[Senate Hearing 109-300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, Mikulski, Leahy, Kohl,
Murray, Harkin and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Robert
Mueller. Thank you both for appearing before the subcommittee
this morning. This is your first appearance before the newly
created Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies. Previously in my capacity as the chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence we had the opportunity
to work together, and I hope to continue that relationship with
you.
I look forward to hearing from each of you about your
vision of the Justice Department and the FBI respectively, and
the challenges each of you see in the coming fiscal year. In
particular I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and
women who work at the Justice Department and all they do to
keep America safe.
Based on my review of your budget request and the
constraints of the subcommittee, I believe it will take your
leadership to make the tough choices regarding the allocation
of resources given the budget constraints we are facing.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Department of
Justice is $20.3 billion and represents an increase of 1
percent over the 2005 enacted funding level. While the budget
proposes increases for the FBI, the United States Attorneys,
the United States Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), this budget proposes
severe cuts to other important programs. In particular it
proposes to cut $1.4 billion to State and local law enforcement
programs. It rescinds $314 million in funds for the
construction of new prisons, and proposes $123 million in new
fees to fund base operations for critical law enforcement
activities. This budget also proposes to rescind $1.3 billion
held in trust for victims of crime to offset costs elsewhere.
With that proposed offset, the Justice Department's request is
actually $19.1 billion and represents a 5 percent decrease from
the 2005 level.
I find these cuts to be unacceptable and perhaps
irresponsible, particularly as they relate to the rescission of
important funds and the proposal of new fees.
I want to be supportive of this request, but these
reductions and the budget maneuvers concern me and will concern
others on the subcommittee. For example, the budget proposes to
increase a fee on the explosives industry to generate revenue
of $120 million in offsetting collections in 2006. I want to
point out that even if Congress passed this proposal today I am
told it would take the Department 2 years to even begin
collecting the fee. If that is true, I do not understand how
the Department of Justice proposes to use the receipts from
this fee to offset fiscal year 2006 law enforcement operations.
This $120 million hole is just one example of many contained in
this request. These shortfalls will force the committee to make
some extremely difficult choices.
Another offset that concerns me is the proposal to rescind
funding previously provided by this subcommittee for new prison
construction. Not only are we facing significant overcrowding
at Federal prison facilities, but you are projecting the
addition of approximately 8,000 new prisoners each year to
those already crowded facilities. The budget proposes to
rescind $314 million for funding already provided to build two
medium security facilities. Without construction and activation
of these two facilities, projected medium security crowding,
which is already 50 percent over capacity, will be 10 percent
higher by 2009.
As for increases, Mr. Attorney General, your budget request
proposes that $2.7 billion be spent on information technology,
also, I expect there to be some direct oversight by you of the
systems being developed by the Department and in its bureaus.
The fact that the Department's CIO has control of less than 10
percent of the information technology (IT) resources and the
employees who build, run and maintain these systems, explains
why there is no universal plan for systems development in the
Department. But given the current budgetary constraints there
are not sufficient resources to continue building these
stovepipe systems that fail to deliver the results promised to
the taxpayers and to the users.
I am especially interested in hearing what specific
oversight the Department is conducting with respect to the
FBI's Virtual Case File (VCF). I was extremely disappointed to
learn of VCF's failure and the significant loss of funds
associated with it. While I wholeheartedly support bringing the
FBI into the 21st century and realize the importance of
information technology to the FBI's mission, we cannot support
unlimited and unchecked resources, and will not tolerate broken
promises for results that are never realized or delivered. I
believe, given one failed attempt, it is imperative that you
proceed with caution to ensure that we do not make the same
mistakes twice. We expect results and will do everything we can
to ensure that there is congressional oversight for this
program. Someone must be accountable for the success or failure
of VCF and all of the Department's programs.
There are many other issues that we anticipate discussing
during this hearing, including the FBI's use of resources on
priority missions, the relationship of the FBI Director and the
new Director of National Intelligence, and the funding
implications of that relationship, and the critical human
resources issues the FBI is now confronting.
Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller, I look
forward to hearing your thoughts on the Justice Department's
budget request and will look forward to working with you on
other important issues facing this country.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good morning to the subcommittee and to the Attorney General
and to Director Mueller.
This is our first hearing of the Senate Appropriations
newly constituted Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, and
as I said, I look forward to working with Senator Shelby. This
is a great subcommittee due to Senator Shelby's long experience
and involvement in this, and also because we both were on the
Intelligence Committee together. As Senator Shelby said, we
look forward to really working with you in both unclassified
and classified situations. And we have Senator Leahy, the
ranking member on Judiciary, which hopefully means we will be
able to combine sound policy with a good budget.
We also note that as of this morning the Justice Department
and the White House have sent forth a name for the U.S.
Attorney in the State of Maryland. We have met with him and we
feel confident that he will make a good one, and I assure you
that I will do all that I can to move his nomination
expeditiously.
As we look at what the Justice Department is facing, it is
one of the most critical agencies in our country. It must join
together to fight the global war against terrorism, and yet
protect us against other threats of organized crime, white-
collar crime and the rising gang violence. Its agencies are
some of the most important that serve our Nation. In addition
to the overall Justice framework, there is the FBI, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, ATF, and our Marshals Service,
often overlooked.
In serving in this subcommittee we look forward to working
with you to build a safer and stronger country. And like
Senator Shelby, I too am very concerned about this budget.
Particular concerns to me are the drastic cuts to local law
enforcement programs which have to be the hallmark of law
enforcement in our community, and law enforcement, when it is
coordinated, really serves the national interest.
Also, I am deeply concerned about the irresponsible $1.3
billion rescission in the Crime Victims Fund. My job is to make
sure the Department stands sentry on protecting America and our
country and to make sure that we are the safer and stronger
country.
In order for our law enforcement strategy to work, we need
to really focus on local law enforcement, and I have been
concerned about programmatic cuts in the community oriented
policing services (COPS), the Byrne program and others at the
local level.
I just would like to commend you, Mr. Attorney General, and
then also to thank Director Mueller. We had a terrible
situation here a few years ago with the sniper case, and it was
a phenomenal effort of coordination, and we could not have done
what we did without the FBI and Gary Bald and our ATF, who
worked closely with our county executive, Doug Duncan. But we
did not federalize it. We worked with the local law enforcement
people. We had a national effort without federalizing. The
Federal Government came in with its highest and best use of
resources, but because of all of the funding and work of local
law enforcement and the insistence that they coordinate, there
was a brotherhood of the Beltway, truly a brotherhood around
the Beltway. What they were able to do is to find the killers,
and now as you know, they are in our judicial system.
That to me is the model of local law enforcement,
particularly when a nation or a community is under threat. So I
am very committed to being able to make sure that local law
enforcement has what it needs and that we have this kind of
intense partnership.
The other issue that we see on the rise is the issue of
gang violence, and we hope to discuss this with you more,
particularly because this issue is not only in our region, but
it is a growing one.
In an ideal world we could have had a separate hearing just
on the FBI, but we need to move expeditiously in this
appropriations cycle so that we are part of the cycle, and I
want to thank Senator Shelby for the way he is organizing the
subcommittee. But for the FBI, we really look forward to our
continued relationship with the Director. We have worked with
him in the intelligence effort. But now as we look at the FBI,
we know we look at the request for increased funding for more
analysts, language training, all of these things which we
intensely support. We must go back though to the issues of
Trilogy and to make sure we are on track with that, and at the
same time as we work on making sure there is the technology to
work, we cannot let domestic issues fall by the wayside, and I
will be raising issues on an effort on health care fraud, the
bilking of our citizens.
So we will be talking about that as well as the gang issue
and the prisoner reentry program.
I am very interested, and I know Senator Shelby has raised
the issue of new prisons. We have a Federal prison in
Cumberland, Maryland and I compliment you on its staff. But
what happens when the prisoners come home, and do we have a way
that prevents recidivism and reintegrates them into the
community and into the family?
Mr. Gonzales, I know this is a keen issue with you, and
perhaps this is one of the areas where faith-based initiatives
really work best because of its community-based initiative to
welcome the prisoner, coordinate with parole or probation, and
at the same time make sure that when they reenter we move them
to a new way of life and we look forward to discussing this
with you.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. There is so much
to talk about, but we agree on a lot of the priorities. We just
need to agree now on the wallet.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you and
Senator Mikulski in welcoming Attorney General Gonzales and FBI
Director Mueller here, and I know they represent the hard-
working men and women of the Justice Department, the FBI,
people who work around the clock every single day of the week,
protect all Americans, and I would hope that all Americans are
grateful.
They are here to talk not only directly on policy but
indirectly on policy because they are going to talk about the
budget request for the Justice Department, a request which
recommends lessened priorities, substantial cuts in several
programs that are critical to State and local agencies. They
are in charge of fighting crime and preventing terrorism and
assisting victims.
I share the frustration of local and State law enforcement.
All of us, both Republicans and Democrats have heard from them,
and the first responder agencies because they see a budget
request that includes elimination and reduction of funding by
$1.5 billion. That is a 46.2 percent reduction in programs
crucial to their day-by-day efforts. As a Senator from a rural
State I've seen the partnerships we have made with our rural
law enforcement, and how our State police have been called upon
to carry out duties they had never done before, in cooperation
with the Federal agencies. So when the administration proposes
a 46.2 percent cut in what they have for law enforcement it is
a matter of concern.
The Department's top priorities continue to be the
prevention, investigation, and the prosecution of terrorist
activities against U.S. citizens and interests, as we see in
their request for $535 million in new investments for the FBI
including counterintelligence activities and Justice
information systems technology. But I think it is legitimate to
ask questions about how the FBI has handled some of these
resources. At our last hearing in February we examined the lack
of a Virtual Case File and the millions wasted on lessons
learned. I hope that the Director will have new information
today on the program successor, so-called SENTINEL, on the
status and cost and make sure that this is not money down the
drain like the last time.
There have been concerns that traditional duties to the
Justice Department have garnered too little attention and
support. They have to lead the Nation in deterring,
investigating, prosecuting gun, drug, civil rights violations,
incarcerating offenders, partnering with State, local and
community groups to prevent crimes, and of course leadership
and assistance in meeting the needs of crime victims. We have
seen an end to the downward trend in violent crimes with rates
leveling out instead of continuing to climb. The FBI has
reported an overall violent crime decline of 3 percent in 2003.
That is great news, but murders increased by 1.7 percent, and
that of course creates a concern especially as it reflects a
change and a downward slide.
The President says that he wants to ensure that our State
and local police receive the resources necessary to do the job.
Last week at the National Press Club the Attorney General
said--and I totally agree with what he said--``we rely on local
information, local partners to fight local crime, the beat cop,
the county sheriff, and the lifelong investigator. They
understand what is happening in the towns and cities and what
needs to be done to stop it.''
Attorney General Gonzales. I could not agree with you more.
But I worry when I see the drastic cuts in those programs.
Under the President's budget we are going to see an end to
grants for hiring on the beat and school resources officers. We
see under the President's budget severe reductions in equipment
and support staff grants to combat illegal drugs, particularly
methamphetamine production and distribution. We are going to
see drastic cuts of 50 percent to programs that support
activities to prevent juvenile delinquency and address juvenile
crime, something we were finally getting a handle on. The Boys
and Girls Clubs of America, for example, something that has
been proven to be a success, is going to see its budget cut by
30 percent.
And finally, and this I really cannot understand, in the
Crime Victims Fund, which has had enormous bipartisan support,
the President has proposed to take all the amounts remaining in
the fund, all of them, at the end of fiscal year 2006. That is
a cut of $1.2 billion. It is going to place crime victim
service programs in serious jeopardy. I think it sends a wrong
message to law enforcement officers and crime victims. They see
us spending billions of dollars for victims of crimes in Iraq,
but we are cutting out every single cent in this budget for
crime victims in America. I am not saying we should cut out the
money in Iraq. That is not the question, but if we can find it
in our hearts and our pocketbooks to help crime victims in
Iraq, why are we taking away all the money that was put in
there for crime victims in the United States. I do not think we
should be eliminating initiatives that we know to be effective.
Strengthening security, information sharing, and disaster
response programs to combat terrorism must not totally
overshadow the prevention of more traditional crimes. Frankly,
most people are far more worried about a burglar, a rapist, a
murderer or somebody who is stealing their identity, doing
these crimes, than they are about an airplane flying into their
homes or the buildings where they work. Of course we watch out
for the airplanes, but I think that the average person is far
more worried about the safety of their home and their business
and their person, and when they go shopping or with their
children going to school. And if they have been a victim of a
crime they are worried about being helped as a victim.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for having this hearing. I
think it is very important, and I congratulate you on your new
chairmanship.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I have no opening statement. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
Mr. Attorney General, between 1993 and 2003, violent crime
in this country declined by more than 50 percent, from 49.1 to
22.3 incidents of violence per 1,000 persons. During this same
period of time the Federal Government provided an increased
level of assistance to local law enforcement agencies in the
form of grants. Three programs in particular, the Edward Byrne
Memorial grant, the local law enforcement block grant, and the
COPS program, have been critical in providing resources to pay
for more law enforcement officers and to fund more regional
cooperation.
However, between fiscal year 2003 and 2005 over $1 billion
in grant assistance to State and local law enforcement was cut
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) budget. This year you are
taking the final step and eliminating what remains of these
programs, and depriving law enforcement agencies across the
country of an additional $1.3 billion. This is quite a way to
say thank you to the men and women in law enforcement. It is
quite a way to handle programs that have contributed to this
amazing reduction in violent crime.
Just as an example of what these cuts mean, the Byrne
program, which is being eliminated, funds 4,316 cops and
prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces
nationally. Byrne funding led to 130,000 drug arrests in 32
States, the seizure of 136 tons of illegal drugs, the
confiscation of over 7,000 weapons and the seizure of 7,691
meth labs. Yet the administration's rationale for doing away
with the program is that it has not demonstrated results.
So, Mr. Attorney General, I would like very much for you to
visit Iowa, where like many other midwestern States we are in
the middle of a methamphetamine crisis. Our Byrne dollars, the
ones that may not exist next year, fund 74 task forces and pay
for an additional 84 law enforcement salaries. They fund task
forces responsible for the seizure of 63 percent of the meth
labs in my State of Iowa. They fund a women's prison treatment
program, where only 9 percent have gone back on meth after
their release. It is an award-winning dual diagnosis treatment
program.
These funds are, quite simply, critical to the fight
against meth. They are making a difference. When it comes to my
turn for questioning I would like to again question you further
about the taking away especially of the Byrne grant programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
thank you to both Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director
Mueller for being here today, and I thank you and the ranking
member for holding this hearing.
I do not have an official opening statement. Let me just
say I echo the concerns about the cuts to the Byrne justice
assistance grants and to the COPS Program. I am very deeply
concerned about those cuts and the impacts, as well as the
proposal not only to cut HIDTA funding but to move it, and the
implications there. I am also very concerned that the
Department of Justice has not done enough to stop the spread of
methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs, and I will be asking
you about that during the questioning as well.
Mr. Chairman, most importantly to my State, as we have been
dealing with challenges along the northern border and being
much more aggressive, it has been good, but a lot of the costs
have been dumped on our local jurisdictions to be able to deal
with some of the drug smuggling and money laundering and other
crimes, that as a result of more intense border security, we
have been pushing these to the local jurisdictions to deal with
it. It is a tremendous cost to the communities on our northern
border. So I will be asking about that during the questioning.
Thank you for having this hearing.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, your written
testimony, your written statement will be made part of the
record, and so will yours, Director Mueller. You proceed as you
wish. Welcome to the subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES
Attorney General Gonzales. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Mikulski and members of the subcommittee. It is my
pleasure to appear before you with Director Mueller to present
the President's fiscal year 2006 budget of the Department of
Justice.
This budget reflects some tough decisions, but it is a
budget that I fully support. It reflects the President's charge
for every public servant, which is not to simply spend more
with the best of intentions, but to spend more wisely with an
eye toward results.
It builds on our number one priority by including over $500
million in new investments for preventing and combatting
terrorism. I would like to present a few highlights from the
budget that we believe will lead to a stronger Justice
Department, better homeland defense, a more effective
counterterrorism effort, and even smarter crime-fighting
initiatives.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERTERRORISM
PROGRAMS
First, the President's budget includes funding to
strengthen the FBI's intelligence and counterterrorism
programs, as has been mentioned, including additional resources
to hire 499 intelligence analysts and 288 new agents for the
counterterrorism program.
Our request also continues efforts to partner with State
and local governments to maximize resources targeted to
homeland security. It includes over $90 million in directed
investment grants for counterterrorism and counterintelligence
efforts.
DRUG FIGHTING STRATEGIES
Second, the President's budget request will lead to even
more effective drug fighting strategies. We request
enhancements of $245 million for drug enforcement efforts. For
the first time in a decade, drug use has decreased among 8th,
10th, and 12th graders. With extraordinary collaboration
between Federal law enforcement agencies, in the past 2 years
we have hurt international trafficking organizations
responsible for the U.S. drug supply.
We know from experience that law enforcement agencies must
pool their resources and expertise to target trafficking
networks effectively. The Department of Justice's drug
enforcement strategy refocuses the organized crime drug
enforcement task force (OCDETF) program to conduct coordinated
investigations of major drug supply and money laundering
organizations, targeting the entire infrastructure of these
enterprises. For this successful program, we are requesting
additional resources of $172 million and 517 positions.
Also included are enhancements of $72.9 million for the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This money will mean 122
new positions, including 76 new agents for the DEA.
To assist State and local efforts in implementing drug
enforcement programs and strategies, the Department's fiscal
year 2006 request also includes $206.7 million in directed
investments, including a $19.3 million increase for residential
substance abuse treatment, an additional $30 million for drug
courts, a $19.4 million increase for Southwest border drug
prosecution, $20 million to continue methamphetamine lab
cleanup, and $5 million to continue the prescription drug
monitoring program.
FIGHT VIOLENT CRIMES
Third, the President's budget will continue to build on the
President's vision for policies that fight violent crime with
hard time. Violent crime and firearms trafficking continue to
be significant law enforcement problems throughout our Nation.
We are committed to reducing violence and getting gun criminals
off the streets through the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN)
Initiative. The Department is requesting a total of $379
million for PSN in fiscal year 2006. PSN is a comprehensive
strategy that brings together Federal, State and local agencies
to reduce violent crime in our communities. Working with the
Department, each community tailors a program to target local
gun violence problems.
PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Fourth, the President's budget builds on our successful
efforts to protect women and children and to build a more just
and safer society for all. Over the last year we have worked
aggressively with other law enforcement agencies to target and
prosecute a large variety of offenders posing grave threats to
children, including large international rings of organized and
predatory child molesters and commercial producers and sellers
of child sex abuse images. Through these efforts more than 150
child victims were rescued. The fiscal year 2006 budget
increases funding by $10.4 million for our efforts to fight
child pornography and obscenity.
COURT SECURITY AND DETENTION RESOURCES
Fifth, as a result of aggressive law enforcement policies
targeting terrorism, violent crime, immigration violations and
drug crimes, as well as increases in the number of FBI, DEA and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, the
number of criminal suspects appearing in Federal court
continues to grow, as does the number of individuals ordered
detained and ultimately incarcerated. The fiscal year 2006
budget provides significant resources needed to improve
courtroom security and the detention and incarceration of those
accused or convicted of violent crimes. During fiscal year 2004
the Nation's Federal prison population rose 4.3 percent. That
is an increase of more than 7,300 inmates. At the same time the
Federal prison detention population rose 11.8 percent. Our
fiscal year 2006 budget requests $509.6 million in additional
resources for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals
Service, and the Office of the Detention Trustee to manage this
growth.
Finally, the President's budget includes many directed
investments and efficiencies to ensure that the Department
continues down the path of wise and effective financial
management so that we maximize every dollar that is provided to
us.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to testify here, and I look forward
to working with you in the days and months ahead for a budget
that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more just America.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you might have.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales
Good morning Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski and Members of the
Subcommittee: It is my pleasure to appear before you for the first time
to present the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department
of Justice. I assumed this office knowing that the Department of
Justice (DOJ) is fully committed to protecting the lives and the
liberties of our citizens. As such, the budget proposal I bring before
you today requests resources to continue protecting Americans and
keeping our streets safe. For fiscal year 2006, the President's budget
requests $19.1 billion for the Department of Justice, including $535.2
million in new investments for preventing and combating terrorism,
including counterintelligence.
The budget I present to you is also mindful of our need to ensure
that programs achieve their intended result. We propose a number of
reforms and, where warranted, program reductions or eliminations. As a
result, the spending increases proposed in our budget are offset by
$1.88 billion in program savings and I look forward to working with you
to achieve these savings.
The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget requests $3.1 billion in
homeland security spending, including funding to strengthen the
Nation's counterterrorism investigative capabilities to identify, track
and prevent terrorist cells from operating in the United States and
enhance the Nation's counterintelligence analysis capabilities. This
request also provides necessary resources to continue our efforts to
deter, investigate and prosecute federal crimes, including gun, drug
and civil rights violations; incarcerate offenders; partner with state,
local, community and faith-based groups to prevent crime, including
crimes against children; and provide leadership and assistance in
meeting the needs of crime victims.
preventing and combating terrorism, including counterintelligence
Over the past three years, the Department has steadfastly allocated
resources to counterterrorism and has undergone a transformation in our
priorities, as well as our organization. Within DOJ, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation is in the process of standing up a comprehensive
Intelligence Program to prevent terrorist attacks, an effort that has
been accelerated by the passage of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes
funding to strengthen the FBI's Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Programs, such as additional resources to hire an additional 499
Intelligence analysts and 288 agents for the Counterterrorism Program.
Tremendous strides in the war on terrorism were made under the
leadership of Attorney General John Ashcroft. In the past year alone,
the Department of Justice has arrested 379 individuals on
counterterrorism-related charges and prosecuted and obtained
convictions in 200 terrorism-related cases.
Under my leadership, we in the Department will continue to be
resolute in our quest to address terrorism and other threats to our
Nation with integrity and devotion to our highest ideals. I appreciate
the support shown by this Subcommittee and the Congress in providing
the necessary resources for the Department of Justice to be a champion
and build a culture dedicated to protecting the lives and liberties of
Americans. The budget that I present to you today reflects this support
and seeks to enhance the Department's ability to protect America.
Enhancing Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Capabilities
Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBI) counterterrorism workload has more than tripled, from 9,340 cases
pending and received in the field to over 33,000 in fiscal year 2004.
This budget request includes resources for the FBI to provide critical
counterterrorism investigation capabilities. This funding will allow
the FBI to strengthen its effort to identify, track, and prevent
terrorist cells from operating in the United States. Principal
increases would provide funding to: double the size of the Hostage
Response Team, hire 499 additional intelligence analysts, enhance the
foreign language translation program by $26 million, and expand the
Legal Attache program.
This budget also includes funding for two Presidential initiatives,
the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the Terrorist Screening
Center (TSC). The NCTC, established in May 2003 as the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, is a multi-agency effort that merges and analyzes
intelligence information to provide a comprehensive threat analysis to
the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
The Terrorist Screening Center, which was established by Homeland
Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6 on September 16, 2003, and
became operational on December 1, 2003, consolidates terrorist watch
lists. Several initiatives require additional resources in this area,
including: continuing education of state and local law enforcement;
more stringent screening at U.S. borders; and screening passengers on
domestic and international flights without unduly delaying commerce or
travel. To meet these increased requirements, this budget includes an
additional 61 positions and $75 million for TSC, bringing total TSC
funding up to $104 million.
Additionally, successful counterterrorism requires the cohesive
intelligence, investigative, and prosecutorial efforts of many
government agencies, including the federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies participating in the Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTF). A key to the success of the JTTF concept remains the melding of
personnel from various law enforcement agencies into a single focused
unit. Also, since the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Attorneys
and the Department's Criminal Division have utilized the full cadre of
anti-terrorism statutes to prosecute terrorist activities, including
disrupting terrorist financing. Our budget seeks an additional $13.2
million and 91 positions to enhance these efforts, including funds to
support the investigation of terrorism, primarily through the
application of warrants under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
Department-wide continuity of operations investments.
Additional Enhancements to Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence
Infrastructure
A key element in our efforts to prevent future acts of terrorism is
our ability to effectively share information about terrorists, criminal
activity and threats to public safety within DOJ and with other
federal, tribal, state and local law enforcement partners. To support
this effort, this budget requests an additional $63.9 million and 5
positions for the Justice Information Sharing Technology (JIST)
Program. This program will ensure that investments in information
sharing technology are well planned and aligned with the Department's
overall information technology strategy and enterprise architecture.
JIST will also ensure that all DOJ components are able to operate in an
interoperable environment, particularly with respect to preventing
terrorist attacks on the United States.
