-drug effort and went to the counter-terrorism
effort.
Mr. Cramer. Well, that is a huge number.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, it is. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir.
STEMMING THE FLOW OF CLUB DRUGS
Mr. Kirk. One of the big concerns I have in my district is
over club drugs, Ecstasy, etcetera. We like to be very friendly
with the Dutch and the Belgians, our NATO allies, but almost
entirely the supply of these drugs come from those two
countries.
Describe for me how you are working with those two
governments to restrict the flow.
Mr. Brown. Well, I will address Belgium first. Belgium has
been extremely cooperative with DEA. We have an office in
Brussels and we work a number of cooperative investigations.
The Belgian authorities have participated with us to allow
controlled deliveries, that is interception of substances in
their country. We do a controlled delivery of that to the
intended recipient here and try to identify the supplier and
the producer of it in-country, in Belgium, the transportation
mechanism used, and then the ultimate recipient, and the
distribution network that is here.
They have been extremely helpful. They worked with us,
providing information on the organizations that use the
airports in Brussels, how that works, and some of the internal
conspiracies in the airline industry and the cargo industry to
get these shipments of drugs on aircraft and get them out of
country. They have a number of initiatives. In fact, they have
developed an MDMA ``Ecstasy'' Working Task Force that we
participate with them. The Belgium and DEA folks have a great
exchange of information. One of the key things for law
enforcement is this communication in coordinating our efforts,
and the Belgians have been extremely supportive in that.
The Netherlands had a number of restrictions on how they
worked with foreign law enforcement agencies, including DEA.
They were extremely cooperative where they could be.
We just concluded last week some good bilateral meetings
with our counterparts in the Netherlands. We have established
some very solid information exchange commitments on both sides,
for both of us.
U.S. Customs Service, which is our partner in stopping the
flow of drugs from country to country, have also worked with
the Dutch authorities, and are looking at shipments that come
out of the airports in Holland--the Dutch, Netherlands. We
should have a task force at the airport, again, looking at the
cargo and the passenger flights that come out of country to
identify for our Customs inspectors and investigators,
shipments that are probable or suspected drug shipments. The
exchange of information has been critically important for us.
The Dutch have a number of initiatives, again, looking at
precursor chemicals that are essential in the manufacture of
Ecstasy in-country. And we work with them, and other countries
in the surrounding area, to control the flow of precursor
chemicals to limit the production. They are looking at illegal
manufacturing of methamphetamines and MDMA in-country. A number
of other things that we are doing with the Dutch involve
inclusion in a task force.
The U.S. Customs Service is now providing information back
to the Dutch on shipments that they have intercepted here,
which the Dutch work back and try to find those laboratories
and the manufacturing cells that are responsible for that.
This is unprecedented in working with the people in the
Netherlands. They have never had laws that would allow them to
utilize informants the way that we would here in the United
States, or even undercover operatives, which is a very
effective tool in the United States. So they have come a long
way in working with us on this issue. Hope it pays off.
RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE DEPARTMENT, BELGIUM AND DUTCH GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Kirk. I am glad to hear of this progress. But it still
feels from the northern suburbs of Chicago like we are losing,
because the drug gangs that are located in my district seem to
have greater access to this material.
Can you describe your relationship with the State
Department and how you might make this a bilateral issue
between the United States and those two governments?
Mr. Brown. One of the things that happened this year is we
issued a notice of concern to the Netherlands about the MDMA
production in-country and how it is impacting your jurisdiction
and everybody else's jurisdiction. The State Department works
with us in every place overseas on narcotics matters. This is
something we can address more formally with them. But they have
been very, very supportive.
I am not going to say the State Department has turned its
back on that. They encourage us to work with our counterparts
in the Netherlands to derive some successes. I think we are
going to have some pretty good results.
Mr. Kirk. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if we could have
DEA--since we are having a hearing on the 2004 budget here--if
you could lay out a road map in 2004 of where you would like to
be with the Belgium and Dutch governments on this issue by the
end of 2004? That would be very helpful to us. And if you could
transmit that to the committee, I think that would give us a
work plan, then, where we could to.
Mr. Brown. Glad to do that, sir. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Sure. Without objection, yes. And we will put
that in the record. Also, that gives you something as you are
talking to both of those governments you talked to and say if
we can get that, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Kirk. We are going to be inviting the Dutch and Belgium
authorities to meet with the community leaders in Chicago. They
have a trade agenda, so we have a drug control agenda. And I
would like to use your road map to propel this.
Mr. Brown. We will provide that promptly, sir.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Kennedy.
FEDERALLY LICENSED GUN DEALERS
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, I want to follow up with a few questions that
were asked before on methamphetamine. We are facing an influx
of meth and heroin in my region, and would like to get your
comments on that.
But because we each have a few moments to ask questions, I
know the next panelists, and I think the interaction between
drugs and guns is obviously so clear that when he presents, I
would like to make sure that he addresses these subjects in the
course of his statement, and that is, the oversight of
federally licensed gun dealers.
We know that most of the guns that are captured are sold
legally to straw purchasers who can buy huge quantities of
guns, and those are the guns that are making it onto the black
market that are facing your law enforcement officers, DEA
officers. When they go in for drug busts, these are the people
that are using these straw purchases. And what I would like to
know, as a DEA agent, you know, how passionate you are about
making sure we get the guns that we can?
Just as the chairman said about going to the FDA to get
them to change the definition for OxyContin, I would like to
see DEA, all law enforcement, which many law enforcement are
doing, go to the government, go to ATF and go to others and
say: ``Our law enforcement officers are getting killed in the
line of duty because these guns are out there.'' And we know
under the license of gun dealers that right now we have 3,625
on-site inspections, it will take 20 years--28 years, nearly 30
years to visit each licensee only once. So, you know, we are
not doing what we need to do to oversee the compliance of the
existing law.
And I would like--obviously, the federally licensed gun
dealers have had a few things that have been put in their way,
by the NRA particularly, in respect to the fact that the
federal government--ATF--can only inspect a federally licensed
gun dealer only once in a 12-month period; meaning, even if
they know a federally licensed gun dealer is trafficking in
these guns, they cannot visit them more than once in a 12-month
period; meaning, they cannot crack down on what we know to be
some of the biggest problems.
Another thing is is that we do not have much information.
We have all kinds of safety standards, as you just heard, on
OxyContin. Maybe it is not the kind of standards that we would
like, but we have no standards when it comes to gun safety.
None. We have more standards on toy firearms than we have on
real firearms. And we are having kids get killed and maimed
every day because there are no standards of safety on these
guns.
What I would like to know--I know DEA constantly faces
this--is what BATF is doing on--ATF is doing on making sure
that we track the model and caliber of these guns that are
being sold, so we get a better handle on what guns are out
there and we know what we are up against.
And that fits with my last question, on the grandfathering
of a lot of the guns that were banned in the federal 1994 ban;
and, that is, what are we doing to keep track of these? And
what is the agency doing to improve enforcement of the import
ban on assault weapons?
I know, Mr. Chairman, these are questions mostly directed
to ATF, but I wanted to take my opportunity, because these are
the areas that I am particularly interested in.
And I know, as a drug enforcement officer, you see very
well the problem that guns have. And I would like you to just
comment on the threat that your agents face all the time when
they are going in for these drug busts, because of a plethora
of guns that are out there.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. ATF agents and DEA special agents work
in partnership and have for years. The guns and drug nexus has
been prevalent for as long as I have been a police officer and
a special agent.
I am tired of calling my special agents in the hospital and
our task force officers that work with us in the hospital after
they have been shot. It is very difficult for me to call the
family members and tell them someone has been shot or someone
has been killed.
Every single case that we work we assume--and unfortunately
correctly so that every suspect is armed; and it happens all
the time.
I think now that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives is a brother agency in the Department of Justice
that will just enhance the working relationship that we have
enjoyed for a number of years.
Agent safety is my number one concern.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, I look forward to working with you to
enhance agent safety.
Mr. Chairman, if we talk about stemming the flow of
OxyContin out there because it is killing so many of our
citizens, we ought to also talk about stemming the flow of
these guns.
And I am not talking about restricting illegal access, I am
simply talking about these straw purchasers who are
circumventing--two-thirds of the guns in my region of the
country come from somewhere else in the country.
Why? Because those states do not have the one-gun-a-month
or standard protections limiting the access of these firearms,
which means people are going to other states, they are filling
their trunks up full of these guns, they are going to my city
streets in New England and they are selling them out of the
backs of the trunk of their car.
And this is permissible because the Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms has been hogtied in their ability to crack down on
that 1 percent of federally licensed gun dealers, who we know
are bad--bad apples.
And why we do not have more federally licensed gun dealers
come out and say, ``Listen, we are getting penalized
because''--or actually no one is getting penalized. But why
aren't we standing up against the people who are, you know, not
up and up about this?
And I look forward to working with both agencies in their
cooperative efforts because that, to me, is a big, big deal.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RET AND MET PROGRAMS
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Brown, part of the Justice Department's strategy has
been to refocus, as you mentioned earlier, the drug enforcement
efforts at the priority drug trafficking organizations, which
you just reflected in the request to eliminate the regional
enforcement teams and the mobile enforcement teams.
From your perspective as a drug agent who has been working
these issues for almost 20 years, what are your thoughts on
focusing efforts on these higher level command and control and
what kind of impact--and this is, I guess, the real issue--will
this focus, refocus, have on the state law enforcement efforts:
sheriffs, state police? How do the sheriffs and the state
police feel about this?
Mr. Brown. I have been a federal narcotics agent for over
31 years. The MET and RET programs are fairly new: 1995 and
1999, respectively. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs always worked with our
state and local counterparts. We have to. All of us do not have
the resources that we need individually. We work together.
With the reorganization and the redirection of those
resources in the MET and RET program nothing is going to
change. We will continue. We will sustain our efforts working
with our state and local police on targets that are impacting
the local area, the regional area, nationally and
internationally.
Mr. Wolf. Have the sheriffs spoken out on this, local law
enforcement?
Mr. Brown. The sheriffs' departments have not commented on
the proposal to eliminate these programs. I believe that the
National Sheriffs Association and the International Association
of Chiefs of Police realize their partnership with DEA will not
change one bit.
COORDINATION AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Mr. Wolf. You mentioned terrorism, and only recently has
the American public become aware of the link between drugs and
terrorism. Are we exploiting the links between the intelligence
DEA gathers and the intelligence gathered by the FBI or other
law enforcement?
And I understand that the FBI has pulled agents away from
the SOD. I also think that Justice needs to have greater
coordination. What are your thoughts about this?
Mr. Brown. Coordination, communication and cooperation are
the three cornerstones of law enforcement. The FBI has been a
great partner of ours for years in the crime investigations and
our joint drug investigations.
Has the FBI redeployed resources from Special Operations
Division? Yes, they have. Is it going to impact operations out
there? I hope not.
Mr. Wolf. Do you think that is a permanent withdrawal.
Mr. Brown. I pray not. I pray not.
We have established those links of communication. Every
DEA-conducted drug investigation that has any nexus to any
other criminal activity or terrorism, that information is
immediately provided to the FBI. So that will not stop.
Mr. Wolf. You are not part of the so-called TTIC Center,
the Terrorist Threat Integration Center headed up by Mr.
Brennan.
Mr. Brown. We are not part of that formally, but we will
supply anything that we have to support that.
Mr. Wolf. So how will that be supplied? Will that be
supplied to the FBI and they will pay? Because there will be
Homeland Security people there, FBI, CIA, and I guess military,
DOD, perhaps. How will any information that you gather get to
TTIC?
Mr. Brown. Our direct line of communication is through the
law enforcement agency, which is the FBI. DEA and FBI are
partners in these joint terrorism task forces in every
jurisdiction.
Mr. Wolf. So whatever you get, we will get up through the
FBI and it is their responsibility.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
DEA PRESENCE IN TRI-BORDER AREA: BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, PARAGUAY
Mr. Wolf. Hezbollah and Hamas in the tri-border area, I
read an article in Harpers or Atlantic, I forget which one it
was, about the financing their activities through drug
trafficking. Can you tell us about the area? Have you been down
to the area?
Mr. Brown. I have not.
Mr. Wolf. Do we have DEA people down there?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Tri-border area, and talking about
Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Brown. We have officers and special agents and analysts
at all those locations.
Mr. Wolf. Now, we saw an article--I saw in The Post the
other day that Osama bin Laden had been there, down about 1995.
Mr. Brown. I saw the same article, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. Was he involved in drugs?
Mr. Brown. He is involved in all kinds of criminal
activity, drugs being one of them. We have identified a number
of organizations he is associated with that are involved in
drug trafficking and provide funds for his other criminal
activities, including the terrorist attacks.
Mr. Wolf. There seems to be a pretty rough neighborhood
down there.
Mr. Brown. That is why I have not been there, sir.
Mr. Wolf. How many DEA people do you have down there?
Mr. Brown. We have probably five DEA personnel stationed in
Paraguay. Argentina is a little larger complement: maybe six or
seven. In Brazil, we have a large contingent in Lima, Brasilia.
Mr. Wolf. But this town, there is a, sort of, a region in a
town where, sort of, everyone gathers. We do not have a DEA
agent there, do we?
Mr. Brown. No, we work out of the embassy or consulate
offices. So if there is no consulate there, we would not have a
presence there.
Mr. Wolf. And you would get cooperation from the countries
in----
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, we do. Last week, sir, I had the
pleasure of hosting a meeting with the Argentine drug czar. He
was very, very full of praise for the efforts that we do
cooperatively with the officers in his country.
Mr. Wolf. Do you believe that that has been the basis of
terrorists down there? There have been some names that I have
seen who are involved also in Afghanistan. Are they only
selling drugs, or do you think it is mainly a terrorist
operation where drugs are financing it? What do you think about
that region?
Mr. Brown. Drugs and other criminal activities, gun
running, other types of contraband, whatever they can do to
generate resources to fund their operations. We always think of
drugs being one of the types of currency that fund terrorist
operations.
AFGHANISTAN INITIATIVE
Mr. Wolf. Afghanistan: Would you provide the committee with
an update on the Afghanistan initiative that we worked with DEA
last year to establish?
I led the first congressional delegation to Afghanistan
with Congressman Tony Hall and Joe Pitts. And at that time--it
was last January--we were told that nothing was being done. DEA
just could not move around the country and said next year would
be the major year.
Now the committee did some things that helped out. But now
I met with a fellow from AID the other day, and he said, ``The
poppies are growing, they are blooming, and they are going to
be harvested soon and it is very dangerous to be moving around
the country.'' And it was his understanding the DEA agents were
pretty much hunkered down in Kabul.
How free are they to move--I mean, they are free if they
want to, but how free do they feel in moving around the
country? And what are your comments about the drug situation in
Afghanistan?
Mr. Brown. We have been very successful in opening an
office in Kabul. Since 1980 we did not have a presence at all
in-country, so it has taken some time to build infrastructure.
We had two special agents there. Unfortunately one had to
come back from Kabul this past January.
Mr. Wolf. Why was that?
Mr. Brown. Severe medical condition, sir.
Mr. Wolf. All right.
Mr. Brown. So we are right now trying to find the right
person to send back, the issue being needing the selectee to go
through any language training that is necessary.
As far as them hunkering down, I assure you, sir, that they
are out and about. But they do travel in armed caravans. They
travel with the military protectors.
Mr. Wolf. But what do they do? When we met with Chairman
Karzai, he said this is one of his major issues. But he said,
quite frankly, he did not have the capacity to control the
countryside. If Karzai cannot control the countryside, one DEA
agent driving around is not controlling the countryside.
You have established an office, so I guess you think that
is a beachhead. Maybe that is progress over 1981, but what is
he or she doing now that she is--I mean, he is there?
Mr. Brown. I am going to----
Mr. Wolf. Have they actually stopped any drugs from coming
out of the country?
Mr. Brown. I think the intelligence that they have
generated by developing their cooperating sources and their
informants have been very instrumental in getting shipments of
chemicals that go into manufacture to convert opium into
morphine.
Mr. Wolf. You have actually stopped something from going
in?
Mr. Brown. We intercept a number of shipments going in.
Operation Containment, which involves the area around
Afghanistan, those countries, has been very instrumental
working with our counterparts in that area. Now, we have
established a number of these sensitive investigative units,
actually selecting and vetting and training our host country
counterparts to be narcotics investigators.
Mr. Wolf. How much does Karzai have there?
Mr. Brown. He does not have it yet, sir.
It has been a challenge in Afghanistan, major challenge.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think you ought to--easy for me to say,
but I think you ought to have somebody else over there and
maybe help working--maybe your office, knowing the limitations
of law enforcement, Kandahar, maybe that would be better
training the Karzai government's people to deal with the issue,
knowing you start small, your people are not out there
arresting people and making drug busts. But maybe there should
be a program whereby with the Karzai administration helping to
help them.
Has there been an effort to encourage him to put together--
because he raised this issue. He said, ``This is one of my most
important issues, I want to deal with this drug issue.'' He
raised it without us asking him.
Mr. Brown. He has a major challenge there. As I say, we
have not been present in Kabul or in Afghanistan at all for 23
years. So for us to develop the infrastructure at the same time
the Afghani government is trying to structure a law enforcement
program, we will have to work on it together.
Mr. Wolf. But is there one that they are working on?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Who is the drug czar for Afghanistan?
Mr. Brown. I met with the minister of the interior and I do
not recall his name, sir. And we talked about these very
issues, about how we can provide some assistance to him as he
formulates a law enforcement body.
AGENTS IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA
Mr. Wolf. Most of the heroin is going to Europe and Russia.
Are they helping? Does Europe have DEA agents?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Do you have a DEA wing, does Europe have agents
there, and does Russia have agents there? Or are we alone?
Mr. Brown. No, we are not alone. We work very cooperatively
with the British government officials who are in-country.
German officials are there also participating with us in
developing some training programs for the law enforcement
officers.
Mr. Wolf. And Russia?
Mr. Brown. I am not sure about Russia, sir.
DEMAND REDUCTION
Mr. Wolf. Demand reduction. Your budget seeks to reduce the
IDEA, or Integrated Drug Enforcement Assistance Program by $5
million, leaving a $3.4 million program.
The program helps state and localities develop demand
reduction strategies. Right now, 55 percent of the prisoners in
the Federal Bureau of Prisons are there because of drug
convictions.
Can you explain why the administration chose to reduce this
effort so dramatically?
Mr. Brown. No.
INTEGRATED DRUG ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Wolf. I mean, wouldn't this be one that you would want
to increase demand reduction?
Mr. Brown. The President's budget does curtail $5 million
and a number of positions out of the IDEA Program, the
Integrated Drug Enforcement Assistance Program.
It was really developed as a pilot project for us to go in
after an enforcement operation and provide community support in
drug prevention and help the treatment and recovery folks get a
program that will be recognized in the community.
Mr. Wolf. And has it been a failure?
Mr. Brown. No, it has not been a failure.
Mr. Wolf. Well, but why would you cut the money, then?
Mr. Brown. We are redeploying those resources, again,
against our priority target organizations. We do have demand
reduction coordinators in every one of our field divisions.
Actually, every one of us is a demand reduction
coordinator. All of us are moms or dads or aunts or uncles and
we talk to people in the community, including our own kids.
So that effort will not stop.
Mr. Wolf. But this was a specified program.
Mr. Brown. Yes, it was.
Mr. Wolf. It would seem to me that a demand reduction
program, you cannot lock up everybody. When we visit federal
prisons----
Mr. Brown. That is right.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. The number of young kids that were
in there because of this. Now, obviously, they are a third
time, but demand reduction, I think, is very, very important.
You just cannot arrest everybody----
Mr. Brown. So do we.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. 55 percent----
Mr. Brown. We believe the same as you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. But the program was cut.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is not a very compassionate
conservative thing to do. I think the compassionate
conservative thing to do would be to keep it at that level or
to increase it.
But if you are a mom or dad and you have a young person
involved with drugs, those type of programs are very important.
I think to reduce that is really not--this would help
localities to develop demand reduction strategies.
I think, I would hope the committee would not support that.
Do you have any record of all, and if you could just tell us
your own personal thing, then I will ask one other question of
record. Mr. Serrano, do you have any record back--this is the
kind OxyContin question--but do you have any record of any--
many people who have been addicted to OxyContin going through
drug rehab programs being successful?
Mr. Brown. I would not have that number, sir. Maybe HHS
would. I am sure we would have something like that as a
statistic, someone who has actually recovered from OxyContin
addiction.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. Well, but could you check for us?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, I certainly will. If we can find that,
sure.
[The information follows:]
OxyContin' Rehabilitation Programs
There is no data system to track admissions to drug
rehabilitation and recovery programs, regardless of whether
they provide drug (maintenance or detoxification) or drug free
treatment. The American Association for the Treatment of Opioid
Dependence (AATOD) has been offered a grant from Purdue Pharma
to conduct a sample of 100 programs to establish some baseline
data. As of May 31, 2003, the AATOD had not agreed to undertake
this project under Purdue Pharma's auspices. No government
entity (e.g., the Department of Health and Human Services'
(HHS) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMSHA), the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and
state authorities) requires programs to compile or provide such
data.
Mr. Wolf. And what drug treatment programs maybe we would
even invite them to come in as witnesses?
Mr. Brown. That would be great.
DIVERSION CONTROL FEE ACCOUNT
Mr. Wolf. Because I do not know of anyone who is actually--
which leads me to believe maybe the model has not been
developed, that we could help with regard to the model.
DIVERSION FEE
The 2004 budget continues efforts to increase the fees in a
diversion control fee account.
We understand that the increase in fees will enable DEA to
hire more investigators to address the diversion of illegal
drugs, such as OxyContin. Can you give us an update on how DEA
is progressing, getting the new fee structure approved, and
tell us where any new investigators supported by the fee will
be located?
Mr. Brown. It was published in the Federal Register on the
18th of February of this year. Now, we have it out for comment,
I think, comments are due back on the 21st of April.
Mr. Wolf. And when do you think it will be approved?
Mr. Brown. I hope it is approved shortly thereafter.
Mr. Wolf. And how long would have that whole process taken?
Mr. Brown. A number of years to get the new rule in place.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
DRUG SEIZURES
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the bad news is--as we said before, Mr. Cramer was
shocked, as I was that you lost so many FBI agents that were
supporting you.
On the other hand, we have increased our border patrols and
protection to the point where I understand, for instance, that
one October drug seizures increased by 29 percent over the
previous month.
Has this pattern continued, and is this the silver lining
in a situation that otherwise could make us nervous about
border behavior?
Mr. Brown. I would imagine that increased seizures along
the border, especially by the Border Patrol, would be
significant if those were actually seizures that would help us
with our investigations.
Just interdicting piles of drugs without any other
information or intelligence, especially about the organizations
that are providing it, is problematic for us.
Our offices all along the Southwest border respond to those
kinds of seizures, and if there is no intelligence to be
gained, no furtherance of an investigation, we have lost a
number of our investigators away from doing investigations just
merely to process evidence.
So if there are increased seizures it may be indicative of
increased success in turning the drug smugglers back or
increased captures along the highway or at border patrol
checkpoints.
But if we do not get intelligence out of that, the piles of
drugs are relatively meaningless.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Serrano, could I interject?
What percentage of drugs do you think you apprehend that
are coming into this country? Ten percent? Twenty?
Mr. Brown. I would not want to hazard a guess on a specific
number, as an English major, not a math major.
What is critical to know is the actual production figures.
