[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H59-H64]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CREATION OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING CENTER
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Under a
previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, recently I came across an excellent address
which had been given by a long-time friend of mine, Mr. Eugene T.
Rossides, a very distinguished lawyer, formerly of New York, now of
Washington, DC. It was upon the occasion of the 25th anniversary
commemoration of the creation of the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in Glynco, GA.
Mr. Rossides and I served together in the Eisenhower administration,
where we were both Cabinet assistants, and in the Nixon administration
he was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, Tariff and
Trade Affairs, and Operations for 4 years.
[[Page H60]]
He is very knowledgeable on the relationship between the Federal and
State governments in terms of law enforcement, particularly drug
enforcement for which he had responsibility. He is also very
knowledgeable on the subject of terrorism, a matter about which this
Chamber will be debating in the next few months.
I would like to note a few of the comments that he has made that I
think are significant and very important, and will put the full text of
the remarks, Mr. Speaker, in the Record, if I may.
The remarks that he made, which I think add another enlightenment on
history for us, is that the Secret Service at the time of the Nixon
administration had no women in it. After a luncheon for the First Lady,
Pat Nixon, where there were 200 women in the room and 4 male Secret
Service agents who stood out like a sore thumb, the question was raised
by a friend of Mrs. Nixon's and taken in hand by then Assistant
Secretary Rossides, who checked with the head of the Secret Service and
said, ``Is there any problem with having women in the Secret Service?''
And Chief James Rowley said, ``Absolutely not,'' and Mr. Rossides said,
``I am delighted, because there are women in the New York City Police
Department and certainly we should have more in Federal law
enforcement.''
The problem was, apparently, that the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar
Hoover at that time, would not allow women in Federal law enforcement,
and we know that over the last quarter of a century there has been a
significant change.
During this period the highly successful Sky Marshal and Pre-
Departure Inspection Programs were set up to prevent the highjacking of
American aircraft.
A major program aimed at the financial resources of organized crime
was also undertaken. That effort was immensely successful, and much of
Mr. Rossides' experience was with applying that approach to the various
drug kingpins, who have substantial resources, as we all know.
He has great concerns, however, as to what has happened regarding
Federal drug enforcement. Some of that happened later in the Nixon
administration after the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] was
created in the Department of Justice. He thinks that was a very
``serious mistake from which we are still suffering.'' He believes that
aim to put all Federal law enforcement in the Department of Justice
ought to be with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Justice, added
to it were the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in Justice, the
Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement in Justice, and the drug
smuggling authority of the Customs Service which was in the Treasury.
Mr. Rossides believes that plan crippled proper drug smuggling
enforcement by removing the experts from it. They remained in Customs.
He has some very sensible suggestions about what we should do in this
area, and I think it is worthy of Congress and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight to examine some of these matters.
He noted that the DEA and Justice Department policy diverts
attention, manpower, time, and money from what he considers the primary
function for our overseas personnel regarding drugs, which is ``the
gathering of intelligence on drug shipments and potential drug
shipments to the United States.'' He would put the stress on going
after the drug traffickers' finances through income tax evasion and
money laundering cases.
He believes that the Federal law enforcement role regarding drugs is
threefold: Antidrug smuggling; major domestic drug trafficking cases;
and, income tax evasion and money laundering cases. He recommends that
we phase out the DEA by first, transferring domestic drug enforcement
authority from the DEA to the FBI and second, by returning the drug
smuggling authority to the Treasury's Customs Service. Rossides
believes that the result would be increased efficiency in drug
enforcement at a saving of perhaps half a billion dollars annually. A
program to place DEA agents in State and local police departments would
certainly be a part of that transition to phase out DEA. During his
service at Treasury, then-Assistant Secretary Rossides saw success with
a joint Federal-State-local law enforcement program. It lasted 17
months after Secretary John Connally obtained a $7.5 million
supplemental appropriation. The result was that 1,175 major drug
dealers were under a full net worth tax audit.
That is a fascinating discussion. Ask yourself if we would be further
ahead had the two-pronged criminal and civil approaches been steadily
pursued.
Mr. Rossides has great concern about the tendency to make the FBI a
national police force. Most of us would agree that should not happen.