This request also continues efforts to partner with state and local
governments to maximize resources targeted to homeland security
efforts. The fiscal year 2006 budget maintains this commitment and
includes $90.3 million in directed investment grants for
counterterrorism/counterintelligence efforts.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT
For the first time in a decade, drug use has decreased among 8th,
10th, and 12th graders. With extraordinary collaboration between
federal law enforcement agencies, in the past two years the Department
of Justice has crippled international trafficking organizations
responsible for the U.S. drug supply. In fiscal year 2004, the
Department dismantled 36 Consolidated Priority Organization Target
(CPOT)-linked drug trafficking organizations and severely disrupted an
additional 159 organizations
The fiscal year 2006 budget requests enhancements of $245.4 million
for drug enforcement efforts: $172.5 million is for the Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program, the cornerstone of the
Department's drug enforcement strategy, and $72.9 million is for the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Nation's sole law
enforcement entity dedicated exclusively to drug enforcement. The
request also includes an additional $32.6 million in new initiatives
for DEA's Diversion Control Fee Account and $206.7 million in directed
investments for the Office of Justice Programs.
Law enforcement agencies must pool their resources and expertise to
target trafficking networks effectively. The Department's Drug
Enforcement Strategy refocused the OCDETF Program to conduct
coordinated investigations of major drug supply and money laundering
organizations, targeting the entire infrastructure of these
enterprises. For this successful program, the Department requests
additional resources of $172.5 million and 517 positions. This
increased level of funding will address staffing imbalances that exist
within the U.S. Attorney workforce; increase FBI OCDETF drug resources
that focus on major trafficking organizations; implement Phase II of a
multi-year plan to increase the capacity of the U.S. Marshals Service
to apprehend OCDETF fugitives; and provide for ongoing operations and
maintenance of the OCDETF Fusion Center beyond fiscal year 2005.
This request also reflects the President's proposal to transfer the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program from the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to the Department of Justice, with
funding provided through OCDETF at a level of $100 million including 5
positions. A smaller refocused HIDTA program, will enable law
enforcement to target the drug trade in a manner that is strategic and
complementary of the OCDETF Program and preserves HIDTA's most
effective elements, such as intelligence sharing and fostering multi-
agency law enforcement coordination.
Our fiscal year 2006 budget requests $72.9 million and 122
positions, including 76 new agents, for the DEA. The investments
requested will provide permanent funding for DEA's Overseas Rightsizing
plan; expand DEA's presence in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the
Middle East; enhance intelligence sharing to fully exploit, gather,
analyze and share intelligence information; and maintain and upgrade
DEA's intelligence capabilities. These resources will also strengthen
the investigation of drug trafficking and money laundering priority
target organizations through enhanced communications intercept
capabilities and investigative technologies.
For DEA's Diversion Control program, our fiscal year 2006 request
proposes an increase of $32.6 million and 97 positions to enhance
investigations and enforcement actions against the illegal sale, use,
or diversion of controlled substances. The request also proposes to
transfer funding associated with the Chemical Program from the Salaries
and Expenses account to the Diversion Control Fee Account to complete
the transfer effectuated in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act.
Funding all Diversion Control Program activities from the Diversion
Control Fee Account will help streamline the program's financial
management activities.
The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget also includes $206.7
million in directed investments to assist state and local efforts in
implementing drug enforcement programs and strategies. Among these
directed investments are: a $19.3 million increase for residential
substance abuse treatment; an additional $30.0 million for drug courts;
a $19.4 million increase for southwest border drug prosecution; $20
million to continue methamphetamine lab cleanup; and $5 million to
continue the prescription drug monitoring program.
VIOLENT CRIME ENFORCEMENT
Violent crime and firearms trafficking continue to be significant
law enforcement problems throughout the Nation. The Administration is
committed to reducing violence and getting gun criminals off the
streets through the Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) initiative. The
Administration is requesting $379 million for PSN in 2006. PSN is a
comprehensive strategy that brings together federal, state, and local
agencies to reduce violent crime in our communities. Working with the
Department, each community tailors the program to target local gun
violence problems. The Administration has also launched a companion
initiative, the Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT), led by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). VCIT, currently active
in 15 cities, expands to 25 cities in the fiscal year 2006 budget.
Multiple Justice components play key roles in the Department's
effort to reduce violent crime. The fiscal year 2006 request for PSN
includes $154.2 million in new investments, including $136.2 million in
additional funding for PSN initiatives such as Project ChildSafe, the
National Criminal History Improvement Program, and State and Local Gun
Crime Prosecution Assistance--all funded within the Office of Justice
Programs. Funding also is requested under the PSN umbrella for ATF, the
U.S. Attorneys, and the Criminal Division.
Since joining the Department in January 2003, ATF has become an
integral part of the Department's efforts to reduce the violent use of
firearms by criminals and gangs. Over 72 percent of ATF's resources
($666.0 million) are dedicated to firearms regulation and enforcement
efforts, including licensing and inspection of federal firearms
dealers, ballistics gun tracing, and criminal investigations of gun
related crimes in partnership with a variety of federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies. In addition, the United States
Attorneys Offices (USAO) across the country, continue to develop
strategies to make their communities safer. Critical to that goal is
the aggressive prosecution of violent crimes, particularly those
involving firearms. Another key component to helping to forge strong
and effective partnerships with state and local law enforcement, is the
Office of Justice Programs which provides grant funding that focuses on
youth gun violence deterrence, firearms safety, criminal records
improvements, and strategic planning.
LITIGATION
The Department's fiscal year 2006 request includes $31.6 million
and 227 positions in new investments for litigation to enforce federal
laws and represent the rights and interests of the American people, as
well as $1 million in Office of Justice Programs directed investments.
The Department serves as the Nation's chief litigator, representing the
United States in court and enforcing federal civil and criminal
statutes, including those protecting civil rights, safeguarding the
environment, preserving a competitive market structure, defending the
public against unwarranted claims, and preserving the integrity of the
Nation's bankruptcy system.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes funding to
fortify the U.S. Attorneys' immigration and intellectual crime
prosecutions; the Criminal Division's ability to investigate and
prosecute child sex exploitation, trafficking, and obscenity; the Civil
Division's efforts to address immigration litigation; and the
Environment and Natural Resources Division's litigation needs
associated with tribal trust cases.
Key investments include: $1.9 million and 36 positions for
additional paralegals to narrow the gap between the private sector
industry average and that found in the U.S. Attorneys' Offices; $3.7
million and 46 positions to ensure there is sufficient U.S. Attorney
presence to meet the steadily increasing caseload generated by
increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement cases; $5 million and 58
positions in U.S. Attorney and Civil Division resources for Health Care
Fraud investigations and prosecutions; and $1 million and 11 positions
to expand the Computer Crime, High Tech and Intellectual Property
program.
Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2004, the Civil Division's
Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) workload tripled to
approximately 15,000 cases and will likely surpass 21,000 by fiscal
year 2006 due to the avalanche of appeals by aliens challenging
decisions to detain, deport, exclude, and remove them. By fiscal year
2006, the attorney workload is projected to reach 186 cases--a number
that is impossible for any attorney to handle effectively. Inadequate
resources to defend these cases could result in adverse judgments,
hindering the government's ability to pursue a consistent, unified
strategy for upholding immigration enforcement actions and,
consequently, undermining our national security. The fiscal year 2006
budget requests $5.8 million and 58 positions to protect our Nation by
excluding and deporting those aliens who pose a threat to national
security and aliens who otherwise lack entitlement as defined by the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. The request also includes enhanced
resources for the Civil Division's Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation to
provide automated litigation support for the sixty-six cases filed by
nuclear utility companies against the Department of Energy.
The fiscal year 2006 budget also requests $7.4 million and 18
positions to defend the United States in lawsuits filed by Indian
Tribes for allegations regarding the management of Tribal assets by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The United States' potential exposure in
these cases is more than $200 billion. Adequate resources are necessary
to limit exposure and establish proper precedent for the United States.
These cases differ from lawsuits brought against the United States by
individual Tribal members, like Cobell, due to the extent of the
potential exposure and the amount of document management/production
required. The document management is astronomical: approximately 55
million pages of documents need to be reviewed. Thus the requested
increase includes $6.1 million to address these document management-
related expenses.
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND OBSCENITY
The Violence Against Women Act has made a critical difference in
the lives of countless women and children. During this Administration,
the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) has awarded nearly $1.25
billion in grants and cooperative agreements to enable communities to
increase their efforts in addressing violence against women and to
support and enhance services for victims. To build on these efforts
this budget requests a $363 million total investment for Violence
Against Women Act programs, including the Office on Violence Against
Women.
The Department's budget reflects its commitment to protect the most
defenseless and youngest victims from human trafficking and other forms
of exploitation. During the last year, the Department worked
aggressively with other law enforcement agencies to target and
prosecute a large variety of offenders posing grave threats to
children, including large international rings of organized and
predatory child molesters and commercial producers and sellers of child
sex abuse images. Through these efforts, more than 150 child victims
were rescued. As the Nation's expert in the prevention and prosecution
of child exploitation and obscenity, the Department's Criminal Division
attorneys prosecute defendants who have violated federal child
exploitation and obscenity laws and also assist the 94 United States
Attorney Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to
these offenses. Additionally, the FBI's Innocent Images National
Initiative (IINI) identifies, and investigates sexual predators who use
the Internet and other online services to sexually exploit children,
identifies and rescues child victims, and establishes a law enforcement
presence on the Internet as a deterrent to subjects that exploit
children. This budget increases funding by $10.4 million for the
Justice Department's efforts to fight child pornography and obscenity,
including the Criminal Division programs, the FBI's IINI and Child
Obscenity Enforcement efforts, and the Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Forces.
In fiscal year 2004, the FBI located 300 missing children, shut
down 2,638 child pornography websites or web hosts, and assisted in
obtaining 881 convictions/pretrial diversions for crimes against
children via online computer usage. This budget requests an increase of
$9.1 million and 85 positions to continue these efforts.
The Office of Justice Programs plays a significant role in reducing
crimes against children through training and technical expertise to our
state and local law enforcement partners and public safety entities.
Since the President announced an administration effort to expand and
coordinate the AMBER Alert network in October 2002, it has been
credited with the recovery of over 150 children, or over 80 percent of
the188 recoveries since the initiative began in Texas in 1996. In 2005
the Amber Alert plans were established in all 50 states marking a
milestone in our efforts to prevent child abductions. This budget seeks
$5.0 million to maintain this system.
STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
State and local law enforcement departments are critical partners
in the war against terror and the fight against crime. Fiscal year 2006
budget selectively maintains and grows effective programs with over
$1.5 billion in grant assistance to state and locals agencies,
including $185.3 million to strengthen communities through programs
providing services such as drug treatment, $90.3 million to fight
terrorism, and $335 million to combat violence. This includes
enhancements to grant funding provided under Project Safe
Neighborhoods; $235.2 million for law enforcement technology, including
funding to continue and enhance the Administration's DNA initiative;
and $92.5 million to support drug enforcement, including funding to
continue and expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program.
Programs targeted to helping strengthen our community remains a
priority for the Department of Justice. A total investment of $185.3
million in fiscal year 2006 provides $15 million to increase support
for the Administration's offender re-entry program, which includes the
participation of the Departments of Labor and Housing and Urban
Development. An increase of $19.3 million is requested to assists
states and units of local government in developing and implementing
residential and substance abuse treatment programs. An increase of
$29.9 million is requested for the drug courts program, which will
result in a 2 percent improvement in the graduation rate from the drug
courts program as compared to fiscal year 2005 estimates.
Our request proposes the establishment of a program to provide $20
million in fiscal year 2006 ($50 million over three years) for training
to private defense counsel and public defenders, state and local
prosecutors, and state judges to improve the competency of all
participants connected with the trial of state capital cases.
Efforts to improve our ability to combat terrorism would not be a
success without our state and local partners. The fiscal year 2006
request invests $90.3 million in state and local programs to combat
terrorism including a $4.5 million increase for the Regional
Information Sharing System; $14 million for state and local anti-
terrorism training; $7 million to develop tools and approaches to
improve the ability of state and local first responders to detect and
effectively respond to terrorist attacks; $16 million to fund the USA
Freedom Corps program; and a total of $6.2 million for the National
Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan -the state and local complement to
the Department's Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program.
A $227.4 million investment is also proposed to assist state and
local communities in combating other violent crimes, including $10.2
million to prevent prison rape and prosecute persons committing it. The
Department is committed to upholding the rights and to defending human
dignity of all citizens, including prisoners.
The fiscal year 2006 budget requests an additional $72.7 million to
continue efforts to reduce convicted offender and crime scene backlogs,
strengthen the capabilities of labs, fund DNA research and development
projects, provide specialized training to law enforcement and lab and
medical personnel, pay for programs and educational materials that
employ DNA technology to identify missing persons, and to fund a post-
conviction DNA testing program. Also included in the fiscal year 2006
budget is a $29.9 million total investment in the Bulletproof Vests
Program.
JUDICIAL PROTECTION, DETENTION AND INCARCERATION
As a result of aggressive law enforcement policies targeting
terrorism, violent crime, immigration violations, and drug crimes, as
well as the increases in the number of FBI and DEA agents, the number
of criminal suspects appearing in federal court continues to grow, as
does the number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately
incarcerated. The fiscal year 2006 budget request provides significant
resources needed to improve courtroom security and the detention and
incarceration of those accused or convicted of violent crimes. During
fiscal year 2004, the Nation's federal prison population rose 4.3
percent, by 7,396 inmates. At the same time, the federal prisoner
detention population rose 11.8 percent, increasing by approximately
5,200 detainees on a daily basis. The request provides additional
resources for the Bureau of Prisons and Office of the Detention Trustee
to manage this growth, including activation costs for three new
facilities and two expansions of existing facilities. The fiscal year
2006 DOJ budget requests $509.6 million in additional resources in
these areas
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) ensures that the federal justice
system operates effectively and securely by providing judicial and
courtroom security to deter and respond to threats and protect federal
judges, court personnel, witnesses and other participants in federal
judicial proceedings. This budget will provide the resources needed for
the Department to continue to ensure that no judicial proceedings are
interrupted due to inadequate security as well as to continue to
identify, assess, and respond to the threats against court personnel
and property; enhance the physical security of federal courthouse
facilities; and provide for the long-term protection of federal
witnesses and their families.
Additionally, the USMS has primary jurisdiction to conduct and
investigate fugitive matters involving escaped federal prisoners;
probation, parole and bond default violators; warrants generated by DEA
investigations; and certain other related felony cases. In fiscal year
2004, the USMS apprehended 39,000 federal felons--more than all other
law enforcement agencies combined. In addition, working with
authorities at the federal, state, and local levels, USMS apprehended
79,740 fugitives. This budget provides $790.2 for the USMS, which is
$42.6 million and 114 positions over the 2005 enacted level.
For the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), our fiscal year 2006 budget seeks
an increase of $148 million and 1,007 positions, which includes $37.2
million for the subsistence cost of the increasing inmate population.
The BOP projects that it will receive 4,269 additional inmates between
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. These resources will enable the
BOP to meet the marginal costs, $8,712 per inmate, of providing
security, food, medical care, clothing, education, and other costs
associated with the population increase. An increase of $85.0 million
and 1,002 positions is also included to begin the activation process
for 3 newly constructed facilities, activate a 50 cell expansion to the
existing Special Housing Unit at United States Penitentiary Florence,
Colorado and to begin the activation process for a 362 bed low security
housing unit at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Sandstone,
Minnesota. In addition, $19.8 million and 5 positions are requested to
begin the process to obtain 1,600 additional beds in contract
facilities to house low security and female inmates for 6 months in
fiscal year 2006. In addition, the budget requests the rescission of
$314 million in unobligated prison construction balances. The funds are
associated with prisons not scheduled to activate until 2009 or beyond.
During 2006, the Bureau of Prisons will undertake a thorough review of
all of its existing minimum and low security facilities to evaluate the
potential of upgrading or modifying these prisons to house higher
security inmates, where the inmate crowding level is the highest. BOP
remains committed to contracting out for low and minimum security
inmates which currently makes up 58 percent of the federal inmate
population. Lastly, the BOP request seeks $6.0 million to establish a
residential re-entry program at 6 institutions that will build
partnerships with faith based and community organizations.
For the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, our request
reflects an additional $347.4 million to house USMS detainees in state,
local and private facilities. The number of federal prisoners detained
is expected to increase 14.9 percent over fiscal year 2005, resulting
in an average daily population of over 60,000 detainees compared to
approximately 27,000 three years ago. This enhancement will ensure the
availability of adequate, cost-effective detention capacity for the
anticipated jail days that will be spent in state, local or private
facilities.
Lastly, with the recent violence perpetrated in courthouses in the
southeast and midwest, I have directed that a review of judicial
security measures be undertaken so the Department, as well as state and
local law enforcement, can benefit from a compilation of best practices
from across the nation.
MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP IMPROVEMENTS
In his February 2nd State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms
in the budget are important components of achieving the President's
goal of cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009 and we urge the
Congress to support these reforms. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes
more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense
discretionary programs, of which 1.88 billion affect DOJ programs. The
Department wants to work with the Congress to achieve these savings
As part of our efforts to improve management and stewardship, the
Department continues to evaluate its programs and operations with the
goals of achieving both component-specific and departmental economies
of scale, increased efficiencies, and cost savings/offsets to permit us
to fund initiatives that are of higher priority. The Department is
engaged in a multi-year process to implement a wide range of management
and information technology improvements that will result in substantial
savings. The cost absorptions and crosscutting efficiencies identified
in this budget impact virtually every component in the Department.
Additional investments in management and information technology
improvements, such as e-gov, e-training and e-travel initiatives, will
ensure all DOJ components are able to function in an interoperable
environment, particularly with respect to preventing terrorist attacks
on the United States.
DOJ Financial Management
The Department is committed to continuous improvement in financial
management in order to maximize every dollar that is provided to us.
The fiscal year 2006 budget requests $33.0 million and 6 positions to
continue support for the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS),
including hardware and software acquisition, integration and
implementation, and project management activities. The annual financial
audits of DOJ and its components have found fault with several of the
seven core financial management systems in use at DOJ. Continuing the
UFMS initiative will result in a significant improvement to the
efficiency and integrity of our financial and accounting system.
DOJ Diversity
The fiscal year 2006 request seeks $.8 million to enhance attorney
recruitment and retention through an enhanced student loan repayment
program and to implement an automated attorney hiring system. The
Department is committed to casting the widest net to attract the most
qualified and diverse applicants.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee
for your recent actions on the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental. The funds
provided for the Department of Justice are critical to our efforts both
domestic and abroad.
Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, Members of the Subcommittee, I
have brought before you today the resources necessary to carryout the
Department's priorities for fiscal year 2006. I am honored to testify
before you and look forward to the days and months ahead working with
you on this budget proposal and other issues.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl J. Truscott, Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
about the accomplishments of the men and women of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and discuss the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the ATF. We are working
together to protect America. Our agents, inspectors/investigators,
administrative, professional, and technical personnel have earned
renown and respect for their contributions to the Department of Justice
and to law enforcement. I am honored to lead such capable and motivated
colleagues, and to serve our great Nation as the Director of ATF.
I appreciate very much the support the Subcommittee has given to
ATF and the interest the Subcommittee has demonstrated in ATF's
missions and programs. With your support during fiscal year 2005
appropriations, ATF received funding and positions for the Safe
Explosives Act (SEA) and explosives enforcement, Project Safe
Neighborhoods (PSN) and anti-gang efforts, the National Tracing Center
(NTC), and relocation of the Federal Licensing Center to West Virginia.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2006 builds on your
fiscal year 2005 investment with $30.3 million to expand the number of
Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT) targeting the most violent criminals
in specific areas within selected cities and $6 million to develop the
Terrorist Explosive Device Analysis Center (TEDAC) database which will
record, inventory, and catalog improvised explosive devices being used
in Iraq and Afghanistan. These investments are in direct support of
ATF's core missions.
As Director, I lead our efforts to reduce violent crime, prevent
terrorism, and protect the public. Thanks to the leadership and support
of this Committee, and through our dedicated work, the men and women of
ATF are improving the lives of Americans. Your investment, and our
efforts, produce real results: safer neighborhoods, where all of us,
including children and senior citizens, can live without fear.
Since being sworn in as Director of ATF last May, I have visited
all 23 ATF field divisions. I have talked with special agents and
inspectors/investigators who are: taking violent criminals, including
gang members, off the streets; preventing the illegal diversion of
firearms; ensuring the security and accountability of explosives and
firearms commerce; investigating bombings and thefts of explosives;
solving arsons, through investigation and research; investigating
alcohol and tobacco diversion schemes; and sharing information and
intelligence with our law enforcement partners.
FIREARMS
ATF continues to fight violent crime on the streets of America. We
enforce Federal firearms laws and provide extensive support to Federal,
State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime
and violence.
ATF agents investigate a broad range of firearms violations that
can be generally divided into three categories: investigations of those
persons who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms, such as
felons, illegal aliens, and drug traffickers; investigations of
firearms diversion; and investigations of persons possessing those
firearms that are generally prohibited, such as machineguns and sawed-
off shotguns.
From these types of investigations, ATF agents concentrate on
illegal firearms traffickers and the diversion of firearms out of
lawful commerce into the hands of criminals. Firearms trafficking
investigations can be complex and time-consuming. They can involve
illegal straw purchases of firearms for those unable to legally possess
firearms (with or without the complicity of a Federal firearms
licensee, or FFL), illegal dealing at gun shows or other locations,
robberies of gun stores, and thefts from interstate shipments.
ATF combines state-of-the-art technology and effective partnerships
into an Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy, or IVRS. We are a major
participant in the Administration's PSN initiative, which began in
2001. This cooperative program builds upon the enforcement efforts of
the past, and includes the use of advanced technology and effective
sharing of intelligence and information. Law enforcement, prosecutors,
and community leaders work together on deterrence and prevention.
Agencies develop focused enforcement strategies to investigate, arrest,
and prosecute violent offenders, prohibited possessors of firearms,
domestic and international firearms traffickers, and others who
illegally attempt to acquire firearms. ATF, local law enforcement, U.S.
attorneys, and local prosecutors evaluate which set of laws and
circumstances can best be employed against the violators and/or
prohibited possessors and seek the most appropriate venue for firearms
prosecution. Under PSN, the number of Federal firearms cases filed
increased 76 percent between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2004. In
fiscal year 2004, ATF opened 29,440 firearms investigations, and during
the same timeframe, there were over 7,000 convictions.
Violent Crime Impact Teams
In June 2004, former Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney
General Comey, and I announced the VCIT initiative, a new program to
reduce violent crime in 15 targeted communities. Through VCIT, ATF-led
teams work with local law enforcement to identify and arrest the most
violent offenders in each area. The selected communities are:
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
Tampa, Florida; Miami, Florida; Richmond, Virginia; Greensboro, North
Carolina; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Las Vegas, Nevada;
Columbus, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Los Angeles, California;
Tucson, Arizona; and the Washington, DC/Northern Virginia area.
ATF-led VCIT teams in these cities bring the targeted area's
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials together. Each team
creates an individualized strategy, then works together to remove those
responsible for violent crime. I can tell you that VCIT is working: in
our first 8 months of operation, 3,100 State and Federal arrests were
made, and 3,700 firearms were recovered. Civic leaders and law
enforcement officials have praised VCIT's positive impact on their
communities. News reports credit VCITs with contributing to a decrease
in homicides, as has occurred in Greensboro, Tulsa, and Columbus, among
others. For example, a November report by the Albuquerque Journal
stated that the VCIT contributed to a 23 percent decrease in the
homicide rate in Albuquerque alone, compared with the same period last
year.
Anti-Gang Efforts
We have developed expertise in working against criminal groups,
particularly gangs, and this is recognized by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). ATF played a prominent role in the development of the
Department's Gang Strategy Report for the House Appropriations
Committee. This reflects our years of experience in working against
violent gangs, including outlaw motorcycle organizations active in
firearms and narcotics trafficking. In fact, ATF oversees a
comprehensive gang strategy, combining education, prevention, training,
and a variety of criminal enforcement tactics to take violent gang
members and their organizations off the streets. ATF shares
investigative information on gangs nationally through its case
management system. This system allows every agent and task force member
the ability to access information about other cases in order to
coordinate efforts. ATF recommended more than 5,000 gang members and
their associates for prosecution during the past 5 years (2,000 of them
during fiscal year 2004 alone) for charges including firearms
violations, continuing criminal enterprise violations, Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act violations, and arson and
explosives violations. In the past 2 years, we also traced more than
11,000 firearms linked to gang activity, and initiated more than 1,500
cases involving gang members participating in firearms trafficking.
We are fighting gangs with proactive efforts as well as enforcement
actions: the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.)
Program has been presented to more than 3.8 million middle school
students since its inception in 1992. And thanks to a new agreement
with Boys and Girls Clubs of America, ATF's G.R.E.A.T. program is being
used to help young people make positive decisions and resist negative
influences. In this way we are not just working to deter crime--we are
working to prevent it.
