U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–951 PDF 2003

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 6 AND MAY 14, 2003

Serial No. 43

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

PATRICIA DEMARCO, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

HEARING DATES 

Page 

May 6, 2003

CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ........................................................... 1

May 14, 2003

CRIMINAL LAW COMPONENTS AT MAIN JUSTICE ................................................. 63

OPENING STATEMENT 

MAY 6, 2003

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

MAY 14, 2003

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 63

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 64

WITNESSES 

MAY 6, 2003

Mr. Pasquale J. D’Amuro, Executive Assistant Director Counterterrorism/

Counterintelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16

Mr. Richard J. Hankinson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31

Mr. Rogelio E. Guevara, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35

MAY 14, 2003

The Honorable Deborah Daniels, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 66

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68

Mr. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department 

of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 72

Page

IV

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 74

Mr. Benigno G. Reyna, Director, United States Marshals Service, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 79

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 81

Ms. Julie L. Myers, Chief of Staff, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 84

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

MAY 6, 2003

Summary of study entitled ‘‘Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand,’’produced by RAND Drug Policy Research Center for the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy, 1994, ................................................................... 4

MAY 14, 2003

Article from the Houston Chronicle entitled, ‘‘DeLay backs federal aid to 

track down walkouts,’’ May 13, 2003 ................................................................. 96

Letter to Attorney General Ashcroft from Members of the House Committee 

on the Judiciary regarding Federal intervention in matters of the State 

Legislature of Texas ............................................................................................. 99

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MAY 6, 2003

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 111

Response from Richard J. Hankinson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, to questions 

submitted by the Subcommittee ......................................................................... 113

Response from Rogelio E. Guevara, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, to questions submitted by the 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 118

MAY 14, 2003

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 123

Response from the Honorable Deborah Daniels, Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, to questions submitted by the Subcommittee ............................................................................... 125

Response from Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. 

Department of Justice, to questions submitted by the Subcommittee ............ 133

Response from Benigno G. Reyna, Director, United States Marshals Service, 

U.S. Department of Justice, to questions submitted by the Subcommittee .... 145

Response from Julie L. Myers, Chief of Staff, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to questions submitted by the Subcommittee ........................ 150

Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons ....................................................... 157

(1)

CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Scott just mentioned that you all were standing 

at attention. We are not accustomed to that sort of respect, are we 

Bobby, although we appreciate that. 

Folks, at the outset I want to apologize for the nonmelodious 

sound of my voice. I am battling a cold, and I am coming out second best. And I hope I don’t give it to you or to anyone else today. 

So, you all bear with me. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security conducts its first of two hearings relating to the reauthorization of the Department of Justice. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the largest portion of the Department of Justice, the 

criminal law components, as well as counterterrorism and intelligence components. 

Representatives of three of the Department’s enforcement agencies are here to testify before the Committee today. The agencies 

testifying today are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

On September 25th, 2002, the President signed the 21st Century 

Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which 

was the first reauthorization of the Department in over two decades. The Subcommittee held hearings in May of 2001 to assist 

with the reauthorization. That act made a number of improvements 

in the way the Department operates and maintains its programs. 

Since those hearings, our Nation has experienced what seems 

like a lifetime of historical and sometimes tragic events. The terrorist attacks of September 11th, the anthrax attacks, and the resulting war on terrorism have changed the priorities of the Department of Justice and its components to prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorism. Just as our Nation has met these challenges 

over the last 2 years, so have our Federal law enforcement officials. 

I commend the witnesses and the employees for their fortitude, 

flexibility, and courage. 

2

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is the 

newest component of the Department of Justice. After the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2001, the Congress enacted the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 to create a new Department of Homeland Security. As part of that bill, the ATF was transferred to the Department of Justice from the Department of Treasury. ATF traces its 

roots back to 1791, when Alexander Hamilton imposed the first 

Federal tax on distilled spirits. Similar to the FBI and the DEA, 

ATF’s mission has changed over the years to meet the needs of the 

Nation. Along with transferring the Bureau, Congress expanded 

ATF’s authority through the Safe Explosives Act to place more 

stringent controls on explosives to prevent terrorists and others 

prohibited from obtaining them. 

The FBI will testify as to the challenge it faces after the 9/11 attacks. The FBI grew out—as many of you know—grew out of a 

small force of investigators, creating the Department of Justice in 

1908. Over the years, the FBI’s mission has expanded as the Nation has changed. Today, the FBI has the broadest mission of any 

other enforcement agency, ranging from antiterrorism efforts to 

white collar fraud, to child abduction laws. 

The FBI has recently made substantial changes to address the 

growing threat of terrorism against our citizens and our country. 

Most recently, on December 3rd, 2001, the FBI recognized and reorganized its priorities to make counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cybercrime its top priorities. 

The third agency represented today is the Drug Enforcement Administration, the world’s preeminent drug law enforcement agency. 

DEA is the single point of contact for coordination of all international drug investigations. Created in 1973, the Agency is responsible for enforcing the controlled substances and chemical diversion trafficking laws and regulations of the United States. DEA 

oversees 21 domestic field divisions and 78 international offices in 

56 countries, giving it extraordinary intelligence capacity, which is 

a huge benefit to the overall effectiveness with the war on terrorism. DEA was established by Reorganization Plan Number 2, 

rather than statute. DEA’s enforcement authority derives from the 

Controlled Substances Act. 

These agencies are vital to our Federal justice system and the security of our Nation. I want to thank the witnesses in advance for 

testifying before us today. I believe their testimony will provide 

valuable information for the Committee to further improve the performance of the Department of Justice. 

And now I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman 

from Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased to join 

you in convening this hearing on the reauthorization of the U.S. 

Department of Justice, their law enforcement components. 

Although we reauthorized the entire Department of Justice just 

last Congress, I believe this is the first time that we have had a 

chance to conduct an oversight hearing on these agencies since 

September 11, 2001. 

The Federal law enforcement arena has changed drastically since 

9/11, perhaps appropriately so in many respects. However, I am 

3

concerned with some of the changes we have made, particularly as 

it relates to the unprecedented expansions of Federal law enforcement authority over traditional liberties, privacy, and everyday activities of ordinary citizens. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the 

Committee intends to do specific oversight of the USA PATRIOT 

Act provisions that the Department of Justice enforces at a later 

time. Yet there are activities which agencies have undertaken on 

an administrative level which also affect the lives of ordinary citizens in a dramatic way, and we need to examine some of those 

matters today. 

In the meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, the ravages of drug abuse and 

gun violence continue, generally unabated. While law enforcement 

efforts and prison populations have continued to go up in this country, so have quantities and quality of illegal drugs coming to this 

country, while the street price actually goes down. Yet studies continue to show that we get substantially more drug reduction value 

from drug treatment than law enforcement. 

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to introduce a study 

which cites the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which 

states—the top three things—it says that treatment is three times 

more cost-effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine 

in the United States. A recent RAND Corporation study found that 

every dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers 

$7.46 in societal costs. And the same study found that additional 

domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs. I would like 

to introduce this study into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

4


RAND1.eps
5


RAND2.eps
6


RAND3.eps
7


RAND4.eps
8


RAND5.eps
9


RAND6.eps
10


RAND7.eps
11


RAND8.eps
12


RAND9.eps
13


RAND10.eps
14

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, with respect to gun violence, clearly 

we need to look at prudent restrictions on gun access, such as assault bans, one gun a month sales limitation, gun show sales regulations, and studying the effect of ballistic fingerprinting to help 

address the growing gun violence carnage. We also need to take a 

look at the level of our law enforcement efforts. I believe that our 

law enforcement agencies consist of dedicated, hard-working public 

servants who have had a tough job to do, and that is made even 

tougher since 9/11. Our job as congressional overseers is all the 

more important as well as to ensure that we don’t do to ourselves 

through denial of civil rights what the terrorists could never accomplish, and that is deny our basic civil rights and liberties in a free 

society. I say that especially in the light of the fact that the 

changes we made after 9/11 were not limited to terrorism, but affected general criminal law and procedure. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and to working with you as we take a look 

at the operations of these agencies during this Congress. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

And we are pleased also to have with us the gentleman from 

Florida, and the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman 

from Virginia. I stand corrected. The other gentleman from Virginia. 

Let me give you a little background about our witnesses. I think 

the people of our office need to know the caliber of the witnesses 

who are with us, and I will be brief. One of our witnesses today 

is Robert J. Hankinson, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

Mr. Hankinson, I have always said ATF. I guess I may have to 

amend that now to ATFE to be grammatically correct. 

Mr. Hankinson was appointed Deputy Director on October 20th, 

2002, is a native of Pennsylvania and a graduate of the University 

of the Richmond in Virginia. Prior to his service with the ATF, he 

was appointed in 1990 as the first inspector general for the Department of Justice. He has also worked for the General Services Administration and the United States Secret Service. 

Our witness representing the FBI today is Mr. Pasquale 

D’Amuro—have I pronounced that correctly, Mr. D’Amuro—Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence 

division of the FBI. Mr. D’Amuro graduated with a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Niagara University located in 

Lewiston on the northern border of the city of Niagara Falls. He 

was appointed as FBI Special Agent on May 6, 1979, and completed his training at the FBI Academy in Quantico. He was initially assigned to the New York office. 

Our final witness today will be Mr. Rogelio E. Guevara, Chief of 

Operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Guevara 

grew up in the San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles, California, 

where he attended the California State University. Mr. Guevara 

graduated with a B.S. Degree in political science and administration. 

Gentlemen, it is good to have each of you with us. You all have 

been requested in advance to try to limit your remarks to 5 minVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.000 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
15

utes. When the red light appears in your eyes, you will know that 

the ice is getting thin, and if you could wrap up shortly after that. 

Mr. D’Amuro, why don’t we begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF PASQUALE J. D’AMURO, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COUNTERTERRORISM/COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. D’AMURO. Good afternoon, Chairman Coble, Congressman 

Scott, and others. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am very pleased to be seated alongside my colleagues from DEA and ATF. 

Congressman Scott, I believe you are right. This is the first time 

that an FBI representative has testified before your panel on authorization matters since the tragic events of September 11th. As 

each of you know, that day put into motion a series of historical 

changes within the FBI, much like those faced after the attack on 

Pearl Harbor some 60 years ago. The FBI responded to its new national security responsibilities then and has been working diligently these past 20 months to address the new challenges and 

threats that confront us now. 

I want to ensure that everyone clearly understands that, as 

President Bush recently emphasized during a speech at FBI headquarters, ‘‘the FBI has no greater priority than preventing terrorist 

acts against America.’’ And I would like to reiterate what Director 

Mueller said earlier this month to your Senate counterparts, that 

‘‘the FBI is committed to carrying out its mission in accordance 

with the protections provided by the Constitution. Every FBI agent 

is trained to recognize that the responsibility to protect the law is 

the basis for their authority to enforce it. Respect for constitutional 

liberties is not optional, it is mandatory.’’ Recognizing that today’s hearing is one of the first steps in the 

authorization process, I have included with my statement FBI summary excerpts from the Department of Justice 2004 Authorization 

and Budget Request. 

Today I would like to highlight some of those concrete steps the 

FBI has taken to improve cooperation and information-sharing 

with the Intelligence Community, other Government agencies, and 

our very essential partners at the State and local level. These initiatives touch each of your districts and are an unprecedented commitment to ensuring that information-sharing and operational coordination succeeds at all levels. 

To enhance cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, 

we have almost doubled the Joint Terrorism Task Forces operating 

today. Prior to 9/11, 35 JTTFs were in existence; today, 66 JTTFs 

are operational throughout the country. 

The JTTFs partner FBI personnel with hundreds of investigators 

from various Federal, State, and local agencies in FBI field offices 

across the country. As part of this expansion, we are providing 500 

JTTF agents as well as State and local law enforcement personnel 

with specialized counterterrorism training, and by the end of the 

year basic counterterrorism training to every JTTF member. We 

are also expanding basic counterterrorism training on a national 

level, and estimate that almost 27,000 Federal, State, and local law 

16

enforcement officers will ultimately benefit from these FBI training 

initiatives. JTTFs are truly our first line of defense against terrorism. 

To improve the effectiveness of our expanding JTTF base, in July 

of 2002, we established the National Joint Terrorism Task Force at 

FBI headquarters. Staffed by representatives from 30 different 

Federal, State, and local agencies, the National JTTF serves as a 

point of fusion for terrorism information by coordinating the flow 

of information across the country between the representative agencies and the JTTFs in the field. On a weekly basis over 17,000 law 

enforcement agencies receive the FBI Intelligence Bulletin, providing needed information on terrorism issues and threats particularly to patrol officers and other law enforcement personnel who 

have direct contact with the general public. 

For the Intelligence Community as well as the JTTFs, the FBI 

also prepares an Intelligence Information Report. These reports 

provide FBI information and analysis on counterintelligence as well 

as counterterrorism matters. In the last 6 months alone,the FBI 

has prepared over 1,200 of these reports that have been disseminated to the field. 

To further strengthen the FBI’s ability to forge more cooperative 

relationships with our State and local counterparts, the Office of 

Law Enforcement Coordination was created. Headed by a former 

chief of police, this vital office also has liaison responsibilities with 

the White House and Homeland Security Council. 

I would also like to note that besides enhancing our cooperative 

efforts at home, the FBI has expanded its liaison efforts overseas, 

and we currently have 45 Legal Attache offices in operation. These 

offices are vital links in following up on terrorist leads around the 

world. 

As you well know, the FBI’s investigative efforts depend on stateof-the-art technology, and I want to take this opportunity to report 

that tremendous progress is being made in this critical area. Over 

21,000 new desktop computers and nearly 5,000 printers and scanners have been provided, along with high-speed local area networks 

that have been deployed in over 600 FBI locations. 

I understand that we still have a long way to go, but I want to 

thank the Subcommittee for the support it has provided on these 

critical technology issues. 

In closing, I want to assure you that the men and women of the 

FBI are fully committed to today’s challenges much like their colleagues 60 years ago. With the vital tools that you have provided, 

I am confident that we can carry out our mission to protect America. 

Again, I offer my gratitude and appreciation for you giving me 

this opportunity to appear today before your Subcommittee, and I 

will be happy to respond to any questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. D’Amuro. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. D’Amuro follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PASQUALE J. D’AMURO

Good afternoon Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, and other distinguished 

Members. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today and am very 

pleased to be seated alongside my colleagues from DEA and ATF. 

17

I believe that this is the first-time that an FBI representative has testified before 

your panel on authorization matters since the tragic events of September 11th. As 

each of you know, that day put into motion a series of historic changes within the 

FBI much like those faced after the attack on Pearl Harbor some 60 years ago. The 

FBI responded to its new national security responsibilities then and has been working hard these past 20 months to address the new challenges and threats that confront us now. 

I want to ensure that everyone clearly understands that as President Bush recently emphasized during a speech at FBI Headquarters that ‘‘the FBI has no greater priority than preventing terrorist acts against America.’’ And I would like to reiterate what Director Mueller said earlier this month to your Senate counterparts 

that the ‘‘FBI is committed to carrying out its mission in accordance with the protections provided by the Constitution. Every FBI agent is trained to recognize that the 

responsibility to protect the law is the basis for their authority to enforce it. Respect 

for Constitutional liberties is not optional, it is mandatory.’’

Recognizing that today’s hearing is one of the first steps in the authorization process, I have included with my statement, FBI summary excerpts from the Department of Justice’s 2004 Authorization and Budget Request. 

Today, I would like to highlight some of the concrete steps the FBI has taken to 

improve cooperation and information sharing with the Intelligence Community, 

other government agencies and our very essential partners at the state and local 

level. These initiatives touch each of your districts and are an unprecedented commitment to ensuring that information sharing and operational coordination succeeds 

at all levels. 

To enhance cooperation with federal, state and local agencies, we have almost 

doubled (from 35 pre-9/11 to 66) the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) 

operating today. The JTTFs partner FBI personnel with hundreds of investigators 

from various federal, state and local agencies in FBI field offices across the country. 

As part of this expansion, we are providing 500 JTTF agents and state and local 

law enforcement personnel with specialized counterterrorism training and by the 

end of the year, basic counterterrorism training to every JTTF member. We also are 

expanding basic counterterrorism training on a national level and estimate that almost 27,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers will ultimately benefit 

from these FBI training initiatives. JTTFs are truly our first-line of defense. 

To improve the effectiveness of our expanding JTTF base, in July 2002, we established the National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) at FBI Headquarters. 

Staffed by representatives from 30 different federal, state and local agencies, the 

NJTTF serves as a ‘‘point of fusion’’ for terrorism information by coordinating the 

flow of information across the country between the represented agencies and the 

JTTFs in the field. 

On a weekly basis over 17,000 law enforcement agencies receive the ‘‘FBI Intelligence Bulletin’’ providing needed information on terrorism issues and threats particularly to patrol officers and other law enforcement personnel who have direct contact with the general public. 

For the Intelligence Community, the FBI also prepares ‘‘I ntelligence Information 

Reports’’ that provide FBI information and analysis on counter-intelligence and 

counter-terrorism matters. In the last 6 months alone, over 1,200 of these reports 

have been prepared and disseminated. 

To further strengthen the FBI’s ability to forge more cooperative relationships 

with our state and local counterparts, the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination 

was created. Headed by a former Chief of Police, this vital office also has liaison 

responsibilities with the White House Homeland Security Council. 

I would also like to note that besides enhancing our cooperative efforts at home, 

the FBI has expanded its liaison efforts overseas and we know have 45 Legal Attache offices. These offices are vital links in following up terrorist leads around the 

world. 

As you well know, the FBI’s investigative efforts depend on state-of-the-art technology and I want to report that tremendous progress is being made in this critical 

area. Over 21,000 new desktop computers and nearly 5,000 printers and scanners 

have been provided and high-speed local area networks have been deployed in over 

600 FBI locations. I understand that we still have a long way to go but I want to 

thank the Subcommittee for the support it has provided on these critical technology 

issues. 

In closing, I want to assure you that the men and women of the FBI are fully 

committed to today’s challenges much like their colleagues 60 years ago. With the 

vital tools that you have provided, I am confident that we can carry out our mission 

to protect America. 

18

Again, I offer my gratitude and appreciation for your giving me this opportunity 

to appear before the Subcommittee and I will be happy to respond to any questions.

ATTACHMENT


Damuro1.eps
19


Damuro2.eps
20


Damuro3.eps
21


Damuro4.eps
22


Damuro5.eps
23


Damuro6.eps
24


Damuro7.eps
25


Damuro8.eps
26


Damuro9.eps
27


Damuro10.eps
28


Damuro11.eps
29


Damuro12.eps
30

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Hankinson. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. HANKINSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HANKINSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of 

Director Brad Buckles, representing the men and women of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Thank you 

again for this opportunity to testify. 

This is our first time before this Subcommittee as part of the Department of Justice, and I am confident you will find that ATF provides great value to the American people. As you previously mentioned, we trace our roots back to 1791 to the time of Alexander 

Hamilton. Since that time we have been granted and maintain jurisdiction over Federal firearms enforcement and regulation, and 

we investigate crimes committed via arson and explosives, as well 

as investigate tobacco smuggling. Above all, our mission today is to 

reduce violent crime and protect the public. We currently have 

somewhat over 2,300 special agents, about 660 inspectors, and 

1,800 other employees who support our mission. 

In fiscal year 2002, we initiated 27,241 firearms investigations. 

Our criminal referrals in the past year have resulted in over 6,600 

indictments and more than 5,100 convictions. 

On January 24 of this year, the Homeland Security Act transferred the public safety functions of ATF, both law enforcement and 

regulatory, to the Department of Justice. The revenue collection 

and consumer protection functions previously performed by ATF remain in the Department of the Treasury. A great deal of time, effort, and resources were devoted to ensure a seamless transition, 

and we believe these efforts have been successful. 

The Department of Justice, we believe, clearly is the right place 

for the newly configured ATF. We share a common cause in law enforcement, we share a common mission in protecting the public, 

and we share a deep commitment to ensuring a safer America. 

We believe that AFT’s mission and expertise will complement 

other Justice Department assets and agencies as we work together 

to defeat the Nation’s number one threat, terrorism. We have 

worked with the Justice components in the past, and those experiences have proven positive to the American public. We look forward 

to strengthening this ongoing relationship. In no way does this 

transfer duplicate missions within DOJ, because ATF and each 

Justice component brings unique jurisdiction, missions, responsibilities and talents to the table. 

This transition has been smooth, but ATF does face significant 

challenges in what remains of 2003 and into 2004 as a result of a 

significant increase in responsibilities from the new explosive control laws. The Safe Explosives Act was included in the larger 

Homeland Security Act, amended Federal explosive laws enforced 

by ATF since 1970. It expands the categories of persons prohibited 

from purchasing or possessing explosives, requires a Federal permit of all retail purchasers of explosives, and mandates additional 

ATF inspection activity. 

31

ATF currently has less than 500 inspectors to police over 100,000 

firearms licensees and over 8,000 explosive licensees and permittees. With the new permit requirements of the Safe Explosive Act, 

the number of explosive permittees is expected to increase significantly. ATF aims by this law to keep explosives out of the hands 

of those who would use them against us, while facilitating the acquisition of explosives for use in industry and agriculture. Despite 

these challenges, the men and women of ATF continue to perform 

as dedicated professionals and reliable partners in our enforcement 

of the Nation’s firearms, explosives, arson, and alcohol and tobacco 

diversion laws. 

ATF is a proud participant in the President’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative. And while the threat of terrorism from outside 

the United States is real, the criminal misuse of firearms and resulting loss of life is a daily event. Recent statistics show that more 

than 10,000 lives are lost annually to criminals with guns, and for 

every fatal shooting there are three nonfatal shootings. Untold 

numbers of people are terrorized each year by the threatened use 

of a gun. While we are ever alert to the possible terrorist angle to 

everything that we do, the overwhelming majority of our work is 

directed at reducing gun violence in the streets and neighborhoods 

of this great Nation. 

The President’s Project Safe Neighborhoods provides for the effective use of Federal resources through a series of locally designed 

and driven anticrime efforts. We have a lead role in this effort, and 

we are in approximately in this effort in over 100 areas in the 

United States. 

The Youth Crime Gun Initiative is also a main component. The 

idea here is to prevent our youth from illegally possessing firearms. 

I want to thank you for taking the time to permit me to testify 

today. We look forward to working with you and the other Committees charged with the oversight of the Department of Justice and 

its components. And I will be happy at any time to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Hankinson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hankinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. HANKINSON

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be 

here this afternoon on behalf Director Buckles, representing the men and women 

of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify. 

This is our first time before this committee as a part of the Department of Justice 

and I am confident you will find that ATF provides great value to the American 

public, and that we are responsive, thoughtful and effective in the way in which we 

approach our business. I am equally confident that—as you get to know ATF—you 

will come to share my pride in its people and their accomplishments. 

ATF traces our roots to 1791, when Alexander Hamilton imposed the first Federal 

tax on distilled spirits. The collection of this tax by revenue officers appointed by 

President Washington was no easy task and, in some cases, was met with violent 

physical resistance, such as the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. 

Since then we have been granted and maintained jurisdiction over Federal firearms enforcement and regulation; and we investigate crimes committed via arson 

and explosives, as well as investigate tobacco smuggling. Above all, our mission 

today is to reduce violent crime and protect the public. We currently have 2305 special agents; 666(check number on backgrounder) inspectors and 1810 other employees who support our mission. 

32

In fiscal year 2002, ATF initiated 27,241 firearms investigations (including nearly 

13,000 NICS referrals). ATF criminal case referrals have resulted in over 6,660 indictments and more than 5,l00 convictions in fiscal year 2002. Also in fiscal year 

2002, ATF initiated 3,221 arson and explosives investigations that resulted in 780 

defendants recommended for prosecution. Additional arson and explosives cases resulted in 421 indictments and 430 convictions during fiscal year 2002. 

ATF’s experience has resulted in our assisting in every major explosives investigation in the United States, including: the World Trade Center bombing of 1993; the 

Murrah Federal Building bombing, and the terrorist acts of September 2001 in New 

York, the Pentagon, and western Pennsylvania. It was during these major events 

that ATF contributed unique skills, knowledge and jurisdiction while working closely with other law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State and local levels. 

On January 24 of this year, the Homeland Security Act transferred the public 

safety functions of ATF, both law enforcement and regulatory, to the Department 

of Justice. The revenue collection (including related law enforcement authorities) 

and consumer protection functions previously preformed by ATF remain in the Department of the Treasury. A great deal of time, effort, and resources were devoted 

to ensuring a seamless transition, and we believe those efforts have been successful. 

The Department of Justice is the right place for the newly configured ATF. We 

share a common cause in law enforcement. We share a common mission in protecting the public. And we share a deep commitment to ensuring a safer America. 

We believe that ATF’s mission and expertise will complement other Justice Department assets and agencies as we work together to defeat the nation’s number one 

threat: terrorism. We have worked with Justice components in the past and those 

experiences have proven positive to the American public. We look forward to 

strengthening this on-going relationship. In no way does this transfer duplicate missions within DOJ because ATF and each Justice component brings unique jurisdiction, missions, responsibilities, and talents to the table. 

The transition has been smooth, but ATF does face significant challenges in what 

remains of 2003, and into 2004 as a result of a significant increase in responsibilities from the new explosives control laws. The Safe Explosives Act, approved by 

this committee and included in the larger Homeland Security Act, amended Federal 

Explosives laws enforced by ATF since 1970. It expands the categories of persons 

prohibited from purchasing or possessing explosives, requires a federal permit of all 

retail purchasers of explosives, and mandates additional ATF inspection activity. 

The new categories of prohibited persons include non-permanent resident aliens, 

persons who have renounced their US citizenship and persons dishonorably discharged from the military. The Safe Explosives Act also requires background checks 

on all purchasers of explosives, and in some cases, on the employees of companies 

that purchase explosives. Today, a purchaser merely self-certifies on a form that he 

is not a prohibited person. Beginning this month, May 24, no one will be able to 

lawfully purchase explosives without a license or permit issued by ATF. 

The new law also mandates that we physically inspect permit premises to ensure 

compliance with rules on the safe and secure storage of explosives. Although the 

timing and frequency of these inspections varies with the type of permit, the new 

law still mandates more inspection work than ATF has performed in the past. 

ATF currently has less than 500 inspectors to police over 100,000 firearms licensees and over 8,000 explosives licensees and permitees. With the new permit requirements of the Safe Explosives Act, the number explosives permittees is expected to 

increase by a minimum of 10,000. ATF aims, by this law, to keep explosives out of 

the hands of those who would use them against us, while facilitating the acquisition 

of explosives for use in industry and agriculture. 

Despite these challenges, the men and women of ATF continue to perform as dedicated professionals and reliable partners in our enforcement of our nation’s firearms, explosives, arson and alcohol and tobacco diversion laws. Perhaps the most 

effective way to provide a clearer picture of their work is to highlight ATF’s involvement in several high profile cases over the past few months.

• This past fall, nearly 650 ATF special agents, forensic lab personnel, firearms 

examiners, and support staff joined forces with other law enforcement agencies in the DC Sniper case. This on-going investigation crossed state and 

international borders and is one of the very best examples of the strong law 

enforcement partnerships that ATF has built over the years.

• In February, ATF agents in Rhode Island responded to one of the worst nightclub fires in our Nation’s history which resulted in 99 deaths. ATF special 

agents and our National Response Team responded immediately and evidence 

gathered at the fire scene is currently being examined and analyzed at ATF’s 

National Laboratory.

33

• During 2002, an ATF investigation in North Carolina resulted in convictions 

for contraband cigarette trafficking, money laundering, and providing material support to a terrorist organization. The case revealed a conspiracy where 

in the defendants were illegally trafficking cigarettes between North Carolina 

and Michigan, and through various methods funneling the profits back to the 

Hezbollah.

In addition to these and many other important criminal investigations, ATF is a 

proud participant in the President’s Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative. While the 

threat of terrorism from outside the United States is real, the criminal misuse of 

firearms and the resulting loss of life is a daily event. Recent statistics show that 

more than 10,000 lives are lost annually to criminals with a gun, and for every fatal 

shooting there were three non-fatal shootings. Untold numbers of people are terrorized each year by the threatened use of a gun. While we are ever alert to a possible 

terrorist angle to everything we do, the overwhelming majority of our work is directed at reducing gun violence in the streets and neighborhoods of this great nation. 

The President’s Project Safe Neighborhood provides for the effective use of Federal 

resources through a series of locally designed and driven anti-crime efforts. ATF anchors the Federal enforcement efforts in projects around the country. United States 

Attorneys leads PSN initiatives by bringing State and local police and prosecutors 

together with ATF and other federal resources to develop unified strategies tailored 

to the problems of particular communities. 

One component of PSN is specifically designed to protect our youth. The Youth 

Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative seeks to reduce firearms-related violence among 

our nation’s youth by identifying and interrupting the sources of illegal firearms. 

This program is due to be expanded from 50 to 60 cities in FY 2004. 

This is but a snapshot of what we do. Thank you for taking the time to permit 

me to testify today. We look forward to working with you and the other committees 

charged with the oversight of the Department of Justice and its components. I 

would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Guevara. 

STATEMENT OF ROGELIO E. GUEVARA, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. GUEVARA. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me 

to appear today before you for the first time in my capacity as the 

Drug Enforcement Administration’s Chief of Operations to discuss 

DEA’s reauthorization. On behalf of Acting Administrator William 

B. Simpkins and all the men and women of the DEA, I want to 

thank you and the entire Subcommittee for their continued support 

of the DEA and its mission. 