How much cocaine comes out of a hectare of coca and how much
heroin is produced from fields of opium poppies. And once we
have solid figures on that, we can take a look at the figures
of seizures being made in other parts of the world. The United
States is a great consumer nation, but so are other parts of
the world, to make a determination of what we are seizing if we
know what universe of drugs there are to be seized.
DARE PROGRAM
Mr. Kennedy. Can you answer whether you think the DARE
program is effective? We constantly hear from GAO that it
really does not make a difference in terms of demand reduction
because it actually gets kids thinking about taking the drugs
when they do these big seminars. I mean, I hear from my DARE
officers and they tell me it works, and I hear from GAO and
others and they tell me it does not. Would you hazard--you must
have the information as to whether that--I know that might be a
politically charged question, but maybe--
Mr. Brown. I will answer that very directly. Anything that
we can do to reduce the use of drugs by our young people is
significantly important. In my family I have an 11-year-old
nephew, who the DARE program actually made him come out of
something that was very dangerous for him. We could not control
this young boy. So the DARE program in that instance, where it
personally affected me, was a resounding success. You multiply
that young boy by the thousands of other kids that are exposed
to this real positive message, it works.
Mr. Kennedy. That is good to hear. And thank you for your
testimony. It makes a big difference to us when we start making
these decisions.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
DEA'S IMPACT ON DRUG TRAFFICKING IN COLOMBIA
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Brown--he was borrowing my time. You know
how the Kennedys are. [Laughter.]
They are my heroes.
Mr. Brown, very briefly, if you were to follow my public
pronouncements over 29 years in public office, if there is a
contradiction in how I behave, it is that I want certain rules
to be followed in international affairs and at home, and yet
when it comes to getting drug dealers, I kind of perhaps at
times would look the other way if you slap them in the mouth a
couple of times for me.
But I question our policy on the issue of Colombia, where I
have claimed that this country is making a terrible mistake
getting involved in what is, I believe, a civil war. I have
referred to it on this committee as a possible Spanish-speaking
Vietnam for us, because it has been going on for 40 years.
Now, we used to call these folks narco-traffickers, and we
switched to calling them narco-terrorists. I claim that we have
called them narco-terrorists because some folks want an excuse
to get involved militarily and terrorists are easier to beat up
on, and for good reason, then narco-traffickers.
Are we, by calling them narco-terrorists and involving our
army there, really going to have an impact on the war on drugs
and the influx of drugs coming into this country, or are we
just going to get ourselves involved in a civil war?
Because, if I may take you back a moment in history, the
FARC--which has no respect from anyone who believes in leftist
causes, and the paramilitaries also have no respect from
anybody who believes in conservative causes--the FARC starts
out 40 years ago as a legitimate group concerned about the
misery in Colombia and the lack of government effort to do
anything about social justice and poverty and so on. And
somewhere along the way it becomes what it is today, because
that became a business for everybody in Colombia.
So by getting involved militarily and calling the narco-
traffickers narco-terrorists, do we really have an impact on
the drug trade? Or do we do something else?
In other words--you do not have to comment on whether we
get involved politically into a mess, that is my comment--but
do we have an impact on drugs?
Because we now have, what is it, 400 advisers? We have
already had kidnappings. We have lost Americans. And I am old
enough to remember when we had 400 advisers in Vietnam. And
that was all we were going to have, 400 advisers in Vietnam.
And then you know what happened after that.
Mr. Brown. That was quite a question, sir. We are a drug
law enforcement agency, and our role is to go after drug
traffickers. We identify members of organizations, or not
necessarily members of any organization, who are trafficking in
controlled substances. We conduct investigations, hopefully,
that will lead to successful prosecution. The political aspects
of that we will leave to someone else to sort out.
Mr. Serrano. Does your information also bring up the fact,
or is it a fact, that both the left and the right in Colombia,
both sides benefit from the drug trade?
Mr. Brown. Sometimes it is hard to choose sides, to see who
is on which side today and who is on which side tomorrow. I
think those who are involved in the drug trade in any way are
benefiting from that. It is a very lucrative business as a
criminal activity.
Mr. Serrano. But my question was, to your knowledge, is the
drug trade in Colombia not a business only for the FARC? My
understanding is that it is also a business for the right-wing
paramilitaries. And that, throughout history, it might have
been also a business for the government. Not this government,
but whatever government was in place. At different times in
that 40-year struggle, drugs have played a role for either side
of the equation.
Mr. Brown. They have been involved in historic features
there, exactly, yes, sir.
MEXICAN GOVERNMENT AND THE WAR ON DRUGS
Mr. Serrano. One last question, Mr. Chairman.
Notwithstanding this latest period, when Mexican President
Fox may not be Washington's favorite ally, how have President
Fox and Mexico's government in general been behaving on the
issue of the war on drugs?
Because we know that lately he has been making--their
government has made some serious arrests. Are you satisfied--
again, I do not want you to be a secretary of state--but are
you happy with what has happened?
Mr. Brown. Let me give you this perspective, sir, and I
will comment on your question.
I served in Mexico for nearly five years, just about 20
years ago. And the environment there for a law enforcement
office from the United States was very difficult. We lost one
of my very good friends, one of our special agents there, and
it was a difficult time for DEA and it was a difficult time for
law enforcement, difficult time for our relations with Mexico.
In the past several years, since the Fox Administration has
taken over, we have seen some unprecedented changes. Just this
past two-and-a-half-year period, the Fox Administration has
taken some real headlong steps into eradicating corruption. So
much so that now DEA and our counterparts in Mexico are working
side-by-side.
Two weeks ago, we had the first, of what we hope will be
many, bilateral DEA senior managers meeting with our
counterparts in Mexico City to talk about information-sharing
initiatives. They would never do that before, working
cooperatively. We are considering opening up a few more offices
along the Mexico side of the United States-Mexico border to
make us even more effective in working side-by-side with our
colleagues there.
So has it changed? It has changed dramatically.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I am glad to hear that, and I hope it
continues.
Mr. Chairman, I suspect that we will not go for another
round because we have another panel. So I will submit the rest
of my questions for the record.
And I want to thank you, sir. And for my part, if we seem
rough on you at times, it is because you and your agency hold
in your hands the answer to many of the problems that plague
America. As I told you before, if you remove drugs by 50
percent from the South Bronx, you probably remove crime by 80
percent. And you know that to be a fact.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Brown, we thank you for your testimony.
How many DEA agents have died since the establishment of
DEA?
Mr. Brown. Since the establishment of DEA, probably 20. I
do not know the exact number, sir, but it is way too many.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree. And I remember the death of the
agent in Mexico who was tortured. So I want to, you know, let
you know that I appreciate the good work that you have done and
your people have done. And I would not want you to go away
thinking that we are not appreciative. And I know many of you
people have made tremendous sacrifices. So I want the record to
show that I do appreciate that, and I appreciate your service
as a career person.
I think the frustration that came about--I mean, obviously,
there is someone in this audience that is working for Purdue
Pharma. I mean, they were taking notes and everything that goes
on in this hearing will go back to Purdue Pharma. There is
nobody taking notes for the poor people of Appalachia. There is
nobody taking notes for that pastor whose son is gone. You are
a father, you have children.
And so, we look for you to be the advocate for the people
who have no advocate. We will try to be an advocate for them to
the best of our ability. But you also ought to be an advocate.
And sometimes, particularly with 31 years in, you must be very
close to retiring. Whatever the case may be, I would urge you
to be bold and be willing to, so that when--not yet, and
perhaps it would be great if they appointed you to be the head
of DEA. You may be a lot better than who they are talking about
appointing.
But be bold, particularly since you have dedicated your
life to this. And 10 or 20 years from now when you are sitting
on your rocking chair thinking about what you did, if there is
something that you could have done that you did not do, you
will not feel disappointed--so I urge you to be bold.
And this committee, or certainly I, will support you and do
everything we possibly can. Because every time you are making
an arrest, you may very well keep somebody from dying or that
pastor's son or somebody else or people from my congressional
district where it is beginning to spread.
And if Leslie will set up the appointment for us to meet
with the head of the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Brown. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. And then, Mr. Rogers will go over with us. And we
will go over so you can tell them what precisely you want them
to do. And at least you will know that you have done your job.
And now we will see if the Food and Drug Administration and
Secretary Thompson are prepared to do their jobs.
So with that, I, again, thank you and please take my thanks
of the committee back to the men and women who serve in the
DEA.
And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Opening Remarks on Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Mr. Wolf. Good afternoon. We want to welcome, proudly, the
director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives.
We look forward to hearing your testimony on a fiscal year 2004
budget request. With the passage of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, the regulatory and revenue collection functions of ATF
relating to alcohol, tobacco were realigned to the new bureau
into the Department of Treasury--from Treasury to the law
enforcement function, now into the Department of Justice.
In addition, ATF has the responsibility for regulating
intrastate commerce of explosives and explosive training and
research, a function not currently performed by the government.
Although a transfer such as this can be a difficult
experience for the 4,600 ATF employees, it does make sense to
harness the investigative experiences of Federal law
enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals
Service and now ATF under one department. ATF's expertise in
the enforcement of Federal laws within alcohol, tobacco and
firearms and arson will certainly strengthen, hopefully, the
government's ability to investigate criminal activity.
So we welcome you here, and with that, I will recognize Mr.
Serrano, and you can present your testimony. Either submit it
for the record, abbreviate it whatever way you see fit.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have said at
other hearings, my main concern is that, as we focus our
attention on the war on terrorism, we must not in any way,
shape, or form be diverted from the fact that we have other
agencies that perform great service to this country. And so
rest assured that I will join the Chairman to make sure that
you get the needed resources to do your work. But at the same
time, I am very much interested in finding out from you today
just how this new approach in this country to everything else
that we have to do to protect the homeland affects you, and
what role, if different, do you and your agency now have to
play.
So I welcome you, and I am looking forward to your
testimony.
Thursday, March 20, 2003.
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
WITNESS
BRADLEY A. BUCKLES, ACTING DIRECTOR, ATF
Opening Statement of Bradley Buckles
Mr. Buckles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, and
other distinguished members of the committee. I am pleased to
be here this afternoon, representing the outstanding men and
women of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF). And thank you for this opportunity to testify
in support of our fiscal year 2004 budget request. I know that
our time is limited today, so, Mr. Chairman, I will accept your
invitation to provide an abbreviated summary of my testimony,
and I have submitted a detailed statement for the record.
This is our first time before the Committee, and as you
observe, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of ATF people with us here
today. Part of the reason that I wanted to do that was so that
our ATF executives could have an opportunity to get a feel for
how this Committee operates and gain a feel for the oversight
that we are going to be getting in the coming years. At the
outset, I would like to say that we look forward to working
with both the members and their staff.
As you learn about the mission and employees of ATF, I am
confident that you will find that ATF provides great value to
the American public and, that we are responsive, thoughtful and
effective in the way in which we approach our business. I am
equally confident that as you get to know ATF, you will come to
share my pride in the people and their accomplishments.
ATF TRANSITION TO DOJ
The Homeland Security Act transferred the public safety
functions of ATF, both law enforcement and regulatory, to the
Department of Justice on January 24th of this year. As you
observe, the revenue collection and consumer protection
functions previously performed by ATF remained in the
Department of Treasury. We devoted a great deal of time, effort
and resources in ensuring a seamless transition, and I believe
that those efforts have been successful.
The Department of Justice, in our view, is the right place
for the newly configured ATF. We share a common cause in law
enforcement. We share a common mission in protecting the
public, and we share a deep commitment in ensuring a safer
America. We also believe that ATF's mission and expertise will
complement other Justice Department assets and agencies, as we
work together to defeat the nation's number one threat,
terrorism.
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL EXPLOSIVES LAW
While the transition has been smooth, ATF nonetheless faces
significant challenges in 2003 and 2004 as a result of a
significant increase in responsibilities found in new
explosives control legislation. The Safe Explosives Act, which
like our transfer to Justice was included in the larger
Homeland Security Act, extended and amended the federal
explosives laws that ATF has been enforcing since 1970. The new
law expands the categories of persons prohibited from
possessing and purchasing explosives, requires a federal permit
for the retail purchase of explosives and mandates additional
ATF inspection activities.
The Safe Explosives Act also requires that ATF perform
background checks on purchasers of explosives and, in some
cases, even employees of companies who purchase explosives.
Today, a purchaser merely self-certifies on a form that he is
not a prohibited person in order to purchase explosives.
Beginning May 24th of this year, no one will be able to
lawfully purchase explosives without a license or permit issued
by ATF. The new law also demands that ATF conduct on-site
inspections to ensure that licensees and permittees comply with
rules relating to the safe and secure storage of explosives.
Although the timing and frequency of these inspections vary
with the permit, the law still mandates more inspection work
for ATF than we have performed in the past.
ATF currently has less than 500 inspectors to police over
100,000 Federal firearms licensees and nearly 9,000 Federal
explosives licensees and permittees. With the new permit
requirements of the Safe Explosives Act, the number of
explosive permittees is expected to increase at a minimum to
more than 10,000 additional permittees. Our current Fiscal Year
2003 budget contains minimal new resources to carry out this
law, and our request for fiscal year 2004 seeks an additional
$10 million for this program. These funds that we are
requesting are essential in order for ATF to keep explosives
out of the hands of those who would use them against us, while
facilitating the useful and legitimate acquisition of
explosives for use in industry and agriculture.
Despite these challenges, the men and women of ATF continue
to perform as dedicated professionals and reliable partners as
we enforce the nation's firearms, explosives, arson and alcohol
and tobacco diversion laws. Perhaps the most effective way to
provide you clear picture of ATF's activities is to give you a
few examples and highlights of some significant cases we have
been involved with over the last few months.
ATF ACTIVITIES
The first example I will give was from last fall, where
nearly 650 ATF special agents, forensic lab personnel, firearms
examiners and support staff worked with other law enforcement
agencies here in the Washington area in the District of
Columbia sniper case. This ongoing investigation crossed State
and international borders, and is one of the very best examples
of the strong law enforcement partnerships that ATF has built
over the years.
Last month, ATF agents in Rhode Island responded to one of
the worst nightclub fires in our nation's history that resulted
in 99 deaths. ATF special agents and our national response team
responded immediately, and evidence gathered at the fire scene
is currently being examined and analyzed at the ATF National
Laboratory Center in Ammendale, Maryland.
During 2002, ATF conducted an investigation in North
Carolina that resulted in a conviction for contraband cigarette
trafficking, money laundering and providing material support to
a terrorist organization. This case, which we investigated
along with the FBI, revealed a conspiracy wherein defendants
were illegally trafficking cigarettes between North Carolina
and Michigan, and funneling the profits, through various
methods, back to the Hezbollah in the Middle East.
PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS
In addition to these and many other important criminal
investigations, ATF is a proud participant in the President's
Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). While the threat of terrorism
from outside the United States is real, the criminal misuse of
firearms and the resulting loss of life is unfortunately a
daily event in the United States. Recent statistics show that
more than 10,000 lives have been lost annually to criminals
with guns. And for every fatal shootings, there are three non-
fatal shootings. In addition, untold numbers of people are
threatened each day by the threatened use of a gun in crime.
While we are ever alert to possible terrorist angles to
everything we do, the overwhelming majority of ATF's work is
directed at reducing gun violence in the streets and in the
neighborhoods of this great nation. The President's Project
Safe Neighborhood provides for the effective use of Federal
resources through a series of locally designed and driven anti-
crime efforts. ATF anchors the Federal enforcement efforts in
these projects around the country. United States attorneys lead
the PSN initiatives by bringing state and local police and
prosecutors together with ATF and other Federal resources to
develop unified strategies tailored to the problems of
particular communities.
One component of Project Safe Neighborhoods that is
specifically designed to protect youth is the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative. This initiative seeks to reduce
firearms-related violence among our nation's youth by
identifying and interrupting the sources of illegal firearms.
This program is due to be expanded in fiscal year 2004, and $13
million is being requested for that purpose.
On one last note, since this committee also has
jurisdiction over the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, I wanted to let you know that ATF is also playing a
role in the vital mission of that organization. We placed an
agent on detail to the center and hope to make that detail
permanent in the near future.
In the post-9/11 world, ATF does not anticipate a decrease
in its workload anytime soon. And we hope this Committee can
support our budget request of $852 million for fiscal year
2004, to ensure we will have the necessary resources to meet
our anticipated demands.
I thank you again for permitting me to testify here today,
and I look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMPACT OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Director.
I wonder if you have any information on this subject. This
was brought to my attention. There is a video game called
``Grand Theft Auto 2, or Grand Theft Auto.'' And in it there is
a tremendous amount of violence. And I was told--and if you
shoot and you develop eye-hand coordination, you get points for
shooting the people. I was told there was a case down in
Kentucky where that one case, where the young student I think
killed eight people--how many? Does anyone know how many
people?
Mr. Buckles. I vaguely remember that incident with the
school shooting in Kentucky.
Mr. Wolf. Paducah, right. That that young boy had trained--
that he had never actually fired a weapon before, I was told.
And now I am going to ask you if this is true. I was told that
he had played video games whereby he had developed eye-hand
coordination. I also saw a report in the paper, and you raised
this issue with your testimony on the sniper. The sniper
terrorized my area, my congressional district. One of the
killings took place in my congressional district, 234 and Route
66. Do you have any records of the impact of video games and
eye-hand coordination with regard to young people and some of
the arrests that have been made that they have been heavily
involved in video games. I am not talking about Veggie Tales
and video games like that. But violent games whereby there is
an incentive in the game to shoot, kill people.
Mr. Buckles. We do not have any statistics on that that I
am aware of. I know there have been many writings on that
subject by people outside the government in terms of what that
does, and I would observe that the idea of using computer
simulation to train with firearms is something that is used by
police departments and probably the military and others. So the
same technology that we employ quite often in training police
officers around the country is not that dissimilar to the
technology that basically is available through video games and
computer games.
Mr. Wolf. Can you check your records to see if there are
any cases that ATF was involved in whereby in the testimony, in
the trial, or whatever the case may be, that the individual
said that they had trained, or that video games--again, I want
to separate out, there are good video games.
Mr. Buckles. Right.
Mr. Wolf. And we are only talking about the ones that are
dealing with violence, that they had spent a lot of time--now,
if my memory serves me, did not the Columbine shooting, were
they not involved in video games?
Mr. Buckles. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Anybody with ATF know about that?
Mr. Buckles. We will certainly do an examination of our
records, to see if we can find evidence of that.
Mr. Wolf. The Columbine, the Paducah case, the Malvo case,
and any other cases that you may have, to see--right now I am
operating on someone just said, and this person says this and I
read an article. But I wanted to know if you actually had cases
whereby the individual who was convicted said yes, they had
been involved in these violent video games.
Mr. Buckles. We will do some research in that area and get
back to you.
[The information follows:]
Impact of Violent Video Games
Numerous queries were conducted within ATF's automated case
management database to identify investigations or cases where
violent video games were cited or indicated in investigative
reports. The results of these numerous queries were negative.
Since the ``Sniper'' case is still being prosecuted, ATF
cannot comment on items contained within its investigative
reports. With respect to the Columbine High School shootings,
case agents who are familiar with the interviews of members of
the Trenchcoat Mafia did not glean any relevant leads
indicating a nexus with violent video games and the group's
activities. Further, interviews with over 500 people at the
High School, not connected with the Trenchcoat Mafia, did not
produce any pertinent information related to these violent
video games. In the Paducah, KY case, the investigation
conducted by the McCracken County Sheriff's Office indicated
that the shooter admitted to the frequent use of violent video
games. It is our understanding that there were subsequent
lawsuits by the victims' families seeking damages from the
makers of those violent video games that were viewed by the
shooter in this case.
YOUTH CRIME GUN INITIATIVE
Mr. Wolf. Particularly in regard to the eye-hand
coordination.
The most recent FBI crime index data we have shows a slight
decrease in the violent crimes for the first half of 2002. But
the incidents of gun violence and gang activity remains at an
unacceptable level. We have been told that all of the homicides
in 2001, firearms were involved in 63.4 percent of the
homicides. Of the 1,140 juveniles murdered in 2001, 44 percent
were killed with a firearm. Nearly 2,800 students were expelled
for bringing guns to school.
Your budget request expands the President's Project Safe
Neighborhood Initiative. They help address the problems of gun
violence, including juvenile gun violence. You requested an
additional 59 full-time equivalents, and $13 million to expand
the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative for a total of 70.
Can you tell the Committee what real effect you anticipate
to have in reducing gun violence in these cities, and any
connection as to the program demonstrating that the program has
come into a particular city, and therefore we see there is a
drop.
Mr. Buckles. Yes, Mr. Chairman, a number of things. We have
done specific studies on the effectiveness and the results from
the Youth Crime Gun initiative that we can make available to
this committee. In addition, one of the approaches that we are
taking in Project Safe Neighborhoods is to develop an actual
measurement scheme so that we can look at the effectiveness of
each one of these programs in each city and make adjustments
where necessary. If there are ways that we can improve the
performance of the gun violence initiatives in those cities, we
try to do that. We have annual conferences where we try to
learn from each other what is working in some communities. We
are doing this on a localized basis with each project to try to
measure the impact of how our efforts in that city are being
brought together to reduce gun violence.
We have reports from some of the cities that started off
early in Project Safe Neighborhoods. Some of them got started
more quickly than others. In Kansas City, for example, we have
seen a dramatic drop in the murder rate and gun violence rate.
But we can supply those data to you on an individual city
basis, plus, we have done larger studies of these kinds.
Mr. Wolf. What are some of the closest cities to
Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Buckles. Well, virtually every city here now would have
a Project Safe Neighborhoods.
Mr. Wolf. But of the 60 that you have and you added 10,
what major city is in this region?
Mr. Buckles. Oh, in this region, we would have Baltimore
and Washington as both Youth Crime Gun cities, probably
Richmond, as well. I do not have that list right in front of
me, but we would have a presence with the existing 60 cities,
virtually every major city in the United States.
Mr. Wolf. And has it been a success in the District of
Columbia?
Mr. Buckles. Well, I can provide you with the results of
our studies.
Mr. Wolf. In my sense, watching the local news, I do not
get that sense.
Mr. Buckles. Well, we have to look at the overall anti-
violence program. The Youth Crime Gun Initiative is just one
where we are attempting to interdict the firearms coming into
the city. We also have active gang programs and programs to
prosecute violent offenders. Obviously, in some cities, the
problems that we are up against are more daunting than others.
But we can give you the statistics on what the crime levels
were before our presence what the crime statistics are after.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was provided:]
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative--Crime Levels
The Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative was instituted
in the District of Columbia in 1996, complementing several
other initiatives already in place, such as a firearms task
force with the Metropolitan Police Department, use of the
National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, and outreach
efforts through the GREAT Program.
Although we do not currently have data on firearms crime in
Washington, DC, the numbers of violent crimes in the District
(i.e., murders, robberies, and assaults) decreased 26 percent
between 1996 and 2001, from 13,151 crimes to 9,740.
Additionally, between 2001 and 2002, ATF nearly doubled the
numbers of firearms defendants recommended for prosecution,
from 86 to 155.
Mr. Wolf. My sense is it has not been a success here in the
district.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
STRAW PURCHASERS
Mr. Kennedy. In that regard, would you speak about the
influx of guns through straw purchasers and what you are doing
for that to stop the straw purchasers? One of the reasons why
we have so many gun-related crimes is not because of the law,
but the fact people drive in with trunks full of guns that they
purchase through federally licensed gun dealers, I might add,
in other states. They come here and they sell them by the truck
load down in downtown Washington.
Mr. Buckles. Well, this is one of the different components
of our gun enforcement strategy. The Youth Crime Gun Initiative
is one that focuses on the sources of the firearms that are
being used in crime, particularly those being used by youth.