National Tracing Center
ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) is the largest operation of its
kind in the world. This facility conducts traces of firearms recovered
at crime scenes for any Federal, State, local, or international law
enforcement agency. In fiscal year 2004, the NTC traced over 250,000
firearms. The NTC stores information concerning multiple sales of
firearms, suspect guns, and firearms with obliterated serial numbers,
and is also the only repository for all records of FFLs that have gone
out of business. The NTC provides ATF personnel and other law
enforcement agencies with crime gun data specific to their geographic
areas, and helps them identify emerging trends and patterns in
firearms-related criminal activity.
The NTC has established and provides support to four Regional Crime
Gun Centers. These centers are located in Washington, DC; Chicago; New
York; and Los Angeles. Each provides focused analysis of crime gun
trace information in these major metropolitan areas for ATF and local
partners from other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
to reduce firearms-related violent crime within their regions. The
information gathered and analyzed through these centers and the Crime
Gun Analysis Branch (CGAB) provides law enforcement with specific leads
through the use of firearms tracing and geographic information to
discern indicators of trafficking activity within a city that has a
high violent crime rate involving gangs and illegal use and possession
of firearms. This allows law enforcement to efficiently apply resources
to combat violent firearms activities.
Another NTC program is called Access 2000. This initiative benefits
both ATF and our industry partners. Servers supplied by ATF have been
installed at 36 manufacturers and major wholesale distributors, all of
them FFLs, who have partnered with ATF in this effort. FFLs enter
firearms information into the servers; the NTC connects to these
servers remotely and can obtain information on a firearm's disposition
in the course of a crime gun trace. This program substantially reduces
administrative costs to the FFL and the time it takes ATF to trace a
firearm.
In order to reduce violent crime, ATF will continue to develop and
employ technology that will help law enforcement at all levels. Through
the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) Program,
ATF has installed automated ballistic comparison equipment at 230 sites
in participating forensic laboratories in the continental United States
and its territories, giving these State and local law enforcement
agencies the opportunity to identify ballistic links between crimes not
otherwise known to be connected.
EXPLOSIVES
In addition to our investigative efforts against firearms
trafficking and violent firearms crime, ATF agents investigate
bombings, unlawful distribution of explosives, thefts of explosives,
and other violations of explosives laws. ATF inspectors/investigators
ensure that the manufacture, importation, and commerce in firearms and
explosives are conducted lawfully. Other programs combine advanced
technology with ATF's years of expertise, providing critical
intelligence for Federal, State, and local law enforcement to use in
investigating fire and explosion incidents in their areas.
As part of the Department of Justice's efforts to ensure the
coordination of explosives investigations, explosives information
sharing, and other related explosives matters amongst its law
enforcement components, the Department of Justice reviewed the
explosive programs of ATF, FBI, and others and on August 11th, issued a
policy memo outlining roles and responsibilities as they relate to
explosives issues. Former Attorney General Ashcroft's policy memorandum
regarding coordination of explosives investigation and related matters
helped to clarify the responsibilities of ATF.
--The Attorney General mandated that ATF would control the
investigation of all explosives incidents except those related
to terrorism. I am honored by the confidence that the Attorney
General placed in ATF when he made this decision, and I note
that approximately 98 percent of the bombings in America are
unrelated to terrorism. In instances of terrorism, ATF stands
ready to assist with Department-wide efforts.
--The Attorney General also tasked ATF to maintain all DOJ arson and
explosives databases currently maintained by other DOJ
components. Our state-of-the-art system for documenting arson
and explosives incidents, known as the Bomb Arson Tracking
System or BATS, has become the DOJ standard.
--Further, his decision mandated the consolidation within ATF of all
budget, curriculum, teaching, and scheduling functions related
to post-blast explosives training for Federal, State, local,
and international entities.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this decision will be responsible for
significant financial efficiencies.
ATF special agents work with State and local law enforcement
throughout all aspects of bombing and explosion incidents, from the
post-blast recovery of evidence through the subsequent investigation.
ATF has explosives and arson groups nationwide, each consisting of
special agents, including certified fire investigators (CFIs) and
certified explosives specialists (CESs), as well as State and local
police or fire personnel. These ATF special agents are dedicated full-
time to investigating explosives and arson incidents and violations. In
fiscal year 2005, the Congressional appropriation directed ATF to form
four specialized explosives groups. These groups are enhancing our
ability to prevent criminal acts involving explosives, respond to
criminal acts, plan for special events, and assist first responders by
adding special agents trained in rendering improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) safe.
Some ATF special agents receive even more intense explosives
training than the substantial amount received in Special Agent Basic
Training. Special agent CESs are among the most experienced, best-
trained explosives experts in the Federal Government. They provide
explosives crime scene examinations, lend expertise in support of
security measures implemented at special events, and assist ATF's law
enforcement counterparts at the Federal, State, local, and
international levels in their efforts to investigate explosives-related
incidents. The CESs are highly trained in all aspects of explosives
handling, instruction, identification, demonstration, and destruction.
Because of their proficiency in explosives investigation, CESs are used
regularly as instructors for explosives-related training at the
International Law Enforcement Academies in Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok,
Thailand; and Gaborone, Botswana. They have also instructed post-blast
investigation techniques for foreign law enforcement officers in South
American, Central American, and Eastern European countries, and are
currently providing this instruction in supporting coalition forces in
Iraq.
ATF investigates each and every report of theft or loss of
explosives in the United States in order to ensure that these
explosives do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. When
explosives are used for criminal purposes, ATF brings the full weight
of its explosives programs and investigative assets to the task of
identifying and bringing the perpetrator to justice. On July 6, 2004, a
theft of explosives occurred from a San Mateo County, CA, explosives
storage facility used by law enforcement. ATF immediately responded to
the crime scene and began an investigation. Working with the California
Highway Patrol, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, the Hayward Police
Department, the Union City Police Department, the Oakland Police
Department, and others, the stolen explosives were recovered and ATF
arrested four individuals on charges relating to the theft, possession,
and distribution of explosives.
ATF has other experts in the field of explosives. ATF's explosives
enforcement officers (EEOs) provide technical assistance and support in
explosives matters. These bomb technicians have between 12 and 35 years
of experience in explosives and bomb disposal. EEOs render explosive
devices safe, disassemble explosive and incendiary devices, prepare
destructive device determinations, and render expert testimony in
support of such determinations in State and Federal criminal court
proceedings. EEOs also provide expert analysis and onsite investigative
technical assistance at bombing and arson scenes and scenes where
explosions of an undetermined nature have occurred. They provide
assistance and training in all aspects of explosives handling, usage,
and destruction; threat vulnerability assessments; and all other
explosives-related matters for ATF and State and local law enforcement
agencies. EEOs use a full range of bomb disposal equipment, such as
explosives-actuated disrupters; radiographic (x-ray) equipment;
personal protective equipment (bomb suits); and robotic equipment,
including the All-purpose Remote Transport System (ARTS), which is
designed to remotely disrupt car and truck bombs that are too large to
disarm by traditional methods. ATF is one of the few Federal agencies
with ARTS capability.
Maintained within ATF's Arson and Explosives National Repository
(AENR) is this country's most comprehensive set of data describing
fire/explosion incidents. The incidents are divided into specific
categories such as targets, locations, motives, and victims. Trends,
patterns, and criminal methodologies, as well as the identities of
known previous offenders, can be derived from the data set. Most
importantly, ATF agents or other law enforcement officials can contact
the Repository to query the construction characteristics of an
explosive device, and match the device to others with similar
characteristics.
ATF is now using the latest information management technology to
make case information available to law enforcement nationwide through
BATS. This program facilitates and promotes the collection and
dissemination of fire, arson, and explosives incidents and information
among participating agencies. Law enforcement agencies and members with
established National Crime Information Center access can access BATS
via personal computer in a secure Internet environment. End users are
able to enter their case information and query information entered by
others, both locally and across agencies. BATS benefits its users by
providing real-time incident-based information, records management
functions, and advanced features, such as spatial representation of
incidents via an integrated Geographical Information System--all within
a secure law enforcement environment. Eventually, the wealth of case
information available through the Repository will also be accessible
through BATS.
ATF is sharing its expertise by training Federal, State, local,
military, and international bomb technicians and investigators in
explosives disposal and investigation techniques at the National Center
for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) at Fort A.P. Hill,
Virginia. This course was developed in response to data showing that
more bomb technicians were injured or killed during explosives disposal
operations than when performing render safe procedures on explosive
devices. ATF offers numerous advanced courses related to explosives
disposal and post-blast investigation techniques at the NCETR, which
was authorized in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Since ATF began
holding training classes at Fort A.P. Hill in 2000, we have provided
training to over 4,000 Federal, State, local, and international bomb
technicians and investigators. In cooperation with the U.S. Army, we
are currently training Army explosives units prior to their deployment
to Iraq. In addition, ATF provides post-blast training to members of
the Department of State, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. This facility will
include a permanent classroom facility and an advanced explosives
research and training range for the study of various explosive devices.
This dedicated facility will advance our expertise in the investigation
of bombings and explosives-related crimes. The NCETR is ideally located
close to the Washington, DC, area, but remote enough to offer unlimited
opportunities for expansion and enhancement as the needs of the
Department require it.
ATF has found a unique niche with its delivery and cosponsorship of
an underwater explosives recovery course for State and local bomb
technicians and divers. ATF worked with the Edmond, Oklahoma, Police
Department to develop the course, which was established in response to
the growing number of investigations in which evidence either directly
or indirectly ended up in a body of water. The TWA Flight 800
investigation in July 1996 further justified the need to train law
enforcement/bomb squad personnel to recover fire- and explosives-
related evidence.
ARSON
One recent example of ATF's investigative work is the arson
committed in December 2004 in a neighborhood in Charles County,
Maryland. Our field agents investigated this crime scene, where 26
homes were damaged, ten of which were destroyed entirely. I visited
this enormous and complex crime scene, and I was stunned by the
devastation. ATF's state-of-the-art Fire Research Laboratory is
analyzing the evidence gathered. By investigating and solving these
crimes, we are also helping to prevent future arsons.
ATF's arson enforcement efforts are an integral part of ATF's
overall violent crime reduction strategy, and are directed toward
preventing the crime of arson, providing effective post-incident
response, and reducing the community impact of crimes involving fire.
The long-term, strategic goal of the arson program is to provide
effective investigative and technical expertise, rapid response,
assistance, and state-of-the-art training to reduce the impact of
violent crimes that involve fire. ATF investigative efforts are
generally focused on arsons of Federal interest, including those at
houses of worship, commercial buildings, and reproductive health
clinics. In fiscal year 2004, ATF opened approximately 2,000 arson
investigations. I would like to address some of ATF's arson program
areas and assets, including the CFI program, the ATF Church Arson Task
Force, ATF's response to animal-rights extremists and environmental-
rights extremist fires, the ATF Fire Research Laboratory, and others.
After fire departments extinguish the flames, the work begins for
cause and origin investigators who must determine whether the fire was
intentionally set and whether a crime was committed. The agents
participating in ATF's CFI program are at the forefront of fire
investigation. The special agents who participate in this program are
the only federally trained and federally certified cause and origin
investigators in the Federal Government. These CFIs are able to qualify
as expert witnesses, that is, opinion witnesses, in fire cause and
origin determinations. Each CFI has participated in hundreds of
investigations and has undergone hundreds of hours of training to
qualify in giving expert testimony. The CFI program is the only one of
its type in Federal law enforcement and has received national and
international acclaim. ATF's 107 CFIs are based in 36 States and
provide support to the entire United States and its territories. ATF
CFIs responded to over 1,200 fires in fiscal year 2004.
ATF also investigates bombings and crimes of arson by environmental
and animal rights extremists using explosives and fire as their
weapons, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth
Liberation Front (ELF). ATF estimates that property damage committed by
those groups in the past several years exceed $65 million. Because of
ATF's expertise in these areas, we have made these investigations a
priority and will continue to do so. In the last several years, we have
initiated about 100 explosives and arson investigations believed to be
linked to ALF and ELF. In the past, many of the fires set by these
extremists have been set utilizing a particular methodology, and the
Arson and Explosives National Repository (AENR)--which has kept records
and intelligence on these acts for decades--stands ready to assist fire
investigators in determining the methodology used in future incidents,
linking events, and identifying suspects.
One of the most painful and destructive crimes that ATF
investigates is arson directed at houses of worship. In fiscal year
2004, ATF responded to approximately 210 such fires and explosives
incidents. Out of that number, 88 of the fires were determined to be
incendiary: that is, set by human hands. Of the 210 fires, ATF
conducted the origin and cause investigation at 61 predominantly
African-American churches, six Hispanic churches, six temples, and six
mosques.
ATF works to prevent future incidents by documenting information
such as why an incident happened and what human factors were involved.
Lending additional credence to ATF's scene capabilities is the
expertise afforded by its fire protection engineers (FPEs), who are
ATF's experts in fire reconstruction and engineering analysis. Through
their contributions, lessons can be learned and safeguards can be
implemented if fire spread and fire progression are analyzed and
documented properly (e.g., fatalities that are due to smoke and heat).
These FPEs also provide technical advice and support to U.S. Attorneys
and testify as expert witnesses in the prosecution of criminal cases.
One of ATF's newer fire investigation resources is the Fire
Research Laboratory (FRL), a one-of-a-kind fire test center with the
capability of replicating initial fire scenarios approaching a quarter
acre in size, to scale, and under controlled conditions allowing for
detailed analysis. This facility is the only such facility in the
United States that is dedicated to providing case support in fire
investigations using forensic fire science, and the facility will
support ATF's investigative requirements well into the future.
ATF has profilers assigned to the National Center for the Analysis
of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The ATF
profilers analyze behavior characteristics of serial arsonists and
bombers and provide investigative suggestions to case investigators.
Although specializing in bombings and arsons, ATF profilers work on
other violent crimes such as murders. ATF recently added a position of
geographic profiler to its resources. This position is the first of its
kind in the United States. Geographic profiling is a relatively new
investigative tool being applied in serial crime investigations.
CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO
ATF's goal as it relates to alcohol and tobacco diversion is to
reduce violent crime and prevent terrorism by preventing the illegal
domestic and international trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
To accomplish this goal, ATF is enforcing laws that prohibit the
diversion of alcohol and tobacco products, and providing Federal,
State, and local agencies with the tools needed to identify trafficking
schemes. From the hijacking of tractor trailer loads and cargo
containers of cigarettes, to the armed robbery of tobacco wholesalers
and distributors, to the smash and grab techniques at the retail level,
ATF has successfully investigated and prosecuted the criminals
involved.
ATF is engaged in ongoing efforts to reduce the rising trend of the
illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products by criminal gangs,
organized crime, and terrorist groups. Current investigations have
identified several instances of terrorist groups forming alliances with
tobacco traffickers to generate funding to support their organizations
and activities. We have built complex cases against individuals and
organizations that have used proceeds from the illegal sales of
cigarettes to fund organized crime and terrorism, including those
involving the channeling of funds to Hezbollah, and these cases have
been successfully prosecuted. ATF also works in partnership with other
Federal, State, and local agencies to enforce the laws under their
jurisdiction. The investigation of alcohol and tobacco crimes is unique
in that the penalties are not commensurate with the profits that can be
made.
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS: ATF'S DUAL ROLE
ATF's role in Federal firearms and explosives laws, with both
regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, is unique. In addition to
our investigative efforts against firearms trafficking and violent
firearms crime, ATF agents investigate bombings, unlawful distribution
of explosives, thefts of explosives, and other violations of explosives
laws. ATF inspectors/investigators ensure that the manufacture, import,
and sale of firearms and explosives are conducted lawfully. Through
education and industry partnerships, we work to keep firearms and
explosives out of the wrong hands.
According to the Institute of Makers of Explosives, over 5.5
billion pounds of commercial explosives are used every year in the
United States in mining and other applications. ATF ensures compliance
with explosives laws and regulations through its explosives regulatory
program. The purpose of this program is to protect interstate and
international commerce against interference and interruption by
reducing hazards to persons and property arising from the misuse and
unsafe or insecure storage of explosive materials.
This is accomplished through the explosives field inspection
effort; through the development, implementation, and evaluation of
regulatory enforcement procedures and policy; through the screening of
prospective and current explosive licensees/permittees and their
employees; and through regular and open communication with the
explosives industry and its representatives. ATF's field inspection
program includes the thorough review of records and inventory to ensure
product accountability, as well as the visual inspection of explosives
storage facilities to ensure safe and secure product storage to prevent
theft and misuse of explosives. Inspectors/investigators verify that
explosives storage magazines meet Federal construction and location
requirements, including the required distance from explosives storage
areas to roads or residential areas.
Approximately 580 of ATF's inspectors/investigators are assigned to
the field, and are responsible for inspections of FFLs and Federal
explosive licensees (FEL). They are responsible for working with the
population of 106,000 FFLs and over 12,000 FELs.
The Safe Explosives Act (SEA) enhanced ATF's unique statutory
mission of regulating the explosives industry. With the passage of this
Act in 2002, ATF assumed a significant additional workload such as
continued issuance of renewal licenses/permits for 12,000 explosives-
related businesses; increased inspection efforts and more thorough
license application processing, including background checks for all
employees who possess explosives. Further, the SEA decreed that ATF
physically inspect every new explosives licensee applicant to ensure
public safety.
ATF's field inspectors/investigators are also responsible for
firearms licensee inspections. Day in and day out, these inspectors/
investigators ensure that FFLs follow appropriate guidelines and
procedures. Their work truly makes America safer by helping to prevent
the acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons. Further, by
promoting proper recordkeeping and business practices, they help ensure
effective firearms tracing in critical investigations by all of the
Nation's law enforcement community. Cooperative programs such as
``Don't Lie for the Other Guy,'' a joint venture between ATF and the
National Shooting Sports Foundation, provide essential education for
FFLs. In addition, our Federal Firearms Licensing Center in Atlanta
screens all FFL applicants by coordinating background checks on persons
responsible for firearms operations.
ATF formulated its Explosives Threat Assessment and Prevention
Strategy, or ETAPS, in the spring of 2004. This strategy gives us the
opportunity to respond to changes in the explosives industry and the
society in which it operates. It is a dynamic process--we gather
information, evaluate it, plan programs in response to it, and evaluate
the results. By combining ATF's assets involving technical explosives
expertise, criminal and regulatory enforcement experience, and
partnership with industry and law enforcement, we are able to
continually assess risks and focus resources appropriately. It is
through this dynamic process that ATF is best prepared to accomplish
our vision of ``Working for a Safer and More Secure America Through
Innovation and Partnership.''
INTELLIGENCE/TECHNOLOGY
ATF recognized the opportunity to perfect intelligence support
internally and externally, and created an Office of Strategic
Intelligence and Information (OSII) last year. The new directorate,
headed by a new assistant director, ensures that ATF accomplishes its
missions and that our special agents and inspectors/investigators
receive the necessary information to disrupt criminal organizations and
individuals that threaten public safety. This arrangement aligns with
the E-Government aspect of the President's Management Agenda, the DOJ's
strategic goals relating to the enforcement of Federal laws and
protection of America against terrorism and violent crime, and the
Attorney General's priorities, including the Law Enforcement
Information Sharing Program and VCIT.
OSII's mission is to provide timely, accurate, and focused
intelligence through the collection and analysis of information, to
enhance decision-making for all Bureau customers. The creation of OSII
was a big step toward enabling ATF to put its information to the best
possible use. The intelligence process is a continuous loop in which
data are gathered, evaluated, and analyzed. Analytical reports are then
distributed to end users, including the source of the original
information. The dynamic exchange of intelligence information between
Headquarters and field offices allows ATF to leverage data collection
and analytical expertise to aid in providing accurate and timely
intelligence support. The ultimate outcome of these efforts will be
better information to investigators, which could help prevent future
incidents.
ATF's laboratories are an invaluable resource in perfecting ATF
cases and in serving as a resource for State and local law enforcement.
ATF's laboratory system is composed of the National Laboratory Center
(NLC) in Ammendale, Maryland, and the regional laboratories in Atlanta,
Georgia, and San Francisco, California. The laboratories are equipped
with state of the art forensic and scientific technologies. Whether
performing fire debris analysis, tool mark comparisons, explosives
scene evidence examinations, searching for the presence and comparing
identifiable latent fingerprints, or examining trace evidence from
crime scenes such as hair, paint, or fibers, the ATF's laboratory
personnel provide the finest laboratory service in the Federal
Government.
The NLC is also the home of the ATF National Firearms Examiners
Academy. Attendees from State and local law enforcement agencies attend
this rigorous 1-year program to become firearms and toolmark examiners,
qualified to confirm a ballistic link between two crimes and to analyze
firearms evidence. This program has become the benchmark for training
in this field. The NLC also houses the Fire Research Laboratory.
ATF is a valued participant in the Terrorist Explosive Device
Analytical Center, or TEDAC, operated at the FBI laboratory in
Quantico, Virginia. At this center, ATF and other partners analyze
explosive devices from Iraq and Afghanistan, in an effort to identify
bombers and to prevent further attacks. Experts work to technically
evaluate IED components to identify similarities and potential bomb
makers, provide timely intelligence to military and law enforcement,
and collect latent prints and DNA from terrorist IEDs to link the same
person to similar devices. Four ATF employees work full-time at the
center, providing their technical expertise in identifying components
of IEDs. TEDAC has provided invaluable assistance to U.S. military and
intelligence personnel in preventing fatal detonations of IEDs and in
tracking down bombing suspects. This is a great example of how we are
working within DOJ to prevent terrorism, and contributing our knowledge
to a common goal.
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Several of ATF's programs, such as the National Response Team
(NRT), Special Response Team (SRT), and the canine program, strengthen
our efforts in firearms, explosives and arson, and alcohol and tobacco
diversion. They contribute to our missions of preventing terrorism,
reducing violent crime, and protecting the public.
In the wake of a major fire or explosives incident, law enforcement
investigators can rely on the expertise and advanced technology of
ATF's NRT. Capable of responding within 24 hours to major explosives or
fire incidents, NRT members work alongside State and local officers in
reconstructing the scene, identifying the seat of the blast or origin
of the fire, conducting interviews, sifting through debris to obtain
evidence related to the explosion and/or fire, assisting with the
ensuing investigation, and providing expert court testimony.
Deployed teams include highly trained special agent CFIs, CESs,
FPEs, forensic mappers, EEOs, and chemists. Intelligence and audit
support, and technical and legal advisors further complement the team.
The teams use state-of-the-art tools, including specialized response
vehicles, each equipped with forensic, computer, and crime scene
mapping equipment.
In its 25 years, the NRT has responded to nearly 600 fires and
explosive incidents, with 32 NRT callouts in fiscal year 2004 alone.
The effectiveness of this response capability and the expertise of the
team members were evident in the NRT's responses to incidents, such as
the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City Federal Building
bombings and the 2001 attack on the Pentagon. NRTs have investigated a
wide range of events, including the deadly fire at the Dupont Plaza
Hotel in Puerto Rico in 1986, in which 97 people were killed in less
than 12 minutes. Analysis of the quick and deadly spread of this fire
gave valuable information about fire protection measures that could
prevent such extensive loss of life in future buildings.
One of ATF's major assets in the fight against violent criminals is
our SRTs consisting of some of the bravest, most dedicated, and most
professional special agents in Federal law enforcement. The special
agents on these teams conduct high-risk tactical operations such as
arrest warrants, search warrants, and buy/bust operations. These are
ATF's ``best of the best'' when it comes to tactical experts. The SRT
was called out 108 times in fiscal year 2004, and its expertise is
critical to our success in confronting crisis incidents.
ATF's explosives and accelerant detection canine program also plays
a critical role in ensuring public safety. ATF's unique training
methodology enables its 35 explosives detection canines to find
explosives and gunpowder residue, IEDs, post-blast debris, firearms,
ammunition, bulk explosives, and spent shell casings. The canines can
detect explosives used in up to 19,000 known explosives compounds. Our
60-accelerant detection canines help to identify potential points of
origin at a fire scene. In addition to supporting local authorities,
the canines respond with the NRT and are used by ATF field offices on a
case-by-case basis. ATF-trained canines are also deployed to other
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
Although the original goal of the explosives detection canine
program was to locate explosive devices, these canines have also proven
themselves to be a valuable asset in firearms investigations through
their ability to locate hidden firearms and ammunition. Using this
existing asset in a new way has been invaluable during search warrants
and following shootings when other means of locating firearms,
ammunition, and spent shell casings have failed.
INTERNATIONAL
ATF's expertise and efforts benefit not only Americans, but law-
abiding citizens worldwide. Through our international activities, ATF
employees are working to support American interests. As discussed
earlier, ATF provides post-blast and render safe training for U.S. and
coalition forces in Iraq and for the Iraqi National Police. ATF also
has special agents assigned to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office in Iraq
to assist in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. Law
enforcement agencies worldwide use our firearms tracing capabilities to
gain additional information about crime guns. In fiscal year 2004, ATF
traced over 27,000 firearms for foreign law enforcement representing 50
foreign countries. Our international activities enhance public safety
in many countries worldwide, and in so doing, they protect American
interests.