He gives very good reasons as to why that should not happen.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have had an opportunity to look
at some of his remarks, and I hope my colleagues will look at the full
address, which I will include for the Record.
Remarks of Eugene T. Rossides on the 25th Anniversary Commemoration of
the Creation of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco,
GA--July 19, 1995
Director Charles F. Rinkevich, the staff of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center and the men and women attending
the Center.
I am very pleased to be here and to be part of this 25th
year celebration. I salute the men and women in law
enforcement.
Today I will discuss the following matters:
1. my concerns regarding federal drug law enforcement;
2. my concerns regarding the Department of Justice, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a national police
force in the Department of Justice;
3. my views regarding state and local law enforcement and
their interaction with federal law enforcement; and
4. some comments regarding the National Rifle Association.
First let me reminisce regarding several law enforcement
initiatives undertaken during my four years as Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, Tariff and Trade
Affairs and Operations (1969-January 20, 1973), a number of
which have had a lasting impact on federal law enforcement.
treasury's federal law enforcement training center (fletc)
Chief James Rowley, then Director of the U.S. Secret
Service, had stressed to me the importance of training and
the need for increased training facilities for the Secret
Service in view of their new responsibilities for
presidential candidates protection. He had proposed an
enlargement of the Treasury Law Enforcement Training School
then located at 13th and L Streets, N.W., Washington. I
accepted the proposal. The Office of Management and Budget
asked that the name be changed to reflect the participation
of several other federal agencies at the Treasury School.
Treasury's Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by
Congressman Tom Steed of Oklahoma, approved the necessary
appropriations. Tex Gunnels was the Clerk of the
Subcommittee.
Thus, the Treasury Law Enforcement Training School was
expanded with additional facilities and became the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) housed in Treasury
and under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement--now Under Secretary. It has a board of
directors, chaired by Treasury and composed of the
representatives from the various departments whose personnel
train at the Center.
The original plans called for this facility to be built in
Beltsville, Maryland. A site had already been selected.
However, the then country executive objected and mounted a
campaign against it. After the while I decided it was not
worth the effort for Beltsville, and Glynco, Georgia,
suggested by Tex Gunnels, was the beneficiary. FLETC has
grown substantially and now also trains state, local and
foreign law enforcement personnel.
the first women in federal law enforcement
In 1969 or 1970, Pat Hitt, Assistant Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, wrote to
Secretary David Kennedy and said she had been at a Republican
women's luncheon for the First Lady, Pat Nixon, and in a room
with 200 women the four Secret Service agents stood out like
a sore thumb. She inquired whether women could be stituted
instead.
The Secretary sent the letter to me for response without
comment. I showed Mrs. Hitt's letter to Chief Rowley and said
that I knew there were women in the New York City Police
Department and asked him why there were none in federal law
enforcement.
Chief Rowley told me that J. Edgar Hoover would not allow
women in federal law enforcement. I asked him if he had any
objections to women in the Secret Service. When he said he
had no objection, I told him to proceed and get women into
the Secret Service. That decision took less than 15 minutes
and changed the face of federal law enforcement.
the sky marshal and pre-departure inspection programs
In 1970, following multiple hijackings of four U.S. planes
which were sitting on the
[[Page H61]]
ground in the Middle East, President Nixon decided to put armed guards
on U.S. commercial airliners. The President accepted
Treasury's sky marshall program, including a training
program, a pre-departure inspection system which is still in
use today and which has been highly successful.
program aimed at the financial resources of organized crime
I initiated the effort to go after the finances and illegal
profits of the organized drug traffickers. This took three
avenues initially: (1) an effort started in the summer of
1969 which led to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970; (2) the
Treasury/IRS Narcotics Trafficker Tax Program; and (3) the
effort to break Swiss bank secrecy in organized crime cases
(which was successful through negotiations with the Swiss
banking authorities). The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Tax Policy, Ed Cohen, assisted in the effort with the
Swiss authorities. These three efforts were followed later by
money laundering legislation and enforcement, principally by
IRS and Customs.
I am proud of the accomplishments of Treasury enforcement
during my four years with Secretaries David Kennedy, John
Connally and George Shultz and Under Secretary Charls E.
Walker, a great deal of which has had a lasting and highly
favorable impact on federal law enforcement.