Mr. Kennedy. What number of those, percentage, are legal?
Guns that are purchased legally?
Mr. Buckles. Well, straw purchasers is a major component of
what we have seen on major trafficking coming into Washington,
D.C., but also going into other metropolitan areas on the East
Coast. Now, in a sense, many of the straw purchases are in one
sense a legal purchase, because the whole idea of the straw
purchase is to have someone purchase a firearm who is nominally
qualified to purchase a firearm, can identify themselves, and
can pass a background test. That person then brings it back
into another city and resells it, or they are purchasing it on
behalf of someone else, who they turn the firearm over to.
This is the most common problem we have in the way firearms
are trafficked.
Mr. Kennedy. You trace those dealers that you know are
selling to those straw purchasers?
Mr. Buckles. Under the Youth Crime Gun Initiative, we trace
all firearms that are used in a crime so that we can identify
what those sources are to determine whether or not there are
dealers involved. Quite often we find that the dealers
themselves may not be involved, but through the tracing we have
been able to identify who has been involved in the trafficking
of those firearms.
Mr. Kennedy. I am interested in the dealers that you have
oversight over. What percentage of the dealers are trafficking
the majority of the guns that you are seeing?
Mr. Buckles. Well, if you are talking about what percentage
of the dealers are engaging in illegal firearms activities, or
the percentage of dealers. We have trace statistics that show
that the majority of firearms that are used in crime come from
a relatively small percentage of firearms dealers.
Mr. Kennedy. And can you inspect those dealers more than
once in a 12-month period?
Mr. Buckles. We can only do one compliance inspection each.
Mr. Kennedy. And why is that?
Mr. Buckles. That is a statutory limitation on our ability.
Mr. Kennedy. Put on you to tie your hands by the NRA.
Mr. Buckles. It is a law passed by the Congress of the
United States.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, they are an extension of the NRA in a
lot of those respects.
GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM (GREAT)
Mr. Wolf. Your budget request includes $13 million for the
Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, GREAT. The
Committee was told that the program provides outreach to the
local school systems to prevent children from joining gangs. To
date, approximately 3 million children have received training
regarding the hazards of gang activity. And last year, you are
now moving into Justice. Under the Department of Justice
program, this Committee provided $11.9 million for grants to
public and private non-profit organizations to prevent and
reduce participation of at-risk youth in gang activities.
Now that ATF is under Justice, why should we not look at
the ongoing gang education to see if it should be consolidated?
Mr. Buckles. Well, I think that would probably be
appropriate, Mr. Chairman. Our program began when we were under
the jurisdiction of another Appropriations Subcommittee, when
we worked for the Treasury Department. There may be ways in
which the funding on these grants could be looked at to make
sure all the money is being spent effectively.
We have had both short-term and longitudinal studies done
on the GREAT program itself. If you recall, what that involves
is ATF basically providing grants to local police departments.
It is actually implemented by local police officers. We have
trained thousands, I think more than 6,000 police officers
around the country, who actually go into the schools and
deliver this curriculum. ATF's role is basically to supervise
the curriculum to make sure that the program is administered
consistently and the amount of grant money that we have
available is distributed to police departments on an as-needed
basis. They compete for it based upon their need and the gang
problems in the communities, and also their ability to
effectively deliver on the program.
But I think the numbers are somewhere around 200 and some
of the departments actually get some funding under the GREAT
program.
Mr. Wolf. What is the cost, and how is that? How much has
the Congress in the past given you for that program?
Mr. Buckles. It has been at $13 million for a number of
years now.
Mr. Wolf. Level.
Mr. Buckles. It has been pretty level for the last several
years, yes. Some portion of that goes to our administrative
cost, but the vast majority goes out to grants to the police
departments.
Mr. Wolf. Well, it may be a good idea to consolidate it
with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency programs.
It may free you up to do other things, but I think we should
look at that. We are always looking to see if there are ways
you can save money or streamline it, since you now are part of
the Department of Justice.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, was not that eliminated in the
budget? The president's budget eliminates the office of--the
new form of Offices of Juvenile Justice and----
Mr. Wolf. Yes, but we have it here.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I am glad you made that point.
Mr. Wolf. I mean, there are certain things. I mean, I love
this Administration. Let me just say, I pray for President Bush
and I am very pleased that he is there. But I think there are
times that I see things differently on certain of these issues.
And I think that was the whole issue on the first responders,
of taking some of the money from programs that local law
enforcement needed, and you would in essence be drawing from
the same pot. So I think on that issue, we just have a problem
in Northern Virginia with gang violence. We are going to be
calling you. So if you can help us out, we are going to try to
get ATF and some of the other agencies together to meet with
our local law enforcement people. But it is becoming quite
violent in the areas of Northern Virginia that really never had
to deal with this issue. So we will be asking you to kind of
help us out on that issue.
Mr. Buckles. I am familiar with some of those problems, Mr.
Chairman, and I know we are working together to see what we can
do.
Mr. Wolf. And I would appreciate that. Let me just
recognize Mr. Serrano.
IMPACT ADULT USE OF FORCE HAS ON CHILDREN
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I do not
disagree with you on the issue of video games. I think that the
time has come for us to take a close look at what effect video
games may have on violence in society. Although I either
profoundly or sarcastically can tell you that this week,
American children are probably not using the TV screen for
video games. They are watching another adult-type behavior,
which is bombing a country without world support. And I am sure
one of the questions we should ask the witnesses this day is
what effect adults settling issues by using force has on
children, and which one is worse, the video games or bombing
people who have not actually attacked us. But that is an issue
for another day.
Mr. Wolf. That will be at the State Department----
ATF AND FBI RELATIONSHIP
Mr. Serrano. They do not like to watch video games at the
State Department. They like the real thing.
Your relationship with the FBI. At times we have read about
comments back and forth, mostly from their side, about your
abilities--or inabilities--to get the job done. I have to tell
you that to a lot of American people used to think that the ATF
was a part of the FBI, because it always looked like you showed
up at the same time and the same place. In some cases you made
the same mistakes at the same time and the same place, and at
other times you had great success at the same time and the same
place.
I was just reading a report about the gentlemen with the
tractor, after you guys showed up with a white truck--I mean,
it is a serious issue; I would love to know what was in that
white truck that made him leave, but you can tell me that in
private later. What is happening with the relationship between
the FBI and your agents? Have things improved? What needs to be
done, or is it part of what many members of Congress claim was
wrong before September 11th in this country, that there was no
communication between a lot of Federal agencies?
Mr. Buckles. I would have to say, Mr. Congressman, that in
large part ATF and the FBI work together well, and we work
together every day. One of the examples that I gave in my
testimony was a case that we worked jointly with the FBI that
when we had a cigarette trafficking case that had a terrorist
connection, we engaged through the Joint Terrorism Task Force
and worked that case jointly.
Having said that, there are areas where we have had, if you
will, overlapping responsibilities. And I cannot say in every
case it has worked as smoothly as it should. I would tell you
that it works well most of the time, and unfortunately, the
exceptions tend to be what gets a lot of attention.
The source of it is that under the Federal explosives laws,
ATF has responsibilities over certain kinds of Federal bombing
crimes. The FBI has jurisdiction over other federal bombing
crimes that involve terrorists. So the source of primary
jurisdiction relates to what the motive is. Ours relates more
if it is a bomb or not, we have jurisdiction. So there are
cases where we show up at the same scenes and we have to try to
figure out ways that we can work through our respective
responsibilities.
I have to tell you, we show up at the same places every day
in all sorts of different situations, and in the vast majority
of cases, we work very well with the FBI. I have spoken with
Director Mueller. He is an outstanding leader who, like
Director Freeh before him, is determined that Federal law
enforcement agencies will work well together. So I do not see
any major problem there. There are minor problems. I think some
of those minor problems on how we interface now have an
opportunity to be addressed more effectively in that we are in
the same Executive Department.
It was a little bit harder to sort those things out when we
were under different Department leadership. But I am confident
that now that we are within the Justice Department, those kinds
of issues can be ironed out much more effectively.
Mr. Serrano. Do you think it is an ongoing getting-along-
better process? It does not require any special sit-downs to
try to target or----
Mr. Buckles. I do not think so.
Mr. Serrano. Or are you just suggesting that you do this on
a daily basis, and the press only tells us about certain
instances.
Mr. Buckles. Sometimes people in our own agency tend to
only talk about it when something goes wrong. I think a common
tendency we all have is to talk about things that do not go as
well as they could, rather than--when things work well, people
do not seem to notice it. But I do not think it requires
anything beyond some of the efforts that we are currently going
through with the Justice Department, where the Attorney General
is interested in what all of our jurisdictions are in the area
of explosives and what the FBI is doing and how those issues
should work out.
And it is not all just related to responding to particular
incidents. As you know we have a training facility in Virginia
where we conduct explosives training. The FBI also has
explosives training that it conducts at Redstone arsenal in
Alabama, and we need to make sure that we are aligned in the
training, that we are not duplicating our efforts. There are
many things that we do that are just simply different. And
having two agencies do two different things is not necessarily
bad.
These are issues that the Attorney General is interested in
examining, in terms of our investigative jurisdiction, our
technical capabilities, and our training services and
laboratory services to make sure that we are conducting our
work in the most effective and efficient way and that we all
know how we are going to be working together. So I am confident
that whatever the issues are they are going to be worked out
effectively.
IMPACT OF DOJ GUN PHILOSOPHY
Mr. Serrano. Okay, let me present to you an issue that is
probably on the minds of a lot of folks who are beginning to
pay attention. And that is the fact that as you come under the
umbrella of the Justice Department, some of the Justice
Department's current leadership's beliefs on certain issues, we
fear, may begin to influence your decisions. Now, every time
Attorney General Ashcroft sits in front of this Committee, I
find myself sort of with mixed feelings. Because on one hand, I
have a desire as a fellow human being to like him, and on the
other hand, the older he gets, the more to the right he goes.
And the older I get, the more to the left I go. The gap
continues to grow between us, but we try to be cordial about
it.
A lot of people are feeling that his views, and there is no
other way of saying it, will have great influence on ATF and
the whole issue of guns in this country. And there is ongoing
dilemma and ongoing controversy about a person's right to own a
gun. And then, on the other side, people like me are saying,
``Yes, but those guys in the Bronx with those Saturday night
specials are not the people we are supposed to be protecting,
so why are you guys protecting these guys when we are not after
you?''
What can you tell us about the fears that some of us have
that the Justice Department's current philosophy on guns may
affect your day-to-day operations?
Mr. Buckles. Well, I think the answer lies quite a bit in
what our role is, in what kind of responsibilities we have. We
are an agency whose job is and has been to oversee existing
laws enacted by Congress. We have not been involved in the
political arena about what kind of gun control might be
necessary or the more philosophical and political issues on gun
control. Our efforts have been designed to enforcing the
existing laws.
So in that respect, I have to tell you that we have seen
really no change in the movement from the Treasury Department
to the Justice Department, or quite frankly even from one
Administration to the other in terms of what we are doing in
trying to enforce the firearms laws in this country in a way to
protect the American public.
So in that sense, I can only tell you what my experience
has been as I have been with ATF for 28 years. I have been
through many Administrations, back and forth, and despite the
fact that a lot of people think of us as being at the political
forefront on issues of gun control, our mission really is
limited in enforcing the laws that have been passed. And we
have found support through every Administration for our efforts
to make sure that we are enforcing the existing gun laws.
In terms of larger gun control policy, quite frankly, my
experience has been over the years that that has always been
the daily work of the Justice Department. Even when ATF was in
the Treasury Department, enforcing existing law, issues about
the development, say for example, of the Brady Bill, or
whatever firearms legislation you might want to talk about, on
the policy on gun control issues, really were driven by the
Justice Department.
In that sense, those issues have not moved from Treasury to
Justice. I have watched them reside in the Justice Department
as it is. I can only tell you if your fears are that there is
some influence on how we are enforcing the gun laws, I can just
honestly tell you that what we are doing today is very much the
same thing we were doing four or five years ago under a
different Administration in a different Executive Department.
And we are finding strong support for us trying to do what
we can to address gun violence in this country.
Mr. Serrano. Okay, thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Cramer.
ATF TRAINING
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome before the
Subcommittee. I am sure we will have a good and aggressive
relationship with one another. I want to weave through some of
the issues. As you know, I have made a few remarks to you about
your, more or less, your explosive school, your training center
down the road in Virginia there. The focus of that is for the
regulation of the explosives industry?
Mr. Buckles. No. Most of the training that we do at the
Fort AP Hill facility that we are doing now, and, frankly,
other training that we do around the country, is focused
largely in the criminal area and largely on post-blast type
investigations. That is something that is different than what
is done at Redstone, which is a hazardous device school where
bomb technicians learn how to deal with hazardous devices and
disrupting them. We do not teach that kind of training. We
teach how to put the scene back together after the bomb goes
off, to reconstruct what kind of device was used.
So that is a large part of what we do.
Mr. Cramer. And how do you engage that training? Do you
bring teams in for that training? How do you conduct the
training there?
Mr. Buckles. Yes, we have ATF employees who are involved in
the training. We also have contractors.
Mr. Cramer. Who comes to the training?
Mr. Buckles. About 25 percent of the training that goes on
down there are ATF employees, where we are training our own
people. The other 75 percent would include state and local
investigators and bomb techs. And we also do training for the
State Department for bomb investigators from around the world.
GREAT PROGRAM INTERFACE WITH COMMUNITIES
Mr. Cramer. I want to switch now to the Gang Resistance
Education and Training program. How long has that existed? I
mean, not exactly, but----
Mr. Buckles. It has probably been in existence for 8 or 10
years.
Mr. Cramer. And we have had, probably still have, in my
area of north Alabama, a gang problem, which is a problem we
thought we would be spared. But is that--how are we doing with
that problem, and how is this program interfacing with
communities like mine?
Mr. Buckles. Well, I do not know if we have the gang
program in your community, but we have the GREAT program being
taught by almost 1,800 police departments across this country.
Some in many large cities, but as you know, you do not have to
be in a large city to have a gang problem. We have many smaller
police departments that are also involved in delivering the
GREAT program. Obviously, like anything else, it is not a cure
all. But we believe it does have an impact in communities. I
made reference to the fact that the 200 and some departments
actually get federal funding from us to carry out the programs.
But when you think there are 1,800 police departments
delivering this training.
Mr. Cramer. Is it competitive the way that is done? I mean,
do they----
Mr. Buckles. Yes. And we look at the whole variety of
things in terms of the nature of the gang problem that exists.
So we have grant procedures that we go through and who well get
them.
Mr. Cramer. And I would like to get more information from
you, and not necessarily now, about how many communities have
participated in that, and how that process works.
Mr. Buckles. But one of the things, I think, that helps
indicate the value of this program is that only a few hundred
actually get funding from us for the program, yet I think
something like 1,800 police departments around the country
engage in the GREAT program. So I think that is a testament
that police departments around the country see value in that
even if it is something that the Federal government does not
give them direct money to carry out. They are willing to spend
their own time and money on the program.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Cramer. And now I want to switch to your information
technology. You said that your state of the art equipment and
standard systems infrastructure have greatly improved your
abilities. How long has that equipment and system existed?
Mr. Buckles. Basically, we were able to use the year 2000
conversion money to get most of our systems off of mainframe
computers, onto new server technology so that we are not locked
into those old kinds of programs. We have unified architecture
on every program that is written in the bureau, so we have got
the ability to make things integrate. We were one of the first
agencies to engage in what was called seat management. We were
always running behind. Every time you would get a little money
you would buy a few more computers and then you would have one
segment of the agency that would have advanced computers and
somebody else still had the old ones, and files and software
and everything did not mesh.
We went to a process where we now lease computers through a
contract so that every computer on every employee's desk in ATF
contains the identical software and has the identical
capability. All of our major programs are written at the same
time in the same kind of programming language so that we have
the ability to share information across the board.
Mr. Serrano. So, do you have any needs in that regard? I
mean does this budget reflect coverage?
Mr. Buckles. We are not asking for any additional money.
The main investment that we have to make right now in our
information technology has to do with complying with the
requirements of the Government Information Security Reform Act
(GISRA) on the information security.
Some of our systems that were built several years ago are
not compliant yet with the information security requirements
and that is going to require an investment during the course of
this year and probably into next year to get all of our systems
compliant on the information security side.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I encourage you to get what you need and
to tell us what you need, because I am amazed at how critical
agencies like yours are so poorly equipped in this day and
time, and how they lack abilities to cross communicate and to
do things that big companies are doing regularly all over the
world. So, please work with us on that. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
GUN TRAFFICKING
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow up on
that computerization of records. To go back to your question on
the one percent that traffic most in these guns that end up as
purchasers and ask what you are doing if you know that there
are a minority of federally licensed gun dealers dealing in
most of gun-related trafficking, what are you doing to crack
down on that?
Mr. Buckles. What we have done is use our trace data to be
able to identify where the sources of the firearms are. That is
really only the first step because it does not tell you whether
or not the dealer was involved in it or what the source of the
problem really is.
We conducted a study several years ago, about two years ago
now where we went out and conducted a thorough and complete top
to bottom inspection and found that one percent of the dealers
had most of the firearms traced to them.
What we found in that was the entire range of things. In
some cases we found dealers who were very dirty, who had been
selling guns, hundreds and hundreds of guns off the books, and
we found other dealers who were complying with every law and
regulation there was on the books and were not in any way
complicit, but one of the reasons they had a large number of
guns showing up was that they were very large volume dealers.
So, if you took a percentage of their sales, they did not
have an inordinate percentage of guns they were selling ending
up in crime. It was simply a matter that they were large volume
dealers. What we have been engaged in over the last few years
is to develop a more data driven inspection regime where we are
using the data from our traces to identify who it is that we
need to spend our time on.
As I mentioned, we only have less than 500 inspectors
around the country, so we have to be very selective on who we
spend our time looking at and making sure that we are not
spending a lot of time on dealers who are really not the
problem and who are complying with the law.
So, we are engaged in this process of developing a more
data driven way in which to approach those dealers and are
hoping that is going to yield a much greater benefit when it
comes to how we use those resources.
Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate that, especially acknowledging
what you just said that there are so few dealers for the number
of inspections that they have to make, that as far as taking--
how long it would take for them to inspect all federally
licensed gun dealers, it would take 28 years to visit each
licensee only once according to my statistics.
Maybe it is 20 years but it is clearly where I am more
interested is getting compliance of Federal law in the source
of guns and that is why I want to go back to Mr. Serrano's
question about where the pressure is going to be for you to
spend your resources.
And a lot of people who want to run away from their
obligations to help us crack down on gun-related violence, wrap
themselves in this well we want to prosecute all those gun-
related crimes, and yet when it comes to special interest
groups like the NRA saying well we do not want, you know, a lot
of crackdown on this and that because, you know, that infringes
on our--that is Big Brother. That is infringing on our rights.
You know, the agency does not, you know, put its resources
behind that. So, I want to ask in 2002 there were 3,625 onsite
inspection visits and, you know, my statistics show that, you
know, the evidence is that most of your resources are going to
other laws that deal with use of guns in criminal activity and
things that end up on the street rather than working on trying
to limit the number of guns that originally get in the street.
We talked earlier about drug interdiction and the Chairman
was very eloquent saying we need to stop the drugs at their
source, get FDA to work with DEA to stop it and that is what I
am interested in with guns. Let's try to stop it at the source.
So, maybe you could comment on maybe needing more resources to
do that?
Mr. Buckles. Sure. I would just make the observation that
the only firearms initiative growth that we have proposed in
this budget is, in fact, an interdiction initiative, the Youth
Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. It is one that focuses on
tracing firearms and tracking them back to the source to
interdict those firearms before they end up in the hands of
youth.
So, if the concern is that we are turning away from that,
in fact the only new initiative that is represented in this
budget actually is one aimed at that end of the problem.
MONITORING THE MANUFACTURE OF GUNS
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have discretion on how you monitor the
make, the caliber of the guns out there so we get more
information on what guns are being manufactured and sold in
this country?
Mr. Buckles. We do get reports on the guns being
manufactured and sold, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. But not the specific numbers of----
Mr. Buckles. Well, I think we have fairly specific data but
I will caution that by saying I have not looked at those
reports in a while and I cannot tell you exactly how they are
broken down but I know we do have reports that manufacturers
and importers are required to file with us that tell us details
about the weapons they are manufacturing and bringing into the
country.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, I appreciate your work in this area and
I look forward to working with you through this Committee to
help you in your efforts. I know you get beat up a lot by those
that see you as the enemy when you are following the law and I
might add it is a law that could be strengthened substantially
and I know that is our job up here, that whole idea that you
can only inspect dealers once in every 12-month period.
I understand in the past that the computer record keeping
was done on paper which made it inordinately difficult to track
gun-related crimes, and it was almost deliberately put in the
bill that you had to stay on paper. You could not go to
computerization because of the worry that the National Rifle
Association had that that was going to mean more inspections,
more tracking and tracing. Do you have any understanding of
what that history is?
Mr. Buckles. Yes. Well, let me say that from the point of
view of our dealings with any guns involved in crime, we have a
very sophisticated ability to handle that tracing information,
to sort it. We provide through the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction
Initiative and many others reports on crime gun use to police
departments around the country and it is proving to be very
effective.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Mr. Buckles. The one area of records that we maintain that
has been sensitive has dealt not with crime gun information we
have but there is a requirement in federal law that dealers
have to keep records on every firearm they sell so that we can
trace them when they go out of business.
In order to maintain our ability to trace a crime gun, the
law requires that their records be turned over to us so we have
an out of business record center that keeps all of the records
of every sale made by a licensee who goes out of business.
There have been concerns that we not computerize all of
those records in the sense of developing computerized
capability to look at who is purchasing firearms, et cetera,
where they have not been used in any crime. They are simply
records of legitimate sale.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the attorney general say that we want you
to expunge every record a year after the purchase of the gun or
five--two or three years? I remember this was an issue last
year or the year before how long----
Mr. Buckles. I think you are talking about in the Brady
checks, those are not records maintained by ATF. They are
maintained by the FBI through the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System. I cannot tell you exactly what all of
the circumstances around that were but I think that is what you
are referring to.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Mr. Buckles. That is not a record system that ATF
maintains.
Mr. Kennedy. But it would be useful to you in doing your
investigations?
Mr. Buckles. We use some of that information when we go out
to inspect a dealer to determine whether or not they have
complied with Brady, and we work with the Justice Department to
ensure that we have information so that we can determine if
people are complying with it.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, but you can track the straw purchasers if
Justice destroys the Brady records within a year or two.
Mr. Buckles. Well, I think it is a shorter period than
that.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, that makes it ever more worrisome.
Mr. Buckles. It is required by law that those records be
disposed of or purged within a reasonable period of time, and I
think the debate that is gone on is what period of time is
reasonable.
Mr. Kennedy. I thank you for your good work and hope that
we can try to correct some of those other things and thank you
for your work in Rhode Island. You know we had a lot of support
from various federal agencies and certainly yours in the
investigation that is ongoing into our tragic fires welcomed
and appreciated. So, I want to thank you for that.
Mr. Buckles. Thank you.
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. When information is found
out with regard to terrorism, there is the new TTIC threat, a
terrorist threat integration center, how will your information
that you acquire from whatever investigation get there? Will it
be through the FBI? Would you give it to the FBI and they would
take it there or how will that--or have you given that any
thought?
Mr. Buckles. I am not sure exactly how the details of that
information will flow. I know we work directly with the FBI. We
are members of every joint terrorism task force around the
country. We have a representative on the National Joint
Terrorism Task Force here in Washington, the FBI's, so we have
all sorts of plug-ins to that system.