The DEA employs a universal approach in enforcing the provisions of the controlled substances and chemical diversion trafficking laws and regulations of the United States. As a single-mission agency, DEA’s only focus is reducing drug trafficking abuse in 

America. There is much work to be done. Worldwide drug trafficking generates billions of dollars in illicit proceeds, sometimes 

used by criminal and terrorist organizations to carry out horrific 

acts against law-abiding citizens and established governments, including the United States. 

In 1973, DEA’s first budget was $74 million and covered 2,868 

special agents and support personnel. In 2003, DEA’s enacted appropriation was 1.6 billion, and our authorized positions have 

reached 8,475 employees that are deployed worldwide. 

To address America’s drug threat, DEA has instituted a number 

of strategic enforcement, intelligence, and support programs. I 

would like to share a few of them with you today. 

34

In April of 2001, DEA initiated the Priority Drug Trafficking Organization, or PDTO, initiative. This system was developed as a 

clear and specific enforcement objective targeting the highest levels 

of drug trafficking organizations by disrupting the networks that 

link them. Since April 2001, DEA has initiated approximately 

1,200 PDTO cases, which has resulted in the disruption of 158 organizations and the dismantling of 187 others. 

The DEA’s State and Local Task Force Program, a key to our 

successes, continues to foster productive relationships and enhance 

coordination. These task forces account for nearly 40 percent of all 

DEA case initiations and seizures. Recognizing the value of this 

program, the President’s 2004 budget provides for an additional $4 

million for additional task force officers. 

To augment DEA’s enforcement operations, one of our most enforcement programs, the Special Operations Division, or SOD, is a 

DEA-led division with participation from the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Internal Revenue 

Service, and the Department of Justice Criminal Division. SOD’s 

mission is to coordinate the dismantling of national and international drug trafficking organizations by attacking their command 

and control communications. The unique investigative support provided by SOD allows the program to act as a force multiplier for 

drug law enforcement because it provides an effective medium for 

communication, intelligence sharing, and coordination among 

America’s major drug law enforcement agencies. I have listed several of our enforcement operations in my written statement. Let me 

share two cases with you now. 

Operation Webslinger was the first national operation that targeted organizations utilizing the Internet to traffic predatory drugs. 

Culminating in September 2002, it resulted in the arrest of 170 individuals and the seizure of 3,600 gallons of GHB, GBL, BD, other 

illegal drugs, and $2.4 million in currency. 

Operation Mountain Express III, an investigation targeting 

pseudoephedrine suppliers from Mexican methamphetamine 

superlabs, revealed that proceeds from sales of Canadian 

pseudoephedrine were being funneled through traditional hawala 

networks to individuals in the Middle East. This operation resulted 

in the arrest of 136 subjects and the seizure of 35 tons of 

pseudoephedrine and the seizure of $4.5 million. 

Regarding DEA’s Office of International Operations, our presence 

has grown to 79 offices in 58 countries. Foreign operations enables 

DEA to share intelligence, coordinate and develop worldwide drug 

strategy and cooperation with our host countries. These offices support DEA domestic investigations through foreign liaison, training 

for our host country officials, bilateral investigations, and intelligence gathering. 

The Intelligence Division, another integral DEA component, provides dedicated analytical support to our investigations, programs, 

and operations worldwide. DEA’s Intelligence Division has been active in international cooperation, strengthening the bilateral drug 

intelligence working groups. 

DEA’s Office of International Control focuses on the illegal diversion of legitimately produced controlled substances and listed 

35

chemicals, while ensuring adequate supplies for legitimate needs. 

Among Diversion’s initiatives are a national program to prevent diversion of Oxycodone, and an international partnership to prevent 

global diversion of key chemicals used in the illicit production of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine-type stimulants. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, DEA remains committed to our primary goal of targeting and arresting the most significant traffickers in the world, and we will continue to work in close partnership with our local, State, Federal, and international counterparts 

to target drug trafficking groups who spread misery and false hope 

to our American citizens. 

Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me 

here today, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Guevara. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guevara follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGELIO E. GUEVARA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) employs a universal approach in enforcing the provisions of the controlled substances and chemical diversion trafficking 

laws and regulations of the United States. As a single mission agency, DEA is strictly focused on reducing drug trafficking and abuse in America, which continues to 

bring misery to America’s cities and children. DEA’s strong presence, both domestically and internationally, enables the agency to focus its resources on the most substantial drug trafficking organizations impacting the United States. 

DEA’s primary duty is to provide the best drug law enforcement agency to the 

American people, thereby reducing America’s abuse of illicit drugs. America’s efforts 

to reduce drug abuse have resulted in various successes. However, there is still much 

work to be done. Worldwide drug trafficking generates billions of dollars in illicit 

proceeds, sometimes used by criminal and terrorist organizations to carry out horrific 

acts against law-abiding citizens and established governments, including the United 

States. 

To combat America’s drug threat, DEA has instituted a number of strategic enforcement and intelligence programs and initiatives, which the Subcommittee should 

be aware of as it considers a new authorization bill, including:

• DEA’s Priority Drug Trafficking Organization (PDTO) initiative will focus 

substantial resources in its 21 nationwide field divisions on local, regional, national and international drug organizations significantly impacting the drug 

supply;

• DEA’s Intelligence Division vigorously focuses on intelligence driven targeting, 

in support of DEA’s strategic goal to identify, target, investigate, disrupt and 

dismantle the most substantial drug trafficking groups;

• DEA’s Operational Support Division has implemented significant changes regarding their management, technology, facilities and oversight, which has resulted in cost effective operations more efficient, expeditious and systematically 

run programs;

• DEA’s Demand Reduction Program, an element of our enforcement strategy, 

compliments DEA’s investigative operations by educating the media, law enforcement, the public at large and anti-drug groups, through initiatives such 

as Operation X-Out and Meth in America: Not in Our Town.

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my distinct pleasure to appear before you for the first time in my 

capacity as the Chief of Operations of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). 

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize you and the members of 

the subcommittee for your outstanding support of the mission and men and women 

of the DEA. I look forward to a continued productive and cooperative relationship 

with the subcommittee, as we work to advance DEA’s mission and objectives. 

36

THE DEA MISSION

The mission of DEA is to enforce the Controlled Substances laws and regulations 

of the United States and to bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the U.S., 

or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations involved in the growing, 

manufacturing or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for 

illicit traffic in the United States. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STRATEGY

On March 19, 2002, the Attorney General announced a six-part drug strategy for 

the Department of Justice, which was squarely focused on reducing the availability 

of illegal drugs to Americans. Given the inherent relationship between drug supply 

and drug demand, the Department’s strategy plays a pivotal role in achieving the 

President’s overall goal of reducing drug use. Specifically, the Attorney General’s 

strategy mounts a comprehensive multi-level attack on drug trafficking and money 

laundering organizations, as the central means of accomplishing Priority III of the 

President’s National Drug Control Strategy—Disrupting the Drug Market. That 

strategy consists of six key elements:

Reduce the supply of drugs available in the United States by 10 percent.

Through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), engage the talent and resources of all of the federal law enforcement agencies to 

identify and target the major trafficking organizations responsible for the U.S. 

drug supply across the nine OCDETF regions.

Create, for the first time, a unified national list of drug organization targets—

the consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) list—developed collaboratively by federal drug enforcement agencies.

Emphasize financial investigations to eliminate the infrastructure of drug organizations and remove the profits from these organizations through asset forfeiture.

Undertake a substantial redirection of resources to the drug importation and 

bulk distribution ‘‘hot spots’’ so that federal resources are realigned, commensurate with the current drug threat.

Conduct expanded investigations that move simultaneously in many districts 

against the different parts of the targeted organizations in order to eliminate their 

ability to supply illegal drugs to Americans. 

DEA’S STRATEGY

To accomplish this mission, DEA has specific long-range goals and objectives to 

target and immobilize major drug trafficking organizations operating at all levels 

of the drug trade. DEA directs investigative resources toward every angle of drug 

trafficking groups, using both traditional and innovative drug control approaches. 

This overall strategic approach is based on the recognition that the major drug traffickers, operating both internationally and domestically, have insulated themselves 

from the drug distribution networks but remain closely linked to the proceeds of 

their trade. Consequently, the identification and forfeiture of illicitly derived assets 

is a powerful means to successfully destroy the economic base of the drug trafficking 

organization, as well as a means of proving a connection between violators and a 

criminal drug conspiracy at the time of prosecution. 

DEA’s investigative efforts continue to be directed against major international 

drug trafficking organizations and their facilitators at every juncture in their operations—from the cultivation and production of drugs in foreign countries, to their 

passage through the transit zone, and eventual distribution on the streets of America’s communities. DEA’s Strategic Plan takes into account its management infrastructure and the current drug trafficking situation affecting the United States and 

works to identify the characteristics and exploit the vulnerabilities of all three levels 

of the drug trade. By focusing directly on the agency’s investigative priority targeting system, DEA responds to each of the following levels, simultaneously: 

International Targets: DEA will eliminate the power and control of the major drug 

trafficking organizations and dismantle their infrastructure by disrupting and dismantling the operations of their supporting organizations that provide raw materials and chemicals, produce and transship illicit drugs, launder money worldwide 

and halt the operations of their surrogates in the United States. 

National/Regional Targets: DEA will continue an aggressive and balanced enforcement program with a multi-jurisdictional approach designed to help focus Federal and interagency resources on illegal drug traffickers, their organizations and 

37

key members who have control of an area within a region of the United States, and 

the drugs and assets involved in their activities. 

Local Initiatives: DEA will continue to assist States and localities in attacking the 

violence that plagues our cities, rural areas and small towns to protect our citizens 

from the impact of drugs and help restore a positive quality of life. (DEA considers 

this an important part of its overall strategy to complement the state and local efforts with specialized programs that bring DEA’s intelligence, expertise and leadership into specific trouble spots throughout the nation.) 

Management and Infrastructure: DEA will develop a secure and effective infrastructure and ensure that management oversight provides DEA personnel with the 

tools necessary to get the job done. DEA must also have the systems and structures 

to monitor its programs carefully, comply with reporting and information sharing 

requirements and manage its finite resources efficiently. 

THE TASK: DOMESTIC DRUG TRENDS AND TRAFFICKING PATTERNS

The drug market in the United States is one of the most diverse and profitable 

illegal enterprises in the world. Drug trafficking organizations exploit legal and geographic vulnerabilities and demonstrate a high-degree of flexibility in their operations to evade law enforcement. Consequently, the deployment of DEA’s counterdrug resources remains flexible in order to respond to the dynamics of the illicit 

drug trade. 

MARIJUANA

Marijuana is the most widely abused and most readily available illicit drug in the 

United States and is available in varying degrees in every state in the union. Although precise estimates for the source of marijuana consumed in the United States 

cannot be made, marijuana smuggled into the United States, whether grown in 

Mexico, Colombia, or Jamaica, accounts for a large share of the marijuana available 

in the United States. High potency marijuana also enters the country from Canada. 

However, based on eradication statistics, domestic production is increasing. In the 

United States, cannabis is mainly cultivated in remote locations and frequently on 

public lands. 

Mexican-based traffickers, with extensive networks in the United States, control 

poly-drug smuggling and wholesale distribution from hub cities to retail markets 

throughout the country. Mexican marijuana primarily enters the United States 

through entry points along the Southwest Border. Multi-ton amounts are often 

smuggled in tractor-trailers. 

COCAINE

Colombian organizations control the worldwide supply of cocaine and move cocaine by land, sea and air. These groups have ceded an increasing role in cocaine 

trafficking to Mexican-based trafficking organizations that smuggle cocaine from 

Mexico into the United States. Colombian traffickers control wholesale-level cocaine 

distribution in the Northeast, while Mexican traffickers control distribution 

throughout the West and Midwest. 

Southeastern ports, most notably Miami, Houston and New Orleans, are the primary maritime arrival zones, while cities along the Southwest Border are arrival 

and distribution points for overland cocaine movement. Chicago is a critical distribution hub for Mexican-based cocaine trafficking organizations, while New York City 

remains under the control of Colombian-based organizations. 

HEROIN

Heroin is readily available in many U.S. cities, as evidenced by its high purity 

at the street-level. Heroin from the four source areas—South America, Southeast 

Asia, Mexico and Southwest Asia—reaches the United States. Virtually all heroin 

produced in Mexico and South America is destined for the U.S. market. 

Since the mid-1990s, when Colombian traffickers penetrated the market with 

high-purity, low-priced heroin, South American heroin has dominated the market in 

the eastern half of the country. Couriers traveling on commercial airlines are the 

primary smugglers of Colombian heroin to the United States, and their primary 

entry points are Miami and New York. Mexican heroin continues to dominate the 

market west of the Mississippi and is generally smuggled overland through Southwest Border states. Southwest and Southeast Asian heroin are available in the 

Northeast and North Central sections of the country. 

38

METHAMPHETAMINE

Domestic methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse are concentrated in 

the western, southwestern and mid-western sections of the United States. Although 

outlaw motorcycle gangs traditionally controlled methamphetamine production and 

trafficking, criminal groups composed of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans now 

produce most of the domestic methamphetamine. Methamphetamine produced in 

large-capacity laboratories, primarily located in the western and southwestern 

United States or Mexico, is transported via passenger vehicle across the country. 

Many of the largest methamphetamine laboratories can be found in California. 

Thousands of small independent laboratories, especially in the Midwest, produce 

gram or ounce quantities of methamphetamine, primarily for personal use or smallscale distribution. 

MDMA (3,4-METHYLENEDIOXYMETHAMPHETAMINE)

MDMA (Ecstasy, XTC, Hug Drug), a hallucinogen with stimulant properties that 

is primarily produced in the Netherlands, remains the most prevalent of all the socalled club drugs in the United States. Often distributed at nightclubs and ‘‘raves,’’

all-night dance parties, it is widely abused by middle-class teenagers and young professionals. In Fiscal Year 2001, the U.S. Customs Service seized approximately 7.2 

million MDMA tablets. MDMA tablets smuggled into the United States from Europe 

are destined for distribution primarily in New York City, Miami and Los Angeles. 

OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS

Often referred to as designer or club drugs, these illicit drugs, primarily synthetic, 

vary widely in their psychoactive effects and are most commonly encountered at 

nightclubs and ‘‘raves.’’ In addition to MDMA, the most widely available club drugs 

include the depressant/predatory drug GHB and the hallucinogens PCP and LSD. 

These drugs have gained popularity principally due to the false perception that they 

are not as harmful, nor as addictive, as mainstream drugs such as cocaine and 

methamphetamine. The United Nations recently stated that, if current trends continue, ‘‘synthetic drugs’’ like MDMA and predatory drugs will be the number one 

drug problem in the world. 

The synthetic substances, 5-MeO-DIPT, known by the street name ‘‘Foxy’’ or 

‘‘Foxy Methoxy,’’ and alpha-methyltryptamine (AMT), are being reported as new 

drugs of abuse in limited areas of the United States. These substances, which 

produce hallucinogenic effects, are indicative of a trend in which many non-controlled synthetic substances are sold to capitalize on the current popularity of club 

drugs, especially MDMA. Recognizing this problem, DEA temporarily placed these 

two drugs in Schedule I, in April 2003. 

THE RESPONSE: DOMESTIC OPERATIONS

In 1973, DEA was comprised of 2,868 Special Agents and support personnel. 

Today, DEA has 8,475 authorized positions worldwide, including Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts, Diversion Investigators and Chemists. DEA’s first budget was 

$74 million. In 2003, our enacted appropriation was $1.6 billion. Domestically, DEA 

maintains 21 Field Divisions, with offices in every State and the Special Operations 

Division at DEA Headquarters. At the core of DEA’s operational successes lie specific programs and initiatives to combat America’s greatest drug trafficking threats. 

In April 2001, DEA initiated the Priority Drug Trafficking Organization (PDTO) 

initiative. The PDTO system was developed as a clear and specific enforcement objective targeting drug trafficking organizations by disrupting the networks that link 

them. PDTOs are regionally identified by field divisions as investigations of drug 

trafficking organizations that control the highest known level of the drug trafficking 

hierarchy. 

PDTO investigations must reveal that the organization is stable and deals violently with members of its organization, competitors, clients, law enforcement officers, or citizens. Large-scale drug trafficking organizations use sophisticated techniques such as business fronts and the use of the Internet to facilitate their criminal 

activity. Their methodology consists of money laundering schemes, established lines 

of command and control, establishment of drug manufacturing, importation, transportation and distribution cells and diversion of controlled substances or precursor 

chemicals. 

Since April 2001, DEA has initiated 1,276 PDTO cases. Of those cases, 158 organizations have been disrupted and 187 have been dismantled. Currently, there are 

911 open, active PDTO investigations within DEA. 

39

The greatest impact in combating drug trafficking organizations has been made 

when the full concentration of federal resources are brought to bear on these individuals and organizations through the efforts of the Department of Justice’s OCDETF program. Just as when the program was originally initiated, DEA remains 

the leading initiator of OCDETF cases within the federal law enforcement community. The OCDETF program functions through the investigative, intelligence and 

support staffs of DEA; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and components of the Department of Homeland 

Security, as well as the efforts of the U.S. Attorneys, the Internal Revenue Service, 

the U.S. Coast Guard and state and local law enforcement agencies. 

The primary goal of each OCDETF investigation is to reduce the availability of 

drugs in America by strategically targeting and eliminating those trafficking organizations responsible for supplying the largest amounts of drugs. The OCDETF member agencies determine connections to related investigations, nationwide, in order to 

identify and dismantle the entire structure of the drug trafficking organization 

(DTO). OCDETF investigations emphasize disrupting the financial dealings and dismantling the financial infrastructure that supports the DTO. DEA’s State and Local 

Task Forces and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)-funded groups are 

engaged as partners with the OCDETF program and enhance the effectiveness and 

success of the OCDETF program. 

Complementing DEA’s PDTO and OCDETF initiatives, the DEA State and Local 

Task Force (SLTF) Program continues to foster productive relationships and enhance cooperation and coordination with our state and local counterparts in the enforcement of federal drug laws. These SLTFs address drug problems of concern in 

the geographic regions where they operate. State and local agencies that participate 

in this program are actually force multipliers, which add additional resources to 

DEA. Statistically, DEA SLTFs account for approximately 40 percent of all DEA 

case initiations and seizures. 

It is important to emphasize that there are no real operational differences between the types of cases conducted by DEA Task Forces and DEA’s regular enforcement groups. This program provides numerous advantages to both the DEA and 

participating agencies. DEA is able to share resources and expertise with state and 

local law enforcement, thereby increasing investigative results. The SLTF Program 

also allows state and local officers to be federally deputized, thus extending their 

jurisdiction. The SLTF Program is a significant asset to DEA and America’s efforts 

to curb drug trafficking and abuse. 

And finally, the HIDTA program is a national strategy providing Federal assistance in coordinating law enforcement efforts of local, state and Federal entities in 

areas where major drug production, manufacturing, importation or distribution 

flourish to such a degree that they have harmful effects on other parts of the country. DEA maintains a strong ongoing commitment to the HIDTA program, addressing regional drug problems of concern. The DEA continues to achieve success in 

HIDTA-funded initiatives through cooperation and coordination with our state and 

local counterparts in the enforcement of federal drug laws. 

DEA currently oversees and directly supervises 48 HIDTA-funded task forces located in DEA offices, consisting of 527 Task Force Officers. Over 300 DEA Special 

Agents work within HIDTA initiatives to share and develop narcotics intelligence 

and pursue joint investigations. DEA’s commitment to the HIDTA program has resulted in significant HIDTA program successes, in furtherance of the Department 

of Justice’s Domestic Drug Enforcement Strategy. 

In furtherance of our mission, DEA has conducted numerous significant investigations. I would like to share a few of DEA’s notable investigations with the Subcommittee.

• In July 2001, the DEA Miami HIDTA Task Force initiated an international 

investigation that identified a worldwide MDMA distribution network operating in Colombia, Israel, the Netherlands and the United States. Title III 

intercepts, undercover operations and search warrants resulted in the seizure 

of approximately 2 million MDMA pills and more than $2 million. Nine of the 

organizational leaders were arrested in Spain, Colombia and the United 

States. The investigation also determined that Israeli organized crime elements were financing the smuggling operation and obtaining the MDMA from 

the sources of supply in Holland. In January 2003, as a result of the international scope of this investigation, the authorities in Switzerland froze additional accounts of the organization totaling $1.5 million. The investigation is 

active and continuing.

• In September 2001, the FBI initiated the undercover investigation in Houston, Texas. The target was attempting to obtain $25 million worth of EastVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.000 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
40

bloc military weapons for the AUC, a Colombian terrorist organization, in exchange for cocaine and U.S. Currency. In April 2002, DEA Houston HIDTA 

Major Drug Squad (MDS) 6 became involved in the investigation. To date, the 

investigation has revealed that the original PDTO target has been a long-time 

member of an international drug trafficking organization responsible for the 

importation of more than 50 tons of cocaine into the United States. The undercover operation resulted in the arrest of four defendants in connection 

with the weapons deal, three of which occurred in Costa Rica.

• In October 2002, an international MDMA investigation conducted in Belgium, 

Israel and the United States culminated with three arrests in New York City. 

The case began with the seizure of 1.4 million tablets of MDMA in Antwerp, 

Belgium, by the Belgian Federal Police—the largest MDMA seizure in Europe 

to date and the third largest MDMA seizure in the United States. The shipment had a retail value of approximately $42 million. During the course of 

the investigation, the Israeli National Police identified the shipment as part 

of an ongoing investigation targeting a group of Israeli nationals. These individuals were affiliated with violent, organized crime elements in Israel.

• Oliver BEASLEY, identified as a major cocaine and heroin distributor in the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area, was the leader of an organization responsible 

for the distribution of 50–100 kilograms of cocaine and at least 12 kilograms 

of heroin, per month. Direct evidence has corroborated that at least 11 heroin 

overdose deaths, from January 2002 to March 2002 in the Pittsburgh area, 

were attributed to the heroin bearing the stamps of this organization. To 

date, 45 individuals have been indicted and arrested. The seizure of the organization’s assets total in excess of $8.6 million dollars, including U.S. Currency, real estate, jewelry, vehicles and businesses 12 weapons, three and a 

half kilograms of heroin, a half-kilogram of crack cocaine and three-quarters 

kilogram of cocaine. 

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

DEA’s Office of International Operations maintains 79 offices in 58 countries. 

These offices support DEA domestic investigations through foreign liaison, training 

for host country officials, bilateral investigations and intelligence gathering. The 

DEA’s international presence is an invaluable asset in the pursuit of drug traffickers in all areas of the world. Foreign operations enables DEA to share intelligence and coordinate and develop a worldwide drug strategy, in cooperation with 

our host countries. The DEA’s foreign operations are managed in five sections: 

Southeast Asia, Central America/Mexico, South America, Europe/Middle East and 

the Caribbean. 

SOUTHEAST ASIA

Southeast Asia covers fifteen country offices. Intelligence indicates that, although 

there has been a marked decrease in the amount of Southeast Asian heroin seized 

in the U.S., Southeast Asian heroin continues to pose a threat to the United States. 

A shift in U.S. heroin trafficking trends could easily result in the resurgence of 

Southeast Asian heroin. Southeast Asian heroin has the broadest U.S. geographical 

distribution. The most visible trafficking organizations operating in Bangkok are the 

West African groups. In addition, DEA offices in Southeast Asia have reported an 

increase in methamphetamine production/abuse. The methamphetamine epidemic 

has negatively affected many U.S. strategic partners in this area, including the Philippines, Japan and Thailand. 

DEA has supported significant investigations in Southeast Asia. In April 2002, an 

investigation with host country counter-parts culminated in the seizure of approximately 317 kilograms of heroin and the arrest of 13 subjects. This investigation is 

significant, as it was the first time that the exchange of ‘‘real-time intelligence’’ had 

led to a major seizure in China. 

MEXICO

Central America/Mexico covers fifteen country offices. Current reporting indicates 

that the Southwest Border remains the point of entry for the majority of all illicit 

drugs smuggled into the United States. The Mexico-Central America corridor is currently the predominant route for cocaine movement to the United States, with an 

estimated 72 percent of the cocaine transiting this corridor. Mexico also supplies 

heroin, methamphetamine and a significant amount of the marijuana consumed in 

the United States. 

41

The U.S. diplomatic and DEA presence in Mexico is one of the largest outside the 

United States. The Government of Mexico (GOM) and DEA have achieved great successes in drug interdiction and eradication. Bilateral cooperation and the exchange 

of information have been unprecedented under President Vincente Fox-Quesada’s 

administration. Under his Administration, the GOM has pursued every major drug 

trafficking organization (DTO). However, despite recent successes, Mexico still faces 

daunting and significant challenges in the areas of counter-narcotics, its legal system and anti-corruption effort. 

Significant arrests of prominent Mexican DTOs have been made by the GOM over 

the last two years. In March 2002, Special Forces of the Mexican Army, in conjunction with the Mexican Organized Crime Unit, arrested Benjamin Arellano-Felix, 

leader and patriarch of the Arellano-Felix drug trafficking organization. Mexican 

authorities charged Arellano-Felix with money laundering, organized delinquency 

and trafficking in marijuana, cocaine and heroin. He is also indicted in the Southern 

District of California with operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, money laundering and drug conspiracy charges. Arellano-Felix led one of the most powerful and 

violent drug cartels in Mexico since the 1980, transporting ton quantities of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin into the United States, through the 

Tijuana and Mexicali corridors. 

SOUTH AMERICA

The South America section covers fifteen country offices. The DEA in South America and, in particular, the Bogota, Colombia Country Office (BCO), is aggressively 

targeting international drug trafficking organizations, in addition to facilitating the 

objectives of the Andean Regional Initiative. The BCO continues to focus on the dismantling of trafficking organizations with international implications—specifically, 

those with a connection to the United States. Colombia has long been the largest 

exporter of cocaine to the U.S. and has become a major supplier of heroin, as well. 

In addition, the BCO is focusing its efforts on the importation and diversion of precursor chemicals. The BCO’s Special Investigative Units (SIU) and the Andean Programs have been very successful in mounting cases against major traffickers and 

having these traffickers extradited to the U.S. for prosecution. 

Enforcement actions in the BCO demonstrate DEA’s commitment in the war 

against drug trafficking and abuse and terrorism. In 2002, several high ranking 

members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the United 

Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) were indicted in the United States for drug 

trafficking. This investigation highlighted the link between groups and individuals 

under investigation for drug trafficking, as well as terrorist activity. This case represented the first time that drug trafficking charges were brought in the United 

States against members of foreign terrorist organizations. 

In November 2002, the BCO successfully concluded a two-year investigation with 

the arrests of 16 defendants. The arrests included the principal targets in Colombia 

and Ecuador responsible for the 13-ton shipment of cocaine seized from the vessel 

M/V Svesda Maru. In June 2002, the BCO concluded the yearlong investigation, Operation Julieta, by arresting 21 individuals in Colombia responsible for shipping 

multi-kilograms of heroin and cocaine to the United States. 

CARIBBEAN

The Caribbean section covers seven foreign country offices and four domestic offices. The Caribbean has long been an important transit zone for drugs entering the 

United States and Europe from South America. The drugs are transported through 

the region, to both the United States and Europe, through a wide variety of routes 

and methods, primarily marine vessels. The Caribbean remains a major transit 

route for South American cocaine destined for the United States and other world 

markets. The Caribbean is also an important transit point for marijuana and heroin 

destined for the United States, as well as a major money-laundering center for illicit 

drug proceeds. 

The Caribbean Offices strive to strengthen the region’s collective ability to track, 

interdict, arrest and prosecute successfully money laundering and drug smuggling 

organizations that operate in the Caribbean. 

EUROPE, AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST AND CANADA

Europe/Middle East covers 156 countries, with 24 DEA country offices. With various drug trafficking organizations’ methods of operation and tentacles stretching 

around the globe, DEA offices in these regions are combating the aggressive activities of numerous DTOs. These include the new methods of operation of the Albanian 

42

DTOs, the influx of MDMA and multi-ton shipments of cocaine from South America 

in containerized shipments. 

The DEA initiated Operation Containment, an enforcement program involving the 

Central Asian States, India, Pakistan, Turkey, the Balkan countries, Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom. The goal of Operation Containment is to reduce the 

amount of Afghan heroin flowing to Western Europe through enhanced interdiction 

efforts, intelligence sharing and database connectivity. During Operation 

Containment’s ‘‘Interdiction Blitz,’’ from June 10, 2002 through July 10, 2002, the 

following drug seizures were made: 1705 kilograms of heroin, 125 kilograms of hashish, 1.5 kilograms of liquid cocaine, 1.6 kilograms of powder cocaine, 250,000 tablets 

of amphetamines, 690 tablets of MDMA, 5329 kilograms of cannabis, 352 kilograms 

of opium, 1574 metric tons of toluol, (precursor), 1008 kilograms of poppy straw and 

2013 opium plants. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION

DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD), created in 1995, is a DEA led Division 

with participation from the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division. SOD’s mission is to establish seamless law enforcement strategies and operations aimed at dismantling national and international 

trafficking organizations by attacking their command and control communications. 

Special emphasis is placed on those major drug trafficking organizations that operate across jurisdictional boundaries on a regional, national and international level. 

The unique investigative support provided by SOD allows the program to act as a 

‘‘force multiplier’’ for drug law enforcement because it provides an effective and efficient medium for communication, intelligence sharing and coordination among 

America’s major drug law enforcement agencies. 