A few comments about WACO since congressional hearings are
starting today. I echo the comment of Ronald Noble, Under
Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, who stated the
David Koresh was ``a cold-blooded killer.'' David Koresh was
responsible for ambushing and killing four Treasury agents of
ATF and wounding twenty others. Koresh was also responsible
for the deaths of about 80 persons in the compound.
Steve Higgins, former director of ATF, in an article in the
Washington Post (July 2, 1995 C3, col. 1) sets forth the
background and legality of ATF's actions and involvement in
WACO.
I congratulate Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, Under Secretary
Noble and the investigating team for the comprehensive and
objective report on WACO, which report has been highly
praised. That investigating team included three outstanding
independent experts.
I also congratulate Treasury for the selection of John
Magaw, former director of the U.S. Secret Service and one of
the most experienced and distinguished men in law
enforcement, as director of ATF and for the full support
given to him and ATF. I especially commend Mr. Magaw for his
willingness to assume the responsibilities of Director and
for the outstanding job he is doing, particularly in
correcting the seventeen mistakes made at WACO as set forth
in the Treasury ``Blue Book'' report. Former President Bush
wrote the following about him: ``John Magaw, who used to head
the USSS and now heads ATF, is one of the most principled,
decent men I have ever known.''
One area that Director Magaw has given special attention to
is training and to the program at FLETC.
Treasury is very fortunate to have the leadership of
Secretary Robert Rubin, who has spoken and written vigorously
in support of Treasury enforcement and in particular ATF. I
endorse the contents of his recent letter regarding the WACO
hearings.
policy issues concerning federal, state and local enforcement
1. My Concerns Regarding Federal Drug Enforcement
Fundamental to an understanding of how to reduce drug
trafficking is to recognize that there are three distinct
crimes involved: (1) drug trafficking, (2) smuggling and (3)
financial-income tax evasion and money laundering.
To summarize my views:
(1) The Reorganization Plan #2 of 1973, which created the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the Department of
Justice, was a serious mistake from which we are still
suffering. It was pushed through the Congress by the White
House and the Justice Department at the very time Watergate
was breaking loose. They wanted eventually to put all federal
enforcement in the Justice Department.
A high level White House staff assistant, who later became
a key Watergate witness, told me in the fall of 1972, after
the Nixon Administration's re-election victory in November,
that the aim was to put all law enforcement in Justice and
that I had not seen anything yet. ``Just wait until the
second term begins,'' he said.
Reorganization Plan #2 created the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) in the Justice Department and
transferred to the DEA the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs (BNDD) in Justice, the Office of Drug Abuse Law
Enforcement (ODALE) in Justice, and the drug smuggling
authority of the Customs Service. For 21 years, since 1974,
we have had a second rate team handling drug smuggling in the
``war on drugs.''
Reorganization Plan #2 crippled proper drug smuggling
enforcement by removing the experts. It will remain crippled
as long as DEA controls it. There is no way that DEA can be
as effective in anti-drug smuggling activities as the experts
in Customs. Nor can DEA get the full cooperation of the
customs services around the world as can the U.S. Customs
Service. Returning anti-drug smuggling authority to Customs
will result in a better and more cost effective performance.
(2) The enforcement policy and priority of DEA in attacking
the problem of drugs at the source, i.e. to eradicate the
poppy and coca plant growing areas by force or payments for
crop substitution, has been and continues to be a failure.
(See Washington Post, ``U.S. Falling Far Short In Drug War,''
July 10, 1995, A1, col. 1.) The goal is unattainable and we
are wasting scarce resources. How many people realize that it
only takes a small number of square miles of poppy and coca
plant production to feed the entire U.S. heroin and cocaine
addict population? The monies spent on eradication are
counterproductive and are better spent elsewhere.
(3) The federal role against drug trafficking should be
limited to major domestic U.S. cases. American agents should
not run cases on foreign soil. The DEA policy of running
cases in foreign jurisdictions is not sound drug enforcement
policy. Liaison assistance overseas is proper. Running cases
overseas is not as a general rule, with limited exceptions.
The Americanization of the world drug problem by the DEA
and the Justice Department has been a debacle and has
lessened the responsibility of the host government for
handling drug trafficking in their own countries and has
weakened the United Nations efforts.