CONFLICT DIAMONDS
Mr. Wolf. When you were in Treasury, I know we are trying
to pass legislation dealing with conflict diamonds. Al Qaeda
and Hezbollah have used conflict diamonds coming out of Sierra
Leone and places. You have seen pictures where they have hacked
off the arms of the children over the last several years. Did
ATF ever get involved in that issue at Treasury Department, or
were you ever involved anywhere?
Mr. Buckles. Not that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Because some of the same people that are involved
in smuggling of cigarettes and different things like that were
involved in that but the issue of conflict diamonds never came?
Mr. Buckles. No, that does not ring a bell with me,
although, if they were also involved in some of the counterfeit
or contraband cigarette smuggling, I can assure you we were
working with Customs on many cases involving that activity from
around the world and maybe I am just not familiar with what
some of the other crimes that were going on and being committed
by the same people.
INFORMATION SHARING
Mr. Wolf. The FBI has a new program trilogy which the
committee has funded at a pretty high rate and are your names
going into their computer system with regard to if you are
involved in people with regard to terrorist crimes, training,
and how will you be sharing with them? I do not mean for the
TTIC as to a threat assessment, but how will you be sharing the
information that you are working on with regard to this?
Because many times people that are involved in, let's say,
cigarette trafficking are involved in sex trafficking down
through Albania and places like that. Or, if you are involved
with a cartel that has been involved, how will the people you
will be working on be shared with the FBI?
Mr. Buckles. Well, we have a number of systems that do
that, particularly--and when systems do not do it, we have
people involved in task forces so that the databases are
available to the FBI through the National Joint Terrorism Task
Forces, et cetera, so that we have agents there who have access
to all of the information in ATF databases.
Mr. Wolf. Do your computers talk to each other?
Mr. Buckles. Our computers do not fully talk to each other
right now and I will tell you that one of the things we are
doing in ATF, and our major focus over the past three years,
and we have made huge strides in that, is making sure that
internally all of our computers talk to each other. Many law
enforcement agencies and other organizations have had problems,
even within their own organization of making sure that all
information that you have is available everywhere it should be.
Mr. Wolf. And are doing well with that?
Mr. Buckles. We are doing very well in that and we have
made tremendous strides in terms of bringing all of our
information together and so that we are not missing ways to
connect the dots when it comes to ATF investigations. So that
if we have a name popping up in a firearms importation
application we need to know that somewhere else in the country
there may be a criminal investigation involving that same
individual and we have systems now that we have been able to
convert to that will facilitate this within ATF.
The next challenge we all have is how to make our
respective databases interactive with other agencies and to
what extent to do it as well because sometimes there are
circumstances surrounding information we have that does not
necessarily need to be shared everywhere across the government
instantaneously, but rather on a need-to-know basis.
But that is really the next challenge we are facing. We are
currently in the process of reexamining our organization of
what I will call our intelligence division, Basically we do not
gather intelligence, but like any agency we have to be able to
manage the information we have and make sure it is being used
to its maximum potential.
As I said, we have made great strides on doing that
internally but we have looked at our overall organization and
that intelligence division right now is at a kind of a layer
below the main executive level. We are probably going to
propose something that would move that up. The main reason is
it will facilitate us to plug into other agencies to make sure
the information we have that the FBI or other people need to
know is transmitted to them, and to make sure that if they have
information we need that that information is coming to us.
Mr. Wolf. Now, that you are in Justice, how often do the
different heads get together, you and Mr. Mueller, and U.S.
Marshal Service, once a month?
Mr. Buckles. Once a month would be the routine basis where
we would get together but obviously there would be things in
between where there would be reasons for us either to get
together or speak on the telephone.
ATF FOCUS
Mr. Wolf. Your budget justification refers to ATF as a team
player in the fight against terrorist financing, especially in
efforts to reduce the rising trend of illegal diversion of
distilled spirit and tobacco products. You also mention an ATF
case involving tobacco diversion and you mentioned in your
testimony Hezbollah, the North Carolina case. I remember
reading that in the paper.
Would you tell the committee what percentage of your
personnel is dedicated to these investigations?
Mr. Buckles. It is a very small percentage. I believe it is
about one percent, so Alcohol and Tobacco is still 50 percent
of our name but it is probably only a little more than one
percent of what we do.
Mr. Wolf. Should we change the name?
Mr. Buckles. Well, that was something that was being
bantered around when the Congress was moving us to the Justice
Department. There were a number of names that were floated.
Mr. Wolf. What would you change it to, I mean if----
Mr. Buckles. Well, there was Firearms and Explosives
Agency, you know because even though we were going to have some
small amount of alcohol and tobacco, there was an argument that
it should not be that prominent in the name.
Mr. Wolf. Tobacco is so small now, isn't it?
Mr. Buckles. Yes. Well, actually alcohol is the smallest
portion of what we do at this point because while there is some
alcohol trafficking, it is a much bigger commodity to move, and
there would be a lot more problems. Interstate cigarette
smuggling is more profitable so we tend to see a little more of
that. So, of those two, probably tobacco gets a little more
resources at this point than the alcohol would.
Mr. Wolf. So, if you had to break down the percent, I mean
what?
Mr. Buckles. Probably about 75 percent of what we do would
be firearms and 24 percent would be arson and explosives, and
probably one percent the alcohol and tobacco diversion.
Mr. Wolf. Well, is there just this kind of attachment to
the name because--or is it----
Mr. Buckles. Well, we did not have a whole lot of say when
this was happening. I can tell you that part of the feeling was
there is a certain brand name that goes along with ATF that had
been established, at least those letters.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Buckles. Not so much all of the words involved and, you
know, most people do not remember today that 3M means Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing, and I think there was a sense on some
people here on the Hill who were involved in this move that
there was a value in keeping the name. Technically all of those
jurisdictions are still there. I might note that, as you have
seen, our name now has explosives on the end as well.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Buckles. And we have made a conscious decision to stick
with the three letters, ATF, as our abbreviation just because
that is the brand name. I know the Center for Disease Control
recently had ``and Prevention'' added to their name but they
have stayed with CDC. I thought that was a pretty good model,
and we have decided to stay with ATF as our initials.
ATF PARTICIPATION IN BOMBING INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is certainly not for this committee to
decide but explosives, if you look in to see with the terrorist
activity around the world, if you have been to Israel and see
what they are going through and some of the other countries,
the Kenyan bombing, the Tanzania bombing, you know, the USS
Cole, and the Riyadh bombing, the Beirut bombing, marine
barracks bombing, the Beirut Embassy bombing, explosives,
explosives, explosives. I assume you had people over there in
Kenya and Tanzania?
Mr. Buckles. No, we did not. We made our services available
to the FBI but we did not participate in that.
Mr. Wolf. I would have thought they would have had somebody
from your office involved in that investigation. Do they have
their own explosive people?
Mr. Buckles. I believe that case was being handled by the
New York City Field Office. I believe I read the Osama bin
Laden al Qaeda investigation was a New York City case, so it
was being handled by the New York Field Division and their
joint terrorism task force. They have the New York City Bomb
Squad that works as part of that joint terrorism task force.
So, in terms of the work they were doing, the New York City
Bomb Squad, as everything else with New York, is probably
second to none in terms of its capability. So I think having
their resources available, we spoke with Director Freeh back in
those days and made sure he was aware that anything we could do
that they needed we would, but as it turned out, they did not
need our resources.
Mr. Wolf. Are you involved in any of the bombings, the USS
Cole, Riyadh?
Mr. Buckles. No, none of the international bombings.
Mr. Wolf. See, that explains. I would have thought that you
would have had someone.
Mr. Buckles. Well, these are, you know, frankly these are
some of the issues I think the Attorney General is going to be
able to look at to make sure that now that we are all in the
Justice Department that all of the resources available in the
Justice Department are being used to the maximum extent and
there is no artificial or organizational reasons that resources
might not be brought to bear. We were part of the Treasury
Department during that period of time. Now we are in Justice.
Mr. Wolf. That could have been a hindrance, you know, there
but I would think now you would want to be or they would want
to have someone from ATF involved. You know the first World
Trade bombing came about. Then we had the second World Trade. I
mean these things repeat themselves and what is going on in
Israel today.
Mr. Buckles. Right. And, of course, we did work on the
first World Trade Center bombing along with the FBI, the Murrah
Building bombing.
Mr. Wolf. Who had the lead at the Murrah Building bombing,
you or FBI?
Mr. Buckles. The FBI was the lead, but we had a task force
where there was an FBI person at the top of it but we had
assistant special agents in charge who were--who participated
in the investigation, the same thing with the Eric Rudolph
case. We had the Olympic Bomb Task Force, supporting the
Centennial Park bombing.
Mr. Wolf. He has never been caught has he?
Mr. Buckles. No. The FBI took the lead on the bombing at
Centennial Park because it was part of the Olympics and the
agreement was they were heading up that responsibility.
But if you recall, Eric Rudolph then bombed The Other Side
Lounge and a couple of abortion clinics. Because those were the
traditional kinds of bombings ATF worked we had the lead in
those bombings. It was subsequently developed that the suspect
in our bombing was also the suspect in the Centennial Park
bombing and that became a joint task force with ATF, FBI, and
the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and others.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Eric Rudolph was
apprehended on May 21, 2003 by the Cherokee County Sheriff's
Office of North Carolina.]
ATF WORK IN ISRAEL
Mr. Wolf. Have you had a team ever go to Israel to look at
what they are faced with?
Mr. Buckles. Yes, we have, and we have worked with the
Israelis on some explosives studies that we have done. We had a
program where we were doing studies on the effects of vehicle
bombs and we also worked with the Israelis in some studies that
we did at congressional request on the possible tagging of
explosive materials for post detonation tracing.
LICENSEE EXPLOSIVE EFFORTS
Mr. Wolf. Your request includes 88 new inspector positions,
$10 million for licensee explosive efforts, including the
creation of a new National Explosive Licensing Center in
Martinsburg, West Virginia. Why West Virginia?
Mr. Buckles. We have a facility in West Virginia right now
that would handle this. It sounds like a huge operation by
calling it a National Licensing Center.
Mr. Wolf. How many people will be there?
Mr. Buckles. I am not sure what the ultimate size of this
would be but it would be handling the 20,000 or so permitees
that we have.
Mr. Wolf. Roughly what do you think the number would be?
Mr. Buckles. I am just going to guess and say somewhere
around 20 people.
Mr. Wolf. Twenty people, and you are not moving people from
this region out there?
Mr. Buckles. No.
Mr. Wolf. Because that is not fair to the families. They
would have to be uprooted and kids pulled out of school just to
put something in West Virginia.
Mr. Buckles. No, and the current licensing of the
explosives permitting is done at our facility in Atlanta.
Mr. Wolf. So, that will stay?
Mr. Buckles. And that will stay and they do the 103,000
federal firearms licensees plus 8,900 explosives licensees, so
it is a fairly small piece of that, less than ten percent is
what we will move up to space that we already have. It is where
we have our tracing center in West Virginia.
It is a former IRS facility that we were able to acquire.
We will have enough room in there to put the explosive
licensing, and it is small enough that we will not be moving
numbers of people up from Atlanta.
We will, based on attrition, allow them to right size to
handle the firearms licensees and we will handle the explosive
ones. We just physically do not have any room to expand in
Atlanta which is the biggest problem we have there.
ATF HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Wolf. Just a couple more questions, then Mr. Serrano.
Your new headquarters, where are they and is the building on
schedule?
Mr. Buckles. It is as on schedule as any Federal building
project can be. It is going to be built at New York Avenue and
Florida Avenue and that is around 1st Street, N.E.
Mr. Wolf. Have you broken ground?
Mr. Buckles. We had the official groundbreaking last
spring. They are actually going to start digging a hole
sometime here in the next month or so. GSA has the final
construction contracts out and they should actually start the
construction, in May.
Once that starts, there is a construction cycle in the
contract that, I believe is something in the order of 720 days
and there will be penalties of $5,000 a day if the building is
not completed on time. So, we are confident once this contract
is actually issued to the general contractor and they begin
construction that we will be on a good schedule.
But this has frankly been a very frustrating process over
the course of many years. We started this in 1994 and 1995. So,
if you hear a little frustration in my voice it is because it
has been so long trying to get this thing done.
TELECOMMUTING
Mr. Wolf. Telecommuting, the Committee has put language in
urging agencies to allow people to telecommute and any
employees that you have, particularly in this region but
anywhere else, Atlanta where there is a terrific traffic
problem, how many people telecommute from your headquarters?
Mr. Buckles. I could not really tell you the exact numbers.
I know we use it kind of as a flexiplace where people are
allowed to, in some cases, work from home.
Mr. Wolf. Well, could you give it for the record?
Mr. Buckles. I can provide you for the record what we are
doing.
Mr. Wolf. And how many people total?
Mr. Buckles. Yes. We will be able to give you those
numbers.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, and what your plans are for allowing others
to telework?
Mr. Buckles. Yes, we can provide all that to you.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
information was provided:]
Progress in Adopting Telecommuting and Flexiplace
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)
recognizes the potential benefits of telecommuting and flexiplace
arrangements. Reduced costs associated with space, improved work
operations, better customer service and increased employee morale are
just a few of the observed and anticipated benefits of using alternate
work site arrangements.
ATF is making progress with implementing telecommuting and
flexiplace on several fronts.
Headquarters Flexiplace Program--A proposal has been prepared for
management's consideration on a program that will cover all
headquarters bargaining and non-bargaining unit positions that lend
themselves to flexiplace work arrangements. The nature of work
performed by most headquarters organizational units and limited funds
for purchasing required telecommunications equipment will likely limit
the initial participation to 25 percent of the positions identified.
Ad Hoc Work at Home Arrangements--On a case-by-case basis, a number
of Headquarters employees are currently working at a home workplace.
These arrangements, though not covered by a formal flexiplace program,
are utilized by supervisors and managers to accommodate short-term
medical emergencies and for the completion of assignments that are
project oriented in nature and can be performed from a home workplace.
Flexiplace Pilot Project for Field Instructors--ATF recently
completed a one-year pilot project in which a selected group of ATF
alcohol and tobacco inspectors worked from their home workplace and
reported to their assigned duty station only when necessary.
Preliminary analysis indicates the pilot was a great success. Twenty-
one inspectors are continuing to work under the arrangement while
further analysis and expansion considerations are being discussed.
Hoteling--This concept, which is the sharing of workspace by
multiple users, has been integrated into the design of the new
headquarters building. Approximately 75 spaces will be designed for
hoteling, which is an aspect of the flexiplace program.
ATF CANINE CENTER
Mr. Wolf. And the last question I guess and then Mr.
Serrano. You have the 2002 Anti-terrorism Supplemental that
provided additional funding to expand the ATF Canine Center in
Front Royal, which is my congressional district. What are your
plans with regard to that center and the training of
individuals from other countries?
Mr. Buckles. Right.
Mr. Wolf. How does that differ from what some of the other
training centers have?
Mr. Buckles. Well, this is a training facility we have just
for canines and we share the site currently with the U.S.
Customs Service. As you may recall, we opened this facility a
couple of years ago.
Mr. Wolf. What percentage of the appropriations is Customs,
what percentage is ATF?
Mr. Buckles. Well, we have our own separate Appropriations
for that. I think their operation may be slightly larger than
ours in terms of the number of dogs they train. They are
training dogs primarily for drug detection.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Buckles. And we have our kennel facilities that are
right there adjacent to the Customs Service kennel facility so
that we can get some benefit of being together with them there.
Our actual training building itself is separate. It is up the
road a piece from where the Customs Training Facility is but it
is all in the same general property area.
What we are doing right now is we have sufficient kennel
capacity to handle additional training at that site but the
building that was constructed will not handle the additional
training demands that we have. That is the money we received a
few years ago and we are looking at a number of sites in that
particular area to be able to expand the training.
Mr. Wolf. What about some of the other agencies now like
TSA? Are they using dogs or do they need dogs?
Mr. Buckles. Well, we train dogs for a number of agencies,
explosives detection dogs. I do not believe we are training any
for TSA at this point.
Mr. Wolf. What other agencies are you training?
Mr. Buckles. The FBI has ATF trained canines, the State
Department, and perhaps the Marshal Service. I would have to
get you the details on that but we have trained both for other
federal agencies. We have also trained dogs for state and local
law enforcement.
Mr. Wolf. When the diplomatic, like one time I was out
there they were training people from Egypt. Is that paid out of
the State Department money?
Mr. Buckles. That is paid out of the State Department
funds. We have trained dogs for, I do not know exactly how many
countries around the world but I was out there around that same
period of time and we were training dogs for Australia to get
ready when they were having the Olympics.
So, we have trained under the State Department contract and
they contract with us and reimburse us for the expenses for
that training. I think we have trained, in the hundreds of the
dogs for law enforcement around the world.
Mr. Wolf. And what about state and local?
Mr. Buckles. State and local, we currently have I believe
about 35, 36 explosives detection canines and 50 or so
accelerant detecting canines because we also train dogs for the
accelerant, used in arson investigations to determine whether
or not an accelerant was used to start a fire. So, we are
training dogs in both of those disciplines and will probably
together have close to 100 of these dogs out in state and local
agencies.
Mr. Wolf. What is your competition for dog training? There
is training on one on military bases.
Mr. Buckles. Well, military trains some explosives
detection dogs. I believe the FAA, you referred to TSA. I know
at one point the FAA had--was looking at explosives detection
canines. There are a variety of companies that will supply
explosives detection canines. I read about it in the paper not
too long ago. There is such a large demand for this.
Someone was recently indicted for selling bomb detection
dogs to someone where the dogs could not find bombs but there
was a tremendous demand for those kinds of dogs so I think
people need to be careful on what they are doing.
We have a very, very structured program. We require all the
dogs to be re-certified every year and have very strict
standards on how they are trained. We believe we have the
finest explosive detection canines in the world that go through
our system but there are other agencies that do this as well.
Mr. Wolf. Great, thank you--Mr. Serrano.
BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
ask one last question. Can you explain to us briefly ballistic
fingerprinting, what is it, and how reliable is it, and is this
something that you are going to expand on or are we nervous
about using it?
Mr. Buckles. Well, I do not think we are nervous about
using it. We have recently completed the roll out of the
National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) and
that is a computerized system where you can input shell casings
and projectiles, the actual bullets from weapons. We have
deployed NIBIN at over 200 police departments and law
enforcement agencies around the country who put this
information into their computers.
The computer does a sorting of the data so that you can
find connections between two different crimes that you would
not have known were related. The actual science of looking at
ballistics evidence itself is longstanding and well recognized
by the courts.
The trick has always been that you have to have some reason
to know you want to compare a particular shell casing to some
other crime that was not related. The ability to match those
ballistics fingerprints, if you will, and we call them that
sometimes because the markings left on shell casings or bullets
are unique like fingerprints.
But the trick has always been how do you find out if you
have evidence that link crimes when you do not know which ones
to compare it against. You cannot go compare a handgun that is
recovered from a criminal against thousands of--or tens of
thousands of pieces of evidence that may be around the country.
This system will allow you to put all the data in there.
The computer would look for possible matches. It would then
bring it up and it would still require a forensic firearms
examiner to determine whether or not there were any true
matches. So, that is something that is being used quite
aggressively in forensic law enforcement at this point.
Mr. Serrano. So there still has to be the human aspect of
trying to----
Mr. Buckles. There still has to be the human aspect of
actually calling a confirmed match. Now, there were some
suggestions during the sniper investigation, for example, that
perhaps we should try to capture some sort of computerized
image of shell casings or projectiles for all guns before they
are sold.
So that if you ever have a crime committed, you could take
that shell casing or bullet and compare it against the universe
of evidence that would be in a computer and you could find
matches, even cases where there had not been a previous crime
committed with the firearm.
That is something that expands dramatically the amount of
information that would have to be in the computer if you were
capturing it on every gun whereas we capture it right now only
on crime guns. And so, the question is if you had that much
data, would it still be able to do reliable sorts that would be
useful?
We have been tasked with participating in a study with the
Justice Department as to what kind of capabilities this same
computer equipment would have in perhaps that larger context.
Mr. Serrano. Okay, well I want to thank you for your
testimony today and we will be seeing each other as this
process goes on.
Mr. Buckles. I look forward to it.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Wolf. All right, Mr. Serrano, thank you very much and I
think it is a good fit. It will be good to have you at Justice
and I often wondered, you know, why. I think years ago there
was a reorganization. I think you were--at one time there was
some consideration maybe back during the Nixon administration,
I am not sure, of putting you in and changing some others and
then no agency wants to lose, and so no cabinet secretary wants
to lose.
But I think it will fit. I think you and Director Mueller
being in the same, not building, but the same agency should I
think be good for the country, but we thank you for your
testimony. If you could have somebody on this--the issue of any
cases whereby people were convicted and at the trial came out
the day had trained or had used the video. Again, I am talking
about violence.
Mr. Buckles. Right.
Mr. Wolf. We are not talking about the other stuff, and
anything that you have if you could get that to me as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Buckles. Okay. I will certainly do that and I will
follow up on the issue with the telecommuting.
Mr. Wolf. Great, thank you very much.
Mr. Buckles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. The hearing is adjourned. Thanks.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003.
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
WITNESS
CARL R. PEED, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
Opening Remarks of Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf [presiding]. Good morning. The hearing will come
to order.
I want to welcome, Assistant Attorney General Daniels and
Director Carl Peed, whom I have known for a long, long time for
appearing before the Subcommittee this morning to discuss the
Department of Justice fiscal year 2004 budget request for State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs.
OJP and COPS administer a variety of grants and programs
that can have significant impact on the safety and well being
of families and communities across the nation. These programs
support critical law enforcement activities, including
juvenile-delinquency prevention, law-enforcement hiring and
overtime, drug-abuse prevention, intelligence sharing and
communications initiatives, the missing and exploited children
program and assistance for victims of trafficking.
This year's budget request reflects the transfer of the
Office of Domestic Preparedness to the newly established
Department of Homeland Security. We would like to thank the
employees of the Office of Domestic Preparedness for their good
work. I am sure they will fit in very well over into the
Homeland Security.
Since September 11 attacks, crime has increased across the
country, and State and local governments are suffering from
historic budget shortfalls. Yet, the Administration's fiscal
year 2004 budget request proposes a $1.2 billion, or 34 percent
reduction, in discretionary funding for successful State and
local programs available for law enforcement.
While the Subcommittee's allocation will be tight this
year, we do want to ensure that sufficient resources are
provided to prevent the continued growth in crimes such as
murder and rape.
I will also ask you several questions on what steps you are
taking to ensure that OJP and COPS programs are complementary
but not duplicative of first-responder programs proposed under
the Department of Homeland Security. We need to ensure that
State and local law enforcement agencies understand what
programs are available to them throughout the Federal
government and not just in the Department of Justice.
With that I would like to recognize Mr. Serrano for any
comments, and then I am going to run out and testify on an
issue of hunger before the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Vitter
will come to the chair.
Mr. Serrano.
Opening Remarks of Congressman Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Now I can attempt a coup on your gavel.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wolf. That is a good one.
Mr. Serrano. You are coming back?
Mr. Wolf. Yes, I am coming back.
Mr. Serrano. Okay, I look forward to that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Welcome Ms. Daniels and Mr. Peed. We talk a lot about the
pressures facing first responders--now sometimes also called
``first defenders'' or ``first protectors'' these days--and the
problems many agencies are having stretching existing resources
to cover the new demands for equipment, training, overtime and
the like as the nation faces elevated terrorist threat levels.