Significant operations supported by SOD include Operation Webslinger, the first 

national operation that targeted organizations utilizing the Internet to traffic the 

predatory drugs GHB, GBL and 1,4 BD (BD). Operation Webslinger culminated in 

September 2002 and resulted in the arrest of 170 individuals and the seizure of 

3,600 gallons of GHB, GBL and BD; 2 clandestine laboratories; 4.75 pounds of methamphetamine; 1.3 kilograms of MDMA; 2,500 vials of steroids; 17 properties; 10 vehicles; 44 weapons; and $2.4 million in U.S. currency. SOD also supported Operation 

Double Trouble a money laundering operation that targeted international money 

brokers responsible for laundering drug proceeds. To date, this operation has resulted in the arrest of 62 individuals and the seizure of 170 kilograms of cocaine, 

7 kilograms of heroin, 10 weapons, 4 vehicles and $12.4 million in U.S. currency. 

Operation Mountain Express III, a nationwide investigation targeting 

pseudoephedrine suppliers for Mexican methamphetamine ‘‘super labs,’’ revealed 

that proceeds from sales of Canadian pseudoephedrine were being funneled through 

traditional ‘‘hawalah’’ networks to individuals in the Middle East. This operation resulted in the arrest of 136 individuals, the seizure of 35.8 tons of Canadian origin 

pseudoephedrine, 179 lbs. of methamphetamine, six methamphetamine labs and 

$4.5 million. 

Operation Northern Star employed a comprehensive strategy targeting the entire 

methamphetamine trafficking process, including the suppliers of precursor chemicals, chemical brokers, transporters, manufacturers, distributors and the money 

launderers who helped conceal their criminal proceeds. DEA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced the arrests of over 65 individuals in ten cities, 

throughout the United States and Canada. The arrests resulted from an 18-month 

international investigation targeting the illegal importation of pseudoephedrine, an 

essential chemical used in methamphetamine production. As part of this investigation, agents targeted six executives from three Canadian chemical companies. All 

sold bulk quantities of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine manufacturers in the 

United States, with the full knowledge that their sales were intended for the illegal 

production of the highly addictive and dangerous drug methamphetamine. 

INTELLIGENCE DIVISION

The Intelligence Division provides dedicated analytical support to DEA investigations, programs and operations worldwide. The headquarters component advises on 

all matters pertaining to the formulation, direction, coordination and management 

of DEA’s global drug intelligence and information exchange programs. Intelligence 

functions include policy development and management, guidance on sensitive activities and maintenance and development of methods and techniques, domestic intelligence, international intelligence and the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). The 

Intelligence Division also is active in countering terrorism. DEA has over 700 IntelVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.000 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
43

ligence Analysts assigned to field divisions; foreign offices; and headquarters functions, including EPIC and the Aviation Intelligence Group. 

EPIC concentrates primarily on drug movement, illegal aliens and weapons violations in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. A number of EPIC programs are dedicated to port-seizure analysis and the establishment of links between 

recent enforcement actions and ongoing investigations. EPIC coordinates training 

for state and local officers concerning interdiction and concealment methods used for 

drugs and drug currency. EPIC also provides tactical intelligence information to the 

officers within the first critical week after a seizure or a stop. 

In FY2002, 32 percent of EPIC’s inquiries were related to counterterrorism. EPIC 

has supported the FBI, the Department of Defense, the United States Coast Guard, 

other federal and state and local agencies by processing almost a million database 

accesses, providing over 33,000 investigative leads and forwarding over 6,000 

communique ́s to investigators. The Office of Special Intelligence (NS) also is involved, routinely researching its databases for leads. NS has been critical in the 

identification of impending terrorism activities. 

DEA’s Intelligence Division is committed to interagency cooperation. Each designated HIDTA has at least one intelligence element, usually called an Investigative 

Support Center (ISC). HIDTA intelligence elements serve as hubs for the sharing 

of drug intelligence among federal, state and local law enforcement HIDTA-funded 

participating agencies. DEA’s commitment to HIDTA shows in the assignment of 

nearly 10 percent of our analytical resources to HIDTAs. EPIC also plays a critical 

role in support of the HIDTA funded task forces by dedicating specific intelligence 

resources to facilitate HIDTA requests. Additionally, DEA provides leadership to the 

Counterdrug Intelligence Coordination Group and the Counterdrug Executive Secretariat and provides, on a reimbursable basis, at least three employees to the Central 

Intelligence Agency to support that agency’s counterdrug programs. 

DEA’s Intelligence Division has been active in international cooperation, strengthening the Bilateral Drug Intelligence Working Groups. Mutually beneficial meetings 

have been held with the partners: Germany, Canada and Australia. To expand this 

initiative, meetings also were conducted with China. 

OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL

The mission of DEA’s Office of Diversion Control (OD) is to prevent the diversion 

of legitimately produced controlled substances and listed chemicals while ensuring 

adequate supplies for legitimate needs. In fulfilling its mandate under the Controlled Substances Act, among many functions, OD maintains a national registration program for all controlled substances handlers (those who manufacture, distribute, dispense, import or export such substances); conducts major diversion investigations, unilaterally or together with state/local authorities; serves as the U.S. 

Competent Authority in fulfilling national obligations under United Nations drug 

and chemical control treaties; establishes national drug production quotas; controls 

the import/export of controlled drugs and listed chemicals; and maintains liaison 

with the drug and chemical industry, associations and related professions. 

Among current important OD initiatives are a national program to prevent and 

detect diversion of the powerful narcotic OxyContin; international partnership initiatives to prevent and detect global diversion of key chemicals used in illicit cocaine, heroin and amphetamine-type stimulant (e.g., MDMA) production; and a program to target use of the Internet to illegally obtain controlled drugs. In a continual 

effort to streamline/improve efficiency of service to DEA registrants, OD is in the 

process of ‘‘re-engineering’’ the registration program to allow interactive Internet 

provision of registration services and is embarked on a major E-commerce initiative. 

This initiative which will provide for the secure use of the Internet to conduct controlled substance prescription and ordering functions. 

One notable Diversion case concerned the owner and six physicians of the Carolina Neurology and Pain Management Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, who 

were named in a 59-count federal indictment. Each defendant was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense Oxycodone, as well as a variety of 

other controlled substances. Due to the large amounts of controlled substances distributed for non-legitimate medical reasons at the clinic, several patients died. The 

defendants also were charged with money laundering in excess of $5,000,000 during 

the period between June 1997 and July 2001. 

DEA employs over 500 Diversion Investigators, who are assigned to domestic field 

divisions, foreign offices and Headquarters elements. The Diversion Control Program is a fee-funded activity with respect to its controlled pharmaceutical functions. 

44

OFFICE OF TRAINING

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of Training is the nation’s preeminent law enforcement training organization for national and international drug 

law enforcement training. The Office of Training provides technical and non-technical training to DEA personnel and appropriate domestic and foreign law enforcement officers, to improve individual and organizational performance and assist in 

achieving mission and performance goals. 

The primary purpose of the DEA Training Academy is to train the agency’s four 

core constituencies: Basic Agents, Basic Diversion Investigators, Basic Intelligence 

Research Specialists and Basic Forensic Scientists. In addition, the Academy provides for professional and executive development training, certification training and 

specialized training. The Academy also is used to conduct drug law enforcement 

seminars for state and local law enforcement personnel, and through the use of specially equipped classrooms, international drug training seminars for foreign law enforcement officials. DEA training includes Executive and Professional Development 

training, state and local training, clandestine laboratory training and various international training programs. During FY 2002, DEA’s Office of Training provided instruction to over 7,800 DEA and other federal, state, local and international students. DEA anticipates training approximately the same number of personnel in FY 

2003. 

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT DIVISION

The Operational Support Division is responsible for the management and operation of DEA’s Offices of Administration, Investigative Technology, Information Systems and Forensic Sciences. Numerous improvements have been realized in the 

areas of investigative technology, information technology, laboratory services, clandestine laboratory cleanups, audit requirements and domestic and laboratory replacements and renovations. 

For example, the Office of Investigative Technology implemented a Centralized 

Call Data Delivery system for intercepted cellular pen register data for the field. 

This system enables each division to obtain cellular call data without the need to 

establish a dedicated connection to individual cellular companies, thus generating 

substantial cost savings to DEA. The Office of Information Systems was the first 

component in the Department of Justice to electronically transmit information 

through the Department’s Joint Automated Booking System (JABS) to the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, through the Firebird Booking Station. This system provides rapid identification of individuals under arrest or 

detention, minimizes duplication of data entry during booking, and it promotes data 

sharing among Department law enforcement agencies and other authorized parties, 

through an interface with the Nationwide JABS. 

The Operational Support Division has improved hazardous waste disposal by implementing significant cost savings and efficiencies with a new five year hazardous 

waste cleanup contract and developing an alternative clean up program. In addition, 

significant improvements have been made in DEA’s audit requirements, as apparent 

in the recently completed KPMG 2002 Financial Audit, in which DEA went from 

three IT material weaknesses in 2001 to none in 2002. 

DEMAND REDUCTION

While DEA is principally a law enforcement agency, demand reduction is an important element of DEA’s overall enforcement strategy. Through investigations such 

as Operation Webslinger and Operation Pipe Dreams, an investigation that targeted 

national distributors of drug paraphernalia, DEA carries out its enforcement mission while achieving the complementary goal of raising public awareness regarding 

the dangers of drug abuse and drug trafficking. 

DEA also provides training in support of national conferences held by a variety 

of federal, state and local agencies. These conferences bring together law enforcement, health, prevention and education groups to craft a specific strategy to deal 

with methamphetamine abuse unique to their states. Last year, for example, DEA 

hosted Methamphetamine Conferences in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Hawaii 

and at the Midwest Governor’s Summit in Iowa. DEA’s Demand Reduction Program 

also spearheaded the following campaigns: 

DEA’S ‘‘METH IN AMERICA: NOT IN OUR TOWN’’ CAMPAIGN IN 2002

Methamphetamine has become the number one drug problem of rural and smalltown America. As a law enforcement agency, DEA felt this message was an important one to put out to the American people. This public awareness campaign has 

45

led to numerous congressional offices requesting DEA participation in ‘‘Meth Town 

Hall Meetings,’’ allowing Members to bring awareness about the problem to their 

constituents. 

OPERATION X-OUT

Operation X-Out shows how deeply integrated supply reduction and demand reduction are. X-Out combines enforcement operations against MDMA and predatory 

drug traffickers with public news conferences and town hall discussions in communities about the devastating effects of club drugs. Local citizens, drug prevention experts and victims of drug-inspired crimes participate and articulate how the community can actively engage and stop the spread of club drugs in their community. 

FY 2003 ENACTED APPROPRIATION AND FY 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

In FY 2003, DEA’s enacted appropriation of $1.6 billion and 8,475 positions, provides 161 positions (including 95 Special Agents) and $43.8 million in direct funding 

to enhance drug enforcement activities, strengthen financial investigations and protect DEA’s personnel and sensitive information. 

The President’s FY 2004 Budget Proposal for DEA of $1.7 billion and 8,815 positions responds to the challenge we face—reducing availability of illegal drugs in 

America. To this end, DEA’s FY 2004 Budget Request includes three programmatic 

enhancements as follows: 

To target Priority Drug Trafficking Organizations, DEA requests $38.9 million 

and 329 positions (including 123 Special Agents and 20 Diversion Investigators). 

This initiative includes a request for administrative support positions to free up the 

equivalent of 80 Special Agents’ work hours for enforcement activities and $4 million to support 100 State and Local Task Force Officers. These resources are necessary to fully support DEA’s plan for addressing the Nation’s illegal drug threats 

in the post-September 11, 2001, environment. 

To continue the International Training Program, DEA requests $1.5 million and 

20 positions (including 16 Special Agents). These resources will address an anticipated shortfall of reimbursable resources that the Department of State currently 

provides for this program. 

To improve DEA’s Financial and Asset Management Programs, DEA requests $2.5 

million and 20 positions. This enhancement will allow DEA to make systemic improvements necessary to ensure continued success in future financial audits. 

For the Diversion Control Fee Account, the FY 2004 President’s Budget continues 

the increased level of funding requested in FY 2003 to strengthen our enforcement 

capabilities for investigating the diversion of controlled substances, including 

OxyContin. 

In addition, the President’s FY 2004 Budget includes $23 million and 150 positions (110 Special Agents) for DEA under the OCDFTF Program to support the Department’s Strategy by targeting Consolidated Priority Organization Targets. 

CONCLUSION

The DEA remains committed to our primary goal of targeting and arresting the 

most significant traffickers in the world today. In particular, we will continue to 

work in close partnership with our local, state, federal and international counterparts to target drug trafficking groups, who spread misery and false hope to America’s citizens. 

Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me here today. You 

have given me an opportunity to speak to you regarding DEA’s programs, initiatives, goals and objectives in addressing drug trafficking and abuse in America. As 

the Members of this Subcommittee know well, drugs know no boundaries and do 

not make distinctions between big city and small town America, between color and 

ethnicity, whether rich or poor. It is the responsibility of every American to contribute in the fight against illegal drugs. 

I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Mr. COBLE. Time permitting, we may have a second round here, 

because I suspect we will all have a good number of questions to 

put to you all. 

Mr. D’Amuro, today’s Washington Post story indicates that we 

may well be on our way to winning the war on terrorism. The article includes, ‘‘The failure of al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks 

against the U.S. or its allies during the war in Iraq has bolstered 

46

a growing belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that 19 months 

of worldwide counterterrorism operations and arrests have nearly 

crippled the organization.’’

The article goes on to say that ‘‘senior intelligence officials continue to speak optimistically about the progress that has been 

made since September 11th, 2001.’’ . 

Now, Mr. D’Amuro, my heart wants to warmly embrace the contents of this article. My head conversely reminds me that we have 

an enemy that is not only willing to die, but eager to die as long 

as they can take us down with them. So I am in a quandary. I hope 

the article is correct, but if anyone in the room is in a position to 

authoritatively respond to it, it is you. So, what say you to the article? 

Mr. D’AMURO. Well, I agree with aspects of that article, Mr. 

Chairman. The United States Government, the Intelligence Community, both the Agency, the Bureau, the Department of Defense 

have had significant achievements against al-Qaeda. Now, that 

does not mean that there are not numerous other entities out 

there, terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda that received training in al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan that are not a 

threat to this country. While al-Qaeda may very well be in disarray, I still believe it has the potential to attack United States interests, as well as all the other tangential groups to al-Qaeda that 

sympathize with their cause. Those groups are still the number one 

priority of the FBI. Our mission is the identification of terrorist 

cells, sleeper cells in this country to prevent the next attack. 

So, while I agree with the disruption of al-Qaeda efforts, I still 

want to emphasize that it is still a severe threat to this country’s 

safety. 

Mr. COBLE. And I didn’t want to portray myself as a naysayer. 

But we are pretty much coming from the same vantage point, I 

think. 

Mr. Hankinson, the implementation of the Safe Explosives Act 

has created some confusion between the duties of DOT and ATF 

with regards to regulating the explosives. Is it the intention of ATF 

to regulate in any aspect of the transportation of explosives and is 

there an effort to coordinate to avoid duplication, A? And, B, what 

has ATF done to notify individuals and corporations about these 

changes? I can see that all sorts of inconvenience is going to be imposed. I realize we don’t need every Osama bin Laden walking 

down the street with explosives in his handbag, but at the same 

time we don’t want to make it difficult for other folks who do, in 

fact, need explosives in their day-to-day work. So talk to us about 

that. 

Mr. HANKINSON. As a result of this act being implemented, what 

we did, we went out to the industry trade groups, to also industry 

associations. We went further; we made up posters and sent them 

to retailers delineating this law and the affect it would have on 

people who actually purchase, maintain, retailers, so forth, these 

explosives. And we also placed it on our Website. So we made a 

concentrated effort to inform the public, and specifically those people who would be affected by this law, to advise them of what they 

would need to do and to go through in order to purchase explosives. 

47

In respect to Department of Transportation, we do not believe 

there is any duplication. In fact, Department of Transportation 

does have the responsibility under the law in regard to transportation of explosives. They have also issued regulations. Before they 

issued those regulations, they gave us an opportunity to comment 

upon them, which we did. So in that regard, there is no duplication 

because that is where their authorities and jurisdiction lie. And I 

do not believe, as we move to this act’s implementation on the 24th 

of this month, that we will see any problem regarding duplication 

or friction between Department of Transportation and ATF. We 

have met with them on many times, had conferences, personal 

meetings to ensure that all the regulations that are issued by us 

and those regulations issued by them are not in conflict. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

My time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hankinson, there has been controversy about how long firearms dealers will keep their records. What is the present situation 

there? 

Mr. HANKINSON. I do not believe—and I have only been in this 

position for the last number of months—there have been any 

change whatsoever in the law or how it is applied on the part of 

ATF. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there any desire to shorten the length of time that 

the firearms dealers will keep their records? 

Mr. HANKINSON. I am not aware of any desire in that particular 

matter. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is ATF’s position on ballistic fingerprinting, or 

at least a scientific study of whether it is a good idea or not? 

Mr. HANKINSON. Well, this study is actually under the auspices 

and within the Department of Justice. We have given our expertise 

and information, any questions they may have to the Department 

of Justice. So it is actually out of our hands in particular and under 

their domain. 

Mr. SCOTT. When would we expect results from the study? 

Mr. HANKINSON. That is a question, I am sorry, I cannot answer. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Mr. D’Amuro, can you tell me something about 

the diversity in the FBI workforce? There was—I think a lack of 

diversity in the workforce has been part of the problem of us getting good information. Can you tell us how much more diverse the 

FBI is than it was before September 11th? 

Mr. D’AMURO. Congressman, I don’t have the official numbers 

with me here, but we have created an engineering product to take 

a look at our hiring requirements and the specialty needs of the 

Bureau to ensure that the Bureau is in a position to focus on the 

future to make sure we have the critical needs going through our 

Academy at Quantico both in the analytical core and in the special 

agent category. I can get you the figures as to the recent hires, I 

just do not have them with me. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, is it significantly more diverse now than it was, 

particularly with Middle Eastern agents? 

Mr. D’AMURO. We are looking to increase our language ability of 

the agent position. We have made significant efforts in that area, 

48

both in our language services as well as the agent cadre, and will 

continue to look toward that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you made efforts. Have we got any results? 

Mr. D’AMURO. I don’t have any results with me as to numbers. 

There have been significant results in the language services areas, 

but I don’t have the numbers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you don’t have the numbers right now. There 

have been significant increases. If you can get me those numbers, 

I would appreciate it. 

Can you tell me the FBI position on investigating people, gathering information on people without an ongoing criminal investigation? The old rule, as I understand it, was that you wouldn’t gather 

information domestically unless you were actually investigating an 

ongoing criminal investigation. And there were public comments, 

that you would start gathering information on American citizens by 

attending public meetings and this kind of thing, gathering information, developing dossiers and whatnot on American citizens. Can 

you tell me the status of that little operation? 

Mr. D’AMURO. Congressman, we are bound by the Constitution 

of the United States, we are bound by the Attorney General guidelines in how we conduct our investigations. We have two types of 

investigations that we undertake at the FBI; they are both criminal 

and the national security type investigations. When we have an individual under investigation for national security, there is a file. It 

is pursuant to the Attorney General guidelines for conducting those 

investigations. We do not attend group meetings per se. If we have 

a source that we are worried about protecting, we have certain 

guidelines that we are allowed to attend that and coverage for the 

source of a particular meeting. We do not violate constitutional requirements in this country. Those guidelines are still in place. They 

were in place prior to 9/11. We are constantly looking at them to 

see if they need to be revamped. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me be more direct. In the absence of an ongoing 

criminal investigation, are you gathering information on people? 

Mr. D’AMURO. If we have a reason to suspect an individual, we 

open up a file on that individual, and we are required to do so. 

Now, in the process of conducting—— Mr. SCOTT. If you have—— Mr. D’AMURO. If we have information of an individual involved 

in terrorism, there is an official file opened on that individual. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you would be investigating a specific crime. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. My question is are you doing this in the absence of 

an ongoing criminal investigation? 

Mr. D’AMURO. No, Congressman. We still operate pursuant to 

opening those files. In conducting any investigation, there is information and intelligence in the national security type investigation 

that may not pertain to that particular file. That is the purpose for 

us creating the Office of Intelligence, where there is positive intelligence gathered on counterintelligence investigations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Chairman, could I ask just one follow-up? Does this 

mean the procedure has changed or not changed? 

Mr. D’AMURO. It has not changed, Congressman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

49

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. 

Mr. D’Amuro, please excuse me; I am a freshman, and if I ask 

a question that is sensitive or secure, of course you are not going 

to give me an answer in this forum. But I am interested, given the 

fact that recent reports indicate that some of our longstanding allies have been perhaps cooperating with the Iraqi Government, 

amongst others, in providing both information and equipment, in 

the case perhaps of the Russians, I am interested in terms of how 

we are treating some of those allies in their business dealings in 

the United States of America as it relates to technology or to other 

information that may be heretofore shared on a fairly frequent 

basis with companies from France, for example, or others. And I 

am interested in whether the FBI has enhanced efforts to watch 

foreign companies and their representatives as they do business 

with American technology companies or other American companies 

that may have access to secure information. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Congressman, a lot of that question I can’t answer, but I will say this: That we do have increased concerns, and 

we have increased our economic espionage coverage in the Bureau, 

and we will continue to look toward that goal in the very near and 

long-term future. It is one of the major problems that we foresee 

the Bureau to be involved in. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, criminals on a wide array of matters, both foreign and domestic, are increasingly sophisticated in terms of their 

technological capabilities. And the FBI has ramped up its technological infrastructure and is trying to keep pace with the activities 

of terrorists and criminals and presumably perhaps threatening 

foreign nations. It is my understanding that that has resulted in 

some large cost increases that perhaps were unanticipated a few 

years ago in the FBI. 

And where are we going with respect to the costs of dealing with 

the enhanced technological challenges that the FBI has to deal 

with? And do you have any predictions for the Committee about 

where we will be in the future? 

Mr. D’AMURO. Yes, I do. And first let me say again thank you 

to the Committee for enhancing the Bureau’s technology problem. 

In my opinion, in my 24 years with the FBI, it has been the most 

significant problem that we have faced. The management of our information is critical to protecting this country. We anticipate with 

the enhancements of Trilogy and other information technology advancements within the FBI that there could be a shortage of approximately $137 million. We are in the process of working with 

the Department of Justice in coming back to the appropriation 

Committees and looking at that shortfall. 

Mr. FEENEY. And with respect to the Joint Terrorism Task 

Forces, obviously until 1812 it had been a long time since the continental mainland of the U.S. had been attacked by a foreign power. 

Since 1812, it really hadn’t occurred outside of Pearl Harbor and 

a few lesser incidents. But nowadays the cooperation with respect 

to the information that we gather at the Federal level, and Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement and other first responders and 

other counterintelligence activities is increasingly important. 

50

And, number one, I would like to know how you are breaking 

down the barriers between the different domestic Federal agencies; 

and secondly, with respect to the barriers between the Federal 

Government and the States and locals. And the third question 

would be as it relates to the fact that some States, like my own in 

Florida, have fairly aggressive public records laws that protect the 

access under the first amendment and then go further of the press 

to records involved in potential criminal activity. So what do you 

do on the one hand to share as much information as you can, while 

preserving and protecting the access, the secure nature of some of 

the things that you are sharing? So I guess those are three related 

questions. 

Mr. D’AMURO. I will start with that. There is a lot of different 

pieces to that question, and I will try to answer that the best that 

I can. 

The JTTFs are a community entity. It is an operational piece of 

the FBI that belongs to the communities that they serve. With various Federal, State, and local agencies that are part of that entity, 

it is not only an operational piece to the counterterrorism program, 

it is an intelligence collection and dissemination piece, and the significance of going from 35 to 66 JTTFs throughout the country 

hopefully will greatly enhance the amount of intelligence that is 

collected by the JTTFs and shared back here at FBI headquarters, 

and then the amount of information that the FBI disseminates to 

those JTTFs as appropriate. 

The beauty of the JTTF is that not only does it collect that information, it also acts upon it and has the ability to disrupt terrorist 

activities in the field. 

With respect to the sharing of intelligence, I think another significant piece is the TTIC, the newly created TTIC, with all Federal 

components participating at a collocated center so that the one 

piece that has been missing in the past with respect to threat analysis is the coupling and the fusion of all the intelligence that the 

Federal entities have with respect to terrorism to provide one-stop 

shopping for threat analysis. And that organization was just put 

into operation the first of this month. In fact, they just went out 

again this morning to take another tour of the facility. 

We are also under way, as I said in my statement, with providing intelligence reports to the field, to the JTTFs both on counterintelligence and counterterrorism, over 1,200 reports in the last 

6 months. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. When we pick up 

on the second round, just hold that thought, if you will. 

The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank the Chairman very much. 

Let me thank the witnesses for their presentation. And again, we 

have lived together—as I have been a Member of this Judiciary 

Committee ever since I have come to the United States Congress, 

it has been my honor to work with agents from the DEA and the 

ATF and the FBI. And this should not be taken personally, but let 

me acknowledge the SAC in charge in Houston, Richard Garcia, 

who has been a delight and extremely involved in working with us 

on Homeland Security issues. And I might attribute those same 

51

compliments to the representatives from the DEA and ATF as we 

work together. 

But let me pursue a line of questioning that has concerned my 

office and my constituents and are crucial, of course, to whether we 

get the job done on terrorism in this Nation and fight terror together. 

Constituents of mine, happen to be Muslims, had a tragedy in 

their family which resulted in a number of individuals dying. And 

so the mourning started, the mourning the loss of these individuals, and Muslims from around Houston began to gather at their 

home. Information was given by the neighbors that individuals 

were going to a home with heads wrapped and clothing on, Muslim 

attire, and before you know it, the INS had raided this home early 

in the morning, causing almost a heart condition by the father. It 

is one of those 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6 a.m. raids where the father had 

to be taken into the hospital, elderly grandmother was in shock. 

And it was based upon information given to authorities that was— the information itself was wrong. 

Certainly I would be disingenuous not to say that there was 

some immigration issues within that family, but they were lawabiding. There was not one—short of the immigration issues—one 

iota of any kind of criminal activity, terror activity involved. But 

they were swooped up on an INS raid on the basis of information 

given. 

And without you saying, well, we got some INS violations, let me 

go to the larger question: That—and this is to Mr. D’Amuro. We 

have several points here about you now receiving voluntary information from groups, from private entities, the outsiders, encouraging that. It is important for me to know what you are doing to 

ensure the accuracy of this information. 

Let me quickly go to my other question so that I can leave time 

for the Member panelists to ask. The accuracy of this information— because obviously those neighbors, private entities, outsiders, gave 

information of—which we certainly want to encourage, but it was 

wrong. Because obviously their information is they are gathering to 

talk about terror acts against Houston, Texas, et cetera, and it was 

absolutely wrong. And you sent people to hospitals, you destroyed 

a family, et cetera. 

The other question I am interested in is the status of this gathering together or the process of Iraqi nationals and what happened 

with that. And has that ceased, or are we still doing that? 

The other, of course, is the problem we have with the immigration community in general, throngs of individuals I have had in 

meetings, on the distrust and fear of even saying anything because 

you will be called in. How are you treating immigrants now, particularly those from Muslim background, young men? And I would 

be interested in getting a status report on the registration lists, to 

my knowledge, particularly impacting Pakistanis. And are you engaged in expanding that list? Is the FBI intimately engaged in expanding that list? If you would. 

Lastly, to the DEA and ATF. And if we are going to have a second round, just to say to you that I would be interested in what 

resources you need to be fully a part of Homeland Security in the 

fight against terror from your agencies. 

52

Mr. D’Amuro, if you would start on your questions. 

Mr. D’Amuro, if you would start on your answer. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Congresswoman, I will not attempt to speak for 

INS. I am unaware of the specific investigation you are talking 

about. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You can focus on getting private information. 

Mr. D’AMURO. You mentioned our Iraqi program. I have to be 

very cautious as to what specific information we put forth in an 

open hearing. However, I will say this, that I am very, very pleased 

with the results of the program that the Bureau put forward on 

that. 

We took great care—and we began planning that program last 

spring—in making sure that we reached out to those communities 

and we talked to community leaders to make sure they understood 

what the FBI was going to be doing, what actions we would be taking, and what kind of information we were looking for. 

We had our SACs from all the divisions reach into those communities and liaison with those communities. We also put forth 

through the media what actions the FBI would be taking with potential hostilities occurring with Iraq. The results of that program 

have been phenomenal. We have received very few complaints. We 

have received outstanding information that we have provided to 

the appropriate Government entities. So I think that is a success 

story. 

I can understand the concerns of a lot of communities looking at 

actions since the events of 9/11, but we remain focused on making 

sure that our field office executive management liaisoned with 

those communities and made sure that we have appropriate coverages to investigate not only terrorist acts but also civil rights violations. We have made sure we have told those communities that 

in the event of hate crimes or civil rights violations that they contact the FBI office, and we will investigate those crimes in addition 

to counterterrorism threats. 

Mr. COBLE. Sheila, if you will suspend on the second question, 

I will recognize the gentleman from Virginia and Wisconsin, and 

you may come back on the second round. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you for holding the hearing, and I appreciate the contributions of the witnesses, but I have no questions. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions for 

the FBI and the ATF. 

Last year, last August, the GAO issued a report entitled Internet 

Cigarette Sales: Giving the ATF Investigative Authority May Improve Reporting and Enforcement. That report examined the growing problem of remote sales of cigarettes via mail order, the phone, 

and Internet, in clear violation of the Jenkins Act. 

Currently, the FBI has primary authority for the enforcement of 

the Jenkins Act, but for some obvious reasons does not have all the 

resources to focus on the Jenkins Act enforcement. To improve enforcement of the law, GAO has suggested transferring primary enforcement authority from the FBI to the ATF, which is already engaged in tobacco-related enforcement activities. 