The DEA and Justice Department policy diverts attention,
manpower, time, and money from what I consider the primary
function of our overseas personnel regarding drugs, the
gathering of intelligence on drug shipments and potential
drug shipments to the U.S.
(4) Income Tax Evasion and Money Laundering: An attack on
the drug traffickers' finances through tax evasion and money
laundering cases should be the cornerstone of any multi-
faceted enforcement program.
The Achilles heal of the drug trafficker is income tax
evasion. Tax evasion, unlike drug trafficking, leaves a paper
trail and there are proven methods, based on numerous
precedents, for developing evidence. The Treasury
successfully ran such a program for two years from July 1,
1971 to July 1973.
Money laundering cases have added another dimension and
have been quite helpful. IRS and Customs are playing leading
roles in this effort.
To summarize, the federal enforcement role regarding drugs
is three-fold: (1) anti-drug smuggling; (2) major domestic
drug trafficking cases; and (3) income tax evasion and money
laundering cases.
I recommend that we phase out the DEA by (1) transferring
domestic drug enforcement authority from the DEA to the FBI
and, (2) returning the drug smuggling authority to Treasury's
Customs Service. The result would be increased efficiency in
drug enforcement at a savings of over $500 million. A program
to place DEA agents in state and local police departments
would be part of a transition in phasing out DEA. Overseas
personnel would be Treasury agents of the Customs Service.
Their mission would be to work with local customs and police
officials to gather intelligence on smuggling cases and
potential smuggling operations pertaining to the U.S.
I further recommend that we revive the Treasury/IRS
Narcotics Trafficker Tax program, one of the most successful,
if not the most successful, joint federal-state-local law
enforcement program in our history. Initiated in the spring
of 1971 with a supplemental appropriation of $7.5 million
obtained by Secretary John Connally, it started on July 1,
1971 and lasted two years.
The last report on the program was issued on December 1,
1972. That 17-month report listed the number of major drug
dealers under full net worth tax examination, the number of
civil tax actions, the number of criminal cases in progress
and the amount of money collected.
How many major drug dealers do you estimate we had under
full net worth audit? Take a guess. The number should
surprise you. We had 1175 major dealers under full net-worth
tax audit in just 17 months!
That program did more to disrupt the drug traffickers
operations and finances than all of the other drug
enforcement programs combined and it disrupted practically
all of the major drug networks in the country. Unfortunately,
after mid-1973 the program was discontinued--a victim of
Watergate, and a new IRS commissioner who was not enforcement
minded and opposed the program. On January 20, 1973, I had
completed four years as Assistant Secretary and had returned
to private practice.
The use of the tax code on organized crime is not new. The
example of Al Capone is well-known. What distinguished our
tax program were four innovations:
First. The establishment of a national Target Selection
Committee with representatives from several federal
enforcement agencies.
Second. The establishment of regional Target Selection
Committees with the added representation of state and local
police. Central to my concept of the tax program was the full
involvement of the state and local police.
Guidelines were developed for these committees to
distinguish major from minor dealers and a monthly report
system was developed. It was the first time that a list of
major drug traffickers in the U.S. was put together
systematically, utilizing federal, state and local agencies.
Third. A key part of the program was to attack the
financial structure of the drug networks. IRS was instructed
to try to develop a criminal case first. If within a few
months they did not feel that they could develop a criminal
case expeditiously, they
[[Page H62]]
were instructed to move the investigation promptly to a civil audit.
This was an important innovation in the overall objective
of attacking the financial structure of the drug networks.
You can punish a person in two ways: put him in jail or take
his money.
Fourth. For minor drug dealers who had been arrested with
cash on them, we initiated a tax action against them and tied
up the cash.
2. My concerns Regarding the Department of Justice, the FBI
and a National Police Force in the Department of Justice.
There has been a steady increase of power and enforcement
personnel in the Department of Justice which I do not believe
is in the national interest. When a crisis occurs, the
immediate reaction of the Department of Justice is to ask for
more money, manpower and authority. It is a standard
technique to imply that lack of money, manpower and authority
in the Justice Department are the cause of the problem.
This crisis stemming from the Oklahoma City bombing is an
example. While the rest of government is downsizing, the
Administration's anti-terrorism bill calls for more
enforcement personnel primarily for the FBI, even though it
has been stated that more personnel would not have prevented
the bombing nor can anyone demonstrate they would be able to
prevent future acts of terrorism.