The New York City Police Department is a prime example,
even if it is on a larger scale than most. The programs in your
jurisdiction are where these agencies have traditionally turned
for research, best practices, technical assistance and funding
to strengthen their ability both to serve their people and to
respond to extraordinary threats.
I am troubled, then, by the budget request, which withdraws
from OJP and COPS significant resources to offset the $3.5
billion in not-really-new funding for first responder grants.
I am also concerned with proposals to shuffle many of your
programs within COPS and OJP, which will have the effect of
reducing the visibility of programs like Violence Against Women
that Congress has determined need that visibility, and to
eliminate programs for which Congress has repeatedly
demonstrated support.
In any case, I look forward to your testimony and the
conversation to follow, and I assure you that while I have some
serious and deep questions I stand ready to join the chairman
in helping you in any way that I can this coming session.
Mr. Wolf. You are welcome to proceed as you see fit. Your
full statements will appear in the record, you can read the
entire statement, summarize, whatever you see it fit, but the
full statements will appear in the record.
Ms. Daniels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me--
Mr. Peed. I will be happy to go first.
Ms. Daniels. Feel free.
Director Peed's Opening Remarks
Mr. Peed. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Serrano, members of the
Committee, Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me
here. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, as you know it,
and since this is my first appearance before this Committee I
would like to take a few minutes to share with you my
background.
For me law enforcement has been more than a career, it has
been a way of life. My father, my grandfather, my father-in-
law, my brother, my brother-in-law, all have served in law
enforcement.
I served 25 years in the Fairfax County Sheriff's Office,
the last 10 as the Sheriff. Most recently I served as the
Director of Virginia's Department of Juvenile Justice.
The legacy, this legacy of law enforcement services makes
me proud to lead an organization that supports State and local
law enforcement and tribal communities to reduce crime through
community policing.
COPS 2003 RESOURCES
As you know, this Committee included funding in the COPS FY
2003 Appropriations Act that allows us to continue providing
crime-fighting resources to American law-enforcement agencies
while supporting their efforts to secure our homeland.
This year COPS will award $200 million to hire community-
policing officers and school resource officers. To help
American law enforcement agencies meet the challenges of
policing a post-September 11th world, COPS will invest $60
million of this funding in a new Homeland Security Overtime
Program.
COPS will work closely with Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA), National Institute of Justice (NIJ),
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and
others to administer a new Inter-Operability Communications
Technology Program that helps neighboring law enforcement and
public safety agencies to work together.
We will make $35 million available to Indian country, to
help Federally recognized tribes improve their law-enforcement
infrastructure. COPS will provide $20 million in grants to
further community policing and training and technical
assistance this year, and will continue to fund innovative
programs to help secure our homeland with community policing
strategies.
COPS will continue to support efforts to build trust
between law-enforcement professionals and the communities they
serve through our Police Integrity Program.
We will secure our nation's schools by investing $15
million in our School Safety Initiative. COPS will invest $57
million to continue the fight against methamphetamine, and we
will award $189 million in COPS Law Enforcement Technology
Grants.
As you know, COPS has a statutory obligation to advance
community policing. For a number of years community-policing
principles have helped reduce conventional crime.
COPS FY 2004 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
These same principles, likewise, will provide an effective
response to the threat of terrorism. The President's Fiscal
Year 2004 budget seeks $164 million for COPS. This request
includes $50 million for the new COPS Information Technology
Program, $30 million for Indian country, and $20 million to
fund COPS methamphetamine and police-integrity programs.
It also provides additional resources for advancing
community policing, including $20 million to deliver training
and technical assistance to state and local law enforcement.
STATE OF THE ART CRIME-FIGHTING TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIES
COPS supports the creation of new crime-fighting strategies
through our national network of Regional Community Policing
Institutes, or RCPIs. These RCPIs provide training and
technical assistance to law enforcement professionals, local
government leaders and citizens all over the country.
So far, the RCPI network has trained over 210,000 law
enforcement professionals and community leaders. The COPS
office will continue to work closely with our Federal partners
to ensure that the training we support delivers the most
comprehensive and consistent information available, especially
as it relates to homeland security.
COPS continues to respond to the pressing technology needs
of American law enforcement. More than $1 billion from COPS
technology funding has enabled State, local and tribal law
enforcement agencies to purchase the state-of-the-art crime-
fighting technology.
This funding not only helps law enforcement combat
traditional crime, it also helps meet the many new challenges
of securing our homeland. St. Louis, Missouri, for example,
used COPS funding to help build Project Safe City.
Safe City offers citizens on-line access to crime-mapping
tools, and helps law enforcement share information between
local agencies through technology and partnerships with federal
law enforcement agencies like the FBI.
FY 2004 BUDGET PROPOSALS
The President's FY 2004 budget proposes a new info-tech
program for COPS that funds time-saving technologies that help
move law enforcement professionals from behind the desk out
into their communities.
COPS new Inter Operable Communications Technology Program
helps these departments not only work more effectively
internally, but also helps them work closely with other
agencies.
One of America's most historically under-served communities
is our Native American population. Because many tribal lands
span not only interstate but international boundaries, these
areas need greater law enforcement assistance.
COPS has contributed more than $200 million to combat crime
and disorder in Native American communities by funding 233
federally recognized tribes.
Another way that COPS helps advance community policing is
by working to have law enforcement professionals build a
culture of integrity within their own ranks and demonstrating
this commitment to the communities they serve.
This will be the third-consecutive year that COPS has
invested $17 million in American law enforcement agencies that
want to change their organizations to better institutionalize
community policing.
Increasing the level of trust between law enforcement and
the community greatly increases the amount of information
community members bring forward. COPS currently funds a wide
variety of projects that help law enforcement agencies build
trust and mutual respect with the communities they serve, which
the President's 2004 budget will continue.
Finally, COPS has dedicated more than $200 million to help
law enforcement and their partner organizations fight
methamphetamine. And 2004 requests will add $20 million next
year to continue that effort.
Community-policing strategies help American law enforcement
agencies reduce crime by engaging their communities and gaining
partnerships to meet new and existing challenges. These
agencies are now finding out how well their strategies can
secure our homeland.
The men and women of law enforcement dedicate not only
their careers, but their lives to keeping America safe. As the
first to respond to the tragic events of September 11th, 2001,
they reminded us all that they place themselves in harm's way
every time they don their uniforms.
COPS looks forward to continuing to support them by
advancing community policing so that they can meet their ever-
growing challenges they face in 2003 and beyond.
And I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Peed.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003.
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
WITNESS
DEBORAH J. DANIELS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
Opening Remarks of Ms. D.J. Daniels, Assistant Attorney General Office
of Justice Programs
Ms. Daniels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
members of the Committee who are here today. It is an honor for
me to be with you, Chairman Wolf, and Congressman Serrano--to
present the Administration's budget request for the Office of
Justice Programs.
It is important for me to begin, I think, by reiterating
what the Attorney General stated before this Committee several
weeks ago. And I quote him, ``The first and overarching
priority of this budget and the Department of Justice is the
protection of American freedom, the protection of Americans in
exercising that freedom from acts of terrorism, and of course
to bring justice to terrorists.''
Thank you for all of your assistance to the Department of
Justice. It allows us to confront the threat of terrorism as
well as to detect, to disrupt and destroy terrorism.
During the past decade, the Office of Justice Program
(OJP), has experienced extraordinary growth and change since
the passage of the Crime Bill in 1994. OJP has added four
program offices, expanded its focus from 14 to 43 major budget
activities, and increased by 1,300 percent the number of grants
awarded annually, as well as experiencing more than a five-fold
increase in the total dollar amount of awards of administered.
This period of growth has greatly increased the ability of
OJP to drive and support improvements throughout the system.
However, as this committee particularly has noted in the past,
the piecemeal fashion in which organizational and programmatic
changes have occurred has resulted in a wide range of
management challenges.
OJP'S REORGANIZATION EFFORTS
Therefore, before I explain the fiscal year 2004 budget
specifics after OJP, I first want to update you on OJP's
reorganization efforts in which this Committee has been
involved since the 1998 Appropriations Act. OJP has begun, and
in some cases made great progress, in implementing our
reorganization.
In 2001, we began reorganizing and streamlining through a
reorganization plan that was submitted to this Committee. This
reorganization has already resulted in a consolidation of
overlapping functions, reduced management redundancy, improved
coordination and communication, not only within OJP, but also
with the field.
The reorganization has also transformed OJP's grant
processing, moving our process from a labor-intensive paper
process to a centralized, paperless system through which now 84
percent of our grants are now processed.
By the end of fiscal 2003, we expect to administer all
OJP's grants electronically. Within less than 18 months, we
expect a cradle-to-grave award-and-management electronic
system, which will be most helpful.
I will soon be working to merge the program functions and
staff of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, the American
Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk into a new Community-
Capacity Development Office.
At OJP, we know that the vast majority of work-related
criminal justice, delinquency prevention, victim assistance
activities have handled at the local level. We are excited
about the opportunity to establish the Community Capacity
Development Office, which will allow us to concentrate on
helping communities and organizations build their capacity to
address these issues and sustain their work in progress.
We are also making progress in the business of serving our
customers. The Bureau of Justice Statistics continues to
present trends through user-friendly tools such as Key Facts at
a Glance.
Our Guide to Federal Resources in Weed and Seed communities
will improve sustainability by helping to identify other
potential resources besides those in the Department of Justice
for funding and training.
The Bureau of Justice Assistances Guide to Grants is not
only a good tool for Grantees, but will serve as a model for an
OJP-wide Guide to Grants.
The reorganization, streamlining and other successes that
OJP has accomplished over the past few years have been achieved
with the strong support and assistance of this Committee. And
specifically your support of OJP's reorganization efforts has
been vitally important and is greatly appreciated.
FY 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
OJP's is $2.185 billion. The funds requested will help States,
local communities and organizations across the country build on
what we have learned through research and experience about what
works in controlling crime.
Communities will be able to maintain their momentum in
finding ways to reduce and prevent crime, controlling drug
abuse and trafficking, to meet the needs of the crime victims,
and address problems such as gang violence, juvenile
delinquency, and domestic violence.
The President's overall budget request reflects the
Administration's unwavering commitment to our State and local
partners. The President's Budget includes over $3 billion for
first responders. And out of this amount, no less than $500
million will support State and local law enforcement anti-
terrorism efforts.
This $500 million in the budget for the Department of
Homeland Security is in addition to the fiscal year 2004
request of $600 million for the proposed Justice Assistance
Grants program. Through a variety of programs, OJP continues to
work with communities to provide coordinated federal funding,
training, technical assistance and information sharing to help
communities combat crime. This effort involves the commitment
of resources provided directly to local entities through
programs such as our Weed and Seed Program under which we
requested $58.265 million in fiscal 2004 for this program in
the Justice Assistance Appropriation..
As previously mentioned, we request $600 million for the
Justice Assistance Grants program, which is a consolidation
with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG) and
the Edward Byrne Formula Grant Program into a single grant
program. Justice Assistance Grant funding would be distributed
to both State and local governments. Of the total funds
available, approximately 46 percent is intended to be provided
in the form of direct awards to local jurisdictions with the
remaining funds awarded to States.
OJP also proposes that the more than 29 Byrne grant purpose
areas and the seven LLEBG purpose areas be combined into a few
very broad purpose areas: law enforcement, prosecution, court
programs, drug treatment, planning evaluation, and technology
improvement, which will encompass all of the existing purpose
areas in both LLEBG and Byrne. Under this structure, local
jurisdictions will be given more discretion than they currently
have because they will be able to use their funding for broader
purposes than those available under the existing LLEBG program.
We are also recommending a $12 million increase in fiscal
year 2004 to further expand the Regional Information Sharing
System, or RISS. RISS is a multi-jurisdictional criminal
intelligence sharing system operated by and for State and local
law enforcement agencies. We are committed to sharing
information and intelligence with our State and local law
enforcement partners, with other Federal agencies and with the
intelligence communities through RISS. Our goal is to collect
and disseminate law enforcement and counterterrorism data
quickly and effectively, to stop terrorists before they strike.
The $12 million increase will further expand RISS'
accessibility to State and local public safety agencies for the
purpose of sharing terrorism alerts and related information.
One of the most important initiatives in the President's
Budget is the DNA Initiative. On March 11, Attorney General
Ashcroft announced the President's commitment to a
comprehensive strategy using DNA technology. DNA offers
significant opportunities to ensure fairness in the criminal
justice system, to help protect our citizens, and to enhance
support for victims of crime. But its full potential can only
be realized through a concentrated effort that improves current
Federal and State DNA collection and analysis systems.
To accomplish these goals, President Bush has proposed
$232.6 million in Federal funding in fiscal year 2004,
including $100.7 million in new funding for his initiative,
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. And he has called for
continuing this level of funding for five years, a total
commitment of over $1 billion.
The elements, of the DNA Initiative are to eliminate the
backlogs of unanalyzed samples, which are huge, both the known
offender samples and the crime scene samples, including rape
kits; to enhance crime lab capacity both on the Federal and the
State and local level for funding for automation; stimulating
research and development so that we can develop faster and
easier methods of conducting the tests, also in order to help
the labs keep up with the load; training the criminal justice
and medical communities to properly collect and use DNA
evidence; using DNA to protect the innocent by providing post-
conviction testing and, finally, using DNA to identify missing
persons.
We firmly believe that through this comprehensive approach,
we will vastly improve the criminal justice system's ability to
swiftly apprehend and convict the guilty, to protect the
innocent and to prevent the commission of additional crimes by
repeat or serial offenders.
MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN AND AMBER ALERT COORDINATOR
The Administration's commitment to protecting children is
clearly seen, not only in the DNA Initiative, but also in the
$32.986 million request of the Missing and Exploited Children's
Program and AMBER Alert. As you know, on October 2 of last
year, the President issued a directive to the Attorney General
to designate an AMBER Alert coordinator within the Department
of Justice, which he did that same day by designating me to
that position. It is an honor for me to serve in that capacity.
The Missing and Exploited Children's Program collects
statistics about missing children, identifies model programs,
best practices and emerging technical information to keep
ongoing training and technical assistance programs current.
The AMBER Alert Program, as you may well know, is a
voluntary collaboration between police departments and
broadcasters through which emergency alerts are issued to
notify the public about the abduction of children. The plan was
created in 1996 in Texas after 9-year-old Amber Hagerman was,
unfortunately, kidnapped and brutally murdered while she was
riding her bicycle in Arlington, Texas.
After her very tragic abduction and death, the AMBER Alert
Program was implemented not only in Texas, but at this point
has now been implemented in 88 jurisdictions across the
country, statewide in 39 states, 10 more than even since
October when I was appointed to this particular position, and
has assisted in the recovery of nearly 50 children at this
point.
In fiscal year 2004, the President has requested $2.5
million to develop a coordinated AMBER Alert network
nationwide, provide training and other services to the law
enforcement and broadcasting members of this important
coalition. And we greatly appreciate this Committee's efforts
in providing $2.5 million in fiscal year 2003, allowing us now
to make significant headway on this project immediately. In
addition to programs I have mentioned, OJP proposes $12.1
million for the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task
Force Program. ICAC, as it is known, funds 35 regional task
forces and 58 investigative satellites that work on child
pornography and cyber enticement cases. These task forces and
satellites involve the efforts of more than 160 State and local
law enforcement agencies in 45 states.
Since 1994, the Office on Violence Against Women has
awarded more than $1 billion in grant funds to help communities
increase support services for victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault and stalking.
During this Administration, and with your help, we have
increased the annual budget to address these issues by $100
million.
For fiscal year 2004, the President's Budget includes
$385.399 million for programs authorized by the Violence
Against Women Act of 2000. These funds will continue to allow
us to expand our ability to reach even more communities in
need.
Now Mr. Chairman, I know that an issue of extreme
importance and concern that you share with this Administration
is that of trafficking in persons. In fiscal year 2002,
Congress provided OJP's Office for Victims of Crime $10 million
for a discretionary grant program to ensure that trafficking
victims are properly treated and given all of the benefits
available to them under the 2000 Trafficking Victims'
Protection Act.
OVC has awarded the funds to organizations to strengthen
collaborative networks to provide comprehensive services for
trafficking victims. We will continue our efforts in this area
with the $10 million you have graciously provided for this
program in fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act and will
continue working the Department of State and others in the
administration to address this issue.
Mr. Chairman, my statement presents only a handful of OJP's
priorities for fiscal year 2004. OJP also proposes to continue
to support a comprehensive array of demonstration and training,
technical assistance, research statistical analysis,
information sharing and other programs and initiatives to
enhance the capacity of states, local communities and
organizations in preventing and responding to crime. OJP is
committed to being a premier resource for the justice
community.
I assure you that I look forward to continuing our work
together to ensure that OJP carries out its mission to the best
of its ability.
Thank you so much again for the opportunity to present
OJP's fiscal year 2004 budget to the Committee. I, too, will be
pleased to respond to any questions that members of the
committee may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FBI UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PERCENTAGES
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you very much. As you were
commenting, I was just thinking about a lot of different
issues. Let me ask the first question and then follow up on a
couple notes that I made.
I am not speaking for the Committee--I am speaking for
myself. The crime is increasing throughout the country. The
FBI's Uniformed Crime Report released in December reports that
from January 2002 to June 2002, crime increased by 1.3 percent
when compared to the same period in 2001.
This includes a 2.3 percent increase in murders. And when
we use percentages, it is almost cold-hearted. I mean, how many
people is that? How many people are murdered in the country
every year?
Ms. Daniels. I probably cannot give you that exact number
at this moment, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Peed, do you know?
Mr. Peed. Not the exact number, no, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Well, if we can get for the record how many
people are murdered every year and how many more this would be.
And I think we clinically talk about this like it is a
percentage. But every time, the pain and the suffering and the
agony in that family and--is overwhelming.
So it is just not a little kind of up tick and not that
bad. They are people.
DIVERTING RESOURCES
At the same time, the FBI is diverting resources which this
Committee has supported. I think Director Mueller has done an
outstanding job. I commend Attorney General Ashcroft on the
reforming of the FBI. Director Mueller was here yesterday and a
bipartisan group explained what has been done.
But the FBI is diverting resources away from the
traditional crime fighting to strengthen its counter terrorism
capabilities. Five-hundred-and-fifty-seven agents were taken
off the streets that were involved in drug investigations.
Obviously, they were doing a great job, and if you transfer
them, then you have a vacuum. And DEA has not requested
additional funds. It is just like if you took 557 people off of
the highways who are mowing grass in the State of Virginia, you
would have more grass growing.
These agents were doing a good job, but you have taken 557
off drug cases it has an impact. However, Director Mueller I
think did it for the right reason.
So it is really difficult to understand why the budget
request dramatically decreases funding available for State and
local law enforcement systems.
The reduction is $1.2 billion, 34 percent. And you know
what struck me, the Administration is going to send a
supplemental request of $1 billion, the same amount as the
proposed reduction to go to Turkey. For what?
What has Turkey done?
I support the President strongly on what he is doing with
regard to Iraq but what has Turkey done to get a $1 billion? I
can tell you what they have done to hurt the United States and
put in jeopardy young men and women.
I would say to Carl Peed, and let the record show, Carl and
I have known each other and are good friends. But I was out in
the Shenandoah Valley two weeks ago with Sheriff Armatrot, and
they are concerned about the growing increase in amphetamine
labs in Shenandoah County. This is Skyline Drive--Blue Ridge
Mountains. You just do not find methamphetamine labs in
Shenandoah County. And yet, they are in Shenandoah County.
So the local law enforcement people see this, and they are
having a hard time dealing with it. And in order to keep the
overall budget request, the Administration will sometimes
propose eliminating these successful programs that have strong
Congressional support in order to fund other priorities,
knowing that Congress will restore them. However, that may not
be possible in this year.
I support this Administration on almost all the other
issues. And I know you are up here representing the
Administration, and do not take it personally, but how will the
proposed budget for OJP and COPS address the increase of crimes
such as murder and rape? How will they?
BUDGET CUTS
Ms. Daniels. Actually, if I might respond to that, Mr.
Chairman, I think the most exciting thing we have to offer, and
the thing that will really advance law enforcement by leaps and
bounds in terms of specifically rape and murder--is this DNA
issue.
That is why we have been laboring over this for many
months----
Mr. Wolf. I agree with you on that. I commend you. But
overall, I do not think a cut of $1.2 billion can be sustained.
I mean, you could have increased funding for DNA and not had
the cut.
And if you juxtaposition it with a billion dollars for
Turkey, and Egypt, which has anti-Semitic writings in all their
newspapers, blasting the United States government, and funds
are requested in the supplemental for Egypt. So this troubles
me.
I think the record should show, I personally do not believe
that you can cut funding by 34 percent and still help local law
enforcement. And This budget proposal troubles me.
NON-ISSUES OF THE ADMINISTRATION
As a compassionate conservative--there is no question that
I am a conservative and in many respects, maybe more than most
in my party. Because I am a little frustrated that my party
will not get active in some of the issues that I think are
really conservative issues.
Stamping out gambling. I have heard this Administration say
nothing about gambling. The silence is deafening. Mr. Peed, you
talk about Indian country--Indian country is awash with
gambling. It is breaking up families, it is creating
corruption. We will have a wave of corruption in this country.
But I do not really hear anything.
I have sent letters down to the Administration on this
issue until I could literally paper my family room with them.
My family room--not my downstairs bathroom--and I never get a
response to them.
This is a crime issue. This is an important, compassionate
conservative issue.
The other issue is videos. ``Touched By An Angel'' did a
television show three weeks ago, or two weeks ago, about young
kids that are buying these video games like ``Grand Theft
Auto.'' They showed abusive violence. I have never heard the
Administration speak out on the issue of violent video games.
Now there is a powerful video game interest with a lot of
powerful lobbyists.
So, when I am going to go testify. And I was just going to
recognize Mr. Serrano.
I would hope that Mr. Rogers would pick up on the
OxyContin. OxyContin is impacting my State. The prosecutor--and
one of the prosecutors in Prince William County has now pled
guilty and is going to jail for the use of OxyContin--in Prince
William County. That is where the First Battle of Manassas,
Second Battle of Manassas--who would think that OxyContin abuse
could take place there?
And yet, this Administration has never said anything about
OxyContin. The Food and Drug Administration has allowed it to
be used for moderate pain. And yet, when this Baltimore Orioles
player took that weight-reduction drug, and I commend the
Administration for acting so fast. But he was a powerful
person. He was a Baltimore Orioles player. It got on television
and the FDA took action.
But the pain and suffering that is coming in families from
OxyContin, now in my district, the robbery in the Plains
Pharmacy, the six robberies now out in Loudoun County. And I
hear this Administration say nothing about OxyContin.
Not only do they say nothing, when given an opportunity,
Secretary Thompson could say we are no longer going to allow it
for moderate pain. It can be a miracle, drug.
But for severe pain, but not for moderate pain. As I told
the Committee the other day, moderate pain is what I have when
I am working and cutting wood in my property. My back bothers
me, but I take Motrin.
And the Administration has been silent. Yet they moved on
that diet drug, which I commend them, but have been silent on
the issue of OxyContin. And I believe--and I recognize Mr.
Serrano--it may be because powerful interests have been hired
to represent the company that is making it, Purdue
Pharmaceuticals. So I think we need to be consistent and speak
about evil all over.
And the war on terrorism, which I support, because 30
people from my district died at the Pentagon. But 20,000
people, the DEA guy said the other day, died in the war on
drugs and we are not saying very much about the war on drugs.
And OxyContin is part of that war on drugs.