ATF provides extensive support to America's diplomatic activities.
Regional Security Officers from the Department of State's Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS) participate in post-blast training led by ATF.
The training focuses on explosives crime scene processing, management
and preservation, and includes explosives identification and effects.
Other countries have benefited from ATF's expertise in training
explosives detection canines: through a partnership with the Department
of State, ATF has trained approximately 450 canines for international
law enforcement agencies since the program's inception in 1990. Also,
our International Response Team (IRT) deploys in support of DSS
investigative responsibilities and foreign government requests. The IRT
has been deployed 24 times in response to fire and explosives incidents
since its inception in 1991, most recently to investigate a deadly fire
in Paraguay. ATF investigators quickly determined the cause and origin
of this fire, which claimed 456 lives.
Attache offices in Canada, Mexico, France, and Colombia support law
enforcement within those countries and help ATF achieve our firearms
and explosives missions. Our international work with IEDs provides
insight into the tools used by international terrorists, and this
information is critical to the protection of our homeland. With the
Department's support, I am examining ATF's international presence to
identify instances where a stronger international presence would help
reduce violent crime and reduce our Nation's vulnerability to
terrorism.
ATF works with agencies worldwide to prevent firearms from reaching
the hands of organized criminal gangs, drug traffickers, terrorist
organizations, and other criminals. ATF enforces provisions of the Arms
Export Control Act (AECA), and has primary jurisdiction over permanent
firearms and ammunition imports. The Department of State administers
the temporary import and export provisions of the AECA, and the
Department of Homeland Security enforces all AECA provisions at U.S.
ports and borders.
ATF personnel are also included on U.S. delegations to the United
Nations, the Organization of American States, and the Group of Eight
when these bodies are negotiating instruments relating to firearms,
ammunition, and explosives. The Department of State values the
expertise ATF personnel bring to the delegations, which is crucial in
ensuring that treaties resulting from such negotiations include
effective measures to combat international trafficking and terrorist
access to these dangerous commodities. ATF participation is also
essential to ensure that binding international agreements do not
obligate the United States to implement policies that impose undue
burdens on sportsmen, firearms enthusiasts, and the firearms industry.
PARTNERSHIPS
At ATF, we believe that working together is not just a good idea--
it is a matter of national security. Our agency has a long history of
collaborating effectively with other Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies; in fact, other Federal, State, and local agencies
consistently turn to ATF because of our expertise and our commitment to
partnerships.
We are proud to be part of the Department of Justice, and to
contribute our efforts toward reaching the Department's strategic
goals. We are participating in Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)
operations, and working to improve information sharing between
agencies. We share our expertise in firearms, explosives, and alcohol
and tobacco diversion, as part of our robust support for joint efforts
to counter the grave threat of terrorism. We make significant
contributions to the law enforcement community, and our presence within
the Department helps use the benefits we provide more effectively. This
transition has provided both financial and operational efficiencies,
which have improved effectiveness. Former Attorney General Ashcroft and
Deputy Attorney General Comey have provided invaluable support to ATF,
and this productive and supportive relationship is continuing with
Attorney General Gonzales.
As I mentioned, ATF contributes to the Department of Justice's
fight against terrorism through the JTTF program. Sixty-four ATF
personnel are assigned to JTTFs across the Nation, and others support
the remaining JTTFs as needed. ATF personnel assigned to JTTFs perform
multiple roles: they function as in-house experts on firearms and
explosives violations and on tobacco diversion; they act as liaisons
between the FBI and ATF at the local level on intelligence matters; and
they are a vital part of the joint investigative team that is truly the
backbone of the JTTF mission.
ATF fosters innovation and cooperation in the explosives
investigation community through its partnerships with other agencies,
through liaison efforts with the legal explosives industry, and through
research and development efforts. ATF works closely with other Federal
agencies and with the academic and scientific communities, to conduct
research and monitor developments in explosives research, blast
mitigation, and explosives detection. Such agencies include the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Transportation
Security Administration, and others. ATF representatives also serve as
co-chairs and task managers on several research efforts funded through
the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). The TSWG is administered by
the Department of Defense under the auspices of the National Security
Council. The principal mission of the TSWG is to conduct rapid
research, development, and prototyping of multiple use technologies for
law enforcement and military purposes. ATF also has collaborative
research partnerships with Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory; University of Missouri, Rolla; and
University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Also, ATF closely and regularly
collaborates with representatives of foreign governments, including the
United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada.
ATF employees hold key positions in many prestigious professional
organizations. Since 1990, an ATF agent has chaired the Arson and
Explosives Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police. Similarly, ATF has maintained outstanding relationships with
the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators,
the International Association of Arson Investigators, and the National
Bomb Squad Commanders. Also, as stated previously, ATF has a
partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation in conducting
the ``Don't Lie for the Other Guy'' program which provides essential
education for FFLs.
ATF leverages its resources to better inform, advise, and educate
its stakeholders and customers. In partnership with The Fertilizer
Institute, ATF's voluntary ``Be Aware for America'' campaign raises the
awareness of industry, law enforcement, and the public of the need for
vigilance in connection with the sale and security of ammonium nitrate.
This chemical mixed with fuel oil was used in the Oklahoma City
bombing. ATF later launched, again in partnership with The Fertilizer
Institute, the voluntary ``Be Secure for America'' campaign, which
focuses on the safe storage and transportation of ammonium nitrate.
STRATEGIC PLAN/JURISDICTIONS/VISION
ATF is striving every day to meet the strategic goals of the
Attorney General and Department of Justice: preventing terrorism and
promoting the Nation's security; enforcing Federal laws and
representing the rights and interests of the American people; and
assisting State, local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime
and violence.
With the Department's goals in mind, ATF created an internal set of
strategic goals consisting of the following: Preventing violent crime
and terrorist related crime involving firearms; providing effective
arson and explosives investigative and technical expertise to protect
the public from violent crime and terrorism; and preventing illegal
domestic and international trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
Firearms, explosives, and arson are the tools of terrorist groups
and ATF's role in firearms and explosives enforcement is significant in
the battle against terrorism. ATF, while working against violent
firearms crime, is also helping to prevent terrorism by monitoring and
investigating violations of the Federal firearms and explosives laws.
ATF is preventing violent crime through its own enforcement efforts and
its effective partnerships with other agencies.
ATF prides itself on its assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies, supporting the third DOJ strategic goal to
``assist State, local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime
and violence.'' As discussed earlier, ATF makes a wealth of resources
available to State and local law enforcement agencies, including expert
investigators, ballistic comparison technology, and explosives incident
information.
ATF's jurisdictional responsibilities are directly related to
efforts to combat violent crime on America's streets. ATF, as the lead
Federal law enforcement agency fighting violent firearm crime, enforces
the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), the National Firearms Act, and other
related statutes. In section 101 of the GCA, Congress declared that its
primary purpose was to ``provide support to Federal, State, and local
law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence.''
I would note that the GCA section goes on to state that it is not
intended to ``place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or
burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition,
possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting,
trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful
activity . . .'' I want to assure the committee that ATF is mindful of
this provision while maintaining a vigorous enforcement of all Federal
firearms laws.
Mr. Chairman, ATF's dual role to enforce and administer Federal
explosives laws is unique. While ATF agents investigate bombings,
unlawful distributions of explosives, thefts of explosives, and other
violations of the Federal explosives laws, ATF inspectors/investigators
are carrying out the vital work of insuring the integrity of explosives
as they move through commerce. While other agencies may have the
resources to respond to and investigate explosives incidents, only ATF
regulates the legal explosives industry, and only ATF is responsible
for tracking and investigating explosives losses and thefts.
The Anti-Arson Act of 1982 gave ATF broad-based jurisdiction in
arson offenses. ATF's arson enforcement efforts are directed toward
preventing the crime of arson, providing effective post-incident
response, and reducing the community impact of crimes involving fire.
ATF enforces Federal laws related to alcohol and tobacco diversion, and
is applying its past experience in governing and regulating these
products of commerce to investigating the violent crimes that often
accompany diversion activity.
Even as we work to solve the problems of the present, we have
developed a strategic vision for the future. Pursuing this vision will
help us to remain an effective and respected law enforcement
organization while adapting to changing circumstances. We are working
on using what we know to its maximum effectiveness--sharing
intelligence information, ensuring that employees have the training and
technology to accomplish their work effectively, and communicating with
the public. We are focusing on working together--maintaining the
partnerships that sustain us, and ensuring that administrative actions
and personnel policies support ATF's fulfillment of its missions. And
we are growing with purpose--seeking out opportunities to expand our
contributions, focusing on prevention, and focusing our efforts
internationally as well as here at home. Abiding by these principles
will enable us to work most effectively and get the best results for
the American people.
MANAGEMENT
Mr. Chairman, ATF is a well-managed and effective organization, and
external evaluations of our abilities confirm this. In the last 2
years, the Office of Management and Budget has evaluated ATF's
explosives and arson programs and our firearms programs. In each
review, we received some of the highest scores achieved by Federal law
enforcement programs. Also, as part of the President's Management
Agenda, the Office of Personnel Management sponsored a survey of 115
Federal subcabinet agencies. On this survey of employee satisfaction, I
am proud to say that ATF ranked eighth, the highest of any law
enforcement agency.
With the continued support of the Department and this subcommittee,
we will continue to provide innovative management and personnel
projects such as the Pay Demonstration project. This program uses an
alternative to the General Schedule pay scale so that pay is more
directly based on performance. This program has allowed ATF to recruit
and retain technically skilled employees, especially those with
science-based skills and intelligence research capabilities.
We are also implementing a Bureau-wide telework program. We
recognize the many benefits of telework, including improved work
operations, better customer service, improved employee morale,
assistance with recruitment and retention efforts, and reduced traffic
on area highways. After two successful telework pilot programs in the
last 2 years, we recently conducted an analysis of all positions at
ATF, and concluded that 1,300 positions were suitable for telework.
Employees who occupy these positions have been notified that they may
apply for a telework arrangement. In the next few weeks, managers and
supervisors will review employee requests to telework, and begin
implementing telework agreements.
The ATF Headquarters building is being constructed here in
Washington, DC, and is promising to be a model of future Government
construction. The facility will combine security and advanced design
technology for an environmentally friendly and cost-effective facility.
ATF is scheduled to move to its new Headquarters in 2006.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR ATF
Congressional funding for ATF in past years is money well invested
in the safety of the American people. The President's Budget for fiscal
year 2006 requests $923,613,000 and 5,128 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions. I believe these additional investments will provide
essential benefits to the American people.
One important new initiative will provide for the expansion of the
VCIT program I mentioned earlier. Because VCIT has proven so
successful, the Administration has requested $30.3 million and 150 FTEs
to establish a VCIT base in 10 additional cities that have experienced
an increase in armed violence in specific geographic areas or have not
followed the national trend of reduced homicides and armed violence.
Establishing a VCIT base in a total of 25 cities will offer more
Americans the opportunity to enjoy safer neighborhoods again.
Additional funding will also enable us to increase our
participation in TEDAC. Four ATF employees currently work with experts
from other agencies to identify components of IEDs. The $6 million will
provide two additional special agents to analyze the devices and to
continue intelligence support to law enforcement and military
organizations to work against the threat of terrorist IEDs.
The funds will also provide for the creation of a new database that
will record, inventory, and catalog IEDs used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This database would use association software to identify similarities
between explosives events and devices, and to match characteristics of
bombings/bombers in real time, including latent prints, DNA reports,
components of the explosives, and other forensic information. We will
have the ability to extract information from the database and share it
with State, local, and international law enforcement partners. The
development of the database would be a partnership led by DOJ's Chief
Information Officer and coordinated by ATF and the FBI.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Mikulski, members of the subcommittee: On behalf
of the men and women of ATF, I thank you for your support of our
crucial work. In the last year, we have worked to stop those whose
violent and criminal behavior threatens the peace of our communities.
We have investigated explosives incidents and arsons. We have helped to
ensure that the firearms and explosives industries operate safely and
lawfully. And we have shared our knowledge with other law enforcement
personnel through extensive training programs and effective
partnerships. Yet I believe that our greatest achievements are still to
come. We have made much progress--but we know there is much more to do.
We are determined to succeed in our missions of reducing violent crime,
preventing terrorism, and protecting the public. And we look forward to
working with you to pursue this goal.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller.
Mr. Mueller. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski
and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today in front of you for the first
time. I am sure it will not be the last.
My prepared statement sets forth the FBI's 2006 budget
request and the program areas in which we seek expansion, but
for purposes of my opening remarks, I would like to briefly
address two of the areas that I believe are most important to
the FBI's continuing success. The first is the progress we have
made in establishing the Directorate of Intelligence, and the
second is the improvement and expected improvement in our
information technology.
FBI deg.DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
Let me spend a moment on establishing the Directorate of
Intelligence. In response to direction from the President and
the Congress, including the findings of the Joint Intelligence
Committee inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, and the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, we established the
Directorate of Intelligence earlier this year. This directorate
has clear authority and responsibility over all of our FBI
intelligence functions. This newly established directorate is
comprised of a dedicated headquarters element that sets policy
and direction to be carried out by all of our embedded
elements, and then with embedded intelligence entities in each
of our headquarters operational divisions, as well as embedded
intelligence entities in every one of our FBI field offices.
And these entities are called the field intelligence groups.
These field intelligence groups are central to the
integration of the intelligence cycle into our field
operations, and they include special agents, analysts, language
specialists, surveillance specialists, as well as officers and
analysts from other intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
They are responsible for coordinating, managing, and executing
all of the functions of the intelligence cycle and have
significantly improved the FBI's intelligence capabilities and
capacity.
Our efforts to date have focused on aligning our processes
with partners and customers outside the FBI and increasing our
intelligence production. We have had over the last year a 312
percent increase in the dissemination of intelligence
assessments and over a 200 percent increase in the
dissemination of intelligence information reports.
We have also made substantial progress over the last year
toward expanding and strengthening our intelligence workforce.
In fiscal year 2005 we initiated a plan to accelerate the
interviewing and processing of applicants residing in the
Washington, DC, and Baltimore region. We had a 1-week vacancy
announcement advertised in 2005 for analysts and it yielded
over 2,800 high-qualified applicants for the analyst position.
We have filled 533 of these positions to date, and have a
hiring objective of 880 analysts by the end of this year.
In order to continue to build on the progress we have made
to date, we are taking measures to assure a consistent level of
knowledge across our workforce, and we have instituted
mandatory training for analysts. We have also taken steps to
strengthen the special agent component of the workforce.
First, in this coming year we are establishing a clear path
that gives all agents experience in intelligence collection,
analysis, and dissemination. We also are building the capacity
of agents to develop specialized skills, experience, and
aptitudes in one of five areas including counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and intelligence. We are making an
intelligence officer certification a prerequisite for
advancement to the senior supervisory ranks. All of this is
important and key to achieving full integration of the
intelligence operations with our law enforcement operations.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because if you look at many
of the requests that we have in this upcoming year, those
requests are supportive of our building this Intelligence
Directorate within the FBI. We continue to make progress in
strengthening this capability and we absolutely believe that
establishing this capability is instrumental to preventing
attacks in the future.
Let me add, as I discuss the Intelligence Directorate, a
note to say that we are currently reviewing the recommendations
of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission. As you
know, the Commission recently completed its report and offered
a number of recommendations for the FBI as well as for the rest
of the intelligence community. The Commission's work makes a
significant contribution to understanding ways we can improve
our intelligence capabilities, and we are looking forward to
continuing to build and reform our national security program in
light of the Commission's recommendations, and I believe you
will find that a number of our requests in the 2006 budget are
supportive of that goal.
FBI deg.SENTINEL PROJECT
Let me turn for a second to the second area that I wish to
discuss, and that is information technology. We absolutely
recognize the importance of strong information technology as a
backbone if we are to effectively collect, analyze, and share
intelligence both within the FBI but also with our intelligence
and law enforcement partners.
Mr. Chairman, we are committed to delivering to the
desktops of the men and women of the FBI the enhanced
technology capabilities they need and deserve. I believe that
overall the Trilogy program was successful. I have before and
continue to acknowledge that the Virtual Case File aspect of it
was not successful. Yet our efforts to enhance our information
technology during the past several years have provided us with
a much improved understanding of program management as well as
technical expertise. We are in a much better position to shape
the FBI's next generation of electronic information management.
This next generation, as I believe you have noted, is called
SENTINEL and it remains one of my highest priorities.
This new system called SENTINEL is different from the
Virtual Case File Program in a number of ways. I believe you
have a chart that illustrates the additional capabilities that
will be available under SENTINEL, capabilities that were not
contemplated as a part of Virtual Case File when Virtual Case
File was on the drawing boards in 2000 and 2001.
And while I am, as I expressed here before, disappointed at
the time and effort and monies that were expended on Virtual
Case File without success, I do believe we have an opportunity
to provide our employees more of what they need to do their
jobs.
A major difference between SENTINEL, the new system, and
Virtual Case File is that SENTINEL represents our first step in
deployment of a service-oriented architecture, what is known in
the trade, I believe, as SOA. That means that SENTINEL will
serve as a platform for the gradual deployment of capabilities
and services needed by all FBI divisions. At the same time, we
will gradually roll out key technical services through the
SENTINEL program, such as automated work flow, search
capabilities, records and case management and reporting
protocols, rather than doing it through one massive flash cut-
over as was contemplated by Virtual Case File.
The service-oriented architecture will raise our business
practices to the next level by providing enhanced capabilities,
new services, and better efficiency, while also ensuring a
smooth transition from our legacy applications to a more state-
of-the-art technical platform. This special oriented
architecture will further support the FBI's mission by helping
manage our investigative, administrative and intelligence needs
while also improving ways to encourage information sharing
among our counterparts.
SENTINEL is a four-phase project, each phase developing a
stand-alone capability to our users. The phased rollout will
facilitate ease of user transition, training, deployment, and
support. Phase I will be ready for deployment approximately 12
months after the contract award date, which we expect to be
toward the end of this year. We have taken the first step in
the deployment strategies--I believe your staff has been
briefed--by selecting our contracting vehicle. Our next step of
the procurement process is to consider the proposals from
interested and qualified vendors.
I know a question that all would ask is what is the cost?
And let me try to give an answer that may at this point not be
altogether satisfactory in open session, but we have a cost
estimate. However, because of the procurement process and the
sensitivity of the procurement process, our preference would be
to discuss those with you off the record.
Let me just say, as we complete the remarks on the
technology, that I fully understand the scrutiny that is
necessary and appropriate to ensure that the SENTINEL Project
is successful from beginning to end, and we have implemented a
number of undertakings to ensure that that will be the case.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify before you today and to highlight the
importance of both the Directorate of Intelligence as well as
our plans for SENTINEL.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, I will also refer to the comment that I believe
you may have made, that is, we are looking forward to working
with the new Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador
Negroponte. We expect to support him and his efforts in any way
we can. The expansion of our intelligence capabilities I
believe fits directly into what he anticipates he needs in
assuring that he is able to bring together domestic
intelligence with intelligence that is derived from overseas.
I also would be happy to answer any questions you have, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today with Attorney
General Gonzales and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). I would first like to express my gratitude for the
continued support and guidance you have provided the FBI as we continue
our efforts to ensure that we are able to address current threats and
keep America safe from those who would do us harm. Specifically, I
would like to thank you for recently passing the fiscal year 2005
Supplemental, which included $74 million for the FBI. In addition to
including critical funding for the FBI's operations in Iraq, the
Supplemental will allow the FBI to improve its efforts at home in the
war on terrorism.
2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The FBI's fiscal year 2006 budget request totals 31,475 positions,
including 12,140 agents and 2,745 Intelligence Analysts, and $5.7
billion. This includes 2,086 new positions--615 agents, 508
Intelligence Analysts, and 963 support positions--and $496 million in
new investments to continue strengthening our Intelligence Program and
support our Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence activities. In
addition, the fiscal year 2006 budget request includes resources to
address the FBI's information technology and infrastructure
requirements. These resources are critical to the Intelligence,
Counterterrorism, and Counterintelligence Programs, as well as to our
traditional criminal investigative efforts, and maintain the support we
provide to our state, local, and tribal partners. The following
highlights critical areas of operations and support functions.
TECHNOLOGY
Since I last appeared before the Subcommittee in February of this
year, the FBI has taken significant steps in planning for our future
case management system. I want to take an opportunity to provide you
with an update on our plans, and proposed time-line.
The FBI's commitment to delivering enhanced technology capabilities
remains resolute. Our efforts with regard to the Trilogy Project
resulted in a better understanding of program management and technical
expertise. The lessons learned have resulted in changes that have
already facilitated successful programs, including the pilot testing of
VCF Initial Operating Capability (IOC), which concluded at the end of
March 2005. As a result of VCF IOC, we were able to gain user input
that will better direct the development and roll-out of future
capabilities. Additionally, lessons learned have better positioned us
to shape the FBI's next generation electronic information management
system, SENTINEL. Successful deployment of SENTINEL remains one of my
top priorities.
SENTINEL is different from the VCF program because it will serve as
a vehicle in which capabilities can be gradually deployed. We will
roll-out key technical services in phases, such as records and case
management capabilities, to smoothly transition into the new system
while retiring legacy applications. SENTINEL will raise our business
practices to a higher level of performance by providing enhanced
capabilities, new services and better efficiency. SENTINEL will further
encourage information sharing within the FBI and among our
counterparts.
The current planning has SENTINEL functions divided into four
phases, which will be incrementally developed and deployed. Each phase
will deliver stand-alone capabilities. The phases take into
consideration migration of legacy data and retirement of legacy
systems. An initial estimate for full development and implementation of
SENTINEL is 39 to 48 months. The first phase of the development is
estimated to begin late this calendar year. As I mentioned, SENTINEL
will replace a number of legacy applications, the most important of
which is the Automated Case Management System; other applications to be
replaced include: ASSET; Criminal Informant Management System; Bank
Robbery Statistical Application; Financial Institution Fraud and
Integrated Statistical Reporting Analysis Application. Additionally,
SENTINEL incorporates support for XML standards to facilitate internal
and external information sharing.
The total estimated cost of SENTINEL has not yet been finalized,
but would be distributed over two to four fiscal years. However,
development costs for each phase will be fully funded in the year in
which work begins on that phase.
DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
At the direction of the Congress and President, the FBI has
established the Directorate of Intelligence. As required in the FBI's
fiscal year 2005 Appropriation legislation, the Directorate will lead
the FBI's integrated, dedicated national intelligence workforce--``A
Service within a Service.'' The guiding principle for FBI intelligence
is the integration of law enforcement and intelligence operations. To
achieve this integration, we use a management principle of centralized
management and distributed execution. The Directorate establishes
priorities, processes and policies for intelligence operations that are
executed by fully integrated intelligence elements in other
Headquarters offices and the Field. The priorities, processes, and
policies are fully aligned with those of the Attorney General, and the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI):
--This integrated intelligence service leverages our traditional law
enforcement culture--with particular attention to the pedigree
of sources and fact-based analysis--while ensuring no walls
exist between collectors, analysts, and those who must act upon
intelligence information.
--The term ``Directorate'' signifies that intelligence is not the
responsibility of one office or one division, but crosses
program lines and permeates all we are charged with doing.
--FBI intelligence professionals will integrate all partners--
particularly state, local and tribal law enforcement--into our
intelligence structures. Through joint operations in a shared
information space, we create a common view of the threat and a
clear understanding of our respective roles in countering the
threat.
The FBI's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes an enhancement
of $26 million for the Directorate of Intelligence. The resources would
strengthen three critical areas: program development; training; and
recruitment and retention. These areas have been identified as critical
to the success of our Intelligence Program.
We are requesting resources to continue restructuring and
integrating the enterprise-wide Intelligence Program, which would
enable us to centrally manage our core intelligence functions and
implement programs, standards, policies, and training for analysts
consistent with standards to be determined by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI). This would also allow us to manage intelligence
requirements and intelligence collection activities in accordance with
national intelligence priorities, and to ensure that all intelligence
gathered and analyzed is disseminated to those who need it, both inside
and outside the FBI. Our efforts to date have focused on aligning our
processes with partners and customers outside the FBI, and increasing
our intelligence production. The FBI had a 312 percent increase in the
dissemination of intelligence assessments from calendar year 2003 to
2004, and a 222 percent increase in the dissemination of Intelligence
Information Reports during that same period.
--In order to ensure a consistent level of knowledge across the
workforce, we have instituted specialized training, which is
now mandatory for all FBI Intelligence Analysts. This year,
more than 150 analysts have received intelligence training and
our goal is to train at least 1,000 analysts by December 2005.