I object to the request for additional personnel and that
portion of the $2.1 billion price tag that is for FBI and
Justice Department personnel. They are not needed and
Congress should not allow it. Federal enforcement must not be
exempt from downsizing.
I question the need for and oppose the provisions in the
bill giving increased wire tap authority to the FBI and
Justice Department. They are not needed.
According to newspaper reports, the increased wiretap
authority includes the authority to wiretap in alleged
terrorism cases for 48 hours without a court order. To
continue a tap thereafter would require a court order. Such a
provision gives the FBI carte blanche to tap for 48 hours
anybody it wants to on the allegation that it could involve
terrorism. It means there could be hundreds and thousands of
48-hour taps which could then be discontinued and nobody
outside of the FBI would know about it.
I was pleased to see that the Republican-controlled Senate
voted 52-28 to table the White House proposal to expand
emergency wiretap authority. Majority Leader Dole argued it
could erode constitutional protections on privacy. (N.Y.
Times, June 6, 1995).
I am concerned about the FBI becoming a national police
force. The tradition of our nation is against a national
police force.
An important tradition of federal enforcement is to couple
the enforcement function with the regulatory function.
Wherever possible that tradition should be enhanced--not
weakened. Stronger enforcement is the result and it lessens
the possibility of a national police force.
One principle that the Congress should follow in
considering any new enforcement authority is to house it
outside of the Department of Justice. The Republican Congress
has an opportunity to correct some grievous errors of the
past. It should not become a captive of the Justice
Department and FBI.
There is no department or agency of government in the
democratic world that has the amount of accumulated law
enforcement power as the U.S. Department of Justice. There
has been a steady accretion of such power over the past
decades by the Justice Department.
First of all you have under one roof, under one person, all
the prosecutorial functions of the federal government and a
substantial part of the investigatory function. State and
local governments, in general, do not allow such combination
of power under one agency. State and local police investigate
and make arrests. Thereafter, the prosecutor gives the matter
an independent objective review to determine if sufficient
evidence is available to prosecute.
The attorney general of New York does not supervise the
state police. The district attorney of New York County does
not supervise and control the New York City police
department.
The attorney general of the United States is the chief
legal officer of the government. He or she should not also be
the chief of police.
There have been newspaper and magazine articles concerning
the problem of prosecutors' discretion. I do not believe
there is adequate oversight and review within the Department
of prosecutors' discretion.
These and other problems have not received the attention
they deserve in the learned journals, in books, or in our law
schools.
What is needed is a thorough review of the functions and
authority of the Department of Justice by a blue-ribbon
commission. Such a commission should be charged with
reviewing all enforcement functions and authority in the
Justice Department to determine which ones are necessary and
which are not, which enforcement functions and agencies
should be transferred to other departments, and which
functions and authority could be handled just as easily or
better by the states and localities.
My remarks regarding the Justice Department are not aimed
at the rank and file in the FBI or DEA. They are dedicated
people, many of whom risk their lives daily for the public
good. I am concerned about the misguided efforts of those
career persons and appointees in the Department of Justice,
and White House staff, who want to centralize law enforcement
in the Department of Justice.
3. My Views Regarding State and Local Law Enforcement and
Their Interaction With Federal Law Enforcement
Inside the Beltway too much attention is devoted to federal
law enforcement and not enough to state and local
enforcement.
We tend to forget that state and local law enforcement is
the front-line against unlawful conduct. State and local
enforcement officers are the ones closest to the people. The
achievement in our nation of ``Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness'' depends primarily on the over 650,000 state
and local police, not on the approximately 90,000 Federal law
enforcement personnel.
State and local enforcement personnel face the media daily,
many of which feel compelled to cast them in a poor light, to
highlight miscues and to overlook or play down successes.
I believe that there has been a gradual erosion these past
two decades in the public's respect for and confidence in law
enforcement, on both the federal, state and local enforcement
levels.
Forgotten, under the barrage of adverse publicity, is the
outstanding day-to-day work of our state and local
enforcement community which is essential to the rule of law
and to our well being.
There must be a concerted effort to reverse the situation.