So I will recognize Mr. Serrano and then I will be back and
we will cover this and other issues but I think the
Administration has to talk about and provide funding to address
some of these issues. Man does not live by bread alone. It only
is not the money you have, but it is speaking out and taking
moral leadership.
The Administration has not spoken out on gambling. Has not.
Has not. Has not on OxyContin. Has not. And has not on violent
video games.
I would ask both of you to--if you do not have a copy, I
will get it to you--go buy ``Grand Theft Auto'' and watch it.
And violence and violence against women, and yet nobody from
the administration ever speaks out on these violent, violent
video games.
Mr. Serrano.
CUTS TO STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, welcome.
It is really not my place as the ranking member, but we
should have told you that when you come before a Subcommittee
that handles the State Department and the Justice Department,
we do discuss national and international issues at the same
time as budget issues.
And it is important to tie them in because I agree--in
fact, my first question and my first comment the Chairman
already asked in one way and I am going to try to approach it
in another way.
And that is our concern that dollars are being spent on
other things when you--both of you represent areas where more
and more dollars should be spent and where I would not in any
way apologize for spending dollars.
I do disagree with the chairman only on one thing. Or I
want to add something to it. He has a very serious concern
about dealing with crime in this country and about young people
on the whole issue of the violence shown in video games.
My problem is that I am watching a lot of TV this week
which might make a lot of young people think that perhaps war
is a solution. I wonder is it not just as bad to have adults
respond to political issues through the use of violence? I
would like to have a hearing that asks both questions. What do
videos do to the violence in our community? And what does war
on TV do to young people's acceptance of violence as a way of
solving problems?
Getting to my point, I am deeply concerned about the cuts
to State and local-enforcement assistance laid out in the
President's 2004 budget. While I am sympathetic to the need to
streamline programs and reduce duplication, this budget does
not seem to recognize the plight of local governments.
States are experiencing unprecedented shortfalls. Local law
enforcement is feeling this pain at a time when crime is on the
increase. According to the numbers we have, serious crime is up
2.1 percent, the first increase since 1991. Violent crime in
2001 rose by 0.8 percent over 2000. Robberies increased 3.7
percent. Murders rose 2.5 percent. Forcible rapes increased in
volume. Property crimes were up 2.3 percent. Motor vehicle
thefts increased 5.7 percent. Burglaries rose 2.9 percent.
In addition--and this is something that really worries me
and something I have talked with the FBI a lot on--law
enforcement has been asked to take a greater homeland security
role. This creates a problem for agencies like the FBI and DEA;
feeling pressures of their own, they are now proposing to pull
back from many areas that directly impact State and local law
enforcement.
So, have either of your agencies done any type of
assessment of current State and local funding of program needs?
If so, what were the results? And if not, why not?
Secondly, how can you responsibly propose to make cuts this
deep?
And, lastly, have you done any assessment as to the
possible impact of these cuts on law enforcement efforts?
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Ms. Daniels. I think, if I may, Congressman, Carl and I
have been collaborating on a project with a consortium of law
enforcement associations--the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Police Foundation, National Organization
of Black Law Enforcement Executives NOBLE, a group of these
organizations--to talk about how we can help State and local
law enforcement by identifying the ways in which police
organizations around the country have in a creative way dealt
with multi-jurisdictional cases, more complex drug cases, white
collar crime--the sorts of things that the FBI has previously
been helpful with and may not be able--and this is of course on
a district by district basis depending on what is going on at
the time in that district--may not be able always to be as
helpful as they have before, because of what you and the
Chairman have made reference to.
So what we are attempting to do with these groups is to
identify the areas in which State and local law enforcement
might benefit by best practices information. And provide that
kind of information, so that they can figure out how and when
the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI is not there to help,
or cannot put as many agents on as previously, how they can,
you know, in a creative and collaborative fashion handle some
of these cases.
So, we are attempting to assist State and local law
enforcement in that particular area.
BUDGET PROPOSALS AND CUTS
Mr. Serrano. Well, I appreciate that. But one of the things
that I would hope you carry back to the folks who make
decisions about what kind of budgets to propose and what cuts,
to propose is--take, for instance--and I use New York City as
an example, one, because it is where I come from; two, because
it was the scene of the crime of the attack on America; and
three, it continues, in the minds of a lot of people here and I
imagine overseas, to be the number one target. If you want to
hurt this country, you hit big cities. And you not only kill
people, but you embarrass, you create attention. That is why it
happened to New York, for no other reason I am sure.
When I left Monday, the police in New York were on the
street along with the National Guard. This is 24-hour-a-day,
seven-day-a-week situation for them. Now because of the war, it
is even worse. When the baseball season starts next week,
Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium will have to be guarded like
nothing before. And this is a physical and a monetary drain.
So I just for the life of me--and I think this is what
Chairman Wolf was getting to--I cannot see why folks like you
would ever be cut now. I mean, if there was ever a time for you
to have more dollars to do more work, it would be now because
we have all these folks on the street doing more, even things
they did not do before, we have the FBI pulling back, and then
we are not going to have you with the ability to do the work
you need to do.
Ms. Daniels. I know Carl has plenty to say on this too, but
let me just chime in, Congressman, that the Administration is
obviously very concerned about all these issues. Difficult
budgetary choices have to be made.
We know that State and local law enforcement have new
responsibilities in counter terrorism, and it is critical to
help them meet them. The things that you have described such as
having to secure Yankee Stadium and the like are going to
require attention to the counter terrorism side of this ledger.
And that is funding that is being requested in the President's
Budget, but it is being requested in a different department.
But it is going to go to state and local law enforcement.
I might point out that the Office for Domestic Preparedness
ODP, which was at the Office of Justice Programs OJP until
March 1, has now transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security is made up of people who come from OJP, actually who
were in the Bureau of Justice Assistance BJA, many of them,
before they went to ODP. ODP will understand the multiple needs
of law enforcement. We are also working very closely with ODP
to manage their grants so that we do not drop any stitches.
In fact, we have promised them that we will turn their
grants around in 10 days. From the time they are able to make
decisions about them, we will get them through the process and
they will get them out the door immediately. So that money will
be getting out to State and local law enforcement, specifically
to deal with the issues you mentioned.
I am sorry, Carl, go ahead.
Mr. Peed. You mention a needs assessment. And while there
has not really been a needs assessment from our organization,
we have had some meetings I think that you might want to hear
about.
POST 9/11 MEETING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
My first meeting following 9/11--I called to my office the
groups that Deborah talks about--the International Association
of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the
NOBLE, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, the PERF, Police Executive Research Forum and the
foundation, the Police Foundation. I called those leaders into
my office on September the 19th, and my question to them was,
what can my office do, the COPS office do to help in the war on
terrorism, and how can we help protect America?
The response to me on September the 19th was that community
policing is more important today than ever before. And so I
felt like we had an obligation to continue those things that we
had always done.
I am talking about partnerships, problem solving,
prevention, proactive policing, and public participation. So we
have continued in that role. That is our mission, and we have
continued it.
The second meeting I called about a month later was a Chief
Executive Officer's, the CEO, what we call our CEO Symposium.
We invited about 50 chiefs from across the country back to
Washington.
They had met back in August to talk about the emerging
needs of law enforcement, and we called them back about October
for a review of what they had consulted on in August before I
got there to see how they would respond to a post-9/11.
We talked about issues like training, and we have our
Regional Community Policing Institutes that we have trained in
excess of 200,000 and we are geared and will continue to
collaborate with people like OJP to deliver things like the DNA
training, the Project Safe Neighborhoods Training that the
President and the Attorney General have proposed.
We have funded the Police Executive Research Forum to
conduct a post-9/11--what is it like for police today in a
post-9/11 environment?
I would agree with the Chairman that Director Mueller is
just doing a fantastic job in changing the FBI.
One of their changes is the FBI has created State and local
law-enforcement coordination effort. They are starting to, and
I believe, doing a better job of sharing information, of
partnering not only with the 18,000 law enforcement
organizations out there.
So, while we do not have a needs assessment, I think in the
last year the FBI's made tremendous progress. I think the
Attorney General's office, the Justice Department, are just
doing a super job of doing what we can do within the resources
we have.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Mr. Serrano. Well, Mr. Vitter, I know that we have quite a
few members here who want to speak, so I am not going to abuse
my position on this Subcommittee, but, every opportunity we
get, at any hearing, we have to say what we feel about these
things. Chairman Wolf had brought the point out about the
expenditures and where we are going.
In closing let me tell you, I still represent the poorest
Congressional district in the nation, not followed too far,
incidentally, by Chairman Rogers, who represents a different
kind of a district with some very deep, serious pockets of
poverty.
And this morning I saw some of that violent video I talked
about, telling me that we are going to knock out hundreds of
bridges but already plan to rebuild with the third supplemental
that will cover the war.
And I personally resent the fact that I cannot get a new
housing development in the South Bronx but we are going to be
rebuilding Iraq, and if we know we are going to do that I do
not know why we are knocking it out now.
But that is another issue. So for the record, I hope Mr.
Sweeney will join me in getting some of that supplemental for
New York rather than to rebuild Iraq later on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Rogers.
COORDINATION OF GRANT FUNDING
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on
a point that you earlier made about the coordination between
ODP and OJP.
We have got--the President's Budget has $3.5 billion for
first-responders grants, and of that amount no less than $500
million is proposed for State and local law-enforcement anti-
terrorism efforts, which presumably would come from the
Homeland Security Bill.
And then there is $600 million in the Justice Assistance
Grant Program that you have for State and local law enforcement
through OJP. Tell me the difference?
Ms. Daniels. The difference is, Congressman, that the money
that we have available through OJP is very broad-based. The
Justice Assistance Grants that we proposed, which is the merger
of Byrne and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants with the
broader purpose areas, permits law enforcement to do a number
of things.
It is important to have that funding available, but at the
same time many of the things that they will do in counter-
terrorism are, frankly, dual purpose.
So we are gratified that in the authorization bill for the
Department of Homeland Security, and again, then, in the
President's Budget there is a reservation of no less than $500
million specifically to go to State and local law enforcement
for counter-terrorism activities, which is a very broad-purpose
area in itself.
That gives them $1.1 billion for law enforcement
activities, including counter-terrorism activities. Now, there
is another $3 billion in that budget proposal for counter-
terrorism and for first responders, so the $500 million is a
minimum figure.
I fully expect that to be greater.
Mr. Rogers. How are you coordinating between the two? I
know the generalities of which you speak, but how are you going
to coordinate ODP and OJP grants?
Suppose a police force applies for both. Are you going to
know that they have tried to get both of them?
Ms. Daniels. Yes, sir, and that is very important to us. As
a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons I mentioned that
we work so closely with ODP----
Mr. Rogers. Tell me how are you working closely with them?
Ms. Daniels. We are intimately involved with every grant
they are going to issue, and so we will be seeing who gets
grants for what purpose so that we can better manage our other
grants.
Mr. Rogers. Take me to the bottom line here real quick. Who
is going to decide those things, and how do you coordinate
that? Just a plain old, simple question.
Ms. Daniels. We meet regularly with the leadership of ODP.
As I have said, every grant that they award will be fully known
to us, because we are managing all those grants. We are
actually awarding them for them.
Now, they will make the decisions on who gets them, and for
what purpose, but we have all that information. We will, in
turn, be sharing our information directly with them through our
budget personnel and our program personnel, so that before we
make discretionary awards, as opposed to formula awards--which
are, as you know, distributed on a formula basis to the States,
and the States then make the determination on how they spend
that money.
No, but, as we make any discretionary awards, they will be
fully aware. And before we make them, we will make sure they
are not duplicative of anything that they are doing.
Mr. Peed. If I could just follow up on that. We have a very
small portion of the funds that we are working on with the
Office of Domestic Preparedness, and FEMA. And we met yesterday
to resolve that very same issue that you are referring to.
Our funds are for interoperability. FEMA offers grants to
fire departments. We provide grants to law enforcement. We have
had three meetings already to do exactly what you want. And
that is to make sure they are coordinated.
So, we are developing process and we are going to share the
final decision. People like myself never will make final
decisions, but they are going to be providing what has been
called the input.
Yesterday, we agreed to create a national clearinghouse in
Deborah's shop, NIJ and their Advanced Generation of
Interoperations for Law Enforcement AGILE program, so we can
understand where all the radio communications are going.
Therefore, everybody will know who is getting what grants and
where they are going.
OXYCONTIN
Mr. Rogers. Well, we expect you to keep an eye on that.
Because we are not going to have enough money in either account
or anybody else's accounts to adequately reimburse local
responders. So every penny that we can muster toward that cost
to prevent and preventing duplication and waste is very
important.
Now, I, too, am concerned about the reductions. At a time
when the FBI's mission has been changed away from crime to
terrorism prevention, no one can argue with that. But the net
result is we have got a vacuum in the crime fighting.
And at a time when insidious drugs are, in many cases in my
area, taking over. I have got some communities and counties
that have been practically taken over by the drug cartel. Small
counties with a lack of resources. And the young people,
especially, are dying.
I mean, this OxyContin prescription drug diversion mess is
absolutely horrendous. I have never seen anything like it. And
we have had dozens of people die. And we are helpless. We
cannot get the FBI involved in it. The DEA is absolutely
outmanned. And the local police forces are inadequate. Drug
treatment centers are flooded.
And out of desperation, we are going to announce early next
month the creation of our own law enforcement task forces. I
mean, it is almost like the Wild West.
But we have no choice. We are organizing on our own a thing
called Project UNITE: Unlawful Narcotics, Investigations,
Treatment and Education. And we will involve thousands of
people in that. We will organize the law enforcement resources
we have to share across county lines, and we will go into the
schools and try to educate the people and the kids about the
insidious nature of these drugs.
But that should--we should not have to do that. For God's
sakes, that is why the Federal government is supposed to be
there. And yet we see you drastically cutting back on aid to
these very people that are in most desperate need, and that is
the State and local--particularly local--police forces and the
like.
But I am a voice in the wilderness crying for help, and I
am getting from you the words, ``Sorry.'' Is that right?
Ms. Daniels. Congressman, I do not think we are just
saying, ``Sorry.'' I think it is quite clear that our mission
at the Federal level is to build the capacity of local law
enforcement--not to do their job for them, because they do 97
percent of the work done in law enforcement in this country.
Federal law enforcement is never going to be able to take the
place of local law enforcement.
The best thing that we can do, Carl and I, in our
respective positions, particularly, is to help build the
capacity, provide training and technical assistance, actually
the development of task forces on the local level and the
education of kids in schools is exactly what should be
happening.
And I think that with the funding that this committee has
given us, we are managing this for DEA--to deal with the
OxyContin matter. There's $2 million in the 2002 budget and
$7.5 in the 2003 budget. We will be able to help build those
kinds of task forces around the country because it is going to
have to be on the front lines that those issues are dealt with.
We can provide that back-up support, but we will never be able
to take it over.
Mr. Rogers. There are a couple of things I think you can
help on that would help us swim the river, the tide against
which we are swimming.
And the chairman, Chairman Wolf, mentioned it briefly
earlier. And that is the loose prescription practices for the
painkiller OxyContin, which is a wonderful drug. It is a 24-
hour time-release drug that the young people are crushing and
destroying the time mechanism so that you get the whole shot
all of a sudden.
And many doctors are prescribing these things by the
zillions. And so there is a river out there of that particular
drug, along with Percocet and others. And yet the FDA refuses
to try to tighten down on how it can be prescribed.
As the Chairman says, it should be limited to severe pain.
And that is what it was designed to do. And yet it is being
prescribed, allowed to be prescribed, for anything from a
thumbnail problem to an itch in the eye.
Why can you not approach FDA and say, ``Give us a break.''
What do you think?
Ms. Daniels. I think we can certainly carry that message
back. And I think it is a good message. I am a former United
States Attorney myself, and I saw some of the difficulties in
going after pharmacists and physicians who either would be
taken advantage of or would collaborate in disseminating these
drugs.
PRESCRIPTION MONITORING SYSTEM
Mr. Rogers. The State just prosecuted and convicted last
week a medical doctor in one of those so-called pain clinics,
at which the cars lined up outside in a drive through window
for blocks.
And this doctor had prescribed--I forgot the number. But he
was prescribing like 160 people a day, OxyContin pills, I mean
by the truck load. We are talking 40,000, 50,000 in a short
span of time.
And finally, they caught him and prosecuted him and he was
convicted.
But I can repeat that story time and time again through
that region and I suspect country wide and partly because the
FDA--that doctor can prescribe those pills legally from
anything from a sore finger to a black eye. And it is only
these very severe cases like this doctor that we were able to
get him.
But we cannot fight upstream the numbers of these things
coming at us. And the numbers can be tightly--or, better
regulated by FDA.
And yet they have so far refused to do that.
Chairman Wolf and I and others are going to stay on top of
them until we get that changed. But it would--it needs to be
done by those of you in law enforcement who know what the
problem is. That is one thing. That is A.
B, most states do not yet have a prescription-monitoring
system where they can keep track of doctors or pharmacies or
whatever who are filling spiked amounts of these drugs. So that
it shows up real quick and you can move in on it. Kentucky
fortunately has a system called CASPER, which does this very
thing.
We are trying to upgrade it to where it is real time. It is
not real time now. It may take weeks before you see these
developments. But we are trying to make it real time so it is
instantaneous, and we can prevent double filling of
prescriptions and we can monitor certain doctors or pharmacies
who are obviously doing something outlandish.
But other States have not done that. Our neighbor--we do it
in Kentucky and then they go across the line and get a
prescription filled in West Virginia, Tennessee or Virginia
which does not have such a system.
And this subcommittee, in the last two years now, has
provided funds for State grants to put in those prescription-
monitoring systems. Several States have applied. Kentucky is
trying to go real time with theirs.
I do not even know who administers that grant program. Do
you know?
Ms. Daniels. That is the one that we are administering,
sir. Right.
Mr. Rogers. What have you seen in terms of other States
applying for those funds?
Ms. Daniels. Well, right now, as I understand it, there are
nine States that are slated to receive awards in the 2002
program. Kentucky is one who has already received its award and
Pennsylvania is the other.
In the 2003, we expect to expand that, but we are just
getting that solicitation out the door. I think it went out
already or we expect it go out by early April.
I fully agree with you, this is very important. A dozen or
more years ago, when I was U.S. Attorney in Indianapolis--I am
from your neighboring State, Indiana--we were trying to set up
just a triplicate prescription program so that we would be able
to keep track of these. And you know, it was the 20th century
version of what you are proposing now.
I think it is very important, and we are going to work
closely with DEA to maximize the effect of these dollars
because I absolutely agree this is critical.
Mr. Rogers. And what about the FDA? What do you think about
the----
Ms. Daniels. Well, I think that from a law enforcement
perspective, the best that we can do is try to identify those
outliers through an automated system such as the one you
suggest and much as we do with Medicaid fraud and other sorts
of things. You can catch those doctors or those pharmacists who
clearly are over prescribing or over filling.
From the FDA side, we can simply deliver a message back and
suggest that our folks work closely with FDA to see if there
are ways they could tighten at their end.
METHAMPHETAMINE AND REDUCED FUNDING IN 2004 BUDGET
Mr. Rogers. Well, I mean, downstream from the dam, we can
fight this tide all we can. But if the flood gates are open up
there, the chances of us being successful at preventing some
flooding on the banks of the river downstream are very small.
We have got to cut off that huge flood gate up there that the
FDA is allowing these doctors to prescribe.
The other thing that I wanted to mention is methamphetamine
labs, which somebody else has mentioned already. These things
are now a dime a dozen. I mean, every day in my local newspaper
the police forces have seized another drug lab, meth lab. There
are--I mean, these things are everywhere now and we are
swamped. Law enforcement is swamped.
I do not know what I am asking you here or what you can do
about it. But I am just crying out in the wilderness for help.
Mr. Peed. In the 2003 budget, we have $56 million to
address methamphetamine issues. And we partner with DEA on a
number of issues. In the president's 2004 budget, we have
another $20 million to address methamphetamine issues.
I know that it is sweeping the country. It is coming across
the country rapidly. And up until a few years ago, I had never
heard of methamphetamine. I was aware of OxyContin because of
all the deaths caused by OxyContin down in Southwest Virginia
when I was director of Juvenile Justice.
I found out that meth is an easy--it is over-the-counter
medications. And you find it in the back of cars and hotel
rooms and garages. And I know that in Congressman Wolf's
district, Winchester, or in that area up there, it led the
State of Virginia last year in methamphetamine busts.
I did not know much about it before two years ago. But I--
and you can talk to people in New York today, small agencies up
in New York, they still do not know much about methamphetamine.
They have never had a lab bust. It just has not gotten or made
it that far east or that far north. But it is coming. It is
coming.
Mr. Rogers. You admit it's on the increase?
Mr. Peed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Well, then why did you decrease funding request
for it? Your methamphetamine is decreased by $55 million from
2003 levels.
Mr. Peed. The president has priorities. And I think
homeland security is that priority and getting his limited
resources.
Mr. Rogers. Well, did you object to this? I mean, you have
an input on the budget, on the request to OMB. What did you
request OMB for this--for methamphetamines?
Mr. Peed. Just the same thing that we requested in 2004, it
was what had been requested in 2003.
Mr. Rogers. So you asked for level funding in 2004, right?
Mr. Peed. Level funding from what had been requested by
OMB.
Mr. Rogers. For methamphetamine?
Mr. Peed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And so you asked for $55 million more than they
gave you?
Mr. Peed. We asked for 20, which was the same that had been
requested by the president in 2003, as I understand it.
Mr. Rogers. You asked for 20. Well, I am confused. What did
you ask for in 2004 for methamphetamines?
Mr. Peed. I am sorry, what was your question, Congressman?
We have $20 million in 2004, that is--
Mr. Rogers. You asked for 20 in 2004?
Mr. Peed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Although we had given you 70?
Mr. Peed. I am showing 56--56 in 2003.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Mr. Peed. Much of that was in the conference report.
Mr. Rogers. Nevertheless--
Mr. Peed. And we will be following any obligations that
were in the conference report.
Mr. Rogers. Nevertheless, your request is $55 million less
than 2003 levels, correct?
Mr. Peed. I do not think so. It is thirty less,
Congressman, thirty less.
Mr. Rogers. I am still confused. You asked for what figure?
Mr. Peed. In 2004, we asked for twenty.
Mr. Rogers. For twenty?
Mr. Peed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And what did you have in 2003?
Mr. Peed. In 2003, we had a total of $56 million--$56.7
million. Much of that was included in the conference report.
Mr. Rogers. So you are asking $30-something million less
than you have now.
Mr. Peed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. How can you justify that?
Mr. Peed. That is the--that is what OMB and the office had
worked--the numbers that worked out.
Mr. Rogers. So you really had no choice in it?
Mr. Peed. Limited.
Mr. Rogers. Well, if you had a chance at all, would you
have asked for more?
Mr. Peed. I think there is a need based upon the
methamphetamine issues that I am seeing sweeping the country.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I doubt this subcommittee is going to go
along with--like last year we did not. I mean, methamphetamine
is taking us over.
So if you will get the FDA to cut off the supply of
OxyContin and if you will come to your senses on funding for
fighting methamphetamine labs, then you will all be forgiven.
[Laughter.]
OXYCONTIN OVERDOSE
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
I am going to recognize Mr. Cramer. But neither of you
ought to feel obstructed. I worked in a cabinet agency, I
worked for Secretary Robert C.B. Wharton. We understand. You
can look at the big picture. I think the frustrations,
particularly of the Members that come from the regions that are
now experiencing drug problems are with OMB.