53

Two questions. First off, how would the FBI and ATF receive 

such a change if it were proposed? 

Secondly, what is the best way to accomplish this transfer of enforcement authority? Is legislation necessary, or can this be done 

administratively by the Attorney General? 

In any order you would like to take it up in. 

Mr. HANKINSON. I recall very well this review by GAO and looking at this particular matter. Yes, we do vigorously investigate various aspects of tobacco violations. Of course, they are becoming 

more numerous every day as the States continue to raise taxes on 

cigarettes, whether it be counterfeit tobacco, whether it be counterfeit stamps, whether they are sold on the black market, so to 

speak. 

But this particular act probably, as I understand it from our 

chief counsel’s office, would need legislation. I also want to point 

out in this particular act I believe that the violation amounts to a 

misdemeanor, which is a particular problem. The legislation would 

be needed to enhance the penalties. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. D’Amuro. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Congressman, to answer your question, we have 

been utilizing some of those statutes with respect to the cigarette 

tax, with respect to investigating Hezbollah activities in this country. We have been very successful in doing that to disrupt those 

terrorist activities. 

We are looking at a vast array of different classifications that 

ATF and the Bureau is working on, and we are in the process of 

those discussions to see how we go forward in the future. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Let’s start a second round right quickly here. Mr. 

Guevara, we have ignored you, so I will bring you into the center 

ring, here. 

Given the FBI’s redirection of resources toward terrorism and 

away from drug investigation, how is the DEA picking up the 

slack, A; B, is the current budget request adequate to cover these 

additional responsibilities; and, C, generally what is the DEA’s role 

in the war on terrorism? 

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. If I may begin with the latter part of the 

question with regard to DEA’s role in terrorism, let me say that 

DEA is fully coordinating all our efforts with the rest of the Government agencies that require that cooperation. As my colleague 

from the FBI mentioned earlier, the Joint Terrorism Task Force on 

the ground level is, first and foremost, one of the central points of 

coordination in the field. DEA has personnel assigned to each and 

every one of those units for purposes of coordination. 

The other thing that we are doing is, through the Special Operations Division that I mentioned in my testimony, we are providing 

additional support that will ensure that any intelligence that DEA 

is privy to is shared with the appropriate agencies. 

As an example, between September 11, 2001, and December 31 

of 2002, DEA’s Office of Intelligence completed over 3,300 products 

in support of the FBI’s counterterrorism activities. 

In addition to that, the El Paso Intelligence Center, which is a 

DEA-led co-mingled effort, through February of this year was reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.000 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
54

sponsible for servicing 39 percent of all their inquiries relating to 

counterterrorism. 

In addition to that, let me add that DEA has engaged in a 

heightened awareness of drug investigations to ensure that any investigations that DEA is pursuing in the course of our responsibilities is identified and passed to the appropriate agencies. 

In addition to that question, DEA is fully committed to the 

OCDETF program, where DEA continues to be supported with 

budget increases that have allowed us to receive additional agent 

personnel that will again allow DEA to pursue drug trafficking investigations at the highest level of the traffic and, through our 

presence overseas, as well as domestically, allow us to target the 

major kingpins that are responsible for introducing narcotics and 

drugs into our communities. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Guevara, I have been told that appropriators may be attempting to eliminate the Demand Reduction coordinators under 

the RAVE Act. What do you say to that? It is my belief that these 

coordinators are essential. 

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. The DEA Demand Reduction Program 

was initiated by DEA in 1986. The program involves 21—excuse 

me, involves a coordinator in each of the 21 field divisions. These 

Drug Demand Coordinators are responsible for outreach programs 

in the community and education, as well as training. Through this 

program we have reached some 10.4 million people across the 

United States. 

We consider this a very important part of our efforts that are designed to complement the drug enforcement principal duties DEA 

is responsible for. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. No, thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

Mr. Scott, as well. 

Because we were in the midst of a line of questioning and maybe 

a line of reasoning, I might follow up again. 

Mr. D’Amuro, let me pursue again with you—I appreciate the answers, but let me pursue this. I want you to be able to confine your 

responses to what is declassified, so let me be pointed about my 

questioning about the Iraqi nationals. 

Clearly, I am sure that the attitude was to be helpful, but you 

have to understand that out of the desire to be helpful is also a 

fear not to complain. What are the guidelines and protections that 

are evidenced to this community that say, if you complain, you are 

as protected as if you don’t complain? I am concerned about that. 

If it is declassified, I would like to know, has it ended; or is this 

program still being monitored, still being utilized? 

Let me press further on the outreach question or the question 

about the immigrant community. I don’t think we have fixed that 

problem. There is no doubt that, whether it is the DEA, whether 

it is the ATF, that intelligence—when I say that, information—

helps you solve cases. If you have a chilling effect where it is not 

known to the immigrant community—you can’t speak for the INS, 

55

but when it is not known to the immigrant community whether 

any encounter with law enforcement will result in their incarceration, I don’t know how you are being helped in getting information. 

With the new FBI focus on terror, that is a key aspect of your 

business, getting information. I am not convinced—and I did not 

hear you talk about the registration list, where we are on the registration list. I can assure you that that created enormous hardship, panic, fear and trepidation. I would like to know where you 

are and whether or not the FBI is engaged in expanding the list 

or doing anything with the list. 

With the other gentlemen I raise that same question: How are 

you fitting yourselves into the Homeland Security Department on 

those aspects of your business, and what do you need from us? I 

serve on that Committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and we are trying to deal specifically with solutions as to how 

we can make sure that we are working together. 

Mr. D’Amuro, if you would focus on the concerns that I have. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Congresswoman, I believe you are talking about 

the INSR list. That is an INS project. It is not a list that the FBI 

is going out trying to get people to register in. I don’t know how 

to answer your concern about an INS program right now. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do know it is an INS program. My understanding was that the FBI is collaboratively assisting. You can correct that if that is incorrect. 

What connection do you have to any who may be registered on 

that list in terms of interrogating them about information that may 

come to your attention? I am trying to find the nexus, and to suggest that there is a nexus; but more importantly, that the FBI has 

a responsibility in the immigrant community as it relates to your 

outreach necessities and getting information. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Again, let me reiterate: We have gone to great 

lengths to make sure that the immigrant communities, the communities that we serve, understand what their legal rights are. We 

have instructed our special agent in charge of all the field offices 

to make sure they liaison with those communities. 

They did this prior to hostilities occurring in Iraq to ensure that 

these communities were well aware that in the event that civil 

rights were violated, the FBI was there to conduct those investigations and to offer solutions to the problems that they were having, 

to make sure that connectivity was in place. 

We also wanted to ensure that the communities felt as comfortable as they could. I know it is never comfortable when an FBI 

agent or a Federal officer is knocking on your door, but we felt it 

crucial to go out and reach those communities and to obtain the information that we feel this country needed to better protect itself. 

We were very concerned, as the Post article that I commented on 

earlier stated, that we were in a situation that, once hostilities 

were engaged in with Iraq, that we would see additional terrorist 

acts in the United States. We have not seen those, and we are very 

fortunate we have not seen those. It is due to, I believe, the efforts 

of a lot of men and women in the Federal Government and in State 

and local law enforcement entities to try to prevent that. 

56

I am not sure how else to answer your question. When we go out 

and we find people that are out of status, if those individuals are 

of concern to us, with INS, some of those individuals are picked up 

and arrested and incarcerated. They have the opportunity through 

the legal system to work out those particular problems. 

We are very concerned that we reach out to the communities and 

obtain the information and obtain the intelligence we need to better protect this country. Those are the efforts that we are trying 

to make. We are not trying to go out and harass citizens that are 

here legally, that are law-abiding citizens. We are trying to do the 

best we can walking down a path that sometimes may seem very 

difficult. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent 

for an additional minute for these gentleman who got passed up in 

the first round to at least answer this question? 

Mr. COBLE. Permission is granted, if the gentleman from Florida 

will hang tough. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I can just restate it, Mr. D’Amuro, if you 

would give me in writing a response dealing with the question of 

whether you have access to these individuals on the registration 

lists, and whether you engage them in any sort of organized questioning, or do you utilize the list, I would appreciate it. We can talk 

directly on that point. I’m not asking you to answer it now. We can 

talk directly on that point by phone call or in writing. I would appreciate it very much. 

The gentleman here wearing the homeland security hat, the 

question is how you interface with that department and what more 

can we do to make sure there is a good fit. Obviously, there is a 

suggestion of laundering of drug money, utilization in terror activities, and certainly weapons would be utilized. 

Mr. HANKINSON. Speaking of ATF, we do have two important jurisdictions that relate potentially to terrorism. One, of course, is 

weapons. The second most important is explosives. 

The Safe Explosives Act itself is prevention. That is, Congress 

clearly had the intent to see that explosives do not fall into the 

hands of, one, the criminal element and, two, people associated 

with terrorism. In that particular matter, we think that is a very 

important factor in the potential prevention of terrorism. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you working with the Homeland Security 

Department? 

Mr. HANKINSON. There is no doubt that we need to work better 

and harder with Homeland Security. 

In that effort, we are establishing a separate directorate of information/intelligence for that data that we do gather in our everyday 

work so that we can, one, assemble it in one area; two, analyze it; 

and, three, get it to our Federal counterparts, as well as necessary 

to the local and State law enforcement officials. 

Mr. COBLE. Very quickly, if you will. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The gentleman from the DEA, as well. 

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, ma’am. I can assure you that the DEA is taking steps aggressively to make sure that coordination is implemented. I know of at least six liaison officers who are attached to 

the Department of Homeland Security for purposes of coordination 

57

and for purposes of capturing any information that may come to 

the attention of the Department of Homeland Security, where DEA 

may service any request, by way of any data or information that 

DEA is privy to. 

On the other hand, or in reverse, they are there also for purposes 

of sharing any information that DEA may collect, particularly since 

we do have a foreign presence in 58 foreign countries. We are taking it very seriously, I can assure you, and have established these 

open lines of communication; while at the same time we are seeing 

these representatives come back to DEA and making suggestions 

on how we can best improve that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. You are indeed welcome. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. D’Amuro, when my last 5 minutes concluded you were at the 

point where you were describing the relationship between the FBI 

and information flow back and forward, and also intercepting and 

interdicting actual criminal behavior. We were talking about the 

1,200 or so FBI notices that you have sent to sheriffs. 

By the way, my sheriffs in Central Florida get those and they appreciate them. They say they are working with you to coordinate 

wiretapping capabilities because you don’t have enough manpower 

to coordinate all the things you would like to be doing, at least in 

my area. If you can elaborate on that and finish your thought. 

Also, I asked you about the States that have, as my State does, 

a public records policy of open access to the media and to individual citizens, to what extent is that hampering your ability to 

communicate freely with those local and State officials? 

Mr. D’AMURO. We do have a project under way called Operation 

Gateway in which we are sharing intelligence with State and local 

entities, and where we are creating a database where those entities 

participating in the information-sharing will load their information 

into a database that is accessible to all the participants. 

This particular program—the first one we have planned is hopefully going to be under way by the end of the month. It will be pursuant to—the State and local agencies are going to have to abide 

by their State and local laws, but it is an effort on our part to 

share Federal information that we can collect, that we are able to 

share, with all the securities built into that information, to try to 

enhance our information-sharing. 

The intelligence reports are just one aspect of what we are trying 

to do at headquarters by centralizing the counterterrorism and 

counterintelligence program to make sure we get the information 

at headquarters and disseminate that to the communities that 

need it. 

There are concerns. Whenever you share information on operations, you run the risk of divulging sources or techniques. We take 

great care in trying to protect those sources and techniques. 

One of the positions we have created at FBI headquarters is that 

of a Reports Officer. The Reports Officer’s function is to take the 

intelligence, take the information, and clean out and glean out the 

techniques and sources so we can share that information with the 

various communities. 

58

We do all this, as I said earlier, under the guidelines that we 

have—under regulations with the Attorney General, guidelines and 

oversight from the Attorney General community and our own Office 

of Professional Responsibility. So all the protection for the American public is in place to ensure that we don’t violate any civil liberties in the collection of this information and then in the dissemination or sharing of that information. 

Mr. FEENEY. Some have suggested that the collection and analysis of intelligence-gathering domestically ought to be separated 

from the law enforcement capacity, and have even suggested that 

the FBI concentrate on law enforcement and have the intelligencegathering aspects removed. Do you agree with that? What is your 

response to those critics? 

Mr. D’AMURO. I vehemently disagree with that. I will tell you 

why. 

The beauty—I will use the counterterrorism program as an example of this. The beauty of how the Bureau operates in the 

counterterrorism world, I said earlier, is two-fold. It deals with national security issues; it deals with criminal issues. 

Whenever we open investigations, there are national security 

concerns. That is how we look at them. We look at the prevention 

issue. 

The beauty of what we do, if we look at the situation in Buffalo, 

New York—and I can’t get into a lot of details in this particular 

hearing—that was a national security investigation in which we 

were collecting intelligence. Once we learned that actual crimes 

had taken place, it gave the FBI, it gave the JTTF the ability to 

request to have that information passed over a wall so we could 

utilize it in a criminal proceeding to disrupt the actual activity that 

was taking place in this country. 

Many other countries that have intelligence organizations only 

can only collect information; they can’t act upon it. Within 24 hours 

of receiving intelligence information that crimes had taken place, 

these individuals were off the street. 

There are many other law enforcement entities and intelligence 

entities that I have dealt with over my career that wished they had 

the ability to—not to have stovepipes, but be able to act upon intelligence and law enforcement evidence at the same time. That I 

think is the beauty of what the JTTF brings to this country. It has 

the ability for the intelligence collection as well as the disruptive 

law enforcement action, and all of it is monitored so that we don’t 

overstep our bounds. 

If I could just add one more thing, I would say to Congresswoman Lee, I would like to offer you a full briefing on how we operate with INS. They are on the task forces, and we do work very 

closely with them. I offer you that briefing at any time you would 

like. I will reach out to your office to get that scheduled. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. I appreciate it. 

I hope to be back before the conclusion to say one or two things 

on the record. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just following up on that, Mr. D’Amuro, is the CIA part of the 

JTTF? 

59

Mr. D’AMURO. Many of the JTTFs do have CIA representation on 

them; not all 66, but many of them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, your USA PATRIOT Act additional powers are 

not limited to terrorism, is that right? 

Mr. D’AMURO. That is correct. The ones I am most familiar with 

are the counterterrorism ones. 

Mr. SCOTT. When you start gathering information on people with 

these accelerated procedures and without the normal checks and 

balances, you can get foreign intelligence information without probable cause that a crime is being committed. 

Mr. D’AMURO. There is a different threshold of what probable 

cause is for a national security investigation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. But a crime does not have to be involved? 

Mr. D’AMURO. That is correct. That’s correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. If this was limited to terrorism, I don’t think many 

of us would have much of a concern. But we are doing this in runof-the-mill, everyday domestic crimes, right? 

Mr. D’AMURO. No, not in the domestic crimes. We are looking at 

this for counterintelligence and counterterrorism information. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything in the USA PATRIOT Act that limits the application of that act in sharing information between the 

CIA and the FBI? Is there anything that limits it to——

Mr. D’AMURO. Not in the sharing of the information, no. We do 

share information much more freely now, specifically as it pertains 

to FISA-derived information, which is the biggest change. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Guevara, you mentioned that you have been dismantling drug operations. Has there been any study to show 

whether or not the dismantling of a drug operation actually results 

in a reduction in drug use, rather than having a situation where 

others come in to fill the demand, fill the void that has been created by your investigatory and prosecution——

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. We have the Metropolitan Enforcement 

Teams, the MET program, that goes into high crime, violent-type 

street crime activity. Studies following the deployment of these 

teams have indicated that crime does, in fact, go down. 

As to the second part of your question, whether others come in 

and take over, we have not had exhaustive and long-term studies 

to address that specifically. That is one of the things that DEA 

needs to do better, in terms of measuring our success. 

Mr. SCOTT. You have measured the drop in actual drug use with 

treatment? 

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, sir, we have. There are studies that indicate, 

for example, that cocaine use has declined over the course of the 

last 10 years. That I will daresay is, in part, because of the efforts 

of law enforcement, and DEA in particular, in dismantling these 

major drug trafficking organizations that are responsible for bringing in the large-scale quantities of drugs into our country. 

Mr. SCOTT. All of the studies show that you can reduce drug use 

more with treatment than with law enforcement. Are you familiar 

with those studies? 

Mr. GUEVARA. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. How much money would it cost for us to be able to 

provide drug treatment on demand so there are no waiting lists? 

60

Mr. GUEVARA. I do not know the answer to that. If I may, perhaps I could respond to you in writing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

I say that because we spend billions for interdiction and law enforcement. If we could get drug treatment on demand, which would 

have, as we know, a more cost-effective way of reducing drug use— we ought not to be stingy on drug treatment, where it is more costeffective. 

Mr. D’Amuro, in your response to the Chairman’s first question, 

I wasn’t sure whether you had connected terrorism to Iraq or not. 

We know that the terrorists for 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, 

Egypt, everywhere except Iraq, and that there are a great number 

of questions as to whether Iraq has anything to do with international terrorism landing in the United States or not. 

Is it your testimony now that the Iraqi government was any 

more of a threat of terrorism in the United States than anybody 

else in the Middle East? Or is it your testimony that the FBI and 

others have been effective with—not in Iraq but all around the 

world dealing with al-Qaeda. 

Mr. D’AMURO. As I said, I believe DOD, CIA, and FBI has been 

very effective with al-Qaeda. Iraq has long been a state sponsor for 

terrorism. I would be more than happy to brief you in a closed 

hearing as to some of the different aspects of Iraqi support of terrorism, as well as some of the other state sponsors. 

My opinion of Iraq has not changed. They are a state sponsor 

and they were a threat to this country. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose one further question that I would like answers in writing for, because I suspect 

they will take longer than can reasonably fit into whatever the extension of 5 minutes there will be. 

The last time we were here, we had testimony that firearms were 

being lost by some of our law enforcement agencies. I would like 

an update on what we are doing to prevent firearms from being 

lost in our various agencies, from all three agencies. 

For the FBI specifically, what is going on in our criminal labs 

after the questions are raised about whether or not the test results 

have been accurate or not? 

If they could respond as soon as they can, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. If you all could respond in writing to Mr. Scott for 

that. 

Mr. D’Amuro, I like the idea of a closed hearing for this Subcommittee. I think that has merit. We will talk about that in more 

detail. 

Before I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, in 

response to Mr. Scott’s question, I believe you said it would not require a crime. But if it is a United States citizen, it would in fact 

require a crime, would it not? 

Mr. D’AMURO. Yes. There are separate regulations governing investigation of United States citizens. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. 

The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield on that point, on 

these roving wiretaps, where there are taps all over the place, you 

may in fact be listening in on American citizens that have nothing 

61

to do with the operation. They just happen to be using the same 

phone, and the tap was put there without any predicate of a crime 

being committed. 

Mr. D’AMURO. There are separate guidelines. Once that is identified, we have to immediately notify the Attorney General. I will be 

glad to go through those procedures with you, where we have to 

seek appropriate authority once we have shown a United States citizen is acting on behalf of a foreign power. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am saying, you have a target who is an agent of 

a foreign government using a phone, a corner pay phone, and you 

have a tap on it. Some citizen wanders in, uses the same phone, 

and you have got a wiretap on him. 

I had an amendment when this thing went through the Committee on the Judiciary that said when the target leaves the building where one of these roving wiretaps are placed that you would 

stop listening. 

Mr. D’AMURO. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, except that the amendment was not adopted. 

Mr. D’AMURO. There are minimization laws and requirements 

that are imposed upon different types of techniques that we utilize. 

There are oversights to make sure that we don’t overstep those 

bounds. I will not say that there are not mistakes made, but they 

are identified and reported whenever they occur. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you have a minimization of listening in on an 

American citizen because you are listening to somebody else and 

you heard him blurt out a crime, what would happen? 

Mr. D’AMURO. If there was information that was obtained that 

was outside of the minimization laws, we would have to make that 

known. 

Mr. SCOTT. Within the minimization laws, you are listening, you 

just happen to be listening——

Mr. D’AMURO. He blurts out a crime? If this is a national security case, we would go back to the FISA court and request authorization by them to be able to use them, in that case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Not a foreign threat, a drug deal. 

Mr. D’AMURO. There is a whole different thing. Are you talking 

about a criminal investigation? 

Mr. SCOTT. No, I am talking about listening in on an agent of 

a foreign government. You use your minimization, an American citizen wanders in on the same phone, you listen to determine whether it is your man or not, and he blurts out an entirely unrelated 

crime. 

Mr. D’AMURO. That would have to go back to the FISA court. The 

only two mechanisms we have for intercepts such as you are speaking of are national security laws governed by the FISA court or 

title III governed by a criminal court. 

Mr. SCOTT. You are listening in on a FISA wiretap and you just 

happen to trip over some information of another crime. 

Mr. D’AMURO. That would be made known to the FISA court, because there are minimization procedures set up—I don’t understand what you are saying. If we did not violate the minimization 

procedure, we would still make that information known to the 

FISA court to determine whether or not it could be used in a criminal case. 

62

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. I do have one question of Mr. 

D’Amuro. 

You mentioned assessments, ensuring information-sharing and 

comprehensive analysis of threats. How does the TTIC differ from 

the Homeland Security’s information analysis division? 

Mr. D’AMURO. I won’t speak for Homeland Security, but what we 

tried to do with the TTIC, the one piece that was missing was the 

fusion of all the different intelligence community components. 

In the fusion of that threat analysis, Homeland Security is a full 

participant in the TTIC. I believe it chooses to do the threat analysis within the TTIC, but all the different agencies are providing 

the information there, so you have one-stop shopping for that fusion of information. 

Now, Homeland Security, in addition to the threat analysis piece 

that it obtains from the TTIC, has the vulnerability assessment 

analysis within the department itself. So it would take the threat 

assessment, the threat analysis, and lay that over the 

vulnerabilities assessment in doing the infrastructure protection. 

We have a separate analytical center for that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Gentlemen, we thank you all for your testimony. The Subcommittee very much appreciates your contribution. 

This concludes the oversight hearing on the reauthorization of 

the Department of Justice criminal law enforcement agencies. The 

record will remain open for one week. Thank you for your cooperation. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(63)

CRIMINAL LAW COMPONENTS AT

MAIN JUSTICE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

holds the second of two hearings on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice. 

Our Subcommittee is charged with oversight of seven of the DOJ 

components. The Subcommittee’s first hearing, held on May 6, featured four law enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA and ATF. Events from last week remind us why it 

is important for this Subcommittee to exercise its oversight responsibilities. 

Today’s hearing focuses on four additional criminal law components of the Justice Department. They are the Criminal Division, 

the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

The Criminal Division was created in 1919 and is responsible for 

developing, enforcing and supervising the application of all Federal 

criminal laws except those specifically assigned to other divisions. 

The Division has the responsibility of overseeing criminal matters 

under more than 900 statutes. In addition to its direct litigation responsibilities, the Division formulates and implements criminal law 

enforcement policy and provides legal advice and assistance to Federal prosecutors and investigative agencies. 

The Office of Justice Programs was established in 1984 to provide Federal leadership, coordination and assistance needed to 

make the Nation’s justice system more efficient and effective in 

preventing and controlling crime. Through programs developed and 

funded by its bureaus and offices, OJP works to form partnerships 

among Federal, State and local government officials to reduce and 

prevent crime, improve the administration of justice in America 

and meet the needs of crime victims. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons was established in 1930 to provide more progressive and humane care for Federal inmates, to 

professionalize the prison service and to ensure consistent and centralized administration of Federal prisons. The Bureau of Prisons 

64

1This report, entitled ‘‘The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime’’ is 

not reprinted here. It is available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/crime/pdf/costbenefit.pdf. 

protects society by confining offenders in safe, humane and secure 

facilities. The Bureau focuses on balancing punishment, deterrence, 

incapacitation and rehabilitation. 

The United States Marshals Service is the Nation’s oldest law 

enforcement agency. Since 1789, the U.S. Marshals have served in 

a variety of law enforcement activities. The Marshals Service occupies a uniquely central position in the Federal justice system. It is 

involved in virtually every Federal law enforcement initiative. Deputy Marshals and career employees perform a variety of missions 

including fugitive apprehension, court security, prison transportation and custody, witness protections and assets seizure. 

Today’s witnesses oversee some of the most significant components of our Nation’s criminal justice system, since guarding public 

safety is one of Government’s most essential duties. We look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the challenges they face 

and the ways in which Congress can help them accomplish their 

goals. 

I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from 

Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to join you in convening the hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice criminal law enforcement 

support operations. 

The operations in force today reflect the wide breadth of the Department’s jurisdictions from the front end of the criminal justice 

process with the Office of Justice programs to prevent crimes before they occur, to the U.S. Marshals’ apprehension and arrest 

functions, the Criminal Division’s prosecution function, to the end 

of the system with the Bureau of Prisons’ incarceration and rehabilitation. 

I would hope to hear from OJP about effective crime prevention 

programs. We know that prevention—just because a program is 

called a prevention program doesn’t mean that it works, but many 

of the programs save a lot more money than they cost because they 

are so effective. I understand that Abt Associates has recently done 

a report on crime prevention programs, and the results are somewhere in the Department of Justice, and we would like to hear the 

results of that study.1

On the arrest and prosecution functions, we have concerns about 

violations of traditional principles of criminal law where we are 

using extraordinary law enforcement powers authorized under the 

USA PATRIOT Act and the recently enacted Protect Act. The USA 

PATRIOT Act allows interactions between law enforcement and intelligence gathering which draws the traditional bright line between the two to become a bit fuzzy. 

Under FISA, you can get wiretaps involved, including roving 

wiretaps, without probable cause of a crime and rove around and 

place taps in many places without specific court intervention. Now 

FISA can share information without probable cause with law enforcement, and so criminal investigations can be opened without 

65

the probable cause requirement. This is just not for terrorism. It 

is also for other crimes as well. 

Even under the traditional criminal law enforcement procedures, 

we have authorized sneak and peek searches, arrest and hold without charges, let alone probable cause; and now we are proposing a 

second round of PATRIOT Act authorizations. So we need to find 

out exactly how it has worked and what is being proposed. 

Under the Protect Act, searches, wiretaps, arrests and prosecutions are all authorized for legal virtual images created on a computer; and we force a defendant to prove his or her innocence to 

avoid a conviction and imprisonment. Under the BOP function, we 

incarcerate people for many years; and we ought to make sure for 

the sake of public safety as well as prisoners and their families 

that they leave better than they came. 

Now we, in Congress, unfortunately, ended the use of Pell Grants 

which allowed prisoners to take college courses while they are incarcerated, despite the universally consistent evidence that education reduces crime. The crime rate among college graduates is 

nonexistent, compared to the rate among those who have not attended college. Taking Pell Grants away was not the fault of the 

Department of Justice, but I would like to hear what they thought 

of that and some other ideas. 

I would also like to hear about what we are doing involving work 

experience and job training for inmates in light of the Department 

of Defense FPI restrictions and overwhelming evidence of the recidivism reduction for those who have had the opportunity to participate in the prison workforce programs. 

I would like to hear about what we are doing for inmate drug 

treatment in light of the evidence that drug treatment reduces recidivism. We would like to hear about the Bureau of Prisons’ position on the Prison Rape Reduction Act, particularly in light of the 

Chairman’s cosponsorship of the bill and our full Committee Chairman Mr. Sensenbrenner’s stated objective of moving the bill forward. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of the 

witnesses and hope they can address some of those issues. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman; and we are pleased as well 

to welcome the other gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. 

Let me give some background about our witnesses. I think members of the audience need to know the credentials our witnesses 

bring to the table. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Deborah Daniels, Assistant 

Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. Assistant Attorney General Daniels was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 21 of 2001. 

Prior to her work at Justice, Ms. Daniels had a distinguished career in criminal prosecution both on the local and Federal levels, 

as well as background and community economic development and 

neighborhood revitalization. She received a BA with honors from 

DePaul University and was graduated cum laude from the Indiana 

University School of Law. 

Our next witness is Mr. Harley Lappin, who was sworn in as the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons on April 4, 2003. He is a career 

public administrator in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the sevVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
66

enth director of the Bureau since its establishment in 1930. Director Lappin received a BA degree in forensics studies from Indiana 

University in Bloomington in 1978 and a Master of Arts degree in 

criminal justice and correctional administration from Kent State 

University in Kent, Ohio, in 1985. 

Our third witness is Mr. Benigno G. Reyna, who was appointed 

by President Bush to serve as Director of the United States Marshals Service on October 29, 2001, after a 25-year career in law enforcement. Director Reyna received his Bachelor of Science Degree 

in criminal justice from the University of Texas-Pan American and 

received the 2002 Distinguished Alumnus Award from Texas 

Southmost College. Director Reyna is also a proud graduate of the 

FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. 

Our final witness is Ms. Julie Myers, who is the Chief of Staff 

to Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Prior to joining the Department, Ms. Myers was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Money 

Laundering and Financial Crimes at the Department of Treasury 

and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern 

District of New York. 

Ms. Myers also worked as an Associate Independent Counsel 

under Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater and 

Lewinsky investigations. Ms. Myers received her bachelor of arts 

from Baylor University and was graduated cum laude from the 

Cornell School of Law. 

It is good to have each of you with us. We have written statements from all the witnesses on the panel, and I ask unanimous 

consent to submit into the record their entirety. 

Folks, as you all have been previously admonished, Mr. Scott and 

I comply with the 5-minute rule. When the red light illuminates 

into your eyes, you know the ice is thin on which you are skating, 

so wrap at the 5-minute rule. 

Your statements have been read and will be reexamined again. 