There must be an upgrading of state and local enforcement.
Fundamental to improvement is training, training and more
training. The Persian Gulf War proved what the military's
obsession with training can produce. We must increase and
elevate training for state and local enforcement. Increased
professionalism will only come with increased emphasis on
training. I note that there are an increasing number of state
and local officers receiving advanced training at FLETC.
I will make a few general comments regarding federal-state
enforcement relations.
First, I was proud of the attitude and practices followed
by the two Treasury bureaus, the Secret Service and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who dealt with state
and local enforcement personnel on a daily basis. They had a
policy of treating their counterparts in state and local
enforcement as equal professionals. That should be the rule
with all federal enforcement agencies.
Secondly, just as there is ongoing effort to return to the
states the civil functions being performed by the federal
government, I propose a review of federal criminal
jurisdiction with a view to return to or transfer to the
states criminal jurisdiction wherever possible and
appropriate. As mentioned, downsizing of federal enforcement
should not be exempt from the present effort to downsize the
federal government and return functions to the states.
I further propose that federal enforcement defer to state
enforcement wherever possible and appropriate.
For example, if there is to be an anti-terrorism center, as
set forth in the proposed anti-terrorism legislation, why not
have it as part of an intergovernmental organization
controlled by the states with federal participation?
Terrorist acts are not solely federal matters. They are also,
if not primarily, state and local matters.
An anti-terrorism center under the supervision of the
states, with federal participation, would energize the state
and local enforcement community. Such energizing will not
occur if the anti-terrorism center is in the FBI. Putting it
under the states would also be a check against a national
police force. Such a center under state supervision would be
a substantial boost to and recognition of the central
importance of state and local enforcement.
4. A Few Comments Regarding the National Rifle Association
(NRA).
I applaud President Bush's action in resigning from the NRA
over the April 13, 1995 fundraising letter of Wayne R. La
Pierre, executive vice president and chief operating officer
of NRA. We owe President Bush a great deal for his decades of
public service culminating in his presidency. He deserves our
praise for his letter of May 3, 1995 to Thomas L. Washington,
President of NRA, resigning from NRA. His letter says it all.
In his opening paragraph he writes:
``Dear Mr. Washington, I was outraged when, even in the
wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne La Pierre,
Executive Vice President of NRA, defended his attack on
federal agents as `jack-booted thugs.' To attack Secret
Service Agents or ATF people or any government law
enforcement people as `wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black
storm trooper uniforms' wanting to `attack law abiding
citizens' is a vicious slander on good people.''
President Bush also states:
``I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I
have agreed with most of NRA's objectives, particularly your
educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance
in favor of owning guns.
``However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply
offends my own sense of decency and honor, and it offends my
concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide
array of government law enforcement officials, who are out
there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all
of us.
``You have not repudiated Mr. La Pierre's unwarranted
attack. Therefore, I resign as a
[[Page H63]]
Life Member of NRA, said resignation to be effective upon your receipt
of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership
list.''
And President Bush, in a commencement address on May 11,
1995 at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg,
Virginia, retierated his defense of federal enforcement
agents as follows:
`` `I miss dealing with the law enforcement people who lay
their lives on the line for us every day,' Bush said, `and I
think we all ought to speak up against the excesses of these
crazy people who put them in a bad light and refer to them as
`Nazis' and refer to them as `jack-booted thugs.' '' (Los
Angeles Times, May 12, 1995)
Let me state where I stand on the NRA and gun control. I
echo President Bush's support of the NRA's educational and
training efforts and the ``fundamental stance in favor of
owning guns.'' In my judgment the right to own a gun is not
and has not been in danger, and will not be in danger in the
future under our constitutional system of government. I also
supported the Brady bill and the ban on certain assault
weapons. They are reasonable and responsible legislation.
President Bush's letter brought national headlines. It also
resulted in other key Republicans denouncing or criticizing
Wayne La Pierre's and NRA's rhetoric. The Los Angeles Times
(May 23, 1995) reported the following criticism of NRA by
California's top two Republicans. Governor Pete Wilson, in an
address to an annual memorial ceremony for slain peace
officers, called the NRA hyperbole:
`` `An inexcusable slander' that was `not only a grotesque
smear, but gives comfort to the real things--the brutal
animals who take innocent lives. . . . It's an insult to
every officer who daily puts on a badge.' ''
Attorney General Dan Lungren stated:
``Character isn't just saying you're in love with your
guns. Character is admitting you're wrong--not issuing, after
three weeks, that mealy-mouth apology.''
