[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.

                          ____________________