It is good to have all of you with us. 

I stated to Mr. Forbes and Mr. Scott I have to depart at 3:30, 

and I will stand relieved at that time. Don’t think that my departure is an indication of lack of interest in what we are discussing 

today. I just happen to be in another meeting. 

But it is good to have all of you with us.

Mr. COBLE. Why don’t we start, Ms. Daniels, with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DEBORAH DANIELS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, Congressman Forbes——

Mr. COBLE. If you will suspend, Mr. Scott very appropriately reminded me that the ice becomes thin when the amber light appears. But we will be flexible. 

Ms. DANIELS. May I begin again? 

My name again is Deborah Daniels. I am the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of 

Justice. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss OJP and its efforts to provide Federal leadership in developing the Nation’s caVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
67

pacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice and assist 

victims. 

During the last Congress, this Subcommittee held hearings addressing issues related to duplication, overlapping programs, a lack 

of coordination among OJP bureaus and offices and a management 

and organizational structure that had grown cumbersome. These 

are issues of critical importance to OJP as well as to this Subcommittee. 

In 2001, OJP began implementing our agency-wide reorganization in consultation with the Congress aiming for a more effective 

and efficient organization. We have made great strides in that direction. To guide our improvement efforts, we have developed a 

comprehensive management plan focusing on how OJP operates as 

an agency, how we manage the resources appropriated to us by the 

Congress, how we measure what we do, how we ensure that those 

resources flow to the communities that need them as quickly and 

efficiently as possible. Our implementation of the initiatives outlined in the plan is well under way. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for OJP is $2.185 billion. The funds requested 

will help States, local communities and organizations across the 

country maintain their momentum in reducing and preventing 

crime, controlling drug abuse and trafficking, meeting the needs of 

crime victims and addressing problems such as gang violence, juvenile crime and domestic violence. 

One of the most important initiatives in the President’s budget 

with regard to which this Subcommittee has already been helpful 

to us is the President’s DNA initiative, Advancing Justice Through 

DNA Technology. DNA offers significant opportunities to ensure 

fairness in the criminal justice system to help protect citizens and 

to enhance support for victims of crime. To accomplish these goals, 

President Bush has proposed a 5-year, $1 billion effort. The President’s initiative is a multi-front approach which will vastly increase 

the Nation’s ability to protect the innocent, convict the guilty and 

prevent the victimization of many people in this country. 

The Administration’s commitment to protecting children is clearly seen in the nearly $33 million request in our budget request for 

the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program and AMBER Alert. 

As you know, in October, 2002, the President issued a directive to 

the Attorney General to designate an AMBER Alert coordinator 

within the Department of Justice. I have been so named. I am honored to serve in that capacity, and we are moving ahead rapidly in 

our efforts to establish and link local and Statewide alert plans. 

We are also pleased for the Congress recently passed and the 

President signed the Protect Act of 2003. This Act is an historic 

milestone for our Nation’s children and provides enhanced tools 

and resources which will strengthen our ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violent crimes committed against children. We owe special things to the Members of the Judiciary Committee and especially to Chairman Sensenbrenner and to you, 

Chairman Coble, for being instrumental in the passage of this historic legislation. 

One particular proposal in the Administration’s budget on which 

we hope to work very closely with this Subcommittee is the Justice 

68

Assistant Grants, otherwise known as JAG program. This is a consolidation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program and 

the Edward Byrne Formula Grant Program into a single program 

distributing funding both to State and local governments. 

OJP proposes that the more than 29 Byrne and 7 LLEBG purpose areas be consolidated into a few very broad purpose areas. 

This will permit States and communities to improve all aspects of 

their criminal justice and correction systems and particularly will 

give local jurisdictions more discretion than they currently have 

under LLEBG. It will also streamline their process for applying for 

these funds. 

Mr. Chairman, OJP is committed to being the premier resource 

for the justice community. I look forward to continuing our work 

together with the Subcommittee to ensure that OJP carries out its 

mission to the best of its ability. 

I have submitted my written statement. I appreciate you accepting that, and I thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. I will be pleased after the testimony to respond to any questions the Members may have. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. I commend you, Ms. Daniels. You beat the red light. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Daniels follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH J. DANIELS

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, members of the subcommittee, my name is 

Deborah J. Daniels, and as the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP), it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss 

OJP and its efforts to assist State and local communities. 

As the subcommittee is aware, OJP provides Federal leadership in developing the 

nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims. 

OJP comprises 5 component bureaus and 2 offices: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime, as 

well as the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, and the Office of the Police Corps 

and Law Enforcement Education. OJP’s Office on Violence Against Women, pursuant to the decision of the Attorney General, will soon be designated as a separate 

office within the Justice Department. 

IMPROVING OJP OPERATIONS

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, it is critically important to all of OJP’s leadership to improve how OJP does business. During the last Congress this subcommittee 

held a series of three hearings, addressing issues of critical importance to the subcommittee, as well as to those of us at OJP. Issues discussed included various duplications of authorities within the statutes governing OJP, overlapping programs and 

lack of coordination among OJP bureaus and offices, and a management and organizational structure that had grown cumbersome. 

During the past decade, OJP has experienced extraordinary growth and change. 

Since the passage of the crime bill in 1994, OJP added four program offices, expanded its focus from 14 to 43 major budget activities, increased by 1,300% the 

number of grants awarded annually, and experienced more than a five-fold increase 

in the total dollar amount of awards administered. 

This period of growth greatly increased the ability of OJP to drive and support 

improvements throughout the justice system. However the piecemeal fashion in 

which organizational and programmatic changes occurred resulted in a wide range 

of management challenges. 

The clear message Mr. Chairman, was that OJP had to change; and we took this 

message to heart. Today, all of OJP is working to improve the way we accomplish 

our mission and serve our customers. Our aim is to make significant changes in the 

way we operate, making our services both more accessible and more effective. I am 

pleased to report that great progress has been made toward the accomplishment of 

these goals. 

69

OJP has begun implementing our agency-wide reorganization. In 2001, we submitted to Congress a reorganization plan for OJP and, consistent with that plan, 

began the process of re-building OJP into a more effective and efficient organization. 

However, Mr. Chairman, the reorganization of OJP is about more than just 

streamlining, creating efficiencies, and increasing coordination. Through our efforts, 

we strive to improve OJP’s overall responsiveness to the criminal justice field, to 

States and localities, to individuals, and to the Congress. Any reorganization must 

also leverage, to the greatest extent possible, Federal funds to ensure effective utilization of taxpayer resources. Moving forward in this manner will allow OJP to forge 

new relationships of cooperation and trust with our partners in State and local communities, while not neglecting other pressing, and ongoing, needs in the fight 

against crime. OJP’s reorganization will also meet the President’s call to Federal 

agencies to promote ‘‘an active but limited government; one that empowers States, 

cities and citizens to make decisions; ensures results through accountability; and 

promotes innovation through competition.’’ Merging the programs and staffs of the Corrections Program Office and the Drug 

Courts Program Office into the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) consolidated 

overlapping functions, reduced management redundancy, and improved coordination 

and communication not only within OJP, but also with the field. We also created 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), in recognition of the importance 

of mission-critical automated systems. The swift implementation of the OCIO has 

transformed OJP’s grants process—moving from a labor intensive, paper process to 

a centralized paperless system through which 84% of our grants are now processed. 

By the end of fiscal year 2003, we expect to administer all OJP grants electronically. 

We have also begun the consolidation of several administrative and support functions into the Office of Management and Administration. In addition, our new Office 

of Communications will carry out OJP’s congressional and public affairs and other 

information dissemination functions. 

Mr. Chairman, we will soon be working to merge the programs, functions, and 

staff of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed and the American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk into the Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO). 

The CCDO is an exciting concept which brings into focus one of OJP’s core missions—to work with local communities to enhance their capabilities to address 

crime, substance abuse, delinquency, and domestic violence. Through training and 

technical assistance, the CCDO will help communities better help themselves—ena- bling communities to develop solutions and the leadership to implement and sustain 

solutions to these problems. Weed and Seed will be the flagship program in the 

CCDO, but we will expand the collaborative, community-driven approach to many 

other programs. 

To guide our improvement efforts, we have developed a comprehensive management plan that identifies and schedules major change initiatives within OJP. It is 

important to recognize that the management plan focuses on how OJP operates as 

an agency—on how we manage the resources appropriated to us by the Congress, 

and how we ensure that those resources flow to the communities that need them 

as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is also important to recognize that OJP’s management plan adds depth and detail to OJP’s reorganization efforts. At the core 

of this plan are four major performance improvement goals.

1. Make OJP the premier source for the various types of information and assistance our customers need;

2. Efficiently manage our resources and ensure top-to-bottom accountability;

3. Create the conditions for our employees to flourish; and

4. Standardize and streamline our processes and automated systems.

And in achieving these goals, OJP’s leadership has been guided by several key 

principles.

1. We will be customer-driven;

2. We will be informed decision-makers; and

3. We will respect and value our employees.

We have already made considerable progress in the development and implementation of OJP’s management plan, but much remains to be done. We are not however, 

without early successes. As I mentioned, we are committed to making OJP the premier source of assistance and information needed by our customers. To that end, 

we have enhanced our Internet services, making the web more usable and informative for our customers. In 2002, OJP’s Bureau of Justice Statistics website alone 

had more than 3 million hits. We have also instituted data quality guidelines for 

information we release to ensure the objectivity, utility, and integrity of the inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
70

mation. I mentioned that OJP will standardize and streamline its automated systems. This year OJP completed its first Technology Strategic Plan to guide us in 

identifying and addressing our technology needs. We have also eliminated many administrative requirements for applicants and grantees, in order to allow for the 

streamlined delivery of financial resources to States and localities. 

We are making progress in improving the business of serving our customers. The 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) continues to present trends through user friendly 

tools such as Key Facts at a Glance. Our Guide to Federal Resources for Weed and 

Seed Communities will improve sustainability of community-driven efforts by helping to identify other potential resources for funding and training. BJA’s Guide to 

Grants will serve as a tool for grantees and will be the model for an OJP Guide 

to Grants. 

Collectively, these actions will move OJP toward greater centralization of management, and improve communication and coordination across components and programs. These actions will also help reduce redundancies in administrative functions. 

However, the reorganization, streamlining, and other successes that OJP has 

achieved over the past few years could not have been achieved without the support 

and assistance of the Congress. That support has been vitally important and very 

much appreciated. We look forward to working closely with the Congress, and this 

subcommittee, as we work to improve OJP’s service to the State and local community. Only in this way can we be good and responsible stewards of the funds Congress has entrusted to us in the past, and the funds we ask Congress to entrust 

to us in the future. 

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request 

for OJP is $2.185 billion. The funds requested will help States, local communities, 

and organizations across the country build upon what we have learned through research and experience about what works in controlling crime. Communities will be 

able to maintain their momentum in finding ways to reduce and prevent crime, control drug abuse and trafficking, meet the needs of crime victims, and address problems such as gang violence, juvenile crime, and domestic violence. 

ADVANCING JUSTICE THROUGH DNA TECHNOLOGY

One of the most important initiatives in the President’s budget, with regard to 

which this subcommittee has already been helpful to us, is the President’s DNA initiative—Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. The President’s commitment 

to this comprehensive initiative using DNA technology was announced by the Attorney General on March 11, 2003. DNA offers significant opportunities to ensure fairness in the criminal justice system, to help protect citizens, and to enhance support 

for victims of crime. However, the full potential of DNA technology can only be realized through a concentrated effort that improves current Federal and State DNA 

collection and analysis systems. 

To accomplish these goals, President Bush has proposed a 5-year, $ 1 billion effort. This includes $232.6 million in Federal funding in fiscal year 2004. The elements of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology initiative are:

1. Eliminating backlogs of unanalyzed samples’both known offender samples 

and crime scene samples, including rape kits;

2. Enhancing crime lab capacity on the Federal, State, and local levels through 

funding for automation;

3. Stimulating research and development of faster and less expensive means of 

analyzing DNA samples;

4. Training the criminal justice and medical communities to collect and use 

DNA evidence to maximum effect, while demonstrating sensitivity to victim 

concerns;

5. Using DNA to protect the innocent by offering post-conviction testing; and

6. Using DNA to identify missing persons.

Most of the funds under the President’s initiative would be administered by OJP’s 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ). These funds are intended primarily to assist 

State and local governments in eliminating their backlogs of crime scene and offender DNA samples, to increase State and local forensic laboratory capacity to 

carry out DNA analysis, and to advance research to reduce the cost and increase 

the speed of DNA testing, further enhancing the capability of State and local laboratories to conduct more tests. 

71

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

The Administration’s commitment to protecting children is clearly seen in the $32.986 million request for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program and 

AMBER Alert. As you know, on October 2, 2002, the President issued a directive 

to the Attorney General to designate an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice, which he did that same day by appointing me. It is an honor 

for me to serve in this capacity. 

We are also pleased that the Congress recently passed, and the President, on 

April 30, 2003, signed, the PROTECT Act of 2003. This act is an historic milestone 

for our nation’s children and provides the Federal government enhanced tools and 

resources, including enhanced resources for the AMBER Alert program, which 

strengthen law enforcement’s ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish 

violent crimes committed against children. We owe special thanks to the members 

of the Judiciary Committee, especially to Chairman Sensenbrenner and to you, 

Chairman Coble, for being instrumental in the passage of this historic legislation. 

OJP’s Missing and Exploited Children’s Program collects statistics about missing 

children, and identifies best practices and emerging technical information to keep 

ongoing training and technical assistance programs current. The program also provides training and technical assistance on a wide variety of child victimization topics, ranging from assisting communities in developing comprehensive response protocols and action plans to specific investigative techniques for front-line law enforcement personnel. 

The AMBER Alert program is a voluntary collaboration between police and broadcasters, through which emergency alerts are issued to notify the public about abductions of children. The AMBER Plan was created in 1996 as a powerful legacy to 9-

year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas, who was kidnaped and brutally murdered while riding her bicycle. Since her tragic abduction and death, the AMBER 

Alert Plan has been implemented in 39 States nationwide, and has assisted in the 

recovery of over 50 children. 

In the fiscal year 2004 President’s budget, OJP has asked for $2.5 million to continue efforts to establish a coordinated AMBER Alert Network nationwide, as well 

as to train law enforcement and others in operating it. We are pleased that the Congress provided $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill for these efforts. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

A proposal in the Administration’s budget on which we will need to work closely 

with this subcommittee is the Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Program, which is 

a consolidation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program and 

the Edward Byrne Formula Grant (Byrne) Program into a single grant program. Authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, the Byrne program assists States and units of local government in carrying out programs that offer a high 

probability of improving the operation and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The States, in consultation with local officials, develop statewide strategies and 

funding priorities to address their drug and violent crime problems and to improve 

the functioning of their criminal justice systems, while supporting national priorities 

and objectives. Since 1996, the LLEBG program has awarded more than 14,000 

grants to jurisdictions in all 50 States, the U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia for the seven legislated purpose areas supporting reductions in crime and 

improvements in the criminal justice system. This program provides units of local 

government with funds to underwrite projects designed to reduce crime and improve 

public safety. 

JAG funding would be distributed to both State and local governments. OJP proposes that the more than 29 Byrne and seven LLEBG purpose areas be consolidated 

into a few broad purpose areas, including:

• Law Enforcement Programs

• Prosecution and Court Programs

• Community-Based and Statewide Prevention and Education Programs

• Corrections Programs

• Drug Treatment Programs

• Planning, Evaluation and Technology Improvement

Under this structure, local jurisdictions would be given more discretion than they 

currently have because they will be able to use their funding for broader purposes 

than those available under LLEBG. Under the JAG initiative, cities such as Greensboro, North Carolina or Newport News, Virginia would enjoy much greater latitude 

72

in how and for what purposes they could spend and utilize their local awards, including broader application in such areas as corrections, courts administration, and 

planning for and responding to terrorism. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, OJP will continue to support a comprehensive array of demonstration, training, technical assistance, research, statistical analysis, information-sharing, and other programs and initiatives to enhance the capacity of States, local communities, and organizations in preventing and responding to crime. OJP is committed to being the premier resource for the justice community. 

I assure you that I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure that 

OJP carries out its mission to the best of its ability. Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I am pleased to respond to any questions 

that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Lappin. 

STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. LAPPIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Harley Lappin, the recently appointed 

Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I am pleased to appear 

before you today to discuss programs and operations of the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons. 

Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman Coble, and Mr. Scott 

and other Members of the Subcommittee for your strong support of 

the Bureau of Prisons. 

The Federal inmate population has increased nearly sevenfold in 

the past two decades, from approximately 25,000 inmates and 41 

institutions in 1980 to more than 169,000 inmates and 103 institutions today. 

Our fiscal year 2004 budget request totals almost $4.7 billion: 

$4.5 billion for operations and $224 million for the capital budget. 

The operating budget will fund all existing facilities as well as new 

facilities scheduled to be brought online this coming fiscal year. 

The rapid growth of the inmate population has led to systemwide crowding of 37 percent over our rated capacity. To address 

this, we have four new institutions that will be activated by the 

end of 2003. The activation funding for seven more new institutions 

is included in the pending fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

In addition, we contract with private sector, State and local correctional systems to help cover our capacity needs. 

The Bureau confines inmates at institutions at four security levels: minimum, low, medium and high. We have one maximum security prison. We also operate detention centers for pretrial detainees 

and pre-sentence offenders and Federal medical centers for inmates 

who require inpatient medical care. We employ a validated classification system in order to place inmates in facilities that meet 

their security needs. 

We have also improved prison design and construction, made 

many physical plant improvements, and taken advantage of technological developments to further enhance institution security. 

Although the obvious features of architecture and technology can 

help the Bureau maintain safety and security of our institutions, 

the most important way we ensure security is through direct inmate supervision. We manage our institutions through meaningful 

communication and constructive interaction between staff and inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
73

mates, which helps us gather intelligence and encourage positive 

inmate behavior. 

In addition, regardless of the specific discipline in which a staff 

member works, all employees are correctional workers first. All 

staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive to the inmate accountability and security issues, to respond to emergencies, and to 

maintain a proficiency in security matters, as well as in their particular job specialty. 

The Bureau helps protect society from criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that will 

help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle upon release. All Bureau institutions offer a variety of educational programs and occupational 

and vocational training programs based on the needs of the inmates, general labor market conditions, and institutional labor 

force needs. 

While sentenced inmates in Federal correctional institutions are 

required to work, except for the relatively few number who, for security, education, or medical reasons are unable to do so. Approximately 22 percent of the Bureau’s medically able sentenced inmates work in Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, which is our most 

important correctional program. By statute, FPI’s mission is to employ and provide skills and training to the greatest possible number of inmates confined within the Bureau of Prisons, while avoiding capturing more than a reasonable share of the Federal market. 

Rigorous research has demonstrated that inmates who work in 

Federal Prison Industries were 24 percent less likely to recidivate 

than those who did not and were 14 percent more likely to be employed following release from prison. The studies show that ex-inmates who had the skills and training provided by FPI earned 

higher wages, providing additional benefits to the community. The 

research also determined that the FPI programs provide even 

greater benefit to minorities who are at greater risk for recidivism. 

FPI operates off sales revenue, rather than appropriated funds, 

thereby providing no need for additional inmate programs. 

Inmates typically have greater health needs than the average citizen. We have extensive medical and mental health programs. We 

provide comprehensive drug abuse treatment programs to inmates, 

the cornerstone of which is the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment 

Program. The treatment program is designed for the approximately 

34 percent of our inmate population that has been clinically diagnosed with substance abuse or dependency disorder. A rigorous 

analysis of the residential drug treatment program revealed that 3 

years after release from custody, inmates who completed the program were significantly less likely to be rearrested or to use drugs. 

Our religious programs are intended to provide inmates with opportunities to grow spiritually and to strengthen their religious 

convictions. We have developed a multi-faith-based pre-release pilot 

program at five facilities for inmates at various security levels. The 

goal of our program is to reduce recidivism by providing participants with moral and spiritual principles that can guide them in 

making good decisions. 

All of our inmate programs are intended to prepare inmates for 

successful return to the community. We complement our agency 

array of programs with a specific release preparation program at 

74

which inmates become involved near the end of their sentence. We 

strive to place most inmates in halfway houses prior to their release from custody in order to help them adjust to a life in the community and find suitable post-release employment. 

Mr. Chairman, this is just a quick overview of our budget, security measures, and a wide range of programs and services that we 

provide to inmates. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this 

overview to you and Subcommittee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Lappin. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the programs and operations 

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau). Let me begin by thanking you, Chairman 

Coble, Ranking Minority Member Scott, and other members of the Subcommittee for 

your strong support of the Bureau. I look forward to continuing our work with you 

and the other members of the Subcommittee. 

The Bureau continues to effectively meet our mission to protect society by confining offenders in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately 

secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. Earlier this year, we added to our strategic plan a new goal, to enhance our efforts regarding the prevention, disruption, 

and response to terrorist activities. 

POPULATION GROWTH AND RESOURCES

The Federal inmate population has increased nearly seven-fold in the last two 

decades, from approximately 25,000 inmates and 41 institutions in 1980 to more 

than 169,000 inmates and 103 institutions today. (Of the 169,000 total, approximately 144,000 are in facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons, and the remainder are in privately-operated facilities and facilities managed by state and local governments). The growth stems from more Federal investigations, prosecutions, and 

convictions, and legislation in the 1980s that dramatically altered sentencing in the 

Federal criminal justice system. 

To address this population growth, the Bureau’s budget has grown from approxi- mately $330 million in 1980 to more than $4.4 billion today. Approximately $4 billion (91 percent) of the total budget is for daily operations (65 percent salaries and 

expenses), and funding for prison activations is also included. The remainder of 

funding (nearly $400 million) is for capital budget projects, including new construction and modernization and repairs. The FY 2004 budget request totals almost $4.7 billion; $4.5 billion for operations and $224 million for the capital budget. The $224 million request funds the ongoing 

maintenance and repair program at existing, older facilities and one project to construct up to 24 new super secure cells for convicted terrorists ($23 million). The operating budget will fund 113 existing and requested facilities and will provide for 

the custody and care of up to 151,400 inmates in Bureau facilities and 28,900 inmates in contract facilities. The Bureau of Prisons relies on the private sector (and 

state and local governments) to house approximately 15 percent of Federal inmates 

in privately managed prisons, state and local facilities and community corrections 

centers. 

Like other law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Prisons has had staff called 

to active duty in the military and others have left to become Air Marshals or transferred to the Transportation Security Agency. We are taking necessary counter-terrorism measures in order to securely house and manage inmates convicted of terrorist activities. This year, we have incurred unanticipated costs of about $7 million 

for counter-terrorism related expenses. 

While the Bureau’s primary mission is the incarceration of sentenced Federal inmates, the agency provides assistance to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) by confining pretrial detainees and convicted offenders not yet sentenced. The Bureau currently confines just under one-third of the USMS prisoner population. The Bureau 

also assists the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
75

partment of Homeland Security by confining approximately 2,600 of their detainees 

in Bureau institutions and contract facilities. 

We expect the inmate population to continue to increase by more than 8,000 inmates on average per year for the next few years (and then growth will slow to an 

average increase of around 5,000 inmates per year) due to ongoing Federal law enforcement initiatives, particularly with respect to drugs, immigration, and weapons 

offenses. Also, as required by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Bureau now confines all District of Columbia 

felons sentenced to prison. 

FACILITIES AND CROWDING

The Bureau confines inmates in institutions at four security levels (minimum, 

low, medium, and high) and has one maximum-security prison for the less than 1 

percent of Bureau of Prisons inmates who require that level of security. The Bureau 

also operates detention centers (that confine mostly pretrial detainees and 

presentenced offenders) and Federal medical centers that provide medical care to inmates who cannot be housed in general population facilities. 

The rapid growth of the inmate population has led to system-wide crowding of 37 

percent above the rated capacity, with the most severe crowding at medium-security 

and high-security institutions (which are 60 and 53 percent above capacity, respectively). These crowding rates, however, will decrease with the activation of 7 new 

facilities in 2004, 4 medium-security and 3 high-security prisons ($252 million). 

Prison crowding contributes to increased inmate idleness due to an increased demand on programs and services. With the support of Congress, the Bureau is making every effort to ensure that sufficient staff are available in its facilities to provide 

adequate prisoner supervision and to offset the deleterious effects of crowding on inmate management. 

For many years, the Bureau has been developing new capacity to meet the demand of its increasing inmate population guided by the following principles: (1) fully 

utilize and expand existing Federal institutions wherever cost effective and feasible; 

(2) construct new Federal prisons on surplus or donated property whenever possible; 

and (3) contract with the private sector and with State and local correctional agencies. 

Four new facilities will be in the activation process by the end of 2003: FCI 

Gilmer, West Virginia; USPs Big Sandy and McCreary, Kentucky; and USP 

Victorville, California. Activation funding for seven more new prisons is included in 

the FY 2004 budget request. Once fully activated, these 11 new facilities will provide more than 12,000 additional medium and high-security beds. 

INSTITUTION SECURITY AND INMATE MANAGEMENT

Although the more obvious features of architecture and technology help the Bureau maintain safety and security of our institutions, the most important way we 

ensure security is through direct inmate supervision. We manage our institutions 

through meaningful communication and constructive interaction between staff and 

inmates. The Bureau believes that this approach ensures accountability, allows us 

to gather intelligence, encourages positive inmate behavior, and helps the Bureau 

address inmates’ concerns before they become serious problems. In addition, regardless of the specific discipline in which a staff member works, all employees are ‘‘cor- rectional workers first.’’ This means that everyone, from secretaries to correctional 

officers to wardens, is responsible for the security and good order of the institution. 

All staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive to inmate accountability and security issues, to respond to emergencies, and to maintain a proficiency in security matters, as well as in their particular job specialty. In addition, all Bureau institutions 

have a comprehensive employee development program, including formal training 

programs, and mentoring by experienced staff. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

The Bureau of Prisons employs a validated inmate classification system to designate inmates to correctional facilities that provide the appropriate level of security 

and supervision. This system minimizes the likelihood that vulnerable offenders will 

be confined with predators or that first time non-violent offenders will be confined 

with sophisticated and dangerous criminals. 

In recent years, the Bureau has improved prison design and construction, made 

many physical plant improvements, and taken advantage of technological developments to further enhance institution security, including the use of closed-circuit 

video recording equipment to detect and deter illicit inmate activities. In order to 

control illegal drug use in Federal prisons, institution staff routinely search inmates 

76

and their property. In addition, the Bureau regularly conducts urinalysis on random 

samples of inmates as well as members of disruptive groups, inmates who are suspected of using drugs, and inmates who have an institutional history of the possession, use, or distribution of drugs. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action if they 

test positive for a controlled substance or if they refuse to provide a urine sample. 

The Bureau has experienced significant reductions in assaults (on both staff and 

other inmates), homicides, suicides, escapes from secure institutions and other serious misconduct over the past several years. 

INMATE CARE AND PROGRAMMING

The Bureau helps protect society from criminal activity by encouraging inmates 

to participate in a range of programs that will help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle 

upon their return to the community. These programs are an essential component 

of effective inmate management, and they are as important to the security and good 

order of Federal prisons as fences, daily counts, and searches. 

Work Programs 

All sentenced inmates in Federal correctional institutions are required to work, 

except for the relatively small number who for security, educational, or medical reasons are unable to do so. Most inmates are assigned to institutional maintenance 

jobs such as a food service worker, orderly, plumber, painter, warehouse worker, or 

groundskeeper. Due to current levels of crowding, most work details are comprised 

of more inmates than necessary to accomplish the particular task. Staff must be 

continually creative to provide sufficient work opportunities. Approximately 22 percent of the Bureau’s medically able, sentenced inmates work in Federal Prison Industries, the Bureau’s most important correctional program. 

Federal Prison Industries (FPI). The statutorily defined mission of FPI is to employ and provide skills training to the greatest possible number of inmates confined 

within the Bureau of Prisons while avoiding capturing more than a reasonable 

share of the Federal market. FPI directly contributes to public safety by providing 

inmates with skills necessary to successfully reintegrate into society after release 

from prison. 

Rigorous research has demonstrated that inmates who worked in prison industries were 24 percent less likely to recidivate than those who did not, and were 14 

percent more likely to be employed following release from prison than their non-participating peers. This study showed that inmates who returned to the community 

with the skills and training provided by working in FPI earned higher wages, providing additional benefits to the community. Finally, the research has demonstrated 

that FPI programs provide even greater benefit to minorities, who are at greater 

risk for recidivism. 

FPI does not receive any appropriated funding for its operations, and by statute 

must be economically self-sustaining. Operating from sales revenue, rather than appropriated funds, FPI precludes the need for alternative inmate programs, lowering 

annual prison management costs to taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Not only does FPI not cost taxpayers any money, it returns substantial amounts of 

money to the community: 74 cents of every dollar in FPI revenue is spent on purchases of raw materials and supplies from the private sector (in Fiscal Year 2002, 

this equated to $502 million, over 62 percent of which was directed to small, womenand minority-owned businesses) and 20 cents on each dollar is spent on staff salaries. The remainder (approximately 6 cents on each dollar) is paid to inmates, and 

even this money reaches the private sector: inmates are required to pay 50 percent 

of their FPI earnings to meet court-ordered obligations such as fines, restitution, 

and child support, and the money they spend in prison commissaries goes to vendors 

in the community. 

In Fiscal Year 2002, inmates working in FPI paid $3 million for victim restitution, 

fines, and child support. 