Winchester is an idyllic town of the plains. And I am
seeing things that I never had seen before coming into this
region.
There was a hearing last year where we had the prosecutor,
the DA from Lee County, Kim Humma. She said pretty much that
there is not a family in Lee County--which is small, small
county--but has not been impacted by OxyContin--either someone
in the family is using it, or they were robbed, or a relative.
And it has just, just spread.
And then, I do not know, did you mention the young pastor?
Mr. Rogers. No.
Mr. Wolf. There was a pastor from Mr. Rogers' district,
from Hazard, Kentucky. And he had a son. I can still recall it,
because he wore a very electric blue color suit coat and he was
sitting in the back.
And the pastor was testifying--he had been invited by Mr.
Rogers--about how it had devastated their area. But he was very
proud of the son, because the son had just gone through a
rehab, I think, in Indiana. It was a faith-based program.
And he was very proud as you, would if your son had gone
through. And the son then came up to the witness table.
Two months or three months ago, the boy died.
Mr. Rogers. Overdose.
Mr. Wolf. Overdose. And the frightening thing is, I do not
know of anyone we have asked who has ever gotten addicted to
OxyContin and been rehabilitated.
I think you would be negligent if you did not deal with
this in your region because the war on terrorism is very
important, but there is a war on terror in this country. There
is agony and the pain and the suffering among families impact
by oxy and meth.
Mr. Serrano. Will the Chairman yield for a question?
Mr. Wolf. Yes, Mr. Serrano and then Mr. Cramer
Mr. Serrano. I just want to join both of you. As I have sat
here over the last year-and-a-half or so hearing both Mr.
Rogers and you, Mr. Wolf, speak to this issue, I am reminded of
so many times when we in the Bronx and cities like LA and
Detroit said, ``you know, there is a new drug on the scene.
Stop it now.'' And people said: ``Well, you know, it will be
okay,'' or whatever. And it was not okay. And when you look at
areas like Watts, when you look at the South Side of Chicago
and you look at the South Bronx, and you say, ``That is a tough
neighborhood,'' you are really saying, ``That neighborhood has
drugs.''
Because if you get rid of the drugs, or reduce them, then
crime immediately reduces itself and everything else, high-
school drop out rates and everything else that goes along with
drugs is reduced.
So I just want to say that for what I have to offer in this
Committee, use me, my staff and my side of the aisle because I
know what you are going through, I know what you are talking
about, and I know your frustration at the fact that the
government is not paying attention.
And if I may be a little bold here in using the time you
have given me, the difference is I think this time that this
particular drug, which is affecting your communities and not
mine yet, is produced by corporate America, and so people are
trying to figure out how do you get rid of, or control a drug
which is legal and has a lot of lobbyists for it, but is being
used illegally?
And the result is as bad as the crack cocaine sold in my
neighborhood.
ASSASSINATION CAUSED BY OXYCONTIN USAGE
Mr. Rogers. Can you yield briefly? I really appreciate
that, Mr. Serrano. But I know we all share the same problem,
and I think this thing is all over the country and even in New
York.
But it comes home for us in smaller communities maybe more
closely than it would in a large city. My home-town sheriff, a
personal friend of years and years, 18-year veteran sheriff of
Pulaski County, Kentucky, where I live, was assassinated by a
young guy who was hooked on OxyContin.
I had to speak at his funeral, it was 2,000 or 3,000 mainly
police officers from around the country. It was one of the
hardest things in my life to do.
But that is how these things are reaching down to us, that
this thing is out of hand. And we are not going to sit idly by
here and watch this thing occur.
We are going to make you do what you need to do, without us
making you do it, and we need to do it quickly. And the thing
you can do is get FDA to change their damn rules.
DRUG COURTS
Ms. Daniels. If I may, Congressman, and Mr. Chairman, and
Congressman Serrano, I know you have all raised this and
another thing that I think that we can do is that we have
requested a significant increase in drugcourts budget for 2004.
So this is another tack. I mean, there are several fronts
in this particular war, and I think another one is that the
coercive power of the drug courts may be able to help deal with
some of these serious, serious drug problems that people are
experiencing on OxyContin, as well as other drugs.
Mr. Rogers. I am really glad to hear that. That is one of
the things that our united campaign is going to try to do. We
have got the Chief Justice of the State working with us.
And he--we are meeting with all the judges next month in
about a third of the State to establish drug courts in every
county. The problem the State of Kentucky has is they do not
have any money, and----
Ms. Daniels. On that, on that note, we will be happy to
work with you on some of those issues. One of the other things
that is in the President's Budget that I am aware of, because I
have been trying to collaborate pretty closely with Charlie
Curie, who is the head of SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration at Health and Human
Services HHS.
There is, and it was mentioned in the President's State of
the Union address that there would be a substantial request for
treatment funding no matter where people are present in the
system.
So if they come through the drug courts that is one place
they will be present, and our biggest problem with the drug
courts has been finding the funding for treatment.
So I think collaborating closely with SAMHSA, who is
requesting this large amount of funding, I think it is at least
a couple hundred million per year for a period of time, will go
a long way toward that.
And we would be happy to work with the Committee further on
these issues.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I will be happy to.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. Cramer. Excuse me.
IMPORTANCE OF COPS AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAMS
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, and I enjoyed the remarks of the
Chairman, Mr. Rogers, the Chairman and the ranking member as
well. I welcome both of you to this hearing.
We are starved to have this kind of interaction
collectively, but I want to congratulate both of you on the
positions that you occupy. Ms. Daniels, you and I have known
each other for a long time, we have been out there in the
trenches together and fought a lot of battles together, so I
think you are perfect for the position that you are in.
Mr. Peed, I know by background of you, and I congratulate
you, especially the fact that you have been a sheriff for a
number of years in your prior life.
Dave Buchanan, who is behind you there, has been enormously
helpful to our office as we try to access programs that you
preside over. Vonda Matthews, you are back there, too, and we
thank you for that.
The COPS Program is very important to local law enforcement
in my area, so I am listening as well as our members weigh in
on the issues that we face on the front lines in our
communities.
I want to start off by making a comment based on both your
witness statements and your testimony here. The COPS Program is
valuable because of what it does, but it is valuable because it
is user-friendly. It is easier for the smaller jurisdictions to
comply--dot the i's, cross the t's--and not have to hire grant
writers or have a grant-writing agency or division in their
departments in order to comply--access the funding.
So, Ms. Daniels, in your statement, when you are talking
about those grants, and your comments about being more user-
friendly, I think of COPS as a Justice program, but more on the
other Justice sides, I think the more that we can do to make
those grant programs user-friendly, the better off our local
agencies would be.
Now, I quickly want to segue into jumping right on this
issue. In my State, the meth-lab problem is a tremendous
problem. And, again, like you, Mr. Peed, this is not something
I have known that much about even though my background is there
as a prosecutor and was on the front line.
But we, Alabama, ranked 14th in the number of meth busts.
And last year, that was 143. And 100 of those occurred in one
of my counties. I have six counties.
And this county, Mr. Chairman, sounds like the kind of
counties that exist in your communities and Mr. Rogers'
community. It is a rural, very large county, foothills of the
Appalachian mountains. So the communities there are isolated.
And local law enforcement has been totally overwhelmed by
this. The issue of profiling the victims and their families--I
mean, these are pathetic, hopeless drug addicts. These labs are
cheap to throw up. They are not--they are not a sophisticated
setup at all. In fact, it is just off the shelf stuff that they
are getting.
So we need to empower and fund local law enforcement. And I
am troubled by the reduction that you have been beat up over
here, of the money in the meth hot spots line item that funds
what I assume the local law enforcement gets is from $57, $58
million down to $20 million this year.
And I just want to weigh in on that. That is just not
enough, especially as I view this as an emerging problem. We do
not yet have the full OxyContin problem in my area, but it is
coming. Law enforcement is seeing it. It is happening as well.
So on both of those fronts, we have got a lot of work to
do. So if you would take that message back, I sure would
appreciate it.
REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM
I would like--Ms. Daniels, you made reference to the
Regional Information Sharing System, the RISS system. How long
has that existed?
Ms. Daniels. Well, actually, you may remember these from
your prosecutor days, Congressman, when they were not automated
yet. But they were created by State and local law enforcement I
want to say some 20 years ago.
Mr. Cramer. I thought that might have been the background
for that. I was not sure.
Ms. Daniels. Yes, it was about 20 years ago. And now there
are six regional information sharing systems. We were a member
of Middle-Atlantic Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement
Network MAGLOCLEN, which was the Northeast one. You would have
been--I cannot remember the name of the Southeast one.
But they used to kind of go to a location and talk. Now, it
is an encrypted, secure, Internet-based communication system
for intelligence sharing. It really is beginning to serve as
the backbone for intelligence sharing, not only on drugs, gangs
and other traditional law enforcement areas, but also on
counterterrorism. And it is a marvelous tool. That is why we
have requested the increase.
Mr. Cramer. And I want to help you with that and I applaud
that.
I want to say to the COPS program, the technology side of
the COPS program has been tremendously important to my law
enforcement agencies.
And to both of you, your leadership is extremely important
for us and for the folks that we represent that are there on
the front lines, to make sure that your programs are flexible,
to make sure that you move that money around. I understand that
partnership. You cannot do it all. Local law enforcement has so
much that they have to do.
However, this is a time for State government, local
government and federal government as well. I mean, we just do
not have enough money to spread around. So it is important that
you show the kind of leadership that you are capable of
showing, that you have shown. And that you redefine what the
local agencies need and how you can provide it and what the
current problems are. I think that technology area on the COPS
program is just extremely important.
Mr. Peed. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Vitter.
OXYCONTIN AND METH LABS NEED CHANGING
Mr. Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here.
First of all, not to beat a dead horse, but I certainly
want to echo the comments of all of my colleagues about
OxyContin and meth labs. They are huge issues in almost every
part of the country, certainly including my district,
particularly OxyContin.
I have talked to the DEA--the person who was then head of
the DEA and the FDA and the Justice Department and many other
folks about this problem. And my perception is that nothing
fundamental has changed. And something fundamental, in my
opinion, has to change. And a solution cannot come from just
inside your building. But you all need to be the leaders in
reaching outside your building to forge a solution.
You mentioned drug courts, which are inside your building,
as it were, in terms of the program. I support drug courts.
That is not going to solve the OxyContin problem, in my
opinion, because the root of the problem is not getting the
folks buying the stuff and putting them in a drug court. It is
the network of distributing the stuff, the network itself which
is legal, which is being abused through either pharmacists who
are actually part of illegal transactions, or pharmacists and
other folks who are basically looking the other way when they
have information--prescription volumes and other things--that
is a flashing red light that abuse and illegal activity is
going on.
That is the only way you solve the problem is to address
that through DEA or FDA or whomever. But you all need to reach
outside your building and see that that happens. Because we
have been talking about it for two, three, more years and I do
not think anything fundamental has changed. And I do not think
anyone is looking at that source of the problem.
Also, meth labs are an enormous problem in large parts of
my district. So I certainly echo all those comments.
I also echo the comments in support of COPS grants and also
Byrne grants. Those have been very well received and very
effective in all sorts of communities, certainly including my
district.
FY 2003 COPS AND BYRNE GRANTS CATEGORY
Tell me--walk me through this. I looked at the budget and I
think I understand the answers, but walk me through it. In both
the COPS grants category and the Byrne grants category, what
are you proposing compared to what we just appropriated for
2003? And is that difference moving the money somewhere? Or
cutting the money? Or what?
Ms. Daniels. Well, I will speak to the Byrne grants issue
and the broader issue of Byrne, Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants (LLEBG) and counterterrorism grants going to the states.
The President's Budget actually, given the $3 billion
requested for counterterrorism and first responders, $500
million of which at a minimum must be spent for State and local
law enforcement counterterrorism activities, coupled with the
$600 million, or just under--a hair under $600 million in the
combined Byrne grant, LLEBG category, which we propose to call
Justice Assistance Grants, but which will be available to the
same people it was available to before but for broader purposes
in the case of local law enforcement. It comes to $1.1 billion
minimum that the President's Budget and, again, I am reaching
outside my building here as you suggest, but the President's
Budget is recommending us to go to state and local law
enforcement to deal with the broader array of issues that they
now have to deal with, that they did not have to deal with a
couple of years ago.
Mr. Vitter. If I could interrupt for just a second and back
up. The appropriated level for Byrne Grants that we just passed
in February, was what, $500 million?
Ms. Daniels. It was $500 and $400 million for Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants.
Mr. Vitter. So Byrne Grants was $500 million?
Ms. Daniels. Correct.
Mr. Vitter. Local Law Enforcement Block Grants was $400
million?
Ms. Daniels. $400 million.
Mr. Vitter. Compared to that, what are you proposing?
Ms. Daniels. $1.1 billion in that we propose to merge Local
Law Enforcement Block Grants and Byrne Grants into the--just a
hair under $600 million Justice Assistance Grants Program. The
President is asking in another department for a minimum of $500
million to provide to State and local law enforcement the
assistance that they need in counterterrorism activities, much
of which is dual use as the committee is well aware.
Mr. Vitter. You lost me. Byrne Grants, Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants are merged.
Ms. Daniels. Together, $600 million.
Mr. Vitter. $600 million
Ms. Daniels. Correct.
Mr. Vitter. Compared to $500 plus $400 million this past
year?
Ms. Daniels. I compare $1.1 billion to that, sir, because
even though----
Mr. Vitter. So you are adding $600 plus what, $500 of
terrorist assistance?
Ms. Daniels. Correct. Correct, to State and local law
enforcement.
Obviously, the world has changed. And so normally that
money would have been available through our budget because it
would have been through Office of Domestic Preparedness ODP--it
will be through ODP. ODP moves to a different department.
Mr. Vitter. Compared to the traditional Byrne Grant and
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant categories, is the universe
of recipients the same or is it different?
Ms. Daniels. It is the same.
Mr. Vitter. It is exactly the same?
Ms. Daniels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Vitter. It is not smaller. It is not bigger.
Ms. Daniels. The universe for recipients is the same. And
in fact the percentage which would go directly to local law
enforcement, we wanted to make sure to keep that the same,
because that is why LLEBG was really created, that local law
enforcement became concerned at some point in the 1990s that
the States were not getting enough funding directly to them.
So we want to preserve that percentage, which is 46 percent
of the total would go directly to State or to local law
enforcement and the remaining 54 percent would go to the States
for distribution which is the way it works now.
The added benefit to local law enforcement, in particular,
would be that the purpose areas would be much broader so they
would be able to apply the funds to broader purposes.
COUNTER AND ANTITERRORISM ACTIVITY FUNDING
Mr. Vitter. The $500 million for antiterrorist activity,
which you say a lot of it is dual use.
What would be an example of that?
Ms. Daniels. Well, frankly that funding can be used for
radio interoperability, which is something that we fund--you
can fund through Byrne Grants, you can fund through LLEBG,
which COPS has funding for independently in their office. Any
of the things that will protect police from traditional violent
criminals and help them do their jobs to investigate those, can
very often be used in counter-terrorism.
So assistance that they get, specifically not for first
responder but for counterterrorism activities, will help them
across the board.
Mr. Vitter. Now, a lot of local law enforcement will say,
``We have used this Byrne Grant money, other local law
enforcement grant money for traditional local law
enforcement.'' And to the extent you are taking a bunch of it
and putting it in this new anti-terrorism category, you are
decreasing resources for more traditional local law
enforcement, which we have come to depend on.
How do you answer that critique?
Ms. Daniels. I answer that by saying that as the President
has said, and as the Attorney General has told this
Subcommittee, difficult choices have to be made when we are in
a war on terrorism. We want to help State and local law
enforcement with their new responsibilities in that war on
terrorism but we are not going to be able to do everything we
did and everything we want to do. So balances must be struck.
This was the best balance we thought we could strike as an
Administration to assist State and local law enforcement in
doing everything that they are now required to do.
Mr. Vitter. Okay, how does this--if that were the goal, why
would you not create maximum flexibility?
Ms. Daniels. I think that is what we are arguing actually
by creating the Justice Assistance Grants, which creates much
more flexibility, particularly for local law enforcement
agencies who formally were restricted to certain LLEBG purpose
areas. And now we will have the panoply of purpose areas, which
frankly enables them to do just about everything they want as
long as it is law enforcement oriented with the Justice
Assistance Grants pot.
COPS BUDGET IN FY 2003 & FY 2004
Mr. Vitter. Okay, how does this spread sheet look--what
does this spread sheet look like in 2003, you know, what we
just appropriated, what you are proposing on the COPS side?
Mr. Peed. In 2003 the COPS office had $198 million in
hiring money. Break that out a little bit.
We have $140 million to hire new officers. Of that $140
million, $40 million will be used for COPS in schools. And that
has a Homeland Security element to it. And that was provided
for in the appropriations funding.
We also have $60 million in overtime, and we are developing
that program, that overtime program. And we will report back to
this committee by the 20th of next month.
Overtime funds will be primarily used for those
jurisdictions that have--or at least some of the issues we are
looking that have an excessive number of reserve call-ups that
are requiring overtime, Joint-Terrorism Task Force--those are
involved in Joint-Terrorism Task Force, those that are involved
in terrorism training, and those that have critical
infrastructure that need to be protected.
Mr. Vitter. This is a 2004 proposal?
Mr. Peed. That is 2003.
Mr. Vitter. What we have just done.
Mr. Peed. Yes. We also have----
Mr. Vitter. What about COPS technology?
Mr. Peed. We have almost $200 million in COPS technology
for 2003.
Mr. Vitter. So all those COPS categories amount to what?
Mr. Peed. I am sorry--in which?
Mr. Vitter. In 2003.
Mr. Peed. In 2003? We have a total in 2003 of $587 million.
Mr. Vitter. And so what are you proposing in 2004?
Mr. Peed. In 2004, we have $20 million for training and
technical assistance, $16 million for police integrity, $30
million in Indian country, we have $50 million in information
technology, $20 million in methamphetamine, plus management and
administration, comes to a total of $163 million, almost $164
million.
I would like to go back to----
Mr. Vitter. Where does the rest of the money go to?
Mr. Peed. It has been reprioritized and going to different
organizations to support the terrorism effort in Washington to
support the homeland.
Mr. Vitter. When you factor this COPS cut into the
equation, why is there still an increase that you described?
Ms. Daniels. I would address that, I guess, by saying that
there are specific things. And I am not responsible for the
COPS budget, so I am less familiar with its specifics. But that
much of their technology is applicable to counter-terrorism. So
by funding it over in Department of Homeland Security DHS, that
is not a negative.
The COPS hiring program is something that I think the
Subcommittee knows the Administration has indicated--has
achieved its purpose in hiring, I was telling you this morning,
116,000 police officers throughout the country--more than
meeting the 100,000 goal.
When we have accomplished the purpose--and there are a
couple of those on a smaller scale in our budget, where we have
accomplished the purpose of the program--we then wish to
reprioritize those funds toward something else that will also
help law enforcement, but in a different way. Many of the
things in this budget are redirected toward counterterrorism,
which I think is not a surprise to anyone.
Mr. Vitter. All I am saying is, the overall increase you
describe to $1.1 billion, if you include the COPS side of it,
it is no longer an increase.
Ms. Daniels. In terms of what it represents, I think it is.
Because what we were talking about with Byrne and LLEBG, and
the funding coming out of ODP--Office of Domestic
Preparedness--it is formula funding going straight to the
states and the local jurisdictions for purposes that they can
accomplish, as opposed to, perhaps, hiring only.
These are the formula, broad-based grants, so everything in
that category, I think, shows a net increase.
The specific--I think some of your cut is in things that
are specifically targeted to COPS hiring. I do not know what
else is in there, Carl.
Mr. Peed. I would like to just----
Mr. Vitter. My point is much more basic or simple--the
overall COPS decrease for 2003 to your proposed 2004 is how
much?
Mr. Peed. About $400 million.
Mr. Vitter. $400 million. $400 million is more than the
$200 million you were describing as an increase from $900
million to $1.1 billion. That is what my local law--they can do
math--that is what my local law enforcement's going to tell me.
What is the response?
Ms. Daniels. Well, basic math will tell you that there is a
$200 million difference there. There is a $3 billion pot being
requested at the Department of Homeland Security. A minimum of
$500 million of which--a minimum of $500 million of which--is
to assist State and local law enforcement and counterterrorism
activities.
I, frankly, suspect a good deal more of that would be
available for that purpose, as well as technology purposes that
will also assist.
Mr. Vitter. That pot in Homeland Security is available to
all sorts of first responders, correct?
Ms. Daniels. Except for this carve-out of a minimum of $500
million that has to go to State and local law enforcement
specifically for counterterrorism activities as opposed to the
bigger pot, which can be other first responders as well.
Mr. Vitter. So that $500 million in the universe of
applicants or recipients for that money is the same as the
traditional universe for Byrne, COPS, etc.?
Ms. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Vitter. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS PROGRAM
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Vitter.
We are waiting--we have a vote on and we are down to four
minutes. But I am--I think Mr. Kolbe is going to get back so we
do not have to keep you waiting.
It is my understanding that the program--Justice Assistance
Grants Program is not authorized.
Ms. Daniels. I think that is correct. It is not currently
authorized.
Mr. Wolf. Are you in consultation with the Judiciary
Committee?
Ms. Daniels. As a matter of fact, we are--we are meeting
with Chairman Sensenbrenner tomorrow to talk about a number of
issues related to OJP authorization issues within the greater
Justice Department.
Mr. Wolf. And this is one you are discussing, right?
Ms. Daniels. And this is one of those, yes, sir.
OVERTIME
Mr. Wolf. In fiscal year 2003, Congress made $60 million
available in COPS hiring program for law enforcement overtime.
The Committee hears frequently from local law enforcement
officials about increased overtime requirements associated with
raised terrorist threat levels. Around here, it seems to be a
constant thing, sending officers to specialized domestic
preparedness training and continuing their traditional crime
prevention roles.
How will you execute this overtime program?
Mr. Peed. We have $60 million for overtime and we are in
the process of developing that program. And as I said earlier,
we are looking at a number of issues to determine where that
money would go. And such issues as those jurisdictions who were
hit hardest by reserve call up duty for overtime--they have to
use overtime to cover the the reserve call up. The Joint
Terrorism Task Force, those that are involved in the Joint
Terrorism Task Force, training for terrorism, like the state of
New York, as well as infrastructure protection where those
jurisdictions have critical infrastructure that means where
they are using overtime to protect it, be it for power plants,
be it bridges or financial centers, et cetera.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
With that, I am going to recognize Mr. Kolbe. I will be
back after the vote.
REDUCING THE FY 2004 SCAAP BUDGET
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. We are playing tag-team here today.
We are trying to catch these votes, keep the hearing going. A
lot of people asking good questions.
Thank you very much for being here today.
I want to ask some questions that not, you might be happy
to know, not about OxyContin, about some State and local
enforcement issues. I think the budget for State and local law
enforcement assistance is a bit discouraging. It is a little
bit hard in the budget request to make the right comparisons
because some--it is against the FY-03 requested amounts because
of the lateness in passing the budget in this year instead of
the actual appropriated amounts. And there are some transfers
between accounts.
But you have already talked about the local law
enforcement, the Byrne grant. Mr. Vitter talked about that with
you and I think you covered that. As well as the--it is not
quite apples, but you can believe that there is $1.1 billion
compared to the current $900 million there.
But I am, just to clarify, I am correct in saying that the
Administration has recommended State Criminal Alien and
Assistance Program, or SCAAP program, be zeroed out, that
correct?