Lungren denounced the fund-raising letter as ``obnoxious,
abhorrent and totally irresponsible.'' For law officers, he
said:
``It's worse than a slap in the face, it's a spit in the
face. If this kind of language were being spewed by leaders
of inner-city gangs, there would be wholesale condemnation of
it without batting an eyelash. I'm not going to accept this
kind of conduct whether it comes from the NRA or street gangs
like Crips and Bloods. . . .
``At some point, people should call them on this stuff.
``Most people don't think every gun conceived by man ought
to be readily available on the street. You don't need to have
bazookas, flamethrowers and semiautomatic weapons with 50-
round magazines.''
Governor Wilson, who strongly opposes assault guns, said:
``The name `assault weapon' tells you what they're for.
They're for combat. Yes, there is a right to keep and bear
arms. But an assault weapon has no legitimate justification
in a civilized society.''
Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KA) appearing on
ABC's This Week With David Brinkley (April 30, 1995),
criticized the NRA stating they needed ``an image repair
job.'' Dole specifically criticized an NRA computer bulletin
board on which bomb-making instructions have appeared stating
that there are already ``enough people out there who know how
to make bombs.'' (Washington Post, May 1, 1995, A10, col.6).
Former House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-WA). a long-time
member of the NRA, announced he is resigning: Foley said on
CNN's Late Edition:
``To present that you're for law enforcement, in support of
law enforcement, while attacking law enforcement officials is
I think hypocritical.'' Washington Times, May 22, 1995).
Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimza, who let his membership lapse two
years ago after the NRA opposed a city ordinance banning
minors from carrying guns in public without parental consent,
said: ``They've let a fringe group take over the
organization.'' (Christian Science Monitor, May 22, 1995).
The Associated Press reported that three Texas cities,
Houston, Laredo and McAllen, have barred the NRA from
sporting-goods shows this summer because of its criticism of
federal enforcement agents. Jerry W. Curl, show director of
the Texas-Mexico Hunting and Fishing Expos said: ``After . .
. talking to our exhibitors and the sportsmen across the
state, everyone is in agreement that the NRA is heading in
the wrong direction.''
The board of directors of the 14,000-member International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) ``cut all ties with
the NRA and banned the NRA from advertising in the police
chiefs magazine.'' (USA Today, May 18, 1995, A1, Col. 3.)
I applaud the Secret Service in disinviting the NRA to its
annual pistol competition. I applaud the U.S. Olympic
Committee in forming U.S.A. Shooting to replace the NRA as
the U.S. government body for the Olympics.
The board of directors of the NRA is responsible for the
NRA's programs and the actions of its officers and staff
which report to the board. According to newspaper and
magazine articles, its ``philosophical guru and powerbroker''
is Neal Knox who engineered the takeover of the board of
directors by the extremists.
The NRA's organized program of attack on the federal
enforcement activities of the ATF and FBI, and efforts to
discredit federal enforcement personnel in the performance of
their duties to carry out congressional legislation--the law
of the land--is harmful to the very foundation of our
democracy: the rule of law.
Make no mistake about it, the NRA's actions are basically
an assault on the rule of law, the essential ingredient of a
civilized and democratic society.
To highlight a handful of mistakes, grievous as some are,
and deliberately try to create the false image that these
errors are the norm, is not the work of a responsible
organization. As Director Magaw has stated, in the last 10
years the statistics demonstrate that there were 50,000 cases
written for prosecution; 80,000 persons arrested and 10,000
search warrants executed. With all that activity, there were
only 230 complaints against ATF and not one of those has been
upheld against ATF.
We have today in the NRA a handful of extremists who have
turned a responsible organization into a radical one. The
program of attack on the ATF is based on the ``Big Lie''
technique. Repeat the Big Lie often enough and the people
will believe it.
The NRA's program and actions have been a significant
factor in the growth in disrespect for the law and the
agencies responsible for carrying out the laws on both the
federal and state level.