In addition, intelligence training has been incorporated into
new agent training. As directed in the FBI's fiscal year 2005
Appropriation, we are making additional improvements to expand
and enhance our training program, to include joint training
sessions with other members of the Intelligence Community,
creation of a fellows program to exchange staff with other
federal agencies and the private sector, and opportunities for
academic sabbaticals to pursue advanced degrees. Our fiscal
year 2006 request would enhance the basic intelligence analyst
course, and provide support for advanced Intelligence Analyst
training.
--We have made substantial progress towards expanding and
strengthening our intelligence workforce. As a result of our
hiring efforts, we have received overwhelming interest in the
Intelligence Analyst position. A one-week vacancy announcement
advertised in February 2005 yielded over 2,218 applicants. We
have hired 476 Intelligence Analysts through February and have
a hiring objective of 880 by the end of the year. The fiscal
year 2006 budget request includes resources to continue
recruitment and retention initiatives.
Finally, the FBI has integrated management of the Foreign Language
program within the Directorate of Intelligence. This integration aligns
foreign language and intelligence management activities and provides
for delivery of service across all program areas. At the end of
February 2005, there were 406 language specialists on-board. In
addition, we use the services of over 900 contract linguists. This
represents a 67 percent increase in the number of total linguists since
9/11. During calendar year 2004, our Language Services program reviewed
over 532,000 hours of audio and over 1.9 million pages of text in
support of the counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions. We
are requesting an enhancement of 274 positions and $26 million in
fiscal year 2006 to enhance the program's capacity in counterterrorism
and counterintelligence-related languages, and to integrate a permanent
staff of linguists within the National Virtual Translation Center.
COUNTERTERRORISM
The FBI is committed to defeating terrorists and preventing
terrorist attacks. We endeavor to deny terrorists and their supporters
the capacity to plan, organize, and carry out logistical, operational,
and support activities. In order to be successful, we must be able to
develop intelligence about their plans and disrupt their efforts. In
conjunction with our partners, we will pursue appropriate sanctions
against terrorists and their supporters. Success is dependent on
networked information technology systems and the capacity to manage and
share information effectively. Resources are also critical to the
mission. In fiscal year 2006, we are requesting an enhancement of 791
positions, including 468 agents, and $122 million for national security
field investigations.
A critical mission within the Counterterrorism Division is the
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF). FTTTF was created in
response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2 (HSPD-2). The
mission of the FTTTF is to provide information that helps keep foreign
terrorists and their supporters out of the country or leads to their
exclusion, removal, surveillance, or prosecution. The FTTTF specializes
in combining public, proprietary and government data sources to support
the FBI's counterterrorism mission, including support to other U.S. and
international operations.
Current collaborative partners and key players include: FBI's
Counterterrorism Division--National Joint Terrorism Task Force; Central
Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; DOD Counterintelligence
Field Activity; Department of State; and Department of Homeland
Security.
In February 2005, the FBI and DHS executed an agreement to provide
for the sharing of information from the US-VISIT and Student and
Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS) programs. As a result of
the agreement, the FBI will be able to retrieve and analyze all of the
biographic and biometric data on foreign travelers and students
collected in US-VISIT and SEVIS. FBI personnel will be able to access
this information through the Investigative Data Warehouse and FTTTF
databases, as well as through established user accounts at FBIHQ and
field office.
The agreement requires the FBI to verify information and coordinate
with DHS before taking action on leads or disseminating intelligence
products developed as a result of information under this shared
agreement. It also broadly provides the FBI authority to share US-VISIT
and SEVIS information as necessary with other federal, state and local
personnel.
TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER
The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) is a multi-agency effort
designed to consolidate the screening process for known and suspected
terrorists, and to provide for the appropriate and lawful use of
terrorist information. The TSC operates 24/7 to provide a unified
approach to terrorist screening. Through February 2005, TSC received
21,650 calls (over 3,500 from state and local law enforcement), made
over 11,300 positive identifications, and assisted in over 340
arrests--including six with a terrorism nexus. For fiscal year 2006, we
are requesting an increase of 61 positions, to include six Intelligence
Analysts and eight agents, and $75 million. These resources would
provide the TSC with the ability to not only continue fulfilling the
TSC's mission as mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
6, but also begin to address the requirements generated by several
other initiatives--more stringent screening at United States borders,
new requirements for the government to screen passengers on domestic
and international flights without unduly delaying commerce or travel,
and ensuring organizations receiving public funds do not have terrorist
links. TSC projects that its workload will increase by up to 3 million
queries per day by fiscal year 2006.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
As the lead counterintelligence agency in the United States, the
FBI is responsible for identifying and neutralizing ongoing national
security threats. In counterintelligence, we are alert to the potential
of a foreign power to penetrate the United States Intelligence
Community and to compromise Critical National Assets. We are also
deeply concerned about an agent of a hostile group or nation producing
or using weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the players in the
espionage game have diversified. We are no longer dealing exclusively
with intelligence agents. Today the threat can just as easily come from
students, business executives, or hackers.
OFFICE OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
In fiscal year 2006, we are also requesting an enhancement of $7
million to provide contract support for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer. With these resources, we will be able to better
ensure that disciplined processes are applied to our project management
activities and that our projects accurately reflect operational
requirements and our architecture standards while supporting our
information technology systems development and engineering.
INTEGRATED AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (IAFIS)
We appreciate the support you provided us for the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) program in the
fiscal year 2005 Appropriation language. It allows us to move forward
with our plans to modernize our hardware and software to ensure
interoperability and increased information sharing with other agencies
through use of emerging technologies. In fiscal year 2006, we are
requesting an increase of $16.8 million for Next Generation IAFIS to
improve its speed and accuracy, allow for flat print capture, and
enhance the Criminal History Record Information Database. These
initiatives will support both our state and local partners and the
security of our nation's borders.
LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLINE (LEO)
We are also focused on developing technology to promote information
sharing with our state and local law enforcement partners. The FBI is
requesting an increase of $8 million to upgrade the Law Enforcement
Online (LEO) network with cost effective solutions to accommodate law
enforcement user and content growth, and to conduct annual security
audits, reviews, and technology assessments to ensure LEO remains
compatible with emerging technologies and customer needs. As of March
1, 2005, LEO supported over 41,000 users. In addition to the current
LEO user base, there are approximately 17,000 Regional Information
Sharing System users who have the ability to access LEO. During fiscal
year 2004, the FBI added more than 4,000 National Alert System, or NAS,
users. NAS provides immediate notification regarding crisis events.
OVERSEAS COOPERATION
International cooperation has been, and will continue to be,
crucial to effectively prevent and disrupt terrorist networks. We are
continuing to develop foreign partnerships through expansion of our
Legal Attache program. Currently, we have 51 Legal Attache offices
open, covering over 200 countries around the world, supporting our
efforts to neutralize transnational threats. We anticipate opening
three additional Legal Attache offices by the end of this year: Kabul,
Afghanistan; Sofia, Bulgaria; and Sarajevo, Bosnia. In fiscal year
2006, we are requesting an enhancement of 60 positions and $11 million
for the Legal Attache program and related information technology
infrastructure requirements. We propose to open one new office and to
enhance our presence in several existing critical locations. Augmenting
the Legal Attache presence overseas will provide an operational benefit
by reducing the span of control of affected offices, resulting in more
manageable workloads to address terrorist and criminal investigations.
Foreign law enforcement cooperation is a central ingredient in fighting
the international war on terrorism, and an effective Legal Attache
program is essential to maintaining our success in this area.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The last few years have seen rapid reorganization and expansion of
our organization. We have undergone much change and hired many new
personnel. One of our highest priorities has been maintaining the
strength of our workforce. We conducted a study in 2004 to improve the
hiring process of support personnel. The study's recommendations
included streamlining several business practices and realigning
resources to more effectively execute our hiring efforts. The majority
of these recommendations are in the process of being implemented. For
fiscal year 2005, we have initiated a plan to accelerate the
interviewing and processing of applicants residing in the Washington,
DC and Baltimore region for the FBI's top priority programs, including
the Directorate of Intelligence, in an effort to achieve this year's
hiring goals.
As we expand our hiring, our training capacity must improve as
well. In fiscal year 2006, we are requesting $15 million to continue
addressing the more pronounced deficiencies at the FBI Academy. We need
to ensure that our facilities at the FBI Academy are suitable for
training agents and Intelligence Analysts, as well as maintaining our
support of the National Academy. Quantico provides training to an
average of 1,500 intelligence and law enforcement personnel each day.
We are renovating and modernizing our facilities in order to meet the
demands of our new intelligence-driven training initiatives.
As part of our initiative to improve physical infrastructure and
support the counterterrorism mission, we are requesting $10 million in
construction funding to conduct architectural and engineering studies
for a new Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) facility. The funding
would also be available for the purchase of land once a suitable
location is found. A new complex would provide for adequate training
space, and would allow CIRG's executive management, command and
control, and crisis response elements to be centralized in one
location.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION
We are also continuing to enhance our Criminal Program. In 2004, we
realigned our program structure. The realignment maximizes the
effectiveness of resources, mirrors actual work processes, focuses on
threats from criminal enterprises, and promotes the collection,
exchange and dissemination of intelligence throughout the FBI and other
authorized agencies. In fiscal year 2004, we reported more than 21,000
arrests, 15,000 indictments, and 16,000 convictions. The focus of the
Criminal Investigative Program is in areas where we provide a unique
skill and provide a critical contribution to law enforcement.
We have placed additional emphasis on targeting violent gangs.
Gangs and other criminal enterprises operating in the United States and
throughout the world pose increasing concerns for the international law
enforcement and intelligence communities. Today, gangs are more
violent, more organized and more widespread than ever before. They pose
one of the greatest threats to the safety and security of all
Americans. The Department of Justice estimates there are approximately
30,000 gangs with 800,000 members, impacting 2,500 communities across
the United States. The innocent people in these communities face daily
exposure to violence from criminal gangs trafficking in drugs and
weapons, gangs fighting amongst themselves to control or extend their
turf and their various criminal enterprises, which pose a significant
threat.
In response to the threat, we have developed the National Gang
Strategy. Priority is given to efforts to disrupt and dismantle gangs
that are national in scope. One of the first to be targeted is MS-13, a
violent gang that originated in Los Angeles and has spread across the
country. We have created a National Gang Task Force specifically to
address MS-13. We are establishing a new National Gang Intelligence
Center (NGIC) at FBI headquarters, which has been made possible through
resources the Congress provided this year. The NGIC will collect
intelligence on gangs from across the United States, analyze this
intelligence, and disseminate it to help law enforcement authorities
throughout the country plan and execute strategies to prevent further
gang activity and violence.
The FBI views identity theft as a significant and growing crime
problem, especially as it relates to the theft of consumer information
from large wholesale data companies. Identify theft has emerged as one
of the dominant white-collar crime problems of the 21st century. The
FBI opened 889 investigations related to identity theft in fiscal year
2004. That number is expected to increase as identity thieves become
more sophisticated and as the crime is further embraced by large
criminal organizations, placing more identity theft crime within FBI
investigative priorities. Identify theft crosses all program lines and
is usually perpetrated to facilitate other crimes such as credit card
fraud, check fraud, mortgage fraud, and health care fraud. At present,
the FBI has over 1,600 active investigations involving some aspect of
identity theft.
The National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is under the control of
the Criminal Division's Crime Against Children Section and the Criminal
Justice Information System (CJIS). As directed by Congress, the FBI
maintains a national database to track the whereabouts and movements of
sex offenders. The foremost goal of the Registry is to prevent sexual
offenders from committing further sex crimes and protecting the public,
and the NSOR is a critical tool that is educating and protecting the
public and children from harm. The system uses an FBI number to connect
information in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to existing
criminal history information in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS). In order for this to occur, the
convicted offender must have a preestablished FBI criminal history
record, which can be based on any prior arrest. Recent murders of
innocent children have highlighted the need to make the public even
more aware of the NSOR, which is available as a link from the FBI's
website, fbi.gov, and state and local government agencies.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the Subcommittee,
the FBI's overriding priority has been protecting America by preventing
further terrorist attacks. The FBI has made many significant changes,
and will continue to adapt to protect our country. We have reorganized
from an agency whose primary focus was law enforcement into an integral
member of the Intelligence Community. The men and women of the FBI are
its greatest asset. Working together, Special Agents, analysts,
scientists, managers, and support employees attack threats as a team,
with a unified determination to protect our country and our civil
liberties.
Once again, I thank you for your strong support of the FBI. It will
be my pleasure to answer any questions you may have.
IDENTITY THEFT
Senator Shelby. Attorney General Gonzales, I understand
that some of the Department of Justice's travel card accounts
may have been compromised recently. Can you describe your
efforts as they relate to stealing and compromise of account
and other personal information? In other words, what are you
doing at the Justice Department in helping to stop identity
theft?
Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, identity theft is
regrettably one of the fastest growing crimes in our country.
One of the consequences, regrettably, of our growing technology
and the use of the Internet is making it easier for those with
bad intentions to engage in identity theft.
The Department's approach is basically three-prong. The
first is enforcement. In connection with that, of course, there
was legislation recently passed, the Identity Theft Penalty
Enhancement Act, which imposes additional penalties above and
beyond penalties related to the underlying criminal conduct,
such as credit card fraud. The past few years we have engaged
in some major sweeps around the country, but clearly, more
needs to be done.
Second, in relation to that, we are engaged in a very
strong educational program providing training to State and
local officials, and providing education to the public, to tell
them what is possible, what can possibly be done by these
criminals, and what good God-fearing citizens can do to protect
their assets.
The final component, of course, is to continue to look to
see whether or not additional legislation is necessary or
appropriate to deal with this threat. We obviously are very
concerned about it. I am committed to working with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I know for Mike Chertoff
this is a security issue, the fact you have people that are
able to take the identity of someone else. It does create a
security issue for this country, and we are committed to
working with DHS to try to address this problem.
Senator Shelby. It is involving billions of dollars, is it
not?
Attorney General Gonzales. It is a massive problem, yes,
Mr. Chairman.
NATIONAL REGISTRY WEBSITE FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Senator Shelby. Shift to another area. According to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, there are
549,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. These
are people who have been convicted of preying on our families
and especially our children. They are largely unknown. They
have a high rate of recidivism. It is estimated that nearly
100,000 sex offenders do not register, fail to update the
information, or have just disappeared.
Last Friday the Department of Justice, under your
leadership, announced the creation of a national registry
website for sex offenders. Could you discuss that just a little
bit, and how is this website different from sites currently
operated by the Bureau, FBI, and the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and will people be able to enter a name
and the site will search all of the sites it is linked to? How
will it work, in other words, Mr. Attorney General?
Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
Department saw a need to try to provide additional information
to the public about sex offenders who may possibly be within
their neighborhoods, and there were too many families crying
out for information in order to protect their kids. We took
existing technology with existing information on the websites
of States and territories who require registration of sex
offenders, and provided a vehicle free of charge for any
American who has access to the Internet to simply type in a
name, a precinct, a county, a ZIP code, a State, and able to
pull up the names of all registered sex offenders within that
scope.
It relies upon State databases, and for that reason,
obviously, we are dependent upon the information----
Senator Shelby. Are they interoperable?
Attorney General Gonzales. Pardon me?
Senator Shelby. Will the databases be interoperable?
Attorney General Gonzales. Absolutely. We rely upon the
States' information, and, therefore, we are dependent upon the
accuracy of the information within the State. The beauty from
my perspective is that it does rely upon existing technology.
The cost is minimal. We have existing funds from 2005 and 2006
to operate this facility, and obviously we will look for ways
to find additional funding for future years. But in my
judgment, it is a good start in providing additional
information to families.
EXPLOSIVES FEE
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, the budget request
proposes a $120 million fee increase that I mentioned earlier
on the explosives industry. What is your schedule for getting
this authorization through Congress? Has the authorizing
language for the fee been transmitted by the administration?
And if not, when will it be transmitted?
Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what
the schedule is, but I will find out and get that information
to you. Let me just say that with respect to the administration
of fees, it has been longstanding administration policy that in
appropriate circumstances there should be fees charged in
connection with the administration of certain laws, and this
would be one such example. But I will get that information to
you as quickly as I can.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING
Senator Shelby. I think I mentioned it and Senator Mikulski
did, too. The funding for State and local law enforcement, the
proposed cuts here, a lot of us believe they are critical
partners in homeland security, the war on terrorism, law
enforcement and so forth. How do you justify the funding cut
there, Mr. Attorney General? I know it is a tough budget deal.
Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, the budget does
reflect some very tough decisions. There are priorities within
this administration, one priority being, of course, the
protection of this country. And then we have other priorities,
and regrettably, there may be some good programs that we just
do not have enough money to fund. And so the budget reflects
some tough decisions.
With respect to State and local law enforcement, let me
first begin by emphasizing that we understand and appreciate
the importance of cooperation and coordination with State and
local officials. We cannot be successful unless we have the
help of State and local officials in addressing not just
terrorism, but other crimes in this country.
There are various reasons why certain programs may be cut,
irrespective of whether or not they are actually good programs.
For example, we may discontinue funding because the objective
of the initial funding may have been met, such as the COPS
program, where initially that was a program created to put
100,000 cops on the street. We met that objective.
Second, some programs reflect a one-time grant and,
therefore, they are not funded again.
Third, a program, quite frankly, may not score well with
respect to the OMB standards about whether or not a particular
program can justify continued funding.
And, finally, there is a longstanding administration policy
to sort of discourage funding of programs that are not
competitively bid, that are sort of earmarked. And so there are
a variety of reasons why certain programs may receive
discontinued funding.
Now, with respect to cuts to State and local law
enforcement, let me just emphasize there is a tremendous
increase in the budget within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to provide monies to first responders. Some
might argue, well, those are monies that will not find their
way to the cops on the streets. But, in truth, many of the
monies will be spent on resources and technology, computers
that can be shared by first responders, and by the beat cop.
And so I think it is not a fair assertion to look at the monies
cut out of these programs and say that the administration is
somehow not providing resources to State and local officials.
We are finding other ways to do it, and obviously we are
working as hard as we can to be more efficient in the monies
that we continue to provide to State and locals, which is a
significant amount. But the bottom line is this budget does
reflect some very tough decisions.
PRISON CONSTRUCTION RESCISSIONS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, how do you justify
ignoring this subcommittee's direction regarding prison funding
by rescinding funding for two prison construction projects? And
in your view, does the budget request support the real needs of
the Federal prison system? It continues to grow. It is
overcrowded.
Attorney General Gonzales. It does continue to grow, and it
is a serious problem. It does require us to become more
efficient. We are looking at finding ways to be more efficient
by consolidating facilities, by looking to create prisons that
are not stand-alone facilities but are located in proximity to
other Federal facilities so that we can share resources.
The prisons that we are contemplating to retire are very
old facilities. They are minimum-bed facilities. We had the bed
space available with respect to minimum security beds in other
prisons. We are committed, if these prisons are retired, to
ensure--we will do our best to make sure that the people that
are working there have the opportunity to find a job in other
facilities.
If you look at the age of the facilities and what it would
cost to renovate these facilities and provide additional needed
infrastructure, we believe it simply makes more sense to retire
these facilities as opposed to continue to try to fund to keep
these facilities open.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
NATIONAL REGISTER FOR SEXUAL PREDATORS
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want my first
round of questions to be directed at Mr. Gonzales, unless it is
appropriate for Mr. Mueller to come in, and then in my second
round to talk about the FBI.
Mr. Gonzales, I am so pleased in your national budget you
are talking about how to protect children, and women and
children. I want to pick up on one question with the National
Register for Sexual Predators.
I am so pleased that you have established this registry.
This is an enormous threat to our own community. In Maryland,
we have had children die because of sexual predators. Also,
most recently we have had them lurking around schools and
playgrounds again, and parents need tools that they can use, as
well as local crime watch.
Could I just understand, if I type in a zip code or a
parent types in a zip code, would then the registry show the
name of the predator, the convicted predator, and the address
of the predator?
Attorney General Gonzales. That is my understanding,
Senator. You would get that information. Again, the way this
has been structured, we can do it fairly quickly because we are
relying upon information that currently already exists in
databases of States and territories. We are dependent upon the
information that is within the State databases. But you would
get that information.
Senator Mikulski. It will come back to the State databases
because the Federal funds go to State and local law
enforcement, which I know many of my other colleagues will
focus on. In the interest of time, I am going to stick with the
children's issue.
This is a really big issue, and we thank you for your
leadership. We were so dismayed to hear our colleague, Senator
Schumer, bring to our attention that Medicaid is now paying for
Viagra for these predators. What a despicable thing. What a
ripoff of the taxpayer. And we hope that the Department of
Health and Human Services is going to take action on this, and
we look forward to your working together on this.
I would like to compliment your office as well as the FBI
on the leadership it has taken to protect children not only in
their community but virtually in what we would call the virtual
playground. And we are so pleased that it was the FBI through
its project called Innocent Images, started in Maryland because
of the death of a child in Maryland, that has really been
standing sentry on the sexual predators on the Internet, a
despicable situation. And as we fight our global war against
terrorism, there are many predators that pose threats in our
communities, so we want to encourage the ongoing efforts to
have these efforts to protect our children in our neighborhood
as well as on Innocent Images. And when you come back, Mr.
Director, we would like to know that is not being shortchanged.
VICTIMS OF CRIME
Then let me go to the victims of crime. While we see how we
are trying to protect, we are concerned very much about the
cuts in the victims of crime assistance. Could you share with
us what this one--because we see what is happening. Most
recently, the little girl that was found buried alive, an 8
year old, after she had been raped and buried alive, thanks
again, local law enforcement found her. The murder of the girl
that was trying to get out of a gang life who was stabbed 16
times. We have these terrible victims of crime, and yet there
is a rescission here in the victims of crime program.
Could you tell us--the Crime Victims' Fund, as I understand
it, is paid for fees collected from convicted criminals. I
believe the money should be made available to victims. Number
one, will that money be made available? And, number two, with
the rescission of $1.3 billion from the Victims of Crime Fund,
what services will be either eliminated or diluted?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, let me----
Senator Mikulski. Because we have got to really think about
these victims.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I do think about the
victims. Attending several victims ceremonies recently in
connection with Victims' Rights Week, I heard their stories and
I really understand that we have an obligation. The Department,
I believe, has a very strong obligation to look out for the
rights and the interests and the concerns of victims. I care
about them very, very deeply.
I would remind you, of course, that the President feels the
same way, and he advocated a constitutional amendment with
respect to victims' rights.
Our budget request does lift the cap on spending out of the
Crime Victims Fund from $620 million to $650 million. So we
view it as an increase in terms of spending for victims'
rights.
Now, we have requested a rescission of prior year unspent
balances. As you know, because of the way our budget process
works, that amount gets rolled over from year to year. We just
felt it was a more straightforward way of dealing with this
budget issue, but it does not, in my judgment, reflect
lessening of a commitment to victims' rights. In looking at the
receipts, it appears that the receipts will be sufficient to
maintain the level of funding that we have come to expect with
respect to this fund. Again, this just reflects a budgetary
decision.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Gonzales, I don't question your
commitment, but I am here as an advocate, not an accountant.
And my question is: If you rescind close to $1 billion, what
does that mean? That you had a pile-up of money from collecting
funds from these convicted criminals, that you did not spend
it? And shouldn't this be rolled over then and more direct
assistance to the victims as well as other kinds of programs?
Attorney General Gonzales. You are correct, it was a pile
of money that was collected, fees, that could not be spent
because there were caps placed upon it. Therefore, it could not
be spent, and it kept rolling over from year to year.
Senator Mikulski. Why couldn't it have been spent? There
was not enough ``demand'' by the victims?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know if it is a question
of demand, Senator. It is a question of this was a cap imposed
by the Congress and agreed to by the administration, and there
was--I think it was to provide some level of certainty because
the fact that the level of fees collected year to year varied,
and there was a decision to provide some level of certainty as
to how much money would be spent every year, and so the
decision was made as to what the cap should be. And as I have
indicated, we propose raising the cap from $620 million, which
it had been, to $650 million.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think what I am trying to
understand, then, is why did the money pile up. Number two,
what is a better use of the money?
I know my time has expired, and perhaps we could have that
in more detail from your Department so that, number one, we
really are on the side of the victims. And we will come back to
some other issues on that.
Attorney General Gonzales. We would be happy to try to get
your more information about that, Senator. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Crime Victims Fund--Why Did the Money Pile Up and What is a Better Use
for the Money?
The Fund is set up as a separate account in the United
States Treasury with deposits coming predominantly from
criminal fines; the proceeds of forfeited appearance bonds,
bail bonds, and collateral, special forfeitures of the
collateral profits of crime proceeds retained in an escrow
account for more than 5 years, and penalty assessments for
federal misdemeanor and felony convictions. Money is collected
and deposited in the Fund account in one year and made
available for obligation the succeeding fiscal year. Hence,
money deposited into the Fund in fiscal year 2005 will serve as
the source of funding for programs in fiscal year 2006. The
collection and deposit period runs from October 1 through
September 30 of a given fiscal year.