The Bureau is getting significantly greater numbers of Federal inmates who are 

serving more time in prison, are unskilled, undereducated, criminally sophisticated, 

and physically violent. Virtually all of these inmates will be released back into our 

neighborhoods at some point and will need work skills if they are to successfully 

reintegrate into society. FPI creates the opportunity for inmates to work in diversified work programs that teach work skills and a work ethic, both which can lead 

to viable employment upon release. Moreover, FPI helps meet a U.S. economic need 

by creating much-needed workers who have developed basic work skills and have 

the ability to fill entry-level production jobs (as identified by the National Association of Manufacturers as current and long-term needs). With the Bureau inmate 

population, projected to increase 27 percent by the year 2010, the greatest challenge 

facing FPI in the future will be its ability to continue to generate the requisite numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
77

ber of new inmate jobs and thereby help prisoners prepare for a crime-free return 

to their community after release. 

Medical Care 

Inmates typically have greater health care needs than the average citizen. Many 

offenders have long-standing medical, dental, and psychiatric concerns which either 

have been neglected in the past, or which have resulted from dysfunctional lifestyles 

involving drugs or alcohol abuse. The Bureau has developed and implemented several major health services initiatives designed to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the Bureau’s medical care. These include an increased emphasis on managed 

care and the management of infectious diseases. 

Through various cost containment and cost cutting strategies, the Bureau has 

maintained inmate health care costs below inflation levels over the past 5 years, despite the fact that national health care expenditures have increased an average of 

approximately 5 percent per year during this period. Unfortunately, in the coming 

years, the cost of inmate medical care is likely to increase. This increase is attributable primarily to increases in health care costs nationwide, the continually increasing numbers of inmates of all ages who have inordinate health care needs, and 

steep increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals. 

Additional measures to control medical costs are underway. The Bureau is implementing telehealth capability at virtually every institution, whereby a medical professional is able to diagnose and even treat patients from remote locations. The Bureau of Prisons is also restructuring staffing patterns and primary care provider 

teams, centralizing pre-certification for certain medical treatments, and implementing an inmate co-payment fee system that is expected to reduce unnecessary 

medical appointments. 

Mental Health Treatment 

In addition to substantial medical needs, many inmates are in need of some form 

of mental health care. Psychologists at Bureau of Prisons facilities offer inmates a 

range of psychological services and programs that include: initial psychological assessment, crisis intervention, suicide prevention, counseling, individual psychotherapy, and group psychotherapy. Additionally, psychologists offer inmates a number of specialty treatment programs to assist them in gaining greater insight into 

their specific psychological disorder(s) and in developing the skills needed to successfully overcome their problem(s). 

Education Programs 

All Bureau of Prisons institutions offer a variety of education programs and occupational and vocational training programs based on the vocational training needs 

of the inmates, general labor market conditions, and institution labor force needs. 

Through all of these programs, inmates gain knowledge and skills that help them 

become gainfully employed upon release and avoid new criminal conduct. These programs have been shown to significantly reduce recidivism, and the Bureau is committed to addressing the education deficits with which inmates begin their incarceration. At present, just over one-third of all inmates are enrolled in one or more educational classes. 

The Bureau requires that, with few exceptions, inmates who do not have a 

verified 12th-grade education participate in the literacy program for a minimum of 

240 hours or until they obtain the GED credential. Non-English speaking inmates 

are required to participate in an English as a Second Language program until they 

are proficient in oral and written English. Institutions also offer literacy classes and 

adult continuing education. 

Substance Abuse Treatment 

In 1989, the Bureau designed a comprehensive substance abuse treatment strategy in an effort to change inmates’ criminal and substance-abuse behaviors. In the 

drug abuse education component, inmates receive information about alcohol and 

drugs and the physical, social, and psychological impact of abusing these substances. 

Inmates who are identified as having a further need for treatment are encouraged 

to participate in non-residential or residential drug abuse treatment, depending on 

their individual treatment needs. Non-residential drug abuse treatment and counseling programs are available in every Bureau institution. Treatment includes individual and group therapy, as well as specialty seminars and self-improvement group 

counseling programs. 

The cornerstone of the Bureau’s drug abuse treatment programming is the residential drug abuse treatment program which is provided in 50 Bureau institutions. 

The treatment is designed for inmates with moderate to serious substance abuse 

disorders, about 34 percent of the Bureau’s population. The residential drug abuse 

78

program is a course of individual and group treatment, lasting 9 months in residential treatment units set apart from the general prison population. Treatment is provided 3 to 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, and follows a cognitive behavioral treatment model. When not on the treatment unit, the inmate spends his or her time 

in educational programs, work, vocational training, or other inmate programs that 

are available at the institution. Upon completion of the residential drug abuse treatment program, the inmate must continue his or her treatment in the general population and/or in a community corrections center. This follow-up treatment is essential in preventing and detecting relapse, thereby enhancing community safety. 

The Bureau continues to meet the statutory mandate of providing residential substance abuse treatment to all eligible offenders. Based on empirical research regarding the effectiveness of treatment programs, we provide the residential treatment 

to inmates toward the end of their sentence. Even though we have waiting lists for 

the programs (primarily the result of the statutory opportunity for a reduction of 

their prison term) we are able to treat all eligible offenders prior to release. 

A rigorous analysis of the residential drug treatment program revealed that 3 

years after release from custody, inmates who completed the Residential Drug 

Abuse Treatment Program were significantly less likely to be rearrested and to use 

drugs when compared to similar offenders who did not participate in the residential 

treatment. These findings suggest that the Bureau of Prisons’ residential drug 

abuse treatment programs make a significant difference in the lives of inmates following their release from custody and return to the community. In this way the program furthers the Bureau’s mission of protecting public safety. 

Other Treatment Programs—Changing Criminal Thinking 

Encouraged by the positive results of the residential substance abuse treatment 

program, the Bureau has implemented a number of new residential programs for 

special populations (including younger, high security, and intractable, quick-tempered inmates) who are responsible for much of the misconduct that occurs in Federal prisons. The cognitive restructuring approach used in the drug treatment programs was carried over as the foundation for programs to change the criminal 

thinking and behavior patterns of inmates. These programs focus on inmates’ emo- tional and behavioral responses to difficult situations. While too early to assess 

value in terms of reducing recidivism, we have found that these programs significantly reduce inmates’ involvement in institution misconduct. In general, a strong 

relationship exists between institution misconduct and recidivism, so we are hopeful 

that the full evaluations of these programs will confirm their effect in reducing recidivism. 

Programs for Female Inmates 

Recognizing that female offenders have different social, psychological, educational, 

family, and health care needs, the Bureau continues to design and implement special programs for female offenders. Several facilities operate intensive programs that 

focus on helping women who have histories of chronic sexual, emotional, or physical 

abuse by addressing their victimization and enabling positive change. 

Religious Programs 

The Bureau of Prisons’ religious programs are intended to provide inmates with 

opportunities to grow spiritually and to strengthen their religious convictions. Bureau institutions schedule services and meeting times for inmates of the approximately 30 faiths represented within the population. Religious programs are led or 

supervised by staff chaplains, contract spiritual leaders, and community volunteers 

of a variety of faiths. Chaplains provide and oversee inmate worship services and 

self-improvement forums such as scripture study and religious workshops and are 

available upon request to provide pastoral care, spiritual guidance, and counseling 

to inmates. Inmates may also request spiritual counseling from community representatives. Inmates are able to observe religious holy days and are able to wear 

and use religious items consistent with both their faith and with the security, safety, and good order of the institution. An alternative diet is available to those inmates whose religious beliefs include special diets. 

Life Connections Programs. The Bureau has developed a residential faith-based 

pre-release pilot program for male and female inmates of various security levels. 

The pilot sites are FMC Carswell, Texas; FCI Milan, Michigan; FCI Petersburg, Virginia; FCI Victorville, California; and USP Leavenworth, Kansas. The program—

which is voluntary and open to inmates of any faith—aims to reduce crime and recidivism by providing participants with moral and spiritual principles that can influence their future decisions. There is a growing body of empirical evidence that demonstrates the potency of faith in changing behavior. This model initiative has a 

strong mentoring component during the pre-release phase and post-prison aftercare 

79

component designed to offer moral guidance and a caring community to help ex-offenders reenter society with hope and responsibility. 

Final Preparations for Release 

All of the Bureau’s inmate programs are intended to prepare inmates for a successful return to the community. In fact, immediately upon their admission to Federal prison, offenders are encouraged to begin planning for their eventual release 

and to start to assume a productive and successful lifestyle. The Bureau complements its array of programs with a specific Release Preparation Program in 

which inmates become involved near the end of their sentence. The program includes classes in resume writing, job seeking, and job retention skills. The program 

also includes presentations by officials from community-based organizations that 

help ex-inmates find employment and training opportunities after release from prison. We also provide mock job fairs at most institutions to instruct inmates in appropriate job interview techniques and to expose community recruiters to the skills 

available among the inmate population. 

Community Corrections Centers 

The Bureau places most inmates in community corrections centers (halfway 

houses) prior to their release from custody in order to help them adjust to life in 

the community and find suitable post-release employment. Inmates in community 

corrections centers are required to work and to pay a subsistence charge of 25 percent of their income to defray the cost of confinement. Some Federal inmates are 

placed in home confinement for a brief period at the end of their prison terms. They 

serve this portion of their sentences at home under strict schedules, curfew requirements, telephonic monitoring, and sometimes electronic monitoring. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

The Nation Institute of Corrections (NIC) resides within the Bureau of Prisons 

and provides technical assistance, training, information services, and policy and program development assistance to Federal, State, and local correctional agencies 

throughout the country. NIC also provides leadership to influence correctional policies, practices, and operations nationwide in areas of emerging interest and concern 

to correctional executives, practitioners, and public policy makers. In this time of 

ensuring responsive and cost-effective government services, NIC stands out as having a proven track record for providing fast, low-cost, customer-oriented services. 

NIC often pools financial resources with other Federal agencies and staff resources 

with the Bureau to provide the maximum benefit to State and local corrections and 

to public policymakers. Through workshops, seminars, technical assistance visits, 

and information sharing, NIC continues to provide a valuable service to the corrections community. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide this overview of the programs and operations of the Bureau of Prisons. I am very proud of the Bureau staff 

and the job they do each and every day. Despite our population growth, we are effectively managing our institutions. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have.

Mr. COBLE. We have been joined by the gentlelady from Texas, 

Ms. Jackson Lee. Good to have you with us, Sheila. 

Mr. Reyna, Katie tells me I mispronounced your surname. It 

should be Reyna. So we are glad to have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF BENIGNO G. REYNA, DIRECTOR, UNITED 

STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. REYNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 

discuss the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the 

United States Marshals Service. 

First, please let me express our appreciation to you and the 

Members of the Subcommittee for your strong support and continVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
80

ued support of the United States Marshals Service. Your support 

has given us the ability to successfully perform our core missions 

of protecting the Federal judiciary, apprehending fugitives, safeguarding Government witnesses and transporting Federal prisoners. 

As you stated earlier in the introduction, the United States Marshals Service does play a central role in law enforcement, but the 

United States Marshal does not only protect courthouses and Federal judges, we protect the integrity of the judicial process, and 

each day deputy marshals across our great country uphold the rule 

of law. When we uphold the rule of law, we uphold justice, preserve 

freedom, defend democracy and safeguard the United States Constitution. By safeguarding our Constitution, we protect the rights 

of all people. 

For fiscal year 2004, we have requested a total of 4,592 positions and $720.8 million in our salary and expenses appropriation. 

As Director, I am aware of the Service’s mission to support the 

Federal courts and other Federal law enforcement agencies; and we 

recognize that, to a great extent, our workload is generated by others. The efforts of Federal law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute violent criminals and the efforts of the Federal judiciary to 

rapidly try and sentence individuals have increased. 

During fiscal year 2002, the United States Marshals received 

over 250,000 Federal prisoners into custody; produced prisoners for 

court and other proceedings over 640,000 times; received 35,500 

new Federal felony warrants; cleared 34,000 Federal felony warrants; served an additional 230,000 pieces of judicial process; analyzed and responded to over 500 potential threats to members of 

the judicial family; accepted responsibility for 244 new protected 

witnesses and family members into the Witness Security Program; 

brought the total number of principal witnesses to over 7,400; and 

disposed of over 21,000 seized properties. 

Another important strength of the United States Marshals Service is the strong commitment to work with our Federal, State and 

local law enforcement colleagues. As former chief of Brownsville, 

Texas, I can assure you that cooperation and long-term relationships are the best tools for fighting crime and improving the quality of life in our communities. 

Last year, in addition to our Federal warrant workload, we assisted State and local law enforcement agencies in clearing over 

37,000 State and local warrants. We have many examples of assistance. For example, in March, 2003, two New York City detectives 

were tragically killed during an undercover operation. The United 

States Marshal New York and New Jersey Regional Task Force 

was contacted and immediately dispatched deputy marshals to investigate leads in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Within 2 days, 

using highly specialized surveillance equipment and investigative 

techniques, the suspect was captured in Brooklyn. 

There are other examples that illustrate the varied law enforcement missions we perform daily in our districts. In Manhattan, 

several prisoners were being held in a jury box for pre-trial assignment. One of the prisoners attempted to either escape the courtroom and/or attack the judge. As he leapt out of the jury box, he 

quickly was brought to the ground by deputy marshals in the 

81

courtroom. No one was injured, and there were no further incidents 

by any of the other prisoners. These types of situations repeat 

themselves across our country. 

Similarly, the Witness Security Program continues to be a vital 

weapon in the war against terrorism, as well as against drugs and 

violent crime. 

I am proud of the dedication and hard work demonstrated by the 

men and women in the Marshals Service. In the words of Deputy 

Attorney General Larry Thompson, ‘‘The United States Marshals 

Service sometimes performs its most critical work outside of the 

limelight and with little fanfare. Yet its personnel make extraordinary sacrifices on a daily basis to safeguard our courts and our 

communities.’’ Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members, I would like to impress 

upon the Subcommittee that we continually strive to make better 

use of the resources we have before asking for more. Over the past 

15 months, we have streamlined and improved our internal personnel processes. 

We have filled over 104 supervisory law enforcement positions. 

We have hired 215 new deputy marshals last year, the highest single year total in the past 10 years. Our on-board strength today is 

the highest it has been in 4 years. 

Terrorism-related court proceedings require an unprecedented 

level of protection for all our trial participants due to the risk of 

terrorist attacks, the public’s concern and intense media interest. 

Our requirement to support terrorism-related court proceedings is 

widespread and is not limited to Virginia and New York. The workload impact on the Marshals Service is particularly heavy in Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas. 

Mr. Chairman, honorable Members, I know that you are aware 

of our initiatives to provide increased security in the Eastern District of Virginia where Zacarias Moussaoui is charged as a co-conspirator in the September 11 attacks. The threat levels associated 

with such trials mandate that additional deputy marshals be assigned to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom and transport prisoners to all judicial proceedings. 

I hope that I have highlighted some of our accomplishments over 

the past year. I know that our full text is in the record, and I will 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Reyna. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyna follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENIGNO G. REYNA

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President’s fiscal year 

2004 budget request for the United States Marshals. I am pleased to be on the same 

panel with Ms. Myers of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, Director 

Lappin of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Assistant Attorney General Daniels 

of the Department’s Office of Justice Programs. 

First, let me express my appreciation to you and the Members of this Subcommittee for your strong and continual support of the United States Marshals. 

Your support has been essential to our ability to perform successfully our core missions of protecting the federal judiciary, apprehending fugitives, safeguarding government witnesses, and transporting federal prisoners. 

United States Marshals not only protect courthouses and federal judges; we protect the integrity of the judicial process. Each day, deputy marshals across our great 

82

country uphold the rule of law and thereby uphold justice, preserve freedom, defend 

democracy, and safeguard the United States Constitution. By safeguarding our Constitution, we protect the rights of all people and the American dream. 

This has been our role for over 213 years. We have been an integral part of the 

American story. But, in order to protect the American dream, we must have justice—justice that is administered with the spirit of fairness, opportunity, and due 

process—because justice is the foundation of our judicial system. For fiscal year 2004, we have requested a total of 4,592 positions and $720.8 million in our Salaries and Expenses appropriation. As Director, I am keenly aware of 

the Service’s mission to support the federal courts and other federal law enforcement agencies. I recognize that, to a great extent, our workload is generated by others. The efforts of federal law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute violent criminals, and the efforts of the judiciary to rapidly try and sentence these individuals, 

have increased. During fiscal year 2002, the United States Marshals:

• Received over 250,000 federal prisoners into custody;

• Produced prisoners for court and other proceedings over 640,000 times;

• Received 35,500 new federal felony warrants;

• Cleared 34,000 federal felony warrants;

• Served an additional 230,000 pieces of judicial process;

• Analyzed and responded to over 500 potential threats to members of the judicial family;

• Accepted responsibility for 244 new protected witnesses and family members 

into the Witness Security Program;

• Brought the total number of principal witnesses to over 7,400; and,

• Disposed of over 21,000 seized properties.

Another important strength of the United States Marshals Service is our strong 

commitment to work with our federal, state, and local law enforcement colleagues. 

As the former Chief of Police of Brownsville, Texas, I can assure you that these cooperative, long-term relationships are the best tool for fighting crime and improving 

the quality of life in our communities. Last year, in addition to our federal warrant 

workload, we assisted state and local law enforcement agencies in clearing over 

37,000 state and local warrants. For example, in March 2003, two New York City 

detectives were tragically killed during an undercover operation. The United States 

Marshals’ New York—New Jersey Regional Task Force was contacted and immediately dispatched deputy marshals to investigate leads in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Within two days, using highly specialized surveillance equipment and investigative techniques, the suspect was captured in Brooklyn. Our ability to cross state 

lines in pursuit of fugitives was the determining factor in closing this case rapidly. 

Consequently, New York City Police Commissioner Kelly commended the deputy 

marshals for their timely assistance in this critical arrest. Also, within the past 

three weeks, the Marshals Service has tracked down and assisted in the capture of 

three suspects respectively charged with the murders of law enforcement personnel: 

a Fairlawn, New Jersey, police officer; a Fulton County, Georgia, deputy sheriff; 

and, a Youngstown, Ohio, police officer. 

There are other examples that vividly illustrate the varied law enforcement missions we perform daily throughout our districts. In Manhattan, several prisoners 

were being held in a jury box for pre-trial arraignment. One of the prisoners attempted to either escape the courtroom and/or attack the judge. As he leapt out of 

the jury box, he was quickly brought to the ground by the deputy marshals in the 

courtroom. No one was injured and there were no further incidents by any of the 

other prisoners. These types of situations repeat themselves across the country. 

Suffice to say, the Witness Security Program continues to be a vital weapon in 

the war against terrorism, as well as against drugs and violent crime. While I would 

be happy to discuss current activities in executive session, I can assure you of the 

Program’s critical importance in significant terrorism-related prosecutions which resulted in the successful conviction of individuals involved in terrorist incidents. In 

fact, intelligence officials and federal prosecutors continue to obtain valuable information as a result of the Program. 

I am proud of the dedication and hard work demonstrated by the men and women 

of the Marshals Service. In the words of Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson: 

‘‘The United States Marshals Service sometimes performs its most critical work outside the limelight and with little fanfare. Yet its personnel make extraordinary sacrifices on a daily basis to safeguard our courts and communities.’’

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, I would like to impress upon the Subcommittee that we continually strive to make better use of the resources we have 

83

before asking for more. Over the past 15 months, we have streamlined and improved our internal personnel processes. Specifically:

• We have filled 104 supervisory law enforcement positions, taking an average 

of 16 weeks from application to selection. Previously, it took an average of 20 

weeks to fill one supervisory position. As first level managers, they are critical for the success of day-to-day operations in the field because they provide 

direction and leadership for over 2,000 deputy marshals.

• We hired 215 new deputy marshals last year; the highest single year total 

in the past 10 years. Our on-board strength today is the highest it has been 

in 4 years.

• We maintain a pool of at least 200 candidates for deputy marshals positions.

• We are using workload measures to quantify our staffing needs to determine 

which districts are in the most need of additional personnel.

We are doing our part to support the Attorney General’s goal of transferring positions to support front-line missions. We have done this by moving vacancies from 

Headquarters support functions to operational areas. Simply stated, the Marshals 

Service is putting the people where the work is. 

Our fiscal year 2004 request includes an increase of 275 positions, including 231 

deputy marshals, and $26.6 million to support the judiciary’s need for additional security. Our request addresses this critical need so we may perform more effectively 

this core mission—the protection of the federal judiciary. The number of federal 

judges and court locations continue to increase, thereby raising and expanding the 

level of support we must provide. Since September 11, 2001, heightened security 

alert levels have resulted in additional judicial security requirements on a daily 

basis. 

Terrorism-related court proceedings require an unprecedented level of protection 

for all trial participants due to the risk of additional terrorist attacks, the public’s 

concerns, and the intense media interest. Our requirement to support terrorism-related court proceedings is widespread and not limited to Virginia and New York. 

The workload impact on the Marshals Service is particularly heavy in Florida, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members, I know that you are aware of our initiatives to provide increased security at the courthouse in the Eastern District of Virginia where 

Zacarias Moussaoui is charged as a co-conspirator in the September 11th terrorist 

attacks. The threat levels associated with such trials mandate that additional deputy marshals be assigned to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom and to 

transport prisoners to all judicial proceedings. Even when these cases do not lead 

to trials, we must provide security at all pretrial prisoner and material witness proceedings. 

Equally important, we must ensure that all Marshals Service employees are well 

prepared to perform these important services. These men and women, who dedicate 

their lives to the profession of law enforcement and, specifically, to the protection 

of the federal judicial system, need advanced training and state-of-the-art equipment so they can perform their jobs. 

Finally, we request $2 million from unobligated balances in the Working Capital 

Fund to provide security systems in new courthouse facilities and to upgrade security equipment in facilities where high threat and high profile trials will be held. 

The funding for this security equipment and renovation will allow us to remedy 

weaknesses in many courthouse facilities. Security systems reinforce the physical 

security provided by deputy marshals when producing prisoners for court. Cameras, 

duress alarms, entry control packages, and other equipment improve the security 

level within a courthouse. When incidents occur, we are better equipped to record 

events, monitor personnel and prisoners, and identify situations requiring an immediate, and sometimes a life-saving, response. 

I hope that I have successfully highlighted our accomplishments over the past 

year and described our need for additional resources in fiscal year 2004. I appreciate 

the time the Subcommittee has provided me and the opportunity to meet with you. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am pleased to answer your questions at 

this time.

Mr. COBLE. We have been joined by the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee, and the 

gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green. 

Ms. Myers. 

84

STATEMENT OF JULIE L. MYERS, CHIEF OF STAFF,

CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased today to appear today before you to describe briefly some of the Criminal Division’s important work. 

I first want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee and 

Congress as a whole for your strong support of the Division’s work 

to fulfill its broad mandate, especially in our battles against terrorism, corporate fraud and those who endanger and exploit the 

Nation’s children. The USA PATRIOT Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

and the Protect Act—the last of which was signed just a few weeks 

ago—have provided valuable tools that will promote public safety 

and enhance our national and economic security. 

We think our partnership with you has been extremely productive, and we look forward to continuing it. 

The Criminal Division’s work is as broad as its mandate. As the 

Chairman noted, the Division has 19 sections with wide-ranging responsibilities, ranging from everything from coordinating the nationwide prosecution of organized crime, prosecuting Internet fraud 

and combating public corruption to approving all Federal wiretap 

applications and overseeing evidence requests to obtain information 

from our foreign counterparts. 

To carry out this mandate, the Criminal Division currently oper- ates on a fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $129 million. For fiscal 

year 2004, the President’s budget requests $135.8 million, which 

would fund a total of 805 permanent positions, including 477 attorneys. 

In my oral statement I would like to briefly highlight several key 

components within the Criminal Division and describe how they reflect the law enforcement priorities within the Administration. 

First, terrorism. The attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed our Nation’s law enforcement priorities. As President 

Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft had made clear, the Department’s number one priority is the war on terrorism. The Criminal 

Division has risen to this challenge, and we serve on the front lines 

of this ongoing fight. Division-wide, we have reassessed our 

strengths, restructured our organization and redeployed our staff. 

First, working with the FBI and through the joint terrorism task 

forces, our Counterterrorism Section, or what we call CTS, concentrates its resources on detecting, disrupting and dismantling potential terrorist-related activity throughout the United States and 

working with our allies to fight terrorism abroad. 

The Division’s work has been pivotal in helping the Department 

achieve several major victories on the war on terrorism including 

dismantling a terrorist cell in Buffalo; convicting would-be shoe 

bomber Richard Reid; dismantling a cigarette smuggling organization that funded Hezbollah; and some significant indictments, including exploiting narco-terrorist links through the indictments of 

AUC and FARC members and the indictments of Sami Al-Arian 

and Zacarias Moussaoui. 

Of course, money is the lifeblood of terrorist organizations; and 

for that reason detecting and preventing terrorism requires an expert understanding of the worldwide movement of money and a 

85

broad overview of evidence collected from various sources around 

the globe. Both the Counterterrorism Section and the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section work to detect and disrupt 

terrorist financing by bringing these skills to bear on these typically far-flung and loosely connected networks of money. 

In addition to the litigation sections, the Division’s advisory sections ensure nationwide coordination of critical tools to combat terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the Division’s Office of International Affairs has made over 75 treaty or letters rogatory requests involving al Qaeda and other terror-related matters to countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. These requests, seeking 

everything from box cutters to bank documents, have enabled U.S. 

prosecutors to obtain crucial evidence from across the globe. 

In all of our anti-terrorism efforts, we have been aided greatly 

by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. 

Next to fighting terrorism, the Division’s primary focus has been 

on uncovering and prosecuting corporate fraud and corruption. For 

example, in January, 2002, shortly after the collapse of Enron, the 

Criminal Division created the Enron Task Force, which comprises 

Fraud Section attorneys and other career department prosecutors. 

The investigation has been progressing steadily and has already 

produced substantial results. Here our efforts has been aided greatly by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and we have already used 

some of the new provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the 

HealthSouth prosecution. 

Finally, we are very thankful for all of your help with respect to 

the Protect Act in protecting our children. The important new Protect Act has enhanced penalties, clarified existing law and included 

penalties to ensure that convictions lead to serious prison time. 

I hope this brief overview of the Criminal Division has been helpful. We appreciate your support and look forward to answering any 

questions you have. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Myers. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Myers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIE L. MYERS

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee—I am 

pleased to appear today before this Subcommittee to describe briefly some of the important work of the Criminal Division. My name is Julie Myers, and I serve as Chief 

of Staff of the Criminal Division for Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff. 

I previously served the Department as an Assistant United States Attorney in the 

Eastern District of New York. 

I first want to thank the members of this Subcommittee for your strong support 

of the Division’s work, and especially in some of our core areas: the war on terrorism, fighting corporate fraud, and protecting children. We have worked with Congress, before and since September 11, 2001, to make America more secure while at 

the same time safeguarding the liberties and rights of all Americans. For example, 

the USA PATRIOT Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the PROTECT Act—signed 

into law just two weeks ago today—have provided valuable tools that will promote 

public safety and enhance our national and economic security. 

The Criminal Division has nineteen sections with wide-ranging responsibilities, 

including everything from coordinating the nationwide prosecution of organized 

crime cases to approving all wiretap applications. My testimony today will briefly 

discuss some of the unique responsibilities and recent accomplishments of the 

Criminal Division. First, I will focus on the Division’s top litigation priorities and 

the work of the litigating sections. Next, I will discuss the offices that provide supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
86

port and expertise to the law enforcement community through technical advice, 

training, essential authorizations, and other critical services. 

LEADING THE WAR ON TERRORISM

The attacks of September 11, 2001, dramatically changed the nation’s law enforcement priorities. As President Bush has made clear, and as Attorney General 

Ashcroft has declared many times, the Department’s top priority is the fight against 

terrorism. The Criminal Division has a central role in this fight. We have risen to 

the challenge by broadly reassessing our strengths and abilities, and substantively 

restructuring the Division to reflect the law enforcement and investigative priorities 

needed to combat terrorism. 

The entire Division has responded to this call. Most significantly, the 

Counterterrorism Section leads the effort for the Division to disrupt and punish potential terrorist-related activity, both in the United States and abroad. CTS serves 

as both a leader and coordinator in the war on terrorism by: (1) participating in putting terrorists in jail through litigation; (2) disrupting the flow of money to terrorists; and (3) working side-by-side with our allies to disrupt terrorism everywhere. 

Division prosecutors work with the Joint Terrorist Task Forces (JTTFs); Anti-Terrorism Task Forces (ATTFs); the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies; United States Attorneys; state, and local prosecutors; other 

United States Government agencies; and our counterparts overseas to ensure the 

most coordinated and effective approach to this effort. Division prosecutors comprehensively review evidence obtained from various sources, monitor and provide 

support to investigations and cases nationally and worldwide in order to identify 

and track crime trends, and develop national and international strategies for prevention and prosecution. CTS and other Division prosecutors participate in the development of new mechanisms for information sharing and exchange, such as the 

Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), and provide training with respect to 

such mechanisms. 

This work has led to the disruption of significant terrorist activities, including:

• the dismantling of a terrorist cell in Buffalo;

• the conviction of shoe-bomber Richard Reid;

• the dismantling of a cigarette smuggling organization that funded Hizballah;

• the indictments of Sami Al-Arian and Zacarias Moussaoui; and

• the disruption of nine major alien-smuggling networks.

Because money is the lifeblood of terrorist organizations, detecting and preventing 

terrorism requires an expert understanding of the world-wide movement of money. 