Ms. Daniels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. And on some good news that there is an $8
million increase for the Southwest Border Prosecutor initiative
that is being requested. Is that not correct?
Ms. Daniels. That is correct. From the enacted level.
Mr. Kolbe. That is from the enacted level?
Ms. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Kolbe. Okay. Let me talk about the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, SCAAP, for a minute. I think, as certainly
everybody here in this room knows, this is a program that pays
for the prison costs, incarceration costs for undocumented
aliens that are not being held, you know, in Federal detention
centers, partly due to a lack of capacity or because the
Federal government declines the prosecution and turns the
prosecution over to local law enforcement.
The Administration did attempt this last year to eliminate
the program again, or I should say the first time. And I am
happy to say that Congress did not agree with that decision.
The House did approve the full amount that--or virtually the
amount that--the same amount that had been, I believe it was
the--not quite the previous year.
The previous year, as I recall, was $565 or $560. The
Congress had--the House had $500 in its Omnibus 2003 Bill for
the SCAAP program. The Senate, of course, did not go along with
that or did not put anything into it. And so we were forced
into a situation of basically splitting the difference and we
have $250 million in it now.
As you just acknowledged, there is nothing again in there
for funding for this program. Let me make it clear that in my
view that illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. Let
me just begin by asking that quick question. Do you begin--do
you believe that the responsibility for the enforcement of the
immigration laws is a Federal responsibility and not a State
responsibility?
Ms. Daniels. Yes, sir, we do. And I think--well, we will
follow up with some of that after you ask your----
Mr. Kolbe. Okay. Until the follow up questions, yes.
Ms. Daniels [continuing]. Further questions.
ILLEGAL ALIENS
Mr. Kolbe. Well, if the Federal government does not do its
job, for whatever reason, or if a person over stays their visa,
if they come in illegally and we are not able to catch them and
they commit some kind of crime when they are on this side of
the border, then it seems to me that this is a responsibility
of the Federal government to pay the costs of these actions,
particularly when they are, as they often are, caught by
federal agents here.
The State--the localities along the border, counties that
are along the southern border, the U.S.-Mexican border are
among the very poorest counties in the United States. In fact,
I think, documentation shows that if you took those counties
collectively they would have the lowest per capita income,
disposable income of any dozen counties that you could put
together anywhere in the United States.
So they do not really have the resources to pay for these
costs. And yet they are constantly being required to pay for
these costs in large measure because the Federal government
either, as I said, chooses to simply house people in the local
jails, because they do not have the capacity in the federal
prisons for short-term detention, or they choose not to
prosecute these people.
In one county along my border, Cochise County, where, by
the way, they have the most apprehensions of illegal aliens of
any kind in the United States--at any place in one sector in
the United States. Forty percent of all the indicted felony
drug defendants result from Federal referrals from the Federal
prosecutor. The jail has a capacity of 160 inmates. It has got
270 in there right now, of which more than 20 percent are
Federal referrals.
I guess my question is simply, what is the rationale--why
is it the view of the Federal government, of this
administration, that it is not a core responsibility of the
Justice Department in terms of law enforcement to provide for
the costs of incarceration of these individuals who are
arrested by Federal officers or referred by Federal prosecutors
to local officials?
Ms. Daniels. I will offer to respond to that since that is
in our part of the budget.
Congressman, I think the Attorney General also heard from
you in his testimony and responded and I will respond somewhat
similarly. I think I would maybe go back to when SCAAP was
created. It seemed that perhaps that was created because the
Federal government had decided it was not doing a very good job
and was not going to do a very good job of its mission of
protecting the borders.
This Administration has determined that what it needs to do
is a better job of protecting the borders. They were already in
the process of trying to overhaul the Immigration and
Naturalization Service even before it became a part of Homeland
Security.
We view, as our mission, and I speak for the broader
Administration, the Justice Department and the Department of
Homeland Security here, to protect the borders and to minimize
the amount of these cases that you should have to deal with
because we did not manage to protect the borders.
Ms. Daniels. So the theory behind this shift is that, while
we have asked, I think three years running here, for $50
million for border security, and now we have a third request in
the 2004 budget for purposes of State and local law
enforcement, courts, prosecutors and jails.
There are a great deal of resources being put in on the
Federal level to securing the borders over at Homeland Security
by adding, as I understand the Attorney General indicated, 18
Federal judges down in that area, so that the Federal
government will take on a larger share. Hopefully, the numbers
of those cases will decrease. And so it is for that reason that
there is the shift.
Now, I know that the Attorney General----
Mr. Kolbe. But that has not occurred yet?
Ms. Daniels. No, of course not. And, of course, there is
always a delay in SCAAP, because we have to learn each year how
much expense, based on the prior year, before we can reverse.
So our theory is, I guess--shift, if we can prevent you
from having such great expenses in a given year, then there
would be less need.
Now, I know the Attorney General indicated to you that,
while this works real well in many jurisdictions, I think he
called it as something of a diversionary effect, and Arizona
has a particular problem. I personally recently visited your
southern border and flew over some of those areas, and I
absolutely agree that you have a monumental problem there.
Mr. Kolbe. I hope you are not under any illusion the border
is under control.
Ms. Daniels. I am not.
Mr. Kolbe. Okay.
Ms. Daniels. But that is the theory behind this shift.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, I understand the--you know, I understand
your theory. But, I mean, the theory suggests that it is going
to be implemented. In the meantime, you are going to--you are
going to put the responsibility on the local law enforcement
officials to pay and local taxpayers of Arizona to pay this
cost.
I asked this question of the Attorney General, so I will
ask it again of you. What would be the reaction of the Justice
Department, how would you respond to a decision by the local
prosecutors--and this is actively out of consideration--to
simply refuse all Federal referrals?
So then drug smugglers will know that if they smuggle below
a certain amount and--I will not use it, but they all know what
it is--that there will be no prosecution because the Federal
government will not prosecute?
I think those are the ones that they refer. So if the local
officials refuse to take it, they simply will be released and
deported at that point.
What will be the reaction of the Justice Department to
that?
Ms. Daniels. I am no longer a United States Attorney, and I
would not purport to speak for Paul Charlton, the United States
Attorney there.
But I think that our response would be that we would hope
that we can work much more closely together than that, and that
we would not reach the point where those kinds of difficult
decisions had to be made.
And I promise you that, from our vantage point, we will
work with you to do whatever we can to be of assistance in that
regard.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, I appreciate the words, but, you know, the
way you would do that is to put the money up there and provide
the funds.
And so your statement that you intend to try to work with
the local law enforcement agencies, including the prosecutors
and the sheriff who maintains the jails in those counties, is
an empty promise, I have to tell you. There is nothing backing
it.
SCAAP AUTHORIZATION FROM 2004-2010
Ms. Daniels. I think there is something backing it. There
has about $150 million, two-thirds of which this Committee has
been gracious enough to assist us in obtaining in our budget
for the last two fiscal years for 2002 and 2003, and we are
requesting another $50 million in 2004, specifically for
Southwest border prosecutions.
So I am hopeful that that will be very helpful to you.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just say that I introduced
a bill, H.R. 933, this year, with some bipartisan support, that
will authorized SCAAP--we authorized SCAAP, I should say--for
the fiscal year 2004, at a level of $750 million, and $850
million in fiscal year 2005, and then $950 million for the
years beyond that through 2010.
I am not sure that we will have success in getting that
authorization through, or what the Administration's response
would be if it actually were to pass both the House and the
Senate, but I intend to continue to push for this.
And I continue just to be dismayed, I must say, with the
Administration's, what I think is a fairly cavalier approach to
local law enforcement and to simply walk away from the
responsibilities of the Federal government for reimbursing
States for the cost of Federal prosecutions--what should be
Federal prosecutions, which they decline to do and turn over to
local law enforcement agencies. And to pay for the cost of that
incarceration, which is a tremendous burden, as you know, on
State and local officials.
HOMELAND SECURITY COORDINATION
But let me just turn my last question to, very briefly, to
coordination with Homeland Security. And you, again, touched on
this in talking about the amounts of money with--that are
available to the Department of Homeland Security. And that you
plan to support counter-terrorism efforts locally.
But my question really goes to this issue of first
responders. Homeland Security's got $3.5 billion in assistance,
including $500 million, which, I think, is the same $500
million you referred to, for grants to provide firefighters
with health and safety equipment. Maybe that is a different
grant, I believe. And vehicles as they prepare to respond to
future terrorist incidents. And then there is $500 million that
you were referring that is intended for State and local law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
How are you coordinating, how is Justice coordinating with
the Department of Homeland Security in determining who is going
to do what and how much we are going to do and how we are going
to divide these responsibilities for support for local
initiatives?
Ms. Daniels. As I mentioned, Congressman, our--the Office
for Domestic Preparedness--just transferred from the Office of
Justice Programs within Justice over to Homeland Security. They
have not actually physically moved at all but are still within
our building.
And we are still working hand-in-glove with them, because
we will be managing their grants, at least through the end of
this fiscal year. We have an agreement to do that. They are of
OJP.
We are working very closely with them on a person-to-person
basis, so that we will know, because we are managing their
grants, exactly how they are spending their part of the money.
And secondly, I think our automated system makes a big
difference because we have as part of our reorganization, this
Committee has been very helpful, has been able to automate our
entire grant system so we can see with a flick of the mouse
exactly where the funding is going, for what purpose, and to
whom.
We also have a point person within the Office of the
Attorney General overall collaborating very closely and working
out minute details of the collaboration between Justice and the
Department of Homeland Security.
So I think among all of those things, we can do a very
efficient job of making sure that we are not duplicating
efforts in any way.
INTEROPERABILITY COMMUNICATIONS AND SYSTEMS GRANTS
Mr. Kolbe. Well, anytime you have a reorganization as
massive as this, it poses problems, and I understand that. But
just let me ask specifically, who has the responsibility for
the interoperable communications of the first responders?
And who has the responsibility of the interoperable or the
communication-systems grants that are going to assure
interoperability between Federal, State, tribal and local
officials?
Ms. Daniels. And I know Carl has talked about this
Committee. And you might want to talk a little more about who
all is collaborating on this group.
Mr. Peed. As I said earlier, we have got about $20 million
in interoperability funding, and we have been meeting with NIJ,
with NIST as well as FEMA and the Office of National
Preparedness to determine how that money can best be utilized
from where it is going to go.
We are going to coordinate our grant proposals with them.
And as I said, also we agreed yesterday to create a national
clearing house so that everybody will know where money goes
whether its directed funds, and including what local
jurisdictions are already doing.
Because sometimes there are many good, good interoperable
communications systems out there already.
Mr. Kolbe. Should all of this stuff be centralized in one
location, for the grant programs? Is it too diffused? I have a
real concern that my local people have not got the ball up,
which ball.
Mr. Peed. I think OMB is looking towards creating a one-
shop stopping for grants. And it is an e-grants initiative----
Mr. Kolbe. And it will include law enforcement, justice--
Mr. Peed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe [continuing]. And the homeland security area?
Mr. Peed. I think it is all grants----
Ms. Daniels. Actually, it is broader than that. It is all
grants.
Mr. Kolbe. All grants?
Ms. Daniels. Correct.
Mr. Kolbe. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. I think before we address Mr. Mollohan, I think
you will see it would almost be good if this could be videoed
and played downtown. Because what Mr. Kolbe said and I think a
lot of the credit for the SCAAP money being in last year, if
anybody from Arizona is listening, the credit should go to Mr.
Kolbe.
We put $500 million in. The Senate put zero in. And so the
Subcommittee split the difference as $250. Those of us who are
not on the border are not real--I think Mr. Kolbe has
sensitized the Committee, also some other members who I will
not mention, who are--I mean they are on our side, if you will.
And this is a--and California.
And so the impact that they have. You are from Indiana. I
am from Virginia. I do not think I understood until Mr. Kolbe
educates just a few other people. But I think you see some of
the stress and the tension and they are faced with just
flooding over.
Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the kind
words. And I appreciate the fact that we have a Chairman of the
Subcommittee who is willing to do as much as you have done.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Mr. Kolbe. And Mr. Mollohan?
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, I have been at another hearing.
I do not have any questions.
CRITERIA FOR AWARDING GRANTS
Mr. Wolf. Oh, Okay, I will just ask a couple. And then we
will try to end the hearing. Mr. Peed, if you can tell us what
may be submitted for the record so we are not keeping you too
long.
But what criteria will you use to award these grants that
we were talking about as I left on the overtime program?
Also, on the COPS hiring, in fiscal year 2002, 116,000
officers had been funded, and Ms. Daniels you mentioned
116,000--
Ms. Daniels. I got that from Mr. Peed.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. We understand that through July 2002 only
88,000 were on the street. What is the disparity?
Mr. Peed. We funded 116,000. There are actually only about
88,000 on the street and there is the difference in budgeting
cycles, the federal budgeting cycle and our grant--when we
grant the funds versus a local's budgeting cycle.
Secondly, it takes--it could take up to about 10 months to
hire those individuals. And secondly, it takes a long time to
train them. So there is a lag time between the time we obligate
those funds, and they actually get the positions on the street.
Mr. Wolf. So there will be if you take that into
consideration of 116,000, we are not losing this many that are
coming on and leaving.
Mr. Peed. No, sir, they will be continuing to hit the
street over the next couple of years.
Mr. Wolf. The DNA, let me just thank you for that. I
commend the Administration for putting the $96 million in. I
think the DNA backlog is very, very important to deal with.
And I have a question. We will just let it go and just
submit it for the record.
Thank you for that.
Ms. Daniels. Thank you.
FAIR ACT
Mr. Wolf. I have some concern on the competitive sourcing
initiaitve. If you can let us know how this process will work
and what will be the impact on OJB employees if the contractor
wins the competition.
Ms. Daniels. Would you like me to give you a little summary
of that now, sir? Yes.
Actually, the competitive-sourcing initiative began with
passage of the FAIR Act by the Congress in 1998. The
President's Management Agenda has embraced competitive sourcing
as one of six aspects of that management agenda.
And the Justice Department, like every department
throughout government, is asked to identify under the FAIR Act
which functions in its inventory are inherently governmental
versus which are commercial in nature. Now once that has been
determined that does not mean those are going to be competed.
There is a lengthy process in which we are engaged, and in
which we have engaged an expert to advise our employees so that
they will be well-positioned.
The whole theory, just to do this in a nutshell because I
know that the Committee is probably tired at this point--but
the whole theory of competitive sourcing is not to negatively
affect employees, but to positively affect the work we do, the
services we provide to our customers by injecting competition
into the process we spur the creativity that enables us to
better serve our customers. So that is the theory behind
competitive sourcing.
It is not an effort to affect the level of employees or
anything else. So what we are doing with our folks, is we are
working very closely to identify what functions would benefit
by being competitively let out for competition, but also to
make sure that our employees have a level playing field in
competing so that they are not at any kind of disadvantage. The
experience has been at various levels of government, who have
worked with competitive sourcing.
But in the vast majority of cases, the government employees
end up wining the bids and you end up with a better product at
a lower cost to the taxpayers and better service to the
consumers, while public employees also win. Our goal, at OJP in
particular, is to make sure that our employees are in a
position to win those bids.
GANG RESISTANCE PROGRAMS
Mr. Wolf. Now, the Gang Resistance, Education Training
program. The Homeland Security Act transferred ATF to Justice,
where I think it should be. They have a Gang Resistance,
Education Training (GREAT) program, $13 million per year, to
over 200 law enforcment agencies to teach students to resist
gang pressure. I do not know where you live--but we, now, have
been impacted by gangs. The violence is incredible.
The GREAT program is similar to DARE and other Juvenile
Justice Delinquency Program. Is the department looking to
consolidating this ATF program with one of the others, because
it sounds like they are similar?
Ms. Daniels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have not really
had a chance to talk to Brad Buckles about whether there should
be a consolidation. I knew that we are looking at an evaluation
of GREAT--much as we try to evaluate all those kinds of things
that we do to make sure that it is making a differnece, because
the dollars are scarce.
I think they have been revising their training such that it
might be more effective in the classrooms. I know that our
Weed-and-Seed sites very often work with GREAT, to try to
incorporate GREAT into Weed-and-Seed strategies. We have not
yet had conversations on that issue. I would be happy to work
with your staff and gather a little bit more information on
this and see if, in fact, they are so similar that they ought
to be merged.
CIVIL RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Serrano. What evidence do you have that some of what
you are doing, if you are doing anything, has had an effect,
and how do you evaluate after September 11th what is happening
in this area? Do you keep a data bank on complaints, on how
local law enforcement is handling these issues?
You know, you have a situation now, where, as you know, in
some communities, local police have now been asked to serve as
immigration officers. That creates two problems.
The police really do not want to do this. And the local
person, whether they are here documented or not--even folks who
are documented and are not citizens, they may come from a
society where they have always feared the police and the
immigration department. They come to this country--and I think
this is important to note--they come to this country,
especially from Latin America, and for the first time in their
lives, they find a professional police force with rules and
regulations.
And while I am the first one who complains about certain
actions by the police, in general, it is a professional force
throughout this country that deals with immigrants and poor
people in a certain sound way.
Now, these folks are faced with the possibility of the
local police officer that they always see as their protector
becoming the one who could be questioning their immigration
status again. Even if you are here totally documented, all your
papers in order, anything that smells of the INS always makes
you very jittery.
You are not going to have, I think, people coming forward
to assist the police. And the police also has a second role.
So, I know I asked you a few things at the same time and
made a few comments, but if you could comment on that, I would
really appreciate it.
Mr. Peed. Congressman, thank you so much. I spent my entire
career protecting civil rights of individuals. And I take very
seriously the issue of what I call the integrity.
We have funded for a number of years, going back to 2001,
$17 million a year on the issue of integrity. And as I said, I
take it very seriously. I consider an incident--it only takes
an incident to ruin the trust of law enforcement in this
country. Whether it is a New York incident or a Los Angeles,
CA, incident. It hurts law enforcement all across this country
when you have an incident, especially a high-profile incident.
We are providing training all across the country on issues
of integrity. They range from use of force, development of
early intervention systems to identify people who may be
involved in potential civil rights violation; self-assessment
techniques so agencies can determine what they are doing if
there are any potential civil rights violations.
So we have about 12 strategies--those are just a few.
Last year, we funded demonstration sites in--or models
looking at our major county sheriffs and our major city
chiefs--to develop systems to look at all those issues,
including--we went back to our State associations--the State
police associations, the state sheriffs associations to look at
integrity issues.
In addition, I went to meet with Ralph Boyd, who is
director of our Civil Rights Division in the Justice
Department. Mr. Boyd is very interested about this issue, of
making sure that civil rights are protected throughout this
country.
He is interested in preventing, not just detecting,
prosecuting and, ``We are going after people.'' But he would
like to move toward prevention of civil rights violations
throughout the country.
And just because there is a jurisdiction that has
difficulty does not mean that the Justice Department should
wait to go in there. For example, Cincinnati had some issues
out there, and both Director Daniels' office and my office
worked to go out there to help Cincinnati to deal with the
issues of potential civil rights violations.
USE OF POLICE FORCE
Ms. Daniels. And if I may add to that, Congressman. The
President and the Attorney General expressed on multiple
occasions a very strong commitment to civil rights. The
Department of Justice is determined that it will respect and
protect the civil rights of people throughout this country,
whether they are citizens of this country or guests in the
country.
For our part, we are doing a number of things within OJP,
and that includes the training that we have available through
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, both in counterterrorism and
in hate crimes issues, where we are sensitizing police to these
issues in partnership with one another so that we make sure
that police, while they are aggressive in doing their jobs, are
doing so in a way that respects individual civil rights.
We have met with Ralph Boyd, as Carl describes, and we are
working on a couple of collaborations. One is along the lines
of the Cincinnati idea. We both helped fund some training in
Cincinnati.
What we would like to do is, as the Civil Rights Division
identifies issues with police departments, before they ever get
to the level of severity where we have got big problems, what
we would like to do is go in at the front end and provide
training that is going to prevent those issues from arising,
particularly in the area of use of force, and you know, some of
the other issues that tend to arise in the civil rights
investigations.
We have had some difficulty identifying funding that is
available for us to direct toward that purpose, but we are
doing our best to collaborate with Civil Rights toward that
end.
One of the other things we are trying to do, as a matter of
fact, particularly with regard to the Hispanic community, and
the tremendous growth in Hispanic citizens in this country in
recent years, and what we will see in the oncoming years, is to
try to provide information--not only to the police, and the
Chairman was talking about cultural issues--I think there are
cultural misunderstandings sometimes--to provide information to
the police about the culture from which new residents may come
and information to those new residents about what they should
expect if they are pulled over by a police officer.
So we have been providing a lot of new information to
communities in collaboration with HAPCOA, the Hispanic American
Police Command Officers Association, and our Weed-and-Seed
Sites, for example, to try to improve that relationship.
So, I think between our two offices, there are a number of
things we are trying to do to ensure that both on the
counterterrorism front and the traditional law enforcement
front we respect civil rights completely.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Serrano. Well, let me close by just saying this.
I appreciate your comments on the issue of civil rights. I
also want you to keep it in the context of the fact that we are
detaining people right now. I know that Attorney General
Ashcroft has publicly said that he is committed to the
protection, but I have told him in half-jest and half-pain
that, given a choice, he will detain half of us in this country
and put us somewhere for a while.
So, I worry about that.
But, understanding the culture is very important during
this period of time as is understanding that we should not
repeat the errors of the past. We as a nation still feel bad.
We do. I do not know anybody who feels good about what we did
to Japanese-Americans during World War II.
We are in the process of doing it again. If we do not watch
it, we will expand it and create enemies of ourselves.
And lastly, as I said, understanding the culture is very
good. We had an incident in New York a couple years ago, where
I jumped up and screamed, and people thought I was crazy.
We had asbestos at a couple of voting sites. So, what they
suggested was to have election day in a tent outside with the
National Guard guarding the polls. Now that, really, if you do
not think about it, does not sound too bad.
But say you are from Latin America, and you became a
citizen, the thought of the military standing at your polling
site--you are never going to vote. Because that is what they
always did. They stood there and made a little note of who you
voted for.
And that is how the elections--these democratic elections
that we support in Latin America--that is how they are run.
With the military outside telling people--they were trying to
solve a problem. But again, understanding who it is that we are
dealing with. Keep that in mind.
And lastly, Mr. Peed, I have just come to the conclusion at
the end of this hearing that you could play a big role on this
issue. Because if I am not mistaken, you were sheriff and
worked at the Fairfax County department during the time of the
largest growth in Hispanic population anywhere in the country.
See, everybody thinks the largest growth was in Florida,
Texas, New York and California. But the highest percentage
growth was Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia. Am I right?
And you were there. So you know, you dealt with these issues
over time and I hope you become a voice in the administration
for that.
Mr. Peed. One of the things we did when I was the sheriff
is following the Rodney King incident in LA is our chief judge
and myself held public hearings in minority communities to look
at not only the fairness of our justice system but the
perceptions of fairness. And we held meetings in our minority
communities, including our Latino and Hispanic communities to
look at that issue. And many issues came up.
Those hearings won a national award through the National
Association of Counties because we addressed issues like
interpreters for the courts and, again, the perceptions of
fairness.
If the perception of fairness is--if they perceive it not
to be fair, you have got to change that perception. And if it
is unfair, you need to change it to make it fair.
Thank you so much to both of you and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Peed did an outstanding job as sheriff in
Fairfax County. And as--did your follower, Sheriff Winston,
before him.
And Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some
questions I am going to submit for the record. I think they can
be handled that way.
Mr. Wolf. Without objection, the hearing will be adjourned.
Thank you both.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]