For the last several years, both Congress and the
Administration have proposed to control the level of
expenditures made from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) by imposing
an obligation limitation. The fiscal year 2006 President's
Budget continues to propose a cap on the CVF, as it is
necessary to ensure a more continuous level of service provided
by the partners in the field. Any collections in excess of the
cap for a given year are carried forward into the following
year, which is how collections have accumulated in the Fund.
The fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to rescind these
accumulated balances. The accumulated balances are due to
exceptionally large collections that have occurred in recent
years. As to a better use of the money, collections should be
used for the purposes for which they are authorized, to provide
assistance and compensation to victims of crime. The
Administration's proposal simply seeks to end the current
practice in which unspent balances are carried forward into the
next fiscal year, creating a discretionary budget ``offset''
that permits spending for other, unrelated activities.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy, Senator Stevens is going to
yield to you right now.
Senator Leahy. I appreciate that. I appreciate my friend
from Alaska. I have to be on the floor.
Attorney General, I am troubled by your answer to Senator
Mikulski. Are you concerned about the victims of crime? I am
sure you are. You and I have discussed this before. I have no
doubt of your sincerity. But we can talk about, well, we are
going to raise the limits, we are going put more money, we are
going to do this, that, and the other thing for the victims of
crime. But this money is from criminal fines, forfeitures,
assessments. It does not come from the American taxpayers. And
you are zeroing out the fund. At the end of fiscal year 2007
there will be no money left. The administration's fiscal year
2006 budget proposal would siphon off all the funds. You know
and should know full well that as we put together--and these
have all been bipartisan efforts to put together these victims'
funds--and suddenly the money is zeroed out, it has this
chilling effect all the way down the line. The victims'
programs are not going to be funded. People are going to say
there is no money there. Sure, the money is rolled over. Sure,
the money is rolled over each year. That is what the Congress
wanted the money to do, to roll over each year, because new
programs are coming online, whether it is in your State of
Texas, my State of Vermont, Director Mueller's State of
California, or anywhere else. They are coming online. Our
country is growing all the time. Unfortunately, there are more
victims of crime all the time.
I would hope that you and the administration would go and
review this again because it creates in my mind a somewhat
chilling effect. We can talk about how we all want to raise the
caps on these, but if the money is gone, it does not make any
difference.
FBI deg.COST OF SENTINEL
Director Mueller, I am concerned about your testimony on
the cost of SENTINEL, the Virtual Case File replacement. We
have been unable--our staff, including staff cleared for
security matters, has been unable to get an estimate of what
this is going to cost. You suggest we might do this in a
closed-door hearing. Frankly, I get kind of worried because for
years we were unable to get estimates on a virtual case file,
even in testimony here. A few days later we find out how much
was wasted, how badly it went down the drain. I think you are
going to find that many of us want to get those briefings, and
I would suggest that stonewalling staff up here is not the way
to do it.
FBI deg.FBI SEARCH OF TERRY NICHOLS' HOUSE
But my question to you in the time I have is: On March 31--
and I happened to notice this date because it was my birthday--
FBI agents acting on a tip searched the house where Terry
Nichols lived just before the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in April 1995, 10 years ago, one of the worst
acts of domestic terrorism on our soil.
So 10 years later, 10 years after the fact, 10 years after
the time Terry Nichols was in jail, the FBI searched his house
and they found blasting caps and other explosive materials
apparently related to the bombing. Ten years?
Mr. Mueller. I would be happy to explain that, Senator.
Senator Leahy. I would love to hear the explanation because
I understand that they took--an informant gave them a tip. He
failed a lie detector test. To have a lie detector test be the
determining factor on something like this--yes, go ahead and
explain it.
Mr. Mueller. Well, first of all, let me clarify that we are
not stonewalling your staff, Senator. We have not. We would be
happy to provide you with the briefings. As I told you before,
in terms of the cost, we have estimates now. The reason for not
putting it in public is because there are certain procurement
sensitivities that are involved. But we are happy to provide
you the briefings that you request, and I do believe we have
provided them in the past, certainly with regard to the outline
of the SENTINEL program.
With regard to the explosives that were found in Terry
Nichols' house, we did search the house way back. In fact,
there were a number of searches of the house during the course
of the investigation.
Senator Leahy. You were not the Director at that time.
Mr. Mueller. I was not, but I know that there were searches
of the house back in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. We
did get an informant or a tip that came from Nichols, as to
where additional explosives were buried. We followed up on
that, and we found that they were buried under the house, under
the earth under the house where they would not have been easily
found in the previous searches. It took the additional
information by way of Nichols to identify the location of these
particular explosives, and we followed through on that tip and
found them.
Senator Leahy. How long after getting the tip was the
search made?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to check. I am not certain of the
timeframe.
Senator Leahy. I think it was a few weeks, but feel free to
provide that for the record.
Mr. Mueller. We will.
[The information follows:]
Timeframe for Locating Explosives in the Former Home of Terry Lynn
Nichols in Herington, Kansas on March 31, 2005
On March 1, 2005, the Bureau of Prisons contacted the FBI
Denver Field Office regarding information it obtained from an
inmate about explosives under the former home of Terry Lynn
Nichols. On March 4, 2005, the inmate failed an FBI polygraph
exam regarding this information. Although the inmate did not
pass the polygraph examination, the FBI continued to review and
investigate the information. Additional detailed information
about the location and alleged existence of the explosives was
received on March 11, 2005, from an FBI source from another FBI
Field Office. Based upon the information provided by the
sources, the FBI continued to investigate the allegations to
determine their veracity. The investigation included, but was
not limited to, locating the home and its owner, and obtaining
permission to search the premises. On March 31, 2005, the
buried cache of explosives was successfully recovered without
incident and forwarded to the FBI Laboratory for analysis.
INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT
Senator Leahy. In October 2004, the Congress passed and
then the President signed the Justice for All Act that had the
Innocence Protection Act, the IPA, which I authored. And,
Attorney General, at your confirmation hearing you said that
you would work with us on IPA, on the Innocence Protection Act.
The Innocence Protection Act authorized a total of $375
million for this program over a 5-year period. This was
carefully worked out over months, actually years of
negotiations, by everybody from Chairman James Sensenbrenner
and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to myself, to others. We wanted
to have effective systems for appointing counsel in death
penalty cases. The President, the White House was involved. The
President was happy to sign it and stated it when he stepped
forward and was to sign it. But now we find that the
administration has proposed zero funding on this, and they are
trying to figure out a new program, ignoring the work of
Republicans and Democrats in both bodies, across the political
aisles, across the political spectrum, on a bill the President
signed.
Is this a sign to us don't bother to try to form bipartisan
coalitions, don't bother to work with this administration,
don't bother to work with you or anybody else, because we will
just zero it out? I am somewhat troubled, as you may have
noticed.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir. I would not describe
it in that fashion. We obviously care very much, the President
cares very much about ensuring that those who are facing the
death penalty have adequate representation.
Senator Leahy. I am talking about the IPA. The Innocence
Protection Act was part of the bill that the President signed,
which has now been zeroed out for the money that was
authorized.
Attorney General Gonzales. I thought you were talking about
providing lawyers in connection with----
Senator Leahy. I am talking about the program that the
Congress, after years of work, of hearings, put together,
signed into law by the President, is now in law, has been
basically zeroed out by the administration, and you are
basically inventing a new program.
Attorney General Gonzales. I am sorry. I misunderstood you,
Senator. I think that the President--this is the DNA
initiative, Senator?
Senator Leahy. Yes.
Attorney General Gonzales. Okay.
Senator Leahy. And zeroed out the part that we had in there
on capital cases.
Attorney General Gonzales. The President has a DNA
initiative that was announced and funded prior to the enactment
of the Justice for All Act. It has been successful, and it has
worked, and we believe that this is the way to deal with
ensuring that we provide resources and training so that we can
use DNA to clear up the backlog of DNA cases----
Senator Leahy. Everybody here supports that. I am one of
the ones that helped get the funding for that program, so that
is not the question. We all want to clear up the backlog in
DNA. It is going to help our prosecutors. It is going to help
our defense counsel. I am talking about the Justice for All Act
with the Innocence Protection part that was carefully
negotiated by Republicans and Democrats, signed into law, and
is now being zeroed out.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, the position of the
Department is that the President's DNA initiative is a better
way to deal with this problem, and we can do it in a way that
requires less money and can be more effective in dealing with
the issues relating to the use of DNA.
Senator Leahy. So basically you are saying ignore what we
did in the Congress and the law the President signed with great
fanfare and praise.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, we believe that the
most effective way to deal with this is with respect to the
decisions made to fund the DNA initiative announced by this
President.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
Senator Stevens. First let me agree with the Senator from
Maryland. We do have this National Sex Offender Registry, and
that is supposed to help us keep track of these people so that
parents can help protect their children from harm. Is there a
requirement that these people continue to report their changes
in address? There seems to be a policy that these people can
just sort of disappear and show up in new communities. How does
that happen?
Attorney General Gonzales. They have an obligation to
report, Senator. As you might expect, these are criminals and
some people do not abide by the rules. And so part of our
charge is to try to identify when people move and identify
where they are.
Senator Stevens. Is the law strong enough? Shouldn't we put
through a provision that says that if they don't report, they
go back to jail?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know what the law
requires at this time. It may already have such a requirement,
but if it does not, I think that would be something that we
should be looking at.
Senator Stevens. I would tell the Senator from Maryland, I
would be pleased to join in such a provision to strengthen
that.
USA PATRIOT ACT
Let me ask you as a former U.S. attorney about the PATRIOT
Act. It expires at the end of this year, and in my judgment, in
terms of things we have seen in terms of the working
relationship between agents and making available intelligence
without chimneys, it is working very well. Are you seriously
urging the Congress to extend the PATRIOT Act?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I agree with you. I
think the PATRIOT Act has been effective in protecting America,
and I think it reflects a careful balance of protecting our
country and respecting our civil liberties and the privacy
rights of all Americans.
There are 16 provisions that are set to expire at the end
of this year. We have had a good debate about how this
Department has exercised those authorities. I think the record
shows that the Department has been very careful in the use of
these authorities. I think the record also shows that the Act
has been effective and, therefore, in my judgment, the PATRIOT
Act is deserving of reauthorization.
Senator Stevens. When the Defense Subcommittee traveled to
Iraq, we interviewed some people there who were multinational
and multiagency people who had really functioned extremely well
because of the PATRIOT Act. I think you ought to bring some of
those people in and have them testify to Congress and tell us
how that act has changed their lives and increased their
ability to track down terrorists and to bring them to justice.
It seems to me that there should be no opposition to extending
that act and continuing to give that authority to the people
who are really trying to seek out terrorists throughout the
world.
Mr. Mueller, your agency in particular has used it very
effectively. Do you have any comment about it?
Mr. Mueller. I think we would be going back 10 years if the
PATRIOT Act is not reauthorized, particularly those provisions
that have broken down the walls in the sharing of information.
The ability to share information between the intelligence
community and the law enforcement community has been
instrumental in securing the safety of United States citizens,
both in the United States but also overseas, in allowing us to
share information between our various agencies and also with
our counterparts overseas. We have testified previously on a
number of occasions how absolutely essential it is to have the
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act to prevent additional acts
of terrorism. A number of our investigations have been
successful in the United States because of our ability to share
information and utilize the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
Senator Stevens. Well, take the Terrorist Screening Center
(TSC), which you commented on in your statement. Could it
effectively work without the PATRIOT Act?
Mr. Mueller. It would be very difficult for it to be able
to perform its functions because it would still be beset by
walls segmenting information between the intelligence community
and the law enforcement community. And, consequently, the
PATRIOT Act in its breaking down those walls enables the
Terrorist Screening Center to assemble information from a
variety of sources to determine the appropriateness of putting
somebody on the terrorist screening watchlist and to follow
through if that person comes within the United States or
attempts to get into the United States.
Senator Stevens. This is a multiagency effort, as I
understand, the Terrorism Center, right?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, it is.
Senator Stevens. And in your statement, you said through
February 2005 TSC received 21,650 calls, over 3,500 from State
and local law enforcement agencies, made over 11,300 positive
identifications, and assisted in 340 arrests, including six
with terrorist nexus.
Now, none of that would be available without knocking down
the walls that the PATRIOT Act knocked down. In the past, they
all would have had to go to the top of their agency, and the
information would have to be shared at the top of the agency,
and the top of the agency would have to be aware of the fact
that someone down here had that information. Is that not right?
Mr. Mueller. The PATRIOT Act broke down those walls, along
with rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
court. Between the two of those entities, it broke down the
walls, enabling the Terrorist Screening Center to have that
record of success.
FBI deg.DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Senator Stevens. Let me shift over to the National Director
of Intelligence, and I appreciate your visit. I am sure you
visited others. But I see that there are several functions you
have mentioned that really now will be integrated with the
National Director of Intelligence. And you created a special
section within the FBI to deal with that, right?
Mr. Mueller. That is correct. What we are trying to do is
build up within the FBI what is called a Directorate of
Intelligence that, from the headquarters perspective, is the
brains of intelligence, regardless of whether it comes from a
criminal program, a cyber program, a counterintelligence
program, or a counterterrorist program, where the agents are
collectors. The Intelligence Directorate is that entity that
pulls in the information, analyzes the information, and makes
certain that that information as analyzed gets to the right
policymaker. It may be an agent himself or herself. It could be
a supervisor in the FBI. Or it could be somebody at the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
or now the Director of National Intelligence.
The other substantial role that the Directorate of
Intelligence plays is to identify what we know but, most
particularly, what we don't know and establish requirements for
intelligence collection in the United States so we have a much
fuller picture of the threats that we face in the United
States, complemented with the information that may be brought
to the table by the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA), or
one of the other intelligence actors. And it is tremendously
important for the Bureau to build up this capability, but it
would not be able to build up this capability without the
information that it now has access to by reason of the PATRIOT
Act and rulings of the FISA court.
Senator Stevens. And it is the act that makes that center
operable, right? All these agencies now share information
really at the inception of knowledge, right? They come in and
they are shared and they are made available throughout the
community, and this is an underpinning for the National
Director of Intelligence, isn't it?
Mr. Mueller. As far as our National Director of
Intelligence, it absolutely is. We have that capability. But
also we complement the National Counterterrorism Center where
both the intelligence agencies and the law enforcement agencies
share space, have access to our various databases so that there
can be in very short order a complete picture of a threat or a
group or an individual who presents a terrorist threat. And
having the ability to access these databases, having the
ability to pull this information together, to analyze it in the
National Counterterrorism Center, was made practical and legal
by the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA court rulings.
DNA INITIATIVE
Senator Stevens. Last, Mr. Attorney General, in your
discussion with the Senator from Vermont about the DNA concept,
it is our understanding the program that is in effect now is a
broader one and has been more effective in dealing with DNA and
its use in prior convictions and throughout the whole system of
the Department of Justice. Is that your feeling?
Attorney General Gonzales. It is hard for me to compare,
Senator, but I will say that it has been, in my judgment, very
effective in clearing out the DNA backlog and providing
training to State and local officials, to help them find
missing people. And so it has been very effective.
Senator Stevens. Has there been a reduction in funding for
the DNA effort?
Attorney General Gonzales. No, Senator.
Senator Stevens. What is the budget this year for?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't have it at my
fingertips, but I will get you that information.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
What is the Budget This year for DNA Initiative?
In fiscal year 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced the awarding of nearly $95 million in DNA grants
nationwide as part of President Bush's DNA initiative,
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. The awards represent
the greatest investment in DNA technology to date--more than
twice the amount of any previous year's funding--and the first
grants to be awarded under the President's initiative. In
fiscal year 2005, approximately $168 million will go to
activities under the DNA initiative. The fiscal year 2006
request includes an increase of $69 million for a total funding
level of more than $236 million.
BYRNE GRANTS
Senator Harkin. Mr. Attorney General, back to Byrne grants,
funding for the Byrne grant program has been eliminated from
the budget. One of the rationales offered is that the program
has not demonstrated a satisfactory level of performance
results. However, the law enforcement people in Iowa tell me
there has never been any effort on the part of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance to actually measure the performance results
of this program.
My question is: Has there been a valid effort to determine
if Byrne dollars are working nationally as well as they are in
Iowa?
Attorney General Gonzales. I believe there has been a valid
effort to determine whether or not these dollars are being used
effectively. Again, Senator, as I indicated in response to an
earlier question, there are a variety of reasons why a decision
is made not to continue funding a certain program. That may not
reflect a decision that the program is not an effective
program, but may reflect a determination that there are other
priorities that deserve funding. There may be other ways to
provide resources to State and local officials to address the
problem, and that is why the decision was made to deal with the
Byrne grant program in this fashion.
Senator Harkin. Could you provide to the subcommittee a
list of the efforts that were made by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance to measure the performance results of this program?
Attorney General Gonzales. I will try to provide you that
information, Senator.
Senator Harkin. I would like to see that because I am told
that there never was any effort to really measure, so I would
like to kind of get to the bottom of that one.
[The information follows:]
Efforts That Were Made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to Measure
the Performance Results of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
There are a number of efforts underway to measure whether
Byrne dollars are working nationally. The Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) program is currently undergoing an
Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) review to assess Byrne JAG's purpose and design,
strategic planning, management, and results and accountability.
While final National Institute of Justice (NIJ) evaluations of
Byrne JAG are not yet completed, many state-initiated
independent evaluations have been conducted, including a study,
``Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Ohio,'' commissioned
by the Ohio State Administering Agency and conducted by the
University of Cincinnati and Kent State University. Another
example is in Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma District Attorneys
Council contracted with the University of Oklahoma to conduct a
comprehensive review of the evaluation activities of other
states that fund drug task forces. Through a literature review,
they found that 39 states have in the past or are currently
conducting independent evaluations of their Byrne JAG-funded
drug task forces and other grant-funded programs. Phase II of
NIJ's evaluation of Byrne JAG-funded Multi-Jurisdictional Drug
Task Forces will build on the effort to provide a complete
picture of the overall effectiveness of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance of the Byrne JAG Program.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Senator Harkin. Last year, the President's budget merged
the local law enforcement block grant with the Byrne program
and called it the Byrne justice assistance grant. It required
an entirely new application process, set entirely new criteria.
The merger of the programs was particularly painful for States
like Iowa, in which the majority of our people do not live in a
major city.
Now, given that the budget eliminates this newly merged
Byrne program, which is now called the Byrne justice assistance
grant program, I would be interested in learning exactly how
much we have spent on merging the two programs and
administering it for just 1 year? In other words, we merged
them last year. You set up new criteria, set up a new
application process, merged the two, did it for 1 year, and now
you are eliminating it. What did it cost us to do that for 1
year? And why did we do it?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know that information,
Senator, but I will try to get that for you.
[The information follows:]
What Did It Cost to Merge Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Within the
Byrne Program For 1 Year and Why Did We Do It
Proposed to streamline justice funding and grant
administration, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant (JAG) Program allows states, tribes, and local
governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent
and control crime based on their own local needs and
conditions. JAG blends the previous Byrne Formula and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs to provide agencies
with the flexibility to prioritize and place justice funds
where they are needed most. As the Office of Justice Programs'
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) works to administer JAG
requests for state and local grantees, there has been a
savings--not cost--associated with the program's streamlined
application, review, and award processes. Savings
considerations include: the mandatory match requirement was
eliminated, allowing states to measure their own match needs
and implement at the state level if indicated; awards are
distributed up front instead of on a reimbursement basis,
giving recipients immediate control over their funds; direct
recipients can earn interest on their awards, generating
additional funding for future justice projects; projects can be
funded beyond a 4-year period, allowing successful initiatives
to receive funding to continue and expand their efforts;
various fiscal and programmatic reports have been replaced with
fewer, but more targeted, reporting, saving State Administering
Agencies (SAA) and local programs valuable staff time and
resources; and mandatory set-asides have been eliminated,
encouraging states and communities to spend justice funds more
strategically.
Senator Harkin. There is something bureaucratic going on
here, and I am not quite certain what it is. The reason for my
question is because my law enforcement people in Iowa--and I
checked in the Midwest. These Byrne grants have been a lifeline
for the coordinated efforts for drug intervention, for arrests,
getting meth labs; as I mentioned in my opening statement, even
in terms of programs for rehabilitation. And they have worked
from everything I have ever seen. And so I am really trying to
figure out why this rationale for eliminating it after we just
merged it for 1 year. I know you say you have priorities and
stuff, but I am wondering about what has more priority than
this and why this was done away with. This is not just being
cut. This is eliminated. That is a big body blow to law
enforcement all over.
Attorney General Gonzales. Again, Senator, in cases like
this, decisions are made as to which programs are the most
effective and what's the most efficient use of taxpayers'
dollars. And so there may be a particular problem that is being
addressed by the expenditure of Byrne grants that we believe
can be more efficiently dealt with through other programs or
coordinating resources in a different kind of way. And I guess
what I want to do is reassure you and the people in your State
that we, like you, consider these drug issues very, very
serious and that we ought to be looking at ways to try to deal
with this in the most effective and most efficient way. We are
committed to work with people in your State to address these
problems.
Senator Harkin. The only thing I am asking you, again, to
give to the subcommittee, is the efforts that have been made to
determine the outcomes results of the Byrne grant program.
Attorney General Gonzales. I will try to get that to you,
Senator.
[The information follows:]
Efforts That Were Made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to Measure
the Performance Results of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
There are a number of efforts underway to measure whether
Byrne dollars are working nationally. The Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) program is currently undergoing an
Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) review to assess Byrne JAG's purpose and design,
strategic planning, management, and results and accountability.
While final National Institute of Justice (NIJ) evaluations of
Byrne JAG are not yet completed, many state-initiated
independent evaluations have been conducted, including a study,
``Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Ohio,'' commissioned
by the Ohio State Administering Agency and conducted by the
University of Cincinnati and Kent State University. Another
example is in Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma District Attorneys
Council contracted with the University of Oklahoma to conduct a
comprehensive review of the evaluation activities of other
states that fund drug task forces. Through a literature review,
they found that 39 states have in the past or are currently
conducting independent evaluations of their Byrne JAG-funded
drug task forces and other grant-funded programs. Phase II of
NIJ's evaluation of Byrne JAG-funded Multi-Jurisdictional Drug
Task Forces will build on the effort to provide a complete
picture of the overall effectiveness of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance of the Byrne JAG Program.
HIDTA PROGRAM
Senator Harkin. I would appreciate that. Last--well, no,
two quick things. High-intensity drug trafficking (HIDTA)
program, the budget has been slashed by 50 percent, and it
says, ``The Department's budget states that the program will be
redesigned to focus on efforts to stop drugs entering the
country.'' Well, what effect is that going to have on the
Midwest HIDTA program, high-intensity drug trafficking area
program in the Midwest, which is engaged in fighting a meth
epidemic--and it is an epidemic--in Iowa, South Dakota,
Missouri, Nebraska, that whole area there. That is after the
drugs have entered the country. So if we are slashing it by 50
percent, again, we are going to have a problem in funding the
high-intensity drug trafficking areas in the upper Midwest.
Again, I don't know how we are going to continue to do this
by slashing it by 50 percent.
Attorney General Gonzales. HIDTA has traditionally been
within the Office of National Drug Control Policy. That is a
policy-focused organization, and we believe that these funds
ought to be administered through the Department of Justice,
which has as its primary focus law enforcement. It just makes
sense, quite frankly. The question then is whether----
Senator Harkin. I don't mind that. That is fine.
Attorney General Gonzales. And in doing so, we are able to
take the organized crime drug enforcement task force (OCDETF)
program and the HIDTA programs under sort of the joint
supervision of the Deputy Attorney General and make sure that
they remain a priority, both of those programs.
I want to reassure everyone that the fact that it is moving
into the Department of Justice does not mean that we are going
to in any way merge the two programs. I think OCDETF has more
focus on national and international programs and HIDTA is more
regional.
The fact that the monies are being reduced to HIDTA does
not mean that there will be a change in the first year with
respect to providing funding for intelligence-sharing and
critical infrastructure. Those will be funded with respect to
all the HIDTAs. In 2006, every single HIDTA will continue. We
will take the HIDTA funding and we will allocate it according
to priorities: first intelligence, then infrastructure, and
then we will look at each of the HIDTAs and have the HIDTAs
make the best case as to where the remaining dollars should go.
And that is what we intend to do with respect to the HIDTA
program going forward.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Attorney General.
FBI deg.DEFINITION OF TERRORISM
Mr. Director, since September 11, 2001, the FBI's
counterterrorism workload, as you stated in your written
statement, has more than tripled, from 9,340 cases to over
30,000 in fiscal year 2004. My question is: How much of this is
redefining criminal and drug activities as ``terrorism?'' Do we
have a definition of terrorism? And has it changed in the last
3 years? Or are we just seeing a tripling of terrorist
activities? How much of this is just redefining normal
criminal--not normal, but abnormal criminal and drug activities
as just, oh, this is terrorism, justifies more money?