The Division has been at the forefront of detecting and disrupting terrorist financing. CTS plays a key role in the Department’s Terrorist Financing Enforcement Program, which involves two critical and complementary areas: (1) developing intelligence about terrorists and their financial supporters, and (2) combining this intelligence with other evidence to disrupt terrorist financing through aggressive criminal, civil and regulatory law enforcement in United States courts. The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) also provides enforcement expertise 

and leadership to the Financial Action Task Force, an international body dedicated 

to the development and promotion of sound anti-money laundering practices. 

We have also found that the lucrative profits from illegal drug trafficking are 

being used to finance terrorism. In cooperation with other relevant law enforcement 

entities, the Division has been pursuing these narco-terrorist links vigorously. For 

example, on November 12, 2002, the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) 

obtained a superseding indictment in the ‘‘FARC’’ case, involving the largest Colombian terror army, which finances its activities via the production and trafficking of 

narcotics. The original indictment, obtained in the District of Columbia in March, 

charged FARC 16th Front Commander Tomas Molina Caracas and six additional individuals with conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. In June, FARC 

member Carlos Bolas was located in Suriname and expelled to U.S. custody. In November, the indictment was superseded to include Jorge Birceno Suarez, a member 

of the controlling ’secretariat’’ and who is generally considered to be the second-incommand. These defendants have been involved in all aspects of the drug trade, 

from protecting coca fields and labs, to taxing the movement of cocaine base within 

areas under their control, to selling cocaine to international dealers in exchange for 

money and arms. 

In addition to the FARC indictment, in September 2002, NDDS indicted AUC 

leader Carlos Castano Gil and two others with various drug trafficking offenses 

stemming from the shipment of approximately 17 tons of cocaine to the United 

87

States. The AUC is a violent right-wing paramilitary organization which, according 

to Castano Gil, derives 70% of its income from drug trafficking. 

The Office of International Affairs (OIA) has also provided substantial assistance 

in terrorism-related matters. Since September 11, 2001, the Division has made over 

75 treaty or letters rogatory requests involving Al Qaeda and other terrorism matters to countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. These requests sought everything from physical evidence, such as box cutters and computer hard drives, to documentary evidence, such as bank and immigration records to witness interviews. OIA 

also has assisted in the execution of dozens of terrorism-related requests from prosecutors and investigating magistrates in eight foreign countries seeking evidence in 

the United States for their own investigations. 

We have also reorganized by splitting the Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section 

(TVCS) into two separate sections. The reorganization created the Counterterrorism 

Section (CTS) to leverage the Division’s considerable expertise in investigating and 

prosecuting terrorists. We also created the Domestic Security Section (DSS) to lead 

the prosecution of international smuggling operations, along with other responsibilities. This reorganization enabled the Division to shift resources internally, combine 

similar functions, and re-position the Division to handle the challenges brought by 

the Department’s focus on counterterrorism and national security. 

In all our anti-terrorism efforts, we have been aided greatly by the passage of the 

USA PATRIOT Act. By way of example, one of the most powerful tools against terrorist financing has proven to be the crime of ‘‘providing material support’’ to terrorists, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. As a result of the legislation, this crime now carries a penalty of up to 15 years and, in some instances, life imprisonment. This statute allows 

law enforcement to act early, during the stages of planning and development, rather 

than waiting for terrorist attacks to occur. 

ENHANCING NATIONAL SECURITY AND PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY

The newly-created Domestic Security Section (DSS) has been instrumental in obtaining convictions involving international alien smugglers suspected of having links 

to terrorists. The Section also is engaged in an ongoing project targeting international smuggling organizations suspected of presenting special national security 

threats to the United States. 

DSS also continues to play a leading role in the Department’s efforts to combat 

violent crime, including overseeing the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative, 

now being implemented throughout the country, and in prosecuting violent offenders. Pursuant to the Attorney General’s recent directive, DSS is helping to enhance 

PSN efforts nationwide to combat gun trafficking. This will be accomplished by coordinating interstate gun trafficking cases and vigorously prosecuting those who illegally divert guns to criminals. 

As part of the Division’s significant national security role, the Counterespionage 

Section (CES) is responsible for many of the Criminal Division’s most important and 

sensitive national security cases and matters. CES has participated in the successful prosecution of several major espionage cases, including Brian Patrick Regan, a 

twenty year veteran of the Air Force and contract employee of TRW, who attempted 

to communicate classified information to China and Iraq. Regan was sentenced to 

life imprisonment. 

FIGHTING CORPORATE FRAUD

The Division plays a key role in combating corporate fraud. For example, after 

the collapse of Enron amid allegations of widespread fraud and corruption, the 

Criminal Division created the Enron Task Force in January 2002. The Task Force’s 

extremely complex investigation has been progressing steadily and has produced 

significant results. To date, charges have been filed against 17 individuals, three of 

whom have been convicted, and one organization—Arthur Andersen LLP, which was 

convicted of obstruction of justice after a jury trial. In addition, two former officers 

of Enron pleaded guilty to charges in a matter connected to the California energy 

crisis. Most recently, the former Enron CEO and Treasurer were charged with 109 

counts of criminal conduct. 

In addition to the Enron criminal proceedings above, the Asset Forfeiture and 

Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) has brought a number of civil and criminal 

asset forfeiture and money laundering actions related to Enron, including the criminal forfeitures of $4,000,000 belonging to former Enron executive Michael Kopper 

and approximately $20,000,000 in assets belonging to former Enron CFO Andrew 

Fastow. 

Beyond the Task Force, the Fraud Section currently has 74 corporate fraud investigations and 49 corporate fraud cases (where charges have been brought) pending. 

88

Twenty-six of the 49 cases were opened since the beginning of FY 2003. We think 

this work is critical to the nation. Our FY 2004 budget request include a request 

for additional positions to bolster our efforts. 

The Department’s ability to address corporate fraud has been substantially 

strengthened by recent legislation and in particular, by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002. This Act adds new tools to hold white collar criminals accountable and imposes tough, consistent penalties for those who would threaten the integrity of our 

financial markets. Among other important provisions, the Act imposes new and substantial criminal penalties for securities fraud, attempts or conspiracies to commit 

fraud, certifying false financial statements, document destruction or tampering, and 

retaliating against corporate whistleblowers. We have already used one provision of 

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in recently obtaining guilty pleas from HealthSouth executives for filing with the SEC a certification that a 10-Q filing was accurate, knowing 

that it did not fairly represent the financial condition and results of HealthSouth 

operations. We are confident that the increased penalties will help ensure that 

white collar thieves will pay appropriately for their actions. 

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

Another top priority of the Department is protecting and safeguarding children. 

Here, the Division’s efforts have expanded dramatically through the efforts of the 

Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). CEOS serves a unique 

and critical function in the enforcement of the Nation’s obscenity laws and the laws 

protecting children from sexual predators. 

Currently, CEOS has 84 active ongoing investigations and 40 active indicted 

cases. One case that warrants particular mention is Operation Hamlet, in which the 

Section cooperated with the former U.S. Customs Service, now part of the Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP), to target, dismantle and prosecute an 

international ring of child molesters. Seventy-three child victims were rescued. Thirteen of the 20 active molesters that were identified are in the United States. All 

but one, who committed suicide, have been indicted and six of those have already 

been convicted. 

In addition to active case work, this past year CEOS enhanced its efforts to deter 

crime through new and effective use of technology. The Division created the High 

Tech Investigative Unit, staffed with computer forensic experts, who bring special 

technological expertise to bear against Internet-based child pornography and obscenity offenders. The Unit is already receiving and reviewing an average of 120 tips 

per month and has direct access to the Federal Trade Commission’s complaint database. 

As you know, just a few weeks ago, Congress passed the important new PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003), which the President signed into law on April 30, 2003. We 

believe this Act will lead to greater deterrence, and greater detection, investigation, 

prosecution and punishment of crimes against America’s children. The PROTECT 

Act created a new provision that defines child pornography to include computerbased depictions that are indistinguishable from those involving real children. We 

are grateful to Congress for this new provision, and look forward to using it and 

other PROTECT Act tools. 

ENSURING PUBLIC INTEGRITY

Just as fighting fraud in the private sector is important, it is equally critical to 

combat corruption in the public sector. The Division’s Public Integrity Section is 

charged with combating corruption at all levels of government and has recently implemented two important enforcement initiatives: visa fraud and campaign financing fraud. 

To help protect our borders, the Section actively investigates and prosecutes U.S. 

Government officials and foreign nationals who illegally issue visas for entry into 

the United States. Thus far, the Section has secured the conviction of a Foreign 

Service Officer for taking bribes, and in concert with the Division’s Domestic Security Section and the U.S. Attorneys, secured convictions in a visa fraud scheme at 

the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. 

The Section has vigorously prosecuted substantial violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The Section has also worked with the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission to implement the recent FECA amendments, including increased penalties for campaign finance crimes. This spring, the Section convicted an Oklahoma 

State Senator and a former State Senator running for Congress of illegally funneling more than $200,000 into the campaign and obstructing the Federal Election 

Commission’s investigation into these illicit contributions. 

89

COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES

The Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) coordinates the Department’s programs to combat organized crime and labor racketeering. In addition, the Section is assisting with the war on terrorism and the rapidly growing and evolving transnational organized crime threats to the United 

States. 

During the past year, the Division has overseen the re-tooling of the Department’s organized crime program to make it more nimble, intelligence-oriented and international in outlook. One change includes a more aggressive use of the RICO statute 

as a key weapon in the fight against terrorism. 

FIGHTING CYBERCRIME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ABUSES

The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) plays the lead 

role in countering terrorism and other crime in cyberspace. In areas involving both 

domestic policy and investigations, the Section works with other offices and the private sector, in keeping with the President’s recently-published National Strategy to 

Secure Cyberspace, to protect the cybersecurity of the United States. This year, the 

Section has worked with the FBI’s newly-created Cyber Division, the Secret Service, 

and other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies on multi-district and international investigations involving attacks against computer networks, 

including the October 2002 Denial of Service attack on the root servers that help 

the Internet to function and the January 2003 SQL Slammer worm which affected 

thousands of computers worldwide. 

CCIPS has also substantially increased its domestic and international prosecution 

efforts against Internet copyright piracy, aggressively attacking the high-level suppliers that each day distribute millions of copies of pirated software, games, movies, 

and music to Internet sites worldwide. Internet copyright piracy costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars each year, and the technological sophistication of the organized pirate groups make these some of the most challenging cases to prosecute. 

The cornerstone of the Section’s current initiative is Operation Buccaneer, a joint 

undercover investigation with the BCBP that constitutes the largest international 

crackdown on Internet software pirates ever achieved by U.S. law enforcement. To 

date, 22 members of the world’s leading Internet piracy groups have been convicted 

of felonies; a majority have been sentenced to the longest prison terms ever imposed 

for online copyright infringement; and millions of illegal copies of copyrighted movies, games, software, and music have been permanently removed from the Internet. 

PRESENTING EFFECTIVE APPEALS

Our Appellate Section leads the Division’s litigation in the circuit courts of appeals and coordinates the Department’s criminal appellate practice. Recently, it has 

successfully appealed the dismissal of an indictment charging the President and the 

Vice-President of the Salt Lake City Bid Committee for the 2002 Olympic Winter 

Games with bribery and related offenses. The defendants will now face trial on the 

reinstated indictment. The Appellate Section also persuaded the Fifth Circuit to 

overturn an order suppressing the confession of Ernest Avants for the 1966 murder 

of an African-American sharecropper in Mississippi. Following our successful appeal, Avants was convicted by a jury on civil rights charges. 

TRACKING WORLD WAR II CRIMINALS

The primary mission of the Division’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) is to 

detect, identify, and take legal action against persons who participated in acts of 

persecution sponsored by Nazi Germany and its allies before and during World War 

II. Last year OSI set a new record by commencing 10 new prosecutions against alleged Nazi persecutors who fraudulently gained citizenship to the United States. 

Since OSI began operations in 1979, 71 Nazi persecutors have been stripped of U.S. 

citizenship and 57 such individuals have been removed from this country. 

PROVIDING LITIGATION AND OTHER SPECIALIZED SUPPORT

In addition to the work of litigating sections discussed above, the Criminal Division provides specialized and essential support to the law enforcement community 

through technical advice, training, essential authorizations, policy guidance and development, and other critical services. 

Coordinating International Affairs 

Through the Office of International Affairs (OIA), the Criminal Division works 

with its foreign counterparts to develop legal assistance relations and partnerships, 

90

as well as to strengthen foreign law enforcement institutions. OIA provides assistance to Federal, state and local prosecutors in obtaining evidence from foreign governments and works to bring terrorists, violent drug traffickers, and other criminals 

who seek refuge abroad back to the United States to face justice. 

OIA’s efforts to expand the United States’ network of Mutual Legal Assistance 

Treaties (MLATs) and MLAT cases have directly led to the recovery significant drug 

proceeds, fraud proceeds, and other dollars, most of it either going to the Asset Forfeiture Fund or directly to victims. Once in place, these MLATs, agreements, conventions and policy initiatives form the basis for exchanging evidence and witnesses 

that lead to successful prosecutions. 

Similarly, the expanding network of extradition treaties forms the basis for retrieving or returning criminal defendants to the country where they can be most effectively prosecuted. In the first seven months of FY 2003, OIA obtained the surrender of 141 fugitives to the United States, and 70 fugitives from the United 

States; handled over 800 new extradition and mutual legal assistance cases on behalf of Federal, state, and local U.S. prosecutors. 

International Development and Training 

In addition to coordinating relationships between our foreign counterparts, the 

Criminal Division also administers specialized training and assistance programs 

throughout the developing world. Recently, the Criminal Division’s International 

Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) and the Office of 

Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training (OPDAT) have been 

active in reconstruction programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Iraq. ICITAP 

and OPDAT have sent a team to conduct an assessment of the Iraqi justice sector. 

Working under the auspices of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the team will examine the judicial sector, including the laws and institutions, and will develop a plan for long term assistance. ICITAP recently completed 

a design of an Iraq National Police Assistance Program to implement a decentralized, community-based law enforcement function which will effectively serve and 

protect the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people. 

ICITAP and OPDAT work closely together to provide extensive and integrated assistance programs throughout the Balkans and as part of Plan Colombia. Other 

criminal justice assistance programs include institution building assistance to the 

police in Indonesia, Nigeria, and El Salvador, and institution building assistance to 

prosecutors in Russia, South Africa and Uzbekistan. The Division implements these 

international development programs and assessments, funded by the Department of 

State, to promote police and judicial reform and foster the rule of law in these strategic countries. 

Office of Enforcement Operations 

Each year, the Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) handles thousands of requests from the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and Federal law enforcement agencies to review and approve the use of a variety of sensitive investigative techniques and programs, with many of these techniques instrumental in the successful investigations 

and prosecutions discussed above. During FY 2002, OEO reviewed over 1,470 requests from the United States Attorneys’ Offices to apply for the court-authorized 

interception of wire, oral, and/or electronic communications. OEO also reviewed 

close to 300 requests for witnesses to enter the Federal Witness Security Program; 

processed over 1,800 requests to grant witnesses immunity; and reviewed approximately 1,500 requests from prisoners seeking transfer to their home countries pursuant to the International Prisoner Transfer Program. 

CONCLUSION

To support its broad mandate, the Criminal Division currently operates on a Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation of $129 million. For Fiscal Year 2004, the President’s 

budget requests a total of 805 permanent positions, including 477 attorneys, and 

$135.8 million. The budget also includes an enhancement request of four positions 

to expand corporate fraud investigations and prosecutions. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee—I hope this overview is helpful 

to your understanding of the important work of the Criminal Division. We are well 

positioned to continue pursuit of the Department’s priorities and to allocate our limited resources as wisely and effectively as possible. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you may have.

Mr. COBLE. Thanks to all the witnesses. 

I believe, in view of the significance of this hearing, we probably 

will have a second round of questions. I think we have many quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:43 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\050603\86951.001 HJUD1 PsN: 86951
91

tions to put to you all. We comply with the 5-minute rule against 

ourselves as well. 

Ms. Daniels, the Administration proposed to consolidate several 

grant programs into the JAG program. Some local enforcement 

agencies back in our respective districts have expressed some concern about this consolidation for fear that these grant monies will 

go directly to the States, and then the locals will be left holding the 

bag. Can you say anything that would assuage their concern? 

Ms. DANIELS. Yes, sir. I am happy to. 

The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program was created in 

1996 after those concerns were expressed in light of the fact that 

the Byrne Block Grant Program went to the States and local law 

enforcement didn’t feel it was getting sufficient funding directly. 

We strongly believe that that is very important. So, in developing 

the concept of JAG, the Justice Assistant Grants, while we want 

to streamline the process, we also want to respect the need for local 

law enforcement to receive funding in much the same way they did 

before. We simply want to make the process easier. 

We want to actually expand their latitude, because one of the 

drawbacks is that the purposes for which they can use the funds 

are so limited. So Greensburg, North Carolina, Newport News, Virginia, will have a much broader latitude in their use of the funds 

and we will respect what has been done before and continue to 

make sure that local law enforcement—— Mr. COBLE. I am glad to hear that, and I want you to be aware 

of the anxiety that exists back in the local areas. 

Mr. Lappin, we conducted a hearing recently regarding assault 

and rape in prison. I don’t think your group was represented at 

that hearing, but does the BOP collect statistics on prison rape 

within Federal institutions and what standards does BOP employ 

for addressing prison rape? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, sir, we do collect information on a case-by-case 

basis regarding assaults and rape and physical assaults of a variety of natures; and we can provide that information to you. I don’t 

have the numbers here with me today but certainly can provide 

that to you subsequent to the hearing. 

Our obligation is to provide a safe environment for all inmates. 

So, in our opinion, one rape, one assault is one too many. So we 

have to employ strategies and we do so each and every day to preclude that in the prison setting. 

Mr. COBLE. Your predecessor told me you all have a system—apparently, a sophisticated system—that is online whereby vulnerable inmates can be protected from assault. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. Through staff training and development, we 

work with our staff in identifying inmates who may be seen as assault victims as well as inmates who are predatory in nature so we 

can remove those predators from the general population to protect 

the rest of those individuals. 

Mr. COBLE. I made the statement at the hearing to which I refer 

that I am very concerned about overcrowding, and I think that is 

probably a more severe problem at the local and State level than 

it is in the Federal system. But this overcrowding in prisons is a 

time bomb ticking that I feel will explode one of these days. Do you 

want to be heard on that? 

92

Mr. LAPPIN. We continue to successfully manage prisons even 

though we have more inmates in them than they were designed to 

hold. I think we have done that because of the deployment of a variety of programs like Federal Prison Industries, education to keep 

those inmates that we determine can function appropriately in a 

general population active and participating in worthwhile, productive programs; and I think we can continue to do that to a certain 

degree. We appreciate the fact that the Administration and Congress has afforded us additional funding to build—bring on beds, 

new institutions, I guess, certainly due to that growing population 

over the next years. 

Mr. COBLE. Are there procedures in place for the marshals to 

share information or intelligence gathered in the performance of 

your duties with other DOJ counterparts and the Department of 

Homeland Security, Mr. Reyna? 

Mr. REYNA. Mr. Chairman, the United States Marshal has several members of the Marshal Service and several task forces that 

share information. In addition to that, obviously every time we 

have information that comes to our attention we are able to disseminate it to the appropriate agency. As a consumer of information, every time we have submitted a request to our Federal colleagues we have received adequate results and information to support our mission. 

Mr. COBLE. My time in the first round has expired. We are glad 

to welcome the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, to join us; and 

I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Daniels, what is the status of the reorganization of your department? 

Ms. DANIELS. Thank you for asking us that, Mr. Scott. 

Actually, we have made great progress in our reorganization. We 

took to heart the comments of this Subcommittee and others over 

the years about the level of duplication and overlap and difficulties 

in management at OJP. 

We have at this point—one of the most important things we have 

done is to begin automating our processes to a much greater degree 

than ever before. It is part of our reorganization plan that we submitted to the Congress. One of those factors was the creation of an 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

We have made great strides. We have 84 percent of our grants 

actually online now through the grant award process. We are now 

going to be able to monitor them progress-wise online, and we are 

starting to roll that out. So we are doing a number of things in that 

area. 

We have combined offices that are similar in nature, such as taking the Drug Courts Office and the Corrections Office and putting 

those into BGA because they already do similar work. 

In other areas, we work together. For example, the Office of Victims of Crime needs to defer to the Office on Violence Against 

Women on issues that are particular to that office. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think it is going to take longer. If we could get a 

statement from you after the hearing, I would appreciate it. 

What is done to make sure that juvenile justice—specifically, juvenile justice research gets the priority it deserves? 

93

Ms. DANIELS. We have spent quite a bit of time on this very 

issue, and we have spent a lot of time talking to organizations like 

the Juvenile and Family Court judges because we feel that it is 

critical that we serve our constituency and make sure that juvenile 

justice research continues to enjoy a high priority. 

As you know, we are looking at making sure that all our research is carefully coordinated; and so, in doing that, though, we 

want to make sure that everyone is well aware we will continue to 

give high priority to juvenile justice research and give great respect 

to the independence of that research, which is critical, of course, to 

findings in our objective. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you familiar with the Abt research? 

Ms. DANIELS. I became familiar with it in the car on the way 

here, that there was a report turned into NIJ, but I have not yet 

seen it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know when the results will be available? Because I understand they sent the document to you. It is not public 

until somebody has been able to review it. Do you know when it 

is going to be available? 

Ms. DANIELS. I do not, but we will figure that out and report 

back to you. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am delighted to see that you are following through 

on the DNA analysis. That is something that Virginia takes great 

pride in being a leader in. So if there is anything we can do to promote that effort, particularly getting rid of the backlog in many 

States in DNA analysis—— I know New York has a particular problem where they have a 

lot of samples that have not been analyzed and you have a lot of 

cases that should be solved, a lot of cases that you can coordinate— you know, that are related to each other. That work is not being 

done merely because of a backlog in DNA analysis. Anything we 

can do to help you in that we would be delighted to. 

Ms. DANIELS. We appreciate that, sir; and Virginia has been a 

leader in that regard. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have a second 

round, I will yield back at this time. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lappin, myself and a number of other Members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee have a great interest in prison 

industries. Section 811 and 819 of the Defense Authorization Act 

has generated a lot of confusion out there, and it appears as though 

the Department of Defense has not uniformly applied its requirements. Results of comparability studies are not being provided to 

Federal Prison Industries, and there is a lot of confusion out there, 

to the point where we are seeing factories closing down and jobs 

being lost and all the benefits that Federal Prison Industries can 

provide being lost. What are your plans to try to deal with these 

problems? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, sir, I would agree with your assessment in 

that regard. Federal Prison Industries is one of our most important 

inmate programs as it certainly teaches job skills and work habits 

that improve that individual’s ability to retain and certainly gain 

employment upon release. 

94

We have felt the impact of 811 and 819. In part, we believe, as 

you mentioned, some confusion exists because rules have not yet 

been issued which has resulted in that confusion, confusion for 

what contracting officers are obligated to do. In fact, in some cases, 

the impression that mandatory source has actually been eliminated. 

As you mentioned, the result, the—as a result of those changes, 

we have had to close four factories, four textile—I am sorry, four 

furniture and one textile. Absorbed the staff jobs into the Bureau, 

but we lost about 400 inmate-related jobs. We continue to see the 

impact because through April this year our net corporate earnings 

for FPI are 62 percent below plan. 

We believe that if the rules are published that a lot of that confusion will go away; and, in fact, once they are published and understood by the contracting officers, we will then be able to see a shift 

in the way FPI is going at the present time, because we will be offering more opportunity to compete for jobs that currently we don’t 

believe we are competing for. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you have any sense of when those rules are going 

to be published? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is my understanding it is in the not-too-distant future. It should be fairly soon. It is my understanding that we are 

currently working on them and hopefully published in the near future. 

Mr. GREEN. Any guidance as to what the near future means? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, sir. I certainly don’t know. 

Mr. GREEN. Ms. Daniels, what steps are being taken by OJP to 

ensure that ineffective grant projects do not continue to be funded? 

Ms. DANIELS. I appreciate the question, Congressman. 

Our ability to evaluate programs is somewhat limited, unfortunately, just by the nature of the appropriations process and the 

limits on the dollars that we are permitted to spend on evaluation. 

Nonetheless, we are doing everything we can through partnerships 

with other agencies of Government, working with the Council on 

Excellence in Government, working with private foundations to try 

to do as much as we can in the way of identifying of what really 

works and what we have in the way of scientific evidence. We want 

to make that information available. And to the extent that we are 

funding anything of a discretionary nature and we get evidence 

that it doesn’t work, one of my top priorities is to stop doing it. So 

we are committed toward that end. 

Mr. GREEN. Speaking of your discretionary programs, every year, 

of course, Congress passes a lot of earmarks. What impact are earmarks having on your discretionary programs? 

Ms. DANIELS. Well, Congressman, to be frank, the evaluation is 

just one aspect of the limitations on our ability to exercise discretion. We are limited in our ability to respond to emerging issues. 

We have had many requests for assistance we have not been able 

to grant, in fact, because at this point there is $150 million in 

Byrne discretionary money and about $89 million in juvenile justice discretion money for 2003, 200 percent of which is earmarked. 

So it is very difficult for us to respond at all. However, we at least 

try to work with those recipients to use those funds for the most 

useful purposes that will further justice. 

95

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this hearing and the Ranking Member as well and for the 

presence of the Ranking Member of the full Committee. 

Let me thank the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

and I have a series of questions. I understand that there will be 

a second round. 

But I do appreciate you returning my call last week, and I hope 

we will be able to pursue the issues that we raised, and I will raise 

some others as well. 

Let me thank the other witnesses. 

I would like to pursue a line of questioning that has come to my 

attention and is extremely serious in our State; and I would ask 

two things, Mr. Chairman. I would ask to submit into the record 

an article that says, DeLay Backs Federal Aid to Track Down 

Walkouts, dated May 13, 2003. Ask unanimous consent for submission of this article into the record. 

Mr. GREEN. [Presiding.] Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

[The information referred to follows:]

96


Houston1.eps
97


Houston2.eps
98

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I would like to submit a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft dated May 13, 2003, sent by a number of 

Members of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to ask unanimous consent to have that submitted into the record. 

Mr. GREEN. Without any objections. 

[The information referred to follows:]

99


Letter1A.eps
100


Letter1B.eps
101

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me cite for the witnesses statements made 

in a Houston Chronicle article dated May 13, 2003, and I have a 

line of questioning. 

Washington dateline: House majority leader Tom DeLay said 

Monday he wants Federal authorities to pursue Texas Democrats 

dodging a vote on a plan he authored to increase Republican seats 

in Congress. The Sugar Land Republican told reporters that bringing in either U.S. Marshals or FBI agents is justified because redistricting is a Federal issue involving congressional seats. 

His further quote says, if it is legal for them to do so, I think 

it would be nice to help out the Texas rangers and Texas troopers. 

Let me pose first a question to Mr. Reyna. Do you have directions to go to any part of Texas or any other State to secure the 

arrest and to put in custody any members of the Texas legislature? 

Mr. REYNA. Congresswoman, the United States Marshals Service 

is not involved with any of that matter going on in Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have any instructions to engage in any 

Federal intervention on that matter? 

Mr. REYNA. No, ma’am, we do not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you know if any of your marshals have 

been dispatched in that direction for the purposes of securing the 

arrest and/or custody of these individuals? 

Mr. REYNA. No, ma’am. The United States Marshals Service is 

not involved with that matter in Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would it be within your authority to do so? 

Mr. REYNA. We would get direction from the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice would have to give us guidance 

on that, and we have not been given any guidance on it and received no word from the Department of Justice. So we are not involved in that process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you familiar with any of the provisions of 

the PATRIOT Act? Do you know whether or not you have any directions under the PATRIOT Act to arrest these particular members? 

Mr. REYNA. No, ma’am. We have no instructions or directions in 

that process—to be involved in that process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We have a letter that was submitted as indicated, and I would appreciate your response in writing. We asked 

for the Attorney General to provide us with an immediate response 

today. We have not heard from him, and so you can consult with 

his office. We would like to have an appropriate response, because 

certainly your office was suggested as one of those that might be 

so engaged. 

I appreciate your answers here on the record, but I am concerned, and I want to make sure that we have gotten the full response, and I appreciate your kindness in your answers. 

Ms. Myers, let me raise these questions with you. I recognize 

that we do not have a representative here from the FBI, but I want 

to pose the question whether any jurisdiction would ensue under 

the PATRIOT Act or do you have any knowledge of any instructions through the Criminal Justice Division to intervene in a State 

action in Texas to secure the arrest and/or custody of these 53 

Texas Democratic legislators. 

102

Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I am not aware of any 

such involvement and certainly the Criminal Division has not had 

any involvement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you know if you have any direct requests 

from any majority leader of the House of Representatives on this 

issue? 

Ms. MYERS. I am not aware of any. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you have any knowledge of any inquiry to any U.S. Attorneys that may be in the State of Texas and 

elsewhere to provide assistance in the arrest of these individuals? 

Ms. MYERS. I do not. But let me say I am the Chief of Staff for 

the Criminal Division, so I am most knowledgeable about things involving the Criminal Division, and to that I am sure there is not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying this. I would appreciate we will have a second round to be able 

to pose to Ms. Myers any justification under the PATRIOT Act that 

might reach into domestic Texas legislators who have not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing as to whether the PATRIOT Act 

would be legitimate criminal jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction for 

intervention. 

Finally, I would just say that we don’t have any knowledge of the 

misuse of Federal law enforcement officials being utilized like this 

since Nixon when he tried to utilize the FBI and CIA for political 

purposes. We would appreciate a response. I understand that you 

have not directly been posed the question by this letter, but I think 

it is appropriate to be able to get this information on the record. 

I thank the distinguished Chairman for yielding to me. 