You would think that the NRA would spend its time and money
assisting law enforcement instead of fighting law enforcement
officials.
The NRA has been the main organization with an action
program to discredit federal law enforcement. The board of
directors of NRA and its acknowledged leader Neal Knox must
bear a major responsibility for the anti-law enforcement
attitudes that have developed this past decade in this
country.
There is a clear connection between NRA rhetoric and
actions and the rhetoric of Timothy McVeigh and his alleged
actions in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, the
second anniversary of WACO. And remember that the
slanderous LaPierre NRA fundraising letter was dated April
13, 1995.
Yes, government officials will make mistakes, but that is
no reason for a policy by NRA's board of directors to devote
a substantial part of the effort and resources of NRA to
attack the crime fighters instead of attacking crime and
criminals.
The NRA has been clamoring for hearings on WACO despite the
fact that hearings were held a year-and-a-half ago and
extensive reports by Treasury and Justice released. The NRA
has tried to turn David Koresh, a killer and child molester,
into a victim.
I suggest Congress should consider hearings on the NRA's
program of attack on federal law enforcement to determine the
impact of the NRA's rhetoric and program on the rule of law,
on the general public's growing disrespect for law
enforcement agencies and on persons who have attacked and
killed federal agents, including the impact on Timothy
McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.
I do not believe that the rank and file of NRA condone the
actions of its present extremist leadership. I believe that
if the members of NRA were presented with all the facts
regarding the NRA's program of lies, of intimidation and
disrespect for the rule of law, that they would reject that
program.
A recent Wall Street Journal article (May 24, 1995, A12,
col. 1) discusses the growing concern of NRA members with the
organization's rhetoric and actions. The non-extremists in
NRA are, I estimate, over 90%.
Will the NRA leadership change its policies and program and
become a responsible organization again?
Based on the NRA's full page ad in response to President
Bush, subsequent NRA fundraising letters, and actions taken
at its annual gathering on May 19-21, 1995, held in Phoenix,
the answer is ``No.'' The extremist leadership of the NRA led
by board member Neal Knox, have laid down the gauntlet to
President Bush and to the American people.
What can be done to counter the extremist leadership of NRA
and to return NRA to its former respected position? I suggest
three things:
First, encourage the over 90% non-extremist rank and file
of NRA to press for new leaders;
Secondly, ostracize the present leadership, as a number of
persons and organizations are doing; and
Thirdly, respond to NRA by utilizing the nationwide
federal, state and local law enforcement community in a
program of information and political action on the federal,
state and local level. As President Bush said: ``I think we
all ought to speak up against the excesses of these crazy
people.''
An organization should be established with the following
charter: (1) to counter NRA's extremism by getting the facts
and arguments to supporters in every congressional district;
and (2) to stress the affirmative, namely, support for the
rule of law and support for the men and women in federal,
state and local law enforcement.
In my judgment it would not be that difficult nor expensive
to mount a major effort because the organizations and
structure are in place. In every congressional district there
are state and local police departments and associations of
retired state and local police officers. There is the
National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO),
with a membership of 180,000, and the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
On the federal level, every federal agency has a retired
agents association. There are
[[Page H64]]
also the non-agent organizations such as the Treasury Employees
Association. There is also in place the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the lobbying group
for federal law enforcement.
Most states, if not all, have law enforcement lobbying
groups. New York City has the Patrolmen's Benevolent
Association.
All these are effective groups and can readily be
mobilized. And of course active duty enforcement personnel
can write and contact their elected officials in support of
the rule of law and law enforcement agencies.
What is needed is a small organization to disseminate to
each of these groups the information and program to counter
NRA's Big Lie rhetoric and program. I stress that the group
would not be an umbrella organization. Its purpose would be
to galvanize opposition to NRA's extreme positions and to
counter NRA's lies and misleading statements.
The name of such a group could be the ``Law Enforcement
Information Association.'' Its staff would be small. It could
probably do the job with about ten staff members.
The organizations mentioned and their individual members
can be mobilized to contact their congressmen/women and
senators and state and local elected officials by telephone
and in writing and to meet with them and convey one simple
message:
``Support the rule of law and the law enforcement agencies
responsible for carrying out the laws of the land and reject
NRA extremism.''
It can be done. It should be done.
Thank you.
____________________