Mr. Mueller. No, I would say it is not redefinition. There
may be a little of that where cases, if you have a terrorist
group, an acknowledged terrorist group that is engaged in
criminal activity and the results of that criminal activity,
the funding is going overseas to Palestine or Lebanon or
elsewhere to support terrorist activities, it may have been
identified principally as a criminal case but now is identified
as a terrorist case. I think that is a very, very small sliver
of those cases where there was some redefinition.
But the fact of the matter is we now have--we had 1,300
agents pre-9/11; we now have almost 3,000 agents that are
directed to counterterrorism. We had on our joint terrorism
task forces prior to September 11 just over 900 Federal, State,
and local officers serving on those joint terrorism task
forces. There were only 34 task forces. We now have 103 joint
terrorism task forces, and we have 3,700 Federal, State, and
local officers serving on them.
Terrorism investigations are not directed just at that
person who is gathering the explosives, but it is those persons
who are recruiting, those persons who are sending persons to
camps overseas, those persons who are engaged in criminal
activity to develop funding that supports terrorism. And so we
have been far more effective because we have the additional
personnel, and because of the breakdown of the rules separating
intelligence and the criminal side, to address those persons
within the United States who either would want to conduct a
terrorist attack or are in some ways supporting terrorism.
Senator Harkin. Well, Mr. Director, my time is up. You
know, we are doing everything. We are closing down cells
overseas. I hear about all the successes we are having in
Afghanistan, we are having in other parts of the world in
closing down these networks. And yet terrorism has tripled in
this country. I just have this uneasy feeling that we are just
redefining it and putting a bigger blanket over what is just
normal--not normal, but criminal activities, drug activities,
that type of thing, and just calling it ``terrorism.''
Mr. Mueller. I would have to disagree.
Senator Harkin. Well, do you have a definition of
``terrorism''?
Mr. Mueller. There is a definition in title 18 that we
utilize, yes. I would have to get you the specific definition,
but----
Senator Harkin. It is in title 18. Has that changed in the
last 3 years?
Mr. Mueller. No.
Senator Harkin. It is the same today as it was before?
Mr. Mueller. No, but there are various aspects to terrorism
that include fundraising, training, and recruiting; we have
many ongoing investigations into those aspects of it that we
did not investigate in the past. The large number of open
terrorism investigations that you reference relate in large
part to a number of these other areas that are important in
addressing terrorism.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
NORTHERN BORDER
Attorney General Gonzales, as I talked about in my opening
statement, I have some real concerns about the challenges
facing northern border States with respect to Federal,
typically border-related, cases. And as you know, many of these
cases are being referred to local jurisdictions by Federal
agencies and the U.S. Attorney's Office. And I, like everyone,
fully support the efforts to increase the Federal agents along
the border. It is important. But as those numbers have
increased post-9/11, more criminals are being apprehended for
drug smuggling, money laundering, and other crimes on the
border. And as you know, these cases are often declined and
referred for prosecution and detention to local jurisdictions
by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Now, the southwestern States have a Federal program for
reimbursement of costs run out of the Department's Office of
Justice Programs. It is the Southwest Border Prosecution
Initiative. But there isn't any program like that for the
northern border States, and I think it is long past time to do
that because these cases really put an immense burden on cities
and counties in my State and across the northern border.
In Whatcom County in my State, which is where I-5 crosses
the border into British Columbia, they are spending over $2
million a year to handle these federally initiated declined and
referred cases. And those costs are placing a tremendous strain
on local jurisdictions. In fact, the situation in Whatcom
County is already forcing that county to release criminals from
the county jail in order to make room for the increased
referred caseload.
Now, back in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, as part of the
omnibus appropriations bills, your Department was asked to do a
study on the need to expand the Southwest border program to the
northern border States, and to my knowledge--and I am not going
to hold you accountable; I know you are new to the role. But to
my knowledge, that study has not been completed or done, which
is disconcerting to all of us who have been involved in this.
But my question to you today is: Would you support an
effort to expand the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative
program to our northern border States?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I would have to look at
all the facts before I could answer that question, quite
frankly. I am certainly aware of the strains that exist on all
the border States. I understand your concerns.
With respect to the study, I was not aware of the study,
but I am now aware of the study and I will find out where we
are on that. And maybe you and I can have a further dialogue
about what we can do to try to help your State deal with these
additional costs.
[The information follows:]
Status of the Study to Expand the Southwest Border Prosecution
Initiative Program to the Northern Border, and Comment on the Expansion
of the Program
The Department does not support an effort to expand the Southwest
Border Prosecution Initiative to the Northern Border at this time.
Although the United States Attorneys' Offices along the Northern
Border believe that the expansion of this grant program to the Northern
Border districts would be helpful in that they have similar border
issues and limited resources for prosecutions, a review of the
Department's statistics indicate that the declination rate for federal
prosecutions is higher along the Southwest Border because of the
substantial number of illegal immigrants who cross that border daily,
but who are not prosecuted federally because of limited resources and
other issues.
The study of immigration cases in Northern Border districts to
which you refer was submitted to the Committee on Appropriations on
August 11, 2004. A copy of the report is inserted.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, August 11, 2004.
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce,
Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Jose Serrano,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce,
Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Judd Gregg,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Congressman Serrano, and
Senator Gregg: The Conference report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2004
Appropriations Act for the Department of Justice (Public Law 108-199),
directs the Department of Justice to submit to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees, a report on the number of Northern Border
Prosecutions referred to state and local prosecutors. This report
provides the requested information with the U.S. Attorneys' caseload
and referrals on the Northern Border as compared to those on the
Southwest Border.
The report was recently approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. Please feel free to contact me if you or your staff have
additional questions.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
Report of the Department of Justice Regarding Immigration Cases in the
Northern Border Districts
INTRODUCTION
The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2004 requested a report from the Department of Justice regarding
the number of cases referred to local prosecutors from Federal arrests
along the Northern Border. The conference report adopts by reference
the House report language directing the Department of Justice to report
the following:
Southwest Border Prosecutions.--The Committee recommends
$40,000,000 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies,
including prosecutors, probation officers, courts, and detention
facilities along the Southwest border with the handling and processing
of drug and alien cases referred from Federal arrests. The Committee
directs the Department of Justice to study whether a similar number of
cases are being referred to local prosecutors from Federal arrests
along the Northern border. The Department shall report its findings to
the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
This report summarizes three categories of information relative to
Immigration Matters considered by the United States Attorneys Offices
in Northern Border Districts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purpose of this Report, Northern Border Districts are
the District of Alaska, the District of Idaho, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Northern District of Indiana, the District of Maine, the
Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, the District of Minnesota,
the District of Montana, the District of New Hampshire, the Northern
and Western Districts of New York, the District of North Dakota, the
Northern District of Ohio, the Western District of Pennsylvania, the
District of Vermont, the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington,
and the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
Within the Department of Justice, United States Attorneys' Offices
have responsibility for prosecuting immigration offenses. Typically
immigration cases are referred to United States Attorneys' Offices by
agents for the Department of Homeland Security, including the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs (ICE), the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, and Border Patrol, but may also be referred by other
federal agencies and local officers.
MATTERS RECEIVED, CASES FILED AND DECLINATIONS BY UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS OFFICES
This chart sets forth the Matters Received,\2\ Cases Filed,\3\ and
Declinations \4\ for immigration offenses considered by United States
Attorneys' Offices in the Northern Border Districts during fiscal years
2000-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Matters Received.--All proceedings on which Assistant United
States Attorneys (AUSA) spend one hour or more of time and the AUSAs
entry are recorded in their case management system. Matters Received
includes criminal referrals from investigative agencies, and matters
that may be handled as misdemeanor cases in U.S. Magistrate Court.
Matters Received does not include criminal miscellaneous matters
(requests for arrest warrants, search warrants, etc.), petty offenses
or infractions, or matters that are immediately declined.
\3\ Cases Filed.--All proceedings for which a significant paper has
been filed in court, other than U.S. Magistrate Court and below the
appeals court level. Significant papers include indictments and
informations filed in district court.
\4\ Declinations.--All proceedings terminated (closed) during the
reporting period without ever having attained case status.
NORTHERN BORDER DISTRICTS IMMIGRATION CASELOAD DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Received............ 1,026 902 1,030 1,136
Cases Filed................. 800 704 780 905
Matters Declined............ 270 272 290 263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This chart sets forth the Matters Received, Cases Filed, and
Declinations for immigration offenses considered by United States
Attorneys' Offices in the Southwest Border Districts during fiscal
years 2000-2003.
SOUTHWEST BORDER DISTRICTS \1\ IMMIGRATION CASELOAD DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Received............ 10,023 10,042 10,658 14,175
Cases Filed................. 7,942 7,851 8,805 10,933
Matters Declined............ 146 111 227 987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purpose of this Report, Southwest Border Districts are the
District of Arizona, the Southern District of California, the District
of New Mexico, and the Southern and Western Districts of Texas.
CASES REFERRED FOR LOCAL PROSECUTION
The figures set forth in this report represent immigration cases
handled by the United States Attorneys' Offices for the Northern and
Southwest Border districts. United States Attorneys' Offices do not
maintain records of cases referred for local prosecution by Federal
Investigative agencies. Offenses may be referred to local jurisdictions
by federal law enforcement agents without involvement from the United
States Attorney's office.
This report provides comparison data on caseload for the Northern
Border districts and the Southwest Border districts. The matters
received and cases filed in the Northern Border districts are
approximately one-tenth of those of the Southwest Border. The
declinations for the Northern Border are greater in fiscal year 2000-
2002 than the Southwest Border. However, in fiscal year 2003, the
declinations for the Southwest Border are almost four times greater
than those of the Northern Border. Declinations by the USAO would not
suggest that these matters could or would be prosecuted by the state
and locals.
The United States Attorneys' Case Management system contains a
declination code which indicates that a criminal suspect will not be
prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office but may be considered
for prosecution by another authority. The referral is then returned to
the referring federal investigative agency; however, we do not have the
ability to determine whether that agency refers that matter to a state
or local authority.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to know what you
want these communities to do short of releasing the criminals.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, we are committed to
working with them. Obviously, no one wants criminals running
around in the streets, and we are committed to working with
your communities to see if we can find additional resources,
and to see whether or not there are additional things that we
can do at the Federal level. But I want to assure you that this
Attorney General does not want to have criminals released onto
the streets because we do not have the facilities to deal with
them. So I look forward to working with you on this very, very
difficult issue.
Senator Murray. I would very much like to do that because
we have tried to pursue this for several years now, and our
communities really are at, you know, their last strain here.
Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray. So I would like to work with you to find
some additional resources to help them out.
I also wanted to ask you about the U.S. Attorney's Office
because it appears they really lack some of the resources to
handle the caseloads that are being forced on them as well. Is
this something your agency is trying to address to make sure
that our U.S. Attorney's Offices can handle the cases that are
being brought forward?
Attorney General Gonzales. One thing that is currently
ongoing is we are engaged in a review across the country to
evaluate the caseloads amongst the various U.S. Attorney's
Offices and to assess whether we have the proper allocation of
resources across the country.
NEEDS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to hear more
specifically from you on that because I am very concerned about
that, too, and some of the fallout we have seen.
Also, in my State and in other States, the increase in
Federal police presence, you know, we welcome it. However, we
are seeing an increase in demand for Federal courtrooms, for
judges, for detention facilities, more regional justice
centers. In fact, in my State some of our Federal agents are
now driving criminals 2 to 3 hours each way just to have their
first appearances in Federal courtrooms. And I am really
concerned about the costs associated with that system, as well
as, you know, the delay it is taking in getting these
individuals before a Federal judge. And I would like to ask you
how you think we are going to meet those needs.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, I am likewise concerned,
Senator. It is a rising cost for the budget of the Department
of Justice. We are looking at various ways that we can reduce
those costs. For example, it makes no sense that we have to
drive someone a long way in order to bring them to justice. So
are there ways that we can reduce the costs? This is something
that we are looking at; particularly, it is a problem that is
likely to increase as we look at issues like enforcing our
borders. We are going to be detaining more people. As we
continue to enforce the laws that are passed by this Congress,
we have to do something with these people. And so this is a
cost that I have a great deal of concern about. The Department
is looking at developing a strategy that looks at the total
cost of someone that goes through the justice system from the
beginning, not just when they are in prison or afterwards, but
from the time that they are arrested. There are definite costs,
fixed costs that we cannot avoid.
And so I have asked for an examination of how we can better
coordinate how we enforce justice around this country.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to hear more from
you as quickly as possible specifically how we can do that,
because we want criminals apprehended, but just dumping the
costs on our local communities means they end up out on the
street. And that is where I don't think you want any of them to
end up.
DRUG CARTELS
One more question, Mr. Chairman, for the Attorney General,
and that is: According to a 2001 Drug Enforcement
Administration estimate, drug cartels make up 80 percent of
America's methamphetamines, and these cartels require about 200
metric tons of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine each year, or
about 10 percent of the world's output of these legal
chemicals. I am really concerned that we may be missing an
opportunity to work with chemical factories abroad to help
prevent some of the cartels from getting their hands on the
chemicals. And if either one of you could talk to me about what
we are doing to try and break these cartels' supply chain of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, I would really appreciate it.
Attorney General Gonzales. I can tell you that we are
working with law enforcement officials in other countries. I
believe that this problem cannot be effectively dealt with
without the cooperation of other countries. And so we are
working in that respect, and I think we are making some
progress. Obviously, more needs to be done, and as I have
traveled the country in these first 2\1/2\ months, I have been
surprised when I talk to law enforcement officials, the two
issues that they raise as the most pressing concerns for them
are the explosion of meth labs, particularly these mom-and-pop
labs, and gangs.
And so for that reason, both of those have become a
priority for me. I have asked the folks within the Department
to make sure that we are doing everything that we can do under
existing authorities to address this problem, and one, of
course, is communicating with our counterparts in other
countries regarding the supply of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine.
Senator Murray. Mr. Mueller, do you have any comment on any
of that?
Mr. Mueller. I have not looked at this issue in a while,
but I know that both DEA and Customs had a substantial program
looking at those manufacturers of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
overseas and attempting with our counterparts overseas to track
those shipments. I also know that there is a substantial
undertaking within the United States in those stores that sell
quantities of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to monitor those
sales.
Senator Murray. We are making some progress there, but I
think unless we look at the supply chain from some of the
cartels, we are not going to get to where we need to be. And
meth is probably the biggest issue I hear about, particularly
in our rural counties across Washington State, and the impact
it is having on their communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS
Mr. Attorney General, as a point of information, when sex
offenders and pedophiles are released from prison, are they
adjudged to no longer be a threat to society, or have they
simply served their term?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, they certainly have served
their term. I for one would not concede that they are no longer
a threat to society.
Senator Kohl. So when they are released, they have served
their term.
Attorney General Gonzales. They have served their term, but
there are ongoing obligations. They have an obligation, for
example, to register so that law enforcement authorities know
where they are.
Senator Kohl. I appreciate that. But, you know, if there is
an issue out there that really, really ticks people off, it is
the existence of these sex offenders out there in our society,
registered or not--I mean, you know, if you know that one lives
on the next block, what do you do about it? You are really sort
of powerless to deal with the fact. You may be scared as hell
to know, but there is not anything you can do about it.
I am not holding you accountable. I am suggesting that we
in our society are not dealing properly with sex offenders,
convicted sex offenders, who, to my knowledge, for the most
part are simply released back into society after they have
served their 2 or 5 or 10 years. Families are scared as can be.
I talked to a friend of mine who lives in Illinois just
yesterday, and she was talking about the issue, and she told
me, ``If there is one thing you can do, just one thing to make
my life easier, and life easier in my neighborhood, it is to do
something about these sex offenders who are still out there,
released from prison,'' and, she says, fully capable and she
expects that they will continue to commit sex offenses and
molest children, which we cannot tell her she is wrong.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I cannot tell her that
she is wrong.
Senator Kohl. She said to me that if a person is convicted
of a sex offense or a pedophile offense, they should be put in
jail and not released until somebody attests to the
overwhelming likelihood that they will not commit this kind of
a crime again. Wouldn't you agree?
Attorney General Gonzales. I think in an ideal world,
Senator, anyone who is a danger to our children, arrangements
should be made--everything should be done within the limits of
our Constitution to ensure that those folks, like pedophiles,
do not have access to our children.
It seems to me that it is certainly a good start--it may
not be where we want to end up, but it is certainly a good
start to provide as much information as we can to parents and
let them make the decisions or judgments about what they can do
to protect their families.
Now, is there more that we can do? I would be happy to sit
down and talk with you about that because I have got two young
boys, too, and I worry about them.
Senator Kohl. Sure.
Attorney General Gonzales. And I do not want any, you
know----
Senator Kohl. If a person is adjudged to commit a crime
because they are criminally insane and, you know, they go to
prison for an indefinite period of time, it is my understanding
that they will not get out until they are said to be no longer
criminally insane. Isn't that true?
Attorney General Gonzales. That is correct.
Senator Kohl. In large part, this is no different, is it?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know if I'm qualified,
quite frankly, Senator, to render that opinion, but I think it
is certainly a question that ought to be asked and one that we
ought to be discussing.
BYRNE GRANTS
Senator Kohl. On the Byrne grant program, I know you have
been really pummeled on it, but I just want to add my 2 cents.
Last year, it was $700 million in both discretionary and
formula funds, and as you know, they pay for State and local
drug task forces, community crime prevention programs,
substance abuse treatment programs, prosecutions, many other
local crime control programs. And you ask any sheriff or police
chief around the country, and I guarantee you back in my State
of Wisconsin, which I think is not unusual, and they will tell
you that this Byrne grant program is the backbone of Federal
aid for local law enforcement. The backbone.
Now, if they are right, then I would like to hope that you
might be willing to reconsider your position on Byrne grant
programs. You know, hearings of this sort are for a purpose. We
listen to you, you listen to us; we go back and think about
what you said, you go back and think about what you are
hearing. Otherwise, the hearing has no purpose, right?
Attorney General Gonzales. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kohl. And I am telling you, this Byrne grant
program, if you ask some of your people to look at it more
closely, I believe that you will conclude that it is one
Federal program that deserves support.
Attorney General Gonzales. We are always looking at these
kinds of issues, Senator, and we are looking at ways to make
sure that not just Federal officials but also State and local
officials have the necessary tools they need to deal with the
problems that confront our society.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
FBI deg.FBI INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS
One question for Director Mueller. In 2002, the Inspector
General of the Justice Department found that, ``The FBI lacked
the ability to connect the dots or establish relationships
among varied pieces of information.'' Nearly 4 years after 9/
11, the FBI's analytical capabilities are still often limited,
as you know, to supporting individual cases. As everyone knows,
part of the problem is the inadequate number of qualified
intelligence analysts at the Bureau, and in your most recent
proposal, you asked for money to hire 499 more analysts to
improve this vital capability. However, last year, your goal
was to hire 787 analysts, and you only hired about 173. Nearly
32 percent of FBI's analyst positions are still vacant. Is the
FBI capable of hiring enough qualified analysts to fill these
positions? And if so, do you have the capability to train that
many analysts?
Mr. Mueller. By the end of this year, I believe we will be
fully hired up on our analysts. We did fall behind last year,
but we made it up in the beginning of this year through some
innovative methods for getting analysts on board. I can tell
you that on September 11 we had 218 analysts in
counterterrorism; we now have 808 analysts working in
counterterrorism.
I also would dispute, I think, some of the premise of the
question in terms of our analysts solely doing case support
work. I would be happy to provide you a full portfolio of our
intelligence products. I think they are first-rate. We are
doing first-rate assessments. We have provided, I think, close
to 8,000 intelligence investigative reports over the last
several years. We have, I believe, close to 200 reports
officers. We had none before September 11.
I believe that we are not where we ultimately want to be,
but we have made substantial strides, particularly over the
last 6 to 8 months, where much of the preparatory work that we
were doing to bring these people on board had been done, but we
then had to execute.
With regard to training, all of our analysts are required
to go through a training program. By the end of this year, we
are expecting that close to 1,000 will have gone through that
training program down at Quantico. That, again, had to be
established from scratch in the wake of September 11, but it
was established and I believe it is a first-rate course at this
point.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
One last question for you, Mr. Attorney General. Juvenile
justice and delinquency programs are allocated, as you know,
$187 million in the President's budget for next year. This is
about half of what was allocated last year. So we are talking
about, you know, a 50-percent cut from last year's number.
I hope you are not concluding that juvenile justice
programs are not very important and that Federal funding for
juvenile justice programs is not very, very important. And, you
know, the only way that we attest to that here in large part--
not entirely--is by allocating a certain amount of money to
States for juvenile justice programs. And these programs really
work. You know, there are several of them in our State. I am
not going to go into them in detail.
One school that was built outside of Racine, Wisconsin, is
the Southern Oaks Girls School. It built a new mental health
wing with Federal funds to provide counseling service for the
girl inmates, and the school's administrator says that there is
a 56-percent drop in violent behavior since the new mental
services have been offered at that school.
Now, this is just one of many, many successes in the
program, and I would like to hope that juvenile justice funding
is something that the administration continues to regard as
important and does not put on the chopping block.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, addressing the juvenile
justice issue is important. Juveniles represent the future
employees and the future leadership of our country and the
future leaders of communities around the country. And so we
need to do what we can to try to help wayward youth.
From the Department's perspective, obviously our primary
focus is on enforcement, to ensure that juveniles who engage in
criminal behavior are, in fact, held to account. But a
successful juvenile justice program has got to do more than
prosecution and enforcement. You have got to look at education.
You have got to look at rehabilitation. You have got to look at
mentoring programs.
I do agree with you that there are certain juvenile justice
programs that should continue to be supported.
Senator Kohl. I thank you, and I thank you, Director
Mueller.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS
Attorney General Gonzales, regarding the PATRIOT Act, it is
my understanding that the USA PATRIOT Act is up for renewal and
so forth. It would give the FBI the authority to use
administrative subpoenas to fight terrorists and spies. I
personally think the FBI should have every constitutional tool
available to help fight terrorists.
My question to you: Are administrative subpoenas a good
addition to the toolbox? In other words, what do you gain as
the chief law enforcement officer--and I will address this to
Director Mueller, too--and what do the American people lose?
This has been talked about a lot, as you know.
Attorney General Gonzales. I am aware of that, Mr.
Chairman. Let me first begin by emphasizing that administrative
subpoenas are not part of the provisions that are subject----
Senator Shelby. They are not part of it?
Attorney General Gonzales. Part of the provisions subject
to reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. But with respect to
administrative subpoenas----
Senator Shelby. But they have been proposed, have they not?
Attorney General Gonzales. They have been proposed as an
additional necessary tool. Administrative subpoenas are a tool
that is available to various other agencies to deal with a wide
variety of other criminal conduct, such as health care fraud.
And I think my view is that if you can use an administrative
subpoena to go after the bad conduct of doctors, why can't you
use this tool to go after terrorists?
Oftentimes, it is in terrorism cases where speed is
essential, speed and gathering information. And there may be an
instance where you need to move very, very quickly in accessing
information which is held in the hands of third parties, and so
you do not have the same level of expectation of privacy, and
you need to be able to get that information from a third party,
and that is why we think it is a valuable tool.
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller.
Mr. Mueller. I know it would be a very valuable tool for
us. As the Attorney General has indicated, it is authorized in
drug-trafficking cases, crimes against children, health care
fraud, and also for the Secret Service where there is a threat
against one of its protectees. And the reason is exemplified
there. There is a threat, and the Secret Service may need to
get information about where a person is staying, what kind of
communications device he or she is using. And the
administrative subpoena gives the Secret Service the ability to
get that information quickly, as the administrative subpoena
would give us the ability to get that type of information
exceptionally quickly.
Now, you ask what is the benefit to those who are served
the subpoena. One is their right to challenge it. But it also
gives us the right to enforce it. The proposals require the
authorization of the Attorney General for an order directing
that it be kept secret for a period of time, and then the
Attorney General would have to determine when that level of
secrecy comes off.
So it provides a balance between giving us the capability
very swiftly to get the information we need, but it also gives
those who are served the subpoena some benefits that in other
cases they would not have.
JUDICIAL SECURITY
Senator Shelby. Judicial security, Mr. Attorney General.
Recent violence in courthouses in the Southeast and in the
Midwest have raised significant concerns about the safety of
the judges, jurors, attorneys, and even the public who appear
in court. I understand that you have ordered a review of
judicial security measures. Are you ready to give us a report
on that? Would you do that for the record? Or where are you?
Attorney General Gonzales. We are close, Mr. Chairman,
expect the results of that report shortly. Let me again repeat
what I have said often about this issue. It is intolerable that
we have judges in any way fearful for their lives or safety or
fearful for the lives or safety of any family member. And so we
are working as hard as we can to ensure that we have done what
we need to do to protect our judges.