Mr. COBLE. [Presiding.] The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome our witnesses today. We have the leader from the 

Criminal Division, the Marshals, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs; and they make a request, total of $7.3 billion for 

this authorization. The total Department of Justice request is $23.3 

billion, and there is—means that there is a considerable amount of 

money, $16 billion, that is not accounted for. Could I ask my friend, 

Mr. Coble, Chairman, how we exert your authorizing inquiry over 

the other agencies and this amount of money? 

Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman would yield, I don’t have an answer 

to that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Then could we—let us see—this is $23 billion here. 

We will meet on that. We don’t want to take up your valuable time, 

ladies and gentlemen. Are these increases in authorization requests? Are they decreases? Are they what you had in the previous 

year? Can each of you explain which direction we are going to in 

this regard? 

Ms. DANIELS. Congressman, if you want to take us in chronological order, ours is a decrease from our existing—not authorization, but our existing appropriation. 

Mr. CONYERS. How much? 

Ms. DANIELS. Our appropriation for 2003 is about $4.3 billion, and we are requesting $2.185 billion for the Office of Justice Programs in 2004. Part of that is because the Office for Domestic Preparedness has moved to the Department of Homeland Security. 

103

Mr. CONYERS. So that has taken some of your jurisdiction and 

personnel resources. 

Ms. DANIELS. Correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. How much did you ask for? 

Ms. DANIELS. That is what we asked for, sir—oh, you mean in 

2003? 

Mr. CONYERS. What are you seeking—what was your—this is 

what you are asking for right here. You don’t really know what you 

are going to get. 

Ms. DANIELS. Correct. In the President’s budget 2004, we are asking for $2.185 billion. 

Mr. CONYERS. And you are at $135 million now. 

Ms. DANIELS. No, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. $2.1 billion. 

Ms. DANIELS. In 2003 enacted, I guess we ended up with—they 

are excluding the crime victims fund. I think we are at about $3 

billion. 

Oh, I know what it was. The difference there is the Homeland 

Security Office for Domestic Preparedness. So, without that, in 

2003, we are at about $3.2 billion. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. The Bureau of Prisons is requesting 4.7 billion, which is an increase over fiscal year 2003. I don’t know the 

exact number for FY 2003, but it is probably about the $4.2 billion 

range. This is solely driven by the increase or additional beds coming on line in the Bureau of Prisons. We anticipate about 9,500 inmates in 2004. 

Mr. CONYERS. Is it true that you are at record highs of people 

that are incarcerated in our Federal prison systems? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We just hit 169,000 inmates this year. This is certainly the most inmates we have ever had incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

Mr. CONYERS. And are there any plans or projections for additional buildings? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, there is. We have funding for the activation of 

four institutions in the 2004 budget. 

Mr. CONYERS. Four? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Four. And are requesting funding for another seven. 

Actually, we are bringing on four this year, sir, and another 

seven—requesting funding for another seven next year. Those are 

not new facilities. Those are facilities that have completed construction and will be in the activation phase. 

Mr. CONYERS. So, you could provide us the names of those facilities and locations, and the amounts you have set aside for each 

one? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We can provide you an activation update of facilities 

that are going to activate this fiscal year and next fiscal year and 

a timeline for those, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. What about the U.S. Marshals? What is your direction in terms of funding? 

Mr. REYNA. Thank you, Congressman. Our total request for fiscal year 2004 is for a total of 4,592 positions and $720.8 million. We 

are requesting additional positions to do protective operation within the judiciary. And that is our——

104

Mr. CONYERS. But is that more or the same or less? 

Mr. REYNA. We have—our total program change equals to 

1,473,000. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are asking for $1.3 million additional? 

Mr. REYNA. Well, our requested total is for 720.8 million, although our base for 2004 was $719,333,000. 

Mr. CONYERS. So you are only asking for a little bit more——

Mr. REYNA. We have some base reductions to that, sir, yes. 

Mr. CONYERS.—am I right? 

Mr. REYNA. Yes. Our total is $720,806,000. 

Mr. CONYERS. And that is just only a little bit more from the last 

authorization. 

Mr. REYNA. Well, our appropriations for 2003, which is direct appropriations, only were $676,051,000. 

Mr. CONYERS. So you are asking for that much more? You subtract the 6—156 million figure from the 720.8 million, we would 

know how much more you are asking for, right? 

Mr. REYNA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And I didn’t respond specifically to your question as far as dollars and cents. Other Subcommittees are conducting hearings with 

other components of justice, and you will recall at our first hearing 

we had ATF, DEA, and FBI, which is probably a good portion of 

it. So I don’t think any of us will know until probably all of these 

hearings have been concluded. 

But let us start a second round, if we may. 

And, Ms. Myers, let me ask you. You indicated that, in your testimony, you mentioned that the Counterterrorism Section of the 

criminal division helps with the war on terrorism by disrupting the 

flow of money. In disrupting the flow of money to terrorists, does 

your section work with Treasury Department and the State Department? And what other agencies or departments, if any, are involved? (A), and (B), explain how this section works with the FBI 

and other Federal agencies to disrupt terrorism. 

Ms. MYERS. Thank you, Chairman. The Counterterrorism Section 

works with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in its terrorist financing program. Within the Counterterrorism Section, 

there is a terrorist financing task force, a group of dedicated prosecutors who are knowledgeable about the way that terrorist financing works, and they serve as the lead on these terrorist financing 

prosecutions. They also approve nationwide all the terrorist financing prosecutions. 

Of course, the Counterterrorism division, in conjunction with the 

FBI, works with other agencies such as the Treasury Department, 

the Department of State, and the new Department of Homeland 

Security. And just recently, for example, we found some new energies in working with the new Department of Homeland Security; 

in that, the Operation Greenquest is going to merge into the work 

that’s done by the FBI and the JTTFs. And we think that this is 

a great success and allows us to really coordinate things much better as we are trying to do all the time. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

105

Mr. Lappin, I represent a district that is heavily concentrated in 

textiles and furniture, and I have always had the fear that your 

group cuts into that private enterprise in an obvious way. I am not 

adverse to rehabilitation, I am not adverse to training inmates, but 

I like to strike some sort of balance whereby the private furniture 

and the private textile manufacturers don’t suffer detriment. Do 

you appreciate my concern? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. And I think you used 

the perfect word, and that is, we need to strike a balance. We are 

and will continue to be very sensitive to the impact the Federal 

Prison Industry has on small businesses. Obviously, we realize 

when we get business, it takes business away from somewhere else, 

but hopefully we can find that balance to allow us to continue to 

employ inmates in the Federal Prison Industry, along with improving their skills and abilities, and hopefully in the end, reducing recidivism and their success upon return to the community. 

I think the Federal Prison Industry Board is also very sensitive 

to this issue, and in fact, if you are not aware, recently passed six 

resolutions to help strike that balance. Those six resolutions will 

have some negative impact on the Bureau of Prisons; however, we 

feel as though it allows us time to reprogram our existing factories 

which as we have mentioned, many of which are predominantly 

furniture, textile, and electronics, to other program or other product lines. What we need, sir, is time to make that shift. 

We will continue to be sensitive to small businesses. But I would 

also like to mention that as part of the Federal Prison Industry, 

they spend about $500 million a year on products and services, and 

62 percent of that is spent or our customers certainly are small 

businesses. So we are returning to the community, too, in regard 

to supporting small businesses through where we purchase from 

and who we purchase from in the Federal Prison Industry. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. I thank you for that. Let me ask you one more 

question before my time expires. And you may want to respond to 

us in writing, Mr. Lappin. I am concerned about the utilization of 

private prisons. I am told that many private prisons have vacant 

spaces that are probably not being utilized. And I would be glad 

to hear from you even—well, my time is about to expire, but initially now and then in writing if need be. And I realize you don’t 

have jurisdiction over the State facilities, but what would you think 

about expanding that proposal to the State and local institutions? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir, we can respond in writing. But let me just 

first say that we are probably the largest customer of private beds. 

We have 16,000 inmates in private correctional facilities, and we 

anticipate in the next few years we will continue to utilize those 

individuals for housing detention inmates primarily and low security criminal aliens, as we have in the past. 

We feel that is a perfect option to assist us in balancing our 

growing population. We also have done a survey of the States to 

see if there are beds available. A few States have contacted us. Unfortunately, many of the institutions they offer up to us are rather 

old and in disrepair, and we really have to do an assessment if that 

is really the best deal for the taxpayers. But we will follow up with 

you. 

Mr. COBLE. And respond to us. 

106

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. COBLE. And I see my time has expired. I am now pleased to 

recognize the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Lappin, we are releasing a lot more prisoners now than we 

have been in the past. I think about 10 or 20 years ago we were 

releasing about 200,000,and now it is up to about 600,000 in the 

United States, State, Federal, and local prisoners being released. 

What difference does a provision of transitional services make on 

the rate of recidivism? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We believe it has a critical impact, Congressman. As 

I mentioned earlier, or as the Chairman mentioned, our mission in 

the Bureau of Prisons is to safely house inmates. But, in addition 

to that, our mission is to provide opportunities for inmates to grow, 

to learn job skills, educate themselves. And certainly the research 

we have done have shown a significant impact, positive impact on 

recidivism rates as it applies to inmates participating in Federal 

Prison Industry, which as I mentioned in my testimony, 24 percent 

reduction. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you done a cost benefit analysis to see whether 

or not you save so much that you save more than the cost of the 

program on education and some of the other transitional services? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We may have those figures, sir. I don’t have them 

with me. We have done some research on, as you mentioned earlier, drug treatment where we are seeing very positive results as 

a result of inmates participating in drug treatment. And you also 

mentioned, sir, our dilemma with PELL grants and education. And 

we realize the dilemma the Congress went through in restricting 

that for prisoners, especially when law-abiding citizens have difficulty of their own gaining those resources. But we continue to see 

great benefits from that. We have focused more so on occupation. 

Mr. SCOTT. For those who have had an opportunity to get a college education when they were in prison, did their recidivism rate 

go down? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sir, I don’t have those statistics with me, but if we 

do, we can certainly provide them to you after the hearings. 

Mr. SCOTT. The numbers that I saw were, those who had access 

to a PELL grant virtually never came back; and obviously those 

that did come back at a rate of about 50 percent, which has a huge 

cost benefit. 

You changed the rules recently on halfway houses. How has that 

affected your ability to provide transitional services? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we certainly continue to see that as a high priority in transitioning inmates into the community. Reentry is critical, and halfway houses are an important aspect of that. The impact on us is that we have just been sending inmates for less time 

than we have in the past. We are still sending about 70 to 75 percent of the inmates who are eligible to the community through a 

halfway house. Our focus now is to target on that little 25 percent 

who are a little tougher to place because of personal—because of 

violence in their background, because of mental health issues. But 

those are truly the ones we need to focus on more because their 

entry needs are as great. 

107

So it has impacted us a little bit in that we are sending inmates 

for a little shorter time, but we are still sending the same percentage of inmates. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Chairman asked you about the prison rape bill. 

Has the Department taken a position on that? 

Ms. DANIELS. I would be happy to respond to that, Congressman. 

Actually, my principal deputy testified before this Subcommittee 

last week on that, or 2 weeks ago, I think, on that subject. And our 

position is of course that this is a critical problem within prisons 

and something that we want to work diligently on, and we have 

pledged to work very closely with members of the advocacy community as well as Members of the Subcommittee, and to try to develop 

something. This impacts our JP in one way. One is the statistical 

end of things, and we are already developing a way to collect baseline data and then be able to measure changes. 

And we also want to try to develop a workable incentive program 

and a way to help, at least from our standpoint, the State prisons. 

We don’t obviously fund anything in the Federal system, but the 

State prisons, in resolving these problems. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And, sir, we too agree that some assessment of the 

issue would be helpful. We only caution that how that assessment 

takes place be looked at very carefully so that we don’t come back 

maybe with some recommendations and send us in the wrong direction at greater expense to the taxpayer. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I just have a few seconds left. I would 

like to ask Ms. Myers, are you familiar with the Feeney amendment to the Protect Act? 

Ms. MYERS. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that de novo review on the appellate level apply 

to all sentences, or just to the child and sex abuse context? 

Ms. MYERS. Congressman, it is my understanding that the de 

novo review provision that you are referring to does apply in certain instances to kinds of appeals on certain kinds of departures 

across a wide spectrum of cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. All cases ? 

Ms. MYERS. Yes. In all types of certain departure cases. So it 

wouldn’t be all appeals or all—it is my understanding that even all 

departure appeals. But it would be certain types of departure appeals that are specifically enumerated within the amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Namely, downward departures. 

Ms. MYERS. And upward departures, Congressman, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would be reviewed de novo? 

Ms. MYERS. Congressman, it is my understanding, although I am 

not an expert on the Feeney amendment, that it applies to just 

those instances where there is either a departure that is not specifically enumerated or there is an issue about the extent of the departure. Just one moment. 

Congressman, I have just been refreshed by my counsel here. In 

all departure cases, the decision would be reviewed de novo, but 

both up and downward departures. So if a judge departed upward 

a particularly violent criminal, the defendant would then be able 

to appeal that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

108

Mr. Chairman, I think there was some confusion during the consideration of the bill that the Feeney amendment only applied to 

child sex abuse cases, and now we are hearing that it applies to 

all sentences. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to pose some questions that I am going to ask kindly 

for them to be responded to in writing, unless I have some time 

afterwards. 

Specifically to Ms. Daniels, again, thank you for your testimony. 

We, over the years on this Committee, have worked very extensively on juvenile justice issues, prevention of juvenile crime. I am 

concerned about the fact as to whether or not your aid department 

under the Department of Justice will put in place sufficient resources to continue research and maintain the priority status on 

the issue of juvenile justice research. And, will it be done by qualified experts in the field? 

I would like to see whether or not there is an opportunity to include research on the literal collapse of Children’s Protective Services around the Nation. This is not to say that we don’t have some 

very hard-working individuals in the Children’s Protective Services, 

but I think from New Jersey to Florida to Texas and other places 

we have seen some tragic incidences occurring. I would like to see 

whether we and the Justice Department and the Justice Judiciary 

Committee can be helpful in those areas. And so I am going to 

leave that with you. 

With respect to Mr. Lappin, let me explore this question of a 

shorter period of time in the halfway houses, and how that has 

negatively impacted the transition that we would like. If you could 

quickly give me that answer, as well as one of the criticisms in 

both State and Federal prison has been the lack of professional development for the Federal corrections officers and/or State corrections officers. What have you done to enhance professional development and compensation for those correctional officers? Can you 

give me two quick answers on that, please? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, let me take the enhancement of the professionalism of the correctional officers in the Bureau of Prisons. We 

take training very highly. Our staff receive enormous training each 

and every year, and it is not just one-time training. There is a 

mandatory requirement of 40 hours of training each and every year 

above and beyond some other developmental training geared toward dealing effectively with inmates, certainly on code of conduct 

issues and treatment and so forth. So we pride ourselves on the 

fact that our employees are well aware of how to manage themselves within the correctional setting, how to deal effectively with 

inmates. And we continue to provide that training on a daily basis. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So that is in-house. Do you provide outside 

professional development opportunities? 

Mr. LAPPIN. There are outside professional development opportunities. Of course, with close to 35,000 employees, it reduces the 

amount of that we can provide. But whenever opportunities are 

available, we certainly try to provide outside training for our employees. 

109

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about compensation? How have you 

kept up with compensation as it relates to inflation, as it relates 

to cost of living, as it relates to the need to be competitive? 

Mr. LAPPIN. For our employees? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. And particularly those corrections officers 

that are maintaining the order in the prison and detention centers. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We continue to look at career development paths 

that progress employees up through the GS scale. We also certainly 

utilize the increased funding and high cost of living areas to try 

and compensate our employees. And again, hopefully by our additional training and the opportunity to get additional skills, they 

will qualify for higher paying jobs as they move through their career in the Bureau of Prisons. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me encourage you to be as supportive of 

this concept as possible. And if you could give me in writing sort 

of a 5-year look of where compensation was 5 years ago and where 

it is today. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Might I conclude on your questions by simply 

saying, I have a great interest in making sure that we rehabilitate 

prisoners, no matter what system they are in. And I might encourage you to look for opportunities when inmates are trying to be 

closer to family members; or inmates, unfortunately, may have an 

inmate relative; that any time we can encourage inmates to look 

to the future and rehabilitate themselves, that it is a positive action that the Bureau can take as long as it is within the context 

of keeping order. 

And I would encourage that kind of cooperative spirit. Tragically, 

there are relatives in the system, and there are times when those 

relatives can be helpful to each other in a positive way. And I 

thank you very much. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Reyna, let me pursue quickly the professional development issue with respect to you. Let me say that we 

have had great pleasure in the U.S. Marshals in the State of Texas, 

the last one I worked with Art Contreras and certainly the one 

now. Could you just quickly say, are you working on professional 

development for the U.S. Marshals encouraging retention, better 

retention? 

Mr. REYNA. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, we are obviously very 

interested in developing a career path and certainly professional 

development for our employees. And it is accomplished through a 

series of things. First of all, this year I am pleased to report that 

we have promoted a significant number of personnel into supervisory positions. We also are in the process of increasing our level 

of training, and certainly the United States Marshal Service obviously follows the grade pay scale within the Department of Justice. 

And——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Reyna, that bell is a frightening bell. May 

I get you to respond with the rest of it in writing, please, so that 

I can get to Ms. Myers before my time is out? I apologize for that, 

but I see the Chairman moving up in his seat. 

Let me just—Ms. Myers, how much of the $135.8 million is for 

terrorism fight that you are requesting? 

110

Ms. MYERS. Well, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, a significant portion of the money is for our activities that involve terrorism. Every 

section works on terrorism activities. I would be happy to respond 

in more detail in writing to you on that particular—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. In terms of the percentage? 

Ms. MYERS. In terms of the percentage. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then let me finish this line of questioning as I said I would pursue. Would any of the $135.8 million, in your estimation, be utilized to pursue State legislators who are in the 

process of acting out a civil action of not having a quorum in the 

State legislature? 

Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I have no knowledge 

of the Criminal Division having any involvement in that or being 

instructed in any way. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you have any knowledge of the PATRIOT Act again being utilized in that instance with Texas State 

legislators? 

Ms. MYERS. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I have no knowledge 

of the PATRIOT Act being utilized in that way. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would appreciate it if I could also get that 

in writing. And if I would—knowing that you are representative, 

but just to put on the record again that I have—we have written 

the Attorney General to get a direct response on those questions. 

Ms. MYERS. We look forward to providing a full response in writing with the other components outside the criminal division. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Green, any questions for you, sir? I thank you, 

sir. 

I thank the witnesses for your contribution and your testimony 

today. The Subcommittee very much appreciates it. This concludes 

the oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of 

Justice criminal law enforcement agencies. The record will remain 

open for 1 week. Thank you again for your cooperation. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(111)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I am eager to hear testimony from representatives of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Each 

of these federal agencies shoulders an enormous burden, a unique burden, to prevent crime and keep Americans safe from foreign and domestic threats. 

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

The FBI is on the front lines of investigating possible terrorist activity. After the 

events of 9/11, and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, the FBI has been 

given additional powers to conduct its investigative efforts. Those powers include 

the authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications, the authority 

to conduct roving surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 

1978, the authority to seize voice mail messages, and the authority to obtain additional intelligence information from internet service providers. 

All of these additional powers are useful tools in our efforts to achieve national 

security and to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, these additional powers 

grant FBI agents broad discretion in their investigations and open the door to potential abuses of discretion. It is unacceptable for FBI agents, or any law enforcement agent, to engage in discrimination, racial profiling, or violations of civil liberties in the name of investigating possible terrorist activity. I am adamantly opposed to any FBI agent violating the rights and/or civil liberties of American citizens 

or lawful immigrants. 

Since 9/11 we have seen a drastic increase in racial profiling of individuals of 

Arab or South Asian descent, Muslims, and Sikhs. While national and local statistics are scarce, there are numerous anecdotal accounts show how Arabs, Muslims, 

and Sikhs have endured racial profiling. For example, in the months following September 11th, a new type of racial profiling has developed: ‘‘driving while Arab.’’

Arabs, Muslim, and Sikhs across the country were subjected to traffic stops and 

searches based in whole or part on their ethnicity or religion. 

For example, on October 4, 2001 in Gwinnett, Georgia an Arab motorist’s car was 

stopped, he was approached by a police officer whose gun was drawn, and he was 

called a ‘‘bin Laden supporter’’ all for making an illegal U-turn. In another example, 

on October 8, 2001, two Alexandria, VA police officers stopped three Arab motorists. 

The officers questioned the motorists about a verse of the Koran hanging from the 

rear view mirror, and asked about documents in the back seat. The police officer 

confiscated the motorists’ identification cards and drove off without explanation. He 

returned 10 minutes later, and claimed be had had to take another call. 

While these incidents were by police officers and not FBI agents, they are indicative of the type of discrimination and violations of rights that can occur when law 

enforcement authority is unchecked. We must be certain that the FBI protects the 

lives of American citizens without infringing on the rights of Americans. I hope that 

the testimony by the FBI’s representative will put my concerns to rest. 

THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

While the DEA’s mission is not directly related to homeland security and preventing terrorist attacks, their responsibility to control drug trafficking is equally 

important to the safety and stability of all American communities. The United 

States is still faced with heavy drug importation. Furthermore, there are growing 

concerns that the purity of available narcotics is getting worse, a situation that will 

112

contribute to higher rates of addition. The DEA must also deal with decreased assistance from other federal law enforcement agencies as approximately 400 FBI narcotics agents are reassigned to fight the war on terrorism 

While I acknowledge the additional pressures on the DEA in the post 9/11 era, 

it is still critical that the agency operate efficiently and professionally. I am concerned by recently accounts that the DEA has been criticized for lack of management, failure to report its progress in reducing illegal drug availability, and failure 

to develop reasonable long-term goals. The war on drug trafficking and drug use by 

American citizens, particularly our children, must be waged with the same passion 

as our war on terrorism. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the DEA on 

their progress in fighting the war on drugs. 

THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS

The ATF, like the DEA, has a critical role in ensuring the safety of American citizens. Gun trafficking plagues our streets and jeopardizes the lives and safety of our 

communities and our children. I recently opposed legislation in the full Judiciary 

Committee that grants immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers when weapons 

they manufactured or sold are used in criminal acts. I offered amendments to the 

gun liability bill to exempt from the scope of the bill those lawsuits brought by or 

on behalf of minors who were injured or killed by negligently transferred guns, and 

lawsuits against the sellers of machine guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and 

large capacity ammunition feeding devices. 

Children are likely to play with guns and assault weapons have been banned by 

Congress because they are inherently dangerous. For these reasons and many others, I strongly believe that the ATF has perhaps the most important law enforcement role when it comes to protecting the American public. I am very interested 

in hearing the testimony from the representative from the ATF to hear more about 

their efforts to control the illegal distribution of guns in our communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.

113

RESPONSE FROM RICHARD J. HANKINSON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE


Hank1.eps
114


Hank2.eps
115


Hank3.eps
116


Hank4.eps
117


Hank5.eps
118

RESPONSE FROM ROGELIO E. GUEVARA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE


Guevara1.eps
119


Guevara2.eps
120


Guevara3.eps
121


Guevara4.eps
122


Guevara5.eps
123

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE,

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for convening today’s 

oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of 

Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Marshals Service, and Criminal Division. 

I firmly believe that the Department of Justice should receive the full support of 

Congress and should be properly funded to provide essential protection for the 

American people. The missions of the various branches of the Department of Justice 

are even more important since September 11, 2001. This important federal agency 

must have our full support to adequately carry out its mission. 

My support of the Department of Justice, and all agencies that are part of homeland security and public safety, does not mean that I believe these agencies should 

not adhere to strict standards and be asked to live up to lofty goals. The Bureau 

of Prisons, the Office of Justice Programs, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Criminal Division must comport themselves with expert efficiency. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS

According to their website, the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) mission is, ‘‘. . . to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and 

community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately 

secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.’’

I applaud the BOP for setting such high goals but I am concerned about whether 

those goals are actually being attained. For example, this subcommittee recently 

held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003. We 

heard accounts of the scourge of rapes in our federal prisons, the spread of HIV/

AIDS and hepatitis, and the physical and psychological impact on inmates in particular minors. 

We are all aware that America’s prisons are dealing with an overpopulation problem that has reached epidemic proportions. As of May 8, 2003, in the 102 BOP institutions alone there were 169,572 inmates. One reason why the prison population is 

high is recidivism caused by failure to rehabilitate offenders. We need reform of our 

prisons and justice system to vastly increase the numbers of one-time offenders. If 

our goal is truly rehabilitation, we must do more to treat the root of the problem, 

and not just the symptoms. 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is responsible for a variety of criminal justice programs including several that are of particular interest to me: juvenile justice, 

violence against women and crime prevention related to homeland security. OJP assumes the important responsibility of preventing and controlling crime. I am a firm 

believer in eliminating crime before it starts. I applaud OJP’s efforts to cooperate 

with many federal agencies to rebuild neighborhoods, control gang activity, and prevent drug trafficking. 

With these objectives are commendable there is a need to get results. There is 

still high incidence of drug trafficking, gang membership, juvenile crime, and violent 

crime. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics in my home state 

of Texas in 2000, there were 122,155 violent crimes. Of which, 77,306 were aggravated assaults, 35,348 were robberies, and 8,169 were forcible rapes. These numbers 

need to decline. I look forward to hearing the testimony from the Office of Justice 

Programs to hear we can reduce these high crime rates. 

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE

The U.S. Marshals Service also serves a vital and multi-faceted role in crime prevention. Although primarily responsible for protecting the Federal courts and ensuring the effective operation of the judicial system, the U.S. Marshals also transport, 

apprehend, and arrest federal prisoners. The Marshals Service pursues and arrests 

55 percent of all federal fugitives. Given this expertise, the U.S. Marshals may also 

be relied on to protect our homeland. I look forward to the testimony from the U.S. 

Marshals service in that regard. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE—CRIMINAL DIVISION

Finally, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice is also a multi-faceted 

criminal justice organization with a homeland security segment. Within the many 

organizations of the criminal division is a counterterrorism and domestic security 

124

section. The Criminal Division also handles cases related to child obscenity and 

international crime. 

The many criminal areas investigated by the Department of Justice Criminal Division and the other agencies we are hearing testimony from today are prime possibilities for discrimination and violations of civil liberties. For example, within each 

of these organizations there are disparities in minority hiring. 

In the U.S. Marshal, for instance, 35 of the current 94 Marshals are women or 

minorities, and there are currently lawsuits pending against the Marshals regarding 

discrimination, although women and minorities do comprise a substantial portion of 

the leadership committees within the Marshals. There also needs to be a greater 

effort in racial sensitivity training. 

We also need to do more to hire more minorities and women in the Department 

of Justice. For example, a recent OPM study found that while African-Americans 

generally exceeded their relevant civilian labor force representation in 16 federal executive departments, less than 16% of those employed by the DOJ were AfricanAmerican. And while the DOJ consisted of 37.7% women, that number was over 9% 

unrepresentative of what it should have been based on hiring practices of women 

in the civilian work force. 

As we consider reauthorizing these various agencies, we must ensure they are not 

guilty of violating civil liberties in the course of their duties. Racial profiling is one 

example of an unacceptable criminal investigation technique. Racial profiling is a 

very serious problem in our criminal justice system. Although African-Americans 

make up only 14% of the population nationwide, they account for 72% of all routine 

traffic stops. 

An ACLU analysis of Maryland State Police data showed that 73% of cars stopped 

and searched on Interstate 95 between Baltimore and Delaware from January 1995 

through September 1997 were those of African-Americans, despite the fact that only 

14% of those driving along that stretch were Black. Moreover, police found nothing 

in 70% of those searches. Similarly, in Florida, 70% of the persons stopped on I–

95 were African-American, even though they made up less than 10% of the driving 

population. Data also shows that Hispanics are similarly targeted disproportionately 

by law enforcement agencies across the nation. 

Once again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this important oversight hearing. Likewise, I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses 

for their testimony.

125

RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE DEBORAH DANIELS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE


Daniels1.eps
126


Daniels2.eps
127


Daniels3.eps
128


Daniels4.eps
129


Daniels5.eps
130


Daniels6.eps
131


Daniels7.eps
132


Daniels8.eps
133

RESPONSE FROM HARLEY G. LAPPIN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE


Lappin1.eps
134


Lappin2.eps
135


Lappin3.eps
136


Lappin4.eps
137


Lappin5.eps
138


Lappin6.eps
139


Lappin7.eps
140


Lappin8.eps
141


Lappin9.eps
142


Lappin10.eps
143


Lappin11.eps
144


Lappin12.eps
145

RESPONSE FROM BENIGNO G. REYNA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE


Reyna1.eps
146


Reyna2.eps
147


Reyna3.eps
148


Reyna4.eps
149


Reyna5.eps
150

RESPONSE FROM JULIE L. MYERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE


Myers1.eps
151


Myers2.eps
152


Myers3.eps
153


Myers4.eps
154


Myers5.eps
155


Myers6.eps
156


Myers7.eps
157

SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS


BPPS1.eps
158


BPPS2.eps
159


BPPS3.eps
160


BPPS4.eps
161


BPPS5.eps
162


BPPS6.eps
163


BPPS7.eps
164


BPPS8.eps
165


BPPS9.eps
166


BPPS10.eps
167


BPPS11.eps
168


BPPS12.eps
169


BPPS13.eps
170


BPPS14.eps
171


BPPS15.eps
172


BPPS16.eps
173


BPPS17.eps
174


BPPS18.eps
175

Æ


BPPS19.eps