FBI deg.AGENTS FOR COUNTERRORISM
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, the FBI is on pace to
need an additional 700 or 800 agents for terrorism
investigations, which are not supported by your budget request.
Since 9/11, the FBI has relied on agents from other divisions
to handle its terrorism caseload. While you have permanently
shifted 480 agents to counterterrorism, I believe back in 2002,
it does not appear to be nearly enough if you are still 700 to
800 agents short, if you are, in fact.
Given the workforce requirements within the terrorism
program, the continuing threat, and the fact that terrorism is
your top priority, why haven't you permanently shifted
additional agents to the counterterrorism program? And where
are you in this regard?
Mr. Mueller. Each year I have this discussion, both with
our people and with the committee, in terms of where we are
going on this. I expected that there would be a greater drop in
the number of agents who are working on counterterrorism cases
over the years since September 11. There has been a
diminishment of the numbers that are assigned to
counterterrorism cases, but it still has not closed the gap. At
the same time, each year I have asked for additional agents
from Congress and through the administration to help close that
gap, and I have gotten that. My expectation is that by the end
of 2006, if trends continue, we will still have a gap of
approximately 400. And I will be looking at how we can close
that gap, whether it means additional requests from Congress or
another reassignment of agents.
One of the concerns I have about doing it too precipitously
is that you can assign agents to a particular squad doing
counterterrorism someplace in the country. But what we have
found is that terrorism cases that require all our resources
will pop up all over the place--Lackawanna, New York; Northern
Virginia; Portland, Oregon. Understanding that our first
priority is to prevent terrorist attacks and that we have to
surge the manpower wherever the investigation is, it has
provided some flexibility in terms of where we surge that
manpower in order to address a particular investigation. Each
year I will be looking at it. Each year we will be having a
discussion, and I would be interested in your views about how
you think we ought to best close that gap.
FBI deg.FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RECRUITMENT
Senator Shelby. How is your recruiting going on at the FBI?
Mr. Mueller. Very well. There are a number of people out
there who want to be FBI agents. There are a tremendous number
of people out there who want to be FBI analysts. I think we had
an ad out for 1 week, and we got something like 2,200
applications from persons who want to be FBI analysts. Our
recruiting is going very well. We still are recruiting in other
areas where we need different language capabilities, for
instance, and scientific capabilities. But we are getting a
very good response to what we have been doing.
FBI deg.DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, Ambassador Negroponte is
setting up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
or DNI. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 gives the DNI more direct authority over the FBI than was
previously afforded the Director of Central Intelligence. For
example, it is my understanding that the DNI, the Director of
National Intelligence, Negroponte, has authority over the
individual that you choose to serve as the Executive Assistant
Director, or EAD, for Intelligence.
What do you see as the role, sir, of the DNI in overseeing
the intelligence functions of the Bureau? Do you have any
concerns over the DNI trying to direct FBI operations--you
know, if they do--as opposed to focusing on intelligence
collection requirements, coordinating community efforts, and
setting overall policy? And do you see any potential chain of
command problems with the DNI in this authority over the EAD
for Intelligence?
Mr. Mueller. Let me start by saying the President has made
it clear that the chain of command in the respective agencies
is retained. But going to the DNI, I believe that with regard
to the Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence, it is
appropriate that any selection put forth by myself and approved
by the Attorney General should include the input from the DNI
before we put that person in place because that person will be
a principal interlocutor with the DNI.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Mueller. I believe the DNI appropriately should
establish the requirements for collection, not just outside the
United States but to the extent that it is a national threat
nationally and we should be responsive. I believe the DNI
should have some role in coordinating activities between the
various agencies on particular threats.
I do not perceive that, in working with John Negroponte, we
will have any difficulties in sorting out those relationships.
We look forward to working with him in order to become much
more a part of the intelligence community than we have been in
the past.
FBI deg.WMD COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, the key recommendation
from the President's WMD Commission was to unify the Bureau's
intelligence, counterterrorism, and counterintelligence
programs under a single Executive for National Security who
would report to you and Ambassador Negroponte. Currently, you
have separate Executive Assistant Directors for Intelligence
and for Counterterrorism Counterintelligence. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of the WMD Commission's
recommendation? And how do you plan to respond to this
recommendation?
Mr. Mueller. We are in the process with the Attorney
General of making recommendations to the President in response
to those recommendations that were made by the WMD Commission.
In terms of the benefits of doing that, you have one person who
is in a position to sort out whatever disagreements or
differences of perception there may be between
counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and the Intelligence
Directorate. It also is in some sense beneficial because we
perceive those three entities as being a national security
service. We are developing career paths for both intelligence
personnel to come up through the Intelligence Directorate, but
also career paths for counterintelligence and counterterrorism.
And that will help to build that national security service.
The details of how it will be structured within the Bureau
and the relationship with the DNI are still under discussion
with the Attorney General and with the White House.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, I would just note we have
a vote on the floor of the Senate.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet had a chance
to ask questions.
Senator Shelby. I apologize. I know you were in and out. I
am sorry.
Senator Dorgan. A vote has just started on the floor, so I
apologize, but I----
Senator Shelby. I went ahead of you. I shouldn't have done
that.
Senator Dorgan. No problem. But let me again apologize for
being late. I had three subcommittee hearings this morning, but
thank you, both of you, for being here.
SEXUAL PREDATORS
Let me ask you, Attorney General Gonzales, about an issue
that you have been asked about by several people on the
subcommittee this morning, and that is the issue of sexual
predators. Martha Stewart was let out of prison and wore an
electronic ankle bracelet to go bake bread and do gardening, I
guess. Today, there is perhaps a high-risk type 3 sexual
predator being let out of prison with not much more than a ``So
long, see you later.'' And you and I talked in January about
this issue.
My interest was stimulated by the murder of a young woman
in Grand Forks, North Dakota, by a sexual predator who had been
in prison for 23 years, a high-risk sexual predator, judged to
be at high risk for reoffending, let out after 23 years; within
6 months, moved on the Minnesota side of the border, so the
registry in North Dakota would not have identified that person
was living nearby; and within 6 months has been arrested for
the murder of Dru Sjodin.
When you and I visited in January, I talked about three
things in a piece of legislation that I have introduced in the
Senate with Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee:
One, a national registry of sex offenders. I was delighted
with what you announced on Friday. Congratulations to you. I
think it is exactly the right thing to do. I appreciate your
agency and your leadership in doing it. We need a national
registry of sex offenders.
The other two provisions in my legislation are, two, before
a high-risk sexual predator is let out of prison, the local
State's attorney in the jurisdiction where that person was
prosecuted should be notified in the event they wish to seek
additional civil commitment. In the case of the person arrested
for Dru Sjodin's murder, he was judged by the experts to be at
high risk for reoffense and a more violent reoffense. I think
the local authorities should be notified so that they can seek
additional civil commitment where they think appropriate.
And third, and very important, if, in fact, high-risk
offenders reach the end of their sentence and are not
recommitted civilly and are released, there needs to be
monitoring, high-level monitoring for a period of time. As I
said, if Martha Stewart wears an ankle bracelet, so, too,
should a violent sexual predator who has finished his or her
term of incarceration.
So having said all that, first, congratulations to you. I
think what you did Friday is wonderful. I am fully supportive
of it. Second, can you give me your analysis of the other two
provisions of the bill that Senator Specter and I have? One, as
I said, is notification of local authorities, and the second is
required monitoring upon release of a high-risk predator.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, thank you, first of
all, and thank you for reminding me about our conversation, the
two points. I did ask my staff to go back and look at that
specifically. I have not talked with them, but let me just give
you sort of my gut reaction--which sometimes can be dangerous.
I understand that. But it seems to me that providing notice to
local officials seems to make sense. If you have got someone
who is especially dangerous, notifying the local officials that
you are about to release a very dangerous sexual predator in
that community seems to make sense to me.
In terms of monitoring, I don't know what can be done after
the fact, after someone has already been sentenced and has
served their time and is now being released. Clearly, if we are
talking about people that are being tried today as part of the
condition of their confinement, it might be possible to include
supervision, part of the penalty, like under the PROTECT Act,
under which I understand you can get lifetime supervision of
dangerous pedophiles. So with respect to people going in, I
think there are certainly steps that you can do to provide some
kind of monitoring, but in terms of after the fact, I would
have to look to see whether or not that is something that could
be done. We would obviously be happy to look at that.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I would like--and I am sure speaking
for Senator Specter, we would really like to work with you on
that to see if, number one, when we pass this legislation--and
we will. It was already passed by the Senate last year. I am
sure this legislation will be embraced by the Congress. Can we
be helpful in the construct of the national registry, anything
that we need to do to authorize or to be helpful to you on
that? And then, second, we would like to work with you on the
other two pieces as we proceed forward, and I appreciate the
invitation to do that.
Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. The last piece would be an unfunded mandate
to the extent that we can do it, but it should not be a massive
amount of expenditure by local governments, and it is just a
thoughtful thing to do.
USA PATRIOT ACT
Let me make one final point. Director Mueller, you both
have talked about the PATRIOT Act because you have been asked
questions about it. As you know, there is great controversy
about that in some circles, and while I think it has been very
helpful in some areas, it also has some provisions that are
controversial. It was passed very quickly post-9/11. I don't
think those of us in the Congress would believe that we ought
to get rid of the PATRIOT Act wholesale at this point. But
there may need to be some adjustments in the PATRIOT Act.
Are there any complaints about the PATRIOT Act that you
think have some merit? And you no doubt have heard many
complaints about the PATRIOT Act. Are they all without merit,
or are there some that have some merit and as we begin looking
through reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, what should we look
to with respect to valid complaints about it?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, let me just say that I
think it is never inappropriate to express concerns about the
exercise of Government authority that might impact or does
impact upon civil liberties and the privacy rights of any
American. That is a good debate to have, and people ought to be
worried about that.
However, as we have considered the allegations of abuses,
we have yet to find one verifiable instance when there has been
an abuse under the PATRIOT Act. And I think the record reflects
that the Department has been very judicious in the way it
exercises its authority. I think the record reflects that the
Congress did a good job in including within the PATRIOT Act
appropriate safeguards to protect the civil liberties and the
private rights of Americans.
Senator Dorgan. My question was not so much about abuse. My
question was about the authority itself. And there is some
controversy about certain areas of authority. But let me submit
some questions in writing, and undoubtedly the Congress will
proceed in this area, and not, in my judgment----
Senator Shelby. The record will stay open for these.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just submit that to you. And, again,
let me thank both of you for being here.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I note that there is a vote
on, and this is the vote that shows our willingness to cross a
divide that was growing in the Senate on judicial nominations.
I want to be on the floor. The number of Senators who
participated kind of minimizes my time for a second round, but,
Mr. Mueller, I hope to be able to continue a conversation with
you on a couple of issues. One, you are leading a major
transformation of the FBI, and know that we want to be very
supportive.
FBI deg.HEALTH CARE FRAUD
I note that there was a scathing article in the New York
Times about the FBI and health care fraud and the issue of the
FBI mishandling health care fraud cases. I will give you the
article. But what it comes down to is that you could not
account for the data and what agents were doing what, et
cetera. We cannot enter into a conversation about this as I had
hoped to, but this then takes me to technology----
Mr. Mueller. Can I just say, the GAO report takes us to
task for not adequately showing that the agents were actually
working health care fraud cases. They were. And so it is our
ability to account for that that is being----
Senator Mikulski. That was going to be my next question,
which then takes us to the whole issue of technology and the
use of technology, and also the fact that I understand you now
have a prime time chief information officer that will be
involved in procurement.
Again, my time is up. I have to go to the floor to vote.
But I do hope that we can continue the discussion as well as
the transformation on counterterrorism. We want to support you.
We want you to do what you can do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for an excellent hearing.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
First of all, Mr. Attorney General and Director Mueller, we
want to thank you for your appearance. We do have a number of
additional questions for the record we will send to you. We
look forward to working with you. We want to make sure that
both of you have the resources that you need here to do your
job.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Alberto R. Gonzales
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
IMMIGRATION BACKGROUND CHECKS
Question. What immigration applications require an FBI background
check?
Answer. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Name Checks are
provided with respect to six specific applications: Form N-400,
Application for Naturalization; Form I-192, Application for Advance
Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant; Form I-485, Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; Form I-589, Application
for Asylum; Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of
Excludability; and Form I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary
Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Further details may be available from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS).
Question. When was the policy that requires these background checks
created?
Answer. The FBI began conducting name checks for naturalization
applicants after the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in
1952.
Question. Is there another way to safely review these applications
in a more expedited manner?
Answer. It is the FBI's understanding that no other source of
information would contain the extensive biographical and historical
information found in FBI files (including information concerning
violations of law and threats to our national security), which is the
product of the FBI's long history of conducting criminal and
counterintelligence investigations. The current global situation
requires diligence in the screening of applicants for entry into the
United States and for citizenship. Without considering all pertinent
facts, informed decisions cannot be made regarding the suitability of
foreign individuals for immigration or for naturalization as United
States citizens.
On average, the FBI's National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS)
returns 68 percent of name check requests to the USCIS within 48 hours.
An additional 22 percent of these requests are responded to within 30
days, on average. The remainder of the requests require extensive
research and processing and often take 120 days or more. Much of this
work requires analysts to retrieve and review paper documents, which is
a time consuming but necessary step. To improve the performance of the
National Name Check Program and reduce the time required to process
name check requests, the FBI continues to leverage technology and to
identify management actions that will improve efficiency.
Question. Could another agency be equipped with the tools to
conduct these background checks?
Answer. The FBI is not aware of another source that could provide
the type and depth of information, including historical information,
necessary for these checks. The FBI's NNCPS works cooperatively with
its customer base and continuously seeks to improve the quality of its
customer service through the innovative application of technology and
effective resource management.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
VIRTUAL CASE FILE/SENTINEL
Question. What were the two cost estimates provided by Mitretek and
Aerospace, and when does the FBI expect to have a final cost estimate?
If this information is classified, please make arrangements to provide
this information to cleared staff.
Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reconciled
the cost estimates from Aerospace and Mitretek and has developed a cost
estimate to be used for budgetary purposes. Although this information
is not classified, revealing it would alert potential contractors to
the government's expectations regarding contract price, and would
compromise the ability of the bid process to identify the lowest
responsive, responsible bidder. The FBI will provide a final cost
estimate when the contractor has been selected.
Question. Based on the two cost estimates you have received so far,
how much additional funding or reprogrammed funds will the FBI require?
If reprogramming is required, what programs do you anticipate will lose
funds?
Answer. On September 27, 2005, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
submitted a reprogramming to Congress for Phase 1 of SENTINEL, totaling
$97 million. Since SENTINEL will support all investigative activities
across the FBI, all programs were reviewed as potential sources to
support SENTINEL.
Question. Please reconcile these statements. Will the FBI utilize
the interface or any element of the IOC, and on what basis did the
Bureau reach this conclusion? Please also indicate whether the FBI has
received any assessment from Mitretek of the IOC pilot, and if so,
please describe those results.
Answer. The pilot was intended to test case management concepts as
well as actual software code developed by the Virtual Case File (VCF)
contractor. While the user interface code developed for VCF will not be
re-used in SENTINEL, user interface concepts tested in the pilot proved
to be essential tools and were incorporated into SENTINEL's
requirements document. In addition, portions of the VCF interface code
will be used in an on-going project to make data in the existing case
management system (the Automated Case Support system) accessible
through SENTINEL. This on-going effort will support Phase 1 of
SENTINEL.
Mitretek Systems' VCF Initial Operating Capability Final Report,
delivered in April 2005, was consistent with the conclusions described
above. In addition, its evaluation stressed the importance of waiting
to deploy an electronic workflow capability until it can be supported
by an electronic records management capability. The notional phases in
which SENTINEL will be developed have been structured to reflect this
conclusion.
Question. Has the list of requirements been refined and does the
FBI now have a final requirements list for the SENTINEL project? If
not, when will the FBI have a final list?
Answer. Review of the SENTINEL System Requirements Specification
(SRS) by line-of-business owners and stakeholders has been completed
and comments from this review have been incorporated into the SRS.
Question. Has a project manager been appointed for SENTINEL, and if
so, who is the project manager? If not, when will a project manager be
appointed?
Answer. Miodrag Lazarevich was appointed as SENTINEL's Program
Manager on 6/13/05. Prior to his detail to the FBI, Mr. Lazarevich
served as the Deputy Director for a joint special program office at the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During that assignment and numerous
assignments in the military, diplomatic, and intelligence communities,
Mr. Lazarevich has managed large programs dealing with the development
of communications systems, information technology, strategic investment
plans for future systems, research and development technology
insertion, and cross-agency policy. Mr. Lazarevich is program manager
and a Contracting Officer Technical Representative certified at level
3, and has had extensive field experience and executive management
training and experience. Mr. Lazarevich is also a former United States
Army Signal Corps officer, including both active and reserve duty, and
holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering from the
University of Wisconsin at Madison and a Master of Science degree in
Electronic Engineering from the University of Arizona at Tucson.
Question. Director Mueller testified on May 24 that the FBI intends
to complete the SENTINEL project in 4 phases with phase one to be
completed 12 months after the contract award and an overall timeline of
39 to 48 months. In light of the time we have already lost on the
Virtual Case File effort, the prospect of 4 more years before agents
will have these full capabilities disappoints and concerns me. Please
describe what functionalities will be available to FBI agents when each
of these phases is complete, and please also provide the estimated
completion dates for phases 2 and 3.
Answer. As indicated in the below chart, Phase 1 will establish a
single point of entry for legacy case management. The user will be
presented with the look and feel of a single integrated system instead
of stove-piped applications. Phase 1 will also expand the search
capability, allowing searches across multiple case-related systems, and
subsuming and expanding Automated Case Support capabilities by
summarizing a user's workload on a dashboard, rather than requiring the
user to perform a series of queries to obtain it. To simplify the entry
of data into the Universal Index (UNI), an entity extraction tool will
be used to automatically index appropriate persons, places, and things.
Finally, the core infrastructure components will be selected during
Phase 1.
Phase 2 will provide case document management and records
management repositories, beginning the transition to paperless case
records and implementing the electronic records management capability.
A workflow tool will support the flow of electronic case documents
through their review and approval cycles, and a new security framework
will support role-based access controls, single sign on, externally
controlled interfaces, and electronic signatures based on Public Key
Infrastructure. This phase will address the concern expressed by users
of Virtual Case File's Initial Operating Capability that a paperless
environment is necessary to leverage the benefits of automated
workflow.
Phase 3 will replace and improve the Bureau-wide global index for
persons, places, and things. In the ``Connect the Dots'' paradigm, the
``dots'' are represented by UNI, the legacy index that is, in effect, a
database of entities (i.e., persons, places, and things) that have case
relevance. Unlike the current UNI index, which supports a limited
number of attributes, the new global index will improve the richness of
the attributes associated with the indexed entities, permitting more
precise searching.
Phase 4 will implement the new case and task management and
reporting capabilities and will begin the systematic consolidation of
case management systems. This phase will consolidate and incorporate
functions currently performed by stovepipe legacy systems, which will
be retired at this point.
The following chart identifies the functionalities that will become
available through each phase of SENTINEL's development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Description Functionality Provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1..................... SENTINEL Portal Access to ACS........... SENTINEL portal access to legacy data
Case Management Workbox
Entity extraction for the UNI
application
Expanded search capability, including
Electronic Case File (ECF) and
IntelPlus
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
framework and foundation services
Phase 2..................... ECF Replacement......................... Case Document Management (DM)
Records Management Repository (RM)
Workflow management
Extended security with role-based access
controls, Public Key Infrastructure
(PKI), and digital signatures
Searching and reporting for DM/RM
Adjustments to interfaces
Phase 3..................... UNI Replacement......................... Improved Global Index with expanded
attributes, including Data Extraction
and Extension Project (DEEP)
Expanded searching and reporting
Adjustments to interfaces
Phase 4..................... Case Management Consolidation, including Case Management and Reporting
Investigative Case Management, Asset Task Management
Database, Criminal Management Informant Collected Items Management
System, Financial Institution Fraud, Adjustments to interfaces
Bank Robbery Statistical Application,
Integrated Statistical Reporting and
Analysis Application, and Guardian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Director Mueller testified on May 24 that ``SENTINEL is
different from the Virtual Case File program in a number of ways'' and
referenced a ``chart that illustrates the additional capabilities that
will be available under SENTINEL, capabilities that were not
contemplated as part of Virtual Case File. . .'' Please provide a copy
of this chart.
Answer. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was not made public, but
was instead published only to those contractors eligible to bid under
the Government Wide Acquisition Contract. Because the chart comparing
VCF capabilities with those we will seek in SENTINEL would convey much
the same information as the RFP (though in far broader terms), we
cannot provide the chart until the RFP is made public. We will be happy
to provide the chart when that occurs.
Question. In response to questions from the Feb. 3, 2005, VCF
hearing, Director Mueller stated that the FBI ``plans to request
additional government software and systems engineers in the future to
bolster its resource pool for dealing with complex and critical
information technology projects.'' Do the funds requested in this
budget cycle address the FBI's needs for additional software and
systems engineers, and how much do you anticipate will be necessary for
these purposes?
Answer. The FBI's portion of the President's fiscal year 2006
budget includes $7 million in nonpersonnel funding for ``Enterprise
Information Technology Management.'' Of this $7 million, $5.8 million
would be used to hire 23 contractors in the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, 5 of whom would focus on systems engineering.
Future budget requests for additional contractors or full-time FBI
software engineers will be based on an assessment of personnel and
operational needs related to the evolving technologies that support the
FBI's mission.
Question. When do you expect that the FICMS framework will be
finalized?
Answer. A draft white paper describing the Federal Investigative
Case Management System (FICMS) framework has been forwarded to DOJ for
its use in assisting other law enforcement agencies' case management
projects.
Question. What will the FBI's role be in the FICMS project?
Answer. FICMS serves as the framework that will guide the
development of DOJ and Department of Homeland Security investigative
case management systems. The FICMS framework complies with the Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA), uses FEA reference models, and will
contribute to our national security by strengthening the sharing of
terrorist information as required by Executive Order 13356. Each agency
participating in FICMS has unique needs and will employ its own
mechanisms to manage investigative workflow, manage records, and
analyze data. These individual systems will, however, follow the FICMS
blueprint, permitting data to flow easily and securely between
agencies. As the FICMS Executive Agent, the FBI is moving forward with
the development and deployment of the SENTINEL system, which will
follow the FICMS framework and establish key architectural components
for the FICMS infrastructure.
______
Questions Submitted to Robert S. Mueller, III
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
Question. You indicated at the hearing that the FBI failed to find
all the evidence when it searched Nichols' home ten years ago because
the evidence was buried under the earth. Are you considering any
changes to the Bureau's search protocols as a result of this incident?
Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used all
appropriate investigative techniques when searching Terry Nichols' home
in April 1995, and it does not appear that, short of dismantling the
residence, the explosives buried under the crawl space could have been
located given the technology available at that time. Among other
investigative techniques, the FBI used an Ion Mobility Spectrometer
(IMS), which is an instrument designed to detect explosives. It is
likely the IMS did not detect the presence of explosives, which were
later found based upon information provided by Nichols, because these
explosives were in their original packaging, then wrapped in paper,
then further shrink-wrapped with several layers of plastic, and finally
buried beneath rocks and dirt. The 1995 search revealed only normal
construction debris and stones left from the construction of the stone
foundation, and no anomalies or indicia of recent disturbance were
identified.
While the FBI constantly seeks advancements in technology that can
aid in our investigative mission, and the capabilities of the FBI's
Evidence Response Team have increased significantly in the past decade,
the FBI forensic personnel deployed to the site in 1995 were both
appropriate for the circumstances and highly qualified. The team of
personnel included a Supervisory Special Agent from the FBI's
Explosives Unit, a chemist, a latent fingerprint supervisor, and a
fingerprint examiner, as well as a team of United States Army Explosive
Ordnance Disposal personnel and bomb technicians from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This group was highly effective,
locating numerous items of incriminating evidence, including weapons,
explosives, blasting caps, chemicals, United States currency, and
documents. While the forensic tools available to the FBI improve as
technology advances, the FBI does not believe that a different search
protocol would have yielded a different result.
Question. Is there anything about the recent discovery that changes
the Bureau's understanding of who did what in the conspiracy to bomb
the Murrah building--and if not, why not?
Answer. The information derived from the recent discovery does not
change the FBI's determination of who was responsible for or involved
in the conspiracy to bomb the Murrah Building. An extensive and
exhaustive investigation determined that the two subjects responsible
for the bombing of the Murrah Building were Timothy McVeigh and Terry
Nichols. The FBI thoroughly investigated the allegation that Roger
Edwin Moore was involved in that bombing, but the investigation yielded
no credible evidence supporting the allegation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will now stand in recess
until Thursday, May 26, at 2 p.m., when we will hear testimony
from the Secretary of Commerce on the Department's budget for
2006.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., Tuesday, May 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday,
May